Now we have a different scenario. His is a plan to DETER a nuclear attack against the U.S. by promising such a retaliation if a nuclear attack against the U.S. should occur. In this case, I think the idea of deterring such a thing is necessary. Afterall, which would be a greater show of force? In reality, I think the nuclear attack (which would have to occur first for this scenario to even play out) is.


>Tom Tancredo is talking about bombing Mecca if the US is attacked with nuclear waepons.
>
>http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=101389
>
>
>
>>Now I am confused. I am no fan of Hilary Clinton, but I saw the debate and the comments later and no where did I hear her state that she would use nuclear weapons and definitely NO PROMISE TO DO SO. What she did state, however, is that a President should never let an enemy of the state know in advance how far he or she is willing to go and where they will not go no matter what (as Obama implied). I am convinced, that with all of her flaws, she believes in peace through strength. Not necessarily using that strength, but the knowledge that it is there if necessary. I also did not hear any promises from any of the other candidates to any of the things on your list. I think someone is providing you inaccurate translations. Can you provide a link that to any of this?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>a) Occupation of Pakistan.
>>>>>b) Bombing to Mecca.
>>>>>c) Use nuclear weapon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Make your choice.
>>>>
>>>>- Give freedom for people to choose their government
>>>>- Give people the freedom to study and learn what they want
>>>>- Give people a decent wage, a decent education and a decent way of life
>>>>- End slavery and indentured servitude
>>>>- Give people a decent national health system
>>>>
>>>>I have no idea what you are talking about but you mention Mecca and Pakistan, two places that could benefit with all of these choices.
>>>
>>>Third one is Hilary Clinton's promise, others other candidates promises...