Beyond insane!

[Gem]

/news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_re_eu/belgium_us_russia_missiles_1

The director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said Thursday that Washington wants to base an anti-missile radar in the Caucasus, a move that could provoke a further rift with Russia.

Yep. That's what he said.

Gem
:cuckoo:

[glockmail]

Imagine that. Russia miffed about us wanting to defend against them. The nerve! :rolleyes:

[avatar4321]

If taking measures to defend ourselves annoys people, then I really think they should be annoyed because the only logical reason they would be annoyed for is that we arent going to be as easy to attack. That's all defense measures protect against.

[Gaffer]

If we can't pre-emptively strike them we can at least prevent them from pre-emptively striking us.

[Gem]

Let's allow the Russians to build a radar system for their defense right here in America too! We had "MAD"- "Mutually Assured Destruction". Why shouldn't we have another "MAD"- "Mutually Assured Defense"? That'd sure level the playing field!
Sound like a good idea?

Gem

[Mr. P]

Yep. That's what he said.

Gem
:cuckoo:


"In the modern world, security is indivisible. You can't ensure your own security if you provoke other nations' concerns about their security," Grushko said in a statement posted on the Foreign Ministry's Web site.
So why are they pissed if we do it? What's so cuckoo about security?

[Mr. P]

Let's allow the Russians to build a radar system for their defense right here in America too! We had "MAD"- "Mutually Assured Destruction". Why shouldn't we have another "MAD"- "Mutually Assured Defense"? That'd sure level the playing field!
Sound like a good idea?

Gem
Yer a fuckin idiot! Ya got anything at all? Anything, cept BS?

[Gem]

Yer a fuckin idiot! Ya got anything at all? Anything, cept BS?

Wotsa mattah, Mr. P? You support doing unto others that which you would not want done unto you?

Gem
:coffee:

[Gaffer]

Let's allow the Russians to build a radar system for their defense right here in America too! We had "MAD"- "Mutually Assured Destruction". Why shouldn't we have another "MAD"- "Mutually Assured Defense"? That'd sure level the playing field!
Sound like a good idea?

Gem

Level the playing field? That is a STUPID expression. If they have more tanks than we do should they give some to us to make it more even? They have thousands more rockets and warheads than we do, should they give uus some to make it more even? It's not a chess game.

The russians are not our friends. They want their power and prestiege back. puten is former kgb with no qualms about killing people off. And he's turning russia into another dictatorship one step at a time.

[Gaffer]

Wotsa mattah, Mr. P? You support doing unto others that which you would not want done unto you?

Gem
:coffee:

I support doing unto others BEFORE they do unto me. And besides a missile defense system is not for doing unto others but to prevent them froming doing.

[Gem]

Quoting Gaffer:


The russians are not our friends. They want their power and prestiege back. puten is former kgb with no qualms about killing people off. And he's turning russia into another dictatorship one step at a time.
__________________

I love learning new things, Gaffer. Tell me something I don't already know!

Gem

[Gem]

I support doing unto others BEFORE they do unto me. And besides a missile defense system is not for doing unto others but to prevent them froming doing.

From what you just wrote may I assume that you are not a Christian, Gaffer? Jewish, Muslim perhaps? That's their take on those kinds of issues too, you know!

Gem
:banana2:

[LiberalNation]

Would we feel threatned if they put their stuff up in Canada or down in Mexico and Cuba.

[Mr. P]

Would we feel threatned if they put their stuff up in Canada or down in Mexico and Cuba.

I am willing to bet there are already detection systems in Cuba. It's a non-aggressive form of defence. Gem is just stirring shit. With her suggestion of allowing a site in the USA.

[Sitarro]

I find it so cute when self proclaimed "progressives" defend such wonderful places as Russia over their own country.....so naive, so adorable.....so pathetic.

[Gem]

I am willing to bet there are already detection systems in Cuba. It's a non-aggressive form of defence. Gem is just stirring shit. With her suggestion of allowing a site in the USA.

Who's stirring shit, Mr.P? I'm just suggesting, as a matter of demonstrating integrity and trust, that we ask of ourselves the very same thing we're asking of the Russians. We're asking for their trust, shouldn't we be extending our trust to them as well?

Gem
:coffee:

[avatar4321]

Would we feel threatned if they put their stuff up in Canada or down in Mexico and Cuba.

I can promise you that I would not feel threatened if any nation helped Canada, Mexico, or Cuba put up defensive systems.

[avatar4321]

Who's stirring shit, Mr.P? I'm just suggesting, as a matter of demonstrating integrity and trust, that we ask of ourselves the very same thing we're asking of the Russians. We're asking for their trust, shouldn't we be extending our trust to them as well?

Gem
:coffee:

I think the real question is why do they distrust us for giving our allies the means to defend themselves from attacks.

Now if we were giving them offensive capabilities... yeah i could see potential reasons to distrust. But defense?

The only logical reason to be upset that your neighbors have stronger defenses is that you will have a more difficult time invading them.

[Mr. P]

Who's stirring shit, Mr.P? I'm just suggesting, as a matter of demonstrating integrity and trust, that we ask of ourselves the very same thing we're asking of the Russians. We're asking for their trust, shouldn't we be extending our trust to them as well?

Gem
:coffee:

So, as a matter of demonstrating integrity and trust, would you give a potential bad guy the code to your home security system? Or keep it to yourself for your personal security?

BTW..we aren't asking the Russians anything, and there really is no need to.

[CSM]

So, as a matter of demonstrating integrity and trust, would you give a potential bad guy the code to your home security system? Or keep it to yourself for your personal security?

Oh please. You know damn well that normal people like Gem don't have home security systems! The leave their doors unlocked with their valuables in plain sight....you know, as a way of demonstrating integrity and trust.

