Quote:
Originally Posted by 450slcguy
I'm not as convinced of that as you are. Their was plenty of support when Iraq was invaded and we bloodied their noses pretty well in a very short time.
What severed the support for a lot of Americans were the deceptions about Iraq's WMD programs. But if the action is justified and the intelligence is accurate, I believe the American public does have to stones do what it takes.
Do we have the stones to nuke anyone, I'm not sure. I do think we should have nuked Tora Bora in Iraq, that would have been justified in my opinion. It's a tough decision that requires more than just "balls". If a few nukes can accomplish our objectives and replace a long and costly occupation I'm all for it.
But then again, we had better seriously consider the very real consequences of such an action. I'm pretty sure that Russia, China, and Pakistan wouldn't take a nuclear attack very well.
|
Conventional warfare, yes. We excel at that. Asymmetrical warfare requires us to have the stones to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is necessary. We don't. We proved it time and again.
I guess we are going to differ on that. We will go into war with one hand tied behind our backs. When we fight, we should have a "no holds barred" approach.
If we didn't in Tora Bora, what makes you think we will?
Hence, one hand tied behind our backs.