WILL RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS BECOME "INVINCIBLE?"

(Forwarded to RiteOn by Guest Editor G.G. of Tennessee)
*********************************
Today, Iran builds nuclear weapons systems, N. Korea already has a nuclear weapon, and fear that Saddam Hussein had WMD entrapped the U.S. into a long and very expensive war. Meanwhile, the current media and politicians continue to desire peace at almost any price and threaten "isolation" (to oil rich countries like Iran), as a sanction for pursuing atomic (energy) weapons systems.

The U.S. waits to see when and if the belligerent country actually obtains a nuclear weapon and delivery system before contemplating military action to destroy the belligerent's nuclear capability, and allows the belligerents to form weapons supply cartels to further their nuclear missile projects.

If the enemy even agrees to talk to us we consider it a diplomatic victory. G.W. Bush implied after 9/11 any country harboring terrorists would face military reprisal from the U.S, yet Iran supplies terrorists regularly and blatantly, as well as Syria. The standard of proof that a country supports terrorist organizations is "beyond any doubt", and any military reprisal short of that is shortly (and loudly) declared war mongering by representatives of our own Republic. (That is after the heat is off.)

I suppose this is modern diplomacy, but where will it lead us?

Once a nation obtains any kind of nuclear capability, even without a delivery system capable of reaching the U.S., it has made itself for all practical purposes "invasion proof" from foreign forces. We could never invade the country like we did Iraq to effect a change of government because the enemy regime could attack our forces in their homeland with nuclear weapons with a very conventional delivery system or short-range delivery vehicle. It must be taken as a given, that a scorched earth policy on its own inhabitants is within the war policies of radical Islamic regimes. So they are willing to sacrifice their own people and military to nuclear fallout from their own weapons as well as any the U.S. would use. Therefore knowing our policy of not sacrificing American lives under such conditions, they will not be invaded, and will pursue their plans uninterrupted, and further can form economic and political cartels among themselves and spread nuclear weapons further. The only remaining alternative to war with invasion, is massive nuclear pre-emptive strikes to eliminate the threats described above, (although other weaponry may be available, but whatever it is, it would destroy much of the infrastructure of the belligerent country.)

The bottom line is the longer we wait, the more likely it is that a nuclear weapon will be used by the U.S. to eliminate the foreign threat. It didn't have to be that way until the generation of peaceniks infatuated with warm and fuzzy foreign policies decided to compromise U.S. military capability by micro-managing generals in the field and restraining their ability to carry on wars. As a result we have lost our military credibility. Not that we don't have it, but that we are too wimpy to use it.