[Mr. P]

Oh please. You know damn well that normal people like Gem don't have home security systems! The leave their doors unlocked with their valuables in plain sight....you know, as a way of demonstrating integrity and trust.

Sorry..I did forget that.:laugh2:

[Gem]

Oh please. You know damn well that normal people like Gem don't have home security systems! The leave their doors unlocked with their valuables in plain sight....you know, as a way of demonstrating integrity and trust.

Actually where I live we can leave our doors open. But, no, I don't keep my valuables plain sight, and I've got my own form of "home security" plus I've got my back being watched 24/7- from three different directions! It's real quiet out here and it's real, real easy to tell when someone is lurking about!

Wanna check it out? :no: :ahole:

Gem
:coffee:

[Mr. P]

Actually where I live we can leave our doors open. But, no, I don't keep my valuables plain sight, and I've got my own form of "home security" plus I've got my back being watched 24/7- from three different directions! It's real quiet out here and it's real, real easy to tell when someone is lurking about!

Wanna check it out? :no: :ahole:

Gem
:coffee:
Well you need to invite the potential bad guys in then, that's what you sugested we do with the Russians. Let em put a site in the USA, Geeeezzzzzz. :cuckoo:

[LiberalNation]

I can promise you that I would not feel threatened if any nation helped Canada, Mexico, or Cuba put up defensive systems.

The defence systems would be put up by Russia for Russia.

[CSM]

Actually where I live we can leave our doors open. But, no, I don't keep my valuables plain sight, and I've got my own form of "home security" plus I've got my back being watched 24/7- from three different directions! It's real quiet out here and it's real, real easy to tell when someone is lurking about!

Wanna check it out? :no: :ahole:

Gem
:coffee:

SURE!!! PM me your grid, home address or whatever....you'll love a visit from me!

[Mr. P]

The defence systems would be put up by Russia for Russia.

Psssssttt, kid, come here a minute... Canada, Mexico, or Cuba would have to give the ok to Russia and cooperate.

See the problem?

[LiberalNation]

if they did give the okay.

[Mr. P]

if they did give the okay.
Cuba may and most likely has..no one else.

[LiberalNation]

They didn't..follow along. Cept Cuba maybe..
Theoretically if they did.

[Mr. P]

Theologically if they did.

If they who, did what?

[LiberalNation]

Go back and read what I said before.

Would we consider it a threat/bad if they put their defense stuff so close to us potentially thwarting any future attacks we might make.

[CSM]

Go back and read what I said before.

Would we consider it a threat/bad if they put their defense stuff so close to us potentially thwarting any future attacks we might make.

Actually, we probably would not consider it a threat. Such things have been done many times, especially during the cold war. Where the element of distrust comes from is BOTH sides used to (and still do) use the cover of a defensive system to hide clandestine information gathering systems (spying, if you like) or tout a dual role (offensive and defensive) system as purely defensive.

[trobinett]

Gem, and Liberal just don't get it, I guess they never will, or, and this is possible, they just play the "devils advocate" to, "stir the shit", like Mr. P suggest.

How else do you explain such lame defense of PROVEN enemy's.

I tell ya, the left just makes me shake my head in total discuss.

How do people like Gem think they are able to exercise such ridiculous thought patterns?

Where else would they be able to act, and talk like they do?

Do they think for one fucking moment, that ANY other nation would put up with such treasonous actions?

I think not.:fu:

[LiberalNation]

If you look at it from the other sides point of view you can more understand where they are coming from then decide wether the action is worth the fallout your going to get from them.

[mrg666]

Imagine that. Russia miffed about us wanting to defend against them. The nerve! :rolleyes:

we surely arent naive enough to even believe russia are ever a threat to the west?
surely
why would we want to inherit that poverty and chaos that they have got are they mad

[trobinett]

we surely arent naive enough to even believe russia are ever a threat to the west?
surely
why would we want to inherit that poverty and chaos that they have got are they mad

Oh, but ass wipes like Gem hold a light for the corner stone of communism, and the evil empire of the east The USSR. Russia is all thats left, and left to its own devices will self destruct. My only fear is they will take the world with them. Hence, the missile defense system.:slap:

[Dilloduck]

If you look at it from the other sides point of view you can more understand where they are coming from then decide wether the action is worth the fallout your going to get from them.

"Fallout"----good choice of words !! :laugh2:

[Gem]

Well you need to invite the potential bad guys in then, that's what you sugested we do with the Russians. Let em put a site in the USA, Geeeezzzzzz. :cuckoo:

Have you ever stopped to consider that the Russians might feel the same way about our intentions, Mr. P?

Gem
:salute:

[Dilloduck]

Have you ever stopped to consider that the Russians might feel the same way about our intentions, Mr. P?

Gem
:salute:

Did bin laden ever consider how America might react to the killing of non-combatants ?

[Gem]

Oh, but ass wipes like Gem hold a light for the corner stone of communism, and the evil empire of the east The USSR. Russia is all thats left, and left to its own devices will self destruct. My only fear is they will take the world with them. Hence, the missile defense system.:slap:

That's where you are very, very wrong, Trobinet. I am a capitalist, I make a profit on my labor, I own the means of my own production, I prefer to choose who I purchase my raw materials from and who I sell to and if any entity ever tried to tell me that what I bought and paid for was to become State property I'd be wielding a weapon against them right alongside you.

Gem

[Gem]

Did bin laden ever consider how America might react to the killing of non-combatants ?

Oh, I'm sure he knew. But we're not talking about bin Laden, and bin Laden was not Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Stick to the topic please and cease trying to divert and muddy the waters.

Thanks,

Gem

[avatar4321]

The defence systems would be put up by Russia for Russia.

