Oh man, are we in for it! (US ready to use nukes)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Freedom! self reliance : One Thread

Uh, hello??? This is seriously not good. Oh boy. We get a Pentagon report declaring that we will use nukes against other countries that HAVE nukes (and not a lot of respect for human life) and we will use them for at least one vague reason. ...grumble, grrr,...Have a nice day!


Pentagon to Prepare Nuclear Weapons, Report Says

Sat Mar 9, 7:16 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Citing a classified Pentagon report, the Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday that the Bush administration has told the Defense Department to prepare, on a contingency basis, plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries.

The military was also directed to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, the newspaper reported.

The countries named in the secret report -- provided to Congress Jan. 8 -- were China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria, the Times reported.

The three contingencies listed for possible use of the weapons were "against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments," according to the newspaper.

"The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor," The Times said.

"Officials have long acknowledged that they had detailed nuclear plans for an attack on Russia. However, this "Nuclear Posture Review" apparently marks the first time that an official list of potential target countries has come to light," analysts told the Times.

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

Arms control advocates told the Times "the report's directives on development of smaller nuclear weapons could signal that the Bush administration is more willing to overlook a long-standing taboo against the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort.

However, conservative analysts said that the Pentagon must prepare for all possibilities as other countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in weapons development programs. Their position was that smaller weapons have a deterrent role because rogue nations or terrorists might not believe that the United States would use more destructive multi-kiloton weapons, the Times reported.

Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, told the newspaper the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world."

The Times reported that a copy of the report was obtained by defense analyst and Times contributor William Arkin.

The Pentagon refused to comment

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@yahoo.com), March 10, 2002


I may be wrong but I was of the opinion that was, has, and always will be our policy. When I was five Kennedy had the engines warming up and his finger on the trigger. I was a first grader sent under his desk a dozen times--sent home three times in two weeks to die. Now I'm getting old--to lazy to run, to stiff to crawl under a desk, and to cynical to even care. Now I am of the opinion that humans are too stupid to live. We have a single device to end life on the planet--we better build several hundred of those, huh ?

-- Joel Rosen (JoelnBecky@webtv.net), March 10, 2002.

When Harry Truman authoized the first one, they became just another tool of the military trade.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), March 10, 2002.

Just standard war operating procedures concerning the use of nuclear weapons which Bush wants updated from the 60's version, so as to include the new possible areas of attack that exist besides Russia.

Small nuclear weapons has always been possible,just not put into building stages. Looks like Bush is wanting to cover everything.

-- TomK(mich) (tjk@cac.net), March 10, 2002.

It isn't standard to add a bunch of nattions to the let's nuke 'em if they grow their military list. Seems rather impudent to me. Especially when we have sent troops into georgia (Russia) to the chagrin of the locals there. I may be wrong, but i don't like the attitud this shows. It seems to me that nukes were always considered to be the absolute last resort, not just another arrow in our quiver. Then again, I have never liked the idea anyway.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 10, 2002.

Well, maybe we will fight back if attacked. I'm sure Clintonian Politics would have us turn the other cheek, or lie, maybe we could cover it up. Yeah thats the ticket. I know lets rely on a one world government to secure peace for us. Never mind the personal freedoms we'll be sacraficing, you'll get used to doing what your told. The sheeple will wake for a moment as the wolf jumps on them and bights down on their necks. Then they will sleep forever.


-- PoePoe (rpd932@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

And PoePoe has said it all., Amen.

-- Kenneth in N.C. (wizardsplace13@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Why exactly do any of you think it is a bad idea to "PLAN" for the use of nuclear weapons? It would seem foolish NOT to plan for their use. There also has always been tactical nukes for local use on a battlefield. To the dead I doubt whether they were nuked or just bombed would make much difference.

-- Jon Hanson (warpaint@islc.net), March 11, 2002.

Well Jon, to answer your question. I would have murdered Einstien before he could of published the theory of relativety had I known what they would do with it. I am against all modern day weapons of war even my own Ak-47s are too much. Let those that feel the need for war fight their own battles. Let them claw bite and fight in a cold muddy creek till one victor emerges. Take the L out of the Glory of war and leave the fghting what it is Gory. Thanthe @#$$holes won't want to fight. Soldiers hate war only their corwardice leaders find the time to wage it. That is my position--if Bush wants a war with Hussien than by all means fuel up Air Force One and fly his stupid ass right over there and let those two idiots kill each other !

-- Joel Rosen (JoelnBecky@wbtv.net), March 11, 2002.

That can't really be Joel, can it? I actually agree with him, and can't believe it's not a troll.

Doreen, I also agree with you, which is getting more frequent lately. Scary!

This morning on "Talk of the Nation" (NPR) a woman called and said that she has changed from a total pacifist to someone who would immediately send nukes to totally destroy Afghanistan and any other country which "caused her to worry about her two sons"

Gee, that seems fair. How about someone whose country we've terrorized over the years nukes us, because we cause them to worry about their kids? Sheesh.

Bush must have read in his bible that the world is coming to an end, and wants to make it a self fulfilling prophecy. Ass.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 11, 2002.

