Rumsfeld: September 11th was a blessing in disguise

[Jac de Molay]

Dont forget the billions of dollars being allocated to help protect the American public from shadowy, amorphous Bad People creeping around our sports stadiums and shopping mall.

Perhaps the new terror warning system should incorporate Code Burnt Sienna, as in "were completely *******,"

[MarkG]

in other news, CNN has already found a title for the "show"


what does "showdown" exactly mean????

[JohnT]

From Britannica.com:

Main Entry: show·down
Pronunciation: 'shO-"daun
Function: noun
Date: 1884
1 : the placing of poker hands faceup on the table to determine the winner of a pot
2 : a decisive confrontation or contest

I highlighted the definition you need, Mark.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
"He said because the weapons today are very dangerous and so powerful and can kill not 3,000 but 30,000 or 300,000 human beings."

Not that many countries have these weapons - I don't think any terrorist organisation has any.

If Pakistan, for example, was subject to a fundamentalist revolt (far from an impossibility), how long do you think it would take? And what about ten years from now? Nuclear proliferation ain't a good thing.

[Arrian]

Rumsfeld is enough of a warmonger without you putting up threads with misleading titles to make him seem even worse, Mark.

-Arrian

[Bereta_Eder]

Takes guts and vision to help and not to bomb.

Rumsie is an arse of mindblowing magnitude.
But he does "his job". (i.e. kanei ti douleia tou )

IMHO.

[DinoDoc]

Was This Modern World down Mark?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Was This Modern World down Mark?

[ixnay]

[Sava]

I saw Gore Vidal on CNN Crossfire and he brought to light a number of "coincidences" between 9-11, planning for Iraq, the Patriot Act legislation (how it was written before 9-11), and the Bush ties to oil.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If Pakistan, for example, was subject to a fundamentalist revolt (far from an impossibility), how long do you think it would take? And what about ten years from now? Nuclear proliferation ain't a good thing.

Certainly. I am wondering why Uncle Sam isn't forcing both India and Pakistan to destroy their nuclear weapons.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Certainly. I am wondering why Uncle Sam isn't forcing both India and Pakistan to destroy their nuclear weapons.

Because they're big enough to tell us to "suck it".

[MichaeltheGreat]

And Iraq isn't.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sava
Because they're big enough to tell us to "suck it".

They aren't that big. The only problem is they need to do it at the same time, or neither one will budge.

[MichaeltheGreat]

They're big enough and well-armed enough that the US has no real leverage, since force would never be an option. All we could do is ask nicely.