G-Dubya charging the nukes

[Guest Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye]

Right on! G-Dubya has got to be the smartest pres. ever. I mean. right after he's elected he flies America into war, jacking his approval rating through the roof(or glass ceiling if you will), and now that the initial shock is wearing off, he seems to be looking to start another cold war(or maybe a nuke war, he does seem to be a bit of a violent type). Arming the nukes in order to keep Russia, china, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria at bay. He's smart, keep everyone under his thumb by keeping them scared of war, then becoming a sort of paladin. Fucking Genius!! Not bad for a guy who can eat snack food properly, and who tries to rip his daughters dresses off during official functions.

[Guest gthureson]

I'm not a huge Dubbya fan, but I think that the press is making too much out of the 'nuclear response' release.

 

If you are a country that has nuclear weapons, you should have a well-thought policy for where, when and how you will use them.   Thats only common sense.   It doesn't mean you will use them, have the urge to use them, or already have a target and a time picked out.  It just means that you and your staff have sat down, thought out and fully considered the tools at your disposal.

 

I'd much rather a country have a fully considered nuclear weapon policy than have an India and Pakistan situation, where the use of nuclear weapons is based more on how pissed off you are at the other side.

 

Most of the plans were probably in place a long time ago, with only a few updates to take into consideration a shifting geopolitical situation.   And battlefield nukes are *not* a new idea.   The US and the Soviets/Russians have had low-yield, tactical battlefield nukes for fifteen years.   You can drop these things on armoured columns, wipe them out, and pass an infantry division through the area without any special protection within 14 days.    

 

I'm not sure who leaked this to the press, but more than likely it was somebody within the DoD that figured any discussion about the wheres and how of using nukes automatically means they want to use them, and panicked and leaked it.

 

That being said, I don't think nukes will ever be justified for some of the countries on that list, like Syria, Libya and Iran.   If you can't beat those jokers in a conventional war, pack up your toys and go home, because you don't deserve a hegemony.

 

Iraq, well, they have other toys below a nuclear device to use before it ever gets to that, and besides, you could always just let the Israelis launch their Jericho missles that the Americans try so hard to deny that the Zionists have.

 

But merely having a plan and a policy for using them isn't a cause for a shitstorm.   I'd be more worried if they were just sitting around without a policy for their use.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Let me guess Operation Anaconda is a big setup by Bush. You have every right to question and criticize the president but act like an adult please.Don't resort to tired personal insults.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Right on! G-Dubya has got to be the smartest pres. ever. I mean. right after he's elected he flies America into war>>

 

 

You mean BUSH flew planes into the WTC towers and the Pentagon?

 

Heck, how could he pull off all 3 crashes in the time frame?

 

He is the Superman!

 

 

<<jacking his approval rating through the roof(or glass ceiling if you will)>>

 

 

 

As opposed to a President who'd launch cruise missiles at targets when grand jury testimony against him was going t make news?

 

 

<<and now that the initial shock is wearing off, he seems to be looking to start another cold war(or maybe a nuke war, he does seem to be a bit of a violent type). Arming the nukes in order to keep Russia, china, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria at bay.>>

 

 

 

Lord knows nuclear warfare has been a key component of Bush's policy thus far.

 

 

<<He's smart, keep everyone under his thumb by keeping them scared of war, then becoming a sort of paladin. Fucking Genius!! Not bad for a guy who can eat snack food properly>>

 

 

Well, when you have no point to make, I guess all you have left is childish insults.

 

 

<<, and who tries to rip his daughters dresses off during official functions. >>

 

 

Yeah, he did that.

 

Of course he did.

 

And you wonder why so many view the left as a collection of loons.

                   -=Mike

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

"keep everyone under his thumb by keeping them scared of war"

 

And what's wrong with that exactly? If you can get away with it, more power to ya, I say.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

George W won't use any nukes. There will never be another nuke weapon used in combat, only because the shit hits the fan real quick with those.

 

George W is just changing the plans that were made by JFK and then Nixon, and then Reagan, then Clinton, now his version. Nukes have had a policy, just never used.

 

Personal attacks at GWB aren't needed. But never wrong. Because he is still GWB. Being on the left isn't bad. Just there are loons on both sides of the fence.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

"Being on the left isn't bad. Just there are loons on both sides of the fence."

 

Yep, we are all crazy....

[Guest goodhelmet]

"And you wonder why so many view the left as a collection of loons."

 

Just remember that the conservative-liberal model isn't a line, but a circle. The more you lean to one side, the more you begin to look like the other.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

"And you wonder why so many view the left as a collection of loons."

 

Just remember that the conservative-liberal model isn't a line, but a circle. The more you lean to one side, the more you begin to look like the other. >>>

 

 

ACTUALLY, if you go to the extremes, conservatism would tend more towards anarchy while liberalism would tend more towards totalitarianism.

 

NEITHER is a good option, but they are quite different.

