Way OT (political) War drums again...
Michael
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T2
So... Iran may be working on a nuke warhead. That is the stupidest
thing I ever heard. Of course Iran is working on a nuke. That was
their obvious goal all along. Once again... For me, I could care less
who has nukes. I grew up in the 70's-80's with the Soviet arsenal
pointed at me. What I care about is who will USE nukes. Nukes are
political weapons and not military weapons. The U.S. and the Soviets
knew that and played accordingly. The question is not wheather Iran
is working on a nuke or not. You have to be a total idiot not to know
they are gearing up to build a nuke and couple it with one of the
ballistic missiles they have been showing off. The real question is
does Iran understand that nukes are strictly political and not
military ???
What do you think ??? Is the government in Iran foolish, structurally
unstable or crazy enough to ever USE a nuke ???
Would it be fair to pressure them for wanting nukes while other
countries in the region are left unhampered to have their own
collection of 300 + warheads ???
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:842b12db-e80e-40bd...@k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
I think they would use one...and, to be fair, if it is a certainty they have
one, I think Israel would use one pre-emtively too. It's a political weapon
for BIG countries, and the big power for those players was the fact you
could hit the outside enemy with a nuke and if needed control your own
population with troops. That is what nuclear weapons essentially did, we
may have done stupid things in the last decade to weaken our military
stregnth, but the fact remains that if a country has a very strong nuclear
capability it can wave it's big stick and not worry too much about what
folks at home say because it is possible to put down rebellion and not lose
your power to defend yourself. In short, yeah.....Iran, with the screwballs
they have, in what is becoming a more and more secularized government, will
use one, against Israel most likely.
Ray O'Hara
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
news:aaWdnYtp759ynuPW...@giganews.com...
why would they use one agsinst Israel when they know Israel would use at
least a dozen in retaliationagainst them?
they want a bomb for self defense. ifSaddam had actuallyhad WMDswe wouldn't
have invaded and they realized it.
papa.carl44
"Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hll4ln$6c6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I'm not sure I'm following you here. You mean Bush & Co. actually knew
there were no WMD's? I think Saddam got rid of them thinking he avoided an
invasion, only to have a stupid administration here do it anyway. I also
don't think Saddam was the whack job that Ahmadinejad is, it's totally
different. And...I think this goof might believe he can hit Israel hard
enough to kill their retaliation to some degree.
Ray O'Hara
yes they knew he had no WMDs.
And who would take them if he had had them to do so would invite invasion.
and what was he saving them for if not for self-defense?
it was neber about WMDs, that was the excuse they knew would work.
Grinch
You guys should know Saddam lived and actually talked about all this,
until the Iraqis executed him.
He tried to fool everybody into believing he still had the WMDs, after
getting rid of them (temporarily) so the inspectors wouldn't find any.
He thought if the inspectors didn't actually find any, the US would
never invade (because the Americans are so soft, and swayed by
opinions of the French and UN and all that).
But if everybody believed he had them, he'd still be the regional
powerhouse -- especially versus Iran.
*Not believing* the Americans would ever invade, his real #1 enemy of
concern remained Iran, with whom he'd recently had that huge war --
and against whom he *used* them massively. He'd used *a lot* of
poison gas in that war.
That's who he was really worred about, the Iranians. He especially
wanted thems to believe he had the WMDs, to keep them at bay and
intimidate them.
So he made everybody in Iraq believe he had the WMDs -- he told each
general the other generals had them, told each mininistry and military
force that the others did, etc., knowing that if they all believed it
all the spies in the region would report that he did have them back to
Iran, and to everyone else.
So he fooled the Iranians into believing he still had the WMDs. And
everyone else too.
He was a genius. It worked!
Michael
wrote:
> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hll4ln$6c6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:aaWdnYtp759ynuPW...@giganews.com...
>
> >> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Papa... Bush & Co DID actually know that Saddam NO LONGER had any
WMD. You dont have to look far to find bonafied testamony from
credible people who were directly involved stating that they were
pressured and even intimidated to help build the WMD story. I'm not a
60's hippi pacifist dude, but the pretext for the second gulf war was
fabricated out of some half truths and some out right lies. As far as
any ties to fundamentalist terror organizations... Well... Get this...
And no, I dont like Saddam... But... The fundamentalist groups were
not "down" with old Saddam. Saddam along with being a dictator was
also building Iraq into one of the most secular and "western" of all
the Arab countries and the fundamentalists hated him for it. Before
he invaded Q-8, western governments including ours were good pals with
the Saddam government. Partly because the western powers saw him as
becoming a more "westernized" and reasonable type leader. Not to
mention, Saddam had a beef with the Iran, who we also had a beef
with. And that is of course, central to U.S. foreign policy. The
"enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap. I'm sure you are way too
informed not to know, but it was indeed a former U.S. administration
that sold old Saddam chemical weapons. At the time, it did not
matter so much that they had WMD because it was felt the only people
that were going to wind up choking on gas in the near future were the
Iranians.
This is by no means any indorcement of dictatorships and
fundamentalist groups which i despise, nor is it a denouncement of
western democracy and free market economy which I cherish. I'm saying
to take fair and informed look at things before getting caught up in
the next whilrwind. I'd also like to say... I cant stand
fundamentalist BS or lord high dictarorial monarchs. If people in
other countries are caught under the thumb of that crap and they think
they deserve better, let them take risks, spend their own resources
and shed their own blood making a new way for themselves the way the
first early Americans did.
Ray O'Hara
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:isfsn5dt2k7sgo0qn...@4ax.com...
He didn't fool us.
Why Bush actually invaded is complex, there was the neo-con agenda in
removing a perceived threat to Israel, revenge for Saddam trying yo kill
daddy Bush. oil. maybe even a hope to create ab Arab republic.
But we knew that he had disposed of the poison gas we had supplied him and
that he had no credible nuke program.
and yes hekept up the charade to hopefully keep Iran at bay.
Johnctx
Michael, few know what they knew or didn't knew.
