[un]Holy smoke! Is Rush still doing drugs?

[Petra]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...ute.guest.html


He's advocating the use of "very, very brutal steps" in the War on Terror in Iraq, and suggests that as Bush will not have to worry about reelection after a second term, he won't need to worry about just how he goes about winning this war on terror. Is Rush suggesting that the US should just nuke the crap out of anyone that gets in it's way?

This kind of thinking disgusts me so much. I know many Americans have a love affair with guns and the cowboy vigilante approach to things, and that was fine when y'all just had a few muskets, but the bigger and badder the weapon, the bigger the mouth and the more stupid the brain behind it.

The whole damned world needs to disarm. Completely. Individuals, nations, the lot - send the weapons industry into bankruptcy and redundancy. You wanna fight, use slingshots firing twinkies.

Stupid humans. Sick fuck Rush.

[Dingfod]

I live in retard central and I hear from the yokels just that sort of sentiment all the time. It is scaaaaaaary.

[Petra]

Jesus. Are they testing the waters for something....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...tra.guest.html

Rush is an official Bush/Cheney campaign advisor. Are they testing public reaction to the possibility of the US nuking Iraq soon after a Bush win in the election?

[Petra]

Originally Posted by warrenly

I live in retard central and I hear from the yokels just that sort of sentiment all the time. It is scaaaaaaary.

Scary indeed.

It's that redneck gun mentality, coupled with Hollywood big production mentality. Shoot 'em up, blow 'em up, bring it on! No clue about realities, and not a brain cell between them.

Wankers.

[Dingfod]

Well, I'm all for sending everyone that suggests such bullshit over there to fight the insurgents in Iraq. Let's start with Arnold Swartzenegger and Sylvester Stallone just to set an example. Their movies are most responsible for the movie portrayal of shootemup military style mentality. Hell, lets send Mel Gibson too. We might as well send Clint Eastwood and revive John Wayne's corpse too. "We don't need no stinking body armor." Yeehaw!!!

[Petra]

Oh, man - I so agree with you, warrenly.

Just goes to show you, eh - even a thread killing sumbitch can have a great idea every once in awhile.





(you know I'm just ribbing ya, right? But, yep, I agree with your idea)

[Dingfod]

Yeehaw!

[ApostateAbe]

Yeah, if we could petition God to make all firearms and explosives and chemical weapons and germ warfare disappear forever, then I would be sign the petition. Unfortunately, there is no God. Damn.

[Dingfod]

Oh, come on, people would kill each other with sharpened sticks. It's in their nature.

[Petra]

Just before I go to dinner...


Who was it that said that they didn't know what World War III would be fought with, but World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones?

[Petra]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yeah, if we could petition God to make all firearms and explosives and chemical weapons and germ warfare disappear forever, then I would be sign the petition. Unfortunately, there is no God. Damn.

I know I'm not being realistic, AA, but...well....I have a dream!

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Just before I go to dinner...


Who was it that said that they didn't know what World War III would be fought with, but World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones?

I believe that was Albert Einstein. Another good one of his was this gem:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by warrenly

I believe that was Albert Einstein. Another good one of his was this gem:

Thanks!

That Al was a pretty smart guy, eh.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by warrenly

I believe that was Albert Einstein. Another good one of his was this gem:

Einstein was a hell of a scientist but that doesnt make him a great philosopher. I think that it is naive to think diplomacy will always be the answer and that weapons will not be need.

I think that you can prevent and prepare for war.

[Petra]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I think that it is naive to think diplomacy will always be the answer and that weapons will not be need.

Sure. It's also naive and rather dangerous to think that if you just keep building bigger and more damaging bombs and use them to level everything in sight is an answer to disputes and grievances, you'll be boss of the universe and winner of everything.

And as for the the arms industry is just that - an industry. They wanna make money and that is best achieved in conflict. Well, fuck 'em. The dreamer in me would like to see 'em to go broke.

I think we are far too quick to consider war as a reasonable solution to things that piss us off. Guns and stand over tactics are just so fucking primitive. Tribal male posturing and beating of chests and drums. I wish we'd just evolve already!

I think that you can prevent and prepare for war.

I have to chew the cud on that one, but my initial response is that preparing for war to prevent it is a bit like fucking to save your virginity. But I'll give it some thought. After a good night's sleep.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Oh, come on, people would kill each other with sharpened sticks. It's in their nature.

I don't know if you are being facetious or cheeky, but I happen to agree very strongly with your remark.

Humans are animals. We have many or most of the same animal urges and impulses that other "higher-level" mammals do. One of the them is to fight over mates, our young, our tribles, food (and other resources), and territory.

