ralper

O.K. by me. We could use a new controversy.

By the way, what did you think of the election in Iraq? I have to admit, from the looks of it right now, it seems to have gone better than I thought.

(disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my mind as more information comes out, and we learn more about it.)

cordycord

I thought the election went as well as could be expected. I can write that, as I sit on my couch, typing away while watching tv. The Iraqis who voted are to be congratulated on their bravery, and their committment to their own futures.

Don't know if you read the op ed piece that I put up this weekend, but I agreed with what the writer said. Democratic leadership can hate the war and everything leading up to it, but anyone who denigrates the act that these Iraqis did by voting are boobs.

Frankly, I am very disappointed by the leadership on the Democratic side. I, for one, feel that if we're going to have a two-party system, they both should be strong and vibrant. The elephants were pretty weak up until the mid-eighties, but now it seems that the Democrats have taken up the "turd torch".

They need, IMHO, a re-thinking of some of some of their basic platforms, and to get rid of some of the DEAD WEIGHT at the top. It's not good for the Dems, and it's not good for the U.S. as a whole to have these uber-liberal reactionaries hogging the airwaves. There have got to be clear-thinking Democrats out there who are ready to put forth a strong argument for the basic democratic ideals.

Know anyone?

ralper

Cordy

I tend to agree with you about the election. I too think the Iraqis displayed uncommon bravery just by going out to vote. I am anxious to hear the outcome and have my doubts about the future of democracy in Iraq, but the election was a very bright light.

Like you, I am very disappointed in the Democratic party. Unlike you I'm not so sure about what the party needs. I'm tired tonight, I had a very tough day, so I won't take the bait. Maybe we can argue about this tomorrow.

fltsfshr

Ital Dean Ital




fltsfshr

Ulrich

Apparently Donald Rumsfeld plans to build a new bunker-busting bomb. The DOE confirmed that they included $10.3 million for this project in the new budget that they will present next week. Work on this project was suspended last year when it turned out that development of this bomb, a tactical nuclear weapon, would cost in excess of $500 million through 2009.

So, do we really need to spend half a billion dollars on a weapon that would most likely start a new arms race? Do we really want to build a mini-nuke that would make its use during a conflict possible and more likely?

Chazmo

That's a damn good question, Ulrich. Here are my opinions on this, which (as usual) are pretty radical...

1. The Pandora's box of nukes is already long open. It seems our entire gov't would like to shove the nukes back in the box. I don't think you can. My first point: if some gov't or terrorist wants one, they can get one; trying to stop goverments that want to acquire these weapons sounds like a good goal until you think about it a while.

2. A tactical nuke is a weapon that our armed forces could use as a real threat against other countries. There'd be real deterrence if other world armies had that threat banging on their doors and believed we'd use it. This I put in contrast to MIRV'd ICBMs and other delivery systems for theater-wide nukes (which we'll never use).

I'm in favor of developing surgical nukes that could wipe out an entire battlefield or several city blocks. You wanna talk shock and awe!!

cordycord

Ulrich,

I'm going to guess that the Rummy knows something that we don't, and that a super bunker-buster is not being made for some mythical future target.

I think that they have something in mind for the bomb, and that this is "diplomacy at the end of a gun". My guess--Iran is building their nukes WELL below ground, and feel confident that we can't get them. We're showing them that we can...

uppitychick

I tend to agree.

ralper

And I'm going to guess that he doesn't, and that its just pie in the sky.

valentine

I agree with Chazmo. Pandora's box was opened and has leaked its damage (although unknowingly for the most part) and is here to stay. Technology should progress and I hope that Rummy does know something and I hope that the idiots in the media don't get even a whiff of what he knows.