Let's see, Poe Poe, you're willing to kill millions of people because CLINTON was a slime. How sublime...

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 11, 2002.

Yea Joj, it sure is a worry, Doreen has given me a good earfull at times and now I too am tending to agree with a lot of what she writes. :)

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), March 11, 2002.

Alright, I can't read anymore, it might spoil this moment. This is simply too funny..teeehheeee.

I don't think I would have murdered Einstein tho. I just would have had him watch sixty hours straight of EMPTY-V and that would have disabled his reasoning permanently.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 11, 2002.

Of course they are going to add new countries to the list Doreen. They are adding countries all the time that develop the ability to be a threat to the United States. Some of these countries don't give a darn that they will end up toasting all their people. In their minds that would just send them to Nirvana or wherever. There is one reason and one reason only that some of these countries are building Nukes. They are building them to bomb the United States with. Either that or Israel. You're darn right I would rather bomb the daylights out of them rather than have my babies dead in the streets! And don't give me that Nuclear winter stuff either! These countries couldn't build enough Nukes to cause nuclear winter. There was a day when the only countries that had nukes were not countries insane enough to use them. Let me tell you, If those guys on 9-11 would have had a nuke, they would have used it on NY City!!!

We can all throw up our hands and say all we want to about how bad war is, BUT WAR IS A REALITY! It is here folks and even if you want it to go away, it won't as long as the heart of man is dark and sinful. I WANT my government to protect my borders! That is what they are there for. That is what the Constitution was written to do. And if they have to go into some PoDUNK Country and blast them off the map in order to keep them from reeking havoc upon the world at large, SO BE IT! I pray with all my heart that doing that is one eventuality that will never have to happen. I also pray that I will not ever have to shoot another Human being. But both nationally and personally I expect a defense to be made for my children. I Pray that our President would be thinking of my children when he has his hand on the button.

Doreen, I know that you want a Constitutional government, as do I. I know that you had problems with the Clinton Regime, as did I. I also have problems with some things that this administration has done in the name of "Homeland Security". Nevertheless, I honestly feel that for the most part, this nation is a better place to live than it was a year and a half ago. I honestly think that this president has brought more dignity and simple morality to his office. I am proud of the treaties he has helped us avoid, that Clinton would have been jumping all over.I am proud that finally I can look at my first lady and see an actual lady. I have more confidence in This administration to protect my interests both overseas and here at home. No, he is not the perfect president. Yes I would like to see this country retreat a hundred years in both policy and in law in a single administration. I have also been around the block enough to know that is highly unlikely. Actually it is Congress, that we should worry about. It is Congress that has created the fingers of government that are reaching into our lives at an ever increasing pace. This president has been racing around trying to find some kind of way to make this country feel safe agin. I don't agree with some of the ways he has chosen to do that, but I am glad he has cared to try. I am certainly glad that Clinton wasn't in office or we'd all be under martial law being micromanaged like cattle.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@farm.com), March 12, 2002.

LBF, it may be true that " Let me tell you, If those guys on 9-11 would have had a nuke, they would have used it on NY City!!"

On the other hand, it may be that even the terrorists have a line they won't cross (killing milllions of innocents), which you certainly appear to be willing to cross.

If our government nukes a whole country full of innocent people in order to "get at" a handful of terrorists, isn't it likely that the US will get an even worse reputation (deservedly, in my opinion), thus encouraging even more terrorist attacks? Wouldn't the terrorists then feel justified to nuke us? After all, why should they be held to a higher standard than our supposedly democratic governement?

How many dirty bombs do you think will be exploded here due to our president (select)'s ungodly policies?

Do you really feel safer inviting retribution in this form? No one will be safer by starting this kind of conflagration. Au Contraire.

LBF, you say, "And if they have to go into some PoDUNK Country and blast them off the map in order to keep them from reeking havoc upon the world at large, SO BE IT!" Little Bit, you are one sick person. You claim to be a "christian" yet here you are judging a group of people as being so inferior to you, your lifestyle, and your children that they are not even worthy of life. SHAME on you! I understand now how you can assign such unlikely descriptors as "dignity and simple morality" to George W Bush! Amazing.

As far as Clinton, who cares? I couldn't stand Clinton, but I can't stand Bush either. Bush--the "president" who brought us the PATRIOT act; the act which would have us treated like the cattle you referred to.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 12, 2002.

Here is my opinion Joe. If indeed these people live in a country where their leadership is planning on ways to destroy other nations simply because they have nothing better to do, then they ARE NOT INNOCENT!!! It is the duty of the people of any country to rise up against an oppressive government and oust the perpetrators of evil acts. Even if those people live under a regime that may kill them in order to stop it. If they can't because their weapons have been taken away, it makes no difference. We cannot sit by and watch our leaders hurt and injure people and not bear responsibility in some way. That applies both here and there. None of us are innocent. What are they innocent of Joe? We are all guilty in some way for the condition of our world. Our leaders are guilty of leading us down a path of sin, and we are guilty of following our leaders. Jesus said there is none good but God.

I suppose you support those innocent people being able to send weapons of mass distruction over here to kill you, and just doing NOTHING. Well I guess that is your choice. I however would prefer to protect myself and my children. You said,

{LBF, it may be true that " Let me tell you, If those guys on 9-11 would have had a nuke, they would have used it on NY City!!"

