|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/17/2008 12:51:37 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
China. Our departure helped lead to the Japanese massacre in Nanking and their almost successful attempt at conquering the whole of Asia.
That is something I have never read or heard of that we were in China in the '30s. It would make sense because of the revolution more than anything though.
quote:
It isn't GWBs fault that Russia would like to reconquer it's lost lands, it isn't GWBs fault that there are still countries bent on war. That has never changed.
His attitude in dealing with the Russians is his fault. Pulling out of the ABM treaty by putting missile shields in Europe was a slap against them and goes against the reasons he gave for pulling out in the first place. The continued expanding of NATO into eastern europe and into former Soviet states is another thing. They have no business period into expanding past Cuba in this hemisphere. We have no business extending a Cold War alliance into former Soviet territories.
Ironically anyone here on CW the last few years who has said Russia was anything more than a kicked and crippled dog was rebuked because they were "a defeated Cold War foe who is nothing anymore". That's how Dubya has treated them and he has been stretching his already bankrupt foreign policy even more.
quote:
You won't get any arguement from me there but can't you see how unsensical it is to accuse the UN of not protecting nations then suggest that we pull our troops out of our allies lands?
I don't believe we have any business interfering militarily in former Soviet States even with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia which are the three that were actuall nations in the last century. I don't believe in expanding NATO into the former Warsaw Pact areas either but that is a little more sensical than former Soviet areas.
quote:
If we pull back and cut funding there will be no incentive to maintain a ready force leading to what we had before WWII, a horribly unprepared war machine which required a retooling of manufacturing never seen before, a manufacturing base we no longer have. Also we are at a disadvantage in any incident in which we have to mobilize to even begin to attack. We won't have the airbases we now have to use as launching points, we will have to bring with us everything we need as we will lose our mobility readiness that we gain by having refueling planes stationed on foreign soil and having supplies prestationed with existing resources. Instead of the force we have now that is ready to go in days we would be stuck scrounging parts and supplies and transporting them around the globe instead of around the corner.
What exactly is our military ready for right now because of the effect of the two wars we have concurrently going on? There will never be another world war 2 combat has changed too much. There will be a never ending run of Koreas, Vietnams, Falkland Island and Iraq type wars that are done on limited budgets with limited objectives and limited results because that is how politcians choose to conduct wars now.
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/17/2008 12:57:57 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 630
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
His attitude in dealing with the Russians is his fault. Pulling out of the ABM treaty by putting missile shields in Europe was a slap against them and goes against the reasons he gave for pulling out in the first place. The continued expanding of NATO into eastern europe and into former Soviet states is another thing. They have no business period into expanding past Cuba in this hemisphere. We have no business extending a Cold War alliance into former Soviet territories.
yeah how dare he offer aid to an ally of ours (georgia).
quote:
Ironically anyone here on CW the last few years who has said Russia was anything more than a kicked and crippled dog was rebuked because they were "a defeated Cold War foe who is nothing anymore". That's how Dubya has treated them and his foreign policy stretching his already bankrupt foreign policy even more.
so your idea of the way to handle eastern Europe would be to sit back and wait for them to be reconquered at a great loss of life?
quote:
I don't believe we have any business interfering militarily in former Soviet States
Why not? If any of those nations have chosen to ally with us why shouldn't we help them?
quote:
What exactly is our military ready for right now because of the effect of the two wars we have concurrently going on?
we are able to support those two wars for starters. I repeat if we lose our footing overseas we lose our ability to respond in a timely fashion and without greater loss of life since we would have to fight for a foothold before we could begin supplying our forces effectively or would have to supply them from further away.
I guess the word ally means nothing to some here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/17/2008 6:55:38 PM
|
|
|
leonfigg3
Posts: 377
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
quote:
ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear
Budget cuts on the DoD could actually help out our standing in the world.
You know this how?
Ron Paul and Dwight D. Eisenhower
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
quote:
ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear
This imperial attitude some of you folks have to interfer in the affairs of foreign country's problems with their neighbors is not what the founding fathers envisioned for this country.
