 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM "The problems with ABM's is that it's very difficult to convince the folks they are aimed at that these weapons cannot also be used as offensive weapons... I mean, if Russsia were to plant ABM's in Cuba the US would throw a fit, Homey... This is perhaps why Russia is trhowing a fit about the US wanted to plant them on Russia's doorstep..." Not sure that I see why. Look at the ABM systems: Under SALT, the USSR and the US were allowed two each- The Soviets built them, and we started to, then dismantled them so that the ONLY option in case of attack would be all-out nuclear war. With SDIO, the basic principle is that, IN THE CASE of a LIMITED launch, caused by accident or terrorists, the side with an ABM has the OPTION of NOT throwing it's entire arsenal at the percieved enemy, and waiting until it was understood whaht happened. A 95% hit rate would mean that of 10 missles launched, there would be a 50% chance that ONE would get through. Since the alternative, without ABM, is to have a 100% chance that TEN will get through, it seems obvious that the OPTION of waiting is only there with an ABM system in place. When the choice is between MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction ( as pushed by Democratic Administrations)) and SDIO, that allows the missles to be neutralized WITHOUT destroying the attacking country, it seem that only those committed to the idea that it is better to kill the (percieved) enemy even at the cost of one's own death than to block the attack and then deal as appropriate with the ones who launched the attack, could NOT be in favor of it. If Country X launches 10 missiles at Japan, is it a better thing to a. Shoot down the missiles and have no-one killed. OR b. Have the 10 missiles hit Japan, killing millions, then remove Country X from the face of the earth with the counterstrike? And what about the fact that it might have been an error on the part of Country X's software that caused the launch in the first place? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:15 PM First of all thwere is failsafe measures that the country firing the offensive missle can use in the case of an "accident"... So that argument is off the table... The second argument, however, of a terrorist launching an offensive missile is, while farfetched, somewhat valid... But in ordeer for that to happen the terrorist would have to have gone thru a massive checklist of preocedures in order to pull it off... I'm not too sure what the chances are of a terrorist being able to penitrate the US or Russia but it is so small that it's perhaps not even worth discussion... Now that brings up folks like Pakistan... or India... or Isreal that we are realistically talking about here... Agreed??? The problem is that if one is making a case for a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep based on the threat to the US by Pakistan one needs to rememeber that Pakistan does not have the felivery capabilities to hit the US... Not does India... Isreal??? Maybe... So, the discussion comes down to the logis in placing a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep to protect the US from Isreal??? If that is your argument, bb, and I'm not saying it is... But when one takes the window dressing off what you have said, I can't think of any other scenerio out there in the real world that would justify the US thinking that a ABM sysytem on Russia's doorstep would be of any value at all but... ...quite the contrary... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:40 PM Bobert: "First of all thwere is failsafe measures that the country firing the offensive missle can use in the case of an "accident"... So that argument is off the table..." False conclusion. WE have such a systemn, and have offered it to the Russians, but there are a number of nuclear weapons which aee not under such control, both within NATA, and in other nations including the former Soviet Union. "The second argument, however, of a terrorist launching an offensive missile is, while farfetched, somewhat valid... But in ordeer for that to happen the terrorist would have to have gone thru a massive checklist of preocedures in order to pull it off" Again, a false conclusion from the present KNOWN inventory of nuclear weapons in the world- NOT including the ones in N. Korea, given out by Pakeustan, stolen from depots in the former Soviet Union, etc. "... I'm not too sure what the chances are of a terrorist being able to penitrate the US or Russia but it is so small that it's perhaps not even worth discussion..." Easily done, the shipping containers presently entering the US are just one example. Likelihood is 95% + (100% ability, about 5% that they would be caught) "Now that brings up folks like Pakistan... or India... or Isreal that we are realistically talking about here... Agreed???" They are a PART of the problem, but far from the largest part. "The problem is that if one is making a case for a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep based on the threat to the US by Pakistan one needs to rememeber that Pakistan does not have the felivery capabilities to hit the US... Not does India... Isreal??? Maybe..." 