On the other hand, it may be that even the terrorists have a line they won't cross (killing milllions of innocents), which you certainly appear to be willing to cross. }

No you are right Joe, they only managed to kill thousands. Well I guess we should just sit tight and wait for them to kill more right? Heck let's loan them some more airplanes. Perhaps they could knock down fifty buildings with them! Your right they wouldn't cross that line now would they! Never mind that those guys were willing to kill themselves and everybody they could take out!!! Geez why don't you just head down and mine a little uranium and send it over there. May as well help this proicess along a little. I mean if we are going to sit here like sitting ducks I'd just as soon get it all over but the shoutin'.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@farm.com), March 12, 2002.

Ah, now I understand. These people all deserve to die, or suffer from radiation poisoning because they didn't rise up and overthrow their government. Right. By that line of resoning, I guess you and I deserve the same fate, for not rising up and preventing our government from murdering people all over the world for the last fifty plus years.

So how do you propose that we "rise up?" How do you propose that the Afghans "rise up" and overthrow their govenment? Jeez, even all the power of the US govt, Army, Marines, CIA, and Air Force haven't been able to get rid of the Al Qada, have they? So some poor shepherd deserves to die because he can't do it?

Glad Jesus and your god have made it so easy for you to justify your murderous fear for your babies, LBF. After all, your kids deserve much better than children in other countries, right? After all, THOSE kids had the poor judgement to be born in a "PoDUNK" country.

Let's carry your "logic" one step further, LBF: is it all right with you to kill new born babies in, say, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, Mexico, whatever? Are they to be sentenced to death--BY YOU-- for not rising up and overthrowing their corrupt (aka non US) government?

I beseech you to take a broader look at this issue.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 12, 2002.

Wow,This is getting curiouser and curiouser. joj is right about us in the USofA being just as responsible as the average schmo in Iraq or Iran for what their gooberment does. We have zippo say in what goes on or gets done by the folks in Sodom on the Potomic.

This is indeed a good discussion. BUT, REMEMBER THIS- Nuke doctrine is just like any other part of military planning. (in regards to planning anyway). It gets reviewed, revised and updated anytime a potential conflict exists. Same as troop deployment capabilities, supply, maintanence, food, med support and all the other BS that goes into maintaning an army in time of conflict.

Just because some "secret report" is leaked regarding nukes doesn't mean squat. There are a whole bunch of people (thousands) who work on that stuff all day everyday, and have for years. Conflicts or not. This is regular doctrine. Always has been.

What I mean is - This "report" doesn't mean anyone plans on pushing the button at RANDOM. To report it as such is one more example of manipulation of the populace. You should be more interested in why someome would report that kind of pure, alarmist, the sky is falling BS.

-- John in S. IN (jdoofus@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

No John we abdicated our say. Check voter turnout records. Darn right we are just as responsible.

joj- So you do plan to do nothing to protect your family, Thank you for answering my question. It is too bad that you are part of the voter pool here then. Why not cut to the chase and move to Iraq. Perhaps you would enjoy living under Saddam as he creates weapons he plans to throw around willy nilly without the remotest thought for innocents. For crying out loud, do you think that any president worth his salt should wait until Dallas is just a hole in the ground before he acts? What qualifies as a reason to act in your opinion? Do we wait until we have intelligence that saddam has his finger on the button? Or do we just let them have the first go round and call all those people casualties of war?

Tell me oh Joe, keeper of morality worldwide, what would you do?

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@farm.com), March 12, 2002.

"Why not cut to the chase and move to Iraq. Perhaps you would enjoy living under Saddam as he creates weapons he plans to throw around willy nilly without the remotest thought for innocents"

Typical technique for the loser of a debate, LBF. If you can't come up with any reasonable statement, make strange noises, to distract the ignorant. Nice try. Perhaps you should move to iraq, instead. Duh.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 12, 2002.

Listen Joe, you ought to know. You have been ignoring one half of what I say all afternoon to pick apart the other half. I have just been giving you tit for tat. Typically when the Loser of a debate has nothing left to say he chooses to attack the other sides delivery!

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@farm.com), March 12, 2002.

joj, your missing the point. I do not advocate unprovocated attack, injury or murder of anyone regardless of their race or national origin. What I do advocate is being ready and willing to respond to any use of force accordingly with the necessay force to counter act the agressor whoever it may be. Face the truth, there are many, many nations or factions within nations who wish to destroy America and the American way of life. You can stand around waving your peace flag all day, but when our enemies drive a plane straight at you or explode a dirty bomb in your hometown I bet you'll be fighting mad. If not then this dialogue is pointless. Hate to say it, but its true, TO SECURE PEACE IS TO PREPARE FOR WAR. These freedoms we enjoy pray tell where do you think they came from? What would you have America do in the current situation, stand around waiting for another deliberate and precision strike. Should we reason with these miscreants. No! You can't reason with rabid dogs, they always bight while your talking. Lets do the right thing and be ready to send these rabid dogs to meet with their 70 virgins an allah! Or in the case of some of the other nations you cited let them consider themselves warned any attack on America, Americans abroad or our allies is grounds for an old fashioned butt kicking. Maybe you could go meet with Saddam and talk him out of the same desire for conquest that drove his army into Kuwait city. If Iraqi's want my sympathy for the negative results of embargos let them deal with the problem. A little revolution some times is a good thing, would you agree?



