Large Scale Central

Dear Barac

With only months of his dictatorship to run, Herr George ‘dubya’ Bush is implementing a missile ‘defence(?)’ system in the old Eastern bloc country of Czechoslovakia, with other countries to follow. Of course, the ‘KGB’-ruled Russians are protesting and talking of stepping up nuclear weapon manufacture with potentially more missiles planned to be aimed at the west.

Now cast your mind back 45 years ago when Kruschev installed nuclear missiles in Cuba. American warships blockaded Cuba to stop further weapons reaching the Cuban mainland and the American president (a Democrat) brought the world to the brink of WW3 by giving the Russians an ultimatum to remove all nuclear weapons from Cuba. How is the current Eastern Bloc ‘missile crisis’ any different from the Cuban missile crisis back in the early 1960’s? Russia is not the democratic country it was back in the early 1990’s. It is now lead by ex-KGB senior officers whose intention is to bring Russia back as a superpower under communist rule. These people accumulated immense wealth when the state-owned industries were privatised and sold to the few high-ranking government officials who had money to purchase them.

The world is now back to where it was in the early 1960’s with our lives ruled by fear of a nuclear war. The Czech missile ‘defence’ system is nothing more than a crumbling empire rattling their sabres. There are many ex-servicemen who see Republicans as the politicians to trust with their futures. However, there are those who have a hope for the future and see armed conflict as a breakdown in international diplomacy. The current Republican government trusts the Pakistani regime even though Pakistan is little more than a new Iran waiting to emerge. Look to your history and you will see a series of diplomatic blunders throughout South America, Central America, Asia, Indo-Asia, the Middle East and in the now re-unified Europe. Africa and the Antartic continent are the only areas that have been spared the meddling that Republicans are so good at. What is left is what was there before all the meddling? Countries have a habit of settling their own scores without foreign interference. Geo-political history has shown us that the middle-east, including Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, have long histories of civil war. America propped up the Shah of Iran for a few years until fundamentalist muslims took control. At the time, America propped up the Saddam Hussien regime. Post 2001 they installed a puppet governemnt in Afghanistan who is nothing more than a sham. Post 2003 they installed a puppet government in Iraq who is totally impotent. They support a Pakistani dictator whose days are numbered. Within ten years, Pakistan will be the new Afghanistan or Iran. The current CIA and American government funded regime in Pakistan is totally impotent against the rising muslim swell. The Pakistanis have always supported the Taliban and were crucial in protecting Osama Bin Laden from being captured back in late 2001. We need to view the current middle east conflict in perspective. It is nothing more than a rehash of the Vietnam fiasco, created by communist hating senators who had little more on their minds than controlling the spread of communism throughout the world. Look to America’s path of political destruction throughout the world and we see that it follows the spread of communism, Islam and now the new god, ‘oil’.

Four more years of Republican world meddling will bring us closer to the brink of all out war. The next war will not be a politically-centred war but a gehad, rallying all muslims to fight for Allah. It is a war the west cannot win as Muslims see a death in battle as a martyrdom and a guaranteed place in heaven. The west sees a death in battle as simply a death, a casualty to be added up and arrive at a total number of dead.

Tim Brien said:
Now cast your mind back 45 years ago when Kruschev installed nuclear missiles in Cuba. American warships blockaded Cuba to stop further weapons reaching the Cuban mainland and the American president (a Democrat) brought the world to the brink of WW3 by giving the Russians an ultimatum to remove all nuclear weapons from Cuba. How is the current Eastern Bloc 'missile crisis' any different from the Cuban missile crisis back in the early 1960's?
Tim:

The Russians were installing nuclear armed first strike offensive weapons in Cuba, versus the installation of non-nuclear anti-missile defense weapons being proposed for Czechoslovakia. Thats how its different.

But I’m certain you already know that.

Happy RRing,

Jerry

Jerry,
non-nuclear, but intended as a snub to the Russian regime. The Russians proposed a joint effort, but Ronny Raygun’s protege would prefer conflict rather than diplomacy. Maybe ‘dubya’ knows of vast oil deposits in the Czech countryside. One really needs to be cynical these days when the Republican war cabinet decides to encroach other countries borders and must really make a decision to actually which country actually possesses those famous weapons of mass destruction.

    Recent local press reports tell of a fiendish plan (in the mid-60's) to spray 200 local Australian troops with a nerve toxin that was more deadly than that which Saddam Hussien used on the Kurds.  Saddam Hussien was tried as a war criminal for gassing 150 or so people.  The American government was prepared to kill 200 Australian troops in the mid-60's to test a new toxin.  What is the difference in the crime committed?  Fortunately some degree of sanity prevailed and authority for the test was not granted.

