Democrats & Liberals Archives

It Is Time to "Duck and Cover"

Especially if you are hunting with Dick Cheney… This born wrong the first time, inbred, evangelical fundamentalist extremist, Armageddon loving, President is bringing back the horror of nuclear Armageddon.

We learned how to "Duck and Cover" in the "old days". Now, Bush's "No Child Cared About" education reform will leave no child behind when it comes to teaching them to Duck and Cover, and Then Wrap Themselves in Plastic and Duct Tape. (Note to self, entrepreneurial opportunity to develop and market "Ducked Tape" for those "special times" when your idiot president starts a nuclear war. Advertising campaign: Ducked Tape - It is totally useless and won't stick to anything, but if you need it - you won't need it - because - when we are talking about nuclear war - uh - we are really talking about the eternal peace of eternal death - so... it never fails. Ducked Tape - It Never Fails)

Once upon a time, in a universe where common sense ruled, the United States and other nuclear powers made pledges not to use nukes against non-nuclear powers. See: Nuclear Pledge. This assured non-nuclear powers that they did not need to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent because they were not in danger of being attacked. But then the thoughtless Bush regime thought the unthinkable. See: Nuclear Pledge, and Plan to use Nukes Presumptively, for elaborations of their thoughtless idea-logic idiocy. They make many completely illogical and unsupported assertions, like: our pledge not to use nuclear weapons actually inspired other countries to develop them. Yea sure, like being threatened would not make other countries all the more convinced that they needed them? Please.

Then Santa Bush proceeded to make a list, and check it twice, to find out who he could label as an axis of evil, and then told the listees, that they that we were coming after them one by one, and that they were next. These heavy handed tactics did effectively separate the men from the boys. Moammar al Qaddafi became one of the "boys." Although he had been headed that way for a long time, as a result of the diplomacy of previous Presidents. Unsurprisingly, Iran and North Korea went the other way.

Now into this cauldron of Bush regime inspired geopolitical instability comes the Bush regimes "operational" plans for nuclear war with Iran (that is "operational" not just contingency). Granted, operational plans are still contingent on the Presidents order to execute them - but they are real plans, presented as real options, for real consideration, to kill real people, and really make the U.S. the first - and second - nation to use nuclear weapons. This is real folks. (Note to self, entrepreneurial opportunity, develop and niche market black latex hazmat suits with white lace and white rabbit fur for those intimate moments when you clutch your radiation poisoned beloved as their life force slowly seeps away. Niche marketing.. it is the bling thing.)

Notice of coarse, that operation "Chicken Hawk" to use nuclear weapons, is not threatened against North Korea - only Iran. Notice that - and know that leaders of other countries all over the world are smart enough to to infer why this chicken hawk president is so much more aggressive toward Iran than he is against North Korea. Know that all countries around the world are reevaluating their need for nuclear deterrence in order to protect their sovereignty - even our boy Moammar.

As bad as this is, the thoughtless idea-logic idiots of the Bush regime have found new and creative ways to destabilize nuclear non-proliferation. I have an imbecilic idea-logic idea, let's let India ramp up their military nuclear program in exchange for mangoes. Helping India to increase the speed of making warheads two or three fold will not encourage politically unstable radical wahabist Islamist nuclear proliferator Pakistan to speed up their program - oh wait it will. Pakistan cannot afford an arms race with India. They will be forced to proliferate to all comers in order to finance the inevitable arms race with India.

Bush wants to teach our kids to duck and cover, but he is leading by example. What better way to distract the American people from lies, incompetence, and corruption than to "Duck and Cover" by starting a little nuclear war with little nukes, and once again wrapping himself in the flag as wartime Commander and Chief. The evil genius Rove has probably figured out that this bold decisive move is the best long shot hope of preserving the Republican majority in Congress thereby preventing effective Congressional oversight and avoiding prison for high crimes. He is probably correct. The American people are in love with their phallic false power of military might instead of their real power of love, peace, courage, justice, equality, nobility, tolerance, and diplomacy. They love the big "stick" but they have forgotten the wisdom and courage of walking softly with a carrot.

Posted by Ray Guest at April 15, 2006 9:33 PM
Comments
Comment #140938

This is why I call liberals hysterical.

Paul talked about the 16 days to Armageddon. Since that was April 12, I guess we have only 12 or 13 days left depending on when he actually wrote. Now you got the duck and cover attack.

I am glad you found that from Vance, but you also much recall that the U.S. throughout the Cold War specifically refused to pledge no first use of nuclear weapons. The Soviets used to regularly rile up the peace movements by pledging exactly that and challenging us to do the same.

Paul has the war starting on or about April 29. When do you figure it?

Posted by: Jack at April 15, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #140939

…and these are the rational minds that want to take back power…

Posted by: bug at April 15, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #140940

Ray did you expect any less during this election cycle? God Guns and Gays, otherwise we would have to debate and decide real issues.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 15, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #140941

j2t2,

What ‘real issues’ does anyone believe will be debated and settled if the dems regain power while Bush is still in office???
ABSOLUTELY NONE!!!!

Posted by: bug at April 15, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #140943

Just FYI

This is something I found from 1984. You may remember 1984. That was the year when the liberals said Ronald Reagan was about to start WWIII. That was the year when millions of people protested in Central Park and when millions of Europeans marched against the aggressive U.S. policy. That was when the nuclear freeze movement wanted to save the Soviet Union. It is the hysteria that breaks out about once every decade. When will they ever learn?

Posted by: Jack at April 15, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #140955

Jack, bug, et.al.

Am I to understand that you believe Bush will NOT attack Iran? Do you favor Attack or No Attack? State reason.

Kindly post your position so we can know how you will react when Bush does bomb or not bomb. I just have this feeling you are going to adjust your Spin to fit whatever nonsense your Dear Leader actually does.

So state your position now so we would know and remember.

Posted by: Aldous at April 15, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #140958

>> When will they ever learn?


Posted by: Jack at April 15, 2006 10:09 PM

Strange that you would use a phrase from a group of left leaning, doper, folk singers, who sang protests against another useless war…

When an idiot uses bogus information to justify the unjustifiable, perhaps hysterics is the only course left. Why would you think the idiot is not serious about starting a nuke fest with another ‘Axis of Evil’? He didn’t hesitate to invade the first ‘Axis’.

