what the ****?!!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
<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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 54
    falconfalcon Posts: 458member
    Wow, Bush is more of an idiot than I thought. This is bad, very bad.
  • Reply 2 of 54
    thentrothentro Posts: 231member
    holy shit is right!

    First bush quietly ends the Nuclear Arms treaty then this!!
  • Reply 3 of 54
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    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.
  • Reply 4 of 54
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    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)
  • Reply 4 of 54
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    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>
  • Reply 4 of 54
    Let's just drop the damn bomb and get it over with! <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 7 of 54
    steve666steve666 Posts: 2,600member
    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..............................
  • Reply 8 of 54
    [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.
  • Reply 9 of 54
    that is sooo... ****ed up.
  • Reply 10 of 54
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    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>
  • Reply 11 of 54
    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?
  • Reply 12 of 54
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Nah, why have security and strategy, when we can have propaganda and hysterics?
  • Reply 13 of 54
    ferroferro Posts: 453member
    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
  • Reply 14 of 54
    Maybe it's all a ploy to bring these governments down? You people are doing a great job helping with the plan
  • Reply 15 of 54
    _ alliance __ alliance _ Posts: 2,070member
    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]" />
  • Reply 16 of 54
    [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?
  • Reply 17 of 54
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [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.
  • Reply 18 of 54
    jeffyboyjeffyboy Posts: 1,055member
    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>
  • Reply 19 of 54
    stimulistimuli Posts: 564member
    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.
  • Reply 20 of 54
    [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]" />
Sign In or Register to comment.