BUSH'S NUCLEAR HARD-ON WITH IRAN

[rastaman]

For those of you who believe nuking Iran can be done without consequences, then our country and the world is in for a "WORLD OF S**T"!!! When Seymour Hearst speaks its usually true. America sure could use the Intel from Valerie Plaime and "Brewster Jennings" (Goggle this). You know this is a f**ked Up deal and decision if you have high ranking military Generals who have threatened to resign, should the order to Tactically Nuke Iran comes to fruition.

For some of you folks who believe the U.S. can come out smelling like roses should we use TAC Nukes in Iran---you need to lay of the crack pipe. America will have the biggest "BULLS-EYE" on her like never before in our nations History. What happens when or should the rest of the world (Russia, China, and Europe) views the U.S. as a rogue nation and nuclear exchange becomes a reality?????Â*Â*No one will ever trust the for the next 50 – 100 years.

We are going reap the wrath of over 1.2 billion Muslims around the world. The chickens will come home to roost. We just won't know when--it could be 5 years, 10 years or longer. With the no-accountability and proliferation of suit case nukes it will be just be a matter of time before we are hit. Should this happen the perpetrators will probably come in thru or unguarded borders. I say this --Once you let the Nuclear Genie out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

However, the rich and powerful already have their sx-figured WMD shelters full of supplies to last until the fallout is over with. Everyday Americans who cannot afford the six-figure shelters will be screwed just like the Kitrina folks.

Talking about living in constant fear, how about Bush going on National TV stating he needs to take away more of our freedoms to protect us from nuclear PAYBACK!!!! Not to mention further monitoring our phone calls and emails.

Oh well, let's get ready for the Bush Propaganda BLITZ, lying to America once again about the need to NUKE Iran. Hell maybe I'm giving Bush to much integral respect-----he'll probably just interrupt or TV program to say--GUESS WHAT FOLKS I have ordered our planes to use Tactical Nukes on Iran's proposed Nuclear program.

Bush will lie to the world and America, how do we know this? Just watch Bush's body language and facial expressions. Bush is a horrible liar; however b/c he's a professional liar he doesn't give a Dam.

We only have the Supreme Court, the right wing religious American tali-ban, and the cult-like Bush voters to thank, for forcing this Meg-la Maniac onto the American people and the free world. Bush is truly a Monster should he go ahead with his plans to use TAC nukes on Iran. Anyone dare debate me on whether or not Bush is the Hitler of the 21st Century should he nuke Iran. The nuclear fall out and the contamination will cause the deaths of millions over the years not to mention poisoning water supplies and food supplies.

Well all you Republicans, it’s time to do some soul searching. Are you true Patriots!! The safety of the entire planet rest with you guys. Your country and the world needs you like never before. You guys need to put the STOPS on Bush and his Administration before it's too LATE!!!!!!!!

Moderation Edit: Moved from Democrats Forum to War on Terrorism Forum.

[Labrocca]

hehe..your posts are getting funnier and funnier.

I guess you forgot that we nuked Japan..what exactly was the backlash from that? Oh yeah..we won the war, rebuilt Japan, then made them into a powerful capitalistic based democracy from the ruins. They are also one of our biggest allies and trading partners.

Also I haven't heard anyone in the Bush camp talking too heavily about a nuke strike in Iran. We can do a ton of damage without a nuke so why use one? We have bombs that can cut the earth in 2 for hundreds of yards at a time...a nuke isn't required to take out the Iranian nuclear program.

It seems to me that Rice is out there trying her 100% best to gain international support to stop the Iranian nuclear program. So far she seems to be doing a good job and I believe diplomacy will be pushed very hard.

Funny you don't mention any of the bullcrap coming out of the President of Iran. Do you think we should just let Iran develop nukes? Do you think Iran's idealogy of extremist Islam is healthy for the region? Where is your overall view on the world?

It seems clear you think Bush is evil..if Gore was president would you really think anything would be different? Yer full of shit if you are that naive. War was inevitable the second they struck the towers. War is never pretty.

[rastaman]

Heh Heh, what goes around comes around.Â*Â*Only your ignorant AZZ is too dumb to realize that are country can be nuked also.Â*Â*You think the world will stand still and let america nuke another country and do nothing??Â*Â* We will have a BIG BULLS EYE on our country should Bush go ahead with his plans.

This is none of Bush's Business anyway.Â*Â*Isreal should be dealing with Iran and not the U.S.Â*Â*Besides Isreal already has Nukes.Â*Â*This btwn Isreal and Iran.Â*Â*Bush is just a war Mongering Fool --- just as long as his AZZ is not having to do any of the fighting.

Rice can try all she wants, the world no longer trust this Lying Administration.Â*Â*Especially after the Iraq debacle. You conservatives are stupid enough to think that Russia, China, and the entire Industrialize country will stand-by and let the CHIMP drop tactical nukes on Iran. You conservatives are a perfect example of why inbreeding is illegal. You guys are as dumb as dirt.

Iraq nor Iran struck the towers you moron. 13 of the 19 hijackers who struck the towers were from Saudia Arabia.Â*Â*Why didn't the villiage idiot in the W.H. attack and occupy Saudia Arabia.Â*Â*You conservatives cease to amaze me with your blind hatred, ignorance and alligeance to the Bush Dictatorship.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

When did democraticunderground.com start trying to evangelize the rest of the net?

You're nothing more than left wing extremeist with kook talking points trying to pass them off as real intelligence.

I didn't think creatures like you left the wildlife preserve where like minded kooks were herded and segregated from the real world.

Has your radio tag malfunctioned? Do we need to capture you, re-tag you and release you amongst your own kind?

It really is for your own good you know.