The more I hear people say what they think our fore fathers had in mind, in regard ot our national defense, the more I am convinced no one really knows what our fore fathers really had in mind.
"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all . . . The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
—George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
—Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
"America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity . . . She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart . . . Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy . . . She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . . . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit . . ."
—John Quincy Adams, 1821
it is interestng that everytime a question comes up about our national defense and our military, people respond with the same quotes about what our fore fathers had to say about diplomacy and about alliances with other countries. There is very little, if any response about the influnce that history has clearly had on America and its growing need for a strong defense and ability to fight for our ideals when and where we have seen a need to do so. Our fore fathers may have had certain views about how America should work with the rest of the world, reality and the course of human events have stired this country down a different road.
That is not to say that the words of our fore fathers have been neglected. It does mean that they were and have been used as guiding principles in the way we have decided to perform the function in the world that has been set for us.
I might be wrong, but from my reading of history, America has not allied with countries until after we have decided to do what is right, and the alliances that were made were done in a way that helped us do what was right.
I agree that George Washington was a wise man, and his presidency set the course and guiding principles for our country. However, his view of the world, and America's place in it was applicable to that point in history. That is not to say that it is not good councel, it means this world has changed greatly from the late 1700s.
Also, in his Farewell Address, George Washington had a lot more to say about the dangers of political parties and special interests in America than he had to say about our foreign relations, but hardly anyone tends to quote what he said about those matters. (But that is a different subject.)
I also find quotes by Thomas Jefferson quite interesting since he was a wordsmith of the first order and a consumate politician who often argued, from what I have read about him, two opposing views of the same political arguement, at the same time. He also authorized military action-Barbary Coast Pirates- that (IMO) set us apart from the rest of the world militarily, and more than anything set apart our image as a world super power, for all time.
I am sorry to say I have not read, or learned very much about John Quincy Adams, so I will not comment about his views.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/18/2008 10:27:33 AM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 869
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear
quote:
ORIGINAL: letusreason
So you think Iraq was invaded for "animosity"? Please explain.
I feel like I'm arguing with an English teacher. 
Go ahead and pick one -
Why we went to war in Iraq: All 24 reasons
There's a few that'll fall under animosity.
As usual, you avoided the context of my post, which had to do with what the Founding Fathers would think of all of our world-wide military involvement.
I Backed It Up.
"Cut & Paste"? You got an alternative? Your own paraphrase?
12. Because We Can
Looks like one of Clinton's sex with interns reasons got in there. uh oh.
It's too bad Clinton couldn't use that reason to apprehend Osama Bin !! It may have spared GW and the rest of us some head ache!! not to mention precious lives.
Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.(Emphasis added.) This allegation has always been inconvenient for the "absolutely no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda" club. (Richard Clarke, a charter member, handles the problem in his book by limiting the 1998 indictment to a fleeting mention and assiduously avoiding any description of what the indictment actually says.)
If the worst criticism of President Bush is that he lied to us about Iraq, then we just got a whopping reminder of Bill Clinton's extraordinary talents for deception.
Anyways, the folly you post from Dailykos is just mind numbing liberal drivel that could be applied to the easter bunny delivering eggs it's so historically irrelevant and bankrupt of reason.
Thanks for complementing my eloquent command of the english language.
Or maybe you think I'm schooling you what ever works.
please can you post something serious and accurate without the laughy faces?
Otherwise carry on with your folly, it it is your prerogative.
< Message edited by letusreason -- 11/18/2008 10:36:30 AM >
_____________________________
Proverbs 16:2
All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/18/2008 10:34:20 AM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 869
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
The continued expanding of NATO into eastern europe and into former Soviet states is another thing. They have no business period into expanding past Cuba in this hemisphere. We have no business extending a Cold War alliance into former Soviet territories.
I was just wondering if that is your personal preference like your favorite color or what? Do you have any historical precedence for that statement? Quotes from our allies? Anything?
You are certainly entitled to say that but I was hoping for some more substance in the shell of your dogmatic statement.
