Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
United States Government Politics

How About a Nice Game of Global Thermonuclear War? 1859

Loconut1389 writes "According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon has a revised doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks would give the president the authority for a preemptive nuclear strike. I would hope that this is a move designed to say we mean business and then never use it, but the means is there for mutual assured destruction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How About a Nice Game of Global Thermonuclear War?

Comments Filter:
  • by Loconut1389 ( 455297 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:05PM (#13543222)
    My original submission was early this morning and also had a few extras like "Doesnt anybody remember the W.O.P.R. []?
  • Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Matt Perry ( 793115 ) <> on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:07PM (#13543233)
    Let me be the first to say that I think this is a really terrible idea.
    The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
    They've haven't been very accurate in the past about who has stockpiles of weapons.
    • by jd ( 1658 ) <> on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:13PM (#13543293) Homepage Journal
      No nasty reporters or critics can disprove any of the administration's claims for the next hundred million years, if the area's one gigantic radioactive wasteland.

      (Me? Cynical?)

    • Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:22PM (#13543362)
      you know, I think I saw some shifty looking Arab type (they all look the same, and are evildoers, arent they?) hanging around Crawford and Cheney's new multi-million dollar house. I recommend we pre-emptively nuke those two sites, just in case. I think I even saw some WMD around there! I have satellitely photos proving all this!

    • Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vladkrupin ( 44145 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:53PM (#13543624) Homepage
      They've haven't been very accurate in the past about who has stockpiles of weapons.

      I thought that was exactly the reason why the whole "We have the right to nuke the adverse party if we believe they are going to use WMD on us" clause. We have just shown the whole world that we do not need one teeeny bit of evidence, or even a somewhat-reliable intelligence to declare that someone has WMD and is ready to use it against us. In essense, "WMD" is the keyword that can be applied to anybody (if you read the draft, that includes states and non-states alike), and that gives the president the power to just nuke the heck out of whoever he pleases.

      So, what do we have here? 1, We have shown resolve to go to war even if the rest of the world vehemently opposes it, and do so, essentially, unilaterally (the forces in Iraq are multinational on paper only, just look at the numbers!). 2, We have shown that WMD is carte blanche of sort, and justifies any means. 3, We have labelled certain nations as supporters of terrorists, and labelled terrorists as wanting to use WMD on us. 4, We are putting the legal framework in place to avoid silly Congress from disagreeing with the president over going to war. 5, By using nukes we ensure that we'd be doing a "precision strike" and avoid the whole mess with a lengthy occupation, etc, making such a war very inexpensive indeed. Except for the international backlash, but we have shown by now that cullies cannot care less about international opinion.

      Now, if you were a nation that was laballed as a supporter of terrorism, what's there to guarantee that you won't be nuked the day after such a draft becomes a law? I think this is a very deliberate message -- we have a big red button, and we have one person, the president, who can push it if he is in a bad mood, and he's pushed similar buttons before. Live in PHEAR! :)

      Eveyone knows that we cannot afford to start another war. That's why both Iran and North Korea can happily ignore what we say and do as they please. This draft changes that. We can still threaten them very effectively, and can afford it as well. Very, very dirty move. On par with our friendly Unix vendor, SCO.
      • Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @12:33AM (#13544229)
        Of course, you've just elucidated the very reason why these countries are trying to develop nuclear weapons technology in the first place.

        I think the obvious thought process goes something vaguely like this:
        "Ya see, we've got this big behemoth that is trying to tell us what to do, and they've recently shown that they aren't afraid to invade other countries, and they've made it abundantly clear that they consider us part of their "axis of evil," right there in the same category as the other countries they have invaded. They're totally fucking crazy, you know - they're the only country to have ever used a nuclear weapon on another country, and they've done it twice. Now they're posturing against us, pointing their nukes around the planet willy-nilly, and we've gotta defend ourselves. Now, we all know the concept of mutually assured destruction - it would be insane to attack a nuclear power using nuclear weapons, because nobody can win. They have nukes. We don't. They're pointing their nukes at us. We better hurry."
      • Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)

        by innerweb ( 721995 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @12:34AM (#13544232)
        Did you ever get the feeling that Bush boy is trying to make some Biblical prophecies come true on his watch?