[rastaman]

Well Pittsburgh, you got the Stupid Picture of Brain Dead Reagan you so proudly display. You conservatives and your Dumb Azz presidents you have elected over the last 25 years, only prove just how stupid and demented Rethuglicans truely are.

Yourself and millions of ther inbred conservative republicans are the laughing stock of the entire world. Yet you think your country is the greatest just as long everything goes your way. What biggoted indiots you robotic conservatives truely are. What a FREAKIN waste of hummanity.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I'll tell you this once and once only.

If you continue to inject DU type insults like "rethuglicans", "republikkans" and continue with your statements of political opposition being inbred, biggoted and idiots you will be banned.

You want a level headed discourse you're welcome to it.Â*Â*If you want to play the insult card and nothing but the insult card in your debates we don't need your kind here.

You're welcome to display your staggering incivility in plenty of forums where your language is welcomed, embraced and condoned.Â*Â*Your tone is not welcome here.

Consider this your final warning.Â*Â*Next violation you will be banned for a minimum of 24 hours.

[rastaman]

And who will ban you for insulting liberals??????? We dont enjoy being called left wing extremist by you either.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Well, considering I'm staff here and admin the site I'm guessing.... no one.

You've already defined yourself as a left wing extremeist. I didn't do it for you.

You've already had threads tombstoned and you've chosen to pick personal fights with both the site owner and the other administrator.

I assure you, no liberal site owner would tolerate your behavior if the situation were reversed and it was a conservative poster calling Democrats homosexual loving, America hating, baby killing, illegal immigrant coddling, socialists.

[rastaman]

So what's you're point, you want to have a blank check to call names just b/c you are the moderater? Your name calling a lack of respect for the left/liberals is what got all this started in the first place.

[rastaman]

Well come on with it Pittsburgh----what is your response?

[rastaman]

Figures you have no response.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You've defined yourself as a left wing extremeist.Â*Â*I didn't do that for you.

CUT AND PASTE SINCE YOU CAN'T READ:You've already had threads tombstoned and you've chosen to pick personal fights with both the site owner and the other administrator.

I assure you, no liberal site owner would tolerate your behavior if the situation were reversed and it was a conservative poster calling Democrats homosexual loving, America hating, baby killing, illegal immigrant coddling, socialists.

[rastaman]

Pittsbugh you have defined yourself as a Right Wing Extremist, one only needs to look at your past postings thru out this forum.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You think I'm bothered by that? Do you think I'm insulted by that?

You don't know the meaning of right wing extremeist, that's your problem. You believe anyone that isn't towing Democratic talking points is a right wing extremeist.

You're blinded by hatred and that much is obvious.

There are liberals here I can talk with and have reasonable conversations with. Hell, we modded one of them. There's a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable.

You're having trouble seperating the two.

[Old Corps Gunny]

Good on you, PAD. When I registered with this forum it was with the belief it would be for intelligent, civil and rational discourse where opposing opinions could be presented without insults, name-calling, and knee-jerk responses. I certainly hate to see trolls and flamers coming in to try and take over one of the few sites I do enjoy visiting.

[Nathan Brazil]

So, is there anything inherently wrong with nuking Iran?

Done preemptively, it'll give the French diarrhea. So what?

Done reflexively, I mean, after an Iranian nuke has toasted a US city, it's a little too late.

IMO, if it became necessary, it's better to do it first.

Not that the second point is even worth discussing. The US simply won't nuke anyone pre-emptively. Done in response to an attack, and I'd fully expect that the country initiating the exchange would cease to exist as a geographical entity. "Iran" would come to mean "really really big hole".

(Yeah, it's pretty funny watching a post trade insults with the board's owner. Can't he support his own arguments with logic and facts?)

[AlonzoMourning23]

So, is there anything inherently wrong with nuking Iran?

The unnecessary deaths of scores of Iranian civilians may be problematic. And the confirmation of the idea that america does not care about civilian deaths may also hinder our ability to work with the rest of the world and stem the rise of terrorism.

[Nathan Brazil]

The unnecessary deaths of scores of Iranian civilians may be problematic. And the confirmation of the idea that america does not care about civilian deaths may also hinder our ability to work with the rest of the world and stem the rise of terrorism.


Nuke'em all and be done with it?Â*Â*Won't hurt the oil none, that's protected by thousands of feet of rock and dirt.Â*Â*And if we make sure the blast areas aren't affecting the wellheads and other facilities, the worst that will happen is a little fallout.

Myself, I sorta lost interest in preserving the civillian lives of countries that promote terrorism on September 11, 2001.

edit: Oh, and it wouldn't be "scores" of "innocent" lives, it would be scores of thousands, if not hundreds or millions.

[Labrocca]

What if we give them 48 hours evacuation notice? Then we blow up the whole damn city to smithereans.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Scores means a large amount, there's no high end to the term.

So you basically support genocide against Iranians?

America is obsessed with being the best, but I don't think we want to challenge the likes of hitler, stalin, pol pot etc. Though, apparently, you have a different opinion.

[bobbylien]

I don't really see anything wrong with having the option on the table but only if there is ABSOLUTELY no other choice. It doesn't matter how large the nuclear device is, the US launching a nuclear device on any middle eastern country would be a HUGE mistake. We should be able to dissolve this issue without any military action. I just hope we can keep nuclear weapons technology away from Iran. The fact that they WILL not accept the technology to produce nuclear power(which is why they claim they are researching nuclear technology in the first place) just proves that they are just trying to get ahold of nuclear weapons to blackmail the west. Stopping them should be our highest priority. Anyone focusing on stupid little issues like gay marriage needs to get real and realize that this is a defining event for the Bush administration. If they are able to resolve this without military action, they will always be remembered for it.

[Nathan Brazil]

Scores means a large amount, there's no high end to the term.

So you basically support genocide against Iranians?