Maybe defining "business" would help. Ambiguous words never help make a strong point, do you agree?
_____________________________
Proverbs 16:2
All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/18/2008 11:19:20 AM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10358
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
China. Our departure helped lead to the Japanese massacre in Nanking and their almost successful attempt at conquering the whole of Asia.
That is something I have never read or heard of that we were in China in the '30s. It would make sense because of the revolution more than anything though.
I must edit the above, for it's not quite accurate. We did have a detachment of about 2000 Marines to protect the international community in Shanghai from 1927 until 1941, they were known as China Marines. I erred in my statement that their departure led to the rape of Nanking. The Chinese revolution and the Sino-Japanese war were within miles of the settlement, however due to official US policy of non-involvement they became basically a police force for the International Community.
I contend however that if not for the non-involvement policy of our government at the time Nanking could have been saved and perhaps the Japanese might not have gone for conquest of Asia, not to mention that Mao may not have come to power. But also, the Marines at that time were not looked upon as a valued fighting force.
_____________________________
We will be known as His by the love we show one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/18/2008 12:44:06 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
so your idea of the way to handle eastern Europe would be to sit back and wait for them to be reconquered at a great loss of life?
The 3 Baltic States were never conquered. Ukraine was once Kiev Rus the hub of Russia. Belarus was never conquered. The rest of the countries were liberated by the USSR and divided up between the UK, USA and USSR so they were hardly "conquered" by Russia so they obviously can't be "reconquered".
quote:
Why not? If any of those nations have chosen to ally with us why shouldn't we help them?
From that area no. I do seem to remember when Russia put some defensive missiles in Cuba in the 1960s we got just a wee bit upset over it. So upset as a matter of fact that we were the closest we ever were to using ours. Why should we expand right next to Russia? Why pull out of the ABM treaty because we need to protect ourselves from the missiles of "rogue states" then put them in countries whose only fear of missiles is from Russia?
quote:
yeah how dare he offer aid to an ally of ours (georgia).
What reason is there to expand into Georgia?
quote:
Do you have any historical precedence for that statement?
Reagan and Carter both invoked the Monroe doctrine for intervening in El Salvador and Nicarauga are the two most obvious ones that come to my mind. It was applied throughout the Cold War after the fall of Cuba in this hemisphere.
quote:
I contend however that if not for the non-involvement policy of our government at the time Nanking could have been saved and perhaps the Japanese might not have gone for conquest of Asia, not to mention that Mao may not have come to power. But also, the Marines at that time were not looked upon as a valued fighting force.
Not too sure on Mao. Chiang was far too corrupt and incompetent to compete with anyone more competent than Gargamel and Azrael.* He also had access to an impressive amount of US equipment after the war to and still couldn't finish the deal.
Isolationism was more than just our government at the time it was our people and it was the very fabric of our identity. Our military at the time I think consisted of 5 divisions? There was little we could do without mobilizing and I don't believe that Roosevelt could have gotten any support from either party. He did what he could with the embargoes literally forcing the Japanese to attack the US so they could get the oil they needed to conquer Asia.
It is still interesting on the Marines though. I didn't realize we had anyone over there before we entered the war except for mercenary types such as Chenault's flying tigers.
*Little story I read once about the problems with the Chinese military. Stilwell got to witness a display from a Chinese division that was supposed to be there best division. It was one of the few that had adequate artillery. Some time after this the division was engaged with a Japanese force and was getting it's rear handed to it. Stilwell observed that the division wasn't using its artillery so he mentioned it to the commander. The commander's response was "well if we use our artillery and it gets destroyed than we wouldn't be the best division anymore".
Somewhere in the Eddie Bauer's Encyclopedia of WW 2, lol.
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/18/2008 3:22:50 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 630
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
From that area no. I do seem to remember when Russia put some defensive missiles in Cuba in the 1960s we got just a wee bit upset over it. So upset as a matter of fact that we were the closest we ever were to using ours. Why should we expand right next to Russia? Why pull out of the ABM treaty because we need to protect ourselves from the missiles of "rogue states" then put them in countries whose only fear of missiles is from Russia?
they weren't defensive missles, they were nuclear missles BIG difference.
quote:
What reason is there to expand into Georgia?
so we should choose our Allys georgraphically not for whether they will align themselves with us?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/18/2008 3:53:25 PM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 869
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
Do you have any historical precedence for that statement?
