what the ****?!!

[Wrong Robot]

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20020309/ts_nm/bush_nuclear_dc_2" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20020309/ts_nm/bush_nuclear_dc_2</a>

okay that is ****ed up...nothing, _NOTHING_ justifies the use of nuclear weaponry. what the hell is this idiot thinking? does he WANT to start another world war? it sure as hell might raise his ratings :mad:
even if this doesn't turn into something big, its still going to piss the **** out of the 7 named countries, and what good does that get anyone?
how could anyone even consider incinerating hundreds of thousands of people? that is by far worse than the sept 11th attack. god this is frustrating, bush needs to get his morals checked, and maybe a full frontal lobotomy while he's at it.

[Falcon]

Wow, Bush is more of an idiot than I thought. This is bad, very bad.

[thentro]

holy shit is right!
First bush quietly ends the Nuclear Arms treaty then this!!

[applenut]

All I can say is that since september 11th and with all the rcent happenings in the war and israel, time's latest article on the potential nuclear threat, and bush's actions I'm scared as hell living in NYC.

[agent302]

Nuclear war, unfortunately, is one of those few things that, even when you "win," you lose horrificly. It's appalling to realize that stated US nuclear policy is one of First Use, meaning we don't need to be provoked into attack. And you can't nuke just seven countries like the article says. Inevitably, radiation and fallout will affect unintended targets. All in all, nuclear weapons are the greatest evil in world (to use a word our President is so fond of)

[MarcUK]

Id be more scared of being killed by a Pc thrown out of a highrise window, because that is more likely than being killed by terrorist attack.

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: MarcUK ]</p>

[ThinkingDifferent]

Let's just drop the damn bomb and get it over with! <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[steve666]

What the hell is Russia doing on the list? I can see reasons for the others if Bush's intention is to scare the bajeezus out of them to prevent a war from breaking out or make sure those countries know if they support terrorists we will wipe them out. Russia should not be on that list, its ludicrous and dangerous..............................

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by thentro:
<strong>holy shit is right!
First bush quietly ends the Nuclear Arms treaty then this!!</strong><hr></blockquote>


He didn't end a Nuclear arms treaty.

[RyanTheGreat]

that is sooo... ****ed up.

[Matsu]

I'd hardly pin the blame for this on Bush, and I ain't a fan of Dubya. But come on, you really think similar directives haven't already been in the works in any of the countries listed? It certainly is fvcked-up, but I'd worry a little harder about how easily this became public knowledge. You should be more worried that the words 'classified and 'secret' apparently have little menaing to at least some of the people charged with the protection of your country.

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>

[Scott_H]

I guess the people here don't realize that the military plans for everything no matter how remote. I don't know what kind of situation would get us into a nuke war with one of these countries but don't you all think we should have all the information if it came to that? If you're going to have nukes you need to know how when why and aftermath of using them BEFORE you may want to use them. Duh?

[Matsu]

Nah, why have security and strategy, when we can have propaganda and hysterics? :rolleyes:

[FERRO]

Here is a link from CNN on the same story...

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/09/bush.nuclear.reut/index.html" target="_blank">CNN Story...</a>

He's going to send us "to hell in a handbasket" while he sits "safe and sound" underground in a high priced sub-terrainian hotel...

I hate that guy... I didnt vote for the bastard...

The whole goverment at large stinks to high heaven lately with enron, Big Oil and energy conspiracies not to mention the "escorting the bin laden family out of the country", etc...

I guess we can all still hope, while we put our heads between our legs when the sirens go off and kiss are butts goodbye...

Because I believe If One nuke goes off... THEY ALL GO OFF!

------------------------------------
http://homepage.mac.com/oxygon1/.Public/sigpicsmall36.jpeg
© FERRO 2001-2002

[Scott_H]

Maybe it's all a ploy to bring these governments down? You people are doing a great job helping with the plan ;)

[_ alliance _]

this is one of those few times when living in the middle of nowhere has its advantages... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by FERRO:
<strong>...not to mention the "escorting the bin laden family out of the country",...