America is obsessed with being the best, but I don't think we want to challenge the likes of hitler, stalin, pol pot etc. Though, apparently, you have a different opinion.


"Score" means "a set of twenty persons or objects". You may was well have said "dozens".

So much for the nitpicking.

No, I don't advocate genocide against the Iranians. That would imply I give a crap about them. I advocate elminating threats in a purely mechanical and unemotional fashion. If the Iranian nation decides to become a threat to the safety of my family, they should be made an example of. I'm easy. We don't have to kill them if they behave themselves, right?

[Nathan Brazil]

The fact that they WILL not accept the technology to produce nuclear power(which is why they claim they are researching nuclear technology in the first place) just proves that they are just trying to get ahold of nuclear weapons to blackmail the west.


Actually, I believe Iran is demonstrating it's manhood in front of all the other Islamic nations. If they can build a bomb and show the world they have it, in the face of vociferous Western opposition to it, they'll have booted their prestige to never before seen heights in their world.

The only response to their successful test of a nuke should be eradication of that regime by the week's end.

[bobbylien]

No, I don't advocate genocide against the Iranians. That would imply I give a crap about them. I advocate elminating threats in a purely mechanical and unemotional fashion. If the Iranian nation decides to become a threat to the safety of my family, they should be made an example of. I'm easy. We don't have to kill them if they behave themselves, right?

Wow, thats a radical view if I've never heard one. We can't just kill millions of people because their very unpopular regime decides to mess with us. Killing civilians would just make the situation in the muslim world worse.. can't you see that?

[rastaman]

Nathan Brazil Wrote:

No, I don't advocate genocide against the Iranians. That would imply I give a crap about them. I advocate elminating threats in a purely mechanical and unemotional fashion. If the Iranian nation decides to become a threat to the safety of my family, they should be made an example of. I'm easy. We don't have to kill them if they behave themselves, right?

Why Gee Nathan, what army/military do you propose to use to get Iran back under control to satisfy Imperialistic America and England? If Bush can't even defeat a nation 25 million Iraqi's how is the Boy Wonder in the W.H., going to defeat and subdue a nation of 70 million Iranians.

The U.S. military is already bogged down and stretched thin in Iraq. Do you want to bring back the draft!!! You know Chicken Hawk Republicans will not allow their sons and daughters to go and fight in Bush's insane genocidal wars of choice.

Comeon Nathan, come up with some suggestions here since you have a cavalier attitude towards war, death, and destruction. I will tell you one thing "Your Family and my Family" will be in even more danger should Bush tactically nuke Iran. Do you know their are a multitude of suit case nukes un-accounted for! If America nukes Iran----radical muslims around the world will try to set of suit case Nukes in America!!!!

Are you going to lie to your family members and say all is safe b/c an out of control Lame Duck President nuked another country?? Nathan you had better WAKE Up and smell the coffee Buddy.

[rastaman]

By the way, why is only Isreal the only country in the middle east allowed to have NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!!!!

If anyone started the nuclear clock ticking again you must look at Isreal first. Now suddenly when other countries want to arm themselves with nukes they are breaking international law.

The international community should have never allowed Isreal to arm their own countries with Nuclear weapons. You must ask yourself why Isreal felt the need to go nuclear in the first place. Isreal as a Nation was not in danger of being pushed into the sea b/c Isreal has won all their wars against the countries that have threatened her by using conventional military and the with the support of our Country.

So why did Isreal feel the need to go Nuclear in the first place? Now Iran wants to go Nuclear to feel safe also. It just never ends does it.

[Labrocca]

I will tell you one thing "Your Family and my Family" will be in even more danger should Bush tactically nuke Iran. Do you know their are a multitude of suit case nukes un-accounted for! If America nukes Iran----radical muslims around the world will try to set of suit case Nukes in America!!!!


Are you saying this isn't a danger now already? Are you truely so foolish as to think that if Al Gore won in 2000 that things would be any different? The plan to attack on 9/11 was started while Clinton was in office. The same putz that had a chance to take out Osama Bin Laden and didn't do it.

The only real danger of sending a nuke to Iran is that we will lose international support...oh wait...we barely have that anyways.

What is it we would lose again? I can't recall anything actually.

[Nathan Brazil]

Nathan Brazil Wrote:

No, I don't advocate genocide against the Iranians. That would imply I give a crap about them. I advocate elminating threats in a purely mechanical and unemotional fashion. If the Iranian nation decides to become a threat to the safety of my family, they should be made an example of. I'm easy. We don't have to kill them if they behave themselves, right?

Why Gee Nathan, what army/military do you propose to use to get Iran back under control to satisfy Imperialistic America and England?Â*Â*If Bush can't even defeat a nation 25 million Iraqi's how is the Boy Wonder in the W.H., going to defeat and subdue a nation of 70 million Iranians.

The U.S. military is already bogged down and stretched thin in Iraq.Â*Â*Do you want to bring back the draft!!!Â*Â*You know Chicken Hawk Republicans will not allow their sons and daughters to go and fight in Bush's insane genocidal wars of choice.

Comeon Nathan, come up with some suggestions here since you have a cavalier attitude towards war, death, and destruction.Â*Â*I will tell you one thing "Your Family and my Family" will be in even more danger should Bush tactically nuke Iran.Â*Â*Do you know their are a multitude of suit case nukes un-accounted for!Â*Â*If America nukes Iran----radical muslims around the world will try to set of suit case Nukes in America!!!!

Are you going to lie to your family members and say all is safe b/c an out of control Lame Duck President nuked another country??Â*Â*Nathan you had better WAKE Up and smell the coffee Buddy.




1) Please don't forget to close your quotes.

2) No, there ain't a "multitude of 'suitcase nukes'" out there. And, especially, the terrorist animals don't have any, because they wouldn't sit on them. San Fransissyco, New York, Seattle, Long Beach, or Washington would have been blasted by now, if they'd had one.

