Sen.Blutarsky

Why are you people ignoring SpeedRacer's post? It's a legitimate comment for this thread. Okay. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

That was a good jab BTW, when did the last abortion clinic bombing or shooting attack on unarmed civilians occur? What is their total number over time? How many dead as a result? For comparison when did the last Islamic militant bombing or shooting attack on unarmed civilians occur? What is their total number over time? How many dead as a result? They're hardly equivalents. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

First the Turks claim the Armenian Genocide never happened, now Iran denies the Holocaust. Should we reasonably expect fair dealing from these people? Iran leader: Move Israel to Europe Ahmadinejad casts doubt on Holocaust TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has expressed doubt that the Holocaust occurred and suggested Israel be moved to Europe. His comments, reported by Iran's official IRNA news agency from a news conference he gave on Thursday in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, follows his call in October for Israel to be "wiped off the map," which sparked widespread international condemnation. "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?" he said. "If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it." Six million Jews were killed in the Nazi Holocaust. Ahmadinejad's remarks drew swift rebukes from Israel and Washington. "This is not the first time, unfortunately, that the Iranian president has expressed the most outrageous ideas concerning Jews and Israel," said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev. "He is not just Israel's problem. He is a worry for the entire international community," he added. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "It just further underscores our concerns about the regime in Iran and it's all the more reason why it's so important that the regime not have the ability to develop nuclear weapons." Once allies Religious hardliners in Iran do not publicly deny the Holocaust happened, but say its scale has been exaggerated to justify the creation of Israel and continued Western support for it. Close allies when Iran was ruled by the U.S.-backed Shah, Iran and Israel have become implacable foes since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. Israel accuses Iran of giving arms and funding to militant Palestinian groups such as Islamic Jihad and of building nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charges. Tehran calls Israel a "terrorist state" and has developed missiles that can reach it. It says it would use them if Israel, itself believed to be nuclear-armed, tried to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Earlier in his remarks, the Iranian president, a former Revolutionary Guardsman who won a surprise election victory in June, said: "The question is, where do those who rule in Palestine as occupiers come from? Where were they born? Where did their fathers live? They have no roots in Palestine but they have taken the fate of Palestine in their hands. "Isn't the right to national self-determination one of the principles of the United Nations charter? Why do they deprive Palestinians of this right?" Jews trace their roots in Israel back to Biblical times. Ahmadinejad concluded his remarks by reiterating Iran's proposal that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be resolved via a referendum of all the inhabitants of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, as well as Palestinian refugees in neighboring countries. "Whatever they decide will be accepted by all humanity. This is a clear democratic solution which is based on international principles," he said. Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/08/iran.israel.reut/index.html

Our national command authorities did act rationally by dropping atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki insofar as Japan did not have the means to retaliate in kind. We acted rationally during the Cold War by not exploding nuclear weapons on the Soviets because the Soviets had the capability to retaliate massively against us with their own nuclear weapons. The Soviets were likewise rational in this respect. Because I do NOT underestimate the intelligence and rationality of the Chinese leadership anymore than I did with the Soviets is precisely why I do not believe the Chinese would launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. or its allies following defeat in a conventional exchange. By not escalating the exchange to nuclear you still have possibilities for continuing to pursue your objectives whereas if you employ your small nuclear arsenal it’s game over for generations, what rational actor would plot that course knowing full well its enemy would avoid comparable damage and emerge in a relatively stronger position? Of course the commemorations yesterday reminded us that they did. But there were no nuclear weapons in existence on December 7, 1941. Had Japan possessed a large, proven atomic arsenal and the U.S. a miniscule one with suspect delivery systems do you honestly believe that America would have launched an atomic first strike against Japan in retaliation for the Pearl Harbor attack? That’s what you appeared to have been claiming in essence and I doubt it’s your true line of thinking. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Perhaps you should run for sheriff/chief Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

If the truffles and Brunello I was packing to Chicago from my trip to Tuscany last week had gotten blown up the marshalls would have had to shoot me too. All hounds are truffle hounds despite their pitiful attempts to disguise themselves and project impartiality Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Courtesy of the Islamo-facists. Those kamikaze-types were always trailblazers of sorts. I have no doubt that some here will attempt to argue they are the victims. Darn us!* Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! * In the interests of posting economy I thought that it was sensical to pre-empt the roughly fifty or so likely off-topic posts that otherwise would have been made concerning “Our” New America. Carry on.

Maybe. On the other hand, isn't it possible the officer reasonably believed the Tazer probes got wedged harmlessly somewhere between the target's wrinkles and had no effect? Just a thought Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

For various reasons the Chinese opted not to produce more than a few tens of nuclear warheads that are small enough to fit onto their ICBMs and SLBMs such that the warheads can range the continental U.S. Most Chinese nuclear warheads produced to date are large ones that can at most reach targets in western Russia on IRBMs, they cannot reach the continental U.S. In addition you need multiple nuclear detonations to guarantee destruction of a large metropolitan area such as LA or the Boeing works/Seattle. So if the Chinese “get lucky” they can hope to obliterate perhaps a handful of significant U.S. targets and in exchange the U.S. wipes out all of the Chinese coastal cities and all of China’s significant military and industrial infrastructure. And we would target the Chinese leaders and their property presumably, so much for that country villa! I believe that’s not a smart move on China’s part and I give them credit for their intelligence and rationality. So, yes, it's “meaningless” from a first strike viewpoint. They wouldn’t do it in retaliation for getting their knees capped in a conventional exchange, not for the forseeable future anyway. Reliably and consistently landing a warhead on a point target thousands of miles away is a lot more daunting than blasting a payload into orbit and calculating its decay for an approximate touchdown area on your home soil. Moreover for most of its existence the Chinese nuclear missile force was targeted at Russia and, understandably, Russia didn’t assist the Chinese with developing Chinese nuclear-capable rockets. Russia _did_ help the Chinese put their taikonaut in near space, however, for a nice fee – presumably because few of the shared technologies exhibited crossover potential for targeting Russia or by implication other countries. Given the current nuclear and fielded forces projection capabilities imbalance, and not counting Russia as an Asian country, I agree with this statement. No they wouldn’t, not for many years to come if ever. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

What is: oxymoron. An-2, airlift - ha ha Makes the DC-3 seem like a speed demon in comparison ... Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

I appreciate what you do for our country and I'm familiar with the mindset that accompanies that, what you expressed is considerably less keyed-up than the Rangers, Marines and SEALs I've known. Someday though, assuming the balloon doesn't go up, you should visit China (coastal cities and countryside). Out of all the Pan Asian people I know with the exception of the Aussies, Kiwis and Samoans the Chinese people are the people who remind me the most of Americans. I bet you'd like them, well, except for their armed forces and political leaders perhaps Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

We have both types in Chicago. So I use our microwave oven to nuke the Chinese deliveries. Why not, they have it coming to 'em ... Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

China lacks the means to deliver a meaningful conventional or nuclear first strike on the U.S., consider the attached. The Chinese leadership is aware the U.S. can deliver an overwhelming conventional or nuclear retaliatory strike on China. Since I doubt the Chinese leadership is suicidal or wants to see its plans for China’s ascension scuttled there is indeed reason why China would not do the same. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Dude, is it possible your tetosterone is out of whack or something? I do business with the Chinese and have friends there, I’d rather not see these people or their brothers get bombed except when we’re at the bars. Aside from a Chinese combat arms indoctrination ceremony I witnessed once at the Forbidden City, I haven’t observed any Chinese display a similar hostility towards the U.S. (the propaganda videos played at the Beijing ceremony did appear to have U.S. military in focus as a contingency, we do the same thing with the Chinese armed forces). Time to step back from the edge methinks. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Baseball wrong. A man with four balls cannot walk Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Nor is being shredded but temporarily alive due to having absorbed high speed metal fragments a good thing, unless you're the soldier or insurgent doing this to the other guy so that you and yours can remain alive to fight another day. Then WP becomes a useful tool in your kitbox and you'll find a way to get your hands on it or some equivalent substitute. I wonder why there hasn't been so much of a fuss made about the thermobaric weapons the U.S. and British are using in Afghanistan and Iraq from time to time, or about the Russians' use of thermobaric weapons in Chechnya when it suits them. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

That's official enough for my purposes, I admit the report originates from an official source. Thank you. Absolutely I would exclude it from my decision tree. It's widely accepted that Saddam used actual WMD nerve agents against the Kurds. If this is your view white phosphorous doesn't even make it onto your radar scope because it isn't a true "chemical weapon" employed for its mass toxic effects on human beings. That's what the nerve agents are intended for. White phosphorous is intended to burn, mark and cause the target to panic and reveal itself. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Before I joined this thread I’d already reviewed what you posted. Unfortunately I’ve only been able to locate the “report” at various unofficial websites and, yes, I have tried to retrieve it from official sources utilizing my legal and government research tools which in the past have been reliable. I did not succeed at locating an official version of the report, hence my request, above, to provide an original source so I can pull it. Even assuming the report was disseminated through an official source it’s likely the person who drafted it made a simple mistake by confusing phosgene (which tests and witness testimony suggest Saddam did possess and weaponize) with white phosphorous (which virtually every military worldwide, including Saddam’s former military, has possessed and used for its screening and incendiary effects). If you read the document you are citing it’s obvious that irrespective of which of the two chemical substances Saddam actually used on the Kurds, either white phosphorous or phosgene (it's possible that both were used at different times and places), it was employed in the open air on mass concentrations of people. Under these conditions white phosphorous per se does not have a toxic lethal effect on human beings and therefore does not qualify as being a WMD pursuant to most authoritative definitions, thus springs my atypical curiosity concerning the authenticity of the report. In addition I am not aware that any poster here has cited to an authority for the proposition the W. Bush Administration relied on the report as a justification to invade in Spring 2003. Please provide a source that will allow me to confirm the report originated from an official government source. And if I am able to find an official version due to my own efforts I will admit it here. That, and I'll blame my staffers. Ditto in respect of support from an official source which shows the current Administration relied on the report in its decision-making (or even its propaganda). Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! oops

I don't believe that any officials ever said as much. My recollection is that the references were to Saddam's use of phosgene, not white phosphorous. Please see my immediate posting above. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Vhat means zees ‘Whack Job’? Good ting no more Rite Ving and All Kyda attack since 9-11, now vee vork on zee Left Ving Whack Jobs as ALF still attack us, no? Let oos vee vorvard-loooking dahling. Onlee Levt Ving attack here since 9-11, yoor kriteria. Yes vee have no bananas. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

I wonder how much more I could have achieved in life if only I shared this guy's condition. It boggles the mind. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

I can only recall references to the in vivo testing of “phosgene” by Saddam and his regime. Please direct me to a source which verifies the claim that Pentagon or Administration personnel identified “white phosphorous” as a WMD. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

What?! This has Big Government written all over it. I'll put my staff to work on the matter immediately and have my people get back in touch with your lobbyists at an appropriate time. Can you smell what I'm steppin' in? Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Politicians also can appreciate the detrimental political-economic effects that massive capital outflows from this country will obtain in the event that taxes are increased on corporations and top wage earners. For example, more business will adopt the MNC model by migrating their operations to the lowest tax countries and compensating their domestic management almost exclusively with shares that are taxed at a much lower rate than salaries and bennies, and federal tax receipts will decline substantially as a result. Nor do even most of the wildly optimistic economic cheerleader types believe that we can grow our way out from underneath the enormous federal and state government deficits thus far generated. Which leaves spending cuts as the primary mechanism to address the federal deficit issue, at least that’s the position we Blutarsky-ites are advocating until the next scheduled meeting with our paid political consultants. Not at the present time in the U.S. it isn’t, and I do not apologize for my insular view, but ultimately time will tell. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

I suspected this discussion might devolve to tax and spend, whether deferred or otherwise. I note that my esteemed colleague Ted Kennedy advocates this approach at every opportunity, while my own platform is that we who serve in government will soon be required to make drastic cuts in federal spending to be phased over the next several generations. One inference from the resource efficiency perspective is that our political leadership ought to create a honeypot far away from America as a means to draw terrorists onto a battleground where our professional warriors can fix and destroy them instead of attempting to defend America’s myriad point targets directly. I’ll have my staff package your suggestion into a memo for Dick Cheney with full attribution, Ming sir. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!