Is George Bush the most dangerous president in U.S. history?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2003 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Article:
"Zweifel: Bush would use mini-nukes, prof warns"
Link:
www.madison.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.madison.com...

Excerpt:
"If you ask Professor John Swomley, he is.

Swomley, who teaches Christian ethics at the St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, has authored an indictment of the Bush administration's foreign policy that includes actual plans to use nuclear bombs as pre-emptive weapons.

It is essential, he says in a magazine article, for Americans to understand that the administration has directed the military to prepare plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries - China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya and Iraq.

Presumably, had Iraq had those so-called weapons of mass destruction and had used them when we invaded the country this spring, we were prepared to drop a weapon of mass destruction of our own.

And Swomley warns that we shouldn't buy the argument that these nukes are small and won't be all that horrific.

"Nuclear weapons, even if they are smaller than those of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, will not only kill on impact, but raise immense radioactive dust, with the terrible results of slow, agonizing death from radiation," he writes.

"Some people make the assumption that using smaller nuclear weapons will allow accurate precision bombing, such as was claimed for the bombing of Iraq," he adds. "What was not reported by officials is that although the Iraq 'smart' bombs rarely missed a target by more than 13 feet, when a bomb blew up it sent high-speed shrapnel flying as far as a mile, causing many civilian casualties. The additional power of a nuclear bomb, together with its dispersal of radioactivity , is sure to produce infinitely more harm."

Nevertheless, the U.S. Senate has already approved Bush's request to lift a 10-year ban on research, development and production of nuclear weapons of less than 5 kilotons.".......



Scary, very scary.
Is this a matter of "more Leftist propoganda?"
Is there a problem with this issue of "mini-nukes" or not?
Is there a problem with this at all or does it amount to more of: "We can do such things but you can not?"

Heres what a 1 kiloton bomb looks like:

im1.shutterfly.com...
"Nuke test Able_B, 1952, 1 kiloton"

I also found this....."Statement of Principles"
Link:
www.newamericancentury.org...

Excerpt:
"June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities."


There is a thread on "Mini-Nukes" by Advisor that, sadly, did not recieve the attention that it should have but am posting it here cause his source was an excellent one.
"Mini-Nukes" Debate"
Link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thoughts or comments to this? Yea or nay? Anything?


regards
seekerof



[Edited on 15-9-2003 by Seekerof]




posted on Sep, 15 2003 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I personally feel that the US is dusting off some Cold War tactics. Get the enemies to invest in countermeasures for weapons systems that don't exist. I think that this is talk and it is talk meant for a very few ears.

Question is: is anyone in N. Korea, Iran or China listening.

Also, If a US city were subjected to a nuclear or chemical attack, would it be OK for the US to respond in kind?



posted on Sep, 15 2003 @ 07:13 PM
link   


Also, If a US city were subjected to a nuclear or chemical attack, would it be OK for the US to respond in kind? by copcorn



I would assume so, but then that opens the "Can of worms" as to why other nations may feel the need to protect themselves by building there own nukes....then gets a bit out of skew then, I think. I mean, on the other side of the coin, if the US was attacked by nuclear or chemical/biological, I'm certain that a "return" strike would be quite self-explanitory.

regards
seekerof



posted on Sep, 15 2003 @ 07:14 PM
link   
but they are not listening to whispers...
more like actions...
and im sure others will be doing much more talking with action now that the world has seen what it can accomplish...



posted on Sep, 15 2003 @ 07:26 PM
link   
North Korea and Iran want nukes so that they might be taken seriously as players on the world stage.

Having that particular "Big Stick" pretty much means that other countries will leave you alone, at least as far as an invasion is concerned.

How about Taiwan? Picture them with a nuke or two...

www.fas.org...



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I believe Bush is quite frankly the worst president we have ever had; in regards to keeping America, hmm good I guess..

With his idea that the environment isn't important (and thus it's o.k. to drill for oil in protected areas, and to cut down protected forests ect). And that he is trying to basically ban homosexuality.. what's next?



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Yeah, Bush is the worst of all time, without doubt.

