Big Pimpin wrote:Look, none of you actually read my post. You all just assume something and get riled up about it. Read it again:
Big Pimpin wrote:And honestly, a nuke that turned Iraq and Afghanistan into a parking lot would have not only prevented further terrorism, it would have saved countless American lives. I would have not been upset at all about dropping one of those had it been our course of action.
I didn't say that I was "in favor" of dropping a nuke, I said I wouldn't have been upset had they done it. Look, I think the war wasn't planned out very well. I think we could and should have been more aggressive, moved faster, gotten the job done, and got out of Dodge.
However, my point is a valid one. A nuke would have eradicated thousands of potential terrorists. All of them? No way. But a lot? Certainly. Also, the liberals are the ones that I see making a big deal out of every American life lost. Don't take this the wrong way, it's a terrible tragedy when anyone dies, but it's a WAR!
It's unbelievable to me that our administration can go out of their way to not harm the innocent people of the Middle East, at the expense of OUR TROOPS, and then get crucified by the libs that they "care only about themselves with little or no moral values" or that "one American live has more value than 10,000 Iraqi lives." That's the biggest bunch of BS I've read in this entire thread. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
Actually, everyone read your post correctly. Basically, if you are not opposed to dropping nukes on innocent families so you can save "countkless" (actually, I think my coworkers and I could count the number on our hands) American lives while killing of hundreds f thousands of Iraqi children, then there is something deeply wrong with you. It really shows how selfish and ignorant coservatives can be.
I am so thankful you were not around during WWII or else we'd all be speaking German. It's so hypocrytical to have nothing constructive to add to a civil conversation while point fingers.
1. Don't get me started on America and WWII, this country was the biggest joke I have ever seen during the war. First we don't join until Russia and England already have Hitler on the ropes, then we drop atomic bombs and kill millions, with lasting effects on generations later born with deformities just because it was "convinient", they we go ahead trotting around in all our museums throughout the country lying to people about how we were the answer and pretty much did everything. WWII was a joke for this country's ego.
Well, everything here is ridiciously wrong. At the point where we joined the war, England had nearly been defeated at the Battle of Britain and had just stabilized through a miracle air war that they had no business winning. All of continental Europe was under control of Axis forces, and in December 1941, the Nazis were on the doorstep of Moscow and also just barely stopped, mostly by blind luck in an early winter. Winter comes a week later, and Moscow falls, the Soviet Union is forced into a eastward retreat and can't effectively counter the German army as it rests the winter and re ups its supply lines. Luckily, it didn't go that way. Russia really didn't have Germany on the ropes until 1944, a year after Stalingrad when they really started an offensive push towards Germany. Notice, this is when the US, Britain, and Canada had opened up a 2nd western front, which the Russians had been begging for since the US had joined the war. So in 1941, Britain and Russia hardly had Germany on the ropes, but mostly the other way around.
As for your "millions killed by atomic bombs", thats also pretty far off. The bombs killed about 240,000 people total through vaporization, radiation poisoning, etc. Thats in both cities, and those aren't the US numbers, thats the numbers the Japanese government estimated (theres no way to really know for sure.) And no, cancer won't make up those millions
"In the years between 1950 and 1990, it is statistically estimated that 428 cancer deaths are attributable to radiation exposure among atomic bomb survivors from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
The only joke here is your apparent knowledge of history.
Zito is God wrote:I'll go even further. Have you noticed that Bush is likely on of the most ignorant and selfish people alive? Cheyne needed that oil, that was part of the motivation I believe. On top of that, remmember a couple of years back when Bush wanted to mine the preserve in Alaska for oil? No disregard for anything but himself! At least Congress had some brains back then.
Here's to the Democratic Party controlling presidency and Congress for the next 8 years. America can't be this dumb again can it?
are you criticizing the idea that we should act to secure our economic livlihood or just the means by which it was gone about? You sond like you're crossing over into conspiracy theory territory.
I obviously think our economy needs to be secured, but the way the administration has gone about it, well, lets just say I think my 13 year old cousin had some better ideas.
ok, well it helps to offer up some ideas, whether they're your's or your cousin's, rather than just keep saying something sucks.
The thing about ANWAR (sp?) is that if there was alot of oil up there then I'd be for it. But apparently there isn't much at all. Something like a half years worth. Its a pristine area so I would like to have it not destroyed but todays technology apparently can work with Ice roads and less invasive platforms.
Its a sticky situation. In a country though where we can make atomic bombs, tiny cell phones, wireless everything , etc.. I'd like to see a ton of money thrown into finding new ways to create energy
We did throw a ton of money into creating energy, it was callled nuclear power, but one minor US incident in which there were almost no ill effects and one catatosphre in another nation with much lower safety standards and regards for their people (USSR) was enough to scare people off a rather clean source of power forever. The media also helped in that one.
When Germany invaded Poland -- which led to the beginning of the war with the UK and France declaring war on Germany -- Russia joined them. It wasn't until Germany attempted to invade Russia, nearly two years after the two invaded Poland, that Russia switched sides. Before that, however, Russia already had invaded Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania.
The Russians were, by no means, fighting Germany for good, moral reasons. They did it out of self-defense and, in turn, used the Allied effort to help them keep their sovereignty. So, no, the Russians don't deserve much positive credit for the defeat of Germany, since they initially played the role as catalyst.
For the defeat of Germany? Of course they do. Regardless of what it started as, Russia deserves the most praise for the actual defeat of Germany. The points you pointed out were in no way the points I was initially arguing.
No, the Allies as a whole deserve praise, as together they accomplished what alone none of the nations could have. Without the Americans to worry about, the Japanese would have gladly declared war on Russia and harassed the eastern part of the country. Without a western front provided by the US and Britain, Russia faces the whole brunt of the German armed forces, and not about 40% of it. Without Russia tangling up half the German forces, the Normandy invasion is a lot less likely to work. However, a Russian offensive is almost certain to take much longer and be much bloodier, if even effective, without the second front being opened. The Russians deserve great praise for their efforts and resolve, but I don't think any one nation deserves less praise. Except for Canada.
Big Pimpin wrote:Mustard gas isn't a WMD? How do you figure? It's a nerve gas along the lines of VX or Anthrax. How many thousands of people did Saddam kill and/or maim with it? Just because it doesn't kill millions doesn't mean it's not a WMD...
So you're saying that it should have been our position to sit back and watch as Saddam killed thousands of innocent people, because it's how he wanted to run his country? And the only say that counted was his? I thought you had compassion for these thousands of innocent Iraqis...
Explain that to me.
For one mustard gas is not fatal, why most WMD are considered nukes is: They are fatal, they cause fatalities in masses. Thats kind of where the name comes from.
World War I. Exposure to mustard gas over more than 50% of the body is general fatal due to heavy damage to skin, and if inhaled, causes massive blistering and bleeding of the lungs.
Zito is God wrote:I will repeat this again, America can't be this dumb again. It simply will not happen. The next president will be from the Democratic party, Congress will slowly fall to the Democrats, and all will be well. America has most ceraintly learned their lesson...
I am not that confident in this. The first problem is that the Democrats need to get a marketable candidate, not one who is the biggest policy wonk who wins the arguments in the backrooms at the convention. I guess that there's not really a clear front runner for the Republicans yet either but the fact that most of the leading Dems seem to be about as marketable as Kerry (or Mondale or Dukakis...) leaves me w/o a lot of confidence. The Republicans can drag out some sort of cowboy who can assure US citizens that he/ she can 'git 'er done' and 'bam', they've locked up another 4 years.
I agree that the legislature should 'recover' soon though...
Art Vandelay wrote:It scares the hell out of me that there are still people who actually think that dropping a nuke is a wise course of action in any situation whatsoever.
Also that people think one American life is somehow more valuable than 10,000 Iraqi lives.
Dropping a nuke is nothing today like it was 60 years ago. Tactical nukes are incredibly useful, especially in bunker-buster form. Radiation is not the problem it used to be. Inventions like the neutron bomb can actually be agrued to be more humane ways of attack (even according to the Vatican) than many many other forms. They emit gamma raditaion, which will wipe out carbon-based life lie any other nuke, but the radiation dissipates and leaves a relatively clean, lifeless swath. Above-ground use of them would necessitate two prereqs though, either a low collateral damage factor, or a 'total war' scenario (whic i doubt we will see any time soon).
btw, i'm not in favor of dropping surface nukes in the middle-east, i'm just clarifying any reactive misconception people might have about nukes.
Whoa, thats not right. Neutron bombs are banned because they make nuclear war far too efficient and practical by eliminating resistance but leaving the infrastructure mostly intact.
the point is that they shouldn't be. they are great for taking out smaller pockets of enemy forces, especially armored.
June 12, 2006 David Carr Deadly Intent: Ann Coulter, Word Warrior ONCE again, Ann Coulter has a book in need of flogging, and once again, people are stunned by what a "vicious," "mean-spirited," "despicable" "hate-monger" they say she is.
Ms. Coulter, who seems afflicted by a kind of rhetorical compulsion, most recently labeled the widows of 9/11 "harpies." It is just one in a series from a spoken-word hit parade that seems to fly out of her mouth uninterrupted by conscience, rectitude or logic.
But Ann Coulter knows precisely what she is saying. Her current book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," is heading to the best-seller lists in part because she has a significant constituency and in part because no other author in American publishing is better at weaponizing words. With five books and more than a million copies in hardcover sales, she plays to win and is happy to take hostages along the way, including the women she calls "The Witches of East Brunswick."
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much." That typical Coulter sortie was hardly a misstep on some overamped talk show. That doozy of a sentence was written, edited, lawyered and then published. By now, she, along with Crown Publishing, have come up with a dexterous formula for kicking up the kind of fuss that sells books. It looks something like this:
She did not come out of the gate with such ruthless aplomb. As published at the height of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in 1998, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" reflected her background as a lawyer and was fairly scholarly, considering what came after it. But once her lethally blond franchise became part of public consciousness, or at least the lower stem of it that feeds off cable talk, she quickly learned that hyperbole is best sold by the ton.
She has since suggested wistfully that Timothy McVeigh should have parked his truck in front of The New York Times, joked that a Supreme Court justice should be poisoned, and said that America should invade Muslim countries and kill their leaders. And she recently admitted that she is "no big fan" of the First Amendment that allowed her to say all of that.
"She is so smart that none of it is by accident," said Adrian Zackheim, the publisher of Portfolio, a business imprint, and of Sentinel, a conservative political imprint. "She knows that a few things she says are bound to get attention. She just probably doesn't know which one."
But once attention, negative or otherwise, turns toward her, she is all knuckles and know-how. When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested that her attack on the widows was "vicious," Ms. Coulter went casually nuclear, saying that the senator "should talk to her husband, who was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick."
The second-stage rollout — picking a fight with Senator Clinton is a way, as they say in politics, to "activate the base." Only the returns will be financial, not political.
"Every single book she has done has become an instant best-seller," said Bob Wietrak, a vice president for merchandising at Barnes & Noble. "Her fan base is phenomenal and she is in the media constantly. When she is in the media, it creates more media coverage. And every single day, the book sells more."
You get the idea. Wagging tongue, wagging fingers and before you know it, soon enough you have hundreds of hits on Google News for days to come (this column among them).
And just when things threaten to slow down, Ms. Coulter will saw into Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq, describing her as "a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show," or accuse a disabled Vietnam vet she was arguing with on a talk show of being part of the reason the United States lost the war there. Her attacks on the maimed or the bereft engage the thermodynamics of the media marketplace to send her to even loftier heights.
An explosive device is now baked into every book. For "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (333,000 in hardcover sales, according to Nielsen Bookscan), she called Katie Couric "the affable Eva Braun of morning TV." We all tuned in for the ensuing cage match, in which Ms. Couric maintained both the higher ground and the upper hand. (That interview came to mind last week when Ms. Coulter, back on a Couric-less "Today" program, treated Matt Lauer like a cat toy.)
When she was pushing "Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism," (almost 400,000 in sales), it was all about the misunderstood genius and patriotism of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. In "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", she let readers in on the playbook: "You must outrage the enemy. If you don't leave liberals in a sputtering impotent rage, you're not doing it right." And her sales of 301,000 for what was basically a collection of columns seem to indicate that she has mastered the form.
"Godless," which is already doing gangbuster business according to the folks at Barnes & Noble, suggests that liberalism "is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm."
Does she believe any of this stuff? I doubt she even knows. When I profiled Ms. Coulter a few years ago, I never figured out the line between her art and her artifice. She picked at her plate of lobster ravioli before serving up Fred Flintstone-size slabs of red meat. For the duration of the media opportunity, she was playful and on point, other than fibbing about her age, because she cares deeply about the franchise.
Her sincerity is beside the point as long as people keep taking the bait. Mrs. Clinton, who is the perfect foil for Ms. Coulter — ambitious, allergic to irony, loathed by the people who will line up for "Godless" — simply added fuel to a fire that she was presumably trying to douse. All manner of televised talkfests, including "Today," welcome Ms. Coulter's pirate sensibilities back aboard whenever she has something to peddle, in part because seeing hate-speech pop out of a blonde who knows her way around a black cocktail dress makes for compelling viewing.
Without the total package, Ms. Coulter would be just one more nut living in Mom's basement. You can accuse her of cynicism all you want, but the fact that she is one of the leading political writers of our age says something about the rest of us
She's an opportunist, that's all she is. She's exploiting the divide between the left and right. Instead of trying to make things better, she's hammering a wedge making it much worse. People like her are extremely bad for the country. She's just as bad if not worse than the leftist zealots comparing the current Republican administration to the Third Reich. As I said earlier and as Ann Coulter mentioned in the above quoted article, it's about eliciting anger. What possible good can come from purposely trying to anger half the country? This country desperately needs a leader to pull the country together. We're all Americans. Why do we have to resort to this? I thought America was about tolerance.
josebach wrote:She's an opportunist, that's all she is. She's exploiting the divide between the left and right. Instead of trying to make things better, she's hammering a wedge making it much worse. People like her are extremely bad for the country. She's just as bad if not worse than the leftist zealots comparing the current Republican administration to the Third Reich. As I said earlier and as Ann Coulter mentioned in the above quoted article, it's about eliciting anger. What possible good can come from purposely trying to anger half the country? This country desperately needs a leader to pull the country together. We're all Americans. Why do we have to resort to this? I thought America was about tolerance.
I hope the money is worth it, b!tch.
As much as I don't like her, I think she and others like her are good for the country, to a degree. I think we have far more to lose from adopting some sort of koombaya status quo versus a pertetual, competitive ideological struggle. Mexico had agreeable one-party rule for decades and the end result was corruption, entrenchment, and nothingness. Change and competition are good and shrillness and hyperbole furthers this (to a degree), however annoying they may be.
oh, and i gurantee she'd tell you its worth the money