-- PoePoe (rpd932@yahoo.com), March 12, 2002.

I'm all for a little revolution but I'm a little busted up. So in the immortal words of Jim Bowie-----" Boys could you carry me across that line"

-- Joel Rosen (JoelnBecky@webtv.net), March 12, 2002.

LBF, how ironic YOU should accuse ME of that!

Others, I'm certainly not an all out pacifist; I grew up in Texas, where the common way to settle a debate was to duke it out. I've merely matured enough to see that there are other solutions. Of course, I will stand and fight, if I'm in the right.

On the other hand, can't you folks see what shruby is doing here? We are not blameless; if you want to wave the patriotism flag, and ignore everything we've done, fine. Wear your blinders. I'm merely trying to save you from your god, who, if you are right, will immediately send you to hell for killing little kids and non combatants, even if all you do is support the politician who orders the button pushed. It's called accessory to murder, and I believe it's one of the ten commandments "thou shalt not kill"

I'm no bible scholar, but isn't that one of the commandments? LBF, I'm certain it doesn't say, "thou shalt not kill, unless it will ease your worrying about your kids!

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 13, 2002.

LBF, as far as protecting my family, I also say, "duh". As a matter of fact, when some very strange men in a pickup freaked out my kid, and he called me on his cell phone, guess who headed down to help him out, in my robe, with a machete and a hammer? Get a life.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 13, 2002.

Stick in there Joe...

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), March 13, 2002.

That commandment would be "Thou shalt not murder." big difference.

GW is gearing up for a war economy. We can no longer support a growth economy so the war machine is the only method they know how to use to divert a devastating depression.

-- Laura (Ladybugwrangler@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

Folks, it doesn't matter if you are Iraqi, Afghani, or American, this isn't about our nations, this about bringing us all in line and we are just collateral.

I don't support nukes in any way, shape or form. No human has the maturity, compassion or intelligence to have that kind of power, low level or high level capacity.

AGAIN, please prove to me that the US has actually declared war. If this president won't follow the Constitution, I won't follow him. PERIOD.I mean heck, is it too much to ask of a "moral and upright" person that they uphold the oath they took?

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 13, 2002.

That's what the Masters want you to believe, that the only alternative to Poverty is War, and the that the only alternative to War is Poverty.

Sounds like a definite lose-lose proposition to me.

Stop playing in their games, they're rigged.

LBF, consider the consequences of using those nukes. If they have them and we use our own, we had darn well better wipe'em out in the first wave or there will be a nuclear retaliation, GUARANTEED!

Think what you will, but don't come crying to me when Russia or China decides to send 20 megatons of radioactive megadeath your way.

Press that button, and there's no turning back. Our downward spiral to Hell on Earth would then be complete.

-- Nexar (Arax7@mvn.net), March 13, 2002.

Nexar, we are not talking about the USSR here. These guys would be lucky to get one of those nukes into US borders. Need I remind you of the performance of scud missles in Desert Storm. Nevertheless loss of life is loss of life. I would prefer to exhaust all other means to get the job done, but if it came down to Americans losing their lives or doing something to stop it. I'd choose to stop it. I don't think any President, including this one, would use such measures unless he felt it absolutely necessary. Unless he felt that there was a serious threat to the borders of the US. This is NOT the cold war.

Doreen, I am assuming that by the time we get to the point of flinging nukes into other nations there will be a declaration of war. This list is a "what would we do if..." list. The United States has had them for years. My own cousin used to sit at a computer in Washington D.C. running computer models of thermo nuclear war. This list is neither surprising or especially alarming, since similar lists have been in place nearly since WWII. You are right, that no one is moral enough to make these decisions. Only God can make any decision in total morality and justness. Nevertheless, the reality is that time after time decisions have been placed in man's hands by God. "All things work together for good to those who are called according to his purpose..." Ultimately He (not I, nor you, nor Joe) is in control of the happenings on earth. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't stand for right, but it does mean that God is in Control.

Joe- in the Bible war is a completely separate issue. In this case the Israelites were under the ultimate authority, God's. I can hear you reaction to this one even before I post it. "Well I wouldn't want to worship a God like this one" My answer is, "Nay but,Oh Man,who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

