"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somew

[John Reynolds]

Congrats, John, not only do you come off as a terrorist pandering American against America, quick to support anti-semitism while running away from instead of confronting the enemy, now you're a blatantly obvious hypocrite for crying foul over the very thing you're a master of.

Ahh, yes, because a vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for terrorism. Support Herr Dubya or be branded a terrorist. Criticize the current administration and you're anti-American (though one who quotes the Founding Fathers and endorses their ideals). And the anti-semitic comment coming from the guy who threw it into the discussion for no apparent reason? Priceless. But, remember Joe, you're the one on record able to bifurcate your strong dislike of Jewish faith/religion (you know, that little thing that pretty much defines them) from Jews themselves.

Honestly, I've seen week-old soap film with more substance than the thin veneer behind which you hide your self-righteous bigotry.

No, that's not becoming of you. Your track is putting on your mod hat and deleting posts, remember?

Not quite. My pattern is to repeatedly warn first and when a someone doesn't get it into their heads that I'm serious, then I start laying on the delete button. Your pattern is to tell only half the picture. . .curiously enough, your half.

 

[Natoma]

And by what causal effect did the placement of those missiles alone bring about a swifter end to the Soviet Union's economic collapse?

That whole bankrupt the Soviet government trying to keep up with our military thing.

Was this an actual strategy or a "wow we weren't expecting that, but we'll take it!" thing?

You do remember Reagan, don't you? The arms race? MAD? *boggle*

I always looked at that as "We've got to make sure we've got more nukes than them!" Not as "We're doing this surreptitiously in order to outspend and bankrupt the Soviet Union." :?

 

[Mintmaster]

Honestly, I've seen week-old soap film with more substance than the thin veneer behind which you hide your self-righteous bigotry.

That was great. You should see what Joe is doing in the "Iraq 1 year later" thread. I think I'm going to start ignoring his posts now.

 

[Sxotty]

No, I'm saying you're standing on this, while Sxotty is saying something else.

No you missed my point.

The incumbents were behind prior to the terrorist attack, they were going to loose.

Imediately following the attack the popularity of the incumbent party went up (up enough that they had a chance to win btw) as often happens after tragedies.

The incumbents put out misleading info to the populace and basically blamed it on ETA even while the evidence was pointing towards muslim terrorists.

The spainish populace perceived whether correctly or incorrectly that the government was lying to them and the incumbent parties popularity fell below the starting level.

 

[RussSchultz]

The incumbents were behind prior to the terrorist attack, they were going to loose.

That wasn't what was reported in all the press.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Congrats, John, not only do you come off as a terrorist pandering American against America, quick to support anti-semitism while running away from instead of confronting the enemy, now you're a blatantly obvious hypocrite for crying foul over the very thing you're a master of.

Ahh, yes, because a vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for terrorism. Support Herr Dubya or be branded a terrorist.

Oh...my...God.

I see sarcsm is completely lost on you?!



Either that, or the part that you wrote that I was mimicking.... you actually believe?

 

[Sxotty]

Anyway Russ I was just saying what the polls said there that I saw.

Basically the incumbents did lots of stuff the populace liked, and although 90% of the populace did not support the stance spain took w/ Iraq and the US they liked other stuff the administration did. Basically the race was close to even prior to attacks, and after them it did like I said, then the populace thought the gov't was lying and they tanked. Remember the spainards have had some crappy governments in recent memory so they are truly much more touchy about a government lying to them most likely than americans are.

 

[John Reynolds]

Oh...my...God.

I see sarcsm is completely lost on you?!



Either that, or the part that you wrote that I was mimicking.... you actually believe?

Joe, apparently unsatisifed with derailing the discussion you're now derailing the rails you laid to initially derail the thread. Good job.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, apparently unsatisifed with derailing the discussion you're now derailing the rails you laid to initially derail the thread. Good job.

Um, OK.

 

[Vince]

I always looked at that as "We've got to make sure we've got more nukes than them!" Not as "We're doing this surreptitiously in order to outspend and bankrupt the Soviet Union." :?

But Natoma, if you look at the scope and sheer size of the buildup in the 1980s, it's clear it can be called nothing but a stereotypical armsrace. From the increase in research spending, to SDI, to the expanding of the nuclear force and the MX/D5, strategic weapons like the B-1b and B-2, to Lehman and his 600-ship Navy. Everything was crafted to cause a reciprical action by the Soviets.

Hell, if my memory is correct, Gorbachev even called SDI an expansion of the arms race into space...

 

[digitalwanderer]

I always looked at that as "We've got to make sure we've got more nukes than them!" Not as "We're doing this surreptitiously in order to outspend and bankrupt the Soviet Union." :?

But Natoma, if you look at the scope and sheer size of the buildup in the 1980s, it's clear it can be called nothing but a stereotypical armsrace. From the increase in research spending, to SDI, to the expanding of the nuclear force and the MX/D5, strategic weapons like the B-1b and B-2, to Lehman and his 600-ship Navy. Everything was crafted to cause a reciprical action by the Soviets.

