🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:53:26 -0600, "Luc The Perverse"
<sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote:
>Maybe everyone wouldn't hate them so much if they didn't go and kill people 
>all the time, occupy palestine, and constant go on giant rampages.

I don't think they did any of that in the late '30s and '40s... :)

>An administration which develops a new chemical weapon, but classifies it 
>different to allow it to be sent over with the troops doesn't do much to 
>gain my confidence.   Regardless of whether you agree with me, it is 
>refreshing to discuss this with someone who has any idea what is going on.

White phosphorus has been around a while. It's not particularly new,
and it's not a chemical weapon anymore than gunpowder makes guns
chemical weapons. It's a chemical that can be used as a weapon, not a
chemical agent that can be spread to cause mass destruction. It is
very reactive, only usable in small amounts at any given time, and if
you tried to use it as a chemical weapon, it would all react before it
got any kind of chance to spread.

>Bush is the only one threatening to use nuclear weapons.

Did I miss something? I never heard about this...

>> Lied? Are you sure? If so, I'd love to see the proof.
>There is at least one website dedicated to it http://www.bushlies.net/

That sounds like a very unbiased source. :)

>They never said that they believe, or might have reason to believe that 
>Sadaam is doing these things.  They said that they had irrefutable evidence 
>that Sadaam had an advanced nuclear weapons program - that he was trying to 
>get Uranium, that he had advanced nuclear weapons program.  All the sudden 
>this turns out to not be true and Bush says, oh well, at least we got him!
>
>That would have been more believable (your suggestion) - Bush doesn't try 
>too much to improve his PR.

Regardless of whether they lied or were duped, they should be more
careful when throwing around words like "irrefutable evidence,"
especially when trying to use them as an excuse to go to war.

>> That is the job of any leader of a country - to protect his citizens and
>> their interests. All other citizens or interests are of less importance.
>
>I guess I would not make a very good leader valuing human life in general.

That's not the only reason... ;)

>The US may be trying to help rebuild it, but I don't believe for a second 
>that we went over there to improve Iraqi life.  It is the last remaining 
>excuse the administration has.

It's mostly just an excuse to hand over hundreds of billions of
dollars to defense and rebuilding contractors who happen to be good
buddies with the Bush Administration...

>We went over there to (some combination of these reasons):
>1. Protect ourselves from a country who threatened us
>2. To steal resources (oil)
>3. To send a message out to would be opponents of the US

You forgot what I just said above, which is probably more important
than any of these three.

>He said he would.   He is impervious to logic and reasoning; his ego is from 
>the group to the heaven.    He feels that he is in a religious war himself. 
>He thinks god talks to him.   These are scary traits in a leader.
>
>I think someone took him into a room and had a discussion with him, and 
>suddenly the pressure off Iran dropped off a little bit.   But now Isreal is 
>pulling this shit, and the whole world is decrying their actions and Bush is 
>cheering them on.
>
>Isreal wants war - they always want war.

They have a sort of perpetual war against Palestine... isn't that
enough?

>Because of what I said :)   WW III would ensue.

Yeah... I'm sure all the other nuclear powers would want to go down
the shitter with the middle east. You know, just for kicks...

>> More frightening than ridiculous. The ridiculous part was losing those
>> bombs in the first place.
>
>It's kinda tuff when a government comes crashing down

Just because the government goes away doesn't mean it's a good idea to
hand out nuclear weapons to anyone who wants them... they obviously
had other things on their minds at the time, though.

>> Nothing beats a good conspiracy theory. Ask any journalist, or editor,
>> or anyone who makes money out of selling "news".
>
>Now you're pissing me off.   Bush knew Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 
>September 11, and he knew that he wanted revenge somehow.  If the Taliban 
>really was harboring Osama, why didn't we find him when the country fell? 
>I hope that intelligence didn't come from the same one that said Sadaam had 
>WMD.   Then Bush wanted war with Iraq so he pulled strings to make it 
>happen.  Now he wants war with Iran, and I see strings being pulled.

There were Al Qaieda in kahoots with the Taliban. There's no question
about that. Osama Bin Laden has been running away from first-world
countries for years. It's not as if he had no warning that the US was
coming, and the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is not that
tightly guarded, even after the US invaded Afghanistan. It's
incredibly stupid of Bush to forget completely about Bin Laden to go
after Saddam and Iraq, but that's what happened.

>There have always been fundamentalists.  But if Isreal really wanted peace, 
>I think they would find it.

Muslim fundamentalists... Christian fundamentalists... they're all
idiots.

>> I obviously missed something here. Has the US actually threatened to use
>> nukes against anyone?
>
>Yes - here is one news article about it.   I'm sure you could find many 
>more.
>
>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HIR20060719&articleId=2759

Hmm... He only has about 2 more years to pull off this crap. I expect
congress will probably sway back into Democratic hands this fall, so
approving new massive funding for other wars in the middle east may
prove difficult. Bush could certainly shoot nukes at people, but
(hopefully) even he is not *that* stupid.

>> You pay too much attention to the press if you believe that GWB is an
>> idiot.
>
>The press happens to be the only contact I have with the president.  Do you 
>know him personally?
>
>I disagree with basically everything he does.   He REALLY got on my bad side 
>when tried to modify the constitution to prevent gay marriage.   Then he 
>over stepped his boundaries by trying to intervene in the Terri Schiavo 
>case - and it can't be because he is such a great humanitarian - look at the 
>atrocities that he allowed to happen at Guantanamo Bay.
>
>Quite recently the senate got together, they passed the stem cell research 
>initiative.  Imagine the senate actually banding together and doing 
>something useful!   Bush's first veto (no explanation) despite urging of 
>scientists, the general public and the senate.
>
>I really really don't like him.   Presidency in the hands of a 
>fundamentalist, is a scary thing :)

You might say you don't pay enough attention to the press if you
believe GWB is not an idiot.
-- 
"No I'm saying that I'm a cow dung." - Stephen "Suupernuubie" Ung
"Eat a bag of hell." - Cyric The Mad
"Yes - I need red hot gay loving" - LTP

MSN:ktw...@hotmail.com (BUT DON'T SEND E-MAIL!) YIM: ktwilson AIM: YahooKyleW
Zealot the Crazy Lui
Grand 16-Star General and overall director of AGSC operations for the Pronoun Army(and webmaster)
http://pronounarmy.homestead.com/ http://thirty-five-mil.blogspot.com/
re-vamped sig 7D6h.4h.5h