Come to think…if Cheney/Bush really thought Saddam had nukes, why didn’t he threaten to fry HIS balls? That may be the best proof yet that Cheney/Bush knew Wilson was right well ahead of time.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 15, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #140961

Marys

I remember the 1960s, perhaps with less enthusiasm than those dopers you mention. I remember the hysteria of the anti-Reagan 1980s. Some of the same old guys who organized the protests back then went into action now. At least in the 1960s they made up some new songs. Now they are still using them.

And the same old sayings. But what if they held a war and nobody came? All we are saying is give peace a chance. Why can’t we all just get along? If we give them what they want, they will learn to respect us more.

One GOOD thing (I am serious). This peace movement has not demonized the soldiers fighting the war. That is the unforgivable thing the 60s hippies did.

Posted by: Jack at April 15, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #140966

60’s hippies demonized GIs in Vietnam? That’s a bunch of crap. As a 60’s anti-war baby boomer and Navy veteran who served during the tail end of the nam era, I don’t recall much if any of that going on. It’s basically a myth that has been perpetrated by bitter redneck nam vets and their rightwing compatriots.

Posted by: Tim at April 15, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #140974

Thanks for your comments all. It looks like we might have Jack fired up - and that has to be good. I will have to read the comments more carefully and try to put together a thoughtful response when I get the time.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 16, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #140977

Some did demonize soldiers. Some did not. Some soldiers/non soldiers advocated nuking the gooks.

Some soldiers at Mi Lai deserved demonizing.

Some demonize and harass soldiers today. Some refer to Iraqis as camel jockeys and do digusting things.

I once went to a Nixon attended museum opening in Dayton, Ohio. There were about 20 protesters carrying flowers and coffins. There were a few thousand others there. The news made it appear a massive protest had occcured. Most just came for the show.

It was Bush who invaded Iraq. Iran hasn’t invaded any country in over 150 years.

Iran does covert things to effect other situations in the world. So does the US.

Vietnam was a dumb war. It appears that Iraq may b e equally stupid.

What’s the point of these posts again?

Posted by: gergle at April 16, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #140984

I think what a strong defense and an even stronger retaliatory position did was to separate the men from the nuts. Moamar backed down because he knew we could, and would bomb his ass back to the stone age even if we had to fly around France to do it.

The threat of a deft trigger finger kept the USSR and China peaceful (in a nuclear sense) during the cold war.

However, the prospect of mutually assured destruction only works with sane leaders. It is not the best approach with North Korea or Iran. Krazy Kim wouldn’t mind going out in a blaze of glory and the fundamentalists in Iran believe they will be on the A list in the afterlife for mounting a massive attack on the infidels. Neither government seems to be motivated by concern for their citizens.

The conflict between India and Pakistan is not the same sort of situation. Neither government is ruled by a madman and both value the lives and livihood of their citizens. Furthermore, they both already have nuclear capacity. The genie is already out of the bottle.

With regard to the value of our “real power of love, peace, courage, justice, equality, nobility, tolerance, and diplomacy”, when dealing with North Korea and Iran I think that duct (not duck, Quack,Quack) tape would be more useful. Both parties have consistently engaged in deceitful negotiations to buy time to advance their weapons systems. More slow diplomatic dances will merely give them more time to prepare for a first strike. If anyone could suggest and defend a believable outcome that will come from continuing to negotitiate with these parties, please do so. They will only pose a bigger threat over time.

If we let these situation continue to fester, you should hold onto that carrot. Foodstuffs are sure to increase in value when the shit hits the fan.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 16, 2006 1:46 AM
Comment #140988

What Bush Apologists call the ‘hysterical Liberal Left’ is just the unfettered reverberations of our side actually dominating the political debate. The Right certainly knows hysterical, because the fringe wingnuts sullied their party over Terri Schavio.

Furthermore, if the Right had actually mounted a justification for what Seymour Hersh has not been challenged on merit, Bush would not now be labeled as ‘out of his freaking mind’ to go along with ‘incompetent’.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 16, 2006 2:08 AM
Comment #140989

I wonder how strong the dope was that GW was buying in the sixties.

Posted by: OZ at April 16, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #140990

The most incompetent, bungling administration in history? Could be. Iran could put the incompetence of the Bush administration into a land of superlatives: Worst. President. Ever.

Goodkingned, good comment, but we have only one good choice with Iran, and that is diplomacy, preferably quiet diplomacy.

The Iranian mullahs have played the Bush administration for chumps, and won big time. Iraq is on its way to becoming an Iranian allied Shia theocracy. Iran’s greatest regional enemy, Saddam Hussein & his secular Baathist regime, is gone. The Sunnis are in for a suppression that makes Saddam’s slaughter of the Kurds look like a walk in the park.

Meanwhile, the absurd saber rattling & belligerent, confrontational style of the Bush administration’s foreign policy is stupid. I can’t think of a more apt word for it than that: ‘stupid.’ The Iranians are being deliberately provocative. Their jerkwad of a president, Ahmedinejad, or whatever his name is, keeps up with the ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’ because 1) defiance plays well on the home front, and shores up support & encourages patriotism for a people who might otherwise reject the mullahs, given more peaceful conditions, and because 2) the US can’t actually do anything at all. Bombing sites for nuclear development won’t set the Iranians back enough to matter; if anything, it will harden their resolve, and give them impetus to develop nukes even more quickly.

Meanwhile, this serves the Bush administration just fine, and for exactly the same reasons. Belligerence shores up the Bush base, and the Iranians can’t actually do anything at all.

The danger, of course, is that sometimes people miscalculate, or make mistakes. Stuff happens. And given all the belligerence, the US could find itself involved in a war by accident.

Having lost in Iraq, perhaps Bush believes he could hold onto the House and/or the Senate by provoking a war. It’s throwing away good money after bad, never mind lives, but this strategy worked fine for Republicans in November 2002 and 2004; what the hey, maybe another stupid, bungled war will keep them in power for another two years. Given the wholesale looting of the US Treasury, why not?

Posted by: phx8 at April 16, 2006 2:34 AM
Comment #140993

phx8:

Thanks for your kind words, but I have to question your assertion that anyone but the Iranians are attempting to provoke war. Iran has been operating for much longer than the Bush terms to destabilize the region through her financial and tactical support of terrorist groups. By inhibiting participation in the electoral process, the mullahs have reduced the governing officials to a collection of rabid islamic sock puppets who parrot support for rule based upon fundamentalist sharia law.