  • by Manchot ( 847225 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:08PM (#13543239)
    Yes, because pre-emptive strikes have worked so well in this country before. Oh, wait a minute...
  • by Rob Carr ( 780861 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:10PM (#13543257) Homepage Journal
    ...scientists today believe they have finally solved the Fermi paradox. "Where are the aliens? Dead, all dead, in piles of radioactive rubble."
    • by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:34PM (#13543461)

      Have you read anything by Michio Kaku?

      He's a genius.. one of his theories is that all planets with intelligent beings on them can be categorized into a few distinct categories..

      Category 0 = primitive, burn fossil fuels

      Category 1 = Planetary, get energy from planet, can control the weather, usually formed a world government by then

      Category 2 = Move on to using our local star as our source of energy.

      Category 3 = Galactic civilization. Huge, impossible to kill off with 'natural' causes, highly advanced most likely.

      He states that he believes most category 0 civilizations (Which we are) never make it to category 1 because of the rise of U235 and the inevitable invention of the nuclear weapon.
      • by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:37PM (#13543490)
        Oh, and if that interests you at all, I'd HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading some of Dr. Kaku.

        His is a genius, as I said. And he puts things in a very eloquent... non-physicist sort of way.

        His Homepage []

        And here's an article [] about the things I just talked about.
        I'd also recommend his book Hyperspace.
      • by smackdotcom ( 136408 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @03:52AM (#13545060)
        Kaku didn't invent this. These are the Kardashev levels [] of civilization, with the minor addition of a "Category 0" to describe our current level of development. However, the Kardashev levels are much more about our capacity for productive energy utilization within the various 'islands' that we will occupy as our development progresses. Due to the relative distances involved, the Earth is like an island in our solar system, our solar system is like an island in our galaxy, and our galaxy is like an island in our universe.
        The reality, of course, is that the movement from one stage to the next will not be a series of discrete jumps, but rather a blurry escalation in capability. We will have started to move out into the solar system long before we can use all the energy available to us on Earth, and we will have started to move out into the rest of the galaxy long before we have completely and utterly transformed the resources of our solar system. Good of Kaku to promote the idea, though the world government stuff sounds way too hippy (not to mention being a very bad idea--if said unified government should turn despotic, there'll be no Berlin Wall to flee over).
  • by bluesoul88 ( 609555 ) <{bluesoul} {at} {}> on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:10PM (#13543260) Homepage
    A preemptive nukular strike, sir.
  • by Eric Smith ( 4379 ) * on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:11PM (#13543268) Homepage Journal
    I don't see how they think they have the authority to let the president authorize a first strike. The power to declare war belongs to the Congress, not the president, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress.

    Of course, since W's administration doesn't seem to think the Constitution is worth the paper it's printed on, this won't stop them.

    And Congress doesn't seem to hold it in any higher regard these days. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, not the power to issue an "authorization of force".

    • by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:25PM (#13543393) Homepage
      You misunderstand what the law says. The Constitution says the President is Command in Chief of the United States armed forces. That power was more-or-less unrestricted until 1973, when the Post-Vietnam Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. That act says that the president cannot deploy the US military in the field for more than 100(?) days without congressional authorization. However, in this case (e.g, a pre-emptive strike) it has no bearing. The president is free under the law to do it, provided that he get congressional authorization within 100 days or withdraw the troops.
    • by jd ( 1658 ) <> on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:28PM (#13543415) Homepage Journal
      Since GWB was authorized to use force in the "war on terror", then any possible future encounter against any country, under any event whatsoever, that might conceivably involve WMDs, terrorists or State-sponsored activities harmful to the US, is technically covered by the bill already passed. Neither the current President, nor any future one, has to ask Congress for a damn thing. All they have to do is weasel the situation into that generalized description and the President has a free reign.

      As for the Constitution - the only ones who can enforce that are the Supreme Court Justices. Guess who GWB gets to pick two of? Oh, and before the Supreme Court can hear a Constitutional issue of this kind, it has to be brought to a lower court BY the Federal Government -and- it has to be within the jurisdiction of the courts.

      (Why do you think the people out at Gitmo are being denied access to the US courts? Because if they DID have access, and DID get heard by the Supreme Court, and DID prove a Constitutional violation in the War on Terror, then the whole of GWB's government collapses. By denying access, the Supreme Court is powerless to intervene, no matter what the Justices happen to think on the issue.)

  • by IcerLeaf ( 586564 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:12PM (#13543278)
    I vote for a preemtpive impeachment before the man in charge of the button can do anything dumb.

    Err... anything else dumb.

    What's that? We had that opportunity? November 2004, you say? Oops.

  • Misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by Infinity Salad ( 657619 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:12PM (#13543279)
    Did the submitter actually read the story?

    The president already has the authority to launch a pre-emptive strike.* What the article is about is a new policy statement by the US (i.e. an international "FYI") about when the president will haul off and nuke something

    *This, like the policy discussed in the article, depends on the situation being one where the President doesn't have to wait for Congress to declare war.

  • by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:13PM (#13543289) Homepage Journal
    The arguments for pre-empting action can be made long and hard, but in the case of nuclear weapons it just seems like a bad decision. The sheer destruction of these payloads, and devastating after effects they cause are not something that (in my opinion) be used without fully justified action. There's literally just too much at stake for the world community as a whole.
    • by nutshell42 ( 557890 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @11:40PM (#13543951) Journal
      You can reduce the payloads and the side effects of nuclear weapons that's not the problem.

      The problem is that you lower the threshold for their use and there's almost no upper limit for escalation. When in 50 years the United Parishes of Jesusland and the Berkeley Socialist Republic decide to duke it out and suddenly one side starts to flatten the cities of the other with thermonuclear warheads in the 100MT+ range then everyone else is gonna jump on those bastards and use the opportunity to nuke all their other enemies too. Chances are they're gonna have some inhibitions to become the reason for the end of the human race.

      With new low yield, low radiation nukes the danger is that the UPJ use a bunker buster the BSR retaliates with a tactical nuke against troop concentrations the UPJ then uses one against dug-in defenders in a city the BSR starts using H-bombs against industrial installation and after that both simply nuke everything. Humans generally don't like to take that first big step but a dozen smaller ones seem easier.

  • It's OK... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <> on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:13PM (#13543294) Homepage
    As long as no [] other [] country [] builds an automatic retaliation system without telling us. I wonder where that idea [] would come from?
  • by codergeek42 ( 792304 ) <> on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:16PM (#13543323) Homepage Journal
    Remind me again how having stupid people be in charge of weapons that could potentially destroy us all is something to laugh at?! GAAH...
  • History (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheCarlMau ( 850437 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:21PM (#13543349) Homepage
    This is one of those things that history classes 100 years from now will look back upon and someone will ask: "Why would they ever give the president so much power?" :-)
  • Is this really necessary? Can't we just threaten to place our enemies under the protection of FEMA? That seems to achieve the mass casualty effect just fine, and yet the environmental mess it creates will only take a few decades to clear...
  • by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:29PM (#13543420) Homepage
    Here's a scenario for you. Saudi Arabia is virulently anti-American and even anti-Non-Muslim. It is the seat of Wahabi Islam, a sect of Islam that calls for systematic elimination of the Shia and Sufi Muslims as well. Now, a bunch of Saudi terrorists drop a backpack nuke in NYC and kill 80,000 Americans and foreigners.

    What do we do, aside from wringing our hands and saying we can't kill large number of civilians to fight terrorism? The terrorists bomb us, tens of thousands of Americans or Brits or French or Japanese, etc. die. No massive response against the popular terrorists' home base. The result is a population that sees the attacked country/ethnic/religious group as weak, vulnerable and in the case of Islamic terrorism, which is the majority of terrorism today, it is a "sign from Allah that the enemy is going to lose."

    So we don't nuke Riyadh and kill a bunch of the people who gave their moral support to the enemy. This is the best option we have short of getting ourselves either into a guerrilla war or just letting the enemy kill us. And here's something that the hand-wringing pacifists will never accept: our enemy knows us and hates us. People who are as dedicated toward killing you as most terrorists are cannot and will not be reasoned with or otherwise be converted to liking you. Either they die, or you and your children die because after you're dead, chances are damn good they'll kill every last one of yours that they can get ahold of.

