remember 1989-90?

[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.

[A18]

The danger is nuclear terrorism. The Soviets were at least sane and wanted to actually live.

[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.

[A18]

He may. Doesn't mean the guy he hands a nuke off to does.

Consider Hussein. Had the assassination plot against President Bush been successful, he would have been a goner, but he ordered it anyway.

[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.)

[Beet]

So does Kim Jong Il.

Are you saying Kim Jong Il is not sane?

[minionofmidas]

His collection of movies sure ain't.

[A18]

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.

[Beet]

His collection of movies sure ain't.

You have seen his collection of movies?

[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.

[A18]

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.

[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. 

[A18]

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.'

[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.

[opebo]

Well, actually the current 'terrorism' was mostly created by cold-war policies.

Prove it

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. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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. 

Didn't spot that bit before. Sicko.

[opebo]

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. 

Didn't spot that bit before. Sicko.

Just putting things in perspective.

And Trondheim is right, my statements above were the simple, short version of what happened - but still very accurate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just putting things in perspective.

Thousands of people DIED in a pretty horrible way

[Platypus]

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

The US did meddle in the middle east, rightly or wrongly; that meddlingly did, of course, prduce resentment; some of the most extreme of those who resented the US knocked down a couple of buildings. It was a tragedy, but it's not like it came totally out of the blue and for no reason at all. Whether we AGREE with the reason or not doesn't matter; it still existed. Plus maybe things do need to be put into perspective a bit more-more people died in Bhopal, but that hardly changed the world order.

Septmber 11 was a tragedy, sure, but it wasn't the worst thing that's even happenned in the world, and it was at least partially because of US actions. That's fact, like it or not.

[Huckleberry Finn]

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.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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"

[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"...