1. the ABM system proposed was for the KNOWN missiles from Iran ( the ones I have already shown the links to them HAVING NOW, or having under construction several years ago. 2. An attack on a US ally is, by treaty, considered the same as an attack on the US. I am sure the English and others in NATO would want us to keep our treaty obligations... "So, the discussion comes down to the logis in placing a US ABM system on Russia's doorstep to protect the US from Isreal???" False concliusion, as shown by my negation of your straw man arguement. "If that is your argument, bb, and I'm not saying it is... But when one takes the window dressing off what you have said, I can't think of any other scenerio out there in the real world that would justify the US thinking that a ABM sysytem on Russia's doorstep would be of any value at all but..." Then you have failed to think of the actual reality of the present nuclear weapons, the present delivery systems, and the real world. Your comments about SDIO to me have about the same weight as MY comments about Blues singers would have to you. You have expertise in Blues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:54 PM "Pakistan does not have the felivery capabilities to hit the US... Not does India.." You are WAY behind the times, Bobert. "(1995)As Indian scientists watched their new space rocket ascend over the Indian Ocean, they were jubilant. The rocket's four giant stages lifted a three-quarter ton satellite into a near polar orbit, a tremendous achievement for Indian rocketry. For the rest of the world, however, last October's launch was more ominous: India had just proved that it could soon reach any point on the globe with a nuclear warhead. India tested its first nuclear device in 1974. Since then, according to the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), its researchers have progressed to working on more powerful thermonuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them. India's smallest nuclear-capable missile now threatens Pakistan, and its medium-range missile will threaten China's border regions. If India converts its new space rocket to a missile, it could reach cities as far away as London, Tokyo and New York. " http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/india/missiles.html India, Russia to make BrahMos missiles 21 Jul 2006, 1540 hrs IST,PTI BANGALORE: India and Russia intend to make 1,000 BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles over the next 10 years through their joint venture company, with nearly 50 per cent of them expected to be sold in third countries, defence sources said on Friday. "We already have a capacity to produce 100 missiles a year. One thousand missiles in 10 years is a reasonable target. Nearly 50 per cent will go to exports," a source said. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1789050.cms "Pakistan has an extensive nuclear-capable ballistic missile program, as the April 1998 test-firing of the Ghauri missile illustrates. The program is almost entirely imported, despite official Pakistani claims to the contrary. Most recently, Pakistan has received assistance from the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Pakistan's limited scientific and industrial base has forced it to rely on continuous outside help. Pakistan possesses both the 300 km M-11 (Hatf III) missile acquired from China and the 1000 km Nodong (Ghauri) missile bought from North Korea. Pakistan has also imported plants to manufacture these missiles. Pakistan's missile program is important for two reasons. First, Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state. Missiles give Pakistan the means to deliver its nuclear warheads farther and with more certainty than it could with aircraft. Second, the May nuclear weapons tests of both Pakistan and India illustrate the high tensions and spiraling arms race in South Asia. Ballistic missiles, which shorten warning times, increase the chances of accidental or preemptive nuclear conflict. " http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/pakistan/missiles.html http://www.missilethreat.com/thethreat/pageID.250/default.asp How many OTHER references do you want??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jan 08 - 07:56 PM India developing submarine launched ballistic missiles The Associated Press Published: September 11, 2007 NEW DELHI: India has tested systems that would enable it to launch ballistic missiles from submarines, officials said Tuesday, a move that boosts the country's nuclear deterrence capabilities. Submarine launched ballistic missiles, or SLBMs, are considered an important element in creating nuclear deterrence, giving it second strike capabilities in the event its land or air-based weapons are disabled. Indian media reports Tuesday said India had successfully launched a SLBM with a range of some 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) in recent days. However, the Ministry of Defense denied this, saying only that India's state-run Defense Research and Development Organization had tested components of an underwater launch system. "No SLBM of the said range has been launched by the DRDO," said ministry spokesman Sitanshu Kar. "Only the development of technology elements for potential underwater capabilities is in progress." He gave no further details of the test. Last week Defense Minister A. K. Antony informed Parliament that a submarine-launched version of India's Brahmos supersonic cruise missile was ready. However, the Brahmos, which can carry nuclear warheads of up to 200 kilograms (440 pounds) in weight, has a maximum range of 290 kilometers (180 miles). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 01 Jan 08 - 08:18 PM So, bb, are you suggesting that Pakistan could pull off an nuclear attack on the US??? BTW, keep in mind that Pakistan's rocket techmology was sold to North Korea and look what happened when North Korea shot off one of their Pakistani designed missles... You are giving way too much credit to folks who are clueless.. You also fail to recognize the reality that the US can wipe out anyone who is stupid enough to attack us with missels... T^his is the deterrent factor that folks who think we need more nukes can't get their minds wrapped around... As for India attackin' US with subs??? Is this a reason to put ABMs on Russia's doorstep??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 03:36 PM Bobert: "So, bb, are you suggesting that Pakistan could pull off an nuclear attack on the US???" No, I was not- although they COULD. "BTW, keep in mind that Pakistan's rocket techmology was sold to North Korea and look what happened when North Korea shot off one of their Pakistani designed missles..." Sorry, it was N. Korea that sold the rocket technology to Pakistan... AND Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, et al. And what did happen? they went over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean. "You are giving way too much credit to folks who are clueless.." You are giving way too little credit to people who have shown they can develop what the US had 30 years ago. "You also fail to recognize the reality that the US can wipe out anyone who is stupid enough to attack us with missels... : Only if we 1. had the will/ public acceptance 2. knew who it was that launched the attack 3. had the capability to wipe them out- Were you one of those that stated it was impossible to eliminate Iran's nuclear program because we could not destroy the whole country? "T^his is the deterrent factor that folks who think we need more nukes can't get their minds wrapped around..." ** I ** have never stated we need MORE nuclear bombs- I would prefer to see the effort used for defensive systems like ABMs. "As for India attackin' US with subs??? Is this a reason to put ABMs on Russia's doorstep???" No, it was a negation of your statements, showing them to be false. The reason to put ABMs " On Russia's Doorstep" is to intercept the Iranian missles ( which they already have) IF they are launched against US ALLIES ( Those we have treaty obligations to protect) with the nuclear warheads that IRAN is capable of developing in the near future ( 2009? 2012?) and which they have a demonstrated capability to produce fissionable material for. Or do you WANTY to wait until they are used, so you can destroy the entire country with our retaliation? I would far rather stop them ( by destroying those missles before they impact) before they kill millions than kill tens of millions more in revenge, as you seem to be advocating. Try reading WHAT I have written, instad of using your own bias to warp the facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:27 PM "Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, Pakistan has invested in both solid-motor and liquid-engine ballistic missile programs with Chinese and North Korean assistance, respectively. Pakistan's reasons for investing in both solid- and liquid-propulsion technologies remain unclear. However, analysts speculate the rival programs could be the result of intra-institutional rivalry and one-upmanship between the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), which have historically feuded over control and credits for Pakistan nuclear weapons-related efforts. This rivalry may have also carried over to the development of nuclear delivery systems. Furthermore, the diversification effort could also be viewed as a proactive attempt on the part of Pakistan's military to factor in possible bottlenecks or failure along one technological front, as well as an attempt to diversify suppliers in the face of U.S. efforts to restrict the international trade in weapons of mass destruction-capable ballistic and cruise missile technologies. Although Pakistan's current fleet of missiles is restricted to SRBMs, the National Defense Complex (NDC) and KRL are actively pursuing programs to develop medium-range ballistic missiles. Most analysts believe that the Pakistani military has achieved or is close to achieving the capability to mount nuclear warheads on its current ballistic missile fleet. Some reports even go so far as to suggest that Pakistan may be further along than India on the path to achieving nuclear operability.[3] Pakistan underscored its commitment to strengthening its military capability against India by conducting two ballistic missile tests in quick succession in February and March 2007, even as the two subcontinental rivals continued discussions on nuclear confidence building measures and anti-terrorism initiatives. The Pakistani tests came at a time when India has also sought to strengthen its strategic capabilities vis-à-vis Pakistan, as well as narrow the gap with China through development of more capable nuclear delivery vehicles, including advanced combat aircraft and missile systems. Since 2005, Islamabad has also carried out several tests of its Babur (Hatf VII) cruise missile, two such tests coming in March and June 2007. This subsonic nuclear capable missile, has a range of 700 km.[48] In addition, in August 2007, Pakistan tested a new cruise missile, the Ra'ad (Arabic for "Thunder"). This missile, which is air-launched, has a range of 350 kilometers.