He would not be dangerous at all, except that he is a puppet in the admin, which is implementing the very dangerous and corrupt PNAC agenda.

Having said that, Bush is dangerous to himself, on a Segway.



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Yeah, Bush is the worst of all time, without doubt.

He would not be dangerous at all, except that he is a puppet in the admin, which is implementing the very dangerous and corrupt PNAC agenda.


Agreed. I've seen much better performances from The Muppets.



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 02:46 PM
link   
No, NK wants nukes as a tool to extort money out of Uncle Sam...

It doesn't have to worry about invasion, but it isn't happy with the US's current policies towards it... Hence, well, if you do this, we won't do this mentalities.... Oddly enough though, Kim is pushing it far more than I would have thought, even for him.... Then again, I haven't heard anything in the news about NK and nukes for a while now, so I wonder how much that cost?



posted on Sep, 17 2003 @ 08:33 AM
link   
When somebody who is as thick as president Bush, is running the most powerfull (and potentialy dangerous) country in the world, then you have to be very very concerned.



posted on Sep, 17 2003 @ 08:52 AM
link   
No Doubt about it.

I was watching CNN today and some people were holding up a sign (California recall) that said..
"A true american votes yes to a recall"

or something along the lines of that.. like cmon

Florida, California, ...... oranges anyone?


[Edited on 17-9-2003 by CPYKOmega]



posted on Sep, 17 2003 @ 08:52 AM
link   
The 3.2 billion dollar 2000 Megawatt light water reactor wasn't enough for Lil' Kim....

Greedy lil' bahhhstard!

Too bad for lil' Kim, there aren't many sources of funding for Communist Dictators left out there...



posted on Sep, 17 2003 @ 10:26 AM
link   
George W. Bush is in fact the most dangerous president this country has ever had. Since taking office in January of 2001, he's found reason to go to war twice, both times with countries that would stand no chance if they attacked us. Even using terrorism as a basis, it was a terrorist attack of individuals, no need to overthrow a government. As far as WMD in Iraq, they gave up on their search because they simply did not exist. Sounds like Genocide to me, but I'm not a political analyst.



posted on Sep, 17 2003 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Seems like the professor wasn't around during the cold war.

Regarding NK, very simple really, Kim wants to cling to power with his buddies but his people are so bad off he has to sabre rattle with the US to distract them.

Bush is a big improvement over Clinton who was a coward.

Under the Dems the US would slide down the ladder in no time and lose their No. 1 position even with a weakened Russia.

Bush has brought back credibility and respect to the US. That has made him a good president.



posted on Sep, 18 2003 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
No, NK wants nukes as a tool to extort money out of Uncle Sam...

It doesn't have to worry about invasion, but it isn't happy with the US's current policies towards it... Hence, well, if you do this, we won't do this mentalities.... Oddly enough though, Kim is pushing it far more than I would have thought, even for him.... Then again, I haven't heard anything in the news about NK and nukes for a while now, so I wonder how much that cost?


Considering that North Korea is pretty much a worthless piece of land, poor, in debt, hungry and is a mere shadow in comparison to the south's economy Kim is just trying to help his country out as much as possible... well as much as possible as long as he's still on the throne though...



posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Kim is trying to help out his country?

Read my new topic about the current state of NK and tell me that you still think he is the 'benevolent dictator.'

Also remember that the person touring NK did not see what was going on behind the scenes either, torture, corruption, prostitution, cheating and on and on that goes on in places like that.

Sure that stuff goesn on here too. But most of us can avoid it if we like, but people over there cannot avoid it.



posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 08:01 PM
link   
FDR was the most dangerous president in U.S. history. Bush jr. is a very close second. If more crap continues to happen, he will replace FDR as the most dangerous.



posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 08:03 PM
link   
To answer the question, of course not! The most dangerous president was the one that spent his eight years in office weakening our defences, strangling our intelligence and selling nuclear secrets to those who see us as their enemy.



posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Personally i thought that Harry Truman was most dangerous, but with the Bush jr. running the show.. im not so sure anymore.. maybe Bush jr. will win the 'price' we shall see.






top topics



 
0

log in

join