Posted on 02/12/2008 12:54:31 PM PST by meandog
Death tugs at my ear and says, 'Live, I am coming.'" Were Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. alive today, he might ascribe that line not to death but to nuclear terrorism.
Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have had to live with the knowledge that the next time the terrorists strike, it could be not with airplanes capable of killing thousands but atomic bombs capable of killing hundreds of thousands.
The prospect has created a sense of profound vulnerability. It has shaped our view of government policies aimed at combating terrorism (filtered through Jack Bauer). It helped mobilize support for the Iraq war.
Why are we worried? Bomb designs can be found on the Internet. Fissile material may be smuggled out of Russia. Iran, a longtime sponsor of terrorist groups, is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. A layperson may figure it's only a matter of time before the unimaginable comes to pass. Harvard's Graham Allison, in his book "Nuclear Terrorism," concludes, "On the current course, nuclear terrorism is inevitable
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
More than once since he came back from the Middle East, General Franks has said he thinks it’s only a matter of time. Just identifying one dissenting view.
Chapman is a libertarian moron who takes these types of positions sometimes, I think, to stir things up. It’s hard to believe any rational American could write this drivel, but that’s what we get from the Chicago Tribune. Here’s to hoping Sam Zell will clean house and fire the entire editorial board. They are incompetent.
.... and the entire transfer of weapons technology
from US -> Turkey -> Pakistan was directed by Xlinton
and then covered up by ......... Sandy Burger.
I find it entertaining that so many of these folks willfully ignore the planned attacks that have been foiled post 9/11. Then again, maybe it's not so entertaining.
Yup - it is extremely foolish not to mention ignorant.
“Yet al-Qaida and its ideological kin have proved unable to mount a second strike.”
That’s because they plan attacks decades apart, allowing for time to be on the run as they have been, preparations, and waiting for us to elect a less defense oriented President.
This is how Liberals think.
“It won’t happen, because it can’t.”
or
“It might happen so we should make a law to prevent it.”
Those two extremes are precisely how they keep everyone out of balance.
They ought to be thinking, “It might happen, because someone can make it happen and thus we should work to prevent the bad guys from making it happen” — but not make LAWS to prevent it, rather, send the people we have doing the job out to continue to the do the job. And hiring better analysts and hanging on to the military people we have (and recruiting new ones).
And 9-11 was the #2, with 1993 being the #1.
You're half right.
L
But that means I’m half wrong. I believe he professed to be a libertarian in print once upon a time, so I don’t think that’s the half-wrong. However, his writings clearly demonstrate he’s a moron, so I’m stuck. Any help would be appreciated in resolving this quandary...
As I have posted before, editors also need to ensure that columnists and reporters don’t publish articles that tend to embarass the authors or the organization.
The editor failed to protect the franchise. This is a college newspaper level column. Embarassing.
Bill Maher professed the same thing. Well he can call himself a libertarian the same way he can call himself a Guernsey cow.
That doesn't mean you can milk him.
Chapman couldn't articulate a Libertarian principle if you pointed a Chicago banned handgun at him. (Something he's totally in favor of btw. Not exactly a Libertarian position, that.)
L
Will read this later. Thanks.
And for that we give our gratitude to George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfield and our eternal gratitude to the men and women of the armed forces of the United States.
--last paragraph--
We have been under threat of imminent global nuclear annihilation since 1957. It’s too much to ask us to get excited over a handful of nukes going off here and there.
As long as we know where to send our nuclear reprisal, you are right.
Stateless nukes don’t have a return address, so we’ll just have to settle for destroying the Ummah. All of it.
Even a fizzle yield with a simple device fueled with U235 could kill thousands. They don’t need to make complex implosion weapon with Plutonium.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.