Ummmm, where did you get that info, Tim, the Daily Kos?

Those missiles are not intended as a snub against anyone, except perhaps Akmadinawackjob in Iran. The Czech Republic is on the great circle route between Iran and Europe. We continue to ask Russia to join with us in the effort.

The last sentence in your first paragraph doesn’t make any sense. Can you drive it by again, only a little bit slower this time?

That really wonderful Pres, Jimmy the peanut farmer, sold out the Shah of Iran and gave the green light for the “Eye-a-tolla” to return to Iran from exile in France. The Shah may have been a S.O.B., but as that other famous Democrat Pres, LBJ, said, “his was our S.O.B.”

Lessee, this accusation regarding the American gummint being prepared to whack 200 Australian in the mid 60’s… as I recall, JFK and LBJ were at the helm then. Recent local press reports…? What does that mean? Can you cite your source?

You should really try decaf, dude.

I propose that that this country go back to our Isolationist policy we so enjoyed in the 20’s and 30’s. We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend that that they’re are no evil people out there that don’t like us. And, if we’re so inclined we’ll appease all those evil people and give them whatever their little hearts desire. We can all move back into caves and and ride horses or mules or whatever. We can entertain ourselves around the campfire by telling tales of all the past evil presidents we used to have and all the diabolical schemes they came up with to “Rule The World”. Hmmmmmmm, I wonder what language we can use to tell those tales. Spanish, German, Japanese, Russian, oh I know…Arabic, that way the arabs will love us. We can sit on the ocean shore with our spears and clubs to make sure no angry mobs storm ashore to do us in. But then again, why would they be angry at us? We’re just sitting here minding our own business.

Steve,
plain and simple English - which is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against a civilian population? Nuclear weapons ARE weapons of mass destruction, is that simple enough for you and as none were found in Iraq then exactly which country do you think that I was referring to? Oh and in case you forgot, it was the Republican war machine that tried to fool the world that it was not oil, but WOMD that was the reason to invade Iraq. Another question for you - Which current American vice-president personally benefitted from involvement in Iraq and in ‘rebuilding’ the country? The newly released movie, ‘War, INC’ will give you an insight into politics and war and those who profit from others’ sacrifices.

mmmmmm, what about all the “yellowcake” uranium that was found in 2003? Oh, I know, he was building nuclear power plants with it. or was that 550 ton pile all yellow cake mix that we sold to a canadian firm?

I’m kinda glad WE were the country that used it and not the other way around.

Ken,
I have no knowlege of the pile of uranium ore located in Iraq in 2003. The United Nations for many years in the 90’s were unable to locate evidence of nuclear development. Of course there was the milk powder factory bombed in the 90’s and the ‘rifled’ oil pipes and lots of speculation of mobile nerve gas generating trucks, but no concrete evidence was found. The supposed evidence ‘supporting’ the call to the United Nations to invade Iraq in 2003 has since been ridiculed by all nations outside the continental United States and strongly disputed by many senators ‘on the hill’.

  I have no personal support for Barak Obama (or Hillary),  but after sixteen years of the Bush legacy and its morbid fascination with the middle east,  I feel that it is time for a new,  more domestic policy shift in the United States and less reliance on the neo-conservatives and their warped sense of reality in determining America's role as the international police force.    The world is headed for a global recession fuelled by the American domestic home lending crisis, the loss of confidence in the two major home finance companies in the States and the rising price of crude oil and yet a Republican policy pervades to continue record borrowing and military spending in Iraq for an undisclosed number of years.  There has never been peace in Iraq or Afghanistan and it has been proven that military might will not overcome national pride.  What the invasion has achieved is a stronger bond between the Iraqi Shiites and the Iranians and a more determined push for a republic Kurdish homeland.  Iraq was a mishmash of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites,  held together by a cruel warlord.  Removal of Saddam will prove more detrimental to the region in the long term,  resulting in political alliances that were not possible under Saddam's rule and destabilising the region.  Vietnam resulted in Laos and Cambodia being invaded,  so is Iran another target?  Where next - Jordan, Syria, Lebanon?

To me the UN is useless. It’s a soap box and gives legitimacy to every despot, thug, and dictator in the world today. The UN couldn’t have found Baghdad if Saddam didn’t want them to find it. The middle east is a tinder box waiting to catch fire, but unfortunately most of our energy needs come from that area. The middle east isn’t going to go away because a different administration happens to be in office. Personally I don’t like the idea either of America having to be the police force, but the reality is, who else do we trust to do it? The UN? In Bosnia UN troops spent most of their time waiting to be freed by American troops after they got captured. The UN has no teeth.

You have no knowledge of the uranium because the media wouldn’t dare report it. It would make them look like what they accuse Bush of…liars.