What is so difficult for you to understand?

If nations set up defense systems, they do not threaten people unless those people are trying to ATTACK THEM!

Thus it doesnt matter what nation helped any of our neighbors set up defense systems. Those defense systems won't cause us any grief whatsoever because we dont go around attacking our neighbors.

In fact, we'd probably encourage our neighbors with their defense. Because the stronger their defense, the stronger OURS is.

[Dilloduck]

Oh, I'm sure he knew. But we're not talking about bin Laden, and bin Laden was not Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Stick to the topic please and cease trying to divert and muddy the waters.

Thanks,

Gem

Exactly how do you know he 'knew" and isn't the topic related to how peoples' actions should be thought out first having the other countries perspective in mind ?

[Gaffer]

First of gem I am an athiest. And I believe vengence is sweet.

As for the russians putting things in other countries, there was a little thing called the cuban missile criss back before you were born. The russians didn't succeed in putting their nukes in cuba like they wanted too, which is a lot different than putting in defensive and warning measures.

Also the russian are being run by a bunch of ex-kgb mobsters and the country could easily fall into chaos at any time. They don't have a complete riegn on all of their missile systems and a rogue could easily launch strikes against us or anyone else. Such as defense system would also be useful in regards to pakistan which could go radical islamic tomorrow. The russians are upset because they want to retake the caucases eventually and we are helping the ukrainians and other in the area keep them from doing that. And it does make a good intelligence gathering point.

The russians were kind enough to provide saddam with gps jamming devices just as the war was begining back in 03. And when all the intel is finally sorted out I am sure russia will be the ones responsible for removing saddams WMD's. And who do you think built iran's nuclear sites and provides technitions to them for research and enrichment. iran doesn't have any scientists, they have to import them.

The russians are selling mig fighters to venesuela. Supposedly for that countries defense. Along with lots of other "defensive" armament, like submarines. If they can do it, so can we.

[LiberalNation]

Of course we can do it but is the strain it will put on diplomatic relationships with Russia worth it. for the record we gave Saddam weapons as well when he was fighting big bad iran. We sell as many weapons as them or close to it.

[Dilloduck]

Of course we can do it but is the strain it will put on diplomatic relationships with Russia worth it. for the record we gave Saddam weapons as well when he was fighting big bad iran. We sell as many weapons as them or close to it.

Who do you mean "we" and what do you mean "gave" ? I bet Saddam paid dearly for those weapons ?

[LiberalNation]

We as in the US.

I don't know about him paying or not. There's a good chance they didn't if we really wanted to see them battle the Iranians.

[Dilloduck]

We as in the US.

I don't know about him paying or not. There's a good chance they didn't if we really wanted to see them battle the Iranians.

I imagine some arms manufacturer made a pretty penny but personally I didn't get a dime out of the deal.

[Gaffer]

We as in the US.

I don't know about him paying or not. There's a good chance they didn't if we really wanted to see them battle the Iranians.

"We" didn't give him anything. The equipment he used in the iran war was russian and french. We did provide intelligence, as to movement of iranian forces. But none of his equipment came from us.

[LiberalNation]

Maybe so, we did help them get those weapons though.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

[Gaffer]

Maybe so, we did help them get those weapons though.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

what weapons did we help him get? We didn't supply him with weapons.

[LiberalNation]

Above link, I'd call that helping him acquire the weapons.


Teicher claimed that the CIA supplied Iraq with cluster bombs through a Chilean company. However, German and UK firms sold more weapons to Iraq than U.S. arms companies, the Post reports.

Congressional investigations after the Gulf War revealed that the Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq.

[CockySOB]

Would we feel threatned if they put their stuff up in Canada or down in Mexico and Cuba.

I seem to remember a brouhaha about some missiles a few decades ago....

[LiberalNation]

Glad Bush wasn't president during that time. Kennedy handled it well. Luckily this time around even if Bush pisses off Russia by doing this they don't have the power yet to get into a war with us over it.

[Gunny]

Of course we can do it but is the strain it will put on diplomatic relationships with Russia worth it. for the record we gave Saddam weapons as well when he was fighting big bad iran. We sell as many weapons as them or close to it.

We did NOT supply Saddam with weapons. The Russians and French did. The closest you can get is that we supplied Saddam with some equipment and/or materiel that was dual-use.

[Gunny]

Maybe so, we did help them get those weapons though.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

Your own link does NOT support your allegation.

[Gunny]

Above link, I'd call that helping him acquire the weapons.

Wow. "Teicher claimed." That and some actual evidence might get you a conviction.:laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

We helped make sure they could get those weapons and yes the link does show that.

[LiberalNation]

Wow. "Teicher claimed." That and some actual evidence might get you a conviction.:laugh2:
Why would he say it if he did not have any evidence. Now if you wana read through a bunch of boring CIA papers to see if he's right be my guest.

[manu1959]

what weapons did we help him get? We didn't supply him with weapons.

uhhhhh .... a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.

[Gunny]

Glad Bush wasn't president during that time. Kennedy handled it well. Luckily this time around even if Bush pisses off Russia by doing this they don't have the power yet to get into a war with us over it.

Kennedy got lucky. Simple as that. He handled it in just about the only way he could, and his actions were dictated by the circumstances. He won a bluff, no more nor less.

Your statement regarding Bush is just partisan bullshit. You have no idea how President Bush would handle the situation. Odds are good he would have handled it in the exact same manner as Kennedy did.

It's a good thing Carter, Gore or Kerry weren't President during that time. The national drink of the US would be vodka.

Russia has more than enough power to engage the US in a war. What it lacks in conventional arms it more than makes up for in nuclear arms. How many times does one need to be able to destroy the Earth before they "have the power yet to get into a war with the US?"

