This is topic U. S. Warns of Nuclear Response in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001535

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 12-11-2002, 12:25 PM:
 
An AOL News Attention-getter stated, "You Gas us, We'll Nuke You."

The Associated Press has the late-breaking story.

I guess President Bush holds the trump card if Saddam Hussein of Iraq pulls any wild punches.

If this comes to pass, I am in full support of President Bush and Congress. There is a six-page strategy outline that underscores a long-standing policy that the United States reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including a resort to all of our options - to the use weapons of mass destruction against the United States, our forces abroad and friends and allies."

As a side note from me, I recall a quote from General George S. Patton. He said "When you put your hand in a bunch of goo that used to be your best friend's face,...You'll know what to do."

I know what to do.

Paul G. Thompson
USN (Ret)
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 12-11-2002, 01:41 PM:
 
Bend over
Stick you head between your legs
and kiss your ass goodbye!

I'm so glad that "W" is president. It so trivializes sex as a scandelous topic. We are no longer worried about who's fucking whom but now we can worry about our very existance.

Well, I for one will sell movie tickets to the very endl.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 12-11-2002, 02:27 PM:
 
This really isn't that earth-shattering. Normally someone in the press will ask a military spokesman if they would consider using nuclear weapons during a conflict. Of course they always say yes, that the whole point of nuclear weapons-you act like your going to use them but you never will. Having the President come out and say it is more significant but not fundamentaly different.
 

---

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 12-11-2002, 02:29 PM:
 
I am Glad W is President also. I am also glad that Nancy Pelosi lives in California and doesn't represent me.

Adam: She is the new minority leader in the congress who is demanding that that Trent Lott resign and that he be censored by the Republican Party.

Yes, This is important enough for you to cancel your trip to Vegas and rally all citizens of California for her removal. Please advise her that she should find a Vulcan and have a mind melt.

Hillery:It is my understanding from what I have heard on the New York talk shows, Trent Lott's voting record shows no indication that he supports segregation of any sort.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-11-2002, 02:57 PM:
 
Who the hell is Nancy Pelosi? Is this something I need to take care of before my Vegas Vacation?
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 12-11-2002, 05:34 PM:
 
Dustin, from what I read of the matter, it is much more than an off-the-wall statement conjured up by the Media. Al Gore also supports it, and from what I understand, a six-page outline will be presented to Congress Wednesday.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-11-2002, 06:33 PM:
 
Can't we all just get along?

Personally, I am sick and tired of our government coming out and saying "IF he does this, we'll do this to him. IF he doesn't comply we will make him comply, IF IF IF."

It's like a schoolyard threat-match going on! SHEESH!

I'm glad George W. Bush is our president, too. So people will see who not to vote for in 2004.

=TMP=
"Quick! My approval rating is going down! Find me a country to bomb!"
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-11-2002, 07:12 PM:
 
A Nuclear threat is just the ticket to get the total loss of support from the rest of the world and put all of the US world wide relations into the dumpster.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-11-2002, 08:40 PM:
 
During the festivities for Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Sen. Trent Lott proclaimed that when Thurmond ran for President back in the 1940's as a segregationist, Lott's state voted for him. Lott went on to say that he was proud of his state's support for Thurmond and that if he had won back then, we wouldn't have some of the problems that we do today.

Of course, now that there's an outcry, Lott has backpedaled and implied that it was all taken out of context. Sometimes, these people reveal a little too much about themselves, and get upset when others hear it. If the voters elect him as to represent them, that's their business, I wouldn't. Then again, I wouldn't have voted for former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd, either.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-12-2002, 02:03 AM:
 
The 'if Iraq uses chemical or biological weapons then we will nuke Baghdad' threat is nothing new. It is alleged to have been issued by Bush Senior in the 1990-91 Gulf war, according to the shit lit novelist Frederick Forsyth, who made this a major plot point in his book The Fist of God. In a recent radio interview, Forsyth claimed to have got this from a CIA contact he met in the course of researching the novel.

Adam: Nancy Pelosi got a mention in the coverage of the mid-term elections on the main evening news programme on British radio, The World Tonight, last month. If I remember correctly she is an extreme left-wing Democrat senator from California, who has consistently voted against the US initiating war in the Middle East. The piece I heard speculated that 11 September might have jeopardised her chances of re-election, but it seems that it didn't.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-12-2002, 02:05 AM:
 
It's funny, Clinton comes out a few years ago at a press dinner and directly makes a "black guy" joke (his language) regarding Janet Reno, Rush Limbaugh, and Justice Thomas, and these sanctimonious hypocrites never said a word. They just laughed right along with Bubba.