    We have to kill people who even just strongly SUPPORT terrorism overseas if we can to drive home the point we are serious. If we don't, then many of those people will be saying "sign me up" right after the American paper tiger has been defanged by the "martyrs." The Iranian government is already openly boasting that we are weak and totally exposed thanks to our blithering idiots in government from Nagin to Blanco to Bush to almost all of the bureaucrats in between.

    The threat is real, and it can indeed be better solved through the threat of military force, especially mass destruction by nuclear weapons. In 1992, the only way we were able to keep Saddam from hitting us and the Israelis with bio weapons was we told him we were prepared to fire off a few of our nuclear weapons against Iraq.

    It really does suck that we are pushed to this point, but how else are we going to intimidate the governments and populations that would whole-heartedly jump into the terrorism game? Huh? I'd like to see some serious proposals that don't revolve around us sacrificing all of our rights and sending massive amounts of aid to these groups on a regular basis like some sort of tribute in exchange for not bombing us. And let's cut the bullshit. The Muslim terrorists whine and bitch and moan not just about the fact that we support Israel and have/had troops on their holy grounds, but that *gasp* Spain is actually ruled today by the Spanish and not those imperialist Moores. Repeat the same claims about Greece, Romania, a few other countries in Europe occupied by the Ottomans, India and well... you get the idea. Pretty much any country where the non-Muslims gave their Muslim overlords a swift kick in the ass right out the door.

    Blame the enemy, not us. Most Americans do not want to rule the world. Hell, most Americans would really be happy if the rest of the world would just leave us alone and we could get our government to reciprocate to them. But I can say this, as much of an isolationist, live-and-let-live southerner as I am, if my girlfriend and our families were killed in the Northern Virginia area by an Al Qaeda nuclear weapon, I wouldn't care about freedom of speech or conscience in Saudi Arabia. Like many, I'd support anyone who would drive a nuclear bomb right into the middle of those fuckers dancing in the streets celebrating "The Great Satan(tm)" getting nuked.

    For the love of God, terrorism is about slaughtering women and children. It is a low-key form of genocide and is beyond mere criminality. A population that supports it and encourages it doesn't deserve to be let off the hook when it unleashes that on another group.
    • by X.25 ( 255792 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @11:58PM (#13544036)
      We have to kill people who even just strongly SUPPORT terrorism overseas if we can to drive home the point we are serious. If we don't, then many of those people will be saying "sign me up" right after the American paper tiger has been defanged by the "martyrs."

      Now I understand why so many Americans need shrinks...

      Do you realize how scared, you as a nation, are?

      Seems like many people are scared of "What goes around, comes around" problem.

      Blame the enemy, not us. Most Americans do not want to rule the world. Hell, most Americans would really be happy if the rest of the world would just leave us alone and we could get our government to reciprocate to them.

      You *really* need a shrink.

      Most of the world would be happy if Americans left THEM alone. You seem to have problems with understanding things, since noone is bothering USA - it's the other way around.

      Hell, USA bombed me in 1999 and you're telling me that you want to be left alone?!?

      Right. So, you bully people all over the world, and come back later with "Blame the enemy, not us".

      So logical, how come I didn't think of it?

      As a sidenote - I wonder how noone realized (in writing ;) that this move by the US govt will bring some more contracing jobs to various "friendly" companies.

      It's always about the money people, not the moral or right/wrong...
    • by zerocool^ ( 112121 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @12:08AM (#13544098) Homepage Journal

      What do we do, aside from wringing our hands and saying we can't kill large number of civilians to fight terrorism?

      I'll tell you what we do:

      We give them what they want! We get the fuck out of Saudi Arabia!

      Trust me on this one. I know it's romantic to say "Never give in to terrorists", and all that, but I know what I'm talking about. I do actually hold a recent degree in History, and I did take several courses on the History of the Middle East, including a 2 semester sequence on Middle East history, and an in-depth study of The Arab-Israeli conflict. I've studied the history; I've read the origional source documents and researched the events. I've debated the merits of several systems of governance in post-Saddam Iraq.

      What we're not doing, because we're typical American blowhards, is we're not listening to what the terrorists are saying. If we're going to bomb them, and arrest them, and occupy their land, as if they were a country, then we ought to at least find out what they want.

