Dick Cheney's Pre-Emptive Nuclear War on Terror

July 29, 2005 9:46 AM

In case of emergency, nuke Iran. From the folks who brought you Operation Iraqi Freedom and the "last throes" of the insurgency, the latest strategy for enhancing homeland security and US global standing is to launch a nuclear first-strike against Iran in the event of another 9/11-style attack -- whether Iran has ties to the attackers or not. As Juan Cole points out, turning a Shiite Muslim nation into the next Hiroshima could have disagreeable consequences. (First reported by the American Conservative, not your typical liberal rag, and via DailyKos.)
posted by digaman (78 comments total)

Similar discussion on Mefi
posted by Rothko at 9:53 AM on July 29, 2005

Never mind that Saudi Arabia is the home of terrorism.
posted by nofundy at 9:55 AM on July 29, 2005

More here.
posted by digaman at 9:55 AM on July 29, 2005

JuanCole notes that the story seems unlikely to be true. (I hope so; it's batshit fucking insane.)
posted by Tlogmer at 9:56 AM on July 29, 2005

How big / small does a nuclear bomb have to be to get classified as "tactical" (presumeably as opposed to "strategic")? I'd guess a "tactical" nuke would be pretty small - much smaller than the WWII A-bombs - but I don't know.

Not that I'm supporting or defending a plan to use such weapons in any case.
posted by Western Infidels at 9:57 AM on July 29, 2005

*prepares to be lynched, and/or taken to a concentration camp*
posted by leapingsheep at 9:57 AM on July 29, 2005

Looks like unsourced speculation to me. Maybe true, maybe not. "It is hardly a secret..." is even less reliable than the "unnamed sources" and "anonymice" for which the MSM are rightly getting reamed.
posted by twsf at 10:03 AM on July 29, 2005

It this were true, (which I seriously doubt) then America seriously would be the number one threat to world peace. An impressive showing, given the number of insane regimes around the world.
posted by salmacis at 10:06 AM on July 29, 2005

Western, given that the selectivity of our tactical non-nuclear bombs hasn't turned out to be so "smart" after all, I don't hold out much hope for surgical nuclear strikes being any more surgical.

And as far as this being unsourced speculation goes, the development effort to create these "mini-nukes" is well established, and the Washington Post had this to say about the influential Nuclear Posture Review two years ago:

"One of the most controversial features of the Nuclear Posture Review is that it seemingly left the door open to using nuclear weapons for a preemptive attack on a threatening foreign country. The new study of low-yield nuclear devices would be compatible with that provision."
posted by digaman at 10:24 AM on July 29, 2005

Seems that "tactical" nukes have a yield between 1 and 10 kilotons, while the "strategic" nukes are "sky's the limit" devices with yields into the hundreds of megatons.

The division seems to have more to do with application:
Tactical nukes are "small" enough to be used as part of a conventional campaign as bunker-busters for hardened installations, while strategic nukes are intended as part of a political strategy such as "brinkmanship" and can never practically be used without massive long-term issues.
posted by Crosius at 10:25 AM on July 29, 2005

It this were true, (which I seriously doubt) then America seriously would be the number one threat to world peace. An impressive showing, given the number of insane regimes around the world.

Would be? Would be?
posted by nofundy at 10:25 AM on July 29, 2005

It is not surprising to find this stuff in American Conservative. That is Buchanan's magazine (or was) and he was always one of the strongest voices against the war in Iraq.
posted by caddis at 10:27 AM on July 29, 2005

Either way, this is vaporware.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:29 AM on July 29, 2005

With the number of Iranian-Americans in this country (not to mention others who would be just plain disgusted) wouldn't this be political suicide?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:29 AM on July 29, 2005

Pollomacho: One would hope, but given the track record, highly unlikely.
posted by Freen at 10:36 AM on July 29, 2005

338,000 Iranian Americans in the 2000 U.S. Census -- not a kickass voting bloc, compared, say, to Limbaugh listeners
posted by matteo at 10:38 AM on July 29, 2005

Couldn't this be a bluff? Convince the middle eastern nations that we'll turn that area to glass if we are attacked again? Perhaps a way to get these countries to deal with terrorists on their own (or, Iran at least)? Just seems like that could be the reason for this "we'll nuke 'em" chatter.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:41 AM on July 29, 2005

"How big / small does a nuclear bomb have to be to get classified as "tactical" (presumeably as opposed to "strategic")?"