I had grave concerns & scratched my head when the invasion occurred. I
kept waiting for some sense to be made of it. We probably will never
know. It is the lesson all administrations have learned from Watergate.
I have had this discussion with Brits for years. If they knew their
were no weapons why would they invade & prove themselves wrong,
especially Blair. So Blair throws in, for what?
What I find most galling is that there was no clear plan. If you talk
to American GI & Marines they will tell you that if we kept the Iraqi
army intact, i.e. paid them to pretend to be an army, a large pool of
very poorly trained fighters would have not been available to the Sunni
& even Shiites. Iraq, post-war would have bee easier.
I have a buddy in the oil business. His theory is that they saw that
this was going to have to happen one day & they chose to run with it. I
guess I am not that jaded yet. I don't believe that or to believe some
of the more leftist theories on the war --not syaing leftist is bad Papa
so cool your pits-- but I would like to know why & what was the end game.
>
The fundamentalist groups were
> not "down" with old Saddam. Saddam along with being a dictator was
> also building Iraq into one of the most secular and "western" of all
> the Arab countries and the fundamentalists hated him for it.
Michael that was Wolfowitz & company's argument for the invasion. He
wrote that for eight years prior to Bush. They don't understand Islam
and if they had read some Marx & Crane Briton they would understand it
better. The Iranian revolution & now this is about power not religion.
The power & wealth in Iran went from supporters of the Shah to
supporters of the Ayatollah. Who would have thought the aftermath would
be worse. Iran was the place democracy would have worked. Homogeneous
population that was mildly Islamic.
Jimmy Carter is probably a very kind & decent man but he is proof you
don't want an engineer as a leader. (see Herbert Hoover)
:)
>
Before
> he invaded Q-8, western governments including ours were good pals with
> the Saddam government. Partly because the western powers saw him as
> becoming a more "westernized" and reasonable type leader. Not to
> mention, Saddam had a beef with the Iran, who we also had a beef
> with. And that is of course, central to U.S. foreign policy. The
> "enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap. I'm sure you are way too
> informed not to know, but it was indeed a former U.S. administration
> that sold old Saddam chemical weapons. At the time, it did not
> matter so much that they had WMD because it was felt the only people
> that were going to wind up choking on gas in the near future were the
> Iranians.
My theory, OK a theory, is the support for the Gulf States drove the
support for Iraq. This was done under Reagan & even more so under Bush &
continued under Clinton. This was returned to us via low oil prices
which accomplished two things:
1. It helped contain inflation.
2. low oil prices took down the Soviets. The first gas crisis saved them.
>
> This is by no means any indorcement of dictatorships and
> fundamentalist groups which i despise, nor is it a denouncement of
> western democracy and free market economy which I cherish. I'm saying
> to take fair and informed look at things before getting caught up in
> the next whilrwind. I'd also like to say... I cant stand
> fundamentalist BS or lord high dictarorial monarchs. If people in
> other countries are caught under the thumb of that crap and they think
> they deserve better, let them take risks, spend their own resources
> and shed their own blood making a new way for themselves the way the
> first early Americans did.
You mean with French money, army & a navy?
:)
I get your point. Washington was not only a great general but a
prescient leader.
Michael
> "Grinch" <oldna...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:isfsn5dt2k7sgo0qn...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:07:51 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
>
> >>"papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> >>news:DeqdnYCsd4tOhePW...@giganews.com...
>
> >>> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:hll4ln$6c6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>> "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:aaWdnYtp759ynuPW...@giganews.com...
>
> >>>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray... Those were indeed all the real reasons for gulf war part two.
I could not agree more because that is what the facts bare out.
There were no national security benifits or any other benifit to the
U.S. citizen/taxpayer. Just a big bill and a big headache. All of
that money and the U.S. military being used for private agendas and
foreign agendas. Oh dear.. I've done it this time. I just got myself
on the watch list.
Michael
john... i'm not trying to be an antagonistic ass for its own sake...
but do you think that you are just turing from the facts here because
they bare out a very uncomfortable truth ??? that the real reasons
behind it were contrary to the welfare of the public ???
> I have had this discussion with Brits for years. If they knew their
> were no weapons why would they invade & prove themselves wrong,
> especially Blair. So Blair throws in, for what?
very easy answer here, John... the real orchestrators did not care or
think too much of the consequences of being proven wrong even if the
political spin didnt cut the mustard for them. and they were correct
in understanding that there would be no real consequences for them.
once they had things in motion, they had their way and that was that.
> What I find most galling is that there was no clear plan. If you talk
> to American GI & Marines they will tell you that if we kept the Iraqi
> army intact, i.e. paid them to pretend to be an army, a large pool of
> very poorly trained fighters would have not been available to the Sunni
> & even Shiites. Iraq, post-war would have bee easier.
i'm sure you know somthing of the history of iraq. there are three
sure ways to get things to work in that country. and here we go again
wity my broad stroke... but you can either make it into three seperate
countries which would be tremendously comlicated, put a dictator in
power and let him make people toe the line under the barrel of a gun,
or you can do what we are trying to do. put a poliece force there and
deal with the instability for about say oh... a generation or two
until people grow out of old identities and into new ones.
> I have a buddy in the oil business. His theory is that they saw that
> this was going to have to happen one day & they chose to run with it. I
> guess I am not that jaded yet. I don't believe that or to believe some
> of the more leftist theories on the war --not syaing leftist is bad Papa
> so cool your pits-- but I would like to know why & what was the end game.
i'm not a leftist. i'm a social libertarian, and i cant stand big
government or big brother on the right or the left. on economic
issues i'm as conservative as they come. so... i'm not a leftist AND
i am convinced by reasons of facts that gulf war two was all about the
what the insiders and userpers wanted for their small group of pals
and the rest of us be dammned.
> The fundamentalist groups were
>
> > not "down" with old Saddam. Saddam along with being a dictator was
> > also building Iraq into one of the most secular and "western" of all
> > the Arab countries and the fundamentalists hated him for it.
