Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. have said there WILL be nuclear and biochemical attacks on the US. I'm assuming that's in spite of the GWB administration doing their best to avoid it.
Doesn't anyone on the right-wing, doesn't any conservative understand the implications of that?
They are saying that the best they know how to do WILL fail.
If that' is true, it would make sense to add some tools to the arsenal, unconventional tools.
And, those tools are cheap. That's the problem. An anti-missile defense system costs a large fortune. An attractive option for some people.
If you're fighting ideas, hate, misunderstanding, it might be nice to have some ideas of you own, and communicate them effectively.
However, there is a right-wing view.
"Successful peace arrangements are made when one combatant has been totally and utterly defeated beyond hope.
"That doesn't make the kum-ba-yah "give peace a chance" crowd happy, but it's true."
Beat the Taliban, badly. They are not running Afghanistan. And is the US safer? Not to hear the warnings.
What do you do when you can't find them?
OBL is still out there.
The anthrax mailer is still out there.
And, the current leadership of the US has said, even if they do their best, the US WILL be nuked.
That says something.
What's to lose by adding weapons, even if they are cheap?
Arf
Current Events » in reply to Re: Flight 93
Weapons, winning, losing.
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Flight 93 [Sept/11/2001] and the White House building.
- Re: Flight 93 and the White House building.
- picky picky picky
- Re: Flight 93 [Sept/11/2001] and the White House building.