The Davy Crockett which had a 10 ton equivalence and a 1.24 to 2.29 mile maximum range. It was deployed from 1961 until 1971.

The Pershing II had a variable 5-50 kiloton warhead and a range of 1800 Kilometers. It was deployed from 1984 until 1991.

The distinction of tactical versus strategic has more to do with employment and target than size, although size of warhead does enter into it, since you don't want to damage your own forces.
posted by Enjolras at 10:44 AM on July 29, 2005

Not to derail, but did anyone else notice from the third blurb in the first link that we're giving the Iraqi police forces Toyota Landcruisers? It can't bode well for Detroit when even the combined might of profiteering, patriotism, and pork couldn't sway the Pentagon to buy American automobiles for the Iraqis.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 10:45 AM on July 29, 2005

Couldn't this be a bluff? Convince the middle eastern nations that we'll turn that area to glass if we are attacked again?

Do you think some Saudi terrorists really give a damn whether Iran gets nuked?
posted by caddis at 10:47 AM on July 29, 2005

WGP, I'm glad you're feeling confident that plans for a US policy shift to a nuclear first-strike option are vaporware. But defense analyst William Arkin, writing in the Washington Post in May, did not share your certainty:

Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.

Two months later, Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, told a reporter that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions. "We're now at the point where we are essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview with the Shreveport (La.) Times. "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes." Carlson said his forces were the U.S. Strategic Command's "focal point for global strike" and could execute an attack "in half a day or less."

In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.
posted by digaman at 10:51 AM on July 29, 2005

So . . . Paul Harvey is the secret architect of U.S. foreign policy?
posted by ToasT at 10:57 AM on July 29, 2005

Well, we're not just going to wake up one morning to a press conference with Cock Cheney saying "blah, we nuked them to protect ourselves". However if as reported in worldnetdaily two or more american cities are to be hit with suitcase nukes as part of Osama's "american hiroshima". Perhaps as soon as aug 6th - 60th anniversary of Hiroshima. Then these "contingency" plans look like they might soon find their contingent.

Attack in the next 90 days
and
Project American Hiroshima

Those who live in a city and are on the cautious side might want to take a nice long vacation in the countryside until at least sept. 11.
posted by nasim at 10:59 AM on July 29, 2005

A country doesn't go from having no nukes, or just about to have one, to having a suitcase or briefcase sized one automaticaly. The only countries that have that technology is Russia, the US, and probably Israel by proxy.

Any newcommer to the nuke game, while having to work in secret (no tests), probably won't be able to make one smaller than a truck.
posted by Balisong at 11:07 AM on July 29, 2005

Good god, Paul Harvey has lost his mind.

And that's the rest of the story.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:08 AM on July 29, 2005

What kind of reputation does World Net Daily have?
posted by redteam at 11:15 AM on July 29, 2005

338,000 Iranian Americans in the 2000 U.S. Census

Yeah, that was for Tehrangeles, what about the rest of So. Cal?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:22 AM on July 29, 2005

What kind of reputation does World Net Daily have?

Not a particularly good one, but I think we can still agree that if Osama could manage to get a nuke, he'd certainly use it.
posted by unreason at 11:23 AM on July 29, 2005

What kind of reputation does World Net Daily have?

One of hackery, cut-n-pasting, and rabble-rousing?
posted by Rothko at 11:23 AM on July 29, 2005

Ah, sweet memories:

Bomb, bomb, bomb
Bomb, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb
Bomb, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb
Bomb, bomb Iran
You got me rockin' and a-rollin'
Rockin' and a-reelin'
Bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb
Bomb, bomb Iran

The song is sometimes credited to J.C. & The Bombers, sometimes to Vince Vance & Valiants. I don't care enough to find out, but I thought Vince Vance's picture (I assume) was quite funny.

