IS Tom Tancredo the biggest Moron in Washington?

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Ninot] common folk living in St. Petersburg would not be the ruling class of a Soviet Era Russia. Why would nuking them be a propper response to a U.S.S.R. attack?[/q]

Because they are part of the Soviet polity. If you live in a country, you take benefits and potential burdens. You get the benefit of a country setup (economies of scale and all that), but the burden of getting smacking if your country pisses off someone.

This is different than AQ and Mecca/Medina. The people who live in those cities do not live in under AQ rule and therefore should not be assumed to take any burdens from that.

[Ramo]

But in the same way, common folk living in St. Petersburg would not be the ruling class of a Soviet Era Russia. Why would nuking them be a propper response to a U.S.S.R. attack?

It wouldnt be really. The propper response would be to overthrow the Communist regime. But if thats not possible (which at the time I suppose it wasnt), then they had the M.A.D. policy.

I didn't say that following though with that policy was justified (indeed, I don't see how exterminating human life is justifiable).

I was pointing out that the situations are not at all comparable. Having that policy actually had a deterrent effect in the case of the Soviet Union, but not with AQ.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Ninot
Its stupid to nuke and kill innocents, but how can the U.S. respond if it stats losing millions of innocents?

Using tactical nukes, or just conventional weapons of great magnitude, on terrorist training camps and support facilities, and on facilites of the goverments supportig them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Ramo]Having that policy actually had a deterrent effect in the case of the Soviet Union, but not with AQ.[/q]

Indeed. AQ would probably welcome such a thing. It'd be a necessary sacrifice to them.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Ninot]How does nuking a U.S. city make any sense?[/q]

It doesn't... are you saying that it'd be ok to respond to nonsense with nonsense?

Besides, I'm sure the terrorists would LOOOOOVE it if we nuked Mecca and Medina. They'd make their recruiting goals for the next 10 years in the week after the bombing.

They'd meet their recruiting goals for the next 100 years in the week after they toast New York or Washington, that isn't going to even be a remote factor in the minds of the people who will make the decision to retaliate.

[Patroklos]

Of course, we would also meet our recruiting goals for the next 100 years as well.

The question is irrelevant. After such an event the war would not be AQ verses the Western World, it would most definetly become Islam versus the Western World. There is no getting around it. Any country, group, household, or whatever that is not completly cooperative will simply be destroyed. It will be a clash of civilizations, modern wise.

And despite some opinions here, I doubt the average terrorists hold Mecca and Medina in such low regards as to not stop their acts if they seriously believe them in peril. Thanks to people such as those here, threats against them are empty and thus don't deter them.

[lord of the mark]

How long before AQ quotes Tancredo in a statement? I mean we're trying to get Iraqis to rally to the new govt, and fight the terrorists? How does saying this help with that? Or in Afghanistan? Or anywhere else?