We haven't and won't outgrow those urges. It's unrealistic to think that so-called social progress has or will lead us, as a species, to be able to suppress them on a wide scale, under all circumstances, and indefinitely.

Cool Hand

[Petra]

Never say never.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Einstein was a hell of a scientist but that doesnt make him a great philosopher. I think that it is naive to think diplomacy will always be the answer and that weapons will not be need.

I think that you can prevent and prepare for war.

I couldn't agree more. Diplomacy falls flat when there is no credible threat behind it to act as an enforcement mechanism. Another way of stating it is that without armed force in reserve, diplomacy has no teeth.

As for simulataneously preventing and preparing for war, one need look no further than the Cold War to see an instance of this being successful. Of course, my example refers only to its success in preventing nuclear war between the United States and Western Europe on one side and the Soviet Bloc on the other. It says nothing about the tragic consequence of the world's witnessing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nation states, possibly to rogue terrorist groups, within the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, and to the enormous threat to everyone that the existence of the weapons themselves poses.

However nutty it may have been, the policy of mutual assured destruction (MAD) that both sides adopted worked to prevent a nuclear first strike by either side. I submit that the arms race and the MAD policy is an instance of simultaneously preparing for and preventing a war.

Einstein was wrong in this instance.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Never say never.

I never do.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

I couldn't agree more. Diplomacy falls flat when there is no credible threat behind it to act as an enforcement mechanism. Another way of stating it is that without armed force in reserve, diplomacy has no teeth.

As for simulataneously preventing and preparing for war, one need look no further than the Cold War to see an instance of this being successful. Of course, my example refers only to its success in preventing nuclear war between the United States and Western Europe on one side and the Soviet Bloc on the other. It says nothing about the tragic consequence of the world's witnessing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nation states, possibly to rogue terrorist groups, within the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, and to the enormous threat to everyone that the existence of the weapons themselves poses.

However nutty it may have been, the policy of mutual assured destruction (MAD) that both sides adopted worked to prevent a nuclear first strike by either side. I submit that the armed race and the MAD policy is an instance of simultaneously preparing for and preventing a war.

Einstein was wrong in this instance.

Cool Hand

I was actually thinking of MAD and the cold war when I posted as an obvious example. I didnt want to use it for fear of getting bogged down in talking about covert ops and puppet governments, you know the conflicts that we did engage in on the basis of the cold war.

[wade-w]

War sucks. Big Time. I really wish that there was a way to get rid of it all together. However, very occasionally there is such a thing as a just and necessary war. WW II comes to mind. It could be argued that if the aftermath of WW I had been better handled, WW II would not have been necessary, and there is a lot of truth to that. But it doesn't change the fact that the generation that waged WW II had no real choice in the matter, it was fight or be subjugated and for many, massacred. Pacifists often then point to Ghandi and his successful non-violent resistance. his method works only when your opponent has a conscience. If you try and employ such tactics against a Stalin or a Pol Pot, then all you will accomplish is a staggeringly high death toll. And it'll be entirely one-sided.

Someone once said: "It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, as long as wolves remain of a different opinion." I think that pretty much sums it up for me. I really do wish it weren't so. Nor am I claiming that all or even most wars are justifiable.

[Petra]

Kind of off-topic, but a Rush quote, so not too off-topic.

"And now the liberals want to stop President Reagan from selling chemical warfare agents and military equipment to Saddam Hussein and why? Because Saddam 'allegedly' gassed a few Kurds in his own country. Mark my words. All of this talk of Saddam Hussein being a 'war criminal' or 'committing crimes against humanity' is the same old thing. LIBERAL HATE SPEECH! and speaking of poison gas... I SAY WE ROUND UP ALL THE DRUG ADDICTS AND GAS THEM TOO!......."

Rush Limbaugh, November 3, 1988

What a maniac!

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Kind of off-topic, but a Rush quote, so not too off-topic.

What a maniac!

Yes, a maniac, and a hypocrite as well. One didn't (or doesn't) have to be a liberal to oppose selling chemical munitions to anyone, even if they haven't already demonstrated that they will not hesitate to use them on a civilian population.

And, ummm, if we rounded up all the drug addicts, wouldn't that have included good ole Rush himself?

Another off topic observation: imo, Rush's hero President Reagan should have been impeached and then tried for high treason.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

our tribles,

Yes, that's the trouble with tribles.

[Scotty]

So, basically, we knew Iraq had WMD's because we sold them to them, right?

Just curious how this all works.

I guess they were really surprised not to find them. Makes sense.

What a convenient way to make terrorists so you can go kill them later.

-Scott