Now where'd I put my Ayatollah Assaholah t-shirt?
posted by kirkaracha at 11:24 AM on July 29, 2005

From the Conservative article:

"Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

I wonder which one risked his career to leak that information? Maybe in 50 years or so, after the Revolution when the Secret Pentagon Archives are opened up to foreign historians, somebody will find and publish the answer. Maybe in a book something like The Road To Terror. (Yes, an Amazon link.)
posted by davy at 11:45 AM on July 29, 2005

If your going to have a plan like this you don't nuke Iran you nuke arabia. Strategically, all of it.
posted by Rubbstone at 11:45 AM on July 29, 2005

This is *so* not going to happen, so is there really any point in discussing it?
posted by Slothrup at 11:52 AM on July 29, 2005

Here is worldnetdaily's track record for reporting events before others:
Worldnet daily scoops

As for my track record for guessing the future well.... *8^(
posted by nasim at 11:54 AM on July 29, 2005

Yeah nasim. We should all buy ammo, smokes, duct tape, dry rations and build bunkers. Er. No. Wait. Fuck that.

We should nuke everybody NOW. Just so we know there won't be a "bunker gap" after the big one.

Can't be too cautious. Or alarmist.
posted by tkchrist at 12:05 PM on July 29, 2005

Well, during the cold war many didn't think we would ever engage in a nuclear war with Russia, yet it didn't stop conservatives then from excitedly rubbing their hands with glee at the thought that 'we'll nuke'em, we'll nuke'em *all*' (while conveniently forgetting that the U.S. had practically no bomb shelters to protect it's population while the USSR had an overabundance.).
So, I guess paranoid delusionals will always fantasize about 'that swarthy man in the raincoat with the evil thoughts' (while pointing at a small, decrepit old man in a raincoat').
Such is the nature of paranoid delusion.

Now don't you feel safer knowing they have the run of the most powerful military on the planet?
posted by mk1gti at 12:07 PM on July 29, 2005

The only countries that have that technology is Russia, the US, and probably Israel by proxy.

I doubt Israel has a suitcase - even if we gave them one. Or they stole one. They need nukes as a stand-off deterrent. Not a sneak attack weapon. I don't see the utility of it?

The "suitcase" nuke has been pretty over hyped. Yeah a few were developed during the cold war (my old man was even part of a special forces exercise testing how to get them into Eastern Europe in the 1970's - though he said they had not developed the weapon itself yet) they are not easy to maintain let alone develop.
posted by tkchrist at 12:10 PM on July 29, 2005

Oxymoron: surgical nuclear strikes
posted by CynicalKnight at 12:18 PM on July 29, 2005

yet it didn't stop conservatives then from excitedly rubbing their hands with glee at the thought that 'we'll nuke'em, we'll nuke'em *all*' (while conveniently forgetting that the U.S. had practically no bomb shelters to protect it's population while the USSR had an overabundance.).

Plenty of liberals supported MAD and retaliatory strategy, too. Uh. Think Kennedy. And, as scary or crazy as it was, it worked.

And as for bombshelters? How many people you gonna get in there? 10% 20% of your population? No way. Maybe 1-5%. No matter how many you got. With ICBMs with like a twenty minute route? You wouldn't have time. And how much food and water can you bring down there? Plus we had superior accuracy and invisible delivery like ICBM submarines that could hit them again and again. Shit man. Bombshelters are a waste of money and a poor strategy.
posted by tkchrist at 12:20 PM on July 29, 2005

It is interesting to me that in a fair amount of articles that look at a nuclear strike as being a viable option, they fail to take in wind patterns.
From the 'Informed Opinion' link... "A US nuclear strike on Iran would anger many publics in Europe. An economic boycott by Europe would also be devastating. " Yes, I'm sure they would be a little "angry". Sand + nuclear strike + prevailing winds = a lot of irratiated Europeans. Oh, and Saudi's. ...and others. Worldwide.
Hey, I could be wrong about the whole thing, but it's just something I've noticed.
posted by Zack_Replica at 12:31 PM on July 29, 2005

"Now where'd I put my Ayatollah Assaholah t-shirt?"

