PDA

View Full Version : The Bombs Away Mentality - Bush's Catastrophic Rhetoric


truthout
10-23-2007, 07:43 PM
The Bombs Away Mentality
Bush's Catastrophic Rhetoric



By RALPH NADER

Mired in the disastrous Iraq quagmire, opposed by a majority of Americans, George W. Bush has reached new depths of reckless, belligerent bellowing. At a recent news conference, he volunteered that he told our allies that if they're "interested in avoiding World War III," Iran must be prevented from both developing a nuclear weapon or having "the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

To what level of political insanity has this Washington Caesar descended? Only two countries can start World War III-Russia and the United States. Is Bush saying that if Russia, presently opposed to military action against Iran, persists with its position, Bush may risk World War III? If not, why is this law-breaking warmonger, looking for another war for American GIs to fight, while his military-age daughters bask in the celebrity lime light?

Why is he using such catastrophic language?

Surely he does not think Iran could start World War III. His own intelligence agencies say that, even assuming that the international inspectors are wrong and Iran is moving toward developing the "knowledge" of such weapons, it can't build its first such weapon before 3 to 5 years at the earliest.

Why would a regime ruling an impoverished country risk suicide, surrounded as it is by countries armed to the nuclear teeth, such as Israel and the United States? This nation of nearly 80 million people hardly needs to be reminded that the U.S. overthrew its popular premier in 1953, installing for the next 27 years the brutal regime of the Shah.

They recall that President Reagan and his Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush urged, funded and equipped Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran-a nation that has not invaded any country in over 250 years-which took around 700,000 Iranian lives.

read more.....
http://www.counterpunch.org/

LiquidFork
10-23-2007, 07:53 PM
So let me see if I am getting your point.. or well RALPH NADER'S point.. (we all know him to be the moral compass for all that is true and just in the world) You two are claiming Iran is the good guy,and all that is bad of them is the fault of an administration that was in power close to 20 years ago??

Come on truth..... you are better off breaking out your 5973 article archive from moveon.org than being a mouthpiece of Nader

truthout
10-23-2007, 08:03 PM
you forgot your disclaimer about your liquid brain.

Napsterbater
10-23-2007, 08:06 PM
LOL, good one, truth.

LiquidFork
10-23-2007, 08:15 PM
you forgot your disclaimer about your liquid brain.

You have always had a hard on for my name.

once again in case you missed my reply on the other thread (you sir are perfect for starting a shit storm,yet never return to the thread to defend your words)

Liquidfork is a technique of cunnilingus. There are seven base techniques,and 15 subs off of the seven. If you really want to know more i can direct you to a instructional site. Believe it or not there is a class one can take (sorry no lab partners are provided)

Freethinker
10-23-2007, 08:19 PM
So let me see if I am getting your point.. or well RALPH NADER'S point......

Stop right there.

I can tell you right now.......you are decidely NOT getting the point.

You are not within a million miles of getting it, or else you would not be saying...

You two are claiming Iran is the good guy,

No one here is claiming that "Iran is the good guy".

Not Ralph Nader. Not truthout. Not anyone.

NO ONE.

LiquidFork
10-23-2007, 08:35 PM
Stop right there.
No one here is claiming that "Iran is the good guy".



O.K let me show you how I came to such a conclusion. You read my interpretation and show me the light. I am not trying to fight,if i am wrong show me how.

This nation of nearly 80 million people hardly needs to be reminded that the U.S. overthrew its popular premier in 1953, installing for the next 27 years the brutal regime of the Shah..

To me Truth via Nader is naming a poor desperate people of Iran who suffered at the had of Ike,thus installing 27 years of a brutal dictator. I do not need to get into the leadership of Iran before the Shah do I?

They recall that President Reagan and his Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush urged, funded and equipped Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran-a nation that has not invaded any country in over 250 years-which took around 700,000 Iranian lives.

To me Truth via Nader is naming a peace loving country who was for no good reason invaded by their neighbor,due to the financial and indirect military backing of the US. As a result this peace living country who practiced a Monroe doctrine style of policy for 250 years was forced into the horrible evil nation they are today.


So again... show me how his words are to be taken any differant.

es347fan
10-23-2007, 08:44 PM
Surely he does not think Iran could start World War III.

While not defending Bush in any way, shape or form on this, looking back in time less than 100 years might serve as a reminder. The proverbial 'straw that broke the camel's back' can happen anywhere. In 1914, would anyone have expected that WWI would have begun with an assination in Yugoslavia?