Bush Definitions

Post by **Sloth** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:31 pm

Diplomacy: When I say something and you do it.

Last Resort: When people don't respond to diplomacy.

Real Example Sentence on Iran giving up its nuclear program:

Bush: "We want diplomacy to work ... and we'll see if we're successful. If not, we are ready to use force as a last resort."

Sloth says: Iran is 15 times older than America. What right do we have to tell these people they can't have a nuclear weapon when we have 10,000 of them? Where do we get off? And we wonder why Arabs blow our shit up.

marky · Post by **marky** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:35 pm

Yeah that's what I can't understand. It really makes us look like condescending baby sitters when these countries start talking nuclear and we do everything we can to stop them despite having so many of the damn things ourselves.

bfj · Post by **bfj** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:01 pm

Yeah that's all fine to say and makes sense ideally but the facts in the situation are this:

The Bush Administration and every administration sees it as their job to protect America. In doing so we need to say ahead of the military technology of all other nations, hostile or not.

Our ten thousand nukes is quite excessive but a couple nukes is a great equalizer to ten thousand nukes. We can't let Iran or Korea get nukes. These nations are hostile to us and their neighbors. Isreal sure as hell can't let Iran get nukes.

Simple logic: all nukes are bad and could lead to destruction of the planet.
more nukes is bad because nukes themselves are bad.

Yes we have 10,000 nukes but we aren't going to use them. We will have to strtegically bomb Iran and Korea if they try to develop nukes.

I'm a peacenik myself but be realistic. War and peace ain't no simple fairytale.

Maverick · Post by **Maverick** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:37 am

I'm not a peacenik. We should be the only ones with nukes. But we shouldn't use them.

bfj · Post by **bfj** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:39 pm

we won't use them, except... rumsfeld wanted a study on creating "tactile nukes" basically smaller versions we could actually use. ugh...

Maverick · Post by **Maverick** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:31 pm

That dude is scary. He's like an evil genius type out of a bad movie.

marky · Post by **marky** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:13 pm

Anyone remember that phrase from the 70's (on bumper stickers and such) that went "no nukes less kooks"?

I always wondered what that meant - I mean does "kooks" just mean "crazies" or did it have some other meaning? Ah I know, I could look it up, but it just came to mind reading this thread.

bfj · Post by **bfj** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:14 pm

yeah "kooks" means crazies.

marky · Post by **marky** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:15 pm

Ha ha! Good god you posted so fast in response I thought my post didn't get posted!

Post by **Sloth** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:08 pm

Well I guess I am a peacenik. The USA should not have nukes. It has used them unnecessarily in the past against civilian populations and against test bans.

Any country that voted twice for people like Nixon and Bush has a bad track record.

Anyway, Iran only wants nuclear weapons to protect its strategic hummous reserves.

Post by **mccutcheon** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:52 pm

Iran is into the World Cup and so is the USA. Fuck nukes, let's play some soccer.

Bulletin Board of Bad Behavior

Bush Definitions

Bush Definitions

a kick in the balls is still better than bombs overhead