Texas Über Alles

Now it's two thousand and four
Knock knock at your front door
It's George Bush's secret police
They have come for your uncool niece

... Huh?

Texas is better off without Shrub. Unfortunately, the country is worse of with Shrub. That's idiot is talking about using low-yield nukes as bunker-busters in Op: Enduring Freedom. Fortunately, saner minds talked him out of it.

why doesn't anything make sence?

That's idiot is talking about using low-yield nukes as bunker-busters in Op: Enduring Freedom. Fortunately, saner minds talked him out of it.

URL to a news story about this please?

Bah. I judge him based on what he does, not what he says.

Remember this: I and others can make similar parallels between totalitaianism and liberals, such as King Klinton's claim that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are "radical" documents.

That's idiot is talking about using low-yield nukes as bunker-busters in Op: Enduring Freedom. Fortunately, saner minds talked him out of it.

OMFG! What a retard! Doesn't he know anything about radiation and fallout?

Yet another reason why we should have voted for Nader...

URL to a news story about this please?

I finally found a link! Mind, this isn't the original article I read, which was a recent one. This is one back from August, before 9/11. Here it is. The article I found the other day was much more in tune with Op:E.F. Unfortunately, I found it from my dad's computer at work, so I don't have the history to search. (Could have sworn I got it off Fark.com, tho.) As soon as I find the one from the other day, I'll post the link.

The biggest problem I see coming from the use of nukes as bunker-busters is the dangerous precident it would set. Nuclear weapons have only been used once in anger: by the U.S. against Imperial Japan. (And Fat Man and Little Boy actually saved lives: it was estimated that an invasion of Imperial Japan would have cost roughly one million American lives on top of the four or five million Japanese that woud be killed.)

(And Fat Man and Little Boy actually saved lives: it was estimated that an invasion of Imperial Japan would have cost roughly one million American lives on top of the four or five million Japanese that woud be killed.)

Liberals and communists would argue otherwise.

Liberals and communists would argue otherwise.

You'd say that about anything, Shady. If history were different and we did end of invading Japan rather than using the bomb, and if I were to make the case that not using the nukes was the better way to go, you'd say that very same thing.

Besides, I'm about as liberal as they come. And if there were any chance of communism working, I'd certainly support it.

Liberals and communists would argue otherwise.

You'd say that about anything, Shady. If history were different and we did end of invading Japan rather than using the bomb, and if I were to make the case that not using the nukes was the better way to go, you'd say that very same thing.

Besides, I'm about as liberal as they come. And if there were any chance of communism working, I'd certainly support it.

No, not exactly. I'm just regurgitating (sp) how liberals and communists would most likely react to that. They believe that there would NOT have been a substantial amount of casualties had a ground invasion of Japan occured, and therefore the use of the nuclear weapon was unjustified. They'd favor a ground invasion I'd imagine, and had that happened they'd be defending it I think.

"Liberal" has many different connotations, globally and American.

No, not exactly. I'm just regurgitating (sp) how liberals and communists would most likely react to that. They believe that there would NOT have been a substantial amount of casualties had a ground invasion of Japan occured, and therefore the use of the nuclear weapon was unjustified. They'd favor a ground invasion I'd imagine, and had that happened they'd be defending it I think.

Those casualty estimates were made by the best minds in the U.S. military. The Imperial Japanese leaders would have had every last man, woman, and child fight to the death if the Allies had invaded. (and they would have, too, considering the Japanese mindset at the time and the fact that no external threat had ever reached Japanese lands in centuries.) They would not have surrendered simply due to the concept of being invaded; but the Japanese leaders understood the power and potential destruction inherent in nuclear weapons after we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Keep in mind that, casualties aside (don't start), the nukes were dropped as a demonstration more than an outright attack. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both minor industrial centers. They could have chosen a more military or far more populated target for either of the nukes; hell we'd been firebombing Tokyo successfully for months. We could have wiped Tokyo and the Imperial leaders clean off of Creation... but we didn't. We didn't want to wipe out Japan; we only were trying to end the war.

Those casualty estimates were made by the best minds in the U.S. military. The Imperial Japanese leaders would have had every last man, woman, and child fight to the death if the Allies had invaded. (and they would have, too, considering the Japanese mindset at the time and the fact that no external threat had ever reached Japanese lands in centuries.) They would not have surrendered simply due to the concept of being invaded; but the Japanese leaders understood the power and potential destruction inherent in nuclear weapons after we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh I'm aware of that. Personally I don't doubt it, but I am saying that others would.

Keep in mind that, casualties aside (don't start), the nukes were dropped as a demonstration more than an outright attack. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both minor industrial centers. They could have chosen a more military or far more populated target for either of the nukes; hell we'd been firebombing Tokyo successfully for months. We could have wiped Tokyo and the Imperial leaders clean off of Creation... but we didn't. We didn't want to wipe out Japan; we only were trying to end the war.

Yep, correct. Trying to scare the piss out of the Soviet Union.

Speaking of the Soviet Union, why do people think that an arms race would be a bad thing if it started (which I doubt it will)? There was an article in the paper yesterday that I read which stated that there was 59 serious conflicts worldwide in 2001 of "state versus seperatist groups or terrorist organizations". The lowest period of conflicts in American history came during the Cold War years, when only 39 was averaged (only?!?).

It appears as though a deadlock of two major superpowers, both just as scared of the other as the other is, brought the world stability despite the USSR's record of human rights abuse, etc.

Yep, correct. Trying to scare the piss out of the Soviet Union.

Excuse me? We were allied with the Soviets at the end of World War II. The Cold War didn't start until a few years after the war was over. And their military was not in the best of shape after weathering the Nazi invasion.

Speaking of the Soviet Union, why do people think that an arms race would be a bad thing if it started (which I doubt it will)? ... It appears as though a deadlock of two major superpowers, both just as scared of the other as the other is, brought the world stability despite the USSR's record of human rights abuse, etc.

That's true. When all the cards were held either by the U.S. or the Soviets, each had only one enemy to really worry about, and it was obvious that said enemy was too afraid to play the nuclear card. But since the Soviet Union collapsed, all of its cards fell into the hands of tiny players that would otherwise be inconsequential. I suppose another cold war would bring a nice measure of stability, although I have no idea who we'd be in it with.

Yep, correct. Trying to scare the piss out of the Soviet Union.

Excuse me? We were allied with the Soviets at the end of World War II. The Cold War didn't start until a few years after the war was over. And their military was not in the best of shape after weathering the Nazi invasion.

It is a prevailing belief among historians that the nuclear strike was more of a "diplomatic" move to intimidate the Soviet Union. But who really knows?

The story about the bunker busters reminds me of something my friend was telling me about a cannon that could be attached to tanks to launch small nuclear warheads. Maybe its the same thing?

The cold war actualy began when the US sided with the White Russians during the Bolshevik Revolution. When the communists took over, they aimed their agression towards America. The US was only grugingly allied with the Soviets during WWII. We only allied with them because our allies were allied with them. Heh...too many allies.

Dubya on the cold war:

When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us versus them, and it was clear who them was. Today we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there.

My topic was actually about the "broad sweeping power" George W Bush has with secret military trials and executions and I based my post on some song lyrics. I'm surprised no one got the reference. It's scary how closely some rougly 20 year old Dead Kennedys lyrics can be applied to current events - California Über Alles, Kinky Sex Makes The World Go Round, Potshot Heard Round the World, A Commercial, Cesspools in Eden, Triumph of the Swill, Pull My Strings, etc.

W is just pathetic. He's a puppet of corporate cock puppets. He's a figurehead. His dad's corporate cock puppet henchmen are the ones calling the shots. Prick Chene is the old warlord that's been in hiding since 9/11. It's him they can't afford to lose. Notice how the head honchos of Bush's cabinet were all out of town scattered about the country/world when all hell broke loose on 9/11? I think they meant to let something happen so they could go play shoot em up, but way, way underestimated what terrorists could do (Or as W would say "misunderestimated"). There were warnings of something coming and everyone just sat with their thumbs up their asses.

Yet another reason why we should have voted for Nader...

*Praises Danarchist

I can't remember who I voted for. I paid more attention to the Utah state / Salt Lake county offices than the Presidential race. I was trying to figure out, between Bush and Gore, which was the lesser of two idiots. I figured that whoever got the office would be a caretaker and no more, and would be dropped like an empty clip come '04. So I just flipped a coin, poked a chad, and stuffed the ballot in the mailbox.

Besides, I'm a Utah voter, and the MoMo's are patting the Republicans on the back until they can find a place to stab, so it's not like my vote counted. It sucks being a Catholic Democrat in Utah.

I would have voted for Nader, but I was only 16 at the time. Maybe next election, if we all survive until then.

In response to Gokuma, I do believe the government knows a Hell of a lot more than they are telling us. They already have said on the news that the CIA had evidence that something was going to happen, and if the CIA knew this, the executive branch would have been informed as well. For all we know it could have been an attempt to raise W's popularity. Before 9/11, he was the joke of the world, a festering pimple on America's ass. Now he's some kind of godlike hero. More likely, the attack on Afgahnistan is just for this purpose.

Speaking of which, we don't even have enough evidence to point out Osama bin Laden as the culprit. In fact, we have evidence they he wasn't the mastermind, yet he was most likely a large part of it. He possibly could have been under orders from the Iranian or Iraqi government, or some Palestinian sect. I read somewhere where the CIA had someone on their most wanted lists who they actualy blame for the attacks. This individual (who's name I can't remember), has been directly responsible for most of the major terrorists acts since the 70s. But thanks to government misinformation, we Americans have to live in the fog of enforced ignorance and propaganda.

In response to Gokuma, I do believe the government knows a Hell of a lot more than they are telling us (1). They already have said on the news that the CIA had evidence that something was going to happen, (2) and if the CIA knew this, the executive branch would have been informed as well. For all we know it could have been an attempt to raise W's popularity. (3) Before 9/11, he was the joke of the world, a festering pimple on America's ass. Now he's some kind of godlike hero. More likely, the attack on Afgahnistan is just for this purpose. (4)

1: Of course they do. If the government told us every little thing, the nation would be too perpetually scared for itself to do anything. That, and if the government revealed all of its intelligence, the Terrs would just improvise something that we wouldn't have time to prepare and react for.

2: The CIA knew that "something" was going to happen. They didn't have anything definite, anything they could really plan for. If they truly knew which flights were going to be hijacked, they would have stopped those flights from taking off, or shot them down over an unpopulated area. The CIA isn't omnipotent or infallible, any more than the rest of the gumm'int is. And we all know your opinion on the government.

3: Shrub and his supporters aren't that smart. (His supporters can't be that smart. They helped him into office, after all.) And once again, the world isn't in conspiracy against you, danny-boy. (Only a few of us. :)

4: No shit, Sherlock. Foreign wars can only be tools for garnering popularity in this day and age. The sensible thing to do would have been to send a team of elites to capture bin Laden and raze the terrorist centers all quiet-like. But there's public morale to boost, and thirty-year-old armaments that need to be used up, so...

Would you people be happy if McCain had gotten the Republican nomination (as I had hoped at the time)?

My topic was actually about the "broad sweeping power" George W Bush has with secret military trials and executions and I based my post on some song lyrics. I'm surprised no one got the reference.

Make no mistake, I did catch it and I agree with you.

W is just pathetic. He's a puppet of corporate cock puppets. He's a figurehead. His dad's corporate cock puppet henchmen are the ones calling the shots.

Where have you been during American history class? ALL politicians are puppetheads, especially presidents. They can't all do it themselves (they should in my opinion) and that's why they have cabinet members and assistants, blah blah blah. Gore would have been mostly the same except he'd play minority rivalries off of each other in order to profit.

Notice how the head honchos of Bush's cabinet were all out of town scattered about the country/world when all hell broke loose on 9/11? I think they meant to let something happen

Ahh, which conspiracy theory do you subscribe to?

Most likely, you wouldn't be saying all of this had Gore been on the opposite side of the Flordia shit (I think he DID get screwed over in the election) and was President now. That supposition is quite depressing actually. Shows how few people can actually put their passions aside and think objectively, on neither side.

I tell you, if GW was the one getting screwed over in Nov. 2000 and was pissing for a revote, I'd still tell him to go nuzzle all over himself as I did to Gore. It's the type of Democrats that wouldn't demand the revotes if GW wanted them also that I don't respect.

DAMMIT, DOUBLE POST, sorry.

Would you people be happy if McCain had gotten the Republican nomination (as I had hoped at the time)?

I would have voted for McCain over Bush. Hell, I would have voted for McCain over Gore, and I'm more aligned with the Dems than the GOP.
Has anyone else here seen the striking resemblance between the phrase 'Grand Old Party' and the phrase 'Good Ol' Boys'?
Just a thought.

So what do you think of the swedish prime minister, Göran Persson?