My sentiments - exactly.

Yeah, well, unless we elect Lurch. Then they know we'll just bend over and take whatever they want to give us without any threat of serious retaliation.

Damn, Bill, what got into you today? After the next atrocity - and their will surely be another coming along some day - we're going to nuke some place or several? Would that be after we got our troops out of the general area?

I can't really fault your anger and I feel it all the time myself. (Nice paragraph on how American's are impatient, by the way.) Al Qaeda seek martyrdom - nuking Muslims in the mid-East would surely give them that in the eyes of the world. It might make us feel better for ten minutes, or even ten years, but the ideological war would be lost.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Dave... you're being a bit harsh. We might seriously retaliate if we can get the world community to come together with their stamp of approval and then get a unanimous decision from the UN security counsel.

Don't count Kerry out yet!!!

No, George, I don't want us to nuke the Middle East. It would be a horrifying awful and terrible thing to do. But I fear that one day the Islamowackos will push us beyond the limit of our patience. The thing about 9/11 is, while it angered Americans greatly, it was an East Coast event, and many Americans subconsciously think that the terrorists won't hit middle America, just the high-profile targets like NY and DC and maybe LA.

If - when - al Qaeda lands a big blow on some place like, say, Lincoln, Nebraska or Birmingham, Ala., or Cleveland or Atlanta or Dallas or Denver, I think sentiment in this country for taking really drastic action will rise dramatically.

Hard to make a nuclear martyr when the megatonnage tends to eliminate the impotent Arab street that would follow said martyr in the first place.

GMTA.

I agree with Bill, except I think I'm a few steps ahead of him in wanting the administration of this war to be a bit more bloody minded. I elaborate on this in Bill's previous post on "Why do they hate us?"

I initally felt that after the atrocities in Fallujah that a nice reminder of our abilities would be to give a 24 hour notice that that bright spot in Iraq would only be, in a few short seconds, a smoking, glowing hole - stay and watch or run for your life.

After my rage wore off, it occured to me that to do such a thing would place us as Americans on the same level as that culture. I hope we never come to that.

Should the backward, godless, demented, oppressive (and all the other pitiful adjectives that fail to adequately describe them ) radical muslim miscreants that wish us ill pull off another "whack" on us, heaven help them because I, too, do not think that we Americans will be as compassionate and patient. And maybe it will take this to wake up ALL Americans that these are the very ones who wish us to either become like them or die.

I completely agree w/ you Bill. George mentioned that Al Qaeda seeks martyrdom. The leadership seeks it for its low-level thugs but OBL and his lieutenants don't seem personally invested in the whole martyr thing. As in, "Ali, I need you to go martyr yourself while I, uh, plan the next mission, yeah, I gotta plan, see." And this guy sure wasn't much of a martyr:
http://www.september11news.com/March1_2003_Captre_KhalidShaikhMohammed.jpg

I sometimes wonder what the thugs in Iraq referred to as insurgents in Fallujah or al Sadr's Mahdi army or al Qaeda think Plan B on the War on Terror is. Okay, let's say we get proof positive in Iraq that it's impossible for liberal democracy to take root in the Arab world. What do they think will happen when we're subjected to the next attack? We'll say "Oh, there, there, poor guys! It's understandable after all you've been through." Or we'll try again democratizing some other country?

We're giving the people of Iraq a stunning opportunity if only they have the wit and courage to seize it. They can be free and prosperous. Or they can look behind door #2.

Actually Bill's idea of the "Instant Win" button does not neccisarily have to involve a nucleur holocuast of a Middle Eastern city or two.

My suggestion for a response to a major (large scale chemical or nuclear) attack on the US would be simple.

A surgical strike on the city of Mecca. I would drop about a dozen cruise missiles in a circular pattern AROUND the sacred Ka' ba (sp.)

As Donald Sensing and others have argued Islam is pretty much a "place specific" religion and wheras say the Catholic Church could survive the destruction of the Vatican, the destruction of Allah's sacred site would send shockwaves throughout Islam.

After the surgical strike I would then be in contact the the heads of every Muslim government and give them a list of names whose heads I would want on a silver platter (literally) to be delivered up in 24 hours! Or else! Bye bye Mecca

I agree with the general sentiment of the article, and I've made similar statements myself. Bin Laden seriously underestimated what we'd do when really po'd.

But the idea that a nuke is "instant win" is frighteningly bad. Killing innocent people in retaliation for the death of other innocent people is not right. It's morally reprehensible. That's what people in the middle-east do; we're better than them. And nuking a city full of innocent people wouldn't be a "win", anyway. It would be a loss larger than you can imagine.

If you want to destroy their culture, do it with Christian missionaries. That's the Christian way to do it, and it's the right way to do it.

Except that those countries don't allow Christian missionaries. They must be convinced that to allow others to preach their own religion generate converts away from their own religion .

As for killing innocents, how innocent are they? Keep in mind the demonstrations, the hordes of suppporters, the 'muslem street'. They're indoctrinated at a young age.

I remember hearing that alot of the reason for the anti-american sentiment is that it's safer to be anti-american than pro-american. Well we just have to prove the opposite.

If we do this right, it will take decades to win the war on terror. If we screw up, it will take about four hours.
Those who oppose the second option are bound by logic, and honor, to support the first.
Those who oppose the first, generally in order to screw Bush, must be seen as effectively (to paraphrase Orwell on pacifists) supporting the four-hour option.
Even if they 1, don't know it, 2, don't care, or, even 3, think we'll look at that and blink and agree to lose.