My buddy Mike got kicked out of high school for a week for wearing one of those in 1981. During the Reagan presidency, even! (not that particular variant tho.)

He did end up joining the Army, where he still is today, and doing well.

As far as nuking Iran... maybe it's just a contingency plan, but it's a damn scary one.
posted by zoogleplex at 12:45 PM on July 29, 2005

("...a lot of irradiated Europeans." I meant.)
posted by Zack_Replica at 12:47 PM on July 29, 2005

Never mind that Pakistan is the real home of the Islamic nuclear bomb program and proliferation.

BTW, where the hell in Pakistan is Osama anyway? I was promised Osama and I damn well want Osama!
posted by nofundy at 12:53 PM on July 29, 2005

It this were true, (which I seriously doubt) then America seriously would be the number one threat to world peace. An impressive showing, given the number of insane regimes around the world.

What makes you think the USA isn't already the #1 threat? Can you name another nation that has gone overseas to invade a country this past fifty years? Let alone one that has done so several times over? Another nation that has expended so much effort on undermining other nations' democratically-elected governments?

Sorry, guys, but the USA is the biggest danger to the world, and has been for quite some time.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:05 PM on July 29, 2005

iron chef morimoto writes "Not to derail, but did anyone else notice from the third blurb in the first link that we're giving the Iraqi police forces Toyota Landcruisers? It can't bode well for Detroit when even the combined might of profiteering, patriotism, and pork couldn't sway the Pentagon to buy American automobiles for the Iraqis."

I couldn't agree more.
posted by OmieWise at 1:10 PM on July 29, 2005

America must prepare for every possible scenario; failure to do so would be a horrific breach of duty.
posted by davidmsc at 1:22 PM on July 29, 2005

This came out when the Soviet Union fell and there was only one 'superpower' left. It was pretty humerous then. It is somewhat ominous now. Evil Empires: One Down, One To Go."
posted by mk1gti at 1:27 PM on July 29, 2005

America must prepare for every possible scenario; failure to do so would be a horrific breach of duty.
--------------------------------------------------------------
By doing what, exactly? Running around imposing ruinous, murderous, freedom-oppressing dictatorships and severe debts on most of the third world, threatening any and every country under the sun that doesn't agree with our dictatorial ways?
Exporting murder and terror overseas to every corner of the world?

Why can't we just learn to 'get along'? What the hell is wrong with sharing the damn pie instead of being greedy, overweight, slow-witted fools?
posted by mk1gti at 1:31 PM on July 29, 2005

Davidmsc, before you utterly fall into a trance of crypto-fascistic jargon, remind yourself that the "scenario" described in my link is one where a terrorist attack is launched by non-Iranians, but Iran is the target. The scenario described is a horrific breach of duty, masquerading as appropriate retaliation. That's this administration's modus operandi.
posted by digaman at 2:06 PM on July 29, 2005

This will never happen.
posted by TurdBlossom at 2:14 PM on July 29, 2005

"It can't bode well for Detroit when even the combined might of profiteering, patriotism, and pork couldn't sway the Pentagon to buy American automobiles for the Iraqis."

That does suck, but it's possible that it costs a lot less to ship Toyotas to Iraq than it does American cars. Toyota has a massive car-shipping ocean-going fleet available to it, as they ship all over the world anyway; I'm not sure American car makers have that sort of infrastructure - since they would either have to transport the vehicles to an Atlantic or Pacific port over land, or send them thru the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence seaway. Toyota's plants in Japan are essentially right next to the major seaports of export, and that might give them quite a large cost advantage.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:23 PM on July 29, 2005

Maybe they need suv's that won't roll over if and when the need to drive in an exasive manner......Nah.
posted by notreally at 2:39 PM on July 29, 2005

Davidmsc, before you utterly fall into a trance of crypto-fascistic jargon, remind yourself that the "scenario" described in my link is one where a terrorist attack is launched by non-Iranians, but Iran is the target.

