Al-Qaida's No. 2 Claims to Have Nukes(link)

So, should anything be done about this?

Let's sit back and wait till they fly into a skyscraper and blow up and if we need a scapegoat well then Condoleeza Rice is still available. Seems to be a perfectly legit approach these days...

In all honesty, there isn't much anyone can do considering you can't find the man (men) even if a boatload of soldiers are looking for him (and 50 Million don't compell anyone to talk).

I disagree. We could find out what they would accept in trade. Perhaps an Islamic US president? We could get rid of the Constitution in favor of the Quoran. Perhaps extermination of the Jews in Israel, or at least their forcible removal (though I think Osama would go for extermination first, you know payback and all).

What's it worth people? Do we use all available resources to find these weapons, capitulate, appease, negotiate, wait until they're used?

Well, if past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, I guess Bush will invade Syria. LOL

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

Heck... it's right next door to Iraq and the troops have to have something to do!

I don't think it's a trivial point. What would it take to justify an invasion? I know we've had this discussion before but now we have a valid, real-life example. Would the intelligence have to be 100%? The weapon verified visually by two, unrelated sources? Could it only be one source, albeit a trustworthy one? Under no circumstances would an invasion be called for?

Now's your chance to hypothetically command the most powerful military in the world, and reap the reprecussions of your actions, or inactions. What should be done?

An invasion of where? I mean we are already looking for the man. If we knew where to grab him, we would have done it already.

If he is the person trapped by the Pakistani forces (and American intelligence agents), then we are already doing what we can. If he happens to cross the Afghanistan border, then we will be able to pursue there also.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

Exactly. Invading where? Wich country? How can one country be blamed for the acts of an international organization? Would this mean invading every nation that has one of its citizens working for Al-Qaeda? How many nations would that imply? Not to mention that the US is also on that list.
It´s no secret that Al-Qaeda wants to get their hands on a nuke, real bad. But it´s also true that Al-Qaeda is a master of deception, and the simple mention of a possible nuke on their hands causes immediate panic, wich is exactlly what they want.
Instead of speculating wether they have it or not, it would be wiser to track down the existing devices and determine wether any of such device has been "lost". There can´t be all that many suitcase nukes arounds. Only a handfull of countries have the ability to build one.
Despite what you might think, Fatboy, i do think something should be done. But what exactlly is where we differ.
The US has already invaded Afghanistan, and that produced no results at all. The US invaded Iraq, and again no results at all. Do you think the US should go on invading nation after nation, hoping to strike gold along the way?
Yeah, right...

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

"Which country"

Any country that is unwilling or unable to pursue these terrorists within their borders. This is a hypothetical so I'm not talking about what's going on in the world right now. You're the president of the most powerful country in the world, a lot of people hate your country, a few just blew up some of your buildings and promise more to come. What will you do, what proof do you need before you take action?

I think that any country should be able to persue a person or persons who carried out a terrorist attack so long as they have an articulable reason for suspecting that person or persons. Before ignoring another country's soverignty, though, we should tell the other country why we believe the person of persons are guilty and show them any proof we have.

If the other country will still not allow us to apprehend the person or persons, we should use special forces to "acquire" him or them. If the person or persons are not found not guilty, the person or persons should be set free (although we should do our best to surveil them). If the person or persons are adjudged innocent, we should publicly admit our mistake and make financial reperations to the country whose soverignty we ignored.

I believe you are right when you wrote that the terrorists are the nucler bomb and we are the scapel: we should be fighting this war with intelligence agents and special forces.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html