[LiberalNation]

Doubt it, Bush would have listened to his military advisors and invaded Cuba to go get the missiles. Not waited though some talking or removed our nukes for Turkey to get them to remove theres.

[LiberalNation]

Russia has more than enough power to engage the US in a war. What it lacks in conventional arms it more than makes up for in nuclear arms. How many times does one need to be able to destroy the Earth before they "have the power yet to get into a war with the US?"
but you see no one wants to destroy the earth and no one wants to get into a war where they know they will loose even if they do happen to defeat their enemy. With both having nukes you still loose and Russia looses more because right now we do have more tech and stronger weapons than them.

[manu1959]

but you see no one wants to destroy the earth and no one wants to get into a war where they know they will loose even if they do happen to defeat their enemy. With both having nukes you still loose and Russia looses more because right now we do have more tech and stronger weapons than them.

not if we have radar to knock down their missles before they get here

[manu1959]

Doubt it, Bush would have listened to his military advisors and invaded Cuba to go get the missiles. Not waited though some talking or removed our nukes for Turkey to get them to remove theres.

hey wait you are right.....didn't jfk try to invade cuba and assasinate a world leader?

are you trying to say jfk was as great a president as bush is?

[Gunny]

Doubt it, Bush would have listened to his military advisors and invaded Cuba to go get the missiles. Not waited though some talking or removed our nukes for Turkey to get them to remove theres.

Completely baseless assumption.

[Gunny]

but you see no one wants to destroy the earth and no one wants to get into a war where they know they will loose even if they do happen to defeat their enemy. With both having nukes you still loose and Russia looses more because right now we do have more tech and stronger weapons than them.

It doesn't matter what you assume "no one wants." You made the statement Russia was not capable of going to war with the US, and I refuted it.

You obviously haven't done your homework on global thermonuclear war. How can Russia lose "more" if EVERYTHING is destroyed? There's nothing to win.

Even if some people were to somehow manage to survive the weapons themselves, the Earth would be plunged into nulcear winter that no one could survive.

[Abbey Marie]

but you see no one wants to destroy the earth and no one wants to get into a war where they know they will loose even if they do happen to defeat their enemy. With both having nukes you still loose and Russia looses more because right now we do have more tech and stronger weapons than them.

The bolded statement is naive. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and possibly Kim Jong Il as well, would get into such a war. Just two examples. Hatred and jealousy are powerful and irrational motivators.

[trobinett]

Boy, Jimmy Carter must of spread his "seed" around, cause some people today sure seem to be on the same fucking page he's on.

[Abbey Marie]

Boy, Jimmy Carter must of spread his "seed" around, cause some people today sure seem to be on the same fucking page he's on.

You mean he went beyond lusting in his heart?! :coffee:

[trobinett]

You mean he went beyond lusting in his heart?! :coffee:

Sure seems that way.:lol:

[LiberalNation]

hey wait you are right.....didn't jfk try to invade cuba and assasinate a world leader?

are you trying to say jfk was as great a president as bush is?
JFK would not send US troops into Cuba during the bay of pigs and believed the CIA had misled him. Too bad he was killed before Vietnam.

[Gaffer]

Doubt it, Bush would have listened to his military advisors and invaded Cuba to go get the missiles. Not waited though some talking or removed our nukes for Turkey to get them to remove theres.

You have no idea what Bush would have done. The missile crisis occured in 1962. It was a very different world then. JFK did what he had to do to prevent the russians from having the nuke capability to strike us without warning. Kruschev was the main instigator behind all of it and when it came down to the face off, he blinked. The hotline between the whitehouse and the kremlin was established after that so both leaders could talk immediately and avoid future confrontations instead of relying on letters and telegrams. It was the last time in history a democrat took a hard stand against a foriegn enemy.

[LiberalNation]

Completely baseless assumption.

Not really considering what a war hawk Bush is and he has had far less reason for his than Kennedy ever had. The mans already started 2 wars ya know.

[LiberalNation]

You have no idea what Bush would have done. The missile crisis occured in 1962. It was a very different world then. JFK did what he had to do to prevent the russians from having the nuke capability to strike us without warning. Kruschev was the main instigator behind all of it and when it came down to the face off, he blinked. The hotline between the whitehouse and the kremlin was established after that so both leaders could talk immediately and avoid future confrontations instead of relying on letters and telegrams. It was the last time in history a democrat took a hard stand against a foriegn enemy.
He didn't take a hard stand compared to what everyone was saying he should do. Many of his advisors were all crying war and thought he was too week on communism.

[Gaffer]

Not really considering what a war hawk Bush is and he has had far less reason for his than Kennedy ever had. The mans already started 2 wars ya know.

He didn't start two wars. The islamist started the war with the US back in 1979. Bush responded to their attack on US soil. He also continued the war with saddam that had been started by saddam back in 90 when he invaded kuwait. There was a truce signed which saddam continually violated for ten years. Bush just went in to finish what had been left unfinished. The war with the islamists continues globally. iraq and afganhistan are just two fronts to that war.

Kennedy faced down the russians. You would have to have lived during that period to understand how people felt then. The tension was thick. But no one attacked us. The islamists have been attacking us for almost 30 years. We are now responding. In the case of the soviets they had as much to lose as we did. In the case of the islamists they worship death. Two completely different enemies.

[Gunny]

JFK would not send US troops into Cuba during the bay of pigs and believed the CIA had misled him. Too bad he was killed before Vietnam.

Are you a blonde?

Newflash .... US troops were NEVER part of the Bay of Pigs invasion plan. Eisenhower agreed to provide AIR support only. The troops were expatriate Cubans.