DenBeste had a post along these lines a while back (too lazy to look it up). Basically we would be commiting moral suicide, but there is a breaking point where we would consider that the superior option to actually suicide of an islamist victory.

Its a horrific idea, but I have to agree, if they managed a few more large attacks, or a WMD attack, That there is a point where the america public would accept it.

The only thing morally worse than going nuclear would be to accept defeat at the hands of the Islamofacists and allow their poisonous, immoral, godless, cancerous, oppressive tyranny to spread around the globe.

But I would hope we find a way to convince the "Arab street" that we actually would vaporize Mecca if the only other option was our destruction, and perhaps they will wake up and realize that it is THEY, the Arab street, that must ultimately defeat the cancer that grows within their culture.

It's funny but I began thinking about "the next attack" almost immediately after the "first", 9/11. I mean, yes, on that day everyone was wondering and fearing the worst--a sustained assault on other cities, all sorts of destruction and mayhem, etc.

But what I was also thinking was, "well, they pulled off the world's biggest bitch slap." It seemed obvious to me that we were horribly unprepared for what was, I'm convinced, an attack that was more spectacular than even OBL anticipated. Think about it: there were a million things that could have gone wrong with their plan but apparently didn't.

But in the interim since I've been ruminating on the "next one." And the conclusion I've reached is the same as Bill's: they hit us again and the gloves come off big time. BIG TIME.

And, I should add, it won't really matter who the prez is. I know, a Kerry admin would be a disaster for the WOT, a psychological win for the terrorists, and an incredible downer for me personally. BUT. Another attack will immediately change the calculus of our response because even more Americans will be even more pissed off and demand an even harsher retribution. I'm not saying this is the right response but for the Islamofascists, the bloodlust of the average American has barely been aroused. Yet.

Bill:

I don't advocate the vaporization of the entire city. Just the holiest shrine, the big black stone and the football stadium that surrounds it!

To me the threat of this would be enough, and the surgical strikes beforehand would indicate how serious we are.

The definition of terrorism:

Attacking or threatening to attack non-militants to force them to effect a political change.

But I would hope we find a way to convince the "Arab street" that we actually would vaporize Mecca if the only other option was our destruction, and perhaps they will wake up and realize that it is THEY, the Arab street, that must ultimately defeat the cancer that grows within their culture.

While it's true that ultimately they have to defeat it themselves, threatening them with nukes isn't the right way to go about it.

You know, Bill, you keep calling them godless. I don't disagree. But as a Christian, which you've professed, you should see that the proper solution to a godless culture is the God.

I could go on and on about this topic, but I find it odd that very few Christians (or people who claim to be) are actually advocating for the proper solution; but I see a lot about blowing up innocent people hoping that the problem will be solved that way.

Blow up the evil terrorists and militants, but try to bring the others over to our side.

It's desperately naive to think that nuking Kabul and/or Baghdad would constitute an "Instant Win."

Most Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere would be happy not to be involved in the so-called "clash of civilizations" now under way. But the oppressive regimes under which they live (Saudi Arabia, Saddam's Iraq, others) make it near impossible for them to do anything about it.

Can we really expect Muslims in the Middle East -- whose rulers refuse to provide them with an adequate way of life, system of government, bill of rights, etc. -- to stamp out terrorism themselves when we here in America -- where we enjoy the absolute pinnacle of the aforementioned luxuries (for they are luxuries) -- can hardly make a dent? (Terrorist attacks have risen since 9/11, not fallen.)

Nor do Bid Laden et cie. have the least interest in the fate of most "civilians" in the Middle East. The more innocents we kill, the better for their cause. Nuking populations that are not now a threat will only create more militantized Muslims, and make the situation only worse. Finding ways to bring suitable systems of government to these people will do far more to win the war on terror. The much bandied-about "Arab street" is immaterial because it has no power to effect change. Most of the world's Muslim population is peace-loving. Putting them in charge so that they can bring a decent and equitable way of life to their countries is the best strategy against terrorism.

I think that GWB should put out a blanket statement that IF there is a nuclear terrorist attack on US soil that there WILL be a nuclear response. I don't believe that a nuclear response will accomplish anything, but it may serve as a deterrent for some. Unfortunately, one must remember that we are dealing with people that have no sense of logic whatsoever. Religious fundamentalism, regardless of which religion it is, will stamp out logic every time. Remember the crusades?

We must also effectively demonstrate that we are NOT at war with Islam, and we are NOT interested in their oil, we only wish to defeat the crazy MFers that want to destroy all the non-believers and threaten our own security. Only then can we hope that mainstream Islam will rise up and help us defeat the lunatics that are screwing everything up right now.

I am all in favor of Christian missionaries attempting to resolve this situation, but the only way they will be successful, if they are ever allowed to speak, is to preach tolerance and acceptance rather than conversion. I just hope that Islam can get their house in order in my lifetime.

This was absolutely brilliant and dead on.

it occured to me that to do such a thing would place us as Americans on the same level as that culture. I hope we never come to that.

I can't buy into that, slu.

There's a slight difference between us using the Instant Win button (nice terminology, that) and them.

With them, it's a first resort.

With us, it's the last resort.

No, we shall never sink to their level, for that reason alone:  We try peaceful methods first, then  we get nasty.