So, I have to laugh when they start raising hell about something they're inferring Lott meant.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-12-2002, 05:34 AM:
 
Tim,

Do you remember the exact joke? And what press dinner that was? I'd like to find a transcript of that, as sometimes in second- or third-hand versions tend to lose accuracy. I'm sure Limbaugh didn't let it go, and reported it fairly.

Clinton was forgiven for a multitude of "mistakes," but was pounced upon for many more. I can remember when Reagan joked into an open microphone, "I've just declared war on Russia. We begin bombing in five minutes." There are jokes, and then there are jokes. A rock group used his voice clips in a song called "Five Minutes," which I really did find funny.

Since I don't know the Clinton joke, I can't compare that and Lott's comments. Was the joke in harmony with any of Clinton's public policies? Lott had made similar statements in 1980, neither time as a joke. If his voting record doesn't reflect these comments, the issue should die.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-12-2002, 09:55 AM:
 
Nukes have been a deterrent since they were invented. Remember the term "nuclear deterrent"? That has what has kept the world from blowing itself up. There has ALWAYS been the threat of retaliation by overwhelming force. Our president is just reminding the bad guys of the consequences of their actions. Children and idiots often have to be reminded of the consequences of their actions. For those of us that have lived through the cold war this is nothing new.
As for the Bush bashers out there....
Maybe if he played a saxophone in his underwear on MTV and got BJs in the white House while he was supposed to be doing his job, you'd like him more?
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-12-2002, 01:51 PM:
 
Hillary, it was around '92 - '94, and something very close to "Did you hear Rush Limbaugh defend Janet Reno the other day? He only came to her aid because she was being attacked by a black guy." I remember it distinctly and I've heard the clips. He said "black guy". The libs and the press would be out for blood if a conservative had said that.

Nobody knows what was in Lott's mind. They are inferring everything. Clinton actually said this.

A disgraceful, racist joke if I ever heard one, which he got a wide open pass on. Where was Jesse Jackson? Republicans can't even say the word black without being accused of being racist. It's these kinds of double-standards that people remember come election time.

Here's the test for fairness: turn the joke around and see if it still gets a pass. Imagine President Bush referring to Jesse Jackson and saying, "Did you hear Tom Daschle defend Katherine Harris the other day? He only came to her aid because she was being attacked by a black guy." I don't have to tell you what would've followed that dinner.

Yes, Clinton was taken to task for many things, and he should've been; he got by with a lot more than he had to answer for.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-12-2002, 03:02 PM:
 
The Lott/Thurmond/Pelosi story hit the British news media this evening (quite a long way behind Mrs. Blair's strange friends, but it was there). The line they're taking is that thusfar, Thurmond's segregationist agenda when he ran for president in 1948 had been carefully avoided by pretty much everyone who has spoken about him in public... until Lott made that speech. Pelosi led the charge in response, but speculation is that by explicitly stating the view that the US would have been a better place if the civil rights movement had been crushed, Lott has made his position untenable. They interviewed a left-leaning Republican senator (sorry, can't remember the name) who expressed the view that President Bush might well end up having to ask Lott to resign for fear of the negative publicity that would result if he didn't.
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 12-12-2002, 04:13 PM:
 
Of all the poltical commentary that I have heard over the whole Iraq situation is funny that the most astute would be from Jay Leno. Basically Saddam Hussain is not not going to do a damn thing as far as complying to U.N. resolutions unless he literally has cocked gun pointed at his head. I truely believe that George Bush does not want to go to war with Iraq unless it is a last resort but he CAN'T say that. Saddam has to believe that Bush is ready to go to war at the drop of a hat or this whole exercise is pointless. Does anybody really believe that Saddam would have allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq if he didn't think that his own life was in jeopardy?

Now as far as the Nuclear response goes, our country's policy has been, for the last 50 or so years, that we will use weapons of mass destruction in kind. And since the only kind of weapon of mass destruction that we possess is Nuclear that is what we would use if we were attacked with chemical weapons. Not that is policy. Whether or not we would actually use them in a real situation remains to be seen, however, at no point should we say that nuclear weapons are off the table. You elimate that threat and the other side can do what ever they want.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-12-2002, 06:10 PM:
 
Tim,

I won't be an apologist for Clinton because I often cringed when I heard him say things apparently without thinking beforehand. This couldn't have been one of those instances. However, the joke itself is more a slam on Limbaugh, implying that he's a racist, actually having motivation to help someone he seems to despise. Using the term "black guy" isn't in the same league with Dick Army's "Barney Fag" comment. Or even when Reagan used the term "negroid."

We can both go back into history and quote reallys stupid things said by politicians, but actions speak louder than words. Lincoln expressed doubts regarding the equality between blacks and whites, yet he believed in the equality of freedom. If Trent Lott acted more progressively than his recent words would suggest, as Bob wrote, then this will likely blow over. As I wrote in my earlier post, there are others with a less enlightened past representing their constituents, and they're still in office.

Gotta go now, dust off my Mickey Mouse gas mask and practice my "duck and cover."
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-12-2002, 11:17 PM:
 
Dear Hillary,

Oh, I completely understand what he was trying to make a joke about. Unfortunately, the joke was based on a false stereotype to begin with (that Republicans are racist), and good humor is always based in truth. Regardless, Clinton uttered words that, had the same words in the same context come from the mouth of a conservative, would've made headlines the next morning.

I can appreciate what you said about cringing over some things Clinton said. Knowing how the opposition has their radar on over such things, I did have to wonder what the heck Lott was thinking?! That was a major poor choice of words.

Btw, I thought it was Bob Dole who said "Barney Fag"?
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-13-2002, 05:57 AM:
 
Tim,

That's why I agree with what Will Rogers once said; something to the effect of; "I woudn't want somebody from my own party in office. It's much more fun complaining about him than apologizing for him."

And yep, it was Dick Army. I remember it vividly because it struck me that he himself has a name that could be used against him with less of a stretch as Barney Frank's name was.

And as far as Limbaugh's leanings..the former DJ will sing whatever song plays best with his audience. Hmmm, sound's like a politician.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-13-2002, 11:11 AM:
 
You have Limbaugh wrong, I must say. That's a typical stereotype. He's most definitely not about what the audience wants to hear -- quite the contrary. He's heavily into getting people to think for themselves, and he often takes Bush to task on numerous points that are contrary to his views. The show is all about what he thinks and believes; it just happens that a large segment of the population agrees with him. Rush Limbaugh is very consistent.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-13-2002, 11:21 AM:
 
What Tim said. Many of Rush Limbaugh's detractors have obviously never really listened to him, and only repeat what they've heard or read about him from someone with an axe to grind. Limbaugh is no big fan of W, or Colin Powell for that matter.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-13-2002, 12:10 PM:
 
Just because someone doesn't support a Republican president doesn't mean they are a Democrat. Way too many people assume this.

Also, do you think Saddam, a man who supposedly "gassed his own people" would care if we dropped a nuke on his country? Hell no. We would just be decreasing the population of Iraqi civillians while he flees the country, and then we'd be chasing him AND Osama. (By the way... we ARE still looking for Osama, right?)

=TMP=
Republicans, Democrats... Same , different piles.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-13-2002, 02:22 PM:
 
He'd probably care if it fell on him.
Don't forget that if he has no one to rule, he's not a ruler.
"Supposedly" gased?

Ya know it's real easy to take pot shots at people and their efforts. The hard part is to actually come up with a plan and make it happen. No matter what you do, there will always be those that will whine, if for no other reason than their own political agenda. Most of the time, like with Gore, it's because of their political agenda. Personally, I believe that's what makes the demos losers. All they do is react and try to tear down and obstruct, without ever coming up with any positive alternative.
So what would you do to handle the terrorist situation?
Here's my plan...
Withdraw all troops from foreign soil, period.
Withdraw all foreign aid, period.
Send all the foreign students home.
Send all illegal aliens home.
Seal the borders.
Call all foreign aid loans.
Anyone phugs with us in the future, nukem off the face of the earth, period.

PS
For those who feel safe from foreign nukes because "they have no delivery system" (ie ICBMs or bombers) think again. Right after the Vietnam conflict, my best friend was in a division of the army that dealt with small nukes. He told me that they had them the size of a small suitcase or large briefcase. That was over 30 years ago. Light one of those off in "downtown wherever". How safe are you really?
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-13-2002, 06:06 PM:
 
Tim and David,

You both have ME wrong. I have consistently listened to Rush for weeks at a time (totalling several months) starting about ten years ago. Remember the show where he actually convinced people that his conservative stance was all wrong and he decided to go liberal? I do. This was over a decade ago. Many callers were upset with him because he was SOOOO convincing. The man knows what to say to get an audience. So I've listened to him more than long enough to get his rap. I've also heard tape of him when he was a DJ in Pittsburg using a fake Radio name and attempting the DJ "voice" (Yukking, as it's called). Back then, he was already using his "Excellence in Broadcasting" gimmick, but had yet to apply it to "advanced conservative studies" when he actually hit paydirt. I'm familiar with his evolution to the man we all know today. I stopped listening when I heard too many contradictions.