3) We aren't trying to defeat a nation of 25 million Iraqis. That's easy. In case you haven't noticed, they've still got electric power, food, water, whatever passes for sewage treatment over there, schools, hospitals, factories, and buildings still standing. If we'd wanted to "defeat" them, we certainly could have flattened that silly place for far less than what it's cost us so far, and not even used any nuclear weapons.

Frankly, I'm not inclined to bend over and surrender just because some primitives who don't know what a razor is for cut the head off some luckless sap they captured, or because they talk big and sound stupid. There's only one way to deal with them, and coddling them isn't it.

We don't have to occupy Iran to halt their nuclear program, if Iran can't get rid of their lunatic dangerous president, our first option should be sniper teams. After that, we should perhaps fix him the Al Zarqawi Way, with 500 lb bombs. And if that doesn't work, we target their nuclear facilities. Let the French crap their panties yet once again, that's always fun to watch.

[Nathan Brazil]

By the way, why is only Isreal the only country in the middle east allowed to have NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!!!!

If anyone started the nuclear clock ticking again you must look at Isreal first.Â*Â*Now suddenly when other countries want to arm themselves with nukes they are breaking international law.

The international community should have never allowed Isreal to arm their own countries with Nuclear weapons.Â*Â*You must ask yourself why Isreal felt the need to go nuclear in the first place.Â*Â*Isreal as a Nation was not in danger of being pushed into the sea b/c Isreal has won all their wars against the countries that have threatened her by using conventional military and the with the support of our Country.Â*Â*

So why did Isreal feel the need to go Nuclear in the first place?Â*Â*Now Iran wants to go Nuclear to feel safe also.Â*Â*It just never ends does it.


Isreal....their in a never ending war against fanatical kooks that want to kill them. Yeah, I could see how them having some missiles locked on that stupid rock in Mecca the fanatical kooks run around might make sense as a deterrent. Isreal is the only partially civilized nation in the Middle East, after all.

Then again, they attacked the USS Liberty. Let'em ALL die. I've no use for them.

[AlonzoMourning23]

"Score" means "a set of twenty persons or objects".Â*Â*You may was well have said "dozens".

So much for the nitpicking.Â*Â*

Get a dictionary:

Score: a set of twenty members; "a score were sent out but only one returned" http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dscore

Scores: tons: a large number or amount; "made lots of new friends"; "she amassed a mountain of newspapers" http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dscores


No, I don't advocate genocide against the Iranians.Â*Â*That would imply I give a crap about them.Â*Â*I advocate elminating threats in a purely mechanical and unemotional fashion.Â*Â* If the Iranian nation decides to become a threat to the safety of my family, they should be made an example of.Â*Â*I'm easy.Â*Â*We don't have to kill them if they behave themselves, right?

I think it's either hypocritical, or bigoted, to be concerned about 3k american civilians dying but to be totally unconcerned about killing millions of innocent Iranian civilians, and to make absolutely no attempt, and not even give thought, to ways of reducing that.

Are you saying this isn't a danger now already? Are you truely so foolish as to think that if Al Gore won in 2000 that things would be any different? The plan to attack on 9/11 was started while Clinton was in office. The same putz that had a chance to take out Osama Bin Laden and didn't do it.

The only real danger of sending a nuke to Iran is that we will lose international support...oh wait...we barely have that anyways.

What is it we would lose again? I can't recall anything actually.


We'd send terrorists recruits skyrocketing and risk losing the cooperation of governments, which we do have as evidence by the issue of secret prisons. If we really took such actions I think we'd be proving right much of what our enemies say about us.

[Nathan Brazil]

I think it's either hypocritical, or bigoted, to be concerned about 3k american civilians dying but to be totally unconcerned about killing millions of innocent Iranian civilians, and to make absolutely no attempt, and not even give thought, to ways of reducing that. How about just hard-nosed realism?Â*Â*WWII in Europe was an ideological war, millions died.Â*Â*Religious wars are even worse.Â*Â*Japan's leadership had inculcated it's peasantry into religious adulation of their Emperor, and those damn people wouldn't give up.

This reluctance on our part to recognize that our struggle with terrorism is a religious war is deadly dangerous.Â*Â*It's not hypocritical to value one's family and neighhbors over enemies living in another country.Â*Â*It's not bigotry to expect that our sons or the sons of our neighbors shouldn't have to die in a foreign land unnecessarily.

"I don't want you to give your life for your country, I want you to make the other sonofabitch give his life for his country". Gen. Patton

We'd send terrorists recruits skyrocketing and risk losing the cooperation of governments, which we do have as evidence by the issue of secret prisons. If we really took such actions I think we'd be proving right much of what our enemies say about us.

Oh, it doesn't matter if what they say about us is proven right or not.Â*Â*They already believe it, after all, don't they?Â*Â*I mean, if making some terrorists wear panties on their heads in prison doesn't get all the wannabe terrorists working against us, I'm sure a little thermonuclear explosion or two in Iran won't get them too bothered.

[AlonzoMourning23]

How about just hard-nosed realism? WWII in Europe was an ideological war, millions died. Religious wars are even worse. Japan's leadership had inculcated it's peasantry into religious adulation of their Emperor, and those damn people wouldn't give up.

This reluctance on our part to recognize that our struggle with terrorism is a religious war is deadly dangerous. It's not hypocritical to value one's family and neighhbors over enemies living in another country. It's not bigotry to expect that our sons or the sons of our neighbors shouldn't have to die in a foreign land unnecessarily.

It's a war against certain extremist aspects of islam. If we want to fight the liberal, moderate and conservative (but not extremists) muslims then we'll be biting off much more than we can chew.

