<HTML>If this is true and they are used then a counter attack of same could be expected ( as it has been reported that the bomb may be in the hands of terrorists now ).
---------
Your logic is flawed.
You assume that NOT using Nuclear weapons will promote restraint in our enemies. Trust me, if our enemies have nukes, the timers have already been set.
Bombing the @!#$ out of the entire middle east will not make one more terrorist. The whole place is already filled to capacity with people who hate the US. We could hardly make the situation worse. LOL!
That's not to say I believe nuclear weapons appropriate. Nor is it to say that I think military force the best or only way to deal with this situation.
As I have said many times, our military forces should be directed at the states who have protected these terrorists. All of these governments must now work to eliminate their terrorist elements or face destruction. Civilian casualties must be minimized. But we cannot restrain our efforts out of fear of taking the lives of innocents. The consequences of a failure to act now will be unimaginable: the eventual detonation of several nuclear divices throughout the continental USA.
If you think the destruction of two buildings has hurt the world, imagine of four or seven large cities were to disappear!
Our military actions must be combined with aid of all kinds to all cooperative mid-east and third world nations. This will be extremely expencive and must be done in a way that brings americans and citizens of these countries face to face in friendship. Care must be taken not to appear as imperialists in those countries which have not been invaded.
However, in the case of Afganistan and iraq, it is likely that only a complete military take over will solve the problem. In these cases, we must consentrate our aid resources and rebuild those nations into responsible members of the world community.
ISHMAEL</HTML>