Captured Iraqi generals have already confirmed where most of Saddams stockpiles went. You didn’t hear about that. Now that the war is going well and we’re pulling troops out, you don’t hear about that either.

The entire middle east is a mish-mash of different tribes, clans and sects. It was carved up into countries after WWI. There is no 'National Pride". The stronger warlords came to power. Do you honestly want any of these crazies to get hold of a nuclear weapon? For proof they they are aquiring one, does a mushroom cloud have to appear over some western city?

Tim quote: "plain and simple English - which is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against a civilian population? "

This argument is used everytime someone wants to put down the US in regards to other nations or situations and is a bogus argument. Do you realize what was at stake? Victory or destruction! You must put things into the context of the times.

First, every country’s bombing campaign, including the Japanese was one of indiscriminate bombing. By that I mean that the target was to be hit regardless of the colateral damage. That was the state of the art back then. No smart bombs, etc.

Second, far more casualties were caused by the fire bombing of Japan than by the two atomic bombs dropped. They simply made a bigger “boom”!

Third, the Japanese were not going to give up. It was estimated that the US would take 1,000,000 casualties to invade and occupy Japan. That certainly would equate to many more millions of Japanese casualties as well. While the motivation was to win the war the dropping of two atomic bombs was sufficient to bring about the surrender of Japan and that saved many, many lives on both sides.

Fourth, while scientists knew about radioactivity and other dangers much about nuclear weapons was unknown. To most it was merely a new, bigger and better weapon of war. Even so Pres. Harry Truman had to do much soul searching to approve dropping the bombs. In the end he decided that to save American lives it was worth it. Secondarily it discouraged Stalin from becoming even more of a problem to achieving world stability than he already was (stability being a relative and somewhat fleeting concept of course).

Fifth, while Liberals accuse the right of war mongering it was a Democratic President that dropped the only nukes on a foreign power which by inference must mean the Democrats are war mongers. I fully agree with Truman’s decision however and know that he was not a war monger anymore than any other President who does what he can to defend and protect this country.

Lastly, if WWII had been fought the way many in this country insist our military wage war today we would surely have lost. Our enemies were very powerful and bent on total domination. They were given this power by a world commited to appeasement and unwilling to face down the dangers presented early on which is epitomized by Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” and continued today in the UN.

If you truly are an “expert” on history then you know all of this already and your “US the only country to use nuclear weapons against a civilian population” is just so much smoke blowing.

Richard,

Very well said.

I’m always so surprized that people feel they are trapped in the United States and must stay here. The Exit sign is always on. If this is such a bad place with such terrible policies, why do people fight and even sneak across the borders to get in?

Hussein has this campaign of “Change”. I believe I like the Nation of my Father and his Father more than I desire the imaginary nation of where some people want this Country to go.

Thank you, Richard and Ric. You have saved me a lot of typing.

Tim, go get some decaf and take a deep breath. And stop reading those loony left wing web sites, fer cryin’ out loud!

Steve Featherkile said:
Thank you, Richard and Ric. You have saved me a lot of typing.
Richard, Rick:

Thanks from here too!

I thought “Tim Brien” is Australian??

Happy RRing,

Jerry

Jerry Bowers said:
Steve Featherkile said:
Thank you, Richard and Ric. You have saved me a lot of typing.
Richard, Rick:

Thanks from here too!

I thought “Tim Brien” is Australian??

Happy RRing,

Jerry


Don’t know if he is. Does this mean his opinion does not count?
I find it interesting to know what the rest of the world thinks.
Ralph

Richard,
I am indeed aware of all that you have stated, but the bottom line is that no other country has used a nuclear weapon against another for whatever ethical or moral high-ground position. Japan was never going to surrender, much like the final few months of the European campaign in 1945 with Germany. The Japanese have (had) a high moral regard for their culture (as do Muslims) and surrender is not an option. Look to the final few Japanese-occupied Pacific island battles where the native Japanese populations were decimated by either suicide or by being murdered by their own nation’s troops. Muslims have a similar view on life and will not simply roll over.

         The younger German troops were brain washed (like Japanese troops were from a very young age with their emperor) to be loyal to Hitler and so,  against all common sense kept the European campaign raging in the latter part of 1944 and early 1945.   I have been informed that as many German and allied troops died in the latter six months of the war than in the previous several years of the war.  Surrender was not an option for German troops,  as surrender was viewed as cowardice and met with either summary execution or transport to the eastern front against Russian troops which meant certain death.  An estimated 30,000 German troops were executed by their own army in the latter few months of the European war in 1945.


         The 'atomic' bomb programme was commenced long before the commencement of WW2 and the effects of radiation were known back to the early part of the twentieth century. Personnel were kept well clear of the initial bomb test ground zero sites as the effects were well understood.  Allied fire bombing on German and Japanese cities did kill more people than a dozen atomic bombs would have and the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did considerably reduce the length of the Pacific war and save an estimated half-million American troops' lives plus countless Japanese lives.  America had been saturation bombing the Japanese mainland since early 1942 and yet the Japanese resolve was not broken.  This is why no invasion of a Muslim country will ever be successful as fanatics require fanatical measures to control them and no civilised country these days would ever condone the measures required to subdue a Muslim population.


         A part I find very amusing about the American political system is that if one is a redneck-Republican then one is able to criticise others at will and yet,  if a non-Republican has a soapbox then they must be a communist.  American democracy at work (as long as you are a Republican).
Ralph Berg said:
Jerry Bowers said:
I thought "Tim Brien" is Australian??
Don't know if he is. Does this mean his opinion does not count? I find it interesting to know what the rest of the world thinks. Ralph
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Did I write that or anything like that?

I was merely responding to Ric’s statement:

Quote:
I'm always so surprized that people feel they are trapped in the United States and must stay here. The Exit sign is always on. If this is such a bad place with such terrible policies, why do people fight and even sneak across the borders to get in?
Part of which I thought might be directed toward "Tim".

I too find it interesting to know what rational people in the rest of the world think, but I’m still waiting for “Tim” to divulge the source of his “Recent local press reports . . .”

Happy RRing,

Jerry

Jerry,
the news of the proposed toxin tests in the 1960’s, was reported widely early last week on national TV news coverage and in the daily newspapers in Australia. I am actually surprised that the tests were not actually carried out as the Australian government, at the time, had a definite U.S. bias. Earlier tests were actually carried out, around twenty years earlier, on Australian troops using mustard gas in the remote northern part of eastern Australia. I would certainly welcome any number of U.S. senators who want to test nerve toxins on themselves on our shores and perhaps they also could place their own military age children in the front line of any military engagement that they agree to participate in. Maybe then some sensibility will be restored.

   I strongly recommend that one view the first ten minutes of a new film, 'War, INC' to get a view on what the Iraqi conflict is all about.

Tim,
Please… take a deep breath, in… out… in… out. Now, don’t you feel better? And stay off the caffeine!

FYI, the US did not have the bomber range to hit Japan with any regularity until the capture of Saipan in 1944. The B-29 could make the round trip from there, barely. They tried from China, but the logistics were just too hard. As soon as Saipan fell, the B-29’s moved there.

The only bombing of Japan that took place in 1942 was Jimmy Doolittle’s raid with 16 B-25’s carrying about 1500 lbs of bombs each. The B-25’s were launched from USS Hornet on “Shangri-La” Station.

30,000 Deuche Soldats were executed by their own team in 1945? That is like 10 divisions. I don’t think even the Krauts would be that stupid.

I agree with you that bombing of civilians doesn’t work. The Blitz didn’t take out the Brits, Daylight bombing eventually destroyed Germany’s war and oil production, but not the moral of the German people, and the bombing of Japan burnt a lot of paper. The 2 A-bombs were shocking enough that they threw in the towel.

That is why saturation bombing is no longer used, aside from the fact that we don’t need it. In the latest fracas, 25 lb inert practice bombs, fitted with smart bomb technology were used for some targets where it was thought that the kinetic energy from 25 lbs falling from 30,000 feet would be enough to destroy the target if the bomb went in the second window from the right.

You really do need to get your facts right. They are stubborn things.

Jerry Bowers said:
Ralph Berg said:
Jerry Bowers said:
I thought "Tim Brien" is Australian??
Don't know if he is. Does this mean his opinion does not count? I find it interesting to know what the rest of the world thinks. Ralph
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Did I write that or anything like that?

I was merely responding to Ric’s statement:

Quote:
I'm always so surprized that people feel they are trapped in the United States and must stay here. The Exit sign is always on. If this is such a bad place with such terrible policies, why do people fight and even sneak across the borders to get in?
Part of which I thought might be directed toward "Tim".
Jerry, I understand now. Just reading the phrase in the context that it was presented seemed to imply otherwise. It did seem a little out of character. I'm glad you cleared that up. Ralph
Tim Brien said:
A part I find very amusing about the American political system is that if one is a redneck-Republican then one is able to criticise others at will and yet, if a non-Republican has a soapbox then they must be a communist. American democracy at work (as long as you are a Republican).
Tim, "red-neck" is a bit of name calling similar to what you recently chastised Mark for. There is a bit of truth to what you say. However, I don't think this is in play on this forum. You might see the "love it or leave it " attitude now and then. But as of yet, nobody has labeled me a communist. At least not to my face.:lol: Ralph