Well, it seems as though by invading Iraq we have saved the world from Mad Scientist Hussein, according to Mr. Asscroft
“evil biology”? Good grief.
“Evil biology” - the irony is a little overpowering:
*"Malcolm Dando, professor of international security at the University of Bradford, and Mark Wheelis, a lecturer in microbiology at the University of California, say that the US is encouraging a breakdown in arms control by its research into biological cluster bombs, anthrax and non-lethal weapons for use against hostile crowds, and by the secrecy under which these programmes are being conducted.
“There can be disagreement over whether what the United States is doing represents violations of treaties,” Mr Wheelis told the Guardian. “But what is happening is at least so close to the borderline as to be destabilising.”
In a paper to be published soon in the scientific journal Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the two academics focus on recent US actions that have served to undermine the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. In a move that stunned the international community last July, the US blocked an attempt to give the convention some teeth with inspections, so that member countries could check if others were keeping the agreement. "*
- Did the U.S. Senate ratifiy the International Chemical Weapons Treaty yet, I don’t think they have . . .
And the other thing I don’t quite get is how this works in the US; he’s the Attorney General, is he paid to be an expert on US Foreign Policy ? It’s the same with these US Generals who keep preaching about how God is on their side; they’re military people, they’re not paid (by the public) to pronounce on religious matters.
And who the fuck do they think they are, anyway; get on with General-type stuff and shut the fuck up because no one cares, you aren’t an expert and your public profile and office is related to an entirely different area of expertise/professionalisam.
Weird, just weird, how they assume this ‘importance’ on any matter that suits them – ‘course, Ashcroft’s as nuts as the rest of the administration so, in his case, it’s perfectly la la.
In other news…. I’ve just filled out my request for an absentee ballot and will be sending it away this afternoon.
Wish me luck.
Well, one thing has changed. I dont remember reading the word "unilateral" in this thread. I was gettin sick of that one.
Speaking of evil biology, have they figured out which nation was behind the production of the weaponized anthrax the showed up in Amercan mailboxes a few years ago?
I’m a little surprised no ones tried to pin that on Valery Plame.
I think he was just referring to his creationist beliefs.
Daniel
Dammit, the first time I ever get to use the word “oligopsony” for real and I blow it. I hate that.
Re the Big Dog theory, do any of the Children of a Lesser Dog not know that most of the US’s combat strength is now tied up, and for years to come? They have less reason to fear now than before, and more reason to hate. But those whose concepts of morality ceased developing back in the schoolyard might not understand how it can work against you at times.
Someone explain this big dawg theory to me.
Thanks.
And DITTO for BOOKS! 
I never went to Evil Medical School, myself. I majored in Evil Software design.
Whenever you get a system crash, that’s MY fault. Muahhahahahha!!
It’s the Scylla version of the Big Dick theory.
I have a big dick, but I know nothing about the theory behind it.
Feel free to enlighten me.
“trending left”?
Please. This board is Dan Rather’s wet friggin dream.
It’s difficult to explain without invoking **Scylla’s[/b[ school days, his Grandpappy and Paw, and the NYPD, and serving ones country and a few soft focused images of kids running through wheat fields in long-off safer times . . . I’ll think I’ll leave it for someone else.
Interestingly (and this subject has come up before), from my European perspective, Dan Rather looks like a mild conservative, and this board is full of right-wingers. I guess therefore from an international - as opposed to US-centric - perspective, the board might actually have a fair representation of the political spectrum.
How about this. I’ve heard 2 versions of this theory.
- We are the big dog, and we push around whoever we need to.
- If you beat up the biggest dog, all the rest of them will fall into line.
Someone just give me the gist so I know what the fuck you’re all talking about.
Thanks
No matter if anyone says “1” or “2”, Scylla will complain about being maliciously misrepresented by the liberal conspirators, er, “persecutors” of the SDMB. Let him tell you.
I think he’s mixing up the fact that his office was supposed to deal with 9/11, seeing as it was a * ** crime perpetrated by criminals, ** * not an act of war. But this administration is obviously extremely confused about lots of things. (Like what “uniting” and “dividing” mean. I still can’t get over the bitter, ugly, horribly frustrating irony of what he said he was vs what he is. )
You’re probably right, but if it’s a Tuesday, aren’t “terrorists” illegal combatants ?
Yep, but is the irony as scary as almost the whole population of the US being utterly fucking clueless about the kinds of things their Government(s) continue to do in their name every single day – almost nobody in the US would spot the irony in Ashcroft’s statement because you only get to irony if you have the information first.
And it’s got nothing to do with “conservative” or “liberal” - whoever was into that red Herring crap again - it’s information, just information, crucial to a well-informed democracy.
Poor World Eater, nobody will give him the Straight Dope…
I’d go for 1), if I’ve understood Scylla correctly. It’s really just a modern version of the Big Stick approach to international relations: you know, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Spavined Gelding labeled it the “Big Dawg” approach a couple of months ago and the name just kinda stuck.
I believe Scylla was also trying to illustrate the theory by jumping into this thread with both feet. Behold the Big Dawg in action:
I don’t think it’s working out too well for him, however.
I try not to, but I still can’t fathom why anyone would vote for a guy who lied about Iraqi WMDs to start a war, endanger their lives, and stick them in a hell-hole like Iraq for months on end. Every time I hear about about a serviceman whose Iraq tour has been extended by another 6 months, I have to stifle the urge to yell “Don’t vote for the idiot who put you there!”
And really, how much worse would a Democratic President be? What would a (hypothetical) President Dean do, triple the daily rations of MREs and force the troops to go on patrol in thong bikinis?