[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Refried nukes



Just out of curiosity, what did you think of Bush's first majorpost-9/11 
speech

Leslie:

I thought it was well written, fairly delivered. Probably the best he could 
do. Best he's done so far. But still replete with obvious flag-waving 
phrases. Not comfortable with the "you're with us or against us" and "wanted 
dead or alive" because they're delivered without regard for possible 
circumstances...and flexibility is the only key to winning this conflict. I 
think that's a given.

think we're already in it (albeit,kind of like a slo-mo thing). We've been in 
it since September 11, 2001.

Doesn't have to be. War is no way to stop terrorists anyway, as Israel well 
knows. Covert operations are the ONLY realistic solution. Holding countries 
responsible for a few of their citizens won't work anywhere but 
Afghanistan...as the administration is starting to realize.

>I don't recall Bush threatening anyone with nukes,

You must have missed it. I didn't. He said in essence that if anyone used 
nukes against us, specifically a hand-delievered dirty bomb, we would 
retaliate with nukes. Against WHO? Some country where these guys are from? 
What if they're Americans? Brits? Worse yet, Chinese?

 regardless of any country's income level. In fact, I'm not quite sure what 
poverty levels have to do with this.

I'd liken it to a guy with an Uzi threatening another with a slingshot. They 
can barely scratch a living and we're holding biblical destruction over their 
heads.

.>True, but "nuc-u-lar" is hardly a rare thing among politicians. 

The point of including "nu-cu-lar" was about threatening nukes.

How about some Who discussion instead endless questions about my sig?


    "This is a dangerous world. Too many 
         people are losing their lives to murderers."
                George "the obvious man" Bush