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why is that a bad thing. Should we find them guilty for things Osama did? Should we "detain" them while the Eurotrash howls? I don't get it?

[BRussell]

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>I guess the people here don't realize that the military plans for everything no matter how remote.</strong><hr></blockquote>The difference is that we've always had a policy that we would not use nuclear weapons in non-nuclear confrontations.

Nukes were always a deterrent against the Soviets. Now, we're talking about using them in conventional war situations, like attacking underground bunkers. This is a shift in policy. [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>He didn't end a Nuclear arms treaty.</strong><hr></blockquote>Stop it. Yes he did. ABM is a nuclear arms treaty - even though it didn't limit nuclear arms themselves its entire purpose was to limit nuclear first strike capabilities.

BTW, does anyone else wonder why we know about this? I bet it was leaked by the Bush admin. as a threat to the axle of Elvis, er, axis of evil.

[jeffyboy]

I like the idea that terrorists don't think we'll only use nukes as a last resort.

Jeff

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: jeffyboy ]</p>

[stimuli]

Times like this, I thank god I'm not American.

There's a fantastic quote, by some guy at Harvard or something, that goes:

"You think education is expensive? Try ignorance."

I'd hate to have a trigger happy, rich, elite, ex-coke snorting, recovered-alcoholic idiot running my country.

[_ alliance _]

[quote]Originally posted by stimuli:
<strong>Times like this, I thank god I'm not American.

There's a fantastic quote, by some guy at Harvard or something, that goes:

"You think education is expensive? Try ignorance."

I'd hate to have a trigger happy, rich, elite, ex-coke snorting, recovered-alcoholic idiot running my country.</strong><hr></blockquote>


if we blow everyone up, canada will be effected, dont u worry. we'll make sure to save some of our fallout fer u. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[stimuli]

Hey, it's -19 degress C right now. The immediate fallout would be kinda nice.

Though the nuclear winter following that will put me right back at square one...

;)

[_ alliance _]

[quote]Originally posted by stimuli:
<strong>Hey, it's -19 degress C right now. The immediate fallout would be kinda nice.

Though the nuclear winter following that will put me right back at square one...

;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

not a problem. just wear a 2 foot thick suit of lead.

[Wrong Robot]

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>I guess the people here don't realize that the military plans for everything no matter how remote. I don't know what kind of situation would get us into a nuke war with one of these countries but don't you all think we should have all the information if it came to that? If you're going to have nukes you need to know how when why and aftermath of using them BEFORE you may want to use them. Duh?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I suspected you'd try and back bush on this one, but I'm sorry, but what you said means nothing, because when it comes down to it, nuclear war is more important than all the countries on the world, because if a nuclear war broke out, there would be no more countries, the world as we know it would be ****ed for a long long while. bush doesn't know what he's doing, its ****ing obvious, he's going around pissing off as many people as possible, because he can, remember this is the united states of america, no one ****s with us...and lives....unfortunatly no matter how you slice it a nuclear war is wrong, and if any nukes are dropped I sure as hell hope whoever is hit realizes the scale we're messing with here.
ridiculous, I can't believe that this could happen, its sooooo ****ing stupid.

[Wrong Robot]

[quote]Originally posted by stimuli:
<strong>Times like this, I thank god I'm not American.

There's a fantastic quote, by some guy at Harvard or something, that goes:

"You think education is expensive? Try ignorance."

I'd hate to have a trigger happy, rich, elite, ex-coke snorting, recovered-alcoholic idiot running my country.</strong><hr></blockquote>

the thing about the coke shit, is that coke permantently messes with your brain, and bush did more than reasonable limits(like none)
too many people overlook that bush did coke, they probably think like "clinton did pot, hell bush did cocaine! wooohooo! vote for him!"

but you know what, even if it was ralph nader proposing this contigency nuclear thing, I would still be equally pissed.

[Macintoshhh]

Does anybody notice that CONGRESS always seems to leak confidential info? The Democrats are really out to fry Bush...for anything.

Enron? Bush did it.

Nukes? Oh yeah, BUSH too.