Now the president thumbs his nose at nuclear watchdog agencies and issues open threats against Israel and the West on an almost daily basis. I think that’s provocatory. I certainly feel provoked and I bet the Israelis do also.

I assume that you have a backup plan in the event that slow, steady diplomacy doesn’t work. What do you think should be done in that event and at what point on the timetable between a nonnuclear Iran and a nuclear Iran would you institute your change of policy?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 16, 2006 3:36 AM
Comment #141000

Jack:

You still have not answered my question. I don’t blame you trying to avoid it. It hard to shill for an incompetent afterall.

Posted by: Aldous at April 16, 2006 7:47 AM
Comment #141001

All

Happy Resurrection Day.

I figured that would get your attention.

Aldous

I will make my predictions for all to see:

1.Isreal,not the USA will strike Iran.It will be quick,deadly and decisive.They will do a decapitaion strike in Tehran and Qom,taking out the Salafist leadership.

The USA will strike only if Isreal is preemtively attacked.If not,the USA will try to get a diplomatic solution to the issue.

2.Rumsfield will resign down the line but it won’t be until after the Iraqis form the government.That will conclude his “job” so to speak.
After that,groung commanders on the groud in Iraq will be asked some tough questions.First off,I’d like to know how 1300 gas trucks holding about 20% of Iraq’s daily oil production ended up in Syria.1300 trucks!This oil is being sold on the black market and the profits fund the insurgency.What kind of a shithead ground commander,with satellites every two feet snapping pictures,missed 1300 oil tankers on the road to Damascus?

3.Nothing will change in the November elections.At most a few seats will be lost in the House but the Republicans will still control both Houses.
When the immigration bill is passed,people will see that the Democratis poisoned the well(again) on this issue,making it (again)a politicial football.

4.Hystericial commentors will continue to post rather humorous artiucles for the right to skewer on a regular basis.The left will realize that they are their own worst enemy…right after the election,that is.

5.Nitwits like Micheal Moore and Howard Dean will again surface to assure that number 4 above happens.

6.Both American Pundit,Stephen Daughtery,and Alex Hernandez will finally see the light and vote Republician,while Paul Seigal,shocked at the turn of events,turns to the evangicial right and becomes Brother Paul on one of those cable Christian channels.

7. Aldous will win the Pulitizer Prize.Category:Science Fiction.

Happy Easter everyone!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 16, 2006 8:07 AM
Comment #141002

goodkingned:

I don’t know if you know this but Iraq invaded Iran during the 1980s. Every Sunni Country plus the United States supported Saddam Hussien’s Invasion.

I suggest you study history.

Posted by: Aldous at April 16, 2006 8:09 AM
Comment #141003

Can anyone show a link with a quote from Bush threatening Nukes against Iran? I can’t seem to find one - only “possibly” and “may be” comments from writers who offer no direct quotes. Now I’ve seen and heard repeatedly that Irans rabid president wants every Jew dead and the State of Israel wiped off the face of the planet…. sounds pretty threatening to me, coming from a man who has promised to develope nukes as soon as possible. The constant anti Bush rhetoric will not change the fact that Bush has NOT threatened nukes and that the Iranians HAVE. Grow up people.

Posted by: Ilsa at April 16, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #141004

Sicilian Eagle has posted his position!!! I salute you.

Now waiting for Jack, et.al..

Posted by: Aldous at April 16, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #141005

BTW - Iran is not interested in TALKING about anything and anyone who believes otherwise is living a fantasy.

Posted by: Ilsa at April 16, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #141006

Ilsa:

Pretty duplicitous statement. Can you show us a link showing Iran threatening to kill every Jew? Can you show us a link of Iran declaring they are developing Nukes?

The only person who’s not grown up here isn’t us…

By the way, I have a nice link of Bush saying he will fire anyone connected to the Plame Leak. Wanna see it?

Posted by: Aldous at April 16, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #141014

Tim,
Have you forgotten the hippies calling GIs murderers and baby killers and spitting on them? I haven’t.

Posted by: traveller at April 16, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #141019

traveller, there were some anti-war demonstrators who maligned our soldiers, and there were soldiers in Viet Nam who deserved to be maligned - remember fragging? Remember Mi Lai? I was a protester in 1968 I think it was on Belle Isle where national guard were assembled, and we put flowers at their feet. We viewed them as our own, and pleaded with them to save themselves, and our nation by asking them to remember their humanity, their love of life and others, and the future of peace, which did come to pass. The war ended, the killing and maiming stopped, the deficits stopped, and the Vietnamese and Americans became eventual friends.

Since Viet Nam became communist afterall, and since the world did not end, and communism did not overtake all of S.E. Asia or the world, I have to say the hippies were right, and the hysterical American government with its paranoia of communism was proved wrong. None of their predictions about what would happen if we failed in Viet Nam came true, and that made all the deaths and suffering wasted humanity. I enlisted a few years later while the war was still going on. I was a Buddhist, and the U.S. Army welcomed me anyway. I joined to save people, not kill them as a medic and psychiatric technician and humane drill seargent. The Army didn’t care much for my performance as a humane drill seargent, but promoted from E-1 to E-5 in less than 3 years, for my performance in working with our traumatized troops.

So, my experience was not one of hippies hating our soldiers or spitting on them, though a few may have engage in it. My fellow hippies in the Army and civilian hippies cared deeply for our soldiers and wanted to bring them home safe and unharmed. They were us, save for the uniform, our brothers. That is how almost all hippies I knew, in and outside the military, looked upon our soldiers. I am still a hippy today, and very proud of my service in the military as a hippy who opposed the War in Viet Nam for, as it turned out, all the right reasons.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #141020

I would be safer hunting with Dick Cheney than driving with Ted Kennedy.O my god the left has really leaped over the edge they can never be trusted with the security The United States of America and the free world.I belive this Bush bashing propaganda is the product of a delusional mind-set with Exhibiting extream levels of paranoia. O my God Bush has his finger on the button we are all gona-dieeee.What are you worried about? slow down take a deep breath remember all you got to do is get Hillary voted in and she will save the earth.