                           -=Mike

[Guest Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye]

no for a lot of that post i didnt have much of a point...I figured I'd throw out a topic for discussion...and add my personal opinion of the man. I'm allowed. If you didnt dig my humor, cool, i could give a fuck.

 

I wish people would put their flag down just for a moment on the topics.

[Guest LooseCannon]

ACTUALLY, if you go to the extremes, conservatism would tend more towards anarchy while liberalism would tend more towards totalitarianism.

 

NEITHER is a good option, but they are quite different.

                           -=Mike

But that's also why its more of a circle than a line.  Anarchists are considered the extreme left, and totalitarianists are considered the extreme right.  And yet when you follow the liberal strain of thought far enough to the left, you end up with fascism; and you follow conservatism far enough to the right you end up with anarchy.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Ok so what exactly is the point of this thread? To bash Bush because he states the fact that America has it's nuclear option open? Now, I don't like Bush in the least, but what he's doing is just spewing a lot of hot air and good political soundbites. Oh, the US has nukes, you don't say? Did those nukes just disappear during the Regan, Bush, and Clinton administrations only to be magically brought back? The mere fact that the US possesses an upwards of 8000 nuclear weapons along with the systems necessary to deliver them (cruise missiles, ICBMs, bombers, etc.) tells you that they maintain the ability to use them. Or do you think they are just there for show? Bush doesn't have to say that the US can use its nukes, the very fact they exist and are capable of being activated at any time is more then enough of a telling sign. Basically, Bush gave one of his generic "I'm tough on terrorism" soundbites, and some people, for whatever reason, think that the US just switched to a first strike policy or something. Now, I believe in the policy of nuclear deterrence, but at the end of the day, if you have nukes, you have the capability to use them, and the media doesn't need to be reminded of this just because people forget.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Ok so what exactly is the point of this thread? To bash Bush because he states the fact that America has it's nuclear option open? Now, I don't like Bush in the least, but what he's doing is just spewing a lot of hot air and good political soundbites. Oh, the US has nukes, you don't say? Did those nukes just disappear during the Regan, Bush, and Clinton administrations only to be magically brought back? The mere fact that the US possesses an upwards of 8000 nuclear weapons along with the systems necessary to deliver them (cruise missiles, ICBMs, bombers, etc.) tells you that they maintain the ability to use them. Or do you think they are just there for show? Bush doesn't have to say that the US can use its nukes, the very fact they exist and are capable of being activated at any time is more then enough of a telling sign. Basically, Bush gave one of his generic "I'm tough on terrorism" soundbites, and some people, for whatever reason, think that the US just switched to a first strike policy or something. Now, I believe in the policy of nuclear deterrence, but at the end of the day, if you have nukes, you have the capability to use them, and the media doesn't need to be reminded of this just because people forget.

 

 

 

The Bush administration simply stated that they have a policy involving nuclear weaponry. That is VASTLY preferrable to them not having a policy, wouldn't you concur?

                -=Mike

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

That's exactly what I was saying, it was just a bunch of words and nothing more. Now, I don't think are something that should just be brushed off, but at the same time people have got to stop looking for inflammatory situations where there arn't any.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

I heard (from a column in the Collegian, so not exactly the world's most reliable source) that GWB, in addition to talking about keeping his nuclear options open, is also thinking about putting money into the development of tactical nuclear weapons designed to penetrate deep underground to take out chemical weapon facilities of other countries.  The point of these nukes would be that they aren't nearly as devastating as older, blow-up-the-world nukes, but that they'd be able to create a hot enough explosion to destroy chemical weapons without releasing chemicals into the air, as conventional bombs would.  That means that he's building them not just to display them and scare people, but actually to use them.

 

So, good thing or bad thing?  My opinion is that it's a noble enough intention, but probably a bad idea.  I just don't like the idea of using nuclear weapons in war for any reason, regardless of how tactically.  I'm worried that if we start using them, the whole deterrance, mutually assured destruction idea will be out the window, and other countries will suddenly start thinking that maybe it's okay to use their (much more powerful) nukes in wars after all.  Not worth the risk, methinks.

[Guest TJH]

If the 7 states listed believe they may be a target for nukes, so much the better. In fact, the document was probably deliberately leaked. Why?

To put the fear of God into these people. There is nothing wrong with sending out an occasional reminder to people to remind them who is boss, and not to get too cocky, in particular Saddam.

[Guest]

I HOPE YOU ARE THE FIRST PERSON DISSINTEGRATED IN A SCORCHING NEUCLEAR, CANCER-RIDDEN MUSHROOM CLOUD YOU DUMB ASS

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I HOPE YOU ARE THE FIRST PERSON DISSINTEGRATED IN A SCORCHING NEUCLEAR, CANCER-RIDDEN MUSHROOM CLOUD YOU DUMB ASS >>

 

 

Hmmm.

 

A remarkable inability to use the "Shift" key.

 

Rampant misspellings.

 

Horrible punctuation.

 

And you call OTHERS dumb?

 

Okay.

                 -=Mike