Thanks.

Maybe Kevin feels some degree of repentance if he now claims he said conventional weapons.


>Message 1254236
>
>" also believe we should have invaded Iran after 9/11, and dropped nuclear bombs on Tehran, Damascus, and Baghdad, to show terrorists/Islamic radicals that they'll pay a huge price for their aggression against us."
>
>
>>Now he says he was referring to conventional weapons. Maybe I had it garbled thinking he meant nukes. For sure I don't have the time to dig back through *this* thread looking for the original quote.
>>
>>
>>>There is a huge difference in the scale of war and the prescedent it would set. No, the moral and human damage would be the same, but I wasn't aware he was referring to nukes until now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I suppose nukes are nastier but does it really matter? Either way he is talking about wiping out cities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I want Kevin to clarify. Is her recommending bombing Tehran and Damascus with conventional bombs (like at the beginning of the Iraqi war) or nuclear?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What you advocated, and what so many people have jumped on you for, is killing entire populations, 99.99% of whom have done nothing to us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What I am advocating is stopping state-sponsored terrorism. Is the inevitable result still tragic? Absolutely. It was tragic in 1945 and is still tragic today. But as I said, there is something far worse than fallout from bombing Tehran...allowing Tehran to develop a bomb. That is what much of this boils down to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see... it's OK for the U.S. to not only have nukes, but to go ahead and use them YET the worst thing that could happen if Iran got nuclear weapons is that they might use them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For the record, I don't want to see Iran ever get nukes. But I also want to see every nuke in existence now destroyed.