More threats - and a truce?

[Paradox]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/20/binladen.tape/index.html

the latest tape from bin laden threatens plans for new attacks in the heart of america in the not so distant future. wether its true or if hes talking out his ass, we dont know. but he also said something else intresting: if america pulls out of iraq and afganistan, al queda will leave america alone. again, wether its true or if hes talking out his ass, we dont know. in response, dubya and cheney have already flat out said "we dont negotiate with terrorists", with cheney going the extra mile and saying bin laden will be destroyed.

personally, im on the fence on this one. IMO, id prefer that this money pit of a war be ended and let the middle east deal with itself. on the other hand, my lust for vengence wants bin laden to suffer cruel and unusual punishment. so im undecided. not like bush is calling me up asking for pointers or anything. but if i were in his position, im not sure what id do. of course if i were in power, we wouldnt be over there and many, many things would be different anyway. but thats for another topic....

soooo, what would YOU prefer be done?

 

[piracer]

i'll take the deal. if its not legit, THEN i will have a reason for another invasion. but this time, using nucleaar weapons.

 

[maca2kx]

/\ As I read that post my talking Simpsons clock piped up and Homer said "Feeling stupid? I know I am!", quite apt me thinks.

Seriously, nuclear weapons? No, never, Hiroshima and Nagasaki should never be repeated and personally I don't think any tests of any weapons of mass destruction should be carried out because the things shouldn't exist. To kill in times of war is ridiculous (therefore war itself is ridiculous) but to kill indiscriminately? It defies logic, part of the Geneva convention states that weapons that kill in such a way such as nuclear bombs should not be used and this is to protect those who have chosen not to fight.

As for what to do, the US has never negotiated with terrorists, or at least has upheld that it doesn't and to so publicly go back on this policy would have long term repercussions with many terrorist groups, pranksters and morons. If someone thinks they have a shot at getting their demands met then I'm sure situations such as this (even if it's just a threat) will escalate dramatically, whether or not the State negotiates in all situations would remain to be seen but a lot more people and groups would try their chances. On the other hand the troops shouldn't be in there in the first place but to withdraw them now would be seen as an act of cowardice, especially because of this offer of a truce, it'd be seen as the US storming in their, letting hell break loose and then kicking the debris out the way as they leave and then the whole point of the war would be null and void.

Sam