Obama, Tancredo, and the Insanity of Destruction

I have been following the "flap" over comments Barack Obama has made regarding the use (or non-use) of nuclear weapons in the search for bin Laden. You can google it yourself, if you care.

Obama said, and I paraphrase, that he would not authorize use of nuclear weapons in the hunt for bin Laden, and he was roundly criticized for that position. Say what? Just how nuts do you have to be to believe that any use of nuclear weapons anywhere is sound policy? Personally, I don't want a president who would risk the kinds of retaliation that would result--let alone sanction the kinds of indiscriminate destruction that these weapons would bring. I am not soft in the head--thinking that you can solve problems by blowing up other parts of the planet is just insane. Thinking that only we have that power is truly naive, because we aren't the only ones with bombs.

Then we have congresscritter Tom Tancredo (R-etarded), who is proposing the US bomb Muslim holy places as a means of punishing our enemies for an attack on US soil. What good could possibly come of angering the remaining 90%+ of Muslims who aren't already bent on our destruction? We should defend those places, instead. Here's a quote: "If it's up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites..." Good thing it isn't up to him, I guess.

Mr. Learsy properly labels Rep. Tancredo's position as "grandiloquent dementia", to which I would add: of the highest order. We really cannot risk a totally insane path of mutual destruction. Not this time. Our enemies are not a government. They aren't rational; it's a holy war for them. Let me make this clear: they are fully prepared to die for their beliefs. I truly believe we (the US) are not ready to make that kind of sacrifice, because we should be aware that such irrational actions could lead to the destruction of the planet for everyone. Violence only begets more violence; bombs only beget bombs.