[49] Thus, along with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles are increasingly part of Pakistan's nuclear calculus. [50]" http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Missile/index_3066.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 05:19 PM Perhaps I need to explain further: ""So, bb, are you suggesting that Pakistan could pull off an nuclear attack on the US???" No, I was not- although they COULD." ANY group that has a nuclear device capable of being placed on a missile of at least 30 Km range is CAPABLE of "pulling off a nuclear attack on the US." Unless we are prepared to declare ALL vessals on the high seas to be subject to search and possible seizure, and we implement such a program for ALL cargo, naval, and civilian ships capable of carrying such a missile- ie, about 60 ft.long or larger. You think that that is even possible, given the state of the US Navy and Coast Guard today? Or should we just sink them all when the get close enough to launch such a misile? THAT we might be able to do, with air assets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM "ABMs are purely defensive" Armour is purely defensive too. For example, on a tank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 02 Jan 08 - 05:26 PM Oh, so now the story is that we need more nukes because N. Korea sold their technology to Pakistan??? Hmmmmmm, bb, this story of yours is ghetting more farfetched every time you post... I mean, if I were Pakistan I'd be purdy danged worriwed if I was suing North Korean designs 'cause they just don't work too good... So you are basing your foriegn policy around crappy missels, bb??? One somewhat seccessful test does not make Pakistan all worhgt the price of starting another round of ther Cold War over... But that, in essence, is what is going to happen if the United Sates keeps pushing for missles on Rissia's doorstep... Somehow this little detail seems to escape your relm of undeerstanding... The US might not win another Cold War with Russia becasue of Russia's oil reserves and new found wealth from those reserves... This is a failed foreign policy built on 80's thinking... This isn't the 80's anymore, bb... The US is slowly bleeding to death finacially and I don't see much creative thinking, if any, from Bush and his gang... Einstien said that a problem cannnot be solved with the same consciousness that created it and this is why Bush, apparently like you, cannot shift gears quickly enough to act responsibly and sanely in a modern world... While you two rattle the sabres one opportunity after another after has been wasted... After 9/11 we had Iran right where we needed Iran... As much as I disliked Clinton personally he would used Iran's coooperation in defeating the Taliban as a grand opening for the normalization of relations... Anyone who has ever served in the intellegence community will tell you that it's alot easier to keep an eye on folks when you have diplomatic relations... This is a no brainer... But did Bush use this opportunity to make US safer... No, becuase somehow he thought that might not keep his redneck base happy... I mean, it ain't tough and tough is what entertains alot of his base... Stupid base and stupid leader... How about arguing why you think that diplomacy is for sissies, bb... You never seem to get around to that but, from your almost blind aceoptance of any thing that Bush does, and you full acceptance that the only way to get along in this world is to either whack or threaten whacking folks, it is apparent to most here that you really don't think much of diplomacy... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:01 PM Boberty, If you keep this up, I WILL call you a liar! "Oh, so now the story is that we need more nukes because N. Korea sold their technology to Pakistan??? " \ *** I *** HOVE NEVER SAID WE NEED MORE NUKES!. You keep saying lies. Shut up, or face the consequences. More on the rest of your statement later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:03 PM "How about arguing why you think that diplomacy is for sissies, bb" Another lie from that Bush-like liar, Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:04 PM "So you are basing your foriegn policy around crappy missels, bb??? " No, but YOU seem to think that you have some knowledge in a field that you have shown your ignorance in. I expect YOU to now defer to MY statements on the Blues, since I am far more an expert on them than you are on missles or WMD. OK, Ubermensch Bobert?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:06 PM "or threaten whacking folks" If you can show how a defensive system that can only shoot down missiles that are being used OFFENSIVELY is threatening to "whack" anybody, I might actually have some respect for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jan 08 - 08:15 PM N. Korea sold their technology to Pakistan It seems to have been much more he other way round. ......................................... "...show how a defensive system that can only shoot down missiles that are being used OFFENSIVELY is threatening..." If a potential enemy manages to install really effective defences, this reduces the deterrent effect of your own weapons, and in principal puts the other side in a position to use its own weapons without fear of effective retaliation. Once again: "Armour is purely defensive too. For example, on a tank." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 02 Jan 08 - 09:17 PM BB, Where in your history of posting here have you advocated diplomacy over militaristic responses... I rest my case... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:41 PM Bobert: Where in your history of posting here have you ever advocated dealing with the problem of nuclear proliferation other than by threatening other countries with complete destruction if we think they have attacked us? The principle YOU seem to be advocating, MAD, is as morally bankrupt and inhuman as any ever concieved by human beings. YOU are saying that the US should have enough warheads to destroy ALL the countries that might possibly attack us, in order to "deter" them. EVEN when it has been demonstrated that there are groups opposed to the US that DO NOT FEAR being killed, and thus your threat has no effect other than to make the US look like the aggressor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM "the deterrent effect of your own weapons," You are claiming that it is the deterrent effect of Iran's future weapons that will keep the US from attacking them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:49 PM Bobert, In a previous thread, talking about the ABM system near Russia, I stated that the US should share the control of that site JOINTLY with the Russians, so that they would not feel threatened by it. What was YOUR suggestion? That the US NOT try to protect those nations that we have a treaty obligation to protect? I think on this topic, at least, I have shown less desire to wipe out tens of millions of people than YOU have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jan 08 - 01:24 PM I was responding to the specific point you raised, bruce, which was to question how defensive missiles could ever reasonably be seen as threatening to anyone. In the past the USA has very clearly indicated that attempts to develop a Soviet ABM system would be viewed as a hostile act. You are claiming that it is the deterrent effect of Iran's future weapons that will keep the US from attacking them? I didn't make that claim - though I would assume that the essential purpose of seeking to acquire such weapons would be the hope that it could act as a deterrent to attacks by hostile countries. The same reason Israel, for example,has developed and built up its nuclear arsenal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 03 Jan 08 - 08:11 PM Six questions, BB... 1. Why are you back to SCREAMING??? 2. Do you think that SCREAMING makes your points any more correct??? 3. Why didn't you answer my question??? 4. Why can't you respond with one post rather than 3 or 4 or 5??? 5. Again, can you show us one single post where you have advocated diplomacy over militarism??? 6. How's you militaristic foreign policy' workin' for ya??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jan 08 - 02:45 PM Six answers, Bobert: 1. Why are you back to SCREAMING??? Because you seem incapable of reading and understanding simple English statements, and I find that to be annoying. 2. Do you think that SCREAMING makes your points any more correct??? No. Nor do I believe, as you seem to, that it makes them any LESS correct. 3. Why didn't you answer my question??? I did: "Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:49 PM Bobert, In a previous thread, talking about the ABM system near Russia, I stated that the US should share the control of that site JOINTLY with the Russians, so that they would not feel threatened by it. What was YOUR suggestion? That the US NOT try to protect those nations that we have a treaty obligation to protect? I think on this topic, at least, I have shown less desire to wipe out tens of millions of people than YOU have. " 4. Why can't you respond with one post rather than 3 or 4 or 5??? Because THEN you complain that my post are too long for you to bother reading. 5. Again, can you show us one single post where you have advocated diplomacy over militarism??? See the answer to #3 6. How's you militaristic foreign policy' workin' for ya??? Since I am not the one saying we should have no option other than to destroy entire nations if a single madman attacks us, it would seem that YOU need to answer it, not me. Since I have a pacific policy ( ie, I DON'T want to kill innocent civilians and burn babies, as you obviously do) the question is meanlingless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:18 PM Sorry, bb, but until you cool off and stop SCREAMING, I'll just go back to ignoring your mad-manish rants... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:25 PM Sorry, Bobert, but until you learn to read, comprehend, and reply to what is written rather than your own warped view of what you want people to have said, many of us will continue to ignore you, even though you may actually have valid points of view that we should consider. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jan 08 - 06:53 PM Hmm... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 04 Jan 08 - 07:27 PM LOL, bb... You wouldn't consider or reconsider anything that you believe becasue you are genetically incapable of independent thought... That is not meant to be disrespectfull but quite the opposite... I do respect the depths of your beliefs... That is a fine quality... Geoerge Bush also possesses the same qualities... Problems with "true believers" is that they shouldn't be in leadership positions because they have no flexibility... That is you... It is Bush and, in a lesser extent, that is me as well... Yes, we beleieve what we belive deeply... In your case I see it more as partisan belief because it seