"...they're more used to cartoons and film fiction from former V.P.'s."

Th..th..that's all folks!

Posted by GM Roper at June 19, 2006 06:43 PM

lol...

These idiots on the left are more worried about the Earth warming up a 0.0001 degree and a theory that we couldn't prove for a 1,000 years than they are over a nutcase practice aiming his ICBMs at us. If any crazy is allowed to have nuclear weapons and allowed to practice sending them our way, then global warming is a moot point. Maybe if we told him that we'll be nice, he'll cooperate with us.

Does anyone on the left have a brain?

Posted by Woody at June 19, 2006 07:59 PM

What's more, everytime someone puts out the assumption that John Kerry voted against all such military hardware and planning, some moonbat cries, "Check the record. He voted FOR "all that stuff!""

So I checked the record. And found that he did indeed vote FOR "all that stuff". But I did my homework dilligently as always and found that after Kerry voted FOR "all that stuff" he spent years trying to stop funding for any of it and shelve every project.

Just as he voted FOR the Iraq war, he voted AGAINST any funding for it. Oh wait ... he voted FOR the funding before he voted AGAINST it, right?

And people actually voted FOR him. Or were they just voting AGAINST Bush?

I'm so confused ...

Posted by Oyster at June 20, 2006 06:19 AM

Oyster my dear, you MAY be lots of things, but CONFUSED is NOT one of them.

Posted by GM Roper at June 20, 2006 06:42 AM

NUKE KOREA!!!! DO IT NOW BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!! IT'S THE ONLY ANSWER!!! DON'T LET THE WHIMPS ON THE LEFT STOP YOU!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!! GOD BLESS GEORGE W. BUSH!!!

Posted by A TRUE PATRIOT at June 20, 2006 08:32 AM

"A True Patriot" may have helped us identify the problem. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, derided and nicknamed Star Wars by the liberals, is a DEFENSIVE system against missile attacks--not an offensive system, for which we already have thousands of nuclear bombs and which "A True Patriot" incorrectly believed was the point.

Why is the left so opposed to us stopping our enemies' threats against us? Are they afraid such a system would give us an "unfair advantage?" Heavens to think that we would be able to block the attacks of rogue governments against us.

But, as is typical, the left chooses to ridicule a defense system rather than apply any reason.

Posted by Woody at June 20, 2006 09:13 AM

The biggest problem with Star Wars is that it wouldn't have have done the job against an all-out nuclear strike. Say it stopped 99% (a very generous estimate) of all the missles fired by the Soviet Union and/or China... that wouldn't help much as the 1% that did get through would be more than enough to render most of the U.S. uninhabitable. Sorry guys, but that's the truth.

Now as far as rogue states like Korea are concerned, guess what, we do have a much more limited missle defense program that uses satellites to track missle launches and submarines to shoot them down. Does it work? We don't know for sure. But I think it's much more likely to work than 'Star Wars' ever was because its goal is much more specific... stopping say half a dozen missles at most as opposed to trying to stop a few thousand.

So there you have it... a strategy to deal with rogue states like Korea and diplomacy WHICH WAS ALWAYS OUR BEST WEAPON to deal with Russia and China and probably one day India.

Posted by e. nonee moose at June 21, 2006 06:15 AM

Moose-
Guess which President began development of ICBM intercept missiles? That's right, GW!

BTW, you know very little about nuclear missiles. It would take alot more than 1% or even 50% of Russias nukes to make most of America uninhabitable.
Unfortunately, we will never know how successful SDI could've been, since the dems decided that American lives wasn't worth it.

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at June 21, 2006 06:58 AM

E Moose, you're repeating arguments back then that were the claimed basis for opposition but not the real basis. Nevertheless, those claims were based upon known technology and supposed Soviet responses. Reagan said that developing the defense shield would take more research and technical capabilities than currently existed, but that we could achieve it. In the meantime, this move forced the Soviet Union to give up on the arms race, as their spending couldn't keep up with that which we announced.

Now, we should be glad that Reagan started the ball rolling, because we are much further ahead of defending ourselves from missiles launched by terrorists or crazy dictators than we would have been otherwise, and that probably will prevent more military action or the treat of it that would have been our only other option.

We have been using diplomacy with North Korea, and Clinton tried that, too (undercut somewhat by Jimmy Carter's interference), but talk must be backed up by strength and resolve. Dictators laugh at talk by itself. They listen when the talk is given by someone with a gun in his hand.

Posted by Woody at June 21, 2006 07:26 AM