Dick Chenny? Oops that was Bushes fault. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>

[stimuli]

You know what would be scary? If no one had the moral fortitude to leak this info. The American people have a need to know that their president is a goddam psychopath with the mental capacity of a five year old.

[edited]

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>

[sapi]

Scott, get real man.. You can't win a discussion about this either..

[Matsu]

Hysterics,

I bet hundreds of reports get written during every presidential term that consider this and worse. It won't happen, and I guarantee you that every other country is doing the same. Maybe Bush is wrong, but that isn't the point.

I'm sure the whistle blowers leaked this over a sense of right/concern for ethics and safety, but it should still make people think about who knows what and how information is secured and shared within a government.

Part of the safety of the cold war had to do with each of the major players being plugged in (quite deeply) into the activities and plans of the other. Nobody could move cause they already knew the response.

Not so sure about this new nuclear direction, though. I have to think about it.

[SDW2001]

Some of you, with the exception of Scott H, are incredibly misinformed and naive. We have had these plans for years, and they have been given to congress for years. You didn't hear about it because the criminal liberal media loved Clinton and hates Bush, though less since 9/11.

We have to be prepared for any worst case scenario that arises. This includes a missle defense system. This includes being prepared to use battlefield nukes if required. And that is what we are talking about here...not ICBM's.

As far as calling Bush a mass murdering former coke using war monger, (oh yeah, and someone "with he mental capacity of a five year old") I think that is WAY over the line. Bush wants peace, but thinks that the way to get it is "peace through strenghth". I agree.
And Bush isn't dumb. In fact, he is obviously a lot smarter than Clinton or Gore.

The world is not a nice place. It isn't getting more peaceful. We must have a deterrent ready, so that nations will think twice about attacking us. Don't you think China has stuff pointed at us? Are you kidding?

Some of you better wake up and realize that there are nations out there, like China, that are just waiting for us to become weak so they can rise to dominance once again. And there are others that would not think twice about launching an ICBM at us, such as North Korea.

If you are truly afraid of nuclear war, then you better turn around and look at what Clinton did. He allowed China to sell nuke technology depsite international laws preventing it. He allowed our nuke secrets to be stolen. his foreign policy, though popular with Europe, was a disater in general.

Don't you get it? We MUST have this deterrent and be prepared, as Scott H says, for any possible scenario. There are nations out there that hate us and would do anything to destroy us.

And don't call the President of the United States a "bastard" again. Even if you don't respect him, you better respect the office itself a bit more than that. I was pretty close to being a Clinton hater....based mostly on his polices and his behavior....but if he walked into the room right now I would stand up and say "Hello, Mr. President".

I really don't think you guys live in the same world I do. I know I live in the REAL one. I want peace, but am prepared to go to war (yes, me personally if I was needed). I know that the world is not getting more peaceful. I know we need a massive deterrent last resort.
I wish you knew the same things.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>

[Matsu]

Like I said -- first -- this is hardly a problem of Bush's own making. It's a problem sure, but what's the only alternative? The enemy has them and you don't.

It's unfair to blame Bush for this. But it should be something that makes you very uncomfortable.

[Belle]

[deliberately inflammatory post]

I don't know, we have a precedent here. Remember the last time some foreigners had the cheek to attack us on our own soil? We retaliated with nuclear weapons to show how big and clever we are.

[/deliberately inflammatory post]

[Scott_H]

Hey guys not to worry. I just bought a huge brown paper bag on ebay for you all to breath into collectively.

[BRussell]

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>It's unfair to blame Bush for this.</strong><hr></blockquote>Whether you agree or disagree with this, it is a Bush admin. policy. Who's responsible, if not Bush?

[Scott_H]

This reminds me of something I read in Colin Powell's book. I know everyone here is not as "ignorant" as I am so I'm sure you've read it. Anyway in the book Powell looked at the plan to use battle field nukes to repel a Soviet tank attack in Germany. After looking at all the logistics related to using battle field nukes which included evacuation of civilians, he decided that it was not the way to go. He would only know that if there was a plan to read and the only way you have a plan is to tell people to come up with a plan.

