If A Suitcase Nuke Went Off In NY

[maineman]

I know how the US should respond, Go after the heart of terrorism and Islam

and again...if a suitcase nuke went off in NYC, and you did not know who the perpetrators were, why would you go after the heart of Islam? What if the perpetrators were American neo-nazis?

 

[maineman]

run away......

 

[red states rule]

and again...if a suitcase nuke went off in NYC, and you did not know who the perpetrators were, why would you go after the heart of Islam? What if the perpetrators were American neo-nazis?

It would not be hard to find out who was behind it

Of cousre you and your ilk will oppose any reponse - you will blame Bush and the US for the attack

 

[red states rule]

run away......

You are the resident expert on that

 

[maineman]

It would not be hard to find out who was behind it

can I assume that you would, in fact, wait to find out who was behind it before you responded to it?

 

[red states rule]

can I assume that you would, in fact, wait to find out who was behind it before you responded to it?

AS RGS said, it would not be hard

 

[maineman]

AS RGS said, it would not be hard

it MIGHT not be "hard", but you ARE saying that you would wait to find out the answer before responding...is that correct?

 

[red states rule]

it MIGHT not be "hard", but you ARE saying that you would wait to find out the answer before responding...is that correct?

You are such a twit. We are picking up chatter now about attacks in the works, and we will know who was behind the atttack

It did not take long to figure out who was behind 9-11

 

[maineman]

You are such a twit. We are picking up chatter now about attacks in the works, and we will know who was behind the atttack

It did not take long to figure out who was behind 9-11

so...you WOULD wait until you knew who was responsible for a nuclear attack on NYC before you initiated a military response?

 

[Annie]

nothing aggressive or overtly hostile until the state or the location of the perpetrator's HQ CAN be determined. period.

Back to MY question that you dodged:


Would you suggest that if we could NOT ascertain the identity or location of either the supplier or the deliverer that we just throw a dart at a map of the middle east and turn whatever country we happen to hit into a radioactive sheet of glass?

Missed the question the first time. I would not say that we should turn any country into 'a sheet of glass.' I don't think we would need to use nukes, we have enough alternatives.

 

[maineman]

Missed the question the first time. I would not say that we should turn any country into 'a sheet of glass.' I don't think we would need to use nukes, we have enough alternatives.

so you are for the "throwing the dart" alternative and then responding with conventional weapons?

 

[Annie]

so you are for the "throwing the dart" alternative and then responding with conventional weapons?

I don't know so much that it would be 'throwing a dart.' Isn't there something of a 'fingerprint' to nuclear material, even after the fact? While it seems that too much of the stuff has not been accounted for, as I believe I mentioned particularly from former USSR and Canada, they would be able to tell the 'source?' My guess the intelligence communities would be able to reasonably ascertain the likely groups and from there the likely state backers or appeasers to the groups.

In any case, I have zero control over such decisions, so really isn't a concern.

 

[maineman]

well.. in that same vein, none of us has any control over any of this, so why talk about it.

 

[Annie]

well.. in that same vein, none of us has any control over any of this, so why talk about it.

I responded to your statement of what I assume was to portray me as a 'right wing nut' out to kill thousands in some fit of blood lust revenge. I do not consider myself subscribing to an idea of 'throwing darts' to send bombs raining on the heads of innocents. I didn't think you saw me like that either, but I guess I was wrong. My last line was to reassure you, I don't have that power.

 

[Larkinn]

I responded to your statement of what I assume was to portray me as a 'right wing nut' out to kill thousands in some fit of blood lust revenge. I do not consider myself subscribing to an idea of 'throwing darts' to send bombs raining on the heads of innocents. I didn't think you saw me like that either, but I guess I was wrong. My last line was to reassure you, I don't have that power.

That type of people who want to kill thousands in a fit of blood lust revenge has nothing to do with political party. It wasn't just the Republicans who signed AUMF or who signed the Patriot Act without really reading it.

