or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › what the ****?!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

what the ****?!!

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
<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
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.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #2 of 55
Wow, Bush is more of an idiot than I thought. This is bad, very bad.
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
post #3 of 55
holy shit is right!
First bush quietly ends the Nuclear Arms treaty then this!!
post #4 of 55
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.
post #5 of 55
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)
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #6 of 55
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>
post #7 of 55
Let's just drop the damn bomb and get it over with! <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
post #8 of 55
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..............................
post #9 of 55
[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.
post #10 of 55
that is sooo... ****ed up.
I'm not living... I'm just killing time.
Reply
I'm not living... I'm just killing time.
Reply
post #11 of 55
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>
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #12 of 55
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?
post #13 of 55
Nah, why have security and strategy, when we can have propaganda and hysterics?
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #14 of 55
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!

------------------------------------

© FERRO 2001-2002
post #15 of 55
Maybe it's all a ploy to bring these governments down? You people are doing a great job helping with the plan
post #16 of 55
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]" />
"If it weren't for my horse...I wouldn't have spent that year in college."

"If curling is an olympic sport, then oral sex is adultery. If anything, oral sex should be an olympic sport...cause it's...
Reply
"If it weren't for my horse...I wouldn't have spent that year in college."

"If curling is an olympic sport, then oral sex is adultery. If anything, oral sex should be an olympic sport...cause it's...
Reply
post #17 of 55
[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?
post #18 of 55
[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.
post #19 of 55
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>
What are you up to, Norm?

My ideal weight if I were 11 feet tall.
Reply
What are you up to, Norm?

My ideal weight if I were 11 feet tall.
Reply
post #20 of 55
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.
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
post #21 of 55
[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]" />
"If it weren't for my horse...I wouldn't have spent that year in college."

"If curling is an olympic sport, then oral sex is adultery. If anything, oral sex should be an olympic sport...cause it's...
Reply
"If it weren't for my horse...I wouldn't have spent that year in college."

"If curling is an olympic sport, then oral sex is adultery. If anything, oral sex should be an olympic sport...cause it's...
Reply
post #22 of 55
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...

No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
post #23 of 55
[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.
"If it weren't for my horse...I wouldn't have spent that year in college."

"If curling is an olympic sport, then oral sex is adultery. If anything, oral sex should be an olympic sport...cause it's...
Reply
"If it weren't for my horse...I wouldn't have spent that year in college."

"If curling is an olympic sport, then oral sex is adultery. If anything, oral sex should be an olympic sport...cause it's...
Reply
post #24 of 55
Thread Starter 
[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.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #25 of 55
Thread Starter 
[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.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #26 of 55
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>
post #27 of 55
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>
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
post #28 of 55
Scott, get real man.. You can't win a discussion about this either..
Merdeka!
Reply
Merdeka!
Reply
post #29 of 55
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.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #30 of 55
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>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 55
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.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #32 of 55
[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]
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #33 of 55
Hey guys not to worry. I just bought a huge brown paper bag on ebay for you all to breath into collectively.
post #34 of 55
[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?
post #35 of 55
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
post #36 of 55
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.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #37 of 55
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>
post #38 of 55
<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.
post #39 of 55
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...
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #40 of 55
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › what the ****?!!