Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush approves nuclear response
Washington Times ^ | 1/31/03 | Nicholas Kralev

Posted on 01/30/2003 10:45:58 PM PST by kattracks

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.

"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force including potentially nuclear weapons to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrineunfold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-106 next last
To: snopercod
I think you might want to consider whether not responding to a CBR attack with the best weapons in our arsenal is moral or not.

I have already considered,and agree that such a response would be appropiate.

Now ask yourself whether allowing American soldiers to die to maintain your image is moral.

Ask yourself if allowing them to die while fighting a war against the wrong enemy to protect your buddies in Saudi Arabia is the moral thing to do,or if dying to help with a reelection effort is the moral thing to do.

51 posted on 01/31/2003 5:24:10 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
We lose the moral high ground when we are the first ones to resort to using WMD...

We do not plan FIRST use, but use in response. Just not necessarily in kind; chem = bio = nuke.

52 posted on 01/31/2003 5:28:26 AM PST by JimRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Depending on where the potential strike(s) occur,
would the residual radiation muck up the oil fields
for any significant amount of time?
53 posted on 01/31/2003 5:29:39 AM PST by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Frankly, I'm proud and honored to have a President who is deliverately unambiguous.

Me too!


54 posted on 01/31/2003 5:34:27 AM PST by TankerKC (That handle left of the steering column? It's a "turn signal".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I done told ya' and told ya'....we should have NO stated position on this issue. The world should always be left wondering - will she, or won't she?
55 posted on 01/31/2003 5:45:58 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"I'm not going to put anything on the table or off the table," White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said on NBC's "Meet the Press," adding that the United States will use "whatever means necessary" to protect its citizens and the world from a "holocaust."

Translation to Saddam: "Make My Day!"

Translation to All Other: "Yeah, we'll call your jihad and meet it with your trip to paradise."

56 posted on 01/31/2003 6:01:54 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This has always been US policy. If we need the nukes to protect Americans, we'll use them.
57 posted on 01/31/2003 6:05:34 AM PST by concerned about politics (Democrats are NOT deep thinkers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Susan Saranwrap and Barbra Stressedout must be outraged:~)
58 posted on 01/31/2003 6:07:58 AM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
The White House has ordered the Pentagon to prepare plans for using nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear bombs for certain battlefield situations, according to a published report today.

Tops on the nuclear hit list are China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria, according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

"This is dynamite," Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, told the newspaper. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the UN."

It sounds like this guy is saying "Oh goodie, goodie, goodie! Ben and Jerry's ice cream for everyone!. We've got Bush now. He he he." Stupid liberals. Every country prepares the same way during a war. Even their God Clinton did it.
They've also got theirs aimed at us just in case, too. Liberal idiots.
They should just stay out of politics and go back to their playpens.

59 posted on 01/31/2003 6:16:42 AM PST by concerned about politics (Democrats are NOT deep thinkers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
We do not plan FIRST use, but use in response.

My post was in response to people wanting us to be the first to use WMD.

60 posted on 01/31/2003 6:18:49 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Aside from the content of the document, and the editorials listed by FR members regarding it's content (most of which I concur) - the release of a "secret" document that has yet to be declassified is a felony, and in times of war should carry the penalty of treason.

Was the source of this leak a member of the executive branch?
Did a member of congress, or one of their staff just commit treason?

61 posted on 01/31/2003 6:21:27 AM PST by PokeyJoe (Saddam is MABUS (nostradamus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Rogues states are working overtime to gain nuclear strike capability. N.Korea already has it - and can unleash megadeath on Japan (and possibly our West Coastal cities as well).

This disclosure is not only for the benefit of Saddamn Hussywawa, but also for the little maggot in Pyongyang.

China will eventually hit us with nukes - but not until they have sufficient land and sea-based launch platforms on par with those of the U.S. (We are actually funding this via record trade inbalances predicted to last another twenty years - by which time it will be too late.)