 

[maineman]

I responded to your statement of what I assume was to portray me as a 'right wing nut' out to kill thousands in some fit of blood lust revenge. I do not consider myself subscribing to an idea of 'throwing darts' to send bombs raining on the heads of innocents. I didn't think you saw me like that either, but I guess I was wrong. My last line was to reassure you, I don't have that power.

you were quite right...I do NOT see you like that. I just want to know what sort of response you would think would be appropriate if we were not certain who, in fact, was responsible for nuking NYC.

If we THOUGHT it MIGHT be the Iranians and bombed them back into the stone age, only to have information turn up a month later that it was, in fact, American neo-nazis who has been responsible, what do we say? WHOOPS? or MY BAD? or GOSH WE'RE SORRY?

 

[Annie]

you were quite right...I do NOT see you like that. I just want to know what sort of response you would think would be appropriate if we were not certain who, in fact, was responsible for nuking NYC.

If we THOUGHT it MIGHT be the Iranians and bombed them back into the stone age, only to have information turn up a month later that it was, in fact, American neo-nazis who has been responsible, what do we say? WHOOPS? or MY BAD? or GOSH WE'RE SORRY?

While I see way too much wrong with our governmental leaders, I do not see them acting this way, from either party. While you do not and have not agreed with Iraq War, there is no doubt that it was 'justifiable' both by the actions of the Congress and the agreements made under the UN cease fire following the first Gulf War.

It was discussed, warnings were given, etc. It was not just bombs away.

 

[maineman]

While I see way too much wrong with our governmental leaders, I do not see them acting this way, from either party. While you do not and have not agreed with Iraq War, there is no doubt that it was 'justifiable' both by the actions of the Congress and the agreements made under the UN cease fire following the first Gulf War.

It was discussed, warnings were given, etc. It was not just bombs away.

justifiable? I disagree that there was "no doub"t that the war was "justifiable". Congress certainly AUTHORIZED the use of force, but their actions to "authorize" do not, in and of themselves, "justify" anything. The UN ceasefire agreement was a UN ceasefire agreement. I think an argument can be made that, if invasion of Iraq was to be "justified" because of Saddam's purportedly heinous and eggregious violations of UN cease fire agreements, it should be the UN's place to make that call, and not the United States', especially when WE placed the issue before the UNSC and they failed to agree that such JUSTIFICATION either existed or was warranted.

 

[Annie]

justifiable? I disagree that there was "no doub"t that the war was "justifiable". Congress certainly AUTHORIZED the use of force, but their actions to "authorize" do not, in and of themselves, "justify" anything. The UN ceasefire agreement was a UN ceasefire agreement. I think an argument can be made that, if invasion of Iraq was to be "justified" because of Saddam's purportedly heinous and eggregious violations of UN cease fire agreements, it should be the UN's place to make that call, and not the United States', especially when WE placed the issue before the UNSC and they failed to agree that such JUSTIFICATION either existed or was warranted.

We disagree, which is shocking, just shocking. Be that as it may, there still was the following of our own system and the UN cease fire, which you think we had no right to use, but my point is, the US did not just 'go off' in the unilateral way it was argued.

I doubt very much you'd see differently if there was a dirty bomb scenario, evidence would be found to the best of ability, action would follow.

 

[Larkinn]

We disagree, which is shocking, just shocking. Be that as it may, there still was the following of our own system and the UN cease fire, which you think we had no right to use, but my point is, the US did not just 'go off' in the unilateral way it was argued.

I doubt very much you'd see differently if there was a dirty bomb scenario, evidence would be found to the best of ability, action would follow.

Following our own system does not make multilateral. It was a US led invasion, not a mulitlateral invasion.

As for the justifcation of the Iraq war, there are a few mistakes that you have made.

It is patently false that there is "no doubt" that it was justifiable. In fact there are large segments of the US population and world population that either doubt it was justifiable or think it was definitely unjustifiable.

Secondly, that has nothing to do with what you two are discussing. Iraq was NOT justified as a response to 9/11. Whether it was justified for other reasons is open to debate. I think it was not, you think it was. But it is very very hard to argue that we needed to invade Iraq because of 9/11.