You mean the "scenario" brought to you by Pat Buchanan et al? Why bother with crypto-fascists when you can get the real thing! Do you have anything beyond the American Conservative or Juan Cole linking the relatively standard contingency plans that the Pentagon prepares against potential threats to the idea that they might be used in the way you describe?
posted by me & my monkey at 2:44 PM on July 29, 2005

hmmmm, SUV's that don't roll over when engaged in evasive maneuvers. . . What a concept. . . .
posted by mk1gti at 2:44 PM on July 29, 2005

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections

The United States would never provoke a war.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:51 PM on July 29, 2005

What the hell is wrong with sharing the damn pie instead of being greedy, overweight, slow-witted fools?

Sharing the pie is whole easier in THEORY than reality. It takes time. And that attitude may just WHY nobody is sharing anything. Why should people you think are slow-witted fools share anything?

Count your lucky starts WE, with all our zits, scars, and flaws, are the present superpower and NOT the former Soviets or China (though their day may come soon enough). Do you know what empires in times past did? I assure you in the exporting murder department we in the US are amateurs.

Evil Empires: One Down, One To Go."

That tears it. Do you hear your self? Evil? What the fuck. The US is Evil now? And you wonder why rightwing assholes like Bush get in power? Stop the navel gazing self hateing. Jeebus.

Ok. Then we are on par with Hitler or Stalin or ... Satan? If you really believe that - any of you - you had better be doing the uncompromisingly task of armed unselfish struggle against the "Evil" US sacrificing every waking moment, pledging your personal treasuries and sacred honor to stop this "Evil".

Otherwise you are dismissive self loathing internet poser lefties who just like to bitch from the safety of the couch.
posted by tkchrist at 3:18 PM on July 29, 2005

The United States would never provoke a war.

I seriously doubt that the US government, bad as it may be, would launch a nuclear first strike unnecessarily.

"Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled..."

Reportedly, I have declared war on nature.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:56 PM on July 29, 2005

Why can't we just learn to 'get along'? What the hell is wrong with sharing the damn pie instead of being greedy, overweight, slow-witted fools?

Because the USA is the teenaged child of our global family, and as such has an egocentric focus that puts the narcissism of three-year olds to shame.

Evil? What the fuck. The US is Evil now?

Buddy, you ever done any reading about the US's role in creating banana republics? That was evil. About the US's role in overthrowing democratically-elected South American governments? That was evil. About the US's role in starting wars? That is evil.

What goes around comes around, people. Shame the US Administration hasn't figured that out over the past thirty or so years, eh?
posted by five fresh fish at 4:12 PM on July 29, 2005

you ever done any reading about the US's role in creating banana republics? That was evil.

Gee. No. Never have. [ rolls eyes ]
Or... seeing that A) My old man worked for the school for the Americas and was sent to Vietnam for criticizing it and B) I volunteered for the Peace in Central America campaign for five years...

uh. no. tell me more.

So we sometimes commit "evil" acts - or WE ARE evil? Which is it? Evil is an absolute. There are no shades to Evil. If you are a moral person - you have no choice but reject any and all connections or support to anything "evil". If you believe the evil exists. If the US is evil and you are a citizen - paying your taxes, purchasing goods, living here as a citizen you are participating to support an abet this evil - believing this then you must commit your self to stopping this evil at any personal cost. Or you are an unprincipled poser and coward sucking at the tit of evil.

If you think the US is evilthen Bin Laden is RIGHT. US citizens are legit targets. Just as members of the Nazi party were in 1941. Do you believe that? You can't.

If the US is evil then you ALL should be forming a modern Lincoln Brigade to over throw the US government. Or at the very least be marching every goddamned day.

Or do you just sit and bitch about evil and hope that it, you know, just goes away?