Joshua 10

4 Come up unto me, and help me, that we may smite Gibeon: for it hath made peace with Joshua and with the children of Israel. 5 Therefore the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, the king of Eglon, gathered themselves together, and went up, they and all their hosts, and encamped before Gibeon, and made war against it. 6 And the men of Gibeon sent unto Joshua to the camp to Gilgal, saying, Slack not thy hand from thy servants; come up to us quickly, and save us, and help us: for all the kings of the Amorites that dwell in the mountains are gathered together against us. 7 So Joshua ascended from Gilgal, he, and all the people of war with him, and all the mighty men of valour. 8 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear them not: for I have delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee. 9 Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all night. 10 And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah. 11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. 12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel. 15 And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal. 16 But these five kings fled, and hid themselves in a cave at Makkedah. 17 And it was told Joshua, saying, The five kings are found hid in a cave at Makkedah. 18 And Joshua said, Roll great stones upon the mouth of the cave, and set men by it for to keep them: 19 And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the LORD your God hath delivered them into your hand. 20 And it came to pass, when Joshua and the children of Israel had made an end of slaying them with a very great slaughter, till they were consumed, that the rest which remained of them entered into fenced cities. 21 And all the people returned to the camp to Joshua at Makkedah in peace: none moved his tongue against any of the children of Israel. 22 Then said Joshua, Open the mouth of the cave, and bring out those five kings unto me out of the cave. 23 And they did so, and brought forth those five kings unto him out of the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. 24 And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them. 25 And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies against whom ye fight. 26 And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees: and they were hanging upon the trees until the evening. 27 And it came to pass at the time of the going down of the sun, that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, and cast them into the cave wherein they had been hid, and laid great stones in the cave's mouth, which remain until this very day. 28 And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jericho.

I know that my position with God is going to be just fine. God used this war to bring about fulfillment of his only Begotton Son. Nothing can pluck a believer from his hand. I understand that all this is nonsense to you. It is meant to be, until a person changes their heart. Nevertheless it is what I believe.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little Bit Farm (littleBit@compworldnet.com), March 13, 2002.

LBF, you are doing a great job of keeping the others in this debate on track. There sure has been some word and fact bending on the other side. Question for all. If we completely disarm ourselves I mean from nukes to handguns, what do you think the world's response would be? Would they open they're arms and hug us. Yeah some would. Others would mount an all out attack, invade, and before you know it our masters would be speaking in a different tongue with an accent. I don't like nukes any more than the rest of you, but they are a reality. Even if all nations agreed to dispose of them, would they all get disposed. No! Lets try not to be so idealistic and face facts. We Americans are the haves, most of our enemies are have nots or don't have enough. Therefore, we are on the menu of conquest. What stops rogue nations from conquering us. It ain't diplomacy! It's a strong military. Part of that military is nukes. If they don't respect us let them fear us. That fear allows you and I to carry on this dialogue, and I for one enjoy the freedom to do it. How many folks you reckon in China, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea or any number of other repressed societies are doing what we are doing?


-- PoePoe (rpd932@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

I do NOT mind contingency planning. As a matter of fact my entire life revolves around my contingency planning, if A therfore B and if A(b) therfore B(a) etc. The problem I have with this is that we are acting like a nation of idiots threatening everybody and their brother. Nukes have ALWAYS been used for detente, not just another thing we can do, but a grievous and horrifyingly tragic thing we can do. Certainly nothing to be flippant about at all.

Also, WHO ON THIS BOARD has ever suggested that we disarm in any way shape or form? (Except for John Hill, but he's from NZ so we give him some slack)

Poe Poe, I really don't know you at all, and it seems perhaps you don't know me. I am nothing close to a pacifist, I think every person in this country ought to be packing as much as they can carry and be fined if they are without a weapon at anytime. I understand military as being a strong defense, but this is NOT a defensive use that is proposed. "If they are building up their military" is one of the causes given to potentially use these nukes. What do you think we are doing right now? Do you not think that these nations are just as proud as we are?

Nukes are NOT just another arrow in our quiver, they are the whole ball of wax and I regret that we seem to have become so stupid as to think lightly of their use. I sure hope I am in a hot spot if this typr of thinking carries on. I surely don't want to be hanging around for a nuclear pissing contest betwixt idiots.

Yes, God has it all under control. And we have free will. Proverbs says that the wise ruler counts the cost before he goes to war. No budget, whatever it takes, if you aren't with us, you're with the terrorists, a dictatorship would be fine so long as I'm the dictator, this war could last 100 years...Does this sound like a wise man?

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 13, 2002.

Oh dear! Did I really suggest the US should disarm?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), March 14, 2002.

LB, You say, "Nevertheless, the reality is that time after time decisions have been placed in man's hands by God" Would that be the god which supports whatever side you decide is the righteous one, or could it be the other side? Did god put the right to make decisions into Hitler's hands? How about Harry S. Truman? Was god guiding his hand? How about the Inquisition? How do you know which of the perpetrators of violence and death are being guided by your god, and not by some other god, or by their own evil ways?

Next you say, "Doreen, I am assuming that by the time we get to the point of flinging nukes into other nations there will be a declaration of war". Don't hold your breath on that one, LB. Consider how many wars we've participated in without declaring war. Besides, if god is guiding dubya, why do you care whether or not we mere mortals do or do not declare war?

Oh, well, the recipients of our nukes are only "PoDUNK" Countries, anyway, so I'm sure the folks who live there aren't worthy of your god's protection. They are just residents of podunkville. Hicks, really. Ungodless hicks, most likely. Kill the scum.

Please try not to get upset that I'm not addressing that long, long bit of bible thumping. After I realized what it was, and how long it was, I skipped to the end!

Poe, Poe, I hope you don't think I'm in favor of disarming either our military or ourselves. On the other hand, if I may use an analogy, I'm also not going to go on a killing rampage, destroying everyone in the commercial center of my area (Grants Pass), just because some creep comes out to my 'hood and kills a couple of people. Sure, we have killings here in the county every year, maybe one or two, but we don't carpet bomb whatever neighborhood the murderer came from.

Doreen, this is getting curiouser and curiouser! I agree with you AGAIN! (except for your belief that God has it all under control, of course).

Coming from you, I hope even some of the fringe nuclear warriors might learn something; I know they don't give me any credibility. Go girl!

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 14, 2002.

joj, the issue is not what "hood" the scumbag comes from. Quite the contrary. It's about that neighborhoods knowledge, support and involvement with the scumbag. For you see much of the support monetary or otherwise that these scumbags receive comes from the "hood". So when a neighborhood has a scumbag in it who offends by killing Americans, we should destroy the scumbag and the "hood". Put more simply. I live in the South (as if you couldn't tell), we have fireants, bad! When I find one I don't care where his ant pile (hood) is. I smite him out! Cause I know if he bites me its gonna hurt. I don't have to be shot with a gun to know its bad.


-- PoePoe (rpd932@yahoo.com), March 14, 2002.

John, I should have qualified that statement, sorry. I don't recall you actually ever saying that, but you are not quite the firearm fancier. How's that?

Joj, yes, it is kind of weird. But I don't know how my credibility rating is either. (shh, don't tell anyone, but I think some people think I might be extreme! imagine that) Surely not as high as Bush's approval rating, but then they never have asked me! How 'bout you?

Please, please, please, please do not compare people to fireants. yes, fireants are evil and they are one of the only things I use poison on here, but it is just not a proper analogy. Nuclear weapons are so beyond Spectracide.

Also, what do you folks have to say about the FACT that should we follow our own rules the US Government would need to start bombing itself? See, last year we gave $142 million to the Taliban, then there is the pesky business of having set up Saddam Hussein as ruler of Iraq when we thought it would be beneficial, then there is the other pesky matter of the FBI securing the van and cooking the bomb in the first WTC terrorist activity. Gee, It would seem rather like part of Evil Dead II to see them attacking themselves. Heck, I'd pay to see that! But no nukes for them either.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 14, 2002.

Doreen, I guess my feelings are that if the answer is personal firearms someone has asked the wrong question! :)

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), March 14, 2002.

People like Sadaam and the Taliban are like Fireants so the analogy fits and fits well! Yes we created or aided this detritous at one time. Ooops! However, we can no longer control them, they're dangerous as amply proven on Sept 11th. So now like any good farmer would do when the family dog kills one too many chickens. Bullett to the head! In love with the idea of sparing human life lost through collateral damage? Me too. However, I'm a realist and you should be too. Remember these fanatics care nothing about the golden rule. This puts your loved ones at stake. Worth the sacrafice? I thought not. The freedom we enjoy comes at a price. Unlike the mortgage of a home or some real property there will be no final payment after which we can enjoy the fruits of our labor with little or no continued expense. I want my kids to live free in the strongest most prosperous nation in the world as I did. Don't you?


-- PoePoe (rpd932@yahoo.com), March 15, 2002.

Poe Poe, as a matter of fact, I'd be quite happy if my kids, and grandkids, did not grow up in the "strongest and most prosperous nation in the world", as I could give a flying ___ on a rolling doughnut about being either most powerful OR most prosperous. I'm quite happy being merely prosperous, not most prosperous. I have ZERO interest in being powerful, as long as I'm not being attacked.

Personally, I'm still considering moving to Costa Rica, where there is a constitutional ban on having any army at all, and I haven't seen anyone attacking Costa Rica lately. (not enough oil, too many mellow people? I don't know. Maybe when coffee goes to $25 per pound, we'll invade CR.

John Hill, if it weren't so danged far away from my kids and grandkids, I'd consider moving to NZ. I've heard great things about it. My friend emigrated to NZ about fifteen years ago. He had to emigrate to Australia first, as NZ wouldn't allow immigration from the US (for some reason!).

Is that still NZ's policy?

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 16, 2002.

Here we go off to another country again...the problem with that is then the doofus' win, and they'll nuke you for not toting their party line....it does seem more and more like an alternative though...sigh...

Well Poe Poe, I guess it comes down to what it is you really value. If you value the"most prosperous" nation above the most free nation, or the most righteous nation, or the nation that takes care of it's own business, adheres to it's own laws, and doesn't go throwing it's own feces on it's smaller less "prosperous" co inhabitants of the earth, or the nation that is supposed to be different from all the rest of the despot tyrannical nations in the history of the earth, then I guess there is a gulf between us that will not be crossed.

Nuking someone because we made a mess of foreign policy is the heighth of stupidity. We are sooo ripe for a takeover. And your blessed Shrub hasn't done a blessed thing to secure the borders, so it may be coming to your door fairly soon. Au contraire, we just gave amnesty to millions of illegals in a secret vote, and visas to two dead hijackers! Yep, takeover time.