Hell, if my memory is correct, Gorbachev even called SDI an expansion of the arms race into space...

I don't think anyone is questioning as to whether or not it was an arms race, but rather the motivation behind it.

I think the US bankrupting the USSR with the arms race was entirely serendipitous to our actual aim, which was to be armed to the teeth against the bad guys.

 

[John Reynolds]

I don't think anyone is questioning as to whether or not it was an arms race, but rather the motivation behind it.

I think the US bankrupting the USSR with the arms race was entirely serendipitous to our actual aim, which was to be armed to the teeth against the bad guys.

We weren't exactly armed to the teeth, though, if you look at the disparity of armored ground divisions the Warsaw Pact had compared to NATO. So if our real purpose was to defeat them conventionally in the valleys of Germany we weren't spending our money very wisely.

 

[digitalwanderer]

We weren't exactly armed to the teeth, though, if you look at the disparity of armored ground divisions the Warsaw Pact had compared to NATO. So if our real purpose was to defeat them conventionally in the valleys of Germany we weren't spending our money very wisely.

We never really planned to beat them in a conventional war, we planned to anihilate them utterly should it come to a nuclear disagreement.

In conventional warfare I believe we just intended to "stop the spread of communism" or some such blather.

 

[Vince]

I don't think anyone is questioning as to whether or not it was an arms race, but rather the motivation behind it.

I think the US bankrupting the USSR with the arms race was entirely serendipitous to our actual aim, which was to be armed to the teeth against the bad guys.

I think this is one of the most obtuse comment's I've ever heard. I've never read a single noted historian who shares your view, nor is it even plausible. The "armed to the teeth" comment in particular is absolutly horrid and reminds me of a quote, I'm not sure by who, which stated something to the effect of, The only conflict in the Cold War was between to the Army and Airforce.

Unless you're a bleeding heart leftist who thinks all conservatives are illiterate idiots, in which case this argument would seem to actually make some semblence of sake. Because which conservative would have actually understood the reciprical nature of an arms race?

We never really planned to beat them in a conventional war, we planned to anihilate them utterly should it come to a nuclear disagreement.

In conventional warfare I believe we just intended to "stop the spread of communism" or some such blather.

We didn't? Who the hell are you reading? I used to play the Doc in a boardgame called Nato: The Next War in Europe and became interested so started doing background research on the topic and I have yet to see a scenario in which the West would lose and not take the offensive. Any mobilization by the Soviets would tip off NATO and the US to impliment REFORGER; particularly in the armored conflicts John commented on which would be utterly ravanged by airpower.

 

[John Reynolds]

Clancy's Red Storm Rising is a 'fun' (to read, that is) fictionalization of this topic.

 

[Sxotty]

Yes I was always hoping they would make a movie out of red storm rising, but it is rather long for that. Still it would make a good flick I think.

 

[Clashman]

I haven't read most of the responses, but I will agree with what a couple of people were saying in the first thread. It would be funny if Bush wasn't doing it. I'd say the same thing about any political leader joking about going to war.

When a political cartoonist makes a joke about WMD's, it isn't has if his or her decision on them is what led to hundreds if not thousands of people dying. Last year, WMD's weren't a joke to the President or his staff, they were dead serious. And it was the seriousness about the threat they posed that convinced many people in this country that war was necessary.

If Clinton joked about how "Bombing those medicine factories in Sudan sure got people's minds off Monica, hee-yuck, hee-yuck", or Truman joked about dropping the Atom Bomb, or McNamara joked about the Vietnam War, (I know he wasn't president), or any number of other incidents it just plain wouldn't be funny, because you're joking about your OWN decisions that cost people their lives. When a political cartoonist makes a joke about WMD's, it isn't has if his or her decision on them is what led to hundreds if not thousands of people dying. That's the difference, and why I'm more than a little peeved about it.

Part of this is probably due to the fact that one of my best friends is stationed only about 30-40 miles South of Baghdad right now, and that someone from my highschool was wounded in Iraq already, so I apologize if people think I'm getting too emotional about this, but right now I really can't help it.

 

[zidane1strife]

Well, dunno if this been posted, but rumors on the net are that WMD are being brought into irak....

Of course that's probably not true, but it's good to consider the what ifs?....

 

[epicstruggle]

Well, dunno if this been posted, but rumors on the net are that WMD are being brought into irak....

Of course that's probably not true, but it's good to consider the what ifs?....

I went to south africa just as we toppled saddams statue in bhagdad. Talking to my wifes friends there, they all said that any WMDs found more than likely would have been planted there by the americans. They had no trust of america. In a weird way not finding WMDs _should_ increase their trust of america, since we did not plant any evidence. Maybe a stretch but i plan on making the case, when i go see my wife again next month.

later,
epic

 

[zidane1strife]

They had no trust of america. In a weird way not finding WMDs _should_ increase their trust of america, since we did not plant any evidence. Maybe a stretch but i plan on making the case, when i go see my wife again next month.

But, the ''what if?'' is what if they're mysteriously found in the coming months... yeah, it most likely won't happen... but it'd be an interesting scenario.