Reagan and Carter both invoked the Monroe doctrine for intervening in El Salvador and Nicarauga are the two most obvious ones that come to my mind. It was applied throughout the Cold War after the fall of Cuba in this hemisphere.
Um maybe I'm misunderstanding you or vice versa, but I wasn't asking for examples of Presidents invoking Monroe Doctrine but why you are saying we have "no business".
Again, defining business would help me know what the heck you are talking about.
_____________________________
Proverbs 16:2
All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/18/2008 11:32:51 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
Um maybe I'm misunderstanding you or vice versa, but I wasn't asking for examples of Presidents invoking Monroe Doctrine but why you are saying we have "no business".
Both. We have no business expanding NATO into former Russian territories anymore than they have "business" expanding their influence into our hemisphere. I'm sure that there are many who disagree with that since after all we are the USA and we are given some sort of divine mandate from the Lord Almighty to do whatever we want, whenever we want to whoever we want.
quote:
so we should choose our Allys georgraphically not for whether they will align themselves with us?
Choosing an "ally" and choosing a "NATO" member aren't the same thing. What reason is there to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into former Soviet territories when there is no Soviet Union?
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/18/2008 11:37:46 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
they weren't defensive missles, they were nuclear missles BIG difference.
During the Cold War they were one and the same when the defense used by both sides was MAD. (Mutual Assured Destruction) When one looks at the deployment of western troops compared to their eastern counterparts there was no possible way that the western troops could have held back the eastern ones. Had they invaded we'd have used nukes. Conversely if we would have held up (which many said wouldn't have happened) let alone launched a conventional attack into eastern europe the purpose of the Warsaw Pact Satellites was to be a no mans land for the Russians to nuke the western armies. The 1972 ABM treaty was signed by both sides just to make sure that no one side could get an edge and to make sure that MAD would continue.
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/19/2008 5:08:46 AM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 630
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
so we should choose our Allys georgraphically not for whether they will align themselves with us?
Choosing an "ally" and choosing a "NATO" member aren't the same thing. What reason is there to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into former Soviet territories when there is no Soviet Union?
Correct me if i am wrong but NATO is a group of allys who have signed a mutual defense treaty correct? Now also correct me if I am wrong but Georgia is now considered out ally? Now as an ally country, who has shown a willingness to provide what meager support it can in our current war, doesn't it at least deserve to be give consideration to aid in and benefit from a mutual protection treaty?
No soviet union, no there's not but Russia isn't exactly playing friendly around the world right now either and i know you blame Bush for that but that only shows that you have an agenda and don't want to consider the possibility that the only thing that changed in Russia was the loss of sattelite states and an attempt at capitalism.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/19/2008 5:12:01 AM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 630
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
they weren't defensive missles, they were nuclear missles BIG difference.
During the Cold War they were one and the same when the defense used by both sides was MAD. (Mutual Assured Destruction) When one looks at the deployment of western troops compared to their eastern counterparts there was no possible way that the western troops could have held back the eastern ones. Had they invaded we'd have used nukes. Conversely if we would have held up (which many said wouldn't have happened) let alone launched a conventional attack into eastern europe the purpose of the Warsaw Pact Satellites was to be a no mans land for the Russians to nuke the western armies. The 1972 ABM treaty was signed by both sides just to make sure that no one side could get an edge and to make sure that MAD would continue.
But they were not defensive missles in the same way the missles we were to place in Georgia were. It is simply convenient that you name them that way to make an invalid point. The missles we were to place in Georgia were useless for pre-emptive attacks, they were purely a defensive measure. The missles that were headed for Cuba were capable of being used in a first strike capability.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/19/2008 11:24:39 AM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 869
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
Um maybe I'm misunderstanding you or vice versa, but I wasn't asking for examples of Presidents invoking Monroe Doctrine but why you are saying we have "no business".
