http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_...NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ

might be a repost...but i'm getting this whole "taliban/iraq" vibe from this where we offer them help but the beneficiary ends up using our help against us

did we not learn our lesson when Madeline Half-brite of the clinton admin. gave North Korea nuclear technology. What , are we fucking retarded?

yes, yes we are retarded.
nukes from one theocracy to another.

Lets just get rid of nukes and fight with swords and axes like the good old days.

Man_of_the_Century said:

I second that notion... I'm all for medieval warfare! no more planes/bombs/guns we sail ships to foreign lands and hack and slash through battles.

that will prove once and for all who the REAL super powers are

What the Iraq war should have been:

sacreligion said:

Believe it or not, we actually gave Iran the nuclear technology that started this whole process a few decades ago. They're now being offered an incentive package to suspend uranium enrichment (which would put an end to nuclear development anyway), so I have to wonder what nuclear elements could really be useful to them to be included in this package. Without continued enrichment, it might as well be a miniature of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant.

But this is all a moot point, as Iran will not accept the incentive package anyway. Bush and Ahmadinejad are both very happy with the way things are going. They have the perfect stalemate; each has a military and public unready for another war, but an electorate that responds positively to dick waving, led by their base of wackjob fundamendalists. Everytime Bush or Ahmadinejad says something, investors get nervous, and the price of oil goes up. They have every reason to continue their partnership and quietly rejoice while we all pay out the asshole for it.

i think the incentive is the technology for nuclear power with a ton of enriched uranium(so they don't develop the technology to be able to work with it otherwise) and if they "do a good job" according to the UN security force or what have you, they can continue enriching uranium later.

but yes...it should go back to the good ol' days when the land is yours if you won a hand-to-hand combat battle

"Its good to have land."

well fuck it what are you going to do nothing same thing our government is going to do, unless you can stop religon the towel heads will kill us all

Stopping religion sounds right to me. Well not stopping religion per se, but the first thing any President should have done after 9/11 is say that we are at war with religious fundamentalism and it's attempts to affect polictics PERIOD. This battle between zealotry and civilized society is centuries old, and every time religious fundamentalism has affected politics, it's been bad for politics and bad for religion. Whether it's fundamentalist Jews who assassinate Yitzak Rabin or support oppressing Palestinians, or whether it's fundamentalist Christians who call for the the Venezuelan President to be assassinated or plan the Oklahoma City Bombing, or whether it's fundamentalists Muslims attacking The World Trade Center and suicide bombing in Iraq, religious fundamentalism's attempt to influence politics MUST be challenged by civilized society.

After all, if we, as the long standing democracy in the world, cannot stand up against religious fundamentalists here, how can we expect countries with no democratic history or tradition to stand up against religious fundamentalists who are even more violent?

THAT is how to win the war on terror. Creating an us vs. them mentality which creates an environment where people are concerned about "towel heads" is how to lose the war on terror.

Of course Bush would never have the balls to risk upsetting his base like that, even in the name of national security. The ironic thing is that Americans after 9/11 were willing to band together around any national security message the President offered, even the 'controversial' one I just suggested; it would have been a tough pill for people to swallow, but they would ultimately accept it in the name of protecting America. Bush's reluctance to say such a thing underscores how difficult it is politically for ANY country to take its on religious fundamentalists, and thus how totally screwed we might be with this war on terror in the long run.

Man_of_the_Century said:

And what it will be again, some day, after we've all nuked one another. Except some of the knights will have three arms and two helmets.

Everytime you have a war against a "thing" it isn't ment to be won. Just like the war on drugs, this is just another long, ineffective, "war" against an idea, that will never be "won". It's a waste of money and human life that is being grossly mishandled, will ultimately suppress more of our rights and will end badly for everyone. If anyone wanted to stop terrorism, we'd have to take back our government and change our foreign policy.

Good point.

HailTheLeaf said:

I need to point out something. This post makes you a hypocrite, and I'll explain why. You have been waging a war yourself. A war against Bush, the government, and Democracy as a whole. But you just stated that wars are pointless, a waste of money, and a waste of human life. So what makes you better?

not to mention a "war on drugs" and a "war on terror" are two entirely different things

the war on terror is...ya know...a war...with battles

the war on drugs is misinformation and (sometimes)wrongful arrests

Man_of_the_Century said:


I thought what she said is that you can't win a war against an idea, not that all wars are pointless.

No, she didn't say that all wars are pointless. But I never said anything about all wars either. She said a war against a "thing", not an idea (although you can argue that they are one and the same). Is the government a thing? Yup. Is Democracy a thing? Yup. Is bush a thing, nope. But, for example, (in the war on terror) Bin Laden or any other terrorist leader is a focus point for the war. A war always has a focus. So does her war, and thats where Bush comes in.

I can see how she's fought against Bush, but how does that translate as waging war against democracy? Sounds like the opposite to me.

Maybe you're thinking of infoterror.

She's said on countless (political) threads how democracy and governments don't work. Her thread about the 2004 election is a prime example. That went from bad bush, to bad republicans, to bad government.

ShadowSD said:

speaking of Infoterror, where the fuck did he/she/it go? i always got a good laugh out of him/her/it.

I never recall announcing that I was waging war against anything. Political dissent and the expression of ideas aren't a declaration of war.

The government makes things into a "war", an "us or them" mentality to pit people against eachother and get everyone all riled up. In a "war" there's no grey area, "terrorists" are the enemy, "drug users" are the enemy. These "wars" are against ideas/things which are far out of our control and can never be won. Drug prohibition has been a fucking disaster, and continues to fail to deal with what is a cultural and medical issue. Both wars accomplish nothing but a huge waste of money, life, and rights.

i distinctly remember you going on cnn and waging war with george bush

The definition of "war" is as follows:

1) A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2) The period of such conflict.
3) The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
4) A condition of active antagonism or contention.
5) A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious

Your view and actions toward government and democracy fits right in with #4 and #5. Even though you never stated that you "declared war on [insert word here]" you are still at war. Don't get me wrong, the war on drugs was and is a failure, but thats not what I was talking about.

sacreligion said:

hahaha...

It just proves that you can infact hug with nuclear arms

ShadowSD said:


That is the most brilliant thing I have heard anyone say since the war on terror started, and it's a shame that the President didn't say those things after 9/11. A strategy that actually involves us winning... imagine that.

The funny thing is that the pro-war side of the debate would actually win if they embraced that position, instead of looking foolish by supporting a policy that coddles some religious fundamentalists while trying to destroy others.

as someone who has been pro-defense all my life, i reluctantly have to agree. recognizing the enemy is the first vital step in winning any war, and it takes more balls to recognize the scope of a real enemy than to stick to politically convenient targets. a presidential speech like that after 9/11 would have put us so much further ahead in the war on terror than we are right now.

Good to see a conservative agree on this point. I think this is a common sense argument that almost anyone can get behind.

Not that I'm presuming to speak for everyone on the other side, of course... any of the arch-conservatives here disagree with this approach? Pat? Hoser? Hungtableed?

ha, apparantely one seems to disagree, which has to be a first for rttp. ballsy shit nonetheless, dude, did you just come up with that on the spot?