>
> Michael that was Wolfowitz & company's argument for the invasion. He
> wrote that for eight years prior to Bush. They don't understand Islam
> and if they had read some Marx & Crane Briton they would understand it
> better. The Iranian revolution & now this is about power not religion.
> The power & wealth in Iran went from supporters of the Shah to
> supporters of the Ayatollah. Who would have thought the aftermath would
> be worse. Iran was the place democracy would have worked. Homogeneous
> population that was mildly Islamic.
that one of the wolfowitz selling points, yes... but what was his
real motive and who is he to use taxpayer money and the blood of the
military to undertake adventures ??? was iraq a real threat to the
United States ??? A stripped down dictator that runs from safe house
to safe house with his rag tag military ??? he was a joke at the time
of gulf war 2, not a threat to by far the most powerfull country on
earth.
> Jimmy Carter is probably a very kind & decent man but he is proof you
> don't want an engineer as a leader. (see Herbert Hoover)
carter was just a well meaning putz... perhaps we'd be better with an
actor or may be a drunk that ran everything he ever touched into the
ground.
well.. the good guys were smart enough to get it working for them for
the first rebellion and also smart enough to keep it away from the bad
guys during the second rebellion :-) the important part here is that
they knew better what they wanted for themselves and put their ass on
the line for it. in my opinion that make them deserving of
government of the people, by the people...
> I get your point. Washington was not only a great general but a
> prescient leader.- Hide quoted text -
...and was in the company of some of the best men western civ ever
knew...
Johnctx
Thanks for being civil & I will attempt to do the same.
Michael, maybe it is the optimist in me but maybe my GOP sub-conscious
is justifying what was a terrible mistake by our country.
We don't know what intelligence they had and didn't have and I know
there was debate & concern but that is part of any administration. Smart
people make stupid decisions & foolish people do both. I think history
will prove we had both in that WH.
The only thing that make sense to me is that someone decided that it
would be cheaper to invade then as opposed to wait, but again Idon't
know and don't think we ever will.
>
>> I have had this discussion with Brits for years. If they knew their
>> were no weapons why would they invade & prove themselves wrong,
>> especially Blair. So Blair throws in, for what?
>
> very easy answer here, John... the real orchestrators did not care or
> think too much of the consequences of being proven wrong even if the
> political spin didnt cut the mustard for them. and they were correct
> in understanding that there would be no real consequences for them.
> once they had things in motion, they had their way and that was that.
Listen I am wide open to answers on this. I just can't get Blair's
involvement if he KNEW their were no weapons. Why? Interesting point
is that he is viewed as Bush' friend by his detractors who hat ethe war
but was viewed as Clinton's friend prior.
>
>> What I find most galling is that there was no clear plan. If you talk
>> to American GI & Marines they will tell you that if we kept the Iraqi
>> army intact, i.e. paid them to pretend to be an army, a large pool of
>> very poorly trained fighters would have not been available to the Sunni
>> & even Shiites. Iraq, post-war would have bee easier.
>
> i'm sure you know somthing of the history of iraq. there are three
> sure ways to get things to work in that country. and here we go again
> wity my broad stroke... but you can either make it into three seperate
> countries which would be tremendously comlicated, put a dictator in
> power and let him make people toe the line under the barrel of a gun,
> or you can do what we are trying to do. put a poliece force there and
> deal with the instability for about say oh... a generation or two
> until people grow out of old identities and into new ones.
If that was the plan, and that is what I would do if king, sign me up.
>
>> I have a buddy in the oil business. His theory is that they saw that
>> this was going to have to happen one day & they chose to run with it. I
>> guess I am not that jaded yet. I don't believe that or to believe some
>> of the more leftist theories on the war --not syaing leftist is bad Papa
>> so cool your pits-- but I would like to know why & what was the end game.
>
> i'm not a leftist. i'm a social libertarian, and i cant stand big
> government or big brother on the right or the left. on economic
> issues i'm as conservative as they come. so... i'm not a leftist AND
> i am convinced by reasons of facts that gulf war two was all about the
> what the insiders and userpers wanted for their small group of pals
> and the rest of us be dammned.
I am not saying you are. I have set people off when I have written
leftie or commie (certainly a joke) in the past. Just trying to
seperate theories.
>> The fundamentalist groups were
>>
>>> not "down" with old Saddam. Saddam along with being a dictator was
>>> also building Iraq into one of the most secular and "western" of all
>>> the Arab countries and the fundamentalists hated him for it.
>> Michael that was Wolfowitz & company's argument for the invasion. He
>> wrote that for eight years prior to Bush. They don't understand Islam
>> and if they had read some Marx & Crane Briton they would understand it
>> better. The Iranian revolution & now this is about power not religion.
>> The power & wealth in Iran went from supporters of the Shah to
>> supporters of the Ayatollah. Who would have thought the aftermath would
>> be worse. Iran was the place democracy would have worked. Homogeneous
>> population that was mildly Islamic.
>
> that one of the wolfowitz selling points, yes... but what was his
> real motive and who is he to use taxpayer money and the blood of the
> military to undertake adventures ??? was iraq a real threat to the
> United States ??? A stripped down dictator that runs from safe house
> to safe house with his rag tag military ??? he was a joke at the time
> of gulf war 2, not a threat to by far the most powerfull country on
> earth.
If Iraq turns into something other than Lebanon then he will tout
himself a genius. Right now, he is an idiot.
>
>> Jimmy Carter is probably a very kind & decent man but he is proof you
>> don't want an engineer as a leader. (see Herbert Hoover)
>
> carter was just a well meaning putz... perhaps we'd be better with an
> actor or may be a drunk that ran everything he ever touched into the
> ground.
Interesting that Carter & Hoover may have done more good after their
presidency.
History has been kind to some of them...Jefferson being one. I largely
agree. They inherited an environment ripe for a great govt,
fortunately for us Hume was on the shelf of Madison, & they didn't screw
it up.
