remember 1989-90?

[minionofmidas]

is it just me or is the world now more dangerous than it was at any point during the cold war?

As htmldon said, I find the threat of having some lunatic fly a plane into a building to be, while still worrying, much less scary than the thought of, you know, global annihilation of the human race in a full-scale nuclear war.

are you saying we dont have to worry about nuclear terrorism?

You don't have to. You might have to worry about the people who're selling that crap to you, though.

Oh, and Don - so you disapprove of instigating a massive buildup on nukes and missiles that eventually bankrupted the Soviet Union, but you approve of continuing with it despite massive internal opposition? Interesting. Weird.

[minionofmidas]

remember 1989-90?

No

LOL!

[minionofmidas]

we also have a bigger problem with rogue states and weapons of mass destruction (ie north korea and iran).  those states arent held back by the prospect of mutual assured destruction, as the ussr was.

Why not?  The feral instinct of self-preservation is always present in humans, and both Kim Jong-Il and the guys in Iran know that if they launch a nuke at the US, their countries along with themselves will be wiped off the face of the planet.  Sure their personalities are not exactly conducive to a healthy diplomatic environment (to put it in a much more mild fashion than either of them deserve),

You are talking about Bush and Cheney, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's quite obvious that North Korea's nuclear program is motivated entirely by "the prospect of mutually ensured destruction". Iran is more complicated, mostly because nobody can be quite sure whether they're even trying to develop nukes.

[minionofmidas]

In actuality the chances of global thermonuclear war was minimal at best. The Soviets would have never launched an attack as their abilities were far less then was believed at the time. It was mostly hype and propaganda during the cold war rather then fact.

This is true to a large extent. Analogy to the situation today fully applies.

[minionofmidas]

In actuality the chances of global thermonuclear war was minimal at best. The Soviets would have never launched an attack as their abilities were far less then was believed at the time. It was mostly hype and propaganda during the cold war rather then fact.

This is true to a large extent. Analogy to the situation today fully applies.

Err, not exactly. The terrorists have struck us and killed citizens on many occassions. I don't remember many times when the Soviets ever killed American citizens on US shores.

Yes...true...but...compare the no. of US dead in, say, Korea, to the prospect of nuclear winter. Not compareable, although the first is horrible enough.
Compare the no. of dead in the WTC to the prospect of...you name 'em...nuking Washington. Not compareable, although the first is horrible enough.

[minionofmidas]

The danger is nuclear terrorism. The Soviets were at least sane

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So does Kim Jong Il.

[minionofmidas]

Proof?

I dimly remember hearing of an attempt, or a plot, or whatever it was, on George Bush when he was visiting Kuwait in 1992 (I guess). I don't remember the details, I was only 13 at the time. I haven't heard anything about it since. I've tried googling it, but haven't found anything. It's not mentioned in Bush's Wikipedia biography. It's not on a list of serious assassination attempts against US presidents on Wikipedia (there're 13 entries, not counting the successful attempts). It wasn't mentioned in the buildup to the war by anti-Saddamies. Even though it would make a good argument for how dangerous this guy is.
Which brings me to part 2: Where's the difference, in the "goner" stakes, between a successful and a failed attempt at the life of a US President? (Note that the letters US are important here. Nobody supported a Libyan invasion of the US after Reagan ordered several assassination attempts of Ghaddafi, one of which killed Ghaddafi's 4 year old daughter. Just an aside observation, and not really my point.)

[minionofmidas]

His collection of movies sure ain't.

[minionofmidas]

Proof?

I dimly remember hearing of an attempt, or a plot, or whatever it was, on George Bush when he was visiting Kuwait in 1992 (I guess). I don't remember the details, I was only 13 at the time. I haven't heard anything about it since. I've tried googling it, but haven't found anything. It's not mentioned in Bush's Wikipedia biography. It's not on a list of serious assassination attempts against US presidents on Wikipedia (there're 13 entries, not counting the successful attempts). It wasn't mentioned in the buildup to the war by anti-Saddamies. Even though it would make a good argument for how dangerous this guy is.
Which brings me to part 2: Where's the difference, in the "goner" stakes, between a successful and a failed attempt at the life of a US President? (Note that the letters US are important here. Nobody supported a Libyan invasion of the US after Reagan ordered several assassination attempts of Ghaddafi, one of which killed Ghaddafi's 4 year old daughter. Just an aside observation, and not really my point.)