QED

[Matsu]

Bush has a duty to consider every possible situation, however unpallatable it may be. Let's not confuse 'policy' with what is more likely a 'hypothetical case study.' It is certainly fraught with dangers: from a psychological standpoint, this idea of battlefield nukes combined with such demonstrated concepts as 'group-think' and 'foot-in-the-door phenomena' automatically gives me a cold sweat. But once again, we MUST think of the alternative in light of the behavior of other countries. It is naive to think that China, the Russians (with a frighteningly disorganized assembly of former soviet states), and N.Korea are NOT making similar considerations. Considering the possiblity is the responsible thing to do. It is in fact, the one behavior likely to stay the trigger finger on both this nation and others.

But it is a frightening consideration, and an uncomfortable one nonetheless. I would like to see the exact wording of the entire report before making any more judgements.

[Scott_H]

As I learn more....


First off the headline at yahoo news is wrong. You're been lied to by the media but don't know it.

Second this is a review not a plan. It's a review not a policy paper. The US has not changed its policy at all.

Third this review is required by Congress. Bush is providing them with full information about possible US needs. So I guess that would make Daschle the nuke crazed coke freak, right?

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>

[alcimedes]

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> some people still haven't gotten over the election.

grow up, don't be idiots. good lord, i've never seen such rabid drival outside of linux supporters at /.

so there's a plan that exists. big friggin' deal. we probably have a plan on how to take over Canada, i don't think that means that we about to attack them any time soon. sheesh.

[Artman @_@]

No...of course this isn't news...the government has always had this contingency plan...example...

"I'd rather use the nuclear bomb," Nixon told Kissinger, his national security adviser, a few weeks before he ordered a major escalation of the Vietnam War.

"That, I think, would just be too much," Kissinger replied softly in his baritone voice, in a conversation uncovered among 500 hours of Nixon tapes released Thursday.

Nixon responded matter-of-factly. "The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?" he asked. Then he closed the subject by telling Kissinger: "I just want you to think big."

He also said "I don't give a damn" about civilians killed by U.S. bombing.

See, the scary part is who has the fingers on the shiny red buttons...

Yep, the world is going straight to hell...see ya in the next life...maybe there are 72 virgins on the other side... :(

[Outsider]

I don't know what the big effing deal is. You think these plans just pop out of know where? They take years to formulate. You're crazy if you think Clinton or Bush Sr didn't have similar contingency plans. If you think this is bad imagine if you were leaked China's plans. I don't know how forgiving some of you would be if you noticed YOUR city on a list of first strike.

[pfflam]

The unfortunate truth of the matter is is that it is a plan and in the military that is import: you must consider all possible options, they probably have lengthy consideration s of much worse scenarios.

What I find objectionable, though, is that it was obviously leaked in this timely manner on purpose by the Bush administration as part of the "we are cazier than you think" attitude as a way of dissuading any lip.

This kind of propagandizing is hurting Amerrican international relations and reinforcing the often knee-jerk anti-American hatred making it seem more and more reasonable and acceptable


now this:

as for SDW# and his stupid statement like the following, tell us more about your reactionary mind set then anything that you have to say:
[quote] the criminal liberal media <hr></blockquote>

must we always wallow in th muck of such stupid discussion?!?! THat you think the media is "liberal" while it is owned by mega-conglomerates such as Disney et al, is absurd: where are the long exposes on labor politics?!?!? or the Environment?!?!? or Global Capitalism?!?!?! --nuff said!!

Also, if you lump this stupid characturization under Clinton's foriegn policy:
[quote] He allowed our nuke secrets to be stolen. <hr></blockquote>
that says enough about your reading of his politics to invalidate your opinion in my mind.

Other than that, I will agree that we need some deterence, and we should be aware of all possible scenerios. .
. its the proper way to handle a military: to be circumspect, te fact that it changes the role from passive (retaliatory) to active (responce to conventional) and that it was oppurtunely "leaked", in conjunction with this hyperbolic monomaniacal rhetoric tells me that we may be inching towards a truly dangerous political attitude: after all that's how it happened in other historical situations: people accept a little more each day... then all of a sudden it's too late

--but that's just the worst possible scenario on MY contingency plans

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>

[AirSluf]

[Samantha Joanne Ollendale]

The buck obviously stops with Bush, since he is the "commander-in-chief", albeit a planet-threatening sick joke. That is one of the scarier parts in an ongoing house of horrors that has emerged in the last year or so. Just going on the psychology of the character who is residing in the White House. He is an ivory tower elitist, who is so out of touch with ordinary Americans that he might as well be from Mars. He has never had to do a damn stroke of work using his own initiative, as 99.9% of the rest of us have to, relying entirely on hand-outs from his family's coffers. Secondly he has a string of at least three convictions including drunken driving and brawling. (in California, that could put you in jail for life). It is obvious that he has an insecure and addictive personality; don't forget he has been alcoholic and narcotics abuser (cocaine). There is the issue about lying about his health re. during his years in the military. The list is endless.....

There are so many things about this man, his family, his connections and associates, his extremist and destructive ideology, and his not being the world's brightest spark that makes the thought of his being the most powerful figure in the free world far, far scarier than the old paranoid notion that "the Russians are coming".

The US has enough nuclear weaponry to annihilate life on earth many times over, and render the planet uninhabitable for perhaps thousands of years to come. It is the scariest thing that all we have between life as we know it and mass incineration is this silver-spoon cretin at the helm taking "advice" from a posse including corporate criminals, posturing strutting military machismoids, religious fundamentalists, good ol' boys and racist rednecks, parties who fund terrorists, etc etc etc Many of these fossils are in their last years on this planet and don't give a damn if their twisted hare-brained ego-massaging paranoid delusions foul things up permanently for all future generations.

We are as country born of violence, in love with violence and addicted to violence. Those "running" (or should I say "fvcking up") this country are of that traditional mold. Not to forget we are the only country to have used nukes to bomb another nation, even after a truce with Japan was in the works. This current motley crew probably wouldnt hesitate to repeat the scenario, then "justify" it by propaganda, lies and media complacency in the name of some misguided perception of "national security" the same way that we "justified" the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to "save American lives".

The time has advanced to 11-59-30, counting down, frame by frame, death by....

[spaceman_spiff]

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
The difference is that we've always had a policy that we would not use nuclear weapons in non-nuclear confrontations. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Not true.

[quote]<strong>Nukes were always a deterrent against the Soviets. Now, we're talking about using them in conventional war situations, like attacking underground bunkers. This is a shift in policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Throughout the Cold War we refused to foreswear the first use of nukes. If the Soviets mounted a conventional invasion of Western Europe, we were prepared to retaliate with nukes. The alternative was to ramp up our conventional forces far beyond the level they were at. We simply had nowhere near the number of troops, tanks, etc. that the Warsaw Pact had then. Thus, our nukes didn't just deter the Soviets from using their nuclear weapons but also their conventional capability - in Europe at least.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>The unfortunate truth of the matter is is that it is a plan...</strong><hr></blockquote>

NO it is not a plan. It is not a plan. There is no planning. This is not a plan. It's a report to congress to help plan funding of what might be future needs. THis is not a plan of action or a war plan. It is not a plan. There is no planning here.

Calm down. I'll have that paper bag by the end of the week.

[spaceman_spiff]

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
What I find objectionable, though, is that it was obviously leaked in this timely manner on purpose by the Bush administration as part of the "we are cazier than you think" attitude as a way of dissuading any lip.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Obviously? How so? And as for the "crazier than you think attitude" well, I suppose crazy is in the eyes of the beholder. It helps to clarify the stakes when someone who might be prepared to use a nuke knows the price he'll pay. I doubt there are even a handful of people in the admin who care about "dissuading any lip." They are infinitely more concerned with detering an adversary from using a nuke or a biological weapon against us.