I see the unfolding scenario and greater need to use nuclear response as the beginning of the end of the world structure as we now know it.

The problem is not necessarily with us retaliating with nuclear force, but unstable nations such as Pakistan will undoubtebly capitalize on such a precedent and justify their own use of them from it.

I boldly support the use of nuclear force on the likes of Saddam Hussein, and would push the button myself if sitting in the proper seat.

"In the year 2510, if man is still alive by then . . "

62 posted on 01/31/2003 6:23:08 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
You're just reiterating our old policy. Yes it was a very moral appraoch, Very Carteresque, yet it didn't protect us from attack. Why? Because the terrorists knew our policy of no first strike. Once an enemy realizes that we don't have the will to use our weapons, they lose all deterent value. I personally dont think it was wrong to use the A-bomb in Japan. It was swift and just, It was moral. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides and liberated millions in the region. The Japanese would have fought till the last man. Our overwhelming use of force allowed them to "save face" and surrender to a extremely worthy and powerful opponent.
63 posted on 01/31/2003 6:23:22 AM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TankerKC
"Frankly, I'm proud and honored to have a President who is deliverately unambiguous."

Focus on the "un" part of that word!

The opposite of ambiguous (undecided, uncertain) is positively certain.

I'm positively certain President Bush had decided to use nuclear force at the right time, in the right place, and on the right enemy.

64 posted on 01/31/2003 6:28:25 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: PokeyJoe
the release of a "secret" document

LOL. I noticed that, and wondered how, if it's top secret or "classified", do they really know? Another Democrat politician on the arms comittee selling secrets again for campain contributions?

65 posted on 01/31/2003 6:29:46 AM PST by concerned about politics (Democrats are NOT deep thinkers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
China will eventually hit us with nukes

And remember to pass it on to your kids, Clinton, a democrat, sold them the technology to do it simply to win an election.

66 posted on 01/31/2003 6:32:15 AM PST by concerned about politics (Democrats are NOT deep thinkers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
" I personally dont think it was wrong to use the A-bomb in Japan."

I personally and staunchly agree with you.

The use of nuclear force in WWII accelerated the end of that horror by at least six months, saved countless lives (on both sides) and brought peace to a world ravaged by the worst onslaught to the survival of mankinid since the dawn of history.

The problem we face now is that these deadly-powerful devices have now come into the hands of those who no longer consider their role and use of them to "protect" - but to "destroy."

And that is the difference.

67 posted on 01/31/2003 6:32:48 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
You're just reiterating our old policy. Yes it was a very moral appraoch, Very Carteresque,

This makes no sense at all. Carter had nothing to do with formulating a "no first strike" policy,and in fact,NO SUCH FORMAL POLICY EXISTED. Yes,the US refused to commit herself to a "no first use" policy all during the Cold War.

yet it didn't protect us from attack. Why? Because the terrorists knew our policy of no first strike.

We didn't have any such policy. It was the Soviet Union and others who signed a formal declaration of "no first strikes",and the US did NOT sign this or agree to it.

As for the terrorists,even if we had of had a "no first strike" policy it wouldn't have affected them because they don't represent a country that can be nuked. They represent political and religious ideas,not a country. You can't nuke what isn't there.

I personally dont think it was wrong to use the A-bomb in Japan.

Me,either. So what? What does that have to do with what will be happening in Japan? We were not only at war with Japan,but they attacked us first,AND they had a base of operations (home country)that we could nuke. Iraq did NOT attack us,that was Saudi Arabia behind that. We are not going to go to war against Saudi Arabia regardless of what they do because too many elite political and corporate families are in business with them.

68 posted on 01/31/2003 6:34:11 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
"It sounds like this guy is saying "Oh goodie, goodie, goodie! Ben and Jerry's ice cream for everyone!. We've got Bush now. He he he." Stupid liberals. Every country prepares the same way during a war. Even their God Clinton did it."

Er - Hum!

Correction please - Clinton never had a clue. His military prowess managed to kill a camel, deny imprisoning bin Ladin (who was already captured and offered to Clinton free gratis), kill some of America's finest by his ambiguous use of American military force(ever heard of "Black Hawk Down?), and destroy two very large buildings in N.Y.C.

Clinton was the worst-case nightmare for anyone wearing a United States Uniform (except maybe for his clones on the JCS during his rein of terror).

Hell NO! - I Will Not Take Bin Ladin!
And All You Troops Be Friendly To My Queers - Or Else!
Emperor Ambiguous Speaks To His Clones

This is the cone of fire created by an AC-130 Spectre ship's laser guided, computer controlled cannon. It is visible because every fifth shell is a tracer round. An AC-130 gunship was requested by the U.S. military in Mogadishu, Somalia, along with Bradley armored personnel carriers, for use in the October 2, 1993, raid to capture lieutenants of Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The request was turned down by then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and President Bill Clinton. The result was Blackhawk Down and the needless death of eighteen of America's finest.

Bill Clinton's Lies and Promises - Did He Cause 9/11/01?

69 posted on 01/31/2003 6:51:12 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
...but also for the little maggot in Pyongyang.

I prefer Rush's nickname for the little twerp, namely, "the Potbellied Pinko" :-)

70 posted on 01/31/2003 6:56:39 AM PST by COBOL2Java
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
"Iraq did NOT attack us,that was Saudi Arabia behind that."

Do you have proof of this - that the government of Saudi Arabia organized, planned, funded, manned, approved, and executed the attack on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon.

Do you have proof of this?

71 posted on 01/31/2003 6:57:26 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
I used Carteresque to imply a moral position which is ineffectual. Our enemies absolutely know our nation does not have the will to use our vast arsenal or this would not be news. I appreciate your revulsion to nuclear war but that won't protect us in the long run.
72 posted on 01/31/2003 6:58:36 AM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Looks like it might be "extra warm" this year in Iraq.....
73 posted on 01/31/2003 7:01:17 AM PST by b4its2late (Keep your weapons and your clothes (in that order) where you can find them in the dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Do you believe terrorist cells in the US, Europe and the Mid East are just random acts by sick individuals or the result of a deliberate foriegn policy of nations waging passive/aggressive war on us? I believe the latter.
74 posted on 01/31/2003 7:02:01 AM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sonofatpatcher2
thanks!
75 posted on 01/31/2003 7:06:07 AM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Spooky BUMP
76 posted on 01/31/2003 7:08:11 AM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
No doubt. Bush put out word several months ago that all options are on the table (including nuclear) if Iraq wants to pull a stunt with WMD. He even used the word "annihilation" with regard to Iraq.
77 posted on 01/31/2003 7:08:43 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Nuclear weapons are useless as a deterrent unless the enemy believes that you will use them. Perhaps it is time we reminded them that we can and will. The world believes we are weak, and we were, but not anymore. Tactical use of Nukes (caves, bunkers, palaces) would be a reminder to the world that we are strong again and have the resolve to deal with threats, proactively. NK will take note.
78 posted on 01/31/2003 7:21:20 AM PST by Search4Truth (Rebellion to tyrants, is obedience to God -Thomas Jefferson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
"Looks like it might be "extra warm" this year in Iraq...."