Posted by: angry white man at April 16, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #141025

David,

Thanks for answering traveller and thanks for your service. In all movements there are occasional excesses but the core of the anti-war movement was fighting for our troops - just like the anti-war movement today. From one day to the next I am not always sure where I stand on the war in Iraq. My position there is much like it was during Viet Nam. I was opposed to Iraq from the start - but see the value of winning - but also see the value of withdrawing and keeping our powder dry if the war is unwinnable, counter-productive or unworth the cost… so I am currently leaning against the war… somewhere between Biden and Murtha.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 16, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #141027

Hmmm…. so far only SE has answered my question…

angry white man, traveller, Ilsa, goodkingned, et,al.

Kindly post your position on your support for the Bombing of Iran. For or Against? I want it on the record so you guys won’t switch positions whatever happens.

Posted by: Aldous at April 16, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #141030

David….to add to your statement….take a good look sometime when the traveling VietNam wall comes to your area. My guess is that at least part of those hundreds of cyclists aren’t vets. Bet there are more than a few old hippies scattered throughout….and the sight never fails to bring back waves of memories and tears.
And what a hoot to sit here and read the righties just spitting and fuming over this post….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 16, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #141039

Aldous

Since you ask.

I do not think the U.S. will attack Iran. I think this is one of those cases, so common in the anti-Bush camp - where you guys express your fears and attribute it to him.

I am not an Iran expert. My understanding is that the Iranian government is unpopular and keeps its power by oppression. So I see Iran as I saw Poland in the 1980s, of course much less stable. What we did back then was encourage and support the legitimate opposition. Ten years later, the “miracle” miracle.

The Iranian problem cannot be solved under current conditions. That does not mean it cannot be solved. It is like a guy kyaking down a white water. He has to react to changing conditions and take advantage of opportunities, but if you ask him exactly what move he will make a quarter mile down the river, he can’t tell you.

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #141043

Goodkingned,
Now the president thumbs his nose at nuclear watchdog agencies our European allies and issues open threats against Israel Iraq and the West Muslims on an almost daily basis. I think that’s provocatory. I certainly feel provoked and I bet the Israelis Muslims do also.

Eagle,

Nothing will change in the November elections.At most a few seats will be lost in the House but the Republicans will still control both Houses.
Right. Keep on saying it. You might even convice yourself, eventually.

Posted by: ElliottBay at April 16, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #141044

Well it appears we have a pretty good debate fired up… The liberal posters here have answered most of the conservative points above so I will focus on clarifying my own position.

First, I also want to thank Tim for his service. My daughter is currently serving as a combat medic in Germany. When I was in Washington for the “The World Can’t Wait / Bush Must Step Down” protest 2-4-06 I visited the VietNam Memorial and paid my respects.

I especially enjoyed goodkingned and sicilianeagle. If the Republicans win in 08 I will swing right and become an evangelical extremist because the “end times will be upon us.” It will be time to find God.

I do not want Hillary to be President. I might be forced support her out of desperation if she wins the nomination. I believe that - much like McCain - she has sold out to the Bush dynasty and that she carries a lot of baggage that might prevent her from winning - and we need to win. I believe in wining. I like Joe Biden, Mark Warner, Russ Feingold, Wesley Clark… pretty much anybody but Hillary. Still, I think she would be a good President… if she could win, and I will work for her if I have to - right before I become an evangelical end timer.

I am not saying that I think Bush will push THE button. I am saying that it is a real option on his table. I am saying that he might want to launch an attack conventional or otherwise for misguided and political reasons. Politically to distract from his problems and get the American people to rally round the flag that he wraps himself in. The misguided reasons would be the idiotic idea-logic idea that by humiliating the Iranians they will turn against their government. Humiliating the Iraqis in Abu Ghireb worked well for American interests, lets try humiliating the Iranians. That won’t unify them against us. It is the same play book they used in Abu Ghireb. Have they learned nothing? We might as well grab the Iranian UN ambassador and force him to do it doggy style. It will have the same effect and it won’t cost as much. Who says the UN is worthless?

But the broader point of my article is that it does not matter weather he launches or not. The mere belligerent threat does more harm to our national nonproliferation interest than it does good. The threat will not be taken serious because the Iranians know that it would be ineffective and counter-productive both in Iran and Iraq - since the Shia would rise up against us as a result. On the other hand they apparently are dealing with a real madman. So the threat is ineffective and drives the world in the wrong direction. It undermines our diplomatic efforts by isolating us in the world and poisoning the many big carrots that we could offer.

Further more, nuclear belligerence dangerously destabilizes our balance with Russia. The Russians have lost their space based early warning system and their remaining antiquated systems are prone to giving false warnings of impending nuclear attack. Now tensions are rising between the U.S. and Russia and into that volatile cauldron, poor in a dash of nuclearly belligerent unprovoked preemptive first strike attack defense posturing by the idiotic neocon ideologues and you have a very dangerous situation.

Jack pointed out that during the cold war, the U.S. refused to promise not to be the first and, second to use nuclear weapons - true - but an entirely different situation with little relation to this situation. First the Soviets were a nuclear power. Second, they had overwhelming military power and we felt that we needed the nuclear deterrence to hold them in check. Third, a first strike nuclear attack would have been in response to an overwhelming Soviet conventional attack - real, imminent, or immanently imagined. So our first strike policy was born out of weakness, and although arguably at least possibly necessary, it was counter-productive to many of our diplomatic initiatives at the time, and probably related to France’s withdrawal from NATO.

Now these idiotic neocon ideologues are belligerently threatening nuclear preemptive first strikes against non-nuclear powers that represent no immediate threat to us. That Jack - is what you call an entirely different situation.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 16, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #141048

Ray

I’m sure your post has some pertinent points, but after I read your opening paragraph, I hit the off button.

Whatever happened to civilized debate?

Posted by: ulysses at April 16, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #141060

Ray

I do not see many situations where we would use these weapons first. In fact, I can’t think of any in the current world. But nothing can be gained by taking an option off the table.

If you say you won’t use a type of weapon, your enemies will still use the your possession as a propaganda ploy. All you will have done is assured the smarter among your enemies that they can push a bit further.

Since we were talking about the cold war, remember that we refused to pledge no first use of nukes, but we DID pledge no first use of force against the Soviet Union. This is a much higher level promise. Yet the Soviets and their supporters in the West made a big deal about the lack of our no first use pledge.