It's bigotry when you don't even blink an eye at killing millions of civilians unless they happen to live under a certain flag. It's not that you're simply favoring one, you place absolutely no value one the other.

There's little reason to suggest that we need to invade Iran. But, even if that's so, thousands of soldiers dying is preferable to the deaths of millions of civilians. Soldiers chose to fight and put their lives on the line, civilians did not.

"I don't want you to give your life for your country, I want you to make the other sonofabitch give his life for his country". Gen. Patton.

Fine, show me a war since ww2 where we were fighting for our country and our freedoms.


Oh, it doesn't matter if what they say about us is proven right or not. They already believe it, after all, don't they? I mean, if making some terrorists wear panties on their heads in prison doesn't get all the wannabe terrorists working against us, I'm sure a little thermonuclear explosion or two in Iran won't get them too bothered.

We're pushing everyone to the right. The liberals are becoming moderates, moderates to conservatives, and conservatives into extremists. The more to the right they go the more terrorists we have to deal with.

You have a choice between fighting an isolated group of extremists, or an entire category of people who have been engaged in all out war. The current administration has done their best to increase the support and legitimacy of those extremists, lets not contribute anymore to that.

[bobbylien]

Are you saying this isn't a danger now already? Are you truely so foolish as to think that if Al Gore won in 2000 that things would be any different? The plan to attack on 9/11 was started while Clinton was in office. The same putz that had a chance to take out Osama Bin Laden and didn't do it.

The only real danger of sending a nuke to Iran is that we will lose international support...oh wait...we barely have that anyways.

What is it we would lose again? I can't recall anything actually.


We'd send terrorists recruits skyrocketing and risk losing the cooperation of governments, which we do have as evidence by the issue of secret prisons. If we really took such actions I think we'd be proving right much of what our enemies say about us.

Any lives that might be saved by launching a nuclear device would be lost in the aftermath. Its not worth it.

[bobbylien]

Isreal....their in a never ending war against fanatical kooks that want to kill them. Yeah, I could see how them having some missiles locked on that stupid rock in Mecca the fanatical kooks run around might make sense as a deterrent. Isreal is the only partially civilized nation in the Middle East, after all.

Then again, they attacked the USS Liberty. Let'em ALL die. I've no use for them.

Comments like that really do prove how stupid you really are. You are just another radical conservative and give the rest of us a bad name. Why does every online political forum have to attract people like you?

Who are you to declare a nation "civilized?" Have you ever been to any of these places? There are no civilized and uncivilized peoples, just different cultures.

[bmulligan]

aren't we already reaping the wrath of 1.2 billion muslims around the world? It seems any action taken by a rebublican president, or any success, is countered by the stale argument that we're creating more terrorists. That's bunk. The "bullseye" is already upon us. It's time we started painting laser bullseyes on our enemies.

No one will trust the US for 50-100 years? That's also bunk. According to you and your brethren commu-liberal nutcases, we are already untrusted by the world. So, according to that logic, we have nothing to lose.

The "genie" escaping, as you attribute to the US action, is actually being released by Iran who is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Once that genie is allowed to escape, they'll undoubtedly see no reason not to break the bottle. And contrary to your misbelief, the "fallout" from using tactical nukes won't be harming the entire world's population, just the ones surounding the blasts. Someone's liberal has been feeding you with nuclear winter nightmares since you were in kindergarten - probably your parents.

It's time for europe and american liberals to do some soul searching. Why blank out the fact that the last democratic president allowed the russians to sell nuclear technology to Iran without sanctions? Why forget the fact that the french and chineese have an equal part in the proliferation of this nuclear nightmare? No, the blame should fit squarely on the current Republican president for this crisis that the world has let fester for over 30 years. Never mind the Carter administration for helping foster american hate, and the Clinton administration for allowing them the tools of destruction. Search deep within that soul of yours to realize we can't afford another Democrat in the whitehouse. That is, if you even have a soul.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

bmulligan, trust me when I say you're talking to someone that makes mykevermin, EZB, camoor, dennis_t, usickenme et al right wing in comparison.

[rastaman]

aren't we already reaping the wrath of 1.2 billion muslims around the world?Â*Â* It seems any action taken by a rebublican president, or any success, is countered by the stale argument that we're creating more terrorists.Â*Â* That's bunk.Â*Â* The "bullseye" is already upon us.Â*Â*It's time we started painting laser bullseyes on our enemies.

No one will trust the US for 50-100 years?Â*Â*That's also bunk.Â*Â*According to you and your brethren commu-liberal nutcases, we are already untrusted by the world.Â*Â*So, according to that logic, we have nothing to lose.Â*Â*

The "genie" escaping, as you attribute to the US action, is actually being released by Iran who is trying to build a nuclear weapon.Â*Â*Once that genie is allowed to escape, they'll undoubtedly see no reason not to break the bottle.Â*Â* And contrary to your misbelief, the "fallout" from using tactical nukes won't be harming the entire world's population, just the ones surounding the blasts.Â*Â* Someone's liberal has been feeding you with nuclear winter nightmares since you were in kindergarten - probably your parents.Â*Â*

It's time for europe and american liberals to do some soul searching.Â*Â*Why blank out the fact that the last democratic president allowed the russians to sell nuclear technology to Iran without sanctions?Â*Â*Why forget the fact that the french and chineese have an equal part in the proliferation of this nuclear nightmare?Â*Â* No, the blame should fit squarely on the current Republican president for this crisis that the world has let fester for over 30 years.Â*Â* Never mind the Carter administration for helping foster american hate, and the Clinton administration for allowing them the tools of destruction.Â*Â* Search deep within that soul of yours to realize we can't afford another Democrat in the whitehouse.Â*Â*That is, if you even have a soul.

