Initial Wogga Poll Results, Day 1....

.....8 for 8 think nuking is no good. Well I'm sure others will chime in and balance the scales


Aside to HDPM: I might just surprise you!

That would be good. I will leave the possibility open.

But thanks for letting us know the threat of allowing idiots have control of nuclear weapons.

.....underwhelming.


Maybe 1 day you can think without jerking your knee.


Hopefully, this will all become clear to you after a few days of allowing people to chime in on their thoughts

You just need to phrase it in a way the anti-Semites can accept, Dr.Wogga.

There is no such thing as limited nuclear war, Dr.Wogga.

...unlimited nuclear war??


Do you agree that our war with Japan probably doean't end if we didn't nuke them? Further, the first radical Arab state that gets nuclear capability is going to use it on Israel ASAP. That seems a given to me - obviously others don't feel the same.

I think it is damn likely that certain Arab states would nuke Israel if they could. In Iranian newspapers a topic which is fairly often discussed lightly amongst military pundits, is whether it would take one or two nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.


I agree with Kasparov. Militant Islam must be defeated before their offensive capabilities grow much greater, and we must take the offensive to them in order to do it. I don't believe that means nuking them, but I do think it means armies of occupation while we oust the bad leaders and clean out the terrorists and terrorist supporters. I also agree with Kasparov that it means nation-building in the aftermath.

Dropping the bombs was one choice we had back then. The other choice was to invade Japan and take heavy casualties. Either one would have ended it. The result was horrific, but I'm not second guessing the use of them. War is hell. We gave them a chance to surrender.

We've had this debate here before, but it is not at all clear that the bombs ended the war nor that the choices were the bombs or invasion. There is much evidence that the timing of the Japanese surrender was influenced much more by the Soviet invasion of Manchuria than the bombs.


Also, Truman's talk of a half a million or a million American casualties (he changed his story almost every time he told it) is simply a lie. This is not to say that we wouldn't have sustained major casualties had the invasion taken place, but rather that Truman's figures were wildly inflated.

I don't support nuking the Palestinians for technical reasons: even if we accept the theoretical premise of your Polling Question (ie that the Jews would all be spared), the use of nuclear weapons would still destroy a lot of valuable property in the area. I don't mind wasting a million or two of "dirty scumbag towel-heads", as you describe them, but I won't have that prime real estate socked in value, no sir!


Still, in order to give some wind to the sails of those too shy to vote Yes in this Poll, I'd like to go on record as a firm supporter of anything less than nuking! This means torture, rape, humiliation, more humiliation, even more humiliation every single day, killing of militants, killing of civilians, killing of civilians' pets, etc. Also, responding to peace feelers with belligerence, responding to surrendering with killing, responding to capitulation with indifference, etc. The objective of these noble efforts is the same as nuking the "idiot bastards", as you describe them : get them to lose all hope of ever living in peace where their ancestors have lived for generations and make 'em emigrate en masse elsewhere, wherever the hell they damn well please, and leave the whole area currently occupied by Israel free for Jews -- and Jews only.


Free at last, free at last -- Mason Almighty, free at last !


...(Sigh) You got me all excited just thinking about it.

Andy,


There never would have been an invasion; after all, we had the bombs. Why invade?


John