logo Sign In

Bush and Nuclear Proliferation — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Lethe
The important question is why we need NEW/MORE Nuclear Weapons?


Halliburton, Carlyle, Lockheed Martin, ABB et al.

Defence contracts plain and simple.

"We buy you the Presidency you make sure the blood money flows our way."

Is there really any other way to see it?
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Goering.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.
Author
Time
Post link
"I think," he said, "we need to get off this planet, because I'm afraid we're going to destroy it."

Thats from the Scientist doing the majority of the anti-matter research for the Air Force. Id say I share his sentiment.
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
Seconded.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Goering.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.
Author
Time
Post link
As i have said before, i have no problem with upgrading technology, as long as there are no more bombs built. AKA replacing old technology. I am full on in favor of scrapping most of our nukes, it is redundant to have them, not to mention to pay for their upkeep. But i agree full nuclear disarmerment is a great idea, but not plausable. That would be like disarming the military and police. The quasi good will generally follow the rules, but the bad, never will...


edited:

There would still be plenty of funding for Defense contractors even if new nukes werent built. There is a laudry list of new technologies being developed that have nothing to do with nuclear bombs... Further more, i again see no problem updating technologies, while dumbing/disarming old ones. I think a decent solution is to continuely replace and disarm old technology.



And no one bought the presidency, there were many studies done by independant news sources that backed the Electoral COllege, and the supreme court. One of which was done by CNN, which is by no means a concervative entity...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Regicidal, I certainly understand the political motivations. I was putting that question in the context of the conversation I had yesterday at school. I wonder how it is voters willingly support this sort of program?

I dont think there is any other way to see it though, you're right. I dont even think this one can be misconstrued as necessary for national security. (I wont cite the numerous reasons for this, sprinkled throughout this thread).
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
As i have said before, i have no problem with upgrading technology, as long as there are no more bombs built. AKA replacing old technology. I am full on in favor of scrapping most of our nukes, it is redundant to have them, not to mention to pay for their upkeep. But i agree full nuclear disarmerment is a great idea, but not plausable. That would be like disarming the military and police. The quasi good will generally follow the rules, but the bad, never will...


I have to agree with Kingsama here.

They'd have to all be dismantled at once, which would require total cooperation (never gonna happen).

There's always going to be some two-bit tinpot despot with access to a dirty bomb and as much as it pains me to say it I don't see a way out of the nuke stockpile problem.

There's no way to unfuck the situation.

MORE nukes and ICBM in the sky is a retarded idea, seriously drooling monkeys couldn't have worse ideas.

Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
edited:
There would still be plenty of funding for Defense contractors even if new nukes werent built. There is a laudry list of new technologies being developed that have nothing to do with nuclear bombs...


Here I agree again. I am for progress but I'm not sure if we really need deathrays and phantomzone projectors and the like.

Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
And no one bought the presidency, there were many studies done by independant news sources that backed the Electoral COllege, and the supreme court. One of which was done by CNN, which is by no means a concervative entity...


The Presidency, or the leadership of any country for that matter, is for sale to the highest bidder. It's all about advertising and the more you spend the more votes you'll buy, especially important is a vicelike control of the main media outlets.

Here is the full text version of the quote in my sig:

Quote
Originally posted by: Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."


He who controls the media controls the lie.

Victory! FOX News calls 2004 presidential election for Bush

I seem to recall the pro-Bush FOX news calling an earlier election also.

In the 2000 election a full cousin of George W. Bush, John Prescott Ellis, was analysing data from the Voter News Service for Fox News and had several times contact by telephone with both George and Jeb Bush that night. It was his decision to call Florida for Bush, with Fox being the first network to do so.

Quote
Originally posted by: Lethe
I wonder how it is voters willingly support this sort of program?


To answer this I will use the full version of my other sig.

Quote
Originally posted by: Hermann Goering, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag
"Of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Goering.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.
Author
Time
Post link
Reg, that site you just linked was hilarious. Did you check out the copyright at the bottom of the page? 1984-2004 gwbush.com or some such? 1984... I love it.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Regicidal_Maniac<brVictory! FOX News calls 2004 presidential election for Bush


I particularly liked this part:

“Waiting for the actual voters to make their actual selections is a cop-out,” FOX personality Bill O’Reilly said. “Voters are human, they make mistakes! They can’t be trusted to anything this important. The work of our experts at the ‘We Decide’ desk is completely fool-proof and incapable of error.”

I honestly dont know what to say in response to a comment like this other tahn I'm appaled this guy still has a job in the public eye after basically calling the voters idiots. But I guess the non-humans over at fox know whats best for us, thank god for them

EDIT: yeah i realized it was satirical after that, but i could actually see a comment like that coming from our wonderful media outlets

-Darth Simon
Why Anakin really turned to the dark side:
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin

0100111001101001011011100110101001100001

*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah there's some pretty funny stuff there, it's a bit more purile than The Onion but they mean well.

EDIT: Darth Simon it's a satirical site. I'm sure Bill O'Reilly is a twat but he didn't actually say that quote. It's political humor.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Goering.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.
Author
Time
Post link
it would be naive to say that money doesnt effect the presidency, we have had zero poor/middle class pres. But to state that Conservative lobbiest have more power than liberal lobbiest is also naive. If the defense contractors are so powerful why did clinton get in? That guy slashed the military budget...

As for you link. Somewhat entertaining, but I have seen recent studies that show pro kerry article and pro bush article being compared. on Fox it was like 60/40 bush, on other networks, ABC, CNN, NY times, CBS, NBC, the splits ranged from 65/35 to 85/15 for kerry. A majority of TV and Print media is liberal biased, where as Audio aka radio is generally Conservative.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
it would be naive to say that money doesnt effect the presidency, we have had zero poor/middle class pres. But to state that Conservative lobbiest have more power than liberal lobbiest is also naive. If the defense contractors are so powerful why did clinton get in? That guy slashed the military budget...


Sometimes it's 'just time'.

I'd like to see a budget breakdown of the two campaigns and a budgetary comparison between Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents.

Seems to me, a self confessed liberal, that the Dems spend more money on fixing what's broken rather than on tools to break things.

But then I am biased.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Goering.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.
Author
Time
Post link
I, self proclaimed conservative, would disagree. Liberals spend more money, and do so to create a huge morass of a government, where as a conservative puts money back in peoples pockets and allows the private sector to provide the social support through various mediums. I suppose we see the role of government differently...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Agree to disagree.

BTW does anyone else think it sounds strange to hear the word 'nuclear' pronounced correctly these days? After hearing 'nuc-u-lar' from that idiot for so long it's starting to take its toll.

Ahhh! newspeak is here.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Goering.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - Orwell.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, the title of this thread should've been "Bush and Nuc-u-lar Proliferation."

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
*ahem* Living in Tennessee, I've heared it pronounced both ways all my life, so neither bothers me. It is actually mostly people over forty years old that pronounce like Bush, though.

Go Figure.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
*ahem* Living in Tennessee, I've heared it pronounced both ways all my life, so neither bothers me. It is actually mostly people over forty years old that pronounce like Bush, though.

Go Figure.


I heard it when I was living in Kentucky so I'm used to hearing it. Doesn't mean I like it. Bugs me to no end. But there are so many instances of words that are chronically mispronounced, so I guess I should be used to it.

I wonder why it's mostly older people that pronounce it that way? Now that I think about it, I would have to agree with Chaltab on that observation.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
As far as I like "Fallout" RPG games, I wouldn't want to live in post-nuclear world...


I know that total disarmament is a utopian vision, we will never live in perfect world - people don't change, there were, are and will be wars. However NBC weapons scare the sh*t out of me, mainly due to their immense powers, area coverage and secondary, long lasting effects (that are difficult to counter). Bayonet kills one man, machine gun burst kills a squad, HE bomb eliminates a platoon, but new-q-lar warhead not only wipes out whole city, but also leaves fallout, which radiates survivors (if there are any) and stays active for several years... Not to mention adding to the greenhouse effect. Forget the EMP wave which will fry your PC. Toxic gas or lethal virus can also get out of hand... So as much as the conventional weapons are lethal and scary, they're the "lesser evil".

That's why I'll always advocate reducing new-q-lar potential worldwide. Especially now, when the MAD theory is no longer clear: during the Cold War there were US and USSR, both ready and able contestants to the title "biggest bad a55 on earth, bar none". Their new-q-lar potentials nullified each other (ok, I'm aware of the differences in quantity and quality, but enough to say both had enough for MAD work), which could indeed be the only reason why World War III didn't broke out in the last 50 years (too bad that US did nothing to stop the spread of communism after WW2, thus eliminating the threat - they had major air/land forces in Europe, huge production and A-bomb; I always laugh when I hear the Cold War bulls**t about how good Uncle Sam opposed the bad Batiushka Ivan by trying to protect Korea, Vietnam or Middle East from communist's influence, I guess giving half of the Europe to reds in 1945 was "a small thing", not worth of US attention). But now there is no more USSR, this doesn't mean that Russians are completely harmless - they will stubbornly protect their sphere of influence (Chechenia anyone?) and cold-blooded Putin (ex-KGB colonel) is much more dangerous than chubby Yeltsin - but with the collapse of economy and the Eastern Block, they are no longer in position to want directly oppose US in a military conflict (besides, they now face the elusive threat US does). So for the time being, there is no second boxer in the MAD ring, there is no ballance and this is why US new-q-lar arms race becomes dangerous. In the future I'd bet on China to be the other major player (North Korea may be dangerous as hell, but they're not up to US size - different "weight category").

So what should US do? Since we agreed they can't drop all their weapons like some bunch of hippies Well, as it was already said in this thread, building an anti-nuke shield (which used to bear a cool name of "Star Wars program") is an option. This will undoubtedly give them an edge over their enemies ("we can hit you, you can't hit us - suckers!"). This can be also considered as a "pacifist's way of arms race" as other countries would pursue the same thing (as penetrating enemy territory would be tricky, mass sabotage is even less likely, virus has limited means to reach Army computers etc.). Also, a more conventional approach to arms race would be more preferable, especially now, when the enemy cannot be so easily found (and we can't use area-effect weapons like nukes). So this means better, stealthier planes/AA missiles; tiny, unmanned aircraft capable of doing recon, but also delivering weapons on the heads of unsuspecting enemy, etc. - yer usual wonder-weapon toys. Also, as armies become more and more reliant on electronics, new ways of crippling their comms (like offing a comsat from the orbit) and jamming the black boxes would be more readily available to tech-savvy US, rather than to China or even Russia (given the amount of rubels they now spend on military research - space junk like Burans can be bought for scrap price and this was once a heavily guarded secret).

I'd also like to see more stress on special forces. Sending grunts to a conflict, where it's difficult to recognise combatants from civilians always ends up bad, while special forces excell in countering guerillas/terrorists/whaddayoucallit. The "Land Warrior" program is a good example of modern soldier. Even WW2 had shown, that if we know where the enemy is hiding, if we can react quickly, if we can paralyze their chain of command, then even a strong opponent will fall on its knees. Gulf War 1 is another proof - things like ground attack planes working together with J-STARs, seeing Iraqi tanks on the palms of their hands... so what that Saddam had plenty of equipment?
Being one-two tech generations ahead of the opponent really makes a difference in battle, even if they're stronger in numbers.

It is alarming that Bush's administration (because he's just a puppet) is still thinking in 1950s way... Nukes, global domination (hi Mr. Wolfowitz), enemy on every corner ("screw the Constitution, we've got War on Terrorism out here!"). Soon you'll be back into the paranoia when every American family will be building their own bunker. The rest of the world will be already in their bunkers, trembling with fear.
I saw the original theatrical release of the Old Trilogy on the big screen and I'm proud of it...
How did I accomplish that (considering my age) is my secret...
Author
Time
Post link
Sometimes I think about how is this all going to end. It will, someday. As a rope that has a start point always has an ending point, human kind will not go on forever. But how, how are we going to end? Apart from the obvious meteor theory (which could happen tomorrow or in a billion years), the only possible scenario I can imagine is a nuclear war. It will probably happen someday.

Einstein said once: "I don't know how we are going to fight World War 3, but I know how we are going to fight in World War 4, with sticks and stones." I don't agree with him. There will be no one left.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Excellent quote Ric. I agree that there wont be anyone left. I dont think Einstein had quite envisioned the Weapons we have now when he was splitting(im sure he was into fusion too) atoms back in the '40s.
I used to say "Nu-q-lar" (thanks for the phonetics RRS) until sometime in 6th or 7th grade a teacher told me I was mispronouncing the word. Honestly, I dont expect somebody who said "strategery", "symbollogy", and "embetterment" to pick up on this new-fangled correct way to say Nuclear.
I agree with Regicidal that the Presidency indeed comes down to money. As far as it being for sale...I think thats a sticky argument to take up. I agree that media is one of the biggest elements of our elections, and that controlling media comes down to money. Let me just say though, I dont think that liberal media exists in America the way that some people think it does. I havent seen one headline about Sudan in the last month, and im here to say that a true liberal media outlet would find importance in that - as well as make it an issue in this election (to the best of their ability). Id have to say that ive found the most liberal media to be Public Radio. Generally Public Radio in America is the media outlet most internationally involved.

Ok, I have to stop. Some of that may not seem coherrant sorry. I like the stuff thats come out of this thread. Its been a long day, and there is a lot going on in my house right now...so ill be back tomorrow to try and clarify and keep the discussion up if there is any desire for it.

One final note however, I fundamentally disagree with you Kingsama - I dont see the logic in continually upgrading our Nuclear Weapons. Other weapons and systems yes, its logical. However, our current Nuclear Weapons are so incredibly powerful that I cant possibly understand why they need to be stronger...thats just me though man. I dont have a problem with you or anything, though im sure you wouldnt take it that way - im just saying, we disagree on that one aspect.
If it were up to me, we would get the majority of nations to disarm to the point that we have enough weapons to destroy the earth once...cause really...after that...whats the point? Ill acknowledge that we need some Nuclear Weapons to keep the MAD climate working...but even thats really tough for me.
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
Well, I sure hope Ric is wrong about WWIII. I hope we have enough sense to avoid such a horror as that would be.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
Well, I sure hope Ric is wrong about WWIII. I hope we have enough sense to avoid such a horror as that would be.


I agree completely. But I honestly believe it would be, unquestionably, the end of the world as we know it. For some reason I cant type/speak that sentence without feeling cliche. Thanks REM!
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
Well, it is probably because it was such an obsession in the post WWII era that it became cliche.

4

Author
Time
Post link
i few comments,

On upgrading technology, i dont necessarially mean making them more powerful. THe idea of high number of bombs built decades sitting ago about scares me, i think the general technology needs to be uprgraded, and old bombs need to be decommitioned.

On WWIII, i think it is ludacrous to assume that all of man kind would be distroyed. Large cities, military installations, capital, ect. yes, the middle of no where no. The enviroment would certainly suffer if everyone went balls out and distroyed everyone else there would still be enough people and nature around to kick the world back into motion.


On liberal vs. conservative.

I do belive that there is a strong presence in the media that could be called liberal. The problem i see with our discussion is that the word liberal now careers a much different meaning than it did some 15 or so years ago. Both terms have becomes the other parties dirty little words for the other as opposed to there traditional meanings. There are much different conotations now to both words.

Sudan is an interesting subject, the question i would pose to all here is what would happen if the US and a coalition did something about it? By and large Iraq 2 1/2 years ago is a comperable place to modern Sudan, but no one seems to care that peoples lives are better there, due to political overtones. So lets say that G. Bush decides to pull something like CLinton TRIED to do in samalia and pulls it off, unlike clinton did. How would the world react?

Edit: Some links

Conservatism
Liberalism
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Im none too familiar with the Clinton failure in Somalia (unless for some reason I am not identifying this correctly - the only genocide situation I remember Clinton dealing with was in Bosnia/Herzegovina), perhaps Im showing my age. However, I dont think you can compare a genocide thats resulted in the death of nearly 100k people and the displacement of nearly a million to the situation in Iraq circa 2001-02. Im not trying to downplay the crimes against humanity that were taking place in Iraq, im just saying that the scale is really completely different.
I wager that we wouldnt lead a coalition into Sudan because we dont have much vested interest in Sudan. Im not going off on a "liberal" tangent and saying that the war in Iraq was for oil, I dont want this thread to deteriorate. Im just saying plainly, we dont stand to gain anything from Sudan by placing a democratic government there. Thats not my opinion, im just relating the facts as I understand them. Im certain we will continue to support the AU and send money to help get the situation taken care of, just dont expect anything more active than that.
Case in point, Chechnya. There has been an on going genocidal movement, but we dont stand to gain much there. (Ill concede that another reason we arent participating is the residual situation with Russia - I doubt they want us marching an army into their country to dispell/settle a situation - especially considering we are one of the main proponents of their current government. It might be seen as a slap in the face.)
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
Kingsama, this last post clears things up for me. Sorry if I seemed defensive earlier. I can agree that older weapons need to be dismantled - there are really a lot of benefits to this. If that means that at the same time, we upkeep our new weapons and make them more efficient (THE ONES CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE) then thats fine. Like I said, complete disarmament is a blind ideal. Ill take getting rid of old, outdated Nuclear weapons as a step in the right direction
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."