Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 499 Editor's Choice: 5
-
@prunes
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Listen to yourself, and the points at which I agree and disagree with you.
Agreed:
There are a ton of bad consequences to Iran using a nuke, and one would think that those consequences would weigh heavily in the decisions Iran makes.
Disagreed:
I don't trust the current leadership of Iran, and I don't trust their hold on power. Look at Pakistan, they have nukes, do you trust Musharraf to keep them secure?...do you think there's much chance of a coup there?...then what? It's not as simple as "Iran won't launch because it would kill them."
Listen to yourself: "soooooo frightening that those cave-dwelling Arabs will clamor for their leaders to seek mercy from the omnipotent American demigods" Your sarcastic comment sounds like an argument against your reliance on MAD.
Your candidate: I shouldn't presume who that is. I hope it's Nader. In any case, it is not George Bush (as you suggest), but Hillary Clinton who has spoken about obliterating Iran.
-
@L.W.M.
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Interesting point LWM, the missiles can't reach us.
How many years do you think it will take before they can?
And then? You can thank Ronald Reagan for having the foresight (over 20 years ago) to start development of anti-missile technology, which is now coming to fruition.
I remember when liberals thought Reagan's talk about star wars and anti-missile technology was a ridiculous fairy tale.
Thanks for the opportunity to remind those that did, how wrong they were.
-
@Paul Daniel Ash
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you think the shootdown of the satellite, by a missile launched from a navy ship, is the sole indicator of our developing anti-missile technology. Think again.
There are enough pieces to this puzzle in the public domain to allow one to see that our ability to counter missiles is growing.
I acknowledge Reagan, among others (usually castigated by the left), for promoting that growth.
Here's one example:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/
-
Bald Man
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]According to this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23265613/
"The USS Lake Erie, armed with an SM-3 missile designed to knock down incoming missiles — not orbiting satellites — launched the attack at 10:26 p.m. ET (0326 GMT Thursday), according to the Pentagon. It hit the satellite as the spacecraft traveled at more than 17,000 mph (27,000 kilometers per hour)."
Combine that with the previous link to a laser based weapon, and the conclusion I draw, anti-missile technology is advancing, is not due to gullibility. Nor is the source of the data leading to those conclusions the work of a neo-con.
Time to get new pair of prescription sun glasses to help you see things more clearly.
Thank Ronald Reagan when you do.
-
@You All
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, I added the Reagan stuff to jab you a little. You got it coming.
But to think that our defense industry has not advanced our anti-missile technology requires belief in a vast right-wing conspiracy that I don't think even sidney blumenthal would try to get past the public....could be wrong about that last part.
It's like you're members of a cult or something.
Vote Nader.
-
baldosity
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You did.
The battle, not the war baldster.
Vote Nader
-
8 Paragraphs of Straw Man Arguments, then some substance
[Read the article: The peak oil culture wars]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Andy,
You and paul build an army of straw men in the first 8 paragraphs of your piece, finally getting at what conservatives truly find abhorent "cap-and-trade carbon-dioxide emissions limiting system".
The idea that Republicans don't like riding mass transit, and therefore discount global warming and peak-oil, is silly, and it ignores a lot.
Let's look at the other side;
1) ted kennedy : opposes construction of the wind turbines near his summer home. Wind power is one of the cleanest forms of energy production,but,...it might spoil ted's view.
2) hollywood liberals - limousines, jets, exotic high-performance gas guzzling sports cars.
3) al gore - Look how big he is,...and he lectures us about consumption.
Let's have a culture war. I can already here the liberals come up with all kinds of excuses, and special exemptions, to pardon their excessively large carbon footprints.
Why don't you compare George Bush's private home to big al gore's?
Back to the idea of the government enacting laws, taxes, fines, to control CO2 emissions, and energy consumption.
I don't trust the government to solve these problems. I think CAFE limits are of little value, when I look at the price of gas, and the types of cars that the manufacturers are promoting. The public will demand, and get, fuel efficient cars when that public sees the benefit (money in their pocket). Hybrids don't exist because of a government mandate. They exist because creative private organizations began producting them. CAFE, on the other hand, will hurt those that use large vehicles to tow boats, campers, or (god forbid) their large family.
The government, on the other hand, is likely to screw things up. Case in point; ethanol mandates. We have put money in the hands of farmers (including large corporate farms) and in those producing ethanol, and what have we got in return?...higher food prices.
The poorest of the poor are harmed by the stupid ethanol mandate. They subsidize the wealthy power brokers who think they are actually solving a problem. Our government, acting as if it knows better than the common man, is what p!$$#$ off conservatives,...not riding the bus.
-
Say No to sidney
[Read the article: Hillary enters death-with-dignity phase]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please don't re-hire sidney blumenthal when billary folds.
-
NARAL - why now?
[Read the article: Clinton supporters push back against NARAL endorsement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because NARAL's a negative.
When was the last time you heard a politician go out of their way to discuss abortion?
I wish NARAL came out strong in the middle of the democrat convention, when their endorsement could do the most damage.