U.S. AIR LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE

WARHEAD - NUCLEAR W-80 NUCLEAR WARHEAD 250 KILOTON YIELD

CONVENTIONAL 1,000+ LB. FRAGMENTARY OR BUNKER

BUSTER WARHEAD WITH ROCKET ASSIST PENETRATION

RANGE - 750 MILES A VERSION

1,500 MILES B VERSION

WING SPAN - 9 FT. 5 IN. A VERSION

12 FT. B VERSION

LENGTH - 14 FT. A VERSION

20 FT. 9 IN. B VERSION

DIAMETER - 25 IN. WEIGHT - 1,900 POUNDS A VERSION

2,825 POUNDS B VERSION

ENGINE - ONE F-107-WR-100 WILLIAMS TURBOFAN 600 LBS. THRUST

GUIDANCE - GPS, TERCOM AND IR/RADAR IMAGING SYSTEM WITH ACCURACY OF +/- 1 METER

SPEED - CRUISE MACH .65 - TERMINAL MACH 1.1 B VERSION

AGM-86B - rocket assisted bunker "buster"

The Boeing air launched cruise missile (ALCM) uses the same engine and similar guidance systems as the BGM-109 Tomahawk. The USAF originally intended the ALCM as a nuclear strike weapon but has since modified the A model into conventional warhead B models.

The new B models have extended range fuel tanks and larger warhead capacity than the older nuclear A models. The B model is 30% longer and has a 25 degree wing sweep. The B model can be equipped with a variety of conventional and unconventional warheads including non-lethal energy warheads such as High Frequency RF, EMG, or microwave generators designed to knock out enemy electronics.

The variety of warheads has also served to confuse USAF target planners. One 1997 strike of "fragmentary" warhead equipped AGM-86Bs was targeted at an Iraqi hardened bunker. The fragmentary warheads exploded harmlessly outside the bunker, causing no damage. A second strike of a bunker buster 1,000+ pound AGM-86B had to be targeted against the Iraqi bunker to destroy it.

The U.S. used about 90 AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise missiles (ALCM) during Desert Fox. All the USAF launched ALCM cruise missiles were Block 1 types equipped with heavy conventional warheads for bunker busting. The bunker busters are equipped with a rocket assisted booster for added penetration.

The U.S. military is scrambling to replace the highly valuable robot missiles but the Air Force has opted not to purchase new units. Instead, the USAF is upgrading leftover inventories of nuclear B models.

The USAF bought only 200 of the heavy conventional ALCM missiles and has only enough on hand for one more Desert Fox like attack. The firing of 90 for Desert Fox has left the Air Force little choice but to convert 90 more of a remaining 130 formerly nuclear tipped missiles into bunker busters.


79 posted on 01/31/2003 7:39:56 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
"GUIDANCE - GPS, TERCOM AND IR/RADAR IMAGING SYSTEM WITH ACCURACY OF +/- 1 METER"

Now let's see - if the accuracy of a 250 Kiloton Nuclear explosion is to within 1 meter (3 feet) and . . .

And certain "pre-established" positive targets are locked on and . .

The United States President is unwilling to tolerate mass WMD BIO or CHEM casualties at the hands of the enemy and . .

The U.N, France, Germany, Hillary Clinton, Patty "Taliban" Murray and all their clonses continue to aid and abet the enemy . .

Yep!

LAUNCH CONDITION IS:

* * LAUNCH * *

80 posted on 01/31/2003 7:49:22 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.

Umm...if its classified then...Why the H#LL are we being told? I for one do not have clearance for classified material...Who are these people that give up this info and why are they not dealt with accordingly?

And now...some morning humour...


81 posted on 01/31/2003 7:52:01 AM PST by MD_Willington_1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
Well boys, I reckon this is it. Nuclear-biological combat, toe-to-toe with the Iraqis

Only we have bigger toes, much bigger toes.

The cool thing is that temperatures exceeding those on the surface of the sun do a wonderful job killing germs and even disassociating chemical nasties. So if Saddamn uses germs or chemicals we nuke every place we even suspect he might be storing or making more of them. That includes use by proxies such as Al Qaida, Hamas,Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc, etc.

82 posted on 01/31/2003 9:52:38 AM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Only we have bigger toes, much bigger toes.

Only one problem with that. Saddam Hussein can only die once.

83 posted on 01/31/2003 9:54:00 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Ernest, would you say this make the n in pre-empNt, a capital n even if pre empt is not spelled that way?:)

DefiNitily!!

Wonder if they faxed a copy to Saddam?

84 posted on 01/31/2003 9:56:41 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Nuke Saddam!! (Bush seems to be thinking about it ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
Preemptive use of nukes is too big a policy change to be undertaken like this. This story is either the LA Times playing games or the Pentagon doing the same with Saddam’s people.

It's not pre-emptive if they hit you first. This is also not really a policy change. Using nukes in response to use of other WMDs had been the policy at least since we gave up use of our own "other" WMDs. This is at most a clarification that the policy is indeed still in effect.

85 posted on 01/31/2003 10:01:31 AM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sonofatpatcher2
Yes, thanks for your service.

Can you explain your Armadillo comment?

I am not a Texan!
86 posted on 01/31/2003 10:02:24 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Nuke Saddam!! (Bush seems to be thinking about it ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
"Cowboy President", cowboy hats... Hmmm. MORE than a coincidence? :-)


87 posted on 01/31/2003 10:16:27 AM PST by Charles Martel ("Oh, George... not the livestock!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus; Grampa Dave; BOBTHENAILER; snopercod
I think this is referring to the small load bunker busting nukes were tested lately in Nevada.

New digging in IRAQ will be a tipoff that Saddam got the message on display in the Washington Times!!!

88 posted on 01/31/2003 10:17:36 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Nuke Saddam!! (Bush seems to be thinking about it ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
Looks like it might be "extra warm" this year in Iraq.....

Yep. There'll be hot time, in the old town, tonight! The old town of Baghdad, that is. :)

89 posted on 01/31/2003 10:23:12 AM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
There are quite a few messages for Uncle Soddomite and his mass murdering thugs in Iraq.

Uncle Soddomite might want to commit suicide, but I doubt that all of his followers want to be made into atoms if he use WMDs against us.

So it is up to them to blow Soddomite's brains out and to bring peace to Iraq! A single bullet to the head or grenade in his pocket will end this before it begins.
90 posted on 01/31/2003 10:24:40 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Stamp out Freepathons! Stop being a Freep Loader! Become a monthly donor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel
"Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one .45 caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing: antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair a nylon stockings. Shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."
91 posted on 01/31/2003 10:27:40 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
Saddam Hussein can only die once.

But he all those doubles, so you have to get all of them to be sure you got him. Nobody said the work was risk free when they took the job.

92 posted on 01/31/2003 10:27:56 AM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Orion78; Sawdring
Excellent set of Links!
93 posted on 01/31/2003 10:28:14 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Nuke Saddam!! (Bush seems to be thinking about it ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
New digging in IRAQ will be a targeting opportunity!!!!
94 posted on 01/31/2003 10:28:56 AM PST by BOBTHENAILER (Vaporize Saddam's Smoking Gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The cowboy rides again!...
95 posted on 01/31/2003 10:29:50 AM PST by My2Cents ("...The bombing begins in 5 minutes.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; *Bush Doctrine Unfold; randita; SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; okie01; socal_parrot; ...
So it is up to them to blow Soddomite's brains out and to bring peace to Iraq! A single bullet to the head or grenade in his pocket will end this before it begins.

Right, so we just need to keep upping the pressure on Saddam and his clowns!

I just bookmarked this thread, guess I should put it on a list also!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
  click here >>> Bush Doctrine Unfold <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)



96 posted on 01/31/2003 10:32:09 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Nuke Saddam!! (Bush seems to be thinking about it ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
”This is also not really a policy change. Using nukes in response to use of other WMDs had been the policy at least since ”

That’s right. But not what the LA times claimed last week and the WT is repeating.

97 posted on 01/31/2003 10:55:28 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
The Japanese philosophy of bushido is what made the use of fission weapons necessary against the Imperial Empire in 1945. Bushido was an ingrained, implict part of the vast majority of the Japanese military that explains, for example, their decimation at Iwo Jima and the kamikazi phenomenon. Contrary to what some may believe, there is no comparable spirit among the muslims - despite the "kamikazi" nature of 9/11/01. Some may fret over the "rage" that is feared to erupt in the "Arab street" as a reason not to liberate Iraq and clean up the rest of the Muslim mid-east, mistakenly comparing that to a similar doctrine. I completely disagree - the muslim fanatics are basically cowards who are comfortable only when attacking unarmed civilians - preferably women and children. The bushido-driven Japanese for the most part (Nanking notwithstanding, of course) had no fear of human wave attacks against American automatic and heavy weaponry. I submit that the appearance of a US mushroom cloud over Baghdad - while regrettable because it would signify a CBW attack on the US - would go a long way to calming down the rest of the Middle East and other muslim "countries". Just my TCW.
98 posted on 01/31/2003 11:14:16 AM PST by astounded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Re: Can you explain your Armadillo comment?

Hi Ernest,
Armadillos are rather frisky critters. Long, Long ago, on a night cold and clear, some of my friends and I went out with some lovely ladies to capture an armadillo for the Annual Derrick Days Festival's 'Dillo Races.
Carey, Roy Dean and Tommy went forth with lantern and net to find one. I stayed behind to protect the fairer sex from things that go bump in the night.
After a few moments, shouts announced they had one on the run. We saw the low glow of the lantern zipping through the distant woods when it suddenly disappeared!
Shortly afterwards our three brethern came back to the truck.
"How it go?" I asked.
Tommy replied, "Pretty good 'til Roy Dean found the creek."
Now, I ask you, had Roy Dean had a MP-40, Uzi or SAW, would another armadillo have escaped?

P.S. After that night, I had some 4 dozen T-shirts printed up with my Tag Line. They sold like hot cakes and I only have one left. It has been suggested by Roy Dean that I saved it to wear in the casket so I would be recognized at the funeral.

99 posted on 01/31/2003 1:43:59 PM PST by sonofatpatcher2 (If God Hadn't Wanted Fully Automatic Weapons, He Wouldn't Have Made All Those Armadillos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete; joanie-f; snopercod; TPartyType; tangofox; brityank
I would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against any country which used any of N.B. or C. against us.

I would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against an isolated regime, that is, on foreign soil but regional and distinct from the rest of that country's populace --- if I could corner the bad guys and "safely" use nuclear weapons against them, their having "zapped us" already, I'd nuke 'em; excluding such a situation that arose where said "region" was a part of or too near an ally of ours.

If the North Koreans launch an N.B.C. attack against Japan, I would ask Japan if they wished for us to aid in their retaliation, by use of nuclear weapons.

In all this, I would not use the "big" weapons; just the little ones; yet I would want to get a lot of damage, and efficiently, quickly.

Because we don't have time to mess around; and because, the enemy requires serious thumpin' so that the hurt up-side the head remains forever in their brain heavily drugged on fascism, be it fascist Islam and/or fascist nationalizing socialism.

However, I would not now attack Iraq for the reasons stated, alone; I would attack because that power has repeatedly proven to fit their self-constructed profile of being a threat to neighbors.

They are a threat to Saudi Arabia, and to Jordan, and to Israel, and to Syria and/or Iran, wherein they would happily ignite a W.M.D. and claim for propaganda reasons, that it was Israel of the Americans who did it.

In other words, time is really running out; and fast.

While in the States, Americans think we are the target, overlooked is how the fascist-socialist-Islamic-nutcases will kill their own en masse, to "gain" political advantage.

Since the temperature has been going up so rapidly of late, we now have to attack and entirely --- no little surgical strike will stop Saddam.

He'll blow up Damascus or some "friend" of his, just to establish evermore enmity among the Islamic "hood."

No thanks.

100 posted on 01/31/2003 1:47:34 PM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-106 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson