Finger on the Button
 

We all know the President has effectively had his “finger on the button” since Harry Truman. And, the button has become increasingly more powerful and dangerous. With the treaties that were negotiated and detant, I started to feel easier about that button. That was then…… this is GW Bush.
Then last night I came across this article from back in October.
I read that as, to win without risking the loss of American lives that causes us to reflect on the morality of the conflict. The same for the swing to autonomous war machines. Push button wars that can be waged and won before the morning papers come out.....even against Americans.

I know he’s the President..... got the presidential seal..... up on the podium.... and his Mama loves him, but he’s pretty damned uppity for hired help. :eyebrow:

By multinational, do they mean countries or corporations. Cause I'm all in favor of nuking any country that refuses to call a Big Mac a Big Mac.http://www.cellar.org/images/newsmilies/eyebrow.gif

The French are first, then...they call a Quarter Pounder "Royale with cheese." :)

We're having to find a way to discourage small, dispersed groups like fanatical, anti-American terrorists from even contemplating carrying out a nuclear attack. Nuclear counterstrikes, after all, aren't a viable response to a little bunch of virulent America-haters who actually detonate a nuclear weapon on an American target.

Since said terrorists are unlikely ever to obtain a nuke save from some national sponsor and national nuclear-weapons industry, it's up to us to show that any nation trying to nuke us by proxy that they do so at their acute peril.

A mushroom cloud over your city should be about your least favorite prospect. How many people would you kill to stop it?

Any war, of any size and of any description, against any tyranny, is inherently moral. Transcendentally so. Some of you reading this, not understanding tyranny, seem not to believe that. The American Presidency is not a tyranny, thanks to even the power of the Leader Of The Free World being limited both in scope and in time.

Don't you think the Koreans, Iranians, et al, are feeling the same way? :eyebrow:

I see the public library seems to have given you your internet privileges back, UG.

As to your question, I dunno know. How many people would the mushroom cloud kill vs. how many would need to be killed to prevent it? Maybe the people responsible for the mushroom cloud are laboring under the delusion that their cloud is moral because it will kill tyrants.

Please define "morality."

Please define "tyranny."

Please explain why the only way mushroom clouds can be prevented is through the killing of other human beings.

Please explain why "them" should understand that WE are right and THEY are stupid (and tyrants).

Please explain just what constitutes "the free world." Many of our allies strongly object to some of the US's more egregious actions. Much good these objections do our allies.

Please, for once, I DARE you, stop painting global politics in the black and white hues of an old John Wayne Western.

Ever read "Bad Day at Black Rock"?

Probably not.

So, when the US destablized governments and installed and/or supported dictators like Marcos, Shah Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, etc., it was perfectly moral and acceptable for people to shoot at us?

By your definition, Khomeni was a freedom fighter. I think I will have to disagree with you there.

As for the US presidency being limited in scope, it appears the current adminstration disagrees with you.

What president unilaterally launched war for same reasons that Tojo did in Dec 1941? What president outrightly lied about so many deaths in New Orleans? What administration almost got us in a shooting war over a silly spy plane? What administration included people who advocated war even with Russia, India, and Germany? And what president literally ignored PDBs that warned of an attack on US soil (and 3000 deaths); literally quashed multiple federal investigations that would have averted those attacks? And then what president would 'solve' these problems with more bureaucracy? What president would promote and justify torture?

And what president would justify domestic spying? Well, names like Nixon come to mind. What other president would be so corrupt?

Answers to marichiko's questions also are required.

Bush in charge of our noooookyooooolar weapons? Dear fucking God help us. 2008 can't get here fast enough.

Never forget that it could always get worse.

interesting comments
 

Especially about black and white. My best friend bleeds Republican and I have often thought that he sees the world and its problems in black and white. White meaning Republican and good, black meaning Democrat and evil.
Of course morality and tyranny are defined by whatever Bushco and the neocons say they are at the moment.
I am assuming that if we nuke a city that we will place a force field around it so none of that nasty nuclear fallout drifts into the territory of someplace let's say like China. Oops!

Speaking of China, they will control us and defeat us without firing a shot since they hold so much of our debt and have the ability to collapse our economy.
Nuclear is the only way we could ever beat them because we do not have enough soldiers to throw at them as cannon fire in a conventional war. Or course, once we go nuclear everything is all over anyways. See what China has to say if we try and go into Iran and disrupt their oil supply. Once the world sees us back down to China then our superpower status will take a big hit. Of course King George would welcome the opportunity to declare martial law and do away with the rest of our Constitutional rights. At this moment we are like the frog in hot water who does not realize that the heat is slowly being turned up and he will end up boiling. Then it is too late.

One can only hope that nuttin happins till 2008, but then again we may get something worse. (correct my spelling if you must)

OK, I will.
One can only hope that nuttin happins till 2008, but then again we may get Jed. ;)