Comments: It's still war

Its amazong how the blind can see, the mute can talk, and the lame walk. I bothers me that people don't see both sides of an opinion, how we have become so blind. The way a person can have little knoledge into a fact to talk. And how those who are lame by the freedom we all share here in the US, can walk.

Just to let you know, your so called "warmongeror" is fixing what the "masterbator" Clinton did. You blame the economy on Bush. Bush has little control over what goes down. Greenspan is at fault. You may ask "Why did Bush not remove Greenspan?" Well because democratic econ advisors told him it would be best to leave him in. Since he already knows how to hadle the Econ. "Well Bush is just a capitilist Oil hording sichophant" Nope, sorry. No oil in Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan, or other middle east contry will be taken away. As for those WMD. It take less than a few one celled viruses to wipe out a city. Look at the following senario:

A ICMB is lauched let say from Irag (since it on subject) It dosent have a war head, so we dont worry. It crashed into the ground a few miles out side of New York City. A team of investigators go make sure it wont go boom. With no radiation found, no combustable matter, they leave. But what was in the ICBM was a advanced stran of smallpocks. They carry the stran to thier families. Thier kids take it to school in downtown NY. The teachers goto dinner. The waiter goes to a broadway show. The show goes to the nearest big city to you. You want to see the show, so you drive to the theatre and watch it. Youve been infected by smallpocks. One with no cure. One that is silent. You die in just a few days. But you wernt the first. Before you go, you hear on the news that 70% of NYC died the night before, you saw the show. By now the smallpocks virus has made its way to the mid-west. 65% or the US population now has it. In only a matter of 7 days.

Is that not a weapon of mass destruction?

You have right to free spech, but please look at all sides before trashing your president. The one you stood behide Sept 12, 2001. The one the country stood behind.

Posted by SteVe at September 8, 2003 09:35 PM

First, neither I nor anyone else who reads this blog regularly is impressed by badly spelled and irrelevant insults, so let's just skip the kindergarten name-calling, okay?

Second, the wasted budget surplus and the $600B deficit we face has nothing to do with Greenspan and everything to do with the Bush Administration's hasty and ill-advised tax cuts.

Third, Iraq didn't have a missile capable of reaching the ocean, much less the USofA, so your little story has no relevance to the matter at hand.

Also, for the record, there is, in fact, a vaccine for smallpox, note the spelling, which is administered within a certain number of days after exposure. Nor is smallpox, even without a vaccine, necessarily a death sentence. Nor does the vector of the disease make it at all likely, outside of a bad science fiction movie, that we'll wake up some day and hear that 70% of NYC has unexpectedly died from the disease. I suggest that you do a little research.

And, finally, I didn't stand behind Bush on September 12 any more than I did on September 10. (In fact, most of the country was standing behind Rudy Guiliani on September 12, since he, unlike George Bush, was actually in the public eye.) I stand behind this country as I always have, but that doesn't make me a blind fool who thinks we don't have failures, faults, and flaws. Nor do I think that just because someone is appointed president, he's necessarily a good person for the job. In my eyes, Bush is the worst president I've ever seen, and that's saying a lot, considering my memories of Richard Nixon.

Posted by Anne at September 9, 2003 08:08 AM

Anne, I get the feeling the bad speller loonie wasn't necessarily directing this at you; if you click on his blog it's his blog entry as well, pretty much word for word.

Posted by Elayne Riggs at September 9, 2003 08:31 AM

Okay, so someone thought that incoherent, illogical ramble was worth sharing as widely as possible? Interesting.

(I did glance at the blog but I'm not straining my eyes to read dark gray text on a black background.)

Posted by Anne at September 9, 2003 11:12 AM

<CheapShot>Illegible design seems to be de rigeur among the cognitively challenged war boosters</CheapShot>

Delivering bio/chem weapons isn't as easy as putting them in a rocket and shooting the thing at a target. Just having the thing crash may not disperse the bio/chem agent at all, and if the rocket explodes or bursts into flames on impact, the agent could be destroyed by the heat. What you have to do then is create a delivery device in the rocket that sprays out the agent before impact—not an elementary engineering project, and one that requires precision manufacturing as well.

(aside: I may be antiwar, but damn, military technology is neat shit!)

Much of the so-called arguments for war were appeals to fear, plain and simple—remember Colin Powell holding up the vial at the UN? I'm surprised the entire room didn't break out laughing. But I'm sure that many people in this country—which was the intended audience for the charade, anyway—were very, very scared. They didn't want to admit it then and don't want to admit it now. So they make the claim that those opposed to the war have their heads in the sand. Sad.

Posted by Curtiss Leung at September 9, 2003 08:45 PM

I'm anti-war myself, to a large extent, but I agree that the technology problems and solutions are fascinating.

Posted by Anne at September 10, 2003 10:13 AM