I suggest you search your miserable soul.Â*Â*You have a cavalier murderous callous attitude towards people who don't think as GOFFY Right Wing Extremist.Don't worry we in the U.S. will feel the nuclear fallout b/c the jet stream that circles the earth will carry radioactive fallout to America's shores.Â*Â*Did you forget about the JET STREAM??? or will Bush just turn off the Jet Stream to save America from nuclear fallout!!!Â*What a moron you truely are.

The world can ill-afford warmongering merchants of death like Bush and his neo-con henchmen.Â*Â*You speak of the Nuke problem festering for the last 30 years and seem to come up with Carter and Clinton and convieniently fail to mention what Reagan did 80-88, Bush I 89-93 and Bush II 01-present.Â*Â*Who had Nukes 1st in the M.E.?Â*Â*That's right it was Isreal to the tune of at least 400 nuclear weapons.Â*Â*So are you saying only Isreal is allowed Nuclear weapons and screw any other country in M.E. who wants nukes?Â*Â*Sorry the world doesn't work that way.Â*Â*Every nation has the right to defend theirselves.

Carter did not foster the hate in the M.E. it was 60 years of American imperialistic foreign policies toward the middle east which has fostered hatred toward the U.S. Policy makers of both parties share equal responsibility for fostering hate in 3rd world countries and the "Chickens Have Come Home To Roost".Â*Â*As for Clinton, you rapid robotic conservative nut cases harrassed Clinton for 8 long years, never supporting any of his foreign policies---yet now you guys want every american to fall in line and support Bush!!!!!Â*Â* It Ain't going to happen

[AlonzoMourning23]

Then again, they attacked the USS Liberty. Let'em ALL die. I've no use for them.


Missed this. So not only do you hate muslims, you're an anti-semite too, since you just called for the genocide of Israeli's.


aren't we already reaping the wrath of 1.2 billion muslims around the world?Â*Â* It seems any action taken by a rebublican president, or any success, is countered by the stale argument that we're creating more terrorists.Â*Â* That's bunk.Â*Â* The "bullseye" is already upon us.Â*Â*It's time we started painting laser bullseyes on our enemies.

No one will trust the US for 50-100 years?Â*Â*That's also bunk.Â*Â*According to you and your brethren commu-liberal nutcases, we are already untrusted by the world.Â*Â*So, according to that logic, we have nothing to lose.Â*

Only if you see the world as black and white. There's are varying levels of international support, hatred etc.Â*

The "genie" escaping, as you attribute to the US action, is actually being released by Iran who is trying to build a nuclear weapon.Â*Â*Once that genie is allowed to escape, they'll undoubtedly see no reason not to break the bottle.Â*

So you think Iran is going to take actions that they know will lead to a war against them? The regime wants to protect itself. They have powerful enemies and weak allies. The events in Iraq and North Korea show that the only real way, unfortunately, to protect yourself is with nuclear weapons.

It's time for europe and american liberals to do some soul searching.Â*Â*Why blank out the fact that the last democratic president allowed the russians to sell nuclear technology to Iran without sanctions?Â*Â*Why forget the fact that the french and chineese have an equal part in the proliferation of this nuclear nightmare?Â*Â* No, the blame should fit squarely on the current Republican president for this crisis that the world has let fester for over 30 years.Â*Â* Never mind the Carter administration for helping foster american hate, and the Clinton administration for allowing them the tools of destruction.Â*Â* Search deep within that soul of yours to realize we can't afford another Democrat in the whitehouse.Â*Â*That is, if you even have a soul.Â*Â*


You forgot the Bush administration cutting funding that was designed to secure soviet nukes. But I guess ensuring that already made nukes don't fall into the hands of terrorists isn't a priority.

[Nathan Brazil]

It's bigotry when you don't even blink an eye at killing millions of civilians unless they happen to live under a certain flag. It's not that you're simply favoring one, you place absolutely no value one the other.

No, you're just using the word bigotry because you can't comprehend a coldblooded total lack of interest in the feelings of the target. Unfortunately, "bigotry" implies irrational hatred or some other form of immature emotional motivation for advocating acts of violence.

What you're demonstrating is a failure of your own vocabulary and imagination.

There's little reason to suggest that we need to invade Iran. But, even if that's so, thousands of soldiers dying is preferable to the deaths of millions of civilians. Soldiers chose to fight and put their lives on the line, civilians did not.

Thousands of the ENEMY's soldiers dying is preferable to the death of their civillians. The death of millions of the enemy's civillians is vastly preferable to the death of ONE American serviceman.

Get some perspective.

"I don't want you to give your life for your country, I want you to make the other sonofabitch give his life for his country".Â*Â*Gen. Patton.

Fine, show me a war since ww2 where we were fighting for our country and our freedoms.

Korea.
Afghanistan.
Gulf War.
Iraq today.

Oh, it doesn't matter if what they say about us is proven right or not.Â*Â*They already believe it, after all, don't they?Â*Â*I mean, if making some terrorists wear panties on their heads in prison doesn't get all the wannabe terrorists working against us, I'm sure a little thermonuclear explosion or two in Iran won't get them too bothered.

We're pushing everyone to the right. The liberals are becoming moderates, moderates to conservatives, and conservatives into extremists. The more to the right they go the more terrorists we have to deal with. [/quote]

The liberals are becoming "moderates"? That's only because the so-called "conservatives" are moving so far to the left that George Bush looks like a moderate.

Get with the program. This country's leadership hasn't shifted an iota to the right since Reagan left office. But I can see why the pinkos on the left want to maintain the fiction that it has.

You have a choice between fighting an isolated group of extremists, or an entire category of people who have been engaged in all out war. The current administration has done their best to increase the support and legitimacy of those extremists, lets not contribute anymore to that.

You left out the option of regional sterilization using nuclear and radiolgoical weaponry.