Both. We have no business expanding NATO into former Russian territories anymore than they have "business" expanding their influence into our hemisphere. I'm sure that there are many who disagree with that since after all we are the USA and we are given some sort of divine mandate from the Lord Almighty to do whatever we want, whenever we want to whoever we want.
This is too silly and arbitrarily subjective to ignore.
This same logic would deem it unnecessary to NOT station our nuclear subs all over the world as well too right? We only need to keep our military near our country in this hemisphere right? After all aren't we demonstrating influence by the movement of our military as well?
The world is a war of influence. The one with the best influence wins. Sorry your faith in the USA is so weak or your disparagement so strong.
Don't be silly. If the USA had a mandate from the Lord and did what it wanted, Iraq would it's 51st state.
_____________________________
Proverbs 16:2
All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/19/2008 12:04:20 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
This same logic would deem it unnecessary to NOT station our nuclear subs all over the world as well too right? We only need to keep our military near our country in this hemisphere right? After all aren't we demonstrating influence by the movement of our military as well?
The purpose of nuclear subs is to keep our nuclear forces mobile so they cannot be destroyed in the event of a first strike by an enemy.
Once again, what is the purpose of Georgia other than to flaunt or supremacy over the Kremlin?
quote:
It is simply convenient that you name them that way to make an invalid point. The missles we were to place in Georgia were useless for pre-emptive attacks, they were purely a defensive measure.
And you still don't understand the purpose behind the ABM treaty and the logic (or is it illogic?) about those types of missiles. When a side gains the ability to intercept and negate the missiles (using missiles of course) of the other side the side with that ability now has complete first strike capability. Until 2001 that was the way things were. Of course it is awfully funny how our victory in the Cold War seems so wasted over the last 8 years.
quote:
Don't be silly. If the USA had a mandate from the Lord and did what it wanted, Iraq would it's 51st state.
The people in Iraq would have to vote on it and they clearly don't want that.
quote:
No soviet union, no there's not but Russia isn't exactly playing friendly around the world right now either and i know you blame Bush for that but that only shows that you have an agenda and don't want to consider the possibility that the only thing that changed in Russia was the loss of sattelite states and an attempt at capitalism.
If we were within our right to intervene in Kosovo to protect a bunch of lost Muslims why wasn't Russia within their right to intervene in Georgia to protect Russians?
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/19/2008 12:13:30 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
One more quick thing. What was our response to the Warsaw Solidarity movement in 1980 and why?
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/19/2008 12:26:45 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 630
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
One more quick thing. What was our response to the Warsaw Solidarity movement in 1980 and why?
Why don't you start by making a point then we can discuss from there.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/19/2008 12:33:46 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 630
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
Once again, what is the purpose of Georgia other than to flaunt or supremacy over the Kremlin?
TO SUPPORT AN ALLY OF THE UNITED STATES. I know you don't like it but that is the answer, Georgia is an ally of ours.
quote:
And you still don't understand the purpose behind the ABM treaty and the logic (or is it illogic?) about those types of missiles. When a side gains the ability to intercept and negate the missiles (using missiles of course) of the other side the side with that ability now has complete first strike capability. Until 2001 that was the way things were. Of course it is awfully funny how our victory in the Cold War seems so wasted over the last 8 years.
I didn't discuss the ABM treaty you did. I simply pointed out that the missles being delivered to Cuba were not defensive they were nukes. you will go to no end to trash Bush even if it means trashing your own country. You completely ignore that fact that in today's world it isn't any longer just Russia that has nukes that can harm our allys and in the not so distant future probably us which makes the original framework of the ABM is not suited for modern circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/19/2008 2:34:10 PM
|
|
|
RightlyDividingWordOfTruth
Posts: 47
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Oakland
Status: offline
|
It's crazy reading these threads from "Christians". The hate, disgust, anger, and pure venom coming off the screen is ridiculous. I get that same feeling from the No on Prop 8 allies here in CA. It's crazy.
Well, I am one who believes that no man is perfect. And I will not use government to legislate christian morality, when the church can't even get it right in their own "homes". I believe that America has done horrible things over seas and the fact that we still are "free" has angered those people overseas even more and given them reason to want to attack us and take away the freedoms that we have that they just don't.
Yes, it is possible that we will be tested we are a country at war in a transition. But, this has nothing to do with President Elect Obama. Instead of the hate language and hoping that he fails we should be praying that we are protected and God gives him wisdom and sets up his prophet around this man to lead this country. No matter how much I disliked Pres Bush I never wanted him to fail. I want to see Americans protected. I want to see terrorism stoped. I want to see democracy go forth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/20/2008 12:28:32 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
I simply pointed out that the missles being delivered to Cuba were not defensive they were nukes.
During the 1960s how did a nation defend itself against nukes?
quote:
Why don't you start by making a point then we can discuss from there.
The point being we didn't touch certain countries during the cold war beause they were under the Soviet sphere. Just like we didn't tolerate them messing in this hemisphere. See Hungary circa 1956 and Czechoslovakia circa 1968 and obviously Poland circa 1944 and 1980.
quote:
You completely ignore that fact that in today's world it isn't any longer just Russia that has nukes that can harm our allys and in the not so distant future probably us which makes the original framework of the ABM is not suited for modern circumstances.
MAD still works just fine. How about putting that missile shield in places that make sense like Israel. Turkey near the Dardanelles and near Incirlik. Kuwait which has been our most loyal ally. South Korea and Japan where we are toe to toe with one of the worlds true nuts. Hey, how about right here in the good old US of A? We'll put them in former Warsaw Pact countries and former Soviet Republics to laugh and rub it in the fact that they lost the Cold War. Can you give me any good reason for putting a missile shield in those areas and not the areas I mentioned? Something that has to do with long range strategic or grand strategic planning?
quote:
TO SUPPORT AN ALLY OF THE UNITED STATES. I know you don't like it but that is the answer, Georgia is an ally of ours.
What support did we actually give them? (None) What support can we currently give anyone right now with the stretched state of our military? (None) And God Bless Dubya and our country! That still doesn't change the answers to the first two questions does it?
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/20/2008 4:11:54 AM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 630
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
During the 1960s how did a nation defend itself against nukes?
purposeful ignorance of my points is annoying
quote:
The point being we didn't touch certain countries during the cold war beause they were under the Soviet sphere. Just like we didn't tolerate them messing in this hemisphere. See Hungary circa 1956 and Czechoslovakia circa 1968 and obviously Poland circa 1944 and 1980.
AND? Is it still 1968? We are speaking of us now helping AN ALLY.
quote:
MAD still works just fine.
We are done here, your inability to debate what i actually state and while instead setting up your straw men arguements has made this a fruitless discussion. Good day and God bless.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/20/2008 5:38:19 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
We are done here, your inability to debate what i actually state and while instead setting up your straw men arguements has made this a fruitless discussion. Good day and God bless
You defended nukes with your ability to nuke. Everyone looked for the biggest, fastest, most reliable, most efficient way to deliver enough megatonnonage to utterly annihilate the other side and all of its allies. It isn't ignorant that's how it was done. You should give up and leave.
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: as soon as President Bush is gone.. - 11/20/2008 5:42:34 AM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 630
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
We are done here, your inability to debate what i actually state and while instead setting up your straw men arguements has made this a fruitless discussion. Good day and God bless
You defended nukes with your ability to nuke. Everyone looked for the biggest, fastest, most reliable, most efficient way to deliver enough megatonnonage to utterly annihilate the other side and all of its allies. It isn't ignorant that's how it was done. You should give up and leave.
This is your common tactic, revel in it, you are the winner. You have ignored or misrepresented my arguements countless times. I am going to take my toys and go home now. Maybe one day you will be able to have a fruitful debate with someone where you actually acknowledge the statements they make instead of twisting them into half stuffed staw men and beating them down.
</ | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