You are all starting to sound like George Bush with this simplistic crap.
posted by tkchrist at 4:39 PM on July 29, 2005

What makes you think the USA isn't already the #1 threat? Can you name another nation that has gone overseas to invade a country this past fifty years?

Give any number of countries the U.S. military power and see if you can still make that statement. Give Korea our nukes and see what happens. Hell, put them next to Canada. Feel better?

Throwing out deluded accusations clouds any real substance you may have had.
posted by justgary at 5:24 PM on July 29, 2005

I remember on 9/11 Netan"yahoo" was on CNN going on about Iran being the number one threat to world security and implying the terrorist attacks were their doing. There are people in this administration and in Israel who have a hard on for Iran, but there is no way they can "retaliate" against Iran if Iran has nothing to do with a future terrorist attack on the U.S. The whole world would send America to Coventry. And as an Iranian born US citizen I'd be obligated to pee on every salad bar from here to Seattle. Fair warning!
posted by Devils Slide at 5:30 PM on July 29, 2005

Give any number of countries the U.S. military power and see if you can still make that statement. Give Korea our nukes and see what happens. Hell, put them next to Canada.

Well, not that I want to get into this debate, but that's not really the point is, it?

I thin it's time for me to say if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle, so what's your point?
posted by chaz at 5:35 PM on July 29, 2005

I thin it's time for me to say if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle, so what's your point?

LOL. Sorry. I just had to see it print again.
posted by tkchrist at 5:44 PM on July 29, 2005

As chaz sez.

The USA is what the USA does.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:52 PM on July 29, 2005

Do you know what empires in times past did? I assure you in the exporting murder department we in the US are amateurs.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Roman Empire, Hitler's Germany, insert past empire here didn't influence or threaten the entire planet like this country does now.

What country anywhere had the potential for such destruction as this one does now?

as three fresh fish said, there are examples running back to nearly the creation of this country of unneccesary military aggressions and overthrowing of governments.
This needs to stop, 'cause as we all know who've read our history, *payback is a bitch* and this country's karma is running substantially into the negative numbers these days.

What kind of mindset is running this country now?

tkchrist, you're the one navel gazing. Or maybe you're gazing *up* into something narrow and dark. . .
posted by mk1gti at 6:24 PM on July 29, 2005

Metafilter: If your aunt had a dick, she'd be your uncle.
posted by blasdelf at 8:30 PM on July 29, 2005

Balisong :Any newcommer to the nuke game, while having to work in secret (no tests), probably won't be able to make one smaller than a truck.

Or say a lead lined shipping container?
posted by Iax at 12:30 AM on July 30, 2005

"Give any number of countries the U.S. military power and see if you can still make that statement."

I'll speak for Canada. Canada is relatively weak militarily because of social choices we make, not by accident. You are proving the point. Name any measure of positively evaluating a nation on which Canada doesn't surpass the United States -- there are only two you can come up with: military power & raw wealth. But many people do not consider military power a positive, and you stole most of your wealth in various ways.
posted by lastobelus at 7:24 AM on July 30, 2005

I think there is much to be said on enriching society and civilization by taking care of one's people and personal rights in non-military ways. The fact that Vancouver B.C. has the number 2 highest standard of living worldwide says much.
posted by mk1gti at 12:46 PM on July 30, 2005

Whoops, apparently *#1*, my bad . . .
posted by mk1gti at 12:48 PM on July 30, 2005

Interesting, that.

Two points: Vancouver city proper is a very small area that encompasses Kitsilano, False Creek, and the exlusive UBC properties. Those are likely some of the most expensive areas in Canada.

Second, a quick walk past Yaletown into the Hastings area will show that its denizens have it hella tough. From multimillion dollar condominiums of exclusive wealth, to some of the most destitute people in Canada, in a six-block walk. That sucks.

For a wealthy, wealthy city, they sure treat their homeless like shit. The Woodwards building has sat empty for, god, must be going on two decades now: all attempts to open it for low-income housing have been shot down. Two decades of homelessness could have been solved, but nooooo. Better to ignore them.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:20 PM on July 30, 2005

"Name any measure of positively evaluating a nation on which Canada doesn't surpass the United States..."