The reason I bring up the cold war myself is because the left used exactly the same tactics back in the 1980s as they do now. Talk about peace. Emphasize any U.S. error, real or imagined. Exaggerate Reagan’s aggressive nature and say that he is too stupid to understand the complexity of the situation. And the most important part - cut the enemies of democracy a lot of slack. Ignore or explain away their real threats while playing up implied threats by the U.S.

Thank God Reagan faced down the peace movements in the middle 1980s. I hope Bush can do the same.

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #141067

Jack:

I think you should reread Hersch’s article again. The Joint Chiefs tried to take the Nuclear Option out of the final operational planning but the White House refused. That’s apparently the motivation for the Leaks right now.

Posted by: Aldous at April 16, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #141071

Aldous,
I am opposed to nuking or bombing Iran. Unless they behave aggressively in a way that will win us political cover in the world.

This can be acheived by provoking them using covert means.

Then I am Ok doing whatever we have to do to secure OUR oil.

That is the strategy used by Roosevelt. I do not know if they pose a real threat or not. I doubt Bush can sell the threat game again, because he botched it so badly last time. Eric’s New Yorker link ( in his Red column post) suggests we are provoking that now.

I just think this wasn’t the best Energy policy that our government has led us into. In that regard, what I think is of little consequence. Power politics is what it is about now.

In the end, it’s a them or us issue.


Posted by: gergle at April 16, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #141076

Jack,

As is often the case, we seem so close but yet so far. You said:

Since we were talking about the cold war, remember that we refused to pledge no first use of nukes, but we DID pledge no first use of force against the Soviet Union. This is a much higher level promise. Yet the Soviets and their supporters in the West made a big deal about the lack of our no first use pledge.

Based on what you said, do you not see what a radical departure Bush’s doctrine of conventional and nuclear preemption is from all reasonable tenants of diplomacy? In the cold war, facing the overwhelming immediate and imminent threat of a powerful military we made the above pledge. So we deterred the Soviets with nuclear deterrence but our defense posture was non-belligerent and non-aggressive. Now, facing weak non-nuclear rivals that constitute no immediate threat our posture is just the opposite. Do you not see what a radical departure that is - grasshopper?

What difference what we argued in the 60s and 80s? Many conservatives are still using the same tired arguments - and still wrong - so what?

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 16, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #141085

Talk about hysteria!

I’m not paranoid schizophrenic, and neither am I.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 16, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #141086

Ray

I am happy that you enjoyed my post.With a little time,I am sure that you will take my guidance to heart and see the light.In the intrim,I will be happy to straighten out your logic.

It’s the compassionate conservative way,after all.

These last two weeks the Mighty Eagle has been immersed in European politics…watching his friend Berlisconi get squeezed by the center left in Italy.

In my travels,I talked to some Russians.

They told me that Russia will never move against Iran…quite the opposite,in fact.The Russians view Iran like we do Mexico…at their souther gate,so to speak.The salafist movement has a lot of traction in many parts of Russia,and a move “officially” against Iran would lead to havoc inside Russia,so forget about help from Russia.

About nuclear use.

I mulled that one over.

If,for example,concrete intelligence told the US military that with a degre of certaintly of 95% the OBL was in a deep mountainous cave in ASfganistan or Pakistan,I think I would argue for the deployment.

Other than that,as I said above,they must draw first blood,I think.

Covert operations against the salafist mullahs there,howevr gets my complete support,along with targeted assassinations and sabatoge.

The problem is,we are not capable(thanks to your Senator Church who gutted the CIA)because we have scant assets there,and those that we have can’t be trusted.(Actually,without sounding too ethnicially discrimatory here)I can’t think of too many Iraqis that can be trusted.

I said back in January that 2006 would be an interesting year geo-politicially.So far I am correct.

Aldous

Never lose your humor.You are an asset to this blog despite our differences

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 16, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #141088

It is an ill wind blows no good. Outside of the removal of Saddam the mis-concieved and mis-handled war in Iraq has left our military to stretched for them to allow that shallow fool to attack Iran. The administration appears to be useing diplomacy to buy time and let the next administration worry about it. One can only hope calmer heads prevail. There is no real reason to expect Iran to develope nuclear weapons any time soon. Iran does not have a modern history of agression. Their wacko president,unlike our wacko president, is not commander and chief of the military. The religious leadership has stated that having a nuclear device is proscribed by their religion. As much as one may dislike them,duplicity is not one of their traits.

Posted by: BillS at April 16, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #141090

Ray

I just don’t see any reason to take any of our options off the table. How would it help? The international leftist community would pretend to be happy the day it was announced and then pocket it and criticize us the next day.

This whole Hirsch thing is just released to rile all you guys up. Nothing will come of it and we all know it.

Our policy changed a lot with the 2002 strategy. It should have happened earlier, when it became clear in the early 1990s. Our foreign policy was on auto pilot during the Clinton years and we are paying for it now. In many ways, we returned to traditional U.S. foreign policy. The Cold War period was the aberration. The idea that we will no longer automatically value stability over liberty is something we can be proud of. But the fact that this aspect of our “new” policy is ignored or derided shows what the critics of the Administration really feel about security.

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #141093

Diplomacy is really the only choice with Iran.

An attack is a terrible idea. First, an attack would have to have a chance of accomplishing a useful goal. Suppose a conventional strike could destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. What then?

Obviously, the Iranian mullahs would not accept an attack passively. They could close down Persian Gulf oil, and plunge the US & world economy into a recession. That’s would be easy them. Southern Iraq would, as one general put it, “light up like a candle.” And that would just be for starters. Furthermore, destoying their program for building a nuke would have to destroy the program for the long term. It makes no sense to merely destroy some centrifuges. The desire to build them, and the people with that desire, must be permanently dissuaded

So, any attack also must decapitate the Iranian government. That involves a lot of casualties. We’re talking about killing large numbers of people here in a pre-emptive strike, let’s be clear. We’re talking about killing people without our being attacked. It’s should be increasingly clear that this is an insane idea, but let’s continue.

Suppose we could decapitate the government and destroy any nuclear program (using only conventional weaponry). The Iranian military would not accept this without striking back at the US. We’re still facing an oil embargo and an escalation of warfare in Iraq. Therefore, the attack must go all the way. The US must take out Iranian nuclear capability, the Iranian government, and the Iranian military.

We could do this. It would kill huge numbers of people. Now the US must occupy Iran, and form a government to replace the current one. Not even Cheney would be crazy enough to think they’d welcome as a liberators.

Back to the beginning. Belligerence may serve the Bush administration and the Iranians well, but it has nothing to do with a realistic outcome or solution. The fact is, we’re going to have to find a way to get along with the Iranians, and they will have to do the same with us. It won’t happen under the current Iranian crazy, and it won’t happen until the bungling Bush administration goes away. In the meantime, folks, we’ll just have to grit our teeth…

Posted by: phx8 at April 16, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #141097

It seems to me that about 40% of the post on the blue side are about things that are not going to happen and then another 40% are about things that did not happen (20% are okay).

You guys get all worked up about that 80%. This is one of those times.

As is common on this side, you are working with conditional probablities, each of them low, and we all the conditional probalities are figured out, you have about the same chance you would of winning the Powerball lottery - if you don’t buy a ticket.

The only thing I want to point out here is that you are arguing with yourselves. The Bush policy is to work with the world community (just like you say you want). That has been the policy. It is not working well. Let’s make this a good discussion. What do you suggest the President do now?

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #141098

Aldous:

Re bombing Iran:

I am willing to allow more time for diplomatic efforts to proceed. However given the fact that the international community is not presenting unified resistance to Iran’s enrichment program, I am not hopeful. If this situation continues unabated, I would support a US preemptive attack on Iran.

I am hopeful that it will not be necessary to use nuclear weaponry to deter the Iranian threat if the attack is conducted by the US. We have specal purpose weapons which may be able to penetrate the defenses at the targeted sites. If non-nuclear weapons are sufficient, then I would support the use of sufficient technology to eliminate the threat of a nuclear Iran.

How about a concise direct statement of your stance? Under what circumstances, if any, would you support US conflict with Iran? How far will you go if diplomacy fails?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 16, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #141099

kill the emeny or be killed. Peace through victory.Dip your bullets in pigs blood and deprive a camel kisser 72 cheeries.

Posted by: angry white man at April 16, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #141100

American troops are spread so thin now that to initiate a ground war with Iran would be insane.

We could launch a conventional weapon airstrike against their nuclear fuel facilities once it has been determined beyond any reasonable doubt that construction of a nuclear weapon is imminent.

Or we have the option of using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy the facilities if the above mentioned circumstances existed.

But there is one possibility that I have not seen discussed here (unless I missed it).

If we launched any kind of attack against Iran, what do we do if they launch a ground attack against American forces in Iraq?

What happens if Syria joined them?

The current American forces in Iraq could be slaughtered.

I might be talking through my nose, but that scenario worries me.

Posted by: ulysses at April 16, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #141102

Everyone:

My position is that a military action is needed to stop Iran from having Nukes. I favor a military strike now since waiting for an International Commitment is impossible after Iraq.

The reason is simple: Iran believes a Nuke is the only thing that can stop Bush from regime changing them. At the same time, the United States cannot allow Iran a functioning Nuke regardless of what it will do with it. The Israel Lobby is too strong.

We therefore have a condition that cannot be resolved in any way except violence. I favor attacking Iran now instead of later.

In the old days, Iran would rely on the UN to stop the US from Invasion. Iraq PROVED the UN is not enough. The Nuke Option is the only road Iran can take to ensure survival.

Posted by: Aldous at April 16, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #141103

One other thing.

The wild card in that whole scenario is Israel. During the first Gulf War, it was only thorugh incredible pressure from the United States that Israel held their fire.

But if they believe Iran has or may have a nuclear weapon, they may tell the United States to go to hell and attack Syria unilaterally.

That could touch off a blood bath in the Middle East. There’s even a remote possiblity that Pakistan could be drawn in and, lest we forget, they do have nuclear weapons.

Not many things scare me. But all this is coming real close.

Posted by: ulysses at April 16, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #141104

Diplomacy is really the only choice with Iran—-$$$—- Can’t wait for Cindy Sheehan’s photo-opp with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Posted by: angry white man at April 16, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #141105

angry white man:

I imagine any photo op would resemble the actual picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussien’s hand…

btw… Israel will not attack Iran. They don’t have to. The US will do it for them.

Posted by: Aldous at April 16, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #141114

Jack
A return to traditional US forign policy? You mean agressive colonial expansion puntuated by isolationism? Even allowing for the great nobility of WW2 it is realistic to conclude that consolidation and defense of the Pacific empire was one goal. One must wear rose colored glasses indeed to conclude American forign policy has ever been particularly pro-democracy except when it suits our purposes.
As to finally encourageing liberty over stability, nice phrase but quite hollow. Examples: We support a military dictator in Pakistan;Support the Sauds and other Arab monarchies(Kuwait,U.A.E.);a slap on the wrist for Egytian dictators. The list goes on. I am not saying this support is not in our best interest necessarily but please spare us the high horse. Hypocrasy,among its other failings, makes poor policy.

Posted by: BillS at April 16, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #141124

BillS

We are putting more pressure than we did before on despots. You can’t just impose your will.

American history worked out well. I am glad we subdued what became our country and defend our interests effectively when we need to. In the process of U.S. strength, the world has improved, but no country should act outside its own interests. The difference in the case of the U.S., is that the U.S. defines its interests in ways that are good for others. After the WWII you mentioned, the U.S. invested in the Marshall plan the made Europe prosperous. It was in our interests. The Soviets took everything they could. That was in their interests. Generally speaking, which side of the Iron Curtain would you prefer?

If you look at the vast history of the world, there are few great powers (actually none) whose “interests” have fit so well with the growing safety and prosperity of others. When others win wars, they take. We gave because we understood in our greedy and selfish way that we can make more money from the rich and prosperous than from the poor and insecure, so we try to make our partners rich too. Or you can attribute a higher/lower motive. But the result is similar.

If you have an example of anyone doing better when they had the power, please provide. We can do a whole thread on it.