When his fans proudly call themselves "Dittoheads," I'm not sure it's free-thought that Rush is encouraging.

I also have several issues of the Flush Rush Quarterly, which was put out by people who listened intently to his program, picking up numerous errors and contradictions with his own words. Not to put TOO fine a point on it, some of his greatest detractors know him and his show very well. And that's all it really is--a show.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-14-2002, 02:35 AM:
 
Hillary,

Rush is consistent and genuine, and I've been listening to him since '89. No, I'm not a mind-numbed robot, and I'm not prejudiced. I also believe that liberal radio and TV host Alan Colmes is genuine, for the same reasons I do Rush. Alan exhibits level-headedness, integrity, and a sense of fair play, which gives him a massive amount of credibility. I respect that. However, I don't agree with one thing the man says. Liberals are different. They hate Rush because he threatens their power base and monopoly on public opinion. They are often vile in their disdain - offering no respect. Rush is popular because a lot of people believe the same way he does -- it's not the other way around.

Regardless, I fail to see how a group of people who constantly pride themselves on acceptance of other viewpoints could produce such mean-spirited things like "Flush Rush" publications, "Dole Sucks" monologues, (anti-conservative) hate bumper stickers, and "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot" books, among other things. If liberals are to be consistent, they should not only welcome conservative viewpoints, but they should encourage them!

quote:

---

I've also heard tape of him when he was a DJ in Pittsburg using a fake Radio name and attempting the DJ "voice" (Yukking, as it's called).

---

quote:

---

And that's all it really is--a show.

---

quote:

---

However, Rush doesn't care to have anybody call in who isn't prepared to begin with the "Megadittos" .

---

quote:

---

My boyfriend, who's been in radio since the early 1970's

---

This explains everything. I know exactly where you're coming from.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-14-2002, 05:44 PM:
 
First let me clear up some "mis-statements" I made earlier:

Rush was NOT declared 4-F due to a trick knee. He was granted a 1-Y deferment based on a pilonidal cyst and some vague "football injury" involving a knee. The draft board doctor never examined him to confirm this as is usually the case--it was reported by his own doctor, a good friend of his father, who was a major player in town. The man who found this out, Paul Colford, actually suffered from the same type of cyst as Rush did, yet served four years in the Marines. The trick knee has always been suspect.

In light of that, what I called contradictions, could probably be better described as hypocracies. I should be more careful.

Granted, it's been a while since I've listened to a complete show, so if he welcomes opposing viewpoints (to actually discuss an issue rather than shouting the caller down and hanging up on them), it's new to me. I must listen to a complete show again, because such conflict makes for good radio. And if I generalized that his massive ego needs to be fed with EVERY caller, that's unfair hyperbole. However, based on the many hours I heard years ago, my assessment is accurate except for the word "anybody." And it's not that I don't "get his humor." I just don't care for it. I listen to much more politically incorrect stuff on the radio which I find much funnier.

And I'm not "blinded by hatred," but rather my eyes were opened to other possibilities. You must consider that when I first began listening to him, I was an avid listener. I enjoyed his show. As time wore on, it seemed more like a broken record, and became too repetitive, mostly in the interest of building the legend of El Rushbo. As I checked up on the issues, it became clear to me that he is not the expert in all he claims. My boyfriend's father, very right-wing, also listened to him religiously. One day, he stopped, saying that Rush has "gone too far." I'm not sure exactly to what he was referring.

Speaking of my boyfriend, what do you mean with, "That explains everything. I know exactly where you're coming from." I sincerely hope this isn't degenerating into personal attacks. We can disagree civilly, can't we? FYI, he's an engineer and became a station owner in the 1980's, and frequently listens to Rush.

Since you brought Limbaugh in reference to the Trent Lott situation, I'd like to conclude this post with Rush Limbaugh's own words about good ol' boy Strom Thurmond on the Senator's 90th birthday:

"He just doesn't care. He's not encumbered by being politically correct. He's not encumbered by all the so-called niceties and proprieties. And if you want to know what American used to be--and a lot of people wish it still were--then you listen to Strom Thurmond."
 

---