People don't die in the waiting room because health care is rationed. I am friends with a woman whose child died in the waiting room in a Canadian hospital from a ruptured appendix. Her daughter sat for hours and was ignored. It's common for Canadians with the money to do so to come to the U.S. for medical care.

The private practice of medicine is illegal in Canada.

There's one.

Two. In Canada, a man's property and children can be take from him by the state and given to his wife or girlfriend on the mere accusation (not conviction) of domestic violence charges. Canada has simply given in to the feminist domestic violence hysteria and suspended due process for men.

Canada has even debated extending the privileges of confiscating a man's property to women that he dates.

Three. Canada maintains a small military presence because it ultimately relies on the U.S. for its defense. In short, it's ripping off the U.S., while smugly enjoying the ride.

Four. The City of Toronto recently banned Miss World from appearing in a local festival wearing her sash, on the grounds that doing so would degrade women.

Not long before, the City had staged a Gay Pride parade in which naked men walked down the street.

Canada is the PC capital of the universe.

If you are actually a man (and I mean a straight one), and you live in Canada, you've got rocks in your head.

Well, I suppose that out in the Western states, free from the PC idiocy of the Parliament, some old fashioned cowboys can survive.
posted by Shouting at 6:16 AM on July 31, 2005

As a Canuck who is absolutely confident that our nation beats the USA hands-down for personal freedoms, personal safety, equality of citizens, fairness in the application of law, and compassion for the disadvantaged...

...I'm not even going to counter the idiot spew you posted. You're a clueless, lying, and boring schmuck, Shouting.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:20 AM on July 31, 2005

Note to digaman: I said "either way" this is vaporware. By that I mean it's vaporware as a threat, but more literally vaporware if they use the nukes. The ultimate offer they can't refuse.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:10 PM on July 31, 2005

The Roman Empire, Hitler's Germany, insert past empire here didn't influence or threaten the entire planet like this country does now.

Niiiice. And irrelevant. They never quite had the technology to "threaten" on the power scale we can. But for the level of technology empires passed possessed (say THAT five times fast) they certainly made a go at destroying entire civilizations.

The Japanese, the British, the French, the Dutch, the Belgians, and for gawd's sake how can we forget the Spanish! These empires destroyed - wiped clean from the earth entire civilizations.

So you you conveniently left out all but the most obviously "evil" and forgot about currently "friendly" European former Empires. Who didn't merely threaten to kill millions - THEY DID KILL MILLIONS. Gun's, Germs and Steel bud.

So. Knock it off. All of you. mk1gti - what in the hell are you talking about? Do you or do you not think the US is Evil? IF you do, then you got some serious 'splain'n to do sit'n there suck'n off evils tit.

And what as that dark hole thing.. like a black hole, a butt hole... wha.... huh?
posted by tkchrist at 12:34 PM on August 1, 2005

The USA isn't evil. Some of its institutions and administrations are, though.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:01 PM on August 1, 2005

The USA isn't evil. Some of its institutions and administrations are, though.

Ok. That is at least a more honest and workable assessment. Though I would ad - in my opinion - that there have been few truly "evil" administrations or institutions in the US. At least not as far as intents. Sure. Ends do not justify the means and "the road to hell" and all. Many of the worst atrocities in human history have been the result of very selfless (yes, self-LESS) people, who in in their hearts, felt they were doing nothing but good for all man kind.

I would say there are a few fairly misguided and sometimes "evil" individuals that for either personal profit or extremist philosophy have manipulated what would normally a positive moral force (or at least a morally neutral system) into something unspeakably bad.

And I believe that the US - over all. Has been a positive force in the world. And if I did not I would dedicate my life to bringing the mother fucker down every waking moment.
posted by tkchrist at 2:21 PM on August 2, 2005

It's probably best for your psyche, not to mention your continued physical well-being, that you believe that. It certainly makes it easier to be a US American, I should think.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:33 PM on August 2, 2005