[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