Remember, if there is no foot and mouth disease, there won't be any foot and mouth disease.

[AlonzoMourning23]

No, you're just using the word bigotry because you can't comprehend a coldblooded total lack of interest in the feelings of the target.Â*Â*Unfortunately, "bigotry" implies irrational hatred or some other form of immature emotional motivation for advocating acts of violence.Â*Â*

You view us as superior to them, that's bigotry.


Thousands of the ENEMY's soldiers dying is preferable to the death of their civillians.Â*Â*The death of millions of the enemy's civillians is vastly preferable to the death of ONE American serviceman.

Get some perspective.

Ya, I don't know what's wrong with me. What warped mind would rather lose 1 u.s. soldier compared to a million civilians?

I'm not aware of anything making american people superior to the citizens of other nations, maybe you can enlighten me?

Korea.

Civil war, not sure how our freedom was involved.

Afghanistan.

We were attacked by al qaeda, while I wouldn't agree our freedom itself was under real threat, it's a reasonable and sound argument.

Gulf War.

Iraq invaded kuwait and we overthrew them freeing kuwait. Not sure what that had to do with us.

Iraq today.

Hmm..... dictator surrounded on all sides, ruling secular state that was the bane of islamists. Nope, not sure where our freedoms were involved.


The liberals are becoming "moderates"?Â*Â*That's only because the so-called "conservatives" are moving so far to the left that George Bush looks like a moderate.

I was talking about the rest of the world, particularly muslims and the middle east. It was kind of obvious considering what I was responding to.



You left out the option of regional sterilization using nuclear and radiolgoical weaponry.

Remember, if there is no foot and mouth disease, there won't be any foot and mouth disease.


So you think the citizens of the middle east should be wiped out?

[Nathan Brazil]

You view us as superior to them, that's bigotry.

It's actually irrelevant. It's a matter of survival. Besides, I"m superior to everyone, and I don't know where you get off using the word "us".



Ya, I don't know what's wrong with me. What warped mind would rather lose 1 u.s. soldier compared to a million civilians?

That's a million ENEMY civillians. Maybe that will help you with your perspective problem?


Korea.

Civil war, not sure how our freedom was involved.

Look at the map, try to remember the Cold War.



Afghanistan.

We were attacked by al qaeda, while I wouldn't agree our freedom itself was under real threat, it's a reasonable and sound argument.

Gulf War.

Iraq invaded kuwait and we overthrew them freeing kuwait. Not sure what that had to do with us.

How about the flow of oil at market prices? Letting one dictator gain control of that would be slightly problematical to our freedom, now wouldn't it? That was certainly a potential threat to US freedom.

[quote=alonzomourning23][quote]Iraq today.

Hmm..... dictator surrounded on all sides, ruling secular state that was the bane of islamists. Nope, not sure where our freedoms were involved.



Better buy that map. Think global strategy, think ultimate goals, think chess. Maybe you'll be able to figure it out.
The liberals are becoming "moderates"?Â*Â*That's only because the so-called "conservatives" are moving so far to the left that George Bush looks like a moderate.

I was talking about the rest of the world, particularly muslims and the middle east. It was kind of obvious considering what I was responding to.



You left out the option of regional sterilization using nuclear and radiolgoical weaponry.

Remember, if there is no foot and mouth disease, there won't be any foot and mouth disease.


So you think the citizens of the middle east should be wiped out?

[AlonzoMourning23]

It's actually irrelevant.Â*Â*It's a matter of survival.Â*Â*Besides, I"m superior to everyone, and I don't know where you get off using the word "us".

And why are you superior? What makes you superior?

That's a million ENEMY civillians.Â*Â*Maybe that will help you with your perspective problem?

Since when did innocent civilians become enemies? So, in your mind, if we were at war with a country or organization then they have every right to kill our civilians and we have every right to kill theres, since they're the enemy?





Look at the map, try to remember the Cold War.

The domino theory was baseless. You had war between vietnam and china, china and the u.s.s.r. were on the brink of war etc. there were as many differences between the communist nations as there were between them and the west half the time.

How about the flow of oil at market prices?Â*Â*Letting one dictator gain control of that would be slightly problematical to our freedom, now wouldn't it?Â*Â*That was certainly a potential threat to US freedom.

It's their oil, it's their country. We have no right to their oil. Harm us or not, just as we can choose to do business with them they can choose to do business with us.


Better buy that map.Â*Â*Think global strategy, think ultimate goals, think chess.Â*Â*Maybe you'll be able to figure it out.

U.S. domination of the world? Not sure where else you're going unless you're going that route.

And, again, do you think the citizens of the middle east should be eliminated since the represent an obstacle to your goals?

[Nathan Brazil]

And why are you superior? What makes you superior?

I'm God. Care to prove otherwise?

Since when did innocent civilians become enemies? So, in your mind, if we were at war with a country or organization then they have every right to kill our civilians and we have every right to kill theres, since they're the enemy?

Since when did the word "innocent" start corrupting discussions of war? Innocence, or more precisely, guilt, is the end product of a process of determination concerned with who committed certain pre-defined crimes, and issues of war and peace and survival are not criminal matters.

When you get that figured out, and thus when you stop using the word "innocent" to describe civillians in matters of military conflict, you'll be demonstrating a more mature comprehension of the topic.

The domino theory was baseless. You had war between vietnam and china, china and the u.s.s.r. were on the brink of war etc. there were as many differences between the communist nations as there were between them and the west half the time.

Baseless, eh? So what happened to Cambodia? Laos? I take it you haven't looked at the map yet to see where the Korean peninsula controls the tail end of the Japanese archiplego. Not to mention the perilously strong, if totally justified, Chinese antipathy towards Japan in the 1950's, and you have a magic recipe that would have guaranteed future Chinese agression towards Japan, then a US protectorate by virtue of their surrender treaty, in which the US would have been drawn into direct conflict with China.

