**
Let’s start with “what is the moral difference between BeatenMan and the Spetznatz?”
(The Spetznatz dealt with hostage situations by capturing the families of the hostage-takers, and killing the children one by one while the children pleaded with their parents over the phone.)
I’d say there is a big difference. Aside from the obvious matter of scale, the Spetznatz carried out such actions in response to deeds, while BeatenMan is willing to carry out atrocities in respose to mere words.
So, moving right along, is there any moral difference between BeatenMan and Al-Qaeda?
Doesn’t the question, using “realize” as a verb, imply a certain cranial ability as of yet unproven in BeatenMan, Ben? Asking him to add a third color to his palette would be like asking a gorilla to memorize Virgil’s Pro Archia.
I respectfully disagree with your using Spetnaz as an example.
Yes their tactics, while effective are very brutal, yet they are not as offensive as BeatenMan. granted, they too, respond to an assult with overwelming brutality. Spetnaz tend to focus against the threat and those with close ties to them.
BM would prefer to retaliate against every single man woman and child who lived anywhere in a 300 mile radius from the terrorists house.
With that attitude Tim McVays home state would be a huge fricking parking lot.
Your historical knowledge is on a par with your other demonstrated skills, BM. Point of fact, in one of the examples of strategic brilliance for which we may all be grateful, Hitler declared war on us, not the other way round. He didn’t have to, his alliance with Japan specificly excluded acts of aggression, he was only obligated to come to Japan’s aid if Japan were attacked.
On the whole, I find you tiresome, pugnacious, and ignorant. Free Republic has a website I encourage you to visit, you will likely find it more congenial to your own level of political sophistication.
If a government would let a terrorist get hold of a nuke and does nothing to stop it, that government is responcable and the people that support that government are to blame also.
Let me put it even more simply. If we get nuked and don’t nuke back more of those nukes will keep comming.
If a pole was taken that said: If we are nuked by who ever should we nuke back? You would find most people would want to nuke back.
So the Iraqi people are responsible for Saddam’s actions? Don’t change the subject, BeatenMan. The question is, should we lay waste to the innocent people of Iraq in an act of total nuclear genocide in relatiation for actions by Saddam which they would have had no control over? And your answer is yes.
**
Don’t weasel. If Saddam set off a dirty bomb and we reduced Iraq to radioactive rubble, pretty much every nuclear power on earth would be deciding whether to pre-emptively nuke the USA before things spun further out of control.
If Iraq set off a dirty bomb in NYC, the appropriate response would be to attack Iraq with conventional forces in order to get Saddam with as little damage as possible to civilians.
More weaselling.
You said that most polls support what you said.
What you said is that genocide against the Iraqi people is an appropriate response to a dirty bomb set off by Saddam in NYC.
So go ahead. Since most polls have, as you claim, already found what people believe on the subject, surely it wouldn’t be too hard for you to cite one or two?