Our initial involvement in Vietnam began during the 50s, and Kennedy most certainly upped the ante a notch by sending in military advisors. At any rate, Vietnam was already on the upswing when JFK took office.

[LiberalNation]

WTF did I say, Kennedy would not send US troops into Cuba during the bay of pigs. And yes the military and CIA wanted him to send in US troops when they saw things turning South.

[Gunny]

Not really considering what a war hawk Bush is and he has had far less reason for his than Kennedy ever had. The mans already started 2 wars ya know.

Presidetn GW Bush has not started ANY war. Ya know.

We went into Afghanistan after 9/11, after the Taliban refused to turn bin Laden over to us, and continued to harbor him.

The invasion of Iraq was begun by Saddam Hussein in 1990 with his unprovoked attack on Kuwait. The US finally holding him accountable for his actions was merely the culminating event.

So try again. Matter of fact, try something fact-based. It might enlighten you.

[Gunny]

He didn't take a hard stand compared to what everyone was saying he should do. Many of his advisors were all crying war and thought he was too week on communism.

Is this in the left-wing revisionist history book?

Please provide a list of his advisors and quotes as to what they allegedly said that support your statement.

[LiberalNation]

That's what it says on the historical videos and what we are learning. We are just getting off JFK and yes I would trust my teachers over a right wing ideologue any day and most of them are conservative themselves.

[LiberalNation]

Actually getting into Johnson Vietnam and Nixon now which should be far more interesting. History when no wars are going on is a boring read.

[Gunny]

He didn't start two wars. The islamist started the war with the US back in 1979. Bush responded to their attack on US soil. He also continued the war with saddam that had been started by saddam back in 90 when he invaded kuwait. There was a truce signed which saddam continually violated for ten years. Bush just went in to finish what had been left unfinished. The war with the islamists continues globally. iraq and afganhistan are just two fronts to that war.

Kennedy faced down the russians. You would have to have lived during that period to understand how people felt then. The tension was thick. But no one attacked us. The islamists have been attacking us for almost 30 years. We are now responding. In the case of the soviets they had as much to lose as we did. In the case of the islamists they worship death. Two completely different enemies.

ITA. Having grown up during the Cold War, the differences between that and the current war against Islamofascism are two totally, different animals.

The Cold War threat was conventional, between the two most powerful nations in the world, and two adversaries with a healthy respect for self-preservation.

This crap going on now is with a bunch of murdering zealots who are more than willing to kill themselves to take everyone who won't buy their brand of shit down with them. The mutual respect for self-preservation is one-sided on our part, and these scumbags have used it against us rather masterfully, and played the lefties like marionettes.

[Gunny]

That's what it says on the historical videos and what we are learning. We are just getting off JFK and yes I would trust my teachers over a right wing ideologue any day and most of them are conservative themselves.

Of course you would trust your liberal programmer over the facts. Your lack of factual knowledge does not an idealogue of me make. But it does support the arguments I've seen concerning the degredation of public education.

In short, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Please learn to use the quote function at least. "That what it says on the historical videos" addresses specifically WHAT?

[LiberalNation]

My history teacher is a republican man, not liberal at all.

[glockmail]

Let's allow the Russians to build a radar system for their defense right here in America too! We had "MAD"- "Mutually Assured Destruction". Why shouldn't we have another "MAD"- "Mutually Assured Defense"? That'd sure level the playing field!
Sound like a good idea?

Gem

Now I am convinced that you are insane. Why would you want to level the playing field? The whole idea is for the US to be so big and bad that no one would dare mess with us. That's how we achieve world peace. Not by finding two evenly matched fighters.

[Gunny]

My history teacher is a republican man, not liberal at all.

Back to lack of understanding of politics ... I AM what Kennedy was. If you think JFK was a bleeding-heart liberal in today's mold, you are sadly mistaken. Democrats used to have balls, and liberalism used to be based on common sense and logic, not extremism.

[LiberalNation]

Except that doesn't give you world peace if the one who is so big and bad is also a bully attacking the weaker nations with impunity. Note to people who read what is not there, not saying that is how the US is exactly.

[Gunny]

My history teacher is a republican man, not liberal at all.

Your history teacher's political affiliations have nothing to do with your school's curriculum.

[Gunny]

Except that doesn't give you world peace if the ones who are so big and bad is also a bully attacking the weaker nations with impunity. Note to people who read what is not there, not saying that is how the US is exactly.

You just described Saddam Hussein to a "T." You've also described fanatical Islam.

Sorry if that didn't work out the way you wanted.

[Gaffer]

Actually getting into Johnson Vietnam and Nixon now which should be far more interesting. History when no wars are going on is a boring read.

whether you think we are right wing idealoges or not we still lived that point in history. Kennedy's time in office is a prerequsite for what your about to study as he initiated most of what went on for the next few years after his death.

Your teachers might be conservative but that doesn't mean the curriculum they are teaching is not a liberal version. Instead of coming in here spouting what you think you know you might try asking questions of those that were there to gain more insight. Hopefully you get more than the glossed over version of the Vietnam years that so many schools teach now days.

[LiberalNation]

People who lived through it will have a swayed way of seeing things because they were there and can't step back and analyze it from a far without personal and political experiences from that time getting in the way.

But I'd be happy to here any Vietnam stories anyone has to tell.

[LiberalNation]

You just described Saddam Hussein to a "T." You've also described fanatical Islam.

Sorry if that didn't work out the way you wanted.
But you see Saddam and radical Islam are not big and bad. They both have/had very little power. Saddam never had a chance at beating Iran or the Saudis with his attacks and little Kuwait really didn't mean much/was not a regional power to begin with so even if we hadn't stopped him from taking it over the ME would have remained much as it is now. How many countries has radical Islam taken over outside of the ME and North Africa which have always been that way.