      What Osama Bin Ladin wants is what the vast majority of Muslims (especially Sunnis) want: The U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. After Gulf War I, we never left. This is sacreligious to most Muslims - they take the sacredness of the land much more seriously than we do. It would be akin to Russia building a military base on an Indian reservation in Oklahoma, or Korea setting up a forward outpost right next to George Washington's Boyhood home; and even these don't do the feeling justice.

      But, we're all too busy listening to Bill O'Rielly, who proudly proclaims that these quote "radical islamists" endquote (islamists isn't a word; Islam is the religion, Muslim is the word describing the follower - we don't say Judeaists, we say "Jews") are trying to kill us and our wives and children, and convert all of us to their radical islamist ideals, which is just plain false. They just want to be left the fuck alone.

      No one is asking "Why do the terrorists attack us?", and possibly as important, "Why do they have popular support?". We assume we know the answer - "because they're all fucking nuts". The answer is:

      "The terrorists attack us because we give them reason to attack us"
      "They have popular support because we constantly prove what the terrorist figureheads say is right, time after time".

      If we don't give them reason to attack us, then their attacks will become less and less frequent, AND they will not have the popular support of the Muslim people. If we pull out of Saudi Arabia, stop unilaterally supporting Israel*, and leave Iraq, and basically leave the Muslim world alone, what grounds will they have to attack us? If we do all that, and then an attack comes, the world (including Muslim nations) will know we're innocent, and use peer pressure to stop those attacks.

      The terrorists accomplished their goals on 9/11/01, America. What were their goals? To provoke a war. To make America hated and despised. To bankrupt the nation. To bring about the death of civil liberty, and the birth of a police state. They don't want to kill us. They want to make us afraid.

      Mission Accomplished.


      *Think pulling out of the Gaza Strip was a good thing? The other half of the deal went like this: "We'll pull out of the Gaza strip, but we're denying right-of-return rights to Palestinian refugees". So, now we have 15 million Palestinians who are stateless. The UN has repeatedly tried to censure Israel for the things it constantly does to the Palestinians; but it can't, because censure requires votes from all 5 members on the UN Security council: The US, the UK, France, Russia, and China. Guess who constantly vetoes any anti-Israel measure?
    • by radish ( 98371 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @12:16AM (#13544150) Homepage
      if my girlfriend and our families were killed in the Northern Virginia area by an Al Qaeda nuclear weapon, I wouldn't care about freedom of speech or conscience in Saudi Arabia. Like many, I'd support anyone who would drive a nuclear bomb right into the middle of those fuckers dancing in the streets celebrating "The Great Satan(tm)" getting nuked.
      So imagine you're a peaceful Iraqi guy minding his own business, who's family was just wiped out by a US cruise missile. Now do you understand? Violence begats violence. The only way to survive is to break the cycle. Be the better person.
  • Doomsday (Score:5, Interesting)

    by daigu ( 111684 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:35PM (#13543475) Journal
    I'd move the doomsday clock [] to two minutes to midnight. Perhaps someone should read that interesting article [] by McNamara - who has good insight on the topic. His conclusion:
    We are at a critical moment in human history--perhaps not as dramatic as that of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but a moment no less crucial. Neither the Bush administration, the congress, the American people, nor the people of other nations have debated the merits of alternative, long-range nuclear weapons policies for their countries or the world. They have not examined the military utility of the weapons; the risk of inadvertent or accidental use; the moral and legal considerations relating to the use or threat of use of the weapons; or the impact of current policies on proliferation. Such debates are long overdue. If they are held, I believe they will conclude, as have I and an increasing number of senior military leaders, politicians, and civilian security experts: We must move promptly toward the elimination--or near elimination--of all nuclear weapons. For many, there is a strong temptation to cling to the strategies of the past 40 years. But to do so would be a serious mistake leading to unacceptable risks for all nations.
  • by Goalie_Ca ( 584234 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @10:44PM (#13543557)
    May we can stump bush with Tic Tac Toe. He'll realize he can never win!
  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @11:39PM (#13543946) Homepage Journal
    All preemptive strikes are preventive, but not all preventive strikes are preemptive.

    Preemption stops an action after it has been set in motion but before it has borne fruit. In order for an attack to be preemptive, the enemy must be engaged in an attack, albeit at a very early stage. When the gunfighter is going for his six-shooter, and the friend you've prudently stationed on the roof of the blacksmith's drills him with his winchester, that's preemption. When you shoot a guy in the back on the theory he might shoot you some day, that's merely prevention.

