To: Raymond Duray who wrote (5727 ) 12/31/2002 5:00:38 PM From: PartyTime Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516 Using nukes won't and shouldn't work anywhere. They won't be used to end a prolonged world war, as the stage was when Truman used 'em, and any public support to use nukes only will come from a few GOPhawks, at best. Unfortunately, I don't think the military buildup would exist in its current and growing proportion without any intent to utilize those forces. Remember, cowboy Bush won't wanna seem muscle-bound, and he probably does have the support of World Wrestling Foundation types. What I'm curious to note is exactly how the U.S. will play its war card before the United Nations if possession of weapons of mass destruction cannot reasonably be proven. I mean snuffing the life out of a few hundred thousand or perhaps a million or more people shouldn't exist on the same level as beach cops moving in like gangbusters in order to bust a couple dozen teenagers for being knowingly present where marijuna is found, i.e., a joint or two, seeds even. But what's also frightening is the prospect that the Iraqi forces will retreat into both Baghdad and Tikrit, two major heavily-populated cities, in the intent conducting an urban warfare campaign so as to kill as many Americans and Brits as possible. The U.S. will then be in a faceoff choice of the following: a) attacking with a tremendous risk of mass casualties (something Americans will not and should not have to stomach); or, b) surround those respective cities until the occupants surrender, sorta like the good ole' days when they choked off supplies to seiged castles. Should the latter situation become a reality then the U.S. stands to risk losing an incredible public relations war, especially if no weapons of mass destructions are used by the Iraqis, and if millions of Iraqi non-militant citizens become trapped and starving in those cities. Were this to happen the Twin Tower tragedy would pale in comparison.