They haven’t and can’t.

[glockmail]

Except that doesn't give you world peace if the one who is so big and bad is also a bully attacking the weaker nations with impunity. Note to people who read what is not there, not saying that is how the US is exactly.

Are you implying that is what the US of A is?

[LiberalNation]

Read the next sentence.

[MtnBiker]

Except that doesn't give you world peace if the one who is so big and bad is also a bully attacking the weaker nations with impunity. Note to people who read what is not there, not saying that is how the US is exactly.

How is it exactly?

[glockmail]

Read the next sentence. Answer the damn question.

[LiberalNation]

I did in my first post in the second sentence.

[LiberalNation]

How is it exactly?
It's not, world peace is an impossible pipe dream.

[Gaffer]

People who lived through it will have a swayed way of seeing things because they were there and can't step back and analyze it from a far without personal and political experiences from that time getting in the way.

But I'd be happy to here any Vietnam stories anyone has to tell.

People who lived through it are where the historians get their information and facts. The people that lived through it are the ones that keep the records of what happened and pass it on. The swayed way of thinking comes from some moron that thinks they know what others were thinking at the time. Or, as is being done by liberals, to set their own spin to the story for their own agenda.

[Gaffer]

But you see Saddam and radical Islam are not big and bad. They both have/had very little power. Saddam never had a chance at beating Iran or the Saudis with his attacks and little Kuwait really didn't mean much/was not a regional power to begin with so even if we hadn't stopped him from taking it over the ME would have remained much as it is now. How many countries has radical Islam taken over outside of the ME and North Africa which have always been that way.

They haven’t and can’t.

Wrong again. saddam was very powerful. He fought an eight year war with iran. he had the fourth largest army in the world when he went into kuwait. He was stopped by the iranians because they were religious fanatics willing to die for their beliefs and had lots more people to draw on for defense.

Kuwait is one of the smallest countries in the ME, and one of the riches. Saddam went in there because they were weak and he needed the oil revenues from there to finance his wars and pay for his big military. He would have moved against the saudi's too had Bush Sr not sent troops to help the saudi's defend their territory.

As for islamist. They took over afganhistan. They also rule iran. Until recently they controled somolia. They are trying to take over pakistan, thailand, sudan, philipines and indonesia to name a few. Even secular turkey is coming under their influence. They are not yet powerful in weapon technology, but they are powerful in numbers.

[CSM]

People who lived through it will have a swayed way of seeing things because they were there and can't step back and analyze it from a far without personal and political experiences from that time getting in the way.

But I'd be happy to here any Vietnam stories anyone has to tell.

That's a very cool way of saying "People who were actually there are likely to tell the truth. WE with hindsight get to spin it any way we want because we are detached form the facts!"

[Gunny]

WTF did I say, Kennedy would not send US troops into Cuba during the bay of pigs. And yes the military and CIA wanted him to send in US troops when they saw things turning South.


Providing air cover is NOT sending US troops into Cuba.

And your opinion is only that. You made a statement. Support it with fact. Which person or persons in the CIA and/or military wanted JFK to send US troops into Cuba?

[LiberalNation]

I'm not spending a lot of time looking shit up for ya esspecially over a boring subject like the Kennedy years. Believe what you will. It's not like it's possible to have any real debate here anyway.

[Gunny]

People who lived through it will have a swayed way of seeing things because they were there and can't step back and analyze it from a far without personal and political experiences from that time getting in the way.

But I'd be happy to here any Vietnam stories anyone has to tell.

You can't "sway" facts.

As far as analysis goes, you can't analyze squat with half the facts, or fabricated ones.

Y'know, just maybe, some of us have studied the period you are struggling your way through in depth with an unbiased viewpoint? You're quick to judge for someone who ain't even legal yet.

[Gunny]

But you see Saddam and radical Islam are not big and bad. They both have/had very little power. Saddam never had a chance at beating Iran or the Saudis with his attacks and little Kuwait really didn't mean much/was not a regional power to begin with so even if we hadn't stopped him from taking it over the ME would have remained much as it is now. How many countries has radical Islam taken over outside of the ME and North Africa which have always been that way.

They haven’t and can’t.

Saddam was big and bad enough to attack two of his neighbors, and radical Islam was big and bad enough to bring down the WTC. Your opinion of the outcome of those attacks is meaningless and irrelevant.

And maybe if your young ass had seen what Saddam's thugs did to some of those Kuwaiti's you hold in such low regard your opinion might be a bit different, Ms "Compassionate" Liberal.

It is nto and never was about who takes over what outside the ME. It's about who controls what WITHIN the ME.

[Gunny]

I'm not spending a lot of time looking shit up for ya esspecially over a boring subject like the Kennedy years. Believe what you will. It's not like it's possible to have any real debate here anyway.

In other words, you cannot support your allegations.

It's completely possible to have a "real" debate when you don't have some wet-behind-the-ears know-it-all trying to tell those of us that were there that we don't know what we saw.

[LiberalNation]

I've seen plenty of the horrors of Saddam. The history channel even shows people being killed he ordered executed. Not denying he was a bad man but I am denying he was a major power more powerful than the rest of the ME able to take over it’s neighbors. Remember someone said one big power is what leads to world peace I said no, not if that power bullies other countries. I am saying Saddam was not that big power even if he did bully so therefore was not a threat to “world” not regional peace. Has he didn't even have enough power to defeat his regional enemies.

[LiberalNation]

In other words, you cannot support your allegations.

no it means I'm not gona support my allegation not that I can't.


It's completely possible to have a "real" debate when you don't have some wet-behind-the-ears know-it-all trying to tell those of us that were there that we don't know what we saw
lol that's funny coming from a know it all himself.

[Gunny]

I've seen plenty of the horrors of Saddam. The history channel even shows people being killed he ordered executed. Not denying he was a bad man but I am denying he was a major power more powerful than the rest of the ME able to take over it’s neighbors. Remember someone said one big power is what leads to world peace I said no, not if that power bullies other countries. I am saying Saddam was not that big power even if he did bully so therefore was not a threat to “world” not regional peace. Has he didn't even have enough power to defeat his regional enemies.

You think watching the History Channel is a substitute for being there? I guess they got the reason for my sleeping disorder all wrong then ....

Saddam possessed the 4th largest army in the world and was a threat to the entire Middle East since he was more than willing to attack on whim.

Saddam was a threat to stability in the ME and the world's largest oil reserves; therefore, a threat to world peace.

[CSM]

Believe what you will. It's not like it's possible to have any real debate here anyway.

In that you are absolutely correct; besides, you already know everything so what is there to debate?

[Gunny]

no it means I'm not gona support my allegation not that I can't.

Sorry, but that isn't how the game is played. I realize you think you're "all that," but when you come to a gunfight with the big boys, you load your gun or get shot. You've been riddled with bullets since joining.

lol that's funny coming from a know it all himself.

I'm hardly that. I am educated in certain areas, and experienced in certain areas. But it is hardly any feat to best you in an argument on US history and/or geopolitics. I possessed more education on the topics by 4th grade than you possess now.

[LiberalNation]

Not how the game is played, that's how I'm playing it. Doesn't matter who wins or who’s popular which wouldn't be possible anyway on a board leaning so far to the right. I post because I enjoy a good spat sometimes and actually do end up learning things. Besides I post on plenty of left wing boards. It's important to get another both perspectives or some of the paranoia on both sides will really influence you if you’re constantly only hearing one side.

Oh and the fact I’d rather deal in opinions over statistics and long links you have to read.

and full of yourself as well has a know it all. Someone not agreeing with you politically doesn't mean your smarter or better than them.

[Gaffer]

I'm not spending a lot of time looking shit up for ya esspecially over a boring subject like the Kennedy years. Believe what you will. It's not like it's possible to have any real debate here anyway.

You don't have to look shit up for us. You need to look it up for yourself. we are already familiar with the history.

I would suggest you try reading up on something, draw your conclusion then present it here. Not as a statement of fact but as a summary of what you got from it. In that way you get responses that will help flush out the facts better then just drawing an opinion based on reading a few paragraphs.

[CSM]

....

Oh and the fact I’d rather deal in opinions over statistics and long links you have to read.

and full of yourself as well has a know it all. Someone not agreeing with you politically doesn't mean your smarter or better than them.

Opinions are easy to deal with because ou dont have to substantiate them. You are telling us that you are intellectually lazy. Probably not a good thing to openly admit. As for your last statement, you just might want to consider that for yourself as well!

As for being "better" than you; we know what Gunny has done with his life and for this country; it remains to be seen what you provide for the betterment of this country.

[LiberalNation]

Intellectually lazy, maybe but I do this type of stuff for my own enjoyment. Unlike school which I go to, to work.

[CSM]

Intellectually lazy, maybe but I do this type of stuff for my own enjoyment. Unlike school which I go to, to work.

Understood, Gunny and I on the other hand, rely on this for our livelyhood! That is sarcasm in case you didn't recognize it.

So you derive some sort of entertainment from appearing less intelligent and less informed than you are or could be? That is really bizarre but to each their own I guess.

[Gunny]

Not how the game is played, that's how I'm playing it. Doesn't matter who wins or who’s popular which wouldn't be possible anyway on a board leaning so far to the right. I post because I enjoy a good spat sometimes and actually do end up learning things. Besides I post on plenty of left wing boards. It's important to get another both perspectives or some of the paranoia on both sides will really influence you if you’re constantly only hearing one side.

Oh and the fact I’d rather deal in opinions over statistics and long links you have to read.

and full of yourself as well has a know it all. Someone not agreeing with you politically doesn't mean your smarter or better than them.

You play the game by the rules or you lose, simple as that.

Is English your second language? I didn't say I was smarter nor better than you, Einstein. I said I possess more knowledge than you on two specific topics. BIG difference.

I'm hardly a know it all or full of myself. There are plenty of posters with more historical knowledge than me, and who possess a better understanding of geopolitics than me.

You just aren't one of them.

People start out equal. It is their individual actions that determine who is the better person.

[Gunny]

Understood, Gunny and I on the other hand, rely on this for our livelyhood! That is sarcasm in case you didn't recognize it.

So you derive some sort of entertainment from appearing less intelligent and less informed than you are or could be? That is really bizarre but to each their own I guess.

It's obvious that this individual is a waste of bandwidth. Comes on the board, chooses to engage in a debate with about the poorest historical education I have encountered, and thinks she's going to also dictate the rules of debate to suit herself.

BTW ... how much are we getting paid? :laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

There are no rules for debate, no one really wins or looses on these type boards. They just talk past each other.

[CockySOB]

I'm not spending a lot of time looking shit up for ya esspecially over a boring subject like the Kennedy years. Believe what you will. It's not like it's possible to have any real debate here anyway.

Intellectual laziness is a trademark of intellectually dishonest individuals. When called on a fact, they claim laziness and return to the pattern of weaving and dodging.

LN, real debate is possible, but you have to pull your head out of your ass and take a breath once in a while. From where I sit, your brain cells must be dying in droves due to lack of oxygen.

[LiberalNation]

I've never looked up links for people Cocky, not on P&CA and not here. If they wana prove me wrong fine but I got nothing to prove.

[CockySOB]

There are no rules for debate, no one really wins or looses on these type boards. They just talk past each other.

This type of activity is usually regarded as "trolling" or "spamming." Perhaps I was wrong about you and you are NOT interested in discussion nor debate, merely spamming the board in a self-aggrandizing attempt.

[CockySOB]

I've never looked up links for people Cocky, not on P&CA and not here. If they wana prove me wrong fine but I got nothing to prove.

The WHY post? To read your own words in print? Sheesh! I gave you credit for more maturity than that.

[glockmail]

I did in my first post in the second sentence.
That's bullshit. You're a fucking coward. :fu:

[LiberalNation]

This type of activity is usually regarded as "trolling" or "spamming." Perhaps I was wrong about you and you are NOT interested in discussion nor debate, merely spamming the board in a self-aggrandizing attempt.

Oh I do just not on these types boards. To much work than it's worth.

[shattered]

Oh I do just not on these types boards. To much work than it's worth.

Huh?

[LiberalNation]

The WHY post? To read your own words in print? Sheesh! I gave you credit for more maturity than that.
Maybe you did.

[glockmail]

....Someone not agreeing with you politically doesn't mean your smarter or better than them.

Delicious irony.

[LiberalNation]

Huh?

Board heavily slanted to one side, I can't fight ten people all at the same time sorry that is way to much work.

[LiberalNation]

Delicious irony.

lol your and you're have to work on that.

[LiberalNation]

That's bullshit. You're a fucking coward.
No it's not, it's right there in print in that post. Not gona repeat myself just so you can hear me say America is not like that.

[shattered]

Board heavily slanted to one side, I can't fight ten people all at the same time sorry that is way to much work.

I was referring to your post itself. I read it 3 times, and it still made no sense.

...and if you think something is heavily slanted in one direction, there MUST be a reason for it.. After all, EVERYONE can't be wrong, and just you right.. :D

[LiberalNation]

No people flock to their own side and avoid the opposition who would keep them honest. It's hard to find boards with a good right/left mix.

[LiberalNation]

Wow is this another thread turning into all about LN, lol.

[CockySOB]

Board heavily slanted to one side, I can't fight ten people all at the same time sorry that is way to much work.

I can relate to that feeling (past life remembrance).

[LiberalNation]

How do we keep getting on past history anyway. Not my favorite subject. The today and now is more interesting.

[CockySOB]

How do we keep getting on past history anyway. Not my favorite subject. The today and now is more interesting.

Yet those who forget history (or rewrite it) are fated to repeat its mistakes.

[CSM]

How do we keep getting on past history anyway. Not my favorite subject. The today and now is more interesting.

Past history is what got us where we are today. To understand how we can best address the issues of today, we must understand what events and circumstances fostered the issue in the first place so that we avoid the same mistakes again. Obviously, that is not an easy thing to do.

[Mr. P]

After reading through the thread, I am caulking-up LN as what she stated she is (somewhere). She’s 17 and IMO her posts prove she’s telling the truth (or she’s a good liar). Regardless, if she’s here and 17 she must have a bit more on the ball than most 17 year olds do. We’ll see.

LN, there is a wealth of knowledge here for your taking and it’s free. Many of us have lived through a great deal of the history you are being taught in school. That means, you can gain a prospective of history from many different people and not just ONE edited text book, or ONE history teacher who probably, like you, never lived through what he/she is teaching.

Take it for what it’s worth kid, you’re on a pot of gold here, take it to the bank or piss on it, it’s up to you.

If arguing is what you want, go to yahoo, that’s where the kids are and they don’t work, they just argue and have fun.

Now stop being a teenage ass.

[Abbey Marie]

...
LN, there is a wealth of knowledge here for your taking and it’s free. Many of us have lived through a great deal of the history you are being taught in school. That means, you can gain a prospective of history from many different people and not just ONE edited text book, or ONE history teacher who probably, like you, never lived through what he/she is teaching.

Take it for what it’s worth kid, you’re on a pot of gold here, take it to the bank or piss on it, it’s up to you.
...


That's some good advice, there, LN.

(Btw, I think you know a lot more than I did at 17).

[CSM]

After reading through the thread, I am caulking-up LN as what she stated she is (somewhere). She’s 17 and IMO her posts prove she’s telling the truth (or she’s a good liar). Regardless, if she’s here and 17 she must have a bit more on the ball than most 17 year olds do. We’ll see.

LN, there is a wealth of knowledge here for your taking and it’s free. Many of us have lived through a great deal of the history you are being taught in school. That means, you can gain a prospective of history from many different people and not just ONE edited text book, or ONE history teacher who probably, like you, never lived through what he/she is teaching.

Take it for what it’s worth kid, you’re on a pot of gold here, take it to the bank or piss on it, it’s up to you.

If arguing is what you want, go to yahoo, that’s where the kids are and they don’t work, they just argue and have fun.

Now stop being a teenage ass.

Well, dang, if that is the track you're going to take Mr. P I guess I'll just have to do the same.....well said.

[glockmail]

That's some good advice, there, LN.

(Btw, I think you know a lot more than I did at 17). Shit. When I was 17 I was a friggin' idiot!!! Drunk and high 1/2 the time. Not to mention a Damnocrat. :poke:

[Mr. P]

Shit. When I was 17 I was a friggin' idiot!!! ... Not to mention a Damnocrat. :poke:

Same here, and pretty much a Democrap too, funny that my first vote in a Presidential election was for a Republican (Nixon) though.

I don’t recall my parents even voting most of the time. They were hard core dems, the dems are for the working man and the repubs are for the rich, type, mindless dems. Hate to say that about them but it was true. Although my mom started coming around a few years before she died. It was interesting to see, she seemed so much happier questioning the BS than she did repeating it.

[LiberalNation]

Now stop being a teenage ass.
Not.