If you didn't guess, I care more about freedom and truth than dollars and cents, more about life than I do about might, more about right than I do about retaliation. I care deeply about the the future of our children---and their children, should God wait that long---that is one HUGE reason why we can't just go tossing nukes around like water balloons. I don't want radiation poisoning in your children at all. Terrible of me to want to deprive them of that experience, I agree.;)

Saddam etal are creations of our own lack of foresight and reason. Nuking them and allocating their countrymen to the level of fireants is just an arrogant and irresponsible attempt to deflect our own culpability. It's exactly the same as all the pro abortionists saying that it isn't a baby---it's a fetus, an embryo, not viable. I don't buy it from them and I don't buy it from you. Do NOT dehumanize the impact of this type of act. The cost is human lives!!!! Ours as well as theirs. ***WE*** are all responsible. I won't kill someone and their grandchildren because I failed to clean my own house or mind my own business.

I don't think Saddam is just a misunderstood soul or any foolish thing like that either. These people are not and have never been our friends. I doubt that our leaders were so naive as to believe they were ever our friends. They were convenient tools for megalomaniancs. That is reality.

I love this country and it makes me ill to see it destroyed. And to see "patriotism" become like a mother that can't admit when her kid has done wrong....My Country PERIOD. When it is right, I am behind it, when it is wrong, I don't shirk my responsibility and hide behind a plastic flag made in China.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 16, 2002.

Doreen, I'm SO pleased that we agree, for the most part, on this most serious issue. That an agnostic scientist, and a thumper could come to the almost identical conclusions about bushy boy and the US's mistaken policies is most heartening.

I truly apprecitate the time you took to put together this rebuttal to Poe Poe's cruel and Jingoistic post; when I read it I was so underwhelmed by his mean spirited attitude that I was virtually unable to put together a real response. It just gets so darn tiresome refuting this type of stuff, that I get tired of doing so over and over.

Thanks for putting into words many of my thoughts, at least as well written as anything I could have said!

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 16, 2002.

I have to say one more thing, Doreen: thanks for "I love this country and it makes me ill to see it destroyed. And to see "patriotism" become like a mother that can't admit when her kid has done wrong....My Country PERIOD. When it is right, I am behind it, when it is wrong, I don't shirk my responsibility and hide behind a plastic flag made in China. "

I like that attitude a lot better than "America, Love it or Leave it."

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 16, 2002.

Have I really gone nuts? Has all that fresh air and sunshine working outdoors today addled my brain? Is it really true that I see multiple posts from my friends Doreen and Joe and that I agree with just about everything they say? This indeed is a special day, and seeing also that it is St Patrick's day (already) here, double justification for a suitable celebration :)

You folks please have you prefer but I will be having a dark beer from one of our local boutique breweries.

Joe, migration to NZ is now controlled by a 'points' system as there are more prospective migrants than we would like just now. Points are awarded for things like age, education, skills and ability to support oneself. I think there is special provision for family connections and something for folks who have enough money to go into business and thereby directly assist our economy. Hearing of your friend who came via Australia makes me chuckle! Australian politicians are forever ranting about people who use NZ as a 'back door' to Australia, I did not know it happened the other way. I have assisted young Americans to migrate to NZ in the past when all I had to do was write a character reference and provide a reliable point of contact for their first year or so here.

Poe Poe, I regret to advise you that the USA is unlikely to remain the most properous country in the world, in fact I am not even sure it is now or ever has been. As for 'strongest', well there are a few countries that might dispute that one too.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), March 17, 2002.

Joe, did you climb out to the edge of the abyss yet??? Thanks for the kind words.

If we get into actual truth in prosperity, the whole world is in serious trouble. Our monetary system is operated off of debt from numbers created out of thin air and backed by nothing of value. However, the US has been blessed by having bountiful water, productive land, and lots of it. If we stopped playing politics with food my guess would be that five States could feed the vast majority of the world. Just look at how much food is wasted here. ridiculous. This doesn't include pineapples and coffee, but simply food. So in that regard, I do believe we are the most prosperous nation. But somehow, I don't think that is what Poe Poe was intimating.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 17, 2002.

Oh, John...I guess I'll have some green tea, with ginger if you have it?? Maybe some honey and lemon, too?

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 17, 2002.

Just for you Doreen, you can have manuka honey in your tea.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), March 17, 2002.

This question of prosperity. To me, it's a philosophical question worthy of some thought. Therefore, I'm going to start a thread asking for y'all's thoughts!

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 18, 2002.

John Hill, thanks for the info on immigration. It's nice to know that I MIGHT be able to live there.

Doreen, what is all this abyss stuff? What's the lake of fire with ice on, or not on, it? I'm afraid this is out of my area of expertise.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 18, 2002.

"Our monetary system is operated off of debt from numbers created out of thin air and backed by nothing of value. However, the US has been blessed by having bountiful water, productive land, and lots of it."

Uhhmmm....Actually, Doreen, I believe the collateral on our national debt IS our bountiful resources. That is why we, the people, are locked out of them.

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 18, 2002.

Hey, Laura, what did you mean, "That commandment would be "Thou shalt not murder." big difference. "??