[Scott_H]

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>The buck obviously stops with Bush, since he is the "commander-in-chief", albeit a planet-threatening sick joke. That is one of the scarier parts in an ongoing house of horrors that has emerged in the last year or so. Just going on the psychology of the character who is residing in the White House. He is an ivory tower elitist, who is so out of touch with ordinary Americans that he might as well be from Mars. He has never had to do a damn stroke of work using his own initiative, as 99.9% of the rest of us have to, relying entirely on hand-outs from his family's coffers. Secondly he has a string of at least three convictions including drunken driving and brawling. (in California, that could put you in jail for life). It is obvious that he has an insecure and addictive personality; don't forget he has been alcoholic and narcotics abuser (cocaine). There is the issue about lying about his health re. during his years in the military. The list is endless.....

There are so many things about this man, his family, his connections and associates, his extremist and destructive ideology, and his not being the world's brightest spark that makes the thought of his being the most powerful figure in the free world far, far scarier than the old paranoid notion that "the Russians are coming".

The US has enough nuclear weaponry to annihilate life on earth many times over, and render the planet uninhabitable for perhaps thousands of years to come. It is the scariest thing that all we have between life as we know it and mass incineration is this silver-spoon cretin at the helm taking "advice" from a posse including corporate criminals, posturing strutting military machismoids, religious fundamentalists, good ol' boys and racist rednecks, parties who fund terrorists, etc etc etc Many of these fossils are in their last years on this planet and don't give a damn if their twisted hare-brained ego-massaging paranoid delusions foul things up permanently for all future generations.

We are as country born of violence, in love with violence and addicted to violence. Those "running" (or should I say "fvcking up") this country are of that traditional mold. Not to forget we are the only country to have used nukes to bomb another nation, even after a truce with Japan was in the works. This current motley crew probably wouldnt hesitate to repeat the scenario, then "justify" it by propaganda, lies and media complacency in the name of some misguided perception of "national security" the same way that we "justified" the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to "save American lives".

The time has advanced to 11-59-30, counting down, frame by frame, death by....</strong><hr></blockquote>


This actually made me laugh. Thanks for the chuckle.

[spaceman_spiff]

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

<strong>... Just going on the psychology of the character who is residing in the White House. He is an ivory tower elitist...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, that's a first. Never heard Bush referred to that way before.

[spaceman_spiff]

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

He didn't end a Nuclear arms treaty.

<strong>Stop it. Yes he did. ABM is a nuclear arms treaty - even though it didn't limit nuclear arms themselves its entire purpose was to limit nuclear first strike capabilities.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, if you're not going to field this one, Scott, I will. The ABM treaty in no way limited first strike capabilities. It did just the opposite. No missile defense meant a nuclear strike would be more crippling - not less. Support for the ABM treaty was part of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine. And like you said, the ABM treaty didn't limit nuclear arms at all.

[Samantha Joanne Ollendale]

[quote]This actually made me laugh. Thanks for the chuckle. <hr></blockquote>

Good heavens, a smile from an authoritarian to a populist! Whatever is next? Anything is possible! Peace in our time? Or did I detect a little hint of sarcasm?
:)

[pfflam]

SJO, don't flatter yourself that you are a populist. . . . my bet is is that you are a college student . . and college in America is a privelege, a privellege of the monied(for the most part)

Unfortunately your post is simplistic:

as for this: [quote]Secondly he has a string of at least three convictions including drunken driving and brawling. (in California, that could put you in jail for life). It is obvious that he has an insecure and addictive personality; don't forget he has been alcoholic and narcotics abuser (cocaine). <hr></blockquote>

None of this bothers me . . . though there is much that bothers me about the man and the three strikes law also very much bothers me.

your posts are fodder for the conservatives, it would be best if you tried a more reasoned approach . . . otherwise you sound like a reactionary nitwit and are easily dismissed

... although the silver spoon disconnect with the rest of us rings true for sure.


Scott &lt; yes, perhaps 'plan' was not the right word . .either way you might be surprised to make note that when you are not assuming that I am attacking your position and therefore not reading my posts that I was agreeing with much of what has been said in this case.

As for whether it was leaked intentionely or not, I would say yes, because it fits very well with the rhetorical stance that Bush has taken lately,
and,
it has the added benefit of appearing to be 'secret' and 'classified' and, therefor, potentially false and can then be either denied to exist or merely left as a possibility "um we have no comment . . .but maybe we mean it!!"
This way, (their thinking goes, I'm sure) they don't need to seem like the moral monsters that many might say they would be otherwise.