Entering into the Korean take-over as we did was prudence on our part, again, having to do with wargaming and broader strategy. US interests were clearly on the line there.

It's their oil, it's their country. We have no right to their oil. Harm us or not, just as we can choose to do business with them they can choose to do business with us.

Ummm...it was Kuwait's oil, not Iraq's. (though actually Kuwait was indeed guilty of slant drilling, but that's clearly a matter for negotiation, not invasion).

U.S. domination of the world? Not sure where else you're going unless you're going that route.

That's because you have preconceived notions of the aims of the US involvement in the Middle East, and because the real and most obvious reasons for our pushing out Saddam were too dangerous for the Surrender Monkeys to tolerate, if they'd been presented up front.

We invaded Iraq, as anyone can see looking at the map, to break the Islamic thug nations into two geographic entities, enabling future cleanup operations to defeat them in detail. Notably, anyone seeing a map can't help but notice that Iran has US troops on two different borders. What a convenience! What more could any general ask for?

True enough, at present we don't have an optimal invasion force stationed at both ends of Iran, but it's certainly possible to put them there, in theory.

Or, if we decide that Iran can wait and we'd rather secure our northern flank before tackling Iran, we send a platoon a Marines into Syria and take out that little bad boy. I dont' think it would take much more than a platoon, they're used to fighting women and babies.

Libya, for some strange reason, has repudiated it's nuclear weapons ambitions since the US took Iraq in a week. What a strange coincidence.

That's why we took Iraq. Look at the real results, look at the real possibilities for future action.

And, again, do you think the citizens of the middle east should be eliminated since the represent an obstacle to your goals?

If the leaders they tolerate in front of them present a threat to the security of my family, why the hell not?

[AlonzoMourning23]

I'm God.Â*Â*Care to prove otherwise?

So you're just a bigot who think he's superior to all other people and has no justification for it. Good to know.

Since when did the word "innocent" start corrupting discussions of war?Â*Â*Innocence, or more precisely, guilt, is the end product of a process of determination concerned with who committed certain pre-defined crimes, and issues of war and peace and survival are not criminal matters.

When you get that figured out, and thus when you stop using the word "innocent" to describe civillians in matters of military conflict, you'll be demonstrating a more mature comprehension of the topic.

Yes, since my lai involved killing enemies, the WTC attack was simply al qaeda killing their enemies, haditha involved killing enemies etc. No sane person dismisses killing of civilians, and the maturity you seem to claim isn't shared by anyway outside of those who are locked into a black and white world view, and even then it's not shared by all.

Hell, the u.s. has jailed people for torturing prisoners and killing civilians, and the u.s., and repeatedly denounced views such as yours.

Baseless, eh?Â*Â*So what happened to Cambodia?Â*Â*Laos?Â*Â*I take it you haven't looked at the map yet to see where the Korean peninsula controls the tail end of the Japanese archiplego.

We supported the khmer rouge. Their attacks on vietnam and the genocide committed by them prompted vietnam to invade cambodia and overthrow the khmer rouge. Laos got caught up in the vietnam war which resulted in a chain of events that destabilized the country.

Â*Not to mention the perilously strong, if totally justified, Chinese antipathy towards Japan in the 1950's, and you have a magic recipe that would have guaranteed future Chinese agression towards Japan, then a US protectorate by virtue of their surrender treaty, in which the US would have been drawn into direct conflict with China.

China is expansionist in the sense it wants to control what it considers historical china. But china has never been expansionist in the sense that it simply wants to gain territory like the u.s.s.r. did. They have no history of that. Japan is not considered part of historical china and is not something they would have invaded.


Ummm...it was Kuwait's oil, not Iraq's.Â*Â*(though actually Kuwait was indeed guilty of slant drilling, but that's clearly a matter for negotiation, not invasion).

My point is our lack of oil control is not a reason for war. Defending a country is, not ensuring our oil flow.

That's because you have preconceived notions of the aims of the US involvement in the Middle East, and because the real and most obvious reasons for our pushing out Saddam were too dangerous for the Surrender Monkeys to tolerate, if they'd been presented up front.

We invaded Iraq, as anyone can see looking at the map, to break the Islamic thug nations into two geographic entities, enabling future cleanup operations to defeat them in detail.Â*Â*Notably, anyone seeing a map can't help but notice that Iran has US troops on two different borders.Â*Â*What a convenience! What more could any general ask for?

True enough, at present we don't have an optimal invasion force stationed at both ends of Iran, but it's certainly possible to put them there, in theory.

Or, if we decide that Iran can wait and we'd rather secure our northern flank before tackling Iran, we send a platoon a Marines into Syria and take out that little bad boy. I dont' think it would take much more than a platoon, they're used to fighting women and babies.


Oh, I see, so you take out a secular dictatorship in an attempt to defeat islamic nations?

So you like having a government that lies to the population every step of the way when, in reality, you believe the goal is to essentiall take over the middle east. I have no problem in saying that any government leader who wants to invade an entire region unprovoked should be shot. It would save plenty of civilians from needless death.

Libya, for some strange reason, has repudiated it's nuclear weapons ambitions since the US took Iraq in a week.Â*Â*What a strange coincidence.

Or you could look at their history and see how they had been attempting to improve their economy and international relations for years and had made offers, on more than one occasion, to give up their weapons.

That's why we took Iraq.Â*Â*Look at the real results, look at the real possibilities for future action.

I see more terrorists and a country we can't even control.

If the leaders they tolerate in front of them present a threat to the security of my family, why the hell not?


If someone were to take your advice that would be the larger threat to the u.s. You basically seem to advocate mass killing of civilians, which is disgusting.