I'm (duh) not bible scholar, but last I heard it was "thou shalt not kill"

Can you tell me where you got the "murder" part? And does your interpretation make it ok to kill, as long as it's not murder? (manslaughter, assassination, war, etc.)

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 18, 2002.

The original Hebrew texts use the word for murder. Almost all the earlier translations of the Holy Bible use the word "murder" and it is mostly those never inspired versions (NIV) and other translations with doctinal agendas that have changed the original wording.

There is a big difference between thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not kill. Someone who reads and studies the Old Testament can see the difference very clearly. Since you are not interested in a bible study, it would be pointless to outline one for you using the life of David as an example of the difference between the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder" and the common misconception that the word is kill.

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 19, 2002.

Hey Laura, you are talking collateral, and I am talking currency. If we had a Constitutional currency that was backed by something other than ink, we wouldn't need to have our entire country and our vehicles, businesses and houses as collateral on the national debt...and there wouldn't be inflation or very, very little, and on and on.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 19, 2002.

How can I tell if I am reading an 'inspired' or 'never inspired version'?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), March 19, 2002.

Curiouser and curiouser. So the bible only bans no "murder". Hence, you seem to be implying that manslaughter is allowable? The only difference between them is that manslaughter is not premeditated.

Also, by this reckoning, a bible thumper should have no qualms against euthanasia, if there is no malice aforethought.

I like it. How come every other person, including thumpers, I've ever talked to told me the commandment said though shalt not kill? Even my priest, when I had one, told me that. Are they all confused, or could it be that the Hebrew word you cite may have more than one meaning?

What is an "inspired version", exactly? What is a doctinal agenda?

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 19, 2002.

Another point of confusion, Laura: I stated that you folks who support shrubya's agenda of nuking innocent babies, among others, would be (according to your biblical beliefs) sent to hell for being accessories to murder.

Regardless of whether the ten commandments should be interpreted as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" is a moot point. The real question is whether they apply to ACCESSORIES to murder. Do they? Or is it ok to be an ACCESSORY to a murder? Fact is, if you support shrubbie in his agenda of killing innocents, you are an accessory to murder, since this killing is obviously premeditated.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 19, 2002.

Joe, I have never supported the Bush agenda orBush, the man, at any time. I am much too conservative for his flavor of politics.

I am strongly opposed to the murder or killing of innocents, whether they are are adults or children, born or unborn. I also have problems with the death penlty because of the lack of truth and justice in our heathen system.

I believe there will be a collective price we all will pay for the sins of our nation.

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 19, 2002.

Reading through this thread I see a lot of really good points on both sides... but it's the big picture that must be observed. With regard to killing millions of innocents to get at only a few "terrorists"... this is a huge topic for discussion. How can you justify killing innocents "over there" to save innocents over here? Well like everyone else I too have an opinion. However, first I would like to preface my opinions here by saying that War should always be a last resort in the peace keeping process... only after all diplomatic solutions have failed and there is NO other viable alternative should War become an option. Furthermore, involving nuclear weapons in a War needs to have more than adequate justification... (another topic for discussion).

The US and in fact the world community sees terrorism as a "cancer", it threatens every one of us and can not be tolerated. Efforts to keep these terrorist cells in check have failed as seen over and over and over again... and finally it hit home on 9-11... it was only a matter of time. (In light of how bad it was we should all be VERY grateful it wasn't worse, it could have been much much worse). So, back to the original question... to justify killing period is a moral question, killing innocents is virtually unjustifiable. However, we are ALL members of our respective communities and collectively the world community. As members of our "communities" we are all responsible to support, defend, and promote the general well being of our communities. If we do not like the communities with which we belong then we are responsible for leaving them and finding another that we can support. Terrorist communities and countries that harbor terrorists ARE communties and while not every member of these communites are "terrorists" they are all responsible for their communties actions collectively. You can not "belong" to a community just for it's security and benefits and not be willing to take the responsibility that comes with it. That having been said... there ARE no innocents. None of us are innocent, to claim otherwise is false and irresponsible. I am an American and a veteran, I am PROUD to count myself as such... and I would lay down my life to preserve the values of my country and to protect my American brothers and sisters from a foreign agressor (I don't necessarily buy into the domestic agressor thing... again another topic for discussion). I would hope that each and every one of you would be ready to do the same... our military is here to keep us from having to make that sacrifice... but in the end we are ALL responsible... I hold myself responsible.

So, since there are no innocents. Destroying a foreign community that threatens OUR community and/or way of life is not only a sound decision... but a GOOD decision. This of course being the ONLY alternative. Using nuclear weapons to acheive this shouldn't be used unless it will save lives... OUR lives.

I don't really like to affiliate myself with any particular party since many things about each party bother me... but I would say I am more Democrat than Republican... and I definitely lean to the left in my thinking. However, President Bush (in my opinion) is doing a WONDERFUL job folks. He needs your support, regardless of what you may believe about the corruption in government... he is your leader, he has YOUR interests at heart. He is protecting us, doing a bang up job, and I am grateful for his service! If you feel you can do better then I suggest you run for office!

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go put on my asbestos suit to avoid the third degree burns which will come from the flames this post will receive LOL.

-- Surgeon (socal69boy@hotmail.com), July 30, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