The possibility, even unconfirmed, would admittedly make any who hate us stop and rethink their methods.

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>

[BRussell]

[pokes head in, sees my posts getting repeatedly slapped around by roger ramjet, and decides to just leave with a pouty look on my face]

[spaceman_spiff]

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>[pokes head in, sees my posts getting repeatedly slapped around by roger ramjet, and decides to just leave with a pouty look on my face]</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[The Toolboi]

"You're been lied to by the media but don't know it"
"didn't hear about it because the criminal liberal media loved Clinton and hates Bush"

You guys really are the best :D

I like the idea that terrorists don't think we'll only use nukes as a last resort.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

The problem is not that the "terrorists" know this. Its that when you have nuclear targets all over the world, and you have a government letting people know that they are planning ot rethink the "last resort" measures...

I'd hate to have a trigger happy, rich, elite, ex-coke snorting, recovered-alcoholic idiot running my country.
You know, if you took out idiot that would fit Treudeau (sp?) almost perfectly, and he was THE MAN! :D
Not to defend Bush, but you know ;)
Actually I dont think that the creatin is much better. Mind you in comparison to people like Malrouny...

Does anybody notice that CONGRESS always seems to leak confidential info? The Democrats are really out to fry Bush...for anything.
Enron? Bush did it.
Nukes? Oh yeah, BUSH too.
Dick Chenny? Oops that was Bushes fault.

You point? You DO know that as head of the government he is the person on whos shoulders the blame falls. Granted I dont really think that "he" persay has done anything other than give a few speeches so far, but...

As far as calling Bush a mass murdering former coke using war monger
Uhhhh... ok, lets take out the mass murdderer part (ignoring "collateral dammage" and all the other stuff in the assumption that the s11 actions were the best options available), how would that be wrong?

[Samantha Joanne Ollendale]

[quote]SJO, don't flatter yourself that you are a populist. . . . my bet is is that you are a college student . . and college in America is a privelege, a privellege of the monied(for the most part)<hr></blockquote>

Not (necessarily) so. There's millions of families up to the neck in credit card debt, putting their kids thru college, working their derrieres off to keep ahead of the relentless bills. I have friends going thru college who are working one sometimes *two* part time jobs simultaneously; each day it's juggling enough hours to work, go to classes, do homework, eat and and sleep. It is invariably the latter two that are on the south end of the pecking order.

But to be fair (to your blanket statement), there are plenty of kids at college here, many of them Orange County fratboy brats who spend most of their time getting drunk, swanning about in the usual $40,000 SUV gift from Daddy and making a pain in the ass of themselves.


[quote]Unfortunately your post is simplistic:<hr></blockquote>

Fair enough. The subject matter is simple. I don't take back a single word of it; you have to be living on the Moon not to be aware of what this bunch of wreckers are up to.

[quote]as for this:

Secondly he has a string of at least three convictions including drunken driving and brawling. (in California, that could put you in jail for life). It is obvious that he has an insecure and addictive personality; don't forget he has been alcoholic and narcotics abuser (cocaine). None of this bothers me<hr></blockquote>

Damn! This bothers me intensely. This man has the final word of authority in a potential nuclear situation and he has already proved himself to be an unstable character by his past conduct.

[quote]. . . though there is much that bothers me about the man and the three strikes law also very much bothers me. your posts are fodder for the conservatives, it would be best if you tried a more reasoned approach . . . otherwise you sound like a reactionary nitwit and are easily dismissed<hr></blockquote>

Strange. I thought my post was relatively tame. What is inaccurate about it? Rush Limbaugh and a hundred and one boneheads on syndicated radio shows nationwide spout extremist or bigoted/hatemongery illustrated with statistical gibberish and get paid millions by the "liberal media"(?) for the honor.

[quote]... although the silver spoon disconnect with the rest of us rings true for sure.<hr></blockquote>

Good! That one is hard to miss; it sticks out like a burly coalminer attending a ballet class. You are so charitable. I bask in the warm glow of acknowledgement.

:rolleyes:

[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>