    True preemption requires evidence, not of capability, not of hostility, but actual action being set in motion. Nobody who believes the self-defense is justifiable can deny that preemption is equally justifiable. But most forms of prevention are morally reprehensible.

    Having a doctrine of preemption only means you prepare for the eventuality. I'd say it should be pretty uncontroversial, except that prevention/preemption distinction is one which many people aren't aware of. Unfortunately, the administration likes to blur the lines between these two things, giving mere prevention the status of preemption. The Iraq war was a preventive war, not a preemptive one, but the administration did its best to make it look preemptive.
  • STOP THE INSANITY! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GISGEOLOGYGEEK ( 708023 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @12:01AM (#13544053)
    Does it make any sense at all?

    Lets use a WMD in a pre-emptive strike against groups that MAY have WMD's!

    How proud would you as an American be if you had nuked Iraq ... given that we now know that there was absolutely no trace of WMD's whatsoever? ... Or would you have even known how big a mistake your country had made, given that some dumbass like Bush would just tell you that the WMD's were destroyed in the blast.

    Bush and his cohorts are the problem, not the answer. They are the terrorists bent on destabilizing the world's security. He is a firm believer in the book of Revelations and Armeggedon .... and may just force that myth to become a reality at your expense.

    IRAN is the new target.

    Within 5 years Iran plans to have the bomb.

    Iran is too big for Dubyafucker to invade in a conventional manner, without massive conscription.

    Iran will be pre-emptively nuked by the time they are ready to test their first bomb. Hopefully it won't result in the immediate retaliatory destruction of the USA by the nations of the world whom this attack will anger.

    The preparations are happening, this is not a troll, this is not flamebait.

    Go ahead and ask your local representative why your airforce just ordered new flight simulators programmed specificaly for the topography of Iran.
  • by Phat_Tony ( 661117 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @12:11AM (#13544115)
    Shhh... don't tell Bush, but there's nothing for us to fear.

    The Pentagon only gave gave him exactly what he asked for: the capability to order a "nucular" first strike.

  • by GuyFawkes ( 729054 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:34AM (#13546046) Homepage Journal
    The person saying this is white, mature, educated, well travelled, and not american.

    I deliberately said "not american" as opposed to "european" or "english", because that is fast becoming the only distinction required.

    the USA, that is the people, need a wake up message, perhaps a wake up message in the form of your entire congress including the president chimp being nuked.

    the WTC obviously wasn't a clear enough message.

    "9/11" was ___NOT___ an attack on the american people or way of life or anything else, it was an attack on USA foreign policy as driven by USA monetary policy, hence hitting two buildings full of financial institutions.

    If I wanted to slap the face of the USA ___PEOPLE___ I'd fly a jet into the Statue of Liberty, the one true global symbol of all that is american.....

    if this has been done it would have killed maybe a hundred people, but rocked every citizen in the USA back on their heels as a personal insult.

    no way lady liberty was "Overlooked" as a possible target, no chance in hell, ergo the perpetrators werem't after slapping you all personally across the face.

    3 jetliners could have been crashed into three electricity stations around new york and thrown the city into anarchy, same as new orleans, but it wasn't done.

    bottom line is it is really hard to think of targets that are more clearly and obviously specifically USA financial / foreign policy related than those that were hit

    and yet you lot still do not get it

    bush is still there, getting worse every day.

    we don't care too much if he ruins america, we're sorry for you as citizens, but then you keep voting him in and who are we to interfere?

    we do care if he ruins our countries.

    bush is the village psychopath, as time passes and his behaviour worstens, more and more of the villagers are going to turn against him

    sure, in the ensuing fight much of the village may be razed to the ground, but some of it will survive, if we don't do something about the village psychopath he will desroy ALL of the village.

    USA citizens need to wake up and ask themselves is living in a destroyed US economy, like post katrina new orleans or a kurt russell vision of new york, is the future they really want, if not, it's time to cut loose, very publicly, from the insane chimp and his money men backers.

    I guess we'll tell how blinkered you all are from how quickly this message is modded as "troll", if slashdot had regional modding you'd find non USAians modding it differently....

Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this-- no dog exchanges bones with another. -- Adam Smith