Several Democratic congressmen, as well as internet trolls (the latter having more credibility), said it was the reason Bush went to war.

You mean, the whole "Sure everything out of the administration is a lie, but it's not as bad as you others think. It's not about oil. He just wants to avenge daddy" theory? It may have some merits. But it's not the truth full stop.

[minionofmidas]

Both the oil theory and the revenge theory are incredibly dumb. But that's irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is that it's been widely reported that Hussein tried to kill President Bush after Gulf War I.

"It's been widely reported", yes, I remember it even. But is it at all true? I'm very, very, very seriously puzzled at the moment. 

[minionofmidas]

Well, what leads you to think it isn't? Problem with a Google search is that it'll probably bring up this Bush's recent 'attack.'

True. I tried it in German, no word confusion there. No help.
What leads me to think it isn't? Nothing. What leads me to think it might not be? Everything.

[minionofmidas]

Good lord, man, we meddled in the middle east, and were rightly resented for it, and then some of the most extreme resenters knocked down a couple of buildings. 

Are you trying to sound like a crude and very cruel caricature of the worst kind of ignorant rent-a-quote anti-american leftist?

He's oversimplifying.

[minionofmidas]

Proof?

I dimly remember hearing of an attempt, or a plot, or whatever it was, on George Bush when he was visiting Kuwait in 1992 (I guess). I don't remember the details, I was only 13 at the time. I haven't heard anything about it since. I've tried googling it, but haven't found anything. It's not mentioned in Bush's Wikipedia biography. It's not on a list of serious assassination attempts against US presidents on Wikipedia (there're 13 entries, not counting the successful attempts). It wasn't mentioned in the buildup to the war by anti-Saddamies. Even though it would make a good argument for how dangerous this guy is.
Which brings me to part 2: Where's the difference, in the "goner" stakes, between a successful and a failed attempt at the life of a US President? (Note that the letters US are important here. Nobody supported a Libyan invasion of the US after Reagan ordered several assassination attempts of Ghaddafi, one of which killed Ghaddafi's 4 year old daughter. Just an aside observation, and not really my point.)

In fact Clinton launched several cruise missiles to Iraq as counterblow for Saddam's plant.

Ah, so it was after Bush's presidency. That would certainly explain why it's not on the Wiki list...do you remember more about the event? I'm seriously puzzled.

[minionofmidas]

Well, whilst impersonal, he's correct, Al.

It is never correct to refer to the deaths of thousands of people as "knocked down a couple of buildings"

The deaths of thousands of insects everyday are usually described as "birds circling"...

[minionofmidas]

The deaths of thousands of insects everyday are usually described as "birds circling"...

So?

Just pointing out that, in either case, either statement is "correct". Whether it's wise to refer to events in that matter, what it tells about the speaker, etc, is a different matter of course.

[minionofmidas]

Just pointing out that, in either case, either statement is "correct". Whether it's wise to refer to events in that matter, what it tells about the speaker, etc, is a different matter of course.

I meant correct as in "is correct behavior to say x". Calling someone of Pakistani origin a "paki" is "correct" in one sense; it clearly isn't in the other sense.

Ah, political correctness. How about "appropriate"?

[minionofmidas]

Little Eichmanns? Wtf'in hell? Get a grip, Ope.

[minionofmidas]

Little Eichmanns? Wtf'in hell? Get a grip, Ope.

Oh, you remeber that 'Indian' professor that was always paraded about on FOX news to rile the lumpenproletariate?  The one who called the 9/11 victims 'little Eichmans'?  I liked that guy.

No, I don't, since I don't watch FOX news.
At least I see where you were coming from now.

[minionofmidas]

You recognize that that's a pretty ridiculous position when you look at just who got killed there mostly, like, you know, window cleaners and such? It was pretty early after all.