<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: White House Whines for More Nukes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://garlinggauge.com/2007/06/21/white-house-whines-for-more-nukes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://garlinggauge.com/2007/06/21/white-house-whines-for-more-nukes/</link>
	<description>Progressive &#38; Humorous Gauge of U.S. Politics, Elections, Society &#38; Media</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:44:20 +0000</pubDate>
	
		<item>
		<title>By: <![CDATA[rh]]></title>
		<link>http://garlinggauge.com/2007/06/21/white-house-whines-for-more-nukes/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://garlinggauge.com/?p=73#comment-53</guid>
		<description>Who the heck are they trying to kid?  Nuclear deterrents went out of style in 1989!  I think the house dems were great to block this, but I think they  failed to make as big a deal out of de-nuking amerika as they should have.  Where are we ever going to send nearly 10,000 NUCLEAR WEAPONS?  The deterrent effect works with one nuke (ask north korea) and there aren't 10,000 places to send them on the entire planet.  Obliterating cities doesn't stop terrorists, it just gives 'em hope that they'll one day get their hands on a big enough bomb to *really*  piss off the entire peace-loving world.  The only thing I remember as good about the 80's was all the talk about nuclear disarmament, and now here we go with idiot-boy-wonder-george and talking about newer, more reliable, WMD's.  What, he just can't bear the thought that maybe when he wants to blow up a whole civilization, there's a 3% chance that one of the bombs will be a dud and a few of them will survive?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who the heck are they trying to kid?  Nuclear deterrents went out of style in 1989!  I think the house dems were great to block this, but I think they  failed to make as big a deal out of de-nuking amerika as they should have.  Where are we ever going to send nearly 10,000 NUCLEAR WEAPONS?  The deterrent effect works with one nuke (ask north korea) and there aren&#8217;t 10,000 places to send them on the entire planet.  Obliterating cities doesn&#8217;t stop terrorists, it just gives &#8216;em hope that they&#8217;ll one day get their hands on a big enough bomb to *really*  piss off the entire peace-loving world.  The only thing I remember as good about the 80&#8217;s was all the talk about nuclear disarmament, and now here we go with idiot-boy-wonder-george and talking about newer, more reliable, WMD&#8217;s.  What, he just can&#8217;t bear the thought that maybe when he wants to blow up a whole civilization, there&#8217;s a 3% chance that one of the bombs will be a dud and a few of them will survive?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