Michael
i hear ya... but im looking at it as an offense rather than a
mistake.
> We don't know what intelligence they had and didn't have and I know
> there was debate & concern but that is part of any administration. Smart
> people make stupid decisions & foolish people do both. I think history
> will prove we had both in that WH.
john.. i think that is hiding your head in the sand. did you read any
of the reports/commentary that came from blix and the nuke inspectors
there ??? are you also up to speed on the "yellow-cake" garnishing
that they threw in ??? we could take this fact for fact about the
intel they had and it really spells out that they made it say what
they wanted. not conspiracy kook stuff... as real as the gulf of
tonkin... as far as going after the hiding places and money wells for
the group responsible for 9-11... why the hell didnt we invade saudi
arabia ???
> The only thing that make sense to me is that someone decided that it
> would be cheaper to invade then as opposed to wait, but again Idon't
> know and don't think we ever will.
again... i think the reasons are clear... but you have the room to see
it another way...
> >> I have had this discussion with Brits for years. If they knew their
> >> were no weapons why would they invade & prove themselves wrong,
> >> especially Blair. So Blair throws in, for what?
>
> > very easy answer here, John... the real orchestrators did not care or
> > think too much of the consequences of being proven wrong even if the
> > political spin didnt cut the mustard for them. and they were correct
> > in understanding that there would be no real consequences for them.
> > once they had things in motion, they had their way and that was that.
>
> Listen I am wide open to answers on this. I just can't get Blair's
> involvement if he KNEW their were no weapons. Why? Interesting point
> is that he is viewed as Bush' friend by his detractors who hat ethe war
> but was viewed as Clinton's friend prior.
Ive been involved in a few discussions on this point. The primary
slants are that Blair was a dupe or an accomplice or a blind idiot
standing by his staunch ally right or wrong. If a Dupe, why did he
not react when the facts became apparant. If an accomplice, what was
his "cut" ??? I'm leaning in the way of simple politics. He was
caught up in the 9-11 whirlwind and was blind in his support of the
USA.
we'll have lebanon for as long as at least a generation. may be worse
than lebanon. but even if it beomes a model republic 50 years from
now, what legal pretext did he have for going on an adventure ???
> >> Jimmy Carter is probably a very kind & decent man but he is proof you
> >> don't want an engineer as a leader. (see Herbert Hoover)
>
> > carter was just a well meaning putz... perhaps we'd be better with an
> > actor or may be a drunk that ran everything he ever touched into the
> > ground.
>
> Interesting that Carter & Hoover may have done more good after their
> presidency.
ahhh... carter... some of his recent humanitarian works have gotten
him branded as of late.
would you call it luck or providence ??? you know that i'm not too
fond of organized religion, but on the other hand, the more i read
about our early american history, the more convinced i am that they
had help and blessings from upstairs. that makes it all the more
upsetting to see greed bringing it all down.
papa.carl44
Agreed....Cheney and his puppet "W" had that deal planned on election day I
believe. But, I also don't think nukes are good self defense weapons...once
used, it's all over.
papa.carl44
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:isfsn5dt2k7sgo0qn...@4ax.com...
Good post...and also points out how incredibly foolish and damaging Bush /
Cheney's decision to invade was. What was really accomplished was they won
a real war for the Iranians, and created a situation that would not have
existed if they had left it alone and focused on Afghanistan and finding the
real perpetrators of 911.
papa.carl44
We agree...I was trying to talk about the defense aspect of the
weapons.....the entire mess we have today is partially a result of bad
policy and horrendous decisions. The guys who made these decisions should
know half the history you know....but they only want to create their own.
The new group of revisionists neocons is even scarier, IMHO.
Johnny Morongo
You've pretty much summed up my take, Ray. There was a multiplicity of
reasons we went to war with Sadam, all of which would not have been in
play had 9/11 never happened. One must always examine first causes.
Johnny Morongo
> Oh dear.. I've done it this time. I just got myself on the watch list.
Welcome to the club.
Michael
Thanx... Though, the club's membership is not expanding by means of
submitting an completed application. It is expanding by means of
inclusion. Once uppon a time, you had to be Che or in the Weathermen
to join the club. These days, the guys making the lists want to
include anyone that radical enough to support preserving the
constitution. Goodness help you if you want to see the USA return to
being a true republic.
Johnny Morongo
>>
>>> I get your point. Washington was not only a great general but a
>>> prescient leader.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> ...and was in the company of some of the best men western civ ever
>> knew...
>
> History has been kind to some of them...Jefferson being one. I largely
> agree. They inherited an environment ripe for a great govt,
> fortunately for us Hume was on the shelf of Madison, & they didn't screw
> it up.
>
Jefferson has been the beneficiary, over the past 50 or so years, of
JFK's rendering of him.
Johnny Morongo
>
> would you call it luck or providence ??? you know that i'm not too
> fond of organized religion, but on the other hand, the more i read
> about our early american history, the more convinced i am that they
> had help and blessings from upstairs. that makes it all the more
> upsetting to see greed bringing it all down.
Gotta agree with the "help and blessings from upstairs" bit, Michael,
but I'm not so sure of who was up there, or where 'there" is (was).
Johnny Morongo
> Good post...and also points out how incredibly foolish and damaging Bush /
> Cheney's decision to invade was. What was really accomplished was they won
> a real war for the Iranians, and created a situation that would not have
> existed if they had left it alone and focused on Afghanistan and finding the
> real perpetrators of 911.
>
As to finding the "real Perps" of 9/11, no amount of focusing on
Afghanistan would have found them.
Michael
wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> We agree...I was trying to talk about the defense aspect of the
> weapons.....the entire mess we have today is partially a result of bad
> policy and horrendous decisions. The guys who made these decisions should
> know half the history you know....but they only want to create their own.
