>>>>>>>>>> Reasonable people can disagree without losing respect for each other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And you think that wanting to Nuke a country for they burnt a flag more than 30 years ago (lets throw down here also the hostages for good measure) is reasonable????? I have no respect whatsoever for Kevin nor William or any other person that thinks like them (Kevin Geoff is the other nutcase who came repeatedly with this stupidity and thus I had no respect for him either)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't want to nuke them because they burned a flag. I want to nuke them because they want to nuke me. They've made that pretty clear, and when they do get their nuke, they'll use it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That makes me a nutcase???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What about North Korea? - they hate the USA and already have nukes and missiles. Are you suggesting we start a nuclear holocaust to keep someone from starting a nuclear holocaust? I fail to see how that would benefit mankind in the long run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They came out earlier this week and announced again that they can reach San Francisco. Should we let them do it?
>>>>>
>>>>>Does not answer my question - which to make clear - is do you think we should launch nuclear attack on North Korea?
>>>>
>>>>So far I think they are all just talk. But like Iran, they are trying their best to get a nuke. However, unlike Iran, North Korea has a missile capable of hitting the US. If they point it at the US, I think should nuke then into radioactive dust.
>>>>
>>>>So let me ask a question to you. Do you think we should let them nuke use first?
>>>
>>>OMG WTF you mean 'get a nuke'? - Do you understand that they've had nukes for a long time and that they've set two of them off already riiiight? 2006 and 2009 and another one in probably at the end of this month. Furthermore they've been able to hit the USA right here where I live with a nuke armed missile for like 8 years. Now according to you - "when" they get a nuke they will aim it at the USA and shoot. Obviously you're wrong as they've had this ability for almost a decade. Now if we did something really really really stupid - like launch a nuke attack on Iran for example - then I'd expect to see North Korea launch. What you've done here is prove my point.
>>
>>I think you're wrong on something. Yes, they've had a long range missle. yes they've had a nuke. Having one, and being able to put it accuratly on target are two entirely different things. They're not there yet.
>
>Ok IF I'm wrong about that (and I'm not saying for sure I am) I'm obviously correct in saying that they're farther along than Iran. Do you understand the foolishness of launching a nuke attack or not? Why not just admit to the fact that doing so would cause worldwide catastrophic effect.
>What your way of thinking here boils down to is it's better to be the cause of a nuclear holocaust right now than to take the chance there might be one later. It's just plain stupid dude - you logic means the whole world is guaranteed to be screwed no matter what. How dumb is it to cause a nuclear holocaust for sure if there is even a sliver of a chance not too? So rather than being a trigger happy bonehead why not at least attempt something...hell anything else. (like uhh..talking for example).

Kevin's POV and your response made me think of this quote from Gandhi:

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would soon be blind and toothless."

Tamar