Posted by: Jack at April 16, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #141129

Jack,

You wrote:

I just don’t see any reason to take any of our options off the table. How would it help? The international leftist community would pretend to be happy the day it was announced and then pocket it and criticize us the next day.
This whole Hirsch thing is just released to rile all you guys up. Nothing will come of it and we all know it.
I already explained why this needs to be taken off the table and that it is not about whether the idiot actually does it or not. Obviously, you think otherwise, so this is just a place where we disagree. I see no way to change your mind on this or for you to change mine.

goodkingned,

You wrote:

I am willing to allow more time for diplomatic efforts to proceed. However given the fact that the international community is not presenting unified resistance to Iran’s enrichment program, I am not hopeful. If this situation continues unabated, I would support a US preemptive attack on Iran.
As pointed out above preemptive attack on Iran weather conventional or nuclear would be ineffective - unless you want to conquer the country and force them to develop western style democracy at the point of a gun. That is going so well for us in Iraq. Why let a failed policy go to waste? Lets do it again.

ulysses,

You wrote:

But there is one possibility that I have not seen discussed here (unless I missed it).
If we launched any kind of attack against Iran, what do we do if they launch a ground attack against American forces in Iraq?
What happens if Syria joined them?
Good point. I did write that I thought that the Shia in Iraq might rise in support of Iran, but I doubt if Syria would join - Sunni Muslim - Irainian rival - and more likely to support the Sunnis in Iraq in the impending civil war.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 16, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #141132

Jack,

Our history worked out well for us - not quite so well we the Indians that we genocidally exterminated.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 16, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #141137

Ray Guest,
you stole my post:)

Posted by: gergle at April 16, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #141139

Jack,
As to what I would do is problematic, since I don’t have the resources of the President.

I don’t actually know what the intelligence is, and given the nature of this administration, It will be a few years down the road before we do. I did like one thing Reagan said. “Trust, but verify.” The problem is Bush has spent his.

Ideally ,if there were time, I’d commit to a complete independence from oil, much like Kennedy’s Moon Race. That’d solve a lot of our middleeast problems and spur technology as well. Bush is too oil centric. A bunch of Psyco-Arabs without money wouldn’t be near the threat. They may have fought among themselves after the pearl market collapsed, but who really cared?

Posted by: gergle at April 16, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #141155


Yes, we rebuilt Western Europe and Japan after WW2. A good deed and good for business.
But, we also made some major blunders which have cost us dearly. I’ll mention three in this post , but there are more.
1: We sided with France and refused to help Viet Nam.

there resistance fighters were just as valuable in the war effort as the French or Phillipinos were. Our refusal to help drove them into the arms of the communists and led to the deaths of 58,000 Americans and possibly as many as 5 million Viet Namese.
2: Anyone who knows a little about history, knows about our involvement with the Shah and the internal affaris of Iran. Is it any wonder that they think of us as the great satan.
3: We refused to take in the Jewish refuges and durned our heads while Briton dumped them in Palestine. Now, Isreal may as well be our 51st state. They get lots of the pork but only have to pay state taxes.

Posted by: jlw at April 17, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #141158

jlw:

You said: … preemptive attack on Iran weather (sic) conventional or nuclear would be ineffective - unless you want to conquer the country and force them to develop western style democracy at the point of a gun. …

I disagree. An air campaign could stop or seriously inhibit the Iranian enrichment program. The success of this project is requisite upon the operation of an extensive laboratory facility. The Iranians hope to procure 50,000 centrifuges (stated by their Presdident) and have plans to fortify at least one research facility to house these components.

Air strikes using penetrating munitions on the research sites would, at the very least, slow the Iranian progress. I see no point in conquering, occupying or controlling the government in Iran. My concern is the prevention of Iranian nuclear capability.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 17, 2006 2:41 AM
Comment #141159

ullysses:

I agree with Ray Guest that the Syrians wouldn’t join in an Iranian attack on US forces in Iraq.

Why would they give America such a present when it isn’t even our birthday? Syria is much more comfortable when oppressing unarmed citizens. I expect that as US involvement in Iraq is diminished and the number available US forces increases the Syrians will increasingly follow a policy of keeping their collective heads down, lest they be shot.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 17, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #141162

“Can anyone show a link with a quote from Bush threatening Nukes against Iran? I can’t seem to find one - only “possibly” and “may be” comments from writers who offer no direct quotes. Now I’ve seen and heard repeatedly that Irans rabid president wants every Jew dead and the State of Israel wiped off the face of the planet…. sounds pretty threatening to me, coming from a man who has promised to develope nukes as soon as possible. The constant anti Bush rhetoric will not change the fact that Bush has NOT threatened nukes and that the Iranians HAVE.” -ilsa

Herein is the LIE that has the rightwing warmongers opening the silos.

NO ilsa, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has NEVER said that he wants every Jew dead and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has NEVER threatened or insinuated much less PROMISED to develope nuclear weapons.

You say you have seen and heard him REPEATEDLY do so. I challange you to find an unbiased source (e.g. NOT FoxNews and NOT Christian Broadcasting Network… NOT O’Reilly, Drudge, or Limbaugh) that quotes Ahmadinejad as threatening the use of Nuclear Weapons or that he wants every Jew dead.

Ahmadinejad has REPEATEDLY insisted that their nuclear enrichment program is for energy generation so that THEY are not dependant on OIL and can rape the rest of us who are… but you who have tasted the Bush koolaid and gone back for seconds are compelled to believe every lie out of his mouth. Has Bush implicitly threatened to attack Iran with Nukes or tactical forces? No, mere vailed threats like the one contained in U.N. resolution 1441 that “warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences” without stating what the consequences were. While the rest of the world stupidly assumed it meant the end of “Oil for Food and other peaceful inducements, the Bush administration knew from day one that it meant only one thing… INVASION.

And while Ahmadinejad HAS expressed a desire to see Israel ‘wiped off the face of the earth” he has also suggested that it be moved to Germany and other places. What he wants is an end to living under the nuclear threat of Israel and a return of the Muslim holy lands to the Muslims.

Every one of you whack jobs who supports a pre-emptive first strike against the Shia Theocracy governing Iran had better take a good long look at the Shia majority we are arming and training to stand shoulder to shoulder with our sons and daughters in Iraq. The day the first bomb drops on Iran, those guns will instantly be trained on Americans.

We have heard the lies too many times, we have answered the cry of WOLF too many times, we have offered up the blood of our children too many times to let the maniac in the white house get away with it.

Posted by: thom houts at April 17, 2006 5:39 AM
Comment #141175

Perhaps Christians, Jews, and Muslims need to figure that land is land - only land. It can sacred,because people make it sacred, but not holy, in the sense that God loves this patch of dirt any more than the next, or this people any more than the next.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 17, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #141187

Saddam Hussien is in jail and will be put to death Donald and George did that and I thank god almighty for that.Israel and the U.S.A will strike Iran alone or together is all the same to me. Did you see the news of the bombing at the sandwich shop today? how about the 40,000 belly-bombers that just signed-up in Iran? People on the left are safe with the thought that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not make a bomb just because he said so.I pray that George will blast them sand niggers to helllll. peace only with victory.—-$$$—-Herein is the lie that has the right wing warmongers opening the silos.—-$$$—- what a crok of crap. each day that passes will show how you are liveing a lie. Mahmoud will show his hand little by little each day as he shows off more and more of his new toys.Toys just to keep the lights on oooyaaa.

Posted by: angry white man at April 17, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #141208

Thom:

Some quotes by Ahmadinejad for you to consider:

“And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism” published by the Islamic Republic News Agency, repeated CNN.com 10/27/05

“The establishment of the State of Israel was an offensive move. The Islamic nation will not let its historic enemy live in its midst.” part of Ahmadinejad’s comments at a conference entitltled “A World Without Zionists”, reported by Ynetnews.

“Like it or not, the Zionist regime is a rotton, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.” Ahmadinejad speaking at pro-Palestinean conference in Tehran on 4/14/06, reported in the Guardian 4/15/06.

Not to mention Ahmadinejad’s infamous requoting of Kohemeni’s call to “Wipe Israel off the the world map”.

Yes, Iran claims to be developing the enrichment program for peaceful purposes, yet they have refused to accept nuclear material usable for that purpose from other sources, instead opting to take a much longer course of developing the technology themselves. Even Hitler bothered to lie more convincingly about his peaceful intentions to Chamberlain. What level of proof would be necessary to convince you that Iran intends to harm Israel? The Iranians are playing with their cards face up and yet you still doubt their intentions.

Iran has also entered into an agreement with Syria to help them develop chemical weapons and a missile delivery system. I suppose that also poses no threat.

If Iran was to suceed in developing nuclear capacity, do you believe that they would be LESS aggressive?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 17, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #141264

Any pre-emptive strike conventional or nuclear will result in a Shia solidarity blood bath for Americans in Iraq, torpedoed tankers in the gulf with $12 gas if we are lucky. Or what do you think world prices will go to with Iraq and Iran closed down?. {and that is assuming we get lucky and dont have the Sunni joining in and closing down Saudi Arabia. BTW for those who forget OBL is Saudi/Sunni.} Anyone who thinks the Iranians are going to just brush off an attack and sit still has seriously been smoking the wrong stuff.GWB can bring off the second coming a lot faster than most of us think if he goes this route. It is going to be quite difficult for the Iranians to nuke israel without doing some serious damage to the dome on the rock and the Holy sites in Jerusalem which are sacred to them too. Diplomacy may have some chance here, not good but better than the alternatives. We might have some military options if GWBs excellent adventure in Iraq had gone a little better. Since tactical weapons will stir up a hornets nest and the ground option has gone up in smoke maybe full scale nuclear preemptive strike is the Neocon option of choice, nobody seems to have openly considered that yet. Lets hope I am wrong on that one!

Posted by: ed west at April 17, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #141267

goodkingned, all very accurate quotes…
NOT ONE OF WHICH SUGGESTS THAT HE WANTS TO KILL EVERY JEW any more than Khruschev’s “We will bury you” taunt suggested that HE wanted to kill every America. He doesn’t even oppose a Jewish state. What he opposes is his perception of the Jews soiling Muslim Holy Land. Is he WRONG to voice such opposition? Of course he is. Is he a threat to desecrate those Muslim holy lands with a Nuclear Attack??? Not in a Million years.

Posted by: Thom Houts at April 17, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #141323

OZ pondered:

I wonder how strong the dope was that GW was buying in the sixties.

He’s more Cocaine sort of chappie, OZ. `Likes the sensation of Power Without Any Limitations Or Sense Of Reason.

My question is, who’s supplying him NOW?

:o/


Ray: yet another fine post (and fine Defence of it, as well).

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 17, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #141330

Thanks all… Thanks Betty… and especially… Thanks angry white man, please keep posting here, Jack can stop anytime, but you keep on coming.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 17, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #141406

Thanks angry white man, please keep posting here—-$$$—- look here I dont need to have text sex with the same old blogers day in and day out and try and convence you of my political and literal skills.I say what I think in as common and in the least amount of words as I can. so please keep up your love and support for all things anti American and for Mahmoud today is army day in Iran all those rockets and goose stepping carpet kissers with there AK-47’s has got to make your dick hard.Keep up the good work Jack you say most of the things I would like to say but dont know how to go about it but I am learning.The real reason the left was thrown out power and will remain out of power is the fact that they were betting on the hope that the little guys like me were not paying attention I dont forgive and I dont forget.AS I am shore the rest of the warmongering rednicks from red states will reminde you again in 2008.

Posted by: angry white man at April 18, 2006 10:08 AM
Comment #141421

>> I dont need to have text sex with the same old blogers day in and day out and try and convence you of my political and literal skills.I say what I think in as common and in the least amount of words as I can.

Posted by: angry white man at April 18, 2006 10:08 AM

One: If you are not trying to convince anyone…why are you here?
Two: I’m sure you can say all you need to say in fewer to zero common words…but still, you do, in a way, make more sense than Jack…so, keep on truckin’.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 18, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #141429

Of mice and men.Even rats will fight when they are cornered.In todays world there is a new kind of rat its the demoRAT.This rat lives in a make beleive world.there is no fight in this rodant he talks alot but solves nothing.His main goal is to destroy the country that has given him every thing a man could want.Along with this rat comes a new plague its called demoRAT liberalism.Itkills the will of good people and it kills the will of our military.These RATS must be SHUNNED do not buy from their stores do not eat at their resturants do not buy their books or watch their news broadcasts.Do not buy their news papers.GIVING THESE PEOPLE YOUR MONEY IS LIKE GIVING IT TO OSAMA BIN LADEN HIMSELF!!!!!

Posted by: saying at April 18, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #141551

One: If you are not trying to convince anyone…why are you here?—-$$$—-Marysdude as long as I am pissing the left off I need not convince any one of anything you bit because you cant help yourself. in that of it self gives rise to liberal demise.—-$$$—-Of mice and men.Even rats will fight when they are cornered.In todays world there is a new kind of rat its the demoRAT.—-$$$—-I just traped a big one with a small piece of cheese.

Posted by: angry white man at April 18, 2006 6:53 PM
Post a comment