> The new group of revisionists neocons is even scarier, IMHO.- Hide quoted text -
Thanx Papa... As far as the defense aspect... No matter how big or
small of a country you are, having nukes gives pause to others who
might otherwise step on your grass. Between the US and Soviets, nukes
made war absolete. Without nukes, we probably would have had a
conventional war with the Eastern Block that could have killed tens of
millions of people.
Still... There are technical mistakes to consider as well as
communication failures in the midst of brinksmanship. We saw those
thins with the Cuban crysis as well as the stuff that went on behind
the scenes during the Grenada invasion. As responsible as the US and
Soviets were with their nukes, we almost light it up a few times.
Then you have major passions... Look at India and Pakistan. They
almost went off half cocked. Now, with the fundamentalist aspects, it
gets even more fun.... So... Again.. I'm not concluding one way or
the other if the Iranians would ever use the nukes or just plain screw
the pooch and set one off by accident. Oh.. yeah... I forgot... May
be they might just hand one over to a terrorist that delivers it with
no return address... Again... I'm not concluding anything... Just
saying to consider everything including the fact that it jingoism to
go after one guy for may be having a nuke while letting the next guy
have 300 + despite legal paper that says they cant have 'em.
Michael
are the real perps the jack-asses that made our foreign policy or some
other group of fundamentalist jack-asses in saudi arabia, egypt... or
both ?
Johnny Morongo
I'm gonna coin a term here, Michael, the I think goes to the heart of
who the "real" perps were: The Bushtocracy. I think that about covers
it. ;)
Michael
"Bushtocracy" You mean former president Bush and his cabinet or are
you referring to the management structure of an old school New Orleans
whore house ???
MZ
Early americans had it easy. Their "owner" lived across the pond. And
that's 18th century miles.
We should be careful about saying that they should overthrow their
rulers. We wouldn't be able to overthrow ours if the will was there to
do so.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
I dont agree... Political will that brings down empires grows from
desperation, not weapons. Who had the weapons when the Soviet block
came appart ???
Ray O'Hara
nuking a Division or a fleet is the high price to extract. we woldn't invade
if it meant 10,000+ dead.
Grinch
<mjd...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Feb 18, 11:51�ｿｽpm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
>wrote:
>> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hll4ln$6c6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>> >news:aaWdnYtp759ynuPW...@giganews.com...
>>
>> >> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:842b12db-e80e-40bd...@k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> OK, Just got this CNN New Allert...
>>
>> >>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T2
>>
>> >>> So... Iran may be working on a nuke warhead. �ｿｽThat is the stupidest
>> >>> thing I ever heard. �ｿｽOf course Iran is working on a nuke. That was
>> >>> their obvious goal all along. �ｿｽOnce again... For me, I could care less
>> >>> who has nukes. �ｿｽI grew up in the 70's-80's with the Soviet arsenal
>> >>> pointed at me. �ｿｽWhat I care about is who will USE nukes. �ｿｽNukes are
>> >>> political weapons and not military weapons. �ｿｽThe U.S. and the Soviets
>> >>> knew that and played accordingly. �ｿｽThe question is not wheather Iran
>> >>> is working on a nuke or not. You have to be a total idiot not to know
>> >>> they are gearing up to build a nuke and couple it with one of the
>> >>> ballistic missiles they have been showing off. �ｿｽThe real question is
>> >>> does Iran understand that nukes are strictly political and not
>> >>> military ???
>>
>> >>> What do you think ??? Is the government in Iran foolish, structurally
>> >>> unstable or crazy enough to ever USE a nuke ???
>>
>> >>> Would it be fair to pressure them for wanting nukes while other
>> >>> countries in the region are left unhampered to have their own
>> >>> collection of 300 + warheads ???
>>
>> >> I think they would use one...and, to be fair, if it is a certainty they
>> >> have one, I think Israel would use one pre-emtively too. �ｿｽIt's a
>> >> political weapon for BIG countries, and the big power for those players
>> >> was the fact you could hit the outside enemy with a nuke and if needed
>> >> control your own population with troops. �ｿｽThat is what nuclear weapons
>> >> essentially did, we may have done stupid things in the last decade to
>> >> weaken our military stregnth, but the fact remains that if a country has
>> >> a very strong nuclear capability it can wave it's big stick and not worry
>> >> too much about what folks at home say because it is possible to put down
>> >> rebellion and not lose your power to defend yourself. �ｿｽIn short,
>> >> yeah.....Iran, with the screwballs they have, in what is becoming a more
>> >> and more secularized government, will use one, against Israel most
>> >> likely.
>>
>> > why would they use one agsinst Israel when they know Israel would use at
>> > least a dozen in retaliationagainst them?
>> > they want a bomb for self defense. ifSaddam had actuallyhad WMDswe
>> > wouldn't have invaded and they realized it.
>>
>> I'm not sure I'm following you here. �ｿｽYou mean Bush & Co. actually knew
>> there were no WMD's? �ｿｽI think Saddam got rid of them thinking he avoided an
>> invasion, only to have a stupid administration here do it anyway. �ｿｽI also
>> don't think Saddam was the whack job that Ahmadinejad is, it's totally
>> different. �ｿｽAnd...I think this goof might believe he can hit Israel hard
You mean by getting the French army and navy to beat the British at
the Battle of Yorktown, to win our Revolution for us?
Johnny Morongo
I mean the whole Bush clan from papa Bush to Clinton to baby Bush, et. al.
papa.carl44
"Johnny Morongo" <j.mir...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote in message
news:luadnVkuq4N...@giganews.com...
IF...IF...it was the network based in Afghanistan...like you, I have some
doubts as to who and where they were.
papa.carl44
Saudis for sure...and the fundamentalist buffoons who are in reality hoping
for disaster
Michael
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:46:57 -0800 (PST), Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 18, 11:51 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> >wrote:
> >> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:hll4ln$6c6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> > "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:aaWdnYtp759ynuPW...@giganews.com...
>
> >> >> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> >>news:842b12db-e80e-40bd...@k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> OK, Just got this CNN New Allert...
>
> >> >>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T2
>
> >> >>> thing I ever heard. Of course Iran is working on a nuke. That was
> >> >>> their obvious goal all along. Once again... For me, I could care less
> >> >>> who has nukes. I grew up in the 70's-80's with the Soviet arsenal
> >> >>> pointed at me. What I care about is who will USE nukes. Nukes are
> >> >>> political weapons and not military weapons. The U.S. and the Soviets
> >> >>> knew that and played accordingly. The question is not wheather Iran
> >> >>> is working on a nuke or not. You have to be a total idiot not to know
> >> >>> they are gearing up to build a nuke and couple it with one of the
> >> >>> does Iran understand that nukes are strictly political and not
> >> >>> military ???
>
> >> >>> What do you think ??? Is the government in Iran foolish, structurally
> >> >>> unstable or crazy enough to ever USE a nuke ???
>
> >> >>> Would it be fair to pressure them for wanting nukes while other
> >> >>> countries in the region are left unhampered to have their own
> >> >>> collection of 300 + warheads ???
>
> >> >> I think they would use one...and, to be fair, if it is a certainty they
> >> >> political weapon for BIG countries, and the big power for those players
> >> >> was the fact you could hit the outside enemy with a nuke and if needed
> >> >> essentially did, we may have done stupid things in the last decade to
> >> >> weaken our military stregnth, but the fact remains that if a country has
> >> >> a very strong nuclear capability it can wave it's big stick and not worry
> >> >> too much about what folks at home say because it is possible to put down
> >> >> yeah.....Iran, with the screwballs they have, in what is becoming a more
> >> >> and more secularized government, will use one, against Israel most
> >> >> likely.
>
> >> > why would they use one agsinst Israel when they know Israel would use at
> >> > least a dozen in retaliationagainst them?
> >> > they want a bomb for self defense. ifSaddam had actuallyhad WMDswe
> >> > wouldn't have invaded and they realized it.
>
> >> there were no WMD's? I think Saddam got rid of them thinking he avoided an
> >> invasion, only to have a stupid administration here do it anyway. I also
> >> don't think Saddam was the whack job that Ahmadinejad is, it's totally
>
> - Show quoted text -
if i had to pick an important battle that the french won for the
"rebels" it would indeed be the battle of the virginia cape. that was
tremendously pivitol. bottom line, though... they would not have been
there to win that battle without the political will and resourceful
nature of the founding fathers. though, unlike most historians, i
dont see the "american" revolution as an "american" war at all. for
the most part, I see it as largely a british civial war. libertarians
and republicans vs. royalists. america was just the name they gave to
the newly formed splinter group that won the right to preside over the
worlds biggest grocery store.
Johnctx
You mean Hans Blix who in his own words thought their were WMD's.
As for Niger the great fan of the Bush admin writes this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/
i am saying that I don't know because I don't trust the information. If
you think you have enough great.
>
we could take this fact for fact about the
> intel they had and it really spells out that they made it say what
> they wanted. not conspiracy kook stuff... as real as the gulf of
> tonkin... as far as going after the hiding places and money wells for
> the group responsible for 9-11... why the hell didnt we invade saudi
> arabia ???
I don't know why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia. Probably the same
reason we didn't invade Italy after Sacco & Vanzetti and Ieland after
the Molly Malones.
As for 9-11, stop it.
>
>> The only thing that make sense to me is that someone decided that it
>> would be cheaper to invade then as opposed to wait, but again Idon't
>> know and don't think we ever will.
>
> again... i think the reasons are clear... but you have the room to see
> it another way...
You would have to express your ideas for me ti know what they are.
>
>>>> I have had this discussion with Brits for years. If they knew their
>>>> were no weapons why would they invade & prove themselves wrong,
>>>> especially Blair. So Blair throws in, for what?
>>> very easy answer here, John... the real orchestrators did not care or
>>> think too much of the consequences of being proven wrong even if the
>>> political spin didnt cut the mustard for them. and they were correct
>>> in understanding that there would be no real consequences for them.
>>> once they had things in motion, they had their way and that was that.
>> Listen I am wide open to answers on this. I just can't get Blair's
>> involvement if he KNEW their were no weapons. Why? Interesting point
>> is that he is viewed as Bush' friend by his detractors who hat ethe war
>> but was viewed as Clinton's friend prior.
>
> Ive been involved in a few discussions on this point. The primary
> slants are that Blair was a dupe or an accomplice or a blind idiot
> standing by his staunch ally right or wrong. If a Dupe, why did he
> not react when the facts became apparant. If an accomplice, what was
> his "cut" ??? I'm leaning in the way of simple politics. He was
> caught up in the 9-11 whirlwind and was blind in his support of the
> USA.
So he tarnishes his legacy over getting caught up in a war that was
unpopular in hi scountry from day one?
I don't know.
Michael, greed triggered that revolution. It was a social, political &
economic revolution.
Johnctx
What always bothered me was his political cowardice & waffling at times.
For my story I will need two JFK's.
:)
Johnctx
We agree there. I as dumbfounded & shouldn't have been surprised with
Iraq. I hold out that there is/was a plan because surell Obama can't be
stayng there. What is the end game? 20 MM people herding goats &
growing poppies in peace?
Michael
> You mean Hans Blix who in his own words thought their were WMD's.
I mean Blix who said he was ready to be a witness on the United
States’ false allegations before an International tribunal. Same Blix
who also said both he and Baradei were both pressured to present info
slanted to what Bush/Cheney wanted them to report. Also... The speed
at which the Bush gang pulled the trigger on military action when
inspectors were all asking for more time and deplomacy as nothing
conclusive was found also tells me that Bush and co looked at the
inspections as simple window dressing. If they found stuff, we get a
war, if they dont find stuff, they spin things and we get a war. We
were gonna get the war no matter what they found or did not find.
They did not find shit, and we got the war.
Besides what the inspectors reported, did you read any of the Downing
Street memos ??? Or do you think that is conspiracy kook stuff ???
> As for Niger the great fan of the Bush admin writes this:
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/
>
> i am saying that I don't know because I don't trust the information. If
> you think you have enough great.
Oh, yes... You could not trust the info in a lot of cases... I
agree... All the more reason, not to start shooting. But they did.
They had NOTHING concrete. Not even close. A case would have been a
factory for making WMD, or actual WMD. Not talk that there might be
some WMD. All they had was bs stories across the board. You dont
trust the info, but it was good enough for Bush and co to go on
Safari ???
> we could take this fact for fact about the
>
> > intel they had and it really spells out that they made it say what
> > they wanted. not conspiracy kook stuff... as real as the gulf of
> > tonkin... as far as going after the hiding places and money wells for
> > the group responsible for 9-11... why the hell didnt we invade saudi
> > arabia ???
>
> I don't know why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia. Probably the same
> reason we didn't invade Italy after Sacco & Vanzetti and Ieland after
> the Molly Malones.
>
> As for 9-11, stop it.
Huh ??? I'm pointing out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Not
on the money end, the politial end or the human resource end. Without
9-11 we would not have had the climate for Bush and co. to go on
safari in Iraq. The post 9-11 political climate was taken advantage
of by Bush and co to carry out an agenda.. Also... I'm not privy to
top level intel, but it seems to me that the early response in
Afganastan was botched. They should have sent all the hardware and
manpower there, not Iraq.
Johnctx
Michael, Washington imho gets treated as a great general because he kept
an army in the field against enormous odds which allowed the French
money to enter the war. By keeping the war alive, even if his troops
spent more time digging & running than fighting, it caused havoc with
British shipping. American & French privateers took over 3000 British
ships. The insurance rates went through the roof and pressure stayed on
their government to end the war.
I agree that the de Grasse defeating the British at Chesapeake was key
but look at how inept Cornwallis was in NC that lead to that point.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Washington is one of the best choices. These "best of" or "top tens"
are fun, but always subjective.
Johnctx
> Johnny Morongo wrote:
>> papa.carl44 wrote:
>>
>>> Good post...and also points out how incredibly foolish and damaging
>>> Bush / Cheney's decision to invade was. What was really accomplished
>>> was they won a real war for the Iranians, and created a situation
>>> that would not have existed if they had left it alone and focused on
>>> Afghanistan and finding the real perpetrators of 911.
>>
>> As to finding the "real Perps" of 9/11, no amount of focusing on
>> Afghanistan would have found them.
>
even by my standards this was too much
> We agree there. I was dumbfounded when we invaded Afgahnistan & shouldn't have been surprised with
> Iraq. I hold out that there is/was a plan, because surely Obama can't be
> staying there & risking his presidency, unless there is a real reason.
>For me I can't figure it out. >What is the end game? 30 MM people
peasefully herding goats &
> growing poppies in peace?
Johnctx
> On Feb 22, 9:02 am, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You mean Hans Blix who in his own words thought their were WMD's.
>
> I mean Blix who said he was ready to be a witness on the United
> who also said both he and Baradei were both pressured to present info
> slanted to what Bush/Cheney wanted them to report.
No the same Hans Blix who said that up to the invasion he thought there
were WMD's.
>Also... The speed
> at which the Bush gang pulled the trigger on military action when
> inspectors were all asking for more time and deplomacy as nothing
> conclusive was found also tells me that Bush and co looked at the
> inspections as simple window dressing.
They weren't saying there was nothing. They said they need to continue.
There was a shortage of critical thinking it wasn't entirely the Bush
side that was bereft of it.
>
If they found stuff, we get a
> war, if they dont find stuff, they spin things and we get a war. We
> were gonna get the war no matter what they found or did not find.
> They did not find shit, and we got the war.
A bit simplistic, as they certainly could have planted it, if this was a
big conspiracy why not one small additional piece?
I was annoyed you mentioned 9/11 thinking you were blaming the Houston
Rotary Club, the Elks, the Trilateralists, etc.
Bush & co were clever in not saying the Iraqi's were behind 9/11 but
would regularly mention 9/11 & then mention Iraq about the danger they
posed. Yes, you are correct 9/11 created the environment that allowed
for Iraq.
Johnny Morongo
I said it before and I'll say it again: Obama is Bush lite. Same shit
in different cans.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
im not willing to call them cut from the same cloth... the better way
to put it is that they are both at the ends of the same set of
strings. we got a one party system here... republicrats... and even
they are just a smoke screen for the real bosses
Johnny Morongo
It's even more sinister than you know. Very dark. And darker still.
Nunya Bidnits
> OK, Just got this CNN New Allert...
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T2
>
> So... Iran may be working on a nuke warhead. That is the stupidest
> thing I ever heard. Of course Iran is working on a nuke. That was
> their obvious goal all along. Once again... For me, I could care less
> who has nukes. I grew up in the 70's-80's with the Soviet arsenal
> pointed at me. What I care about is who will USE nukes. Nukes are
> political weapons and not military weapons. The U.S. and the Soviets
> knew that and played accordingly. The question is not wheather Iran
> is working on a nuke or not. You have to be a total idiot not to know
> they are gearing up to build a nuke and couple it with one of the
> ballistic missiles they have been showing off. The real question is
> does Iran understand that nukes are strictly political and not
> military ???
>
> What do you think ??? Is the government in Iran foolish, structurally
> unstable or crazy enough to ever USE a nuke ???
>
> Would it be fair to pressure them for wanting nukes while other
> countries in the region are left unhampered to have their own
> collection of 300 + warheads ???
Something to consider when you wonder about the attitudes of other nations
who either feel the need to acqure nukes or don't respect US efforts to
curtail their existence:
There is only one country on earth which has ever resorted to nuclear
weapons as a means to resolve a conflict.
Put yourself in the position of some other nation, especially one which is
getting US sabers rattled at it, and ask yourself why they might be
paranoid. We're familiar with the history, but the only thing a lot of
people and nations on the wrong side of the US are going to be thinking
about is that one overwhelming fact, and they will consider the likelihood
that we have nukes pointed at them right now, 24/7. If you look at it from
the perspective of all the nations who have never used a nuke out of
hostility, and think about how they view the one nation which has actually
dropped a bomb on another country, the story looks completely different.
I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong, or who should have nukes, or
whether or not we should have used them in WWII. I'm just sayin'... in the
final analysis it is actions, not words, by which we are judged, and we are
who we are. The rest of the world isn't filled with sympathy for our
reasons, only an overwhelming awareness that we are the only nation which
has proven it is willing to resort to nuclear warfare as a means of
resolving hostilites.
MBKC
Nunya Bidnits
> "Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hll4ln$6c6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:aaWdnYtp759ynuPW...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>
news:842b12db-e80e-40bd...@k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>>> OK, Just got this CNN New Allert...
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T2
>>>>
>>>> So... Iran may be working on a nuke warhead. That is the stupidest
>>>> thing I ever heard. Of course Iran is working on a nuke. That was
>>>> their obvious goal all along. Once again... For me, I could care
>>>> less who has nukes. I grew up in the 70's-80's with the Soviet
>>>> arsenal pointed at me. What I care about is who will USE nukes.
>>>> Nukes are political weapons and not military weapons. The U.S.
>>>> and the Soviets knew that and played accordingly. The question is
>>>> not wheather Iran is working on a nuke or not. You have to be a
>>>> total idiot not to know they are gearing up to build a nuke and
>>>> couple it with one of the ballistic missiles they have been
>>>> showing off. The real question is does Iran understand that nukes
>>>> are strictly political and not military ???
>>>>
>>>> What do you think ??? Is the government in Iran foolish,
>>>> structurally unstable or crazy enough to ever USE a nuke ???
>>>>
>>>> Would it be fair to pressure them for wanting nukes while other
>>>> countries in the region are left unhampered to have their own
>>>> collection of 300 + warheads ???
>>>
>>> they have one, I think Israel would use one pre-emtively too. It's
>>> a political weapon for BIG countries, and the big power for those
>>> players was the fact you could hit the outside enemy with a nuke
>>> and if needed control your own population with troops. That is
>>> what nuclear weapons essentially did, we may have done stupid
>>> things in the last decade to weaken our military stregnth, but the
>>> fact remains that if a country has a very strong nuclear capability
>>> it can wave it's big stick and not worry too much about what folks
>>> at home say because it is possible to put down rebellion and not
>>> lose your power to defend yourself. In short, yeah.....Iran, with
>>> the screwballs they have, in what is becoming a more and more
>>> secularized government, will use one, against Israel most likely.
>>>
>>
>> why would they use one agsinst Israel when they know Israel would
>> use at least a dozen in retaliationagainst them?
>> they want a bomb for self defense. ifSaddam had actuallyhad WMDswe
>> wouldn't have invaded and they realized it.
>
> I'm not sure I'm following you here. You mean Bush & Co. actually
> knew there were no WMD's? I think Saddam got rid of them thinking he
> avoided an invasion, only to have a stupid administration here do it
> anyway. I also don't think Saddam was the whack job that Ahmadinejad
> is, it's totally different. And...I think this goof might believe he
> can hit Israel hard enough to kill their retaliation to some degree.
No, Saddam was a sadistic monster, but not a whack job. He was the only guy
who inspired so much fear among all the hostile factions in that area that
he became the only guy who could keep a lid on the sectarian violence which
has plagued the middle east for centuries. He was the only guy who could
keep order... so we hung him. Nice.
Nunya Bidnits
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:07:51 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
> <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>> And who would take them if he had had them to do so would invite
>> invasion. and what was he saving them for if not for self-defense?
>> it was neber about WMDs, that was the excuse they knew would work.
>
> until the Iraqis executed him.
>
> He tried to fool everybody into believing he still had the WMDs, after
> getting rid of them (temporarily) so the inspectors wouldn't find any.
>
> He thought if the inspectors didn't actually find any, the US would
> never invade (because the Americans are so soft, and swayed by
> opinions of the French and UN and all that).
>
> But if everybody believed he had them, he'd still be the regional
> powerhouse -- especially versus Iran.
>
> *Not believing* the Americans would ever invade, his real #1 enemy of
> concern remained Iran, with whom he'd recently had that huge war --
> and against whom he *used* them massively. He'd used *a lot* of
> poison gas in that war.
>
> That's who he was really worred about, the Iranians. He especially
> wanted thems to believe he had the WMDs, to keep them at bay and
> intimidate them.
>
> So he made everybody in Iraq believe he had the WMDs -- he told each
> general the other generals had them, told each mininistry and military
> force that the others did, etc., knowing that if they all believed it
> all the spies in the region would report that he did have them back to
> Iran, and to everyone else.
>
> So he fooled the Iranians into believing he still had the WMDs. And
> everyone else too.
>
> He was a genius. It worked!
Correct about the hostilities between Iraq and Iran. Removing Saddam was the
principle reason that nutball in Iran keeps running around playing see my
big dick. Until we took him out, Ahmanutballjob and his predecessors had
their hands full worrying about half a million Iraqis in battle tanks who
were perenially poised on their border to attack... and did, more than once.
So of course, we removed Saddam. Yet another monumentally stupid strategic
blunder... boy George understood balance of power about as well as he
understands quark theory... or worse, maybe he just didn't give a shit,
maybe he just wanted to beat down some Muslim ass. Either way, when the
history books are written 100 years down the road, he will be remembered as
the idiot who pulled the hand off the deadman switch.
Bush forgot one important phrase... the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Now
thanks to his pathetic bungling, we have a much more real, serious problem,
an actual REAL WMD threat, with the nutjob Iranians preparing to go nuclear.
Way to go, dumbass Bush. Thanks for creating a wonderful situation which is
probably going to get some countries melted down to glass before this is
over. There has never been a dimmer bulb in the White House.