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....
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.
<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.
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.
[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.
[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.
<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.
[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?
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 < 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.
<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>
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!
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?
[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.
Comments
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>
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>
<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.
<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.
<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.
<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.
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.
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?
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 < 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>
<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]" />
"didn't hear about it because the criminal liberal media loved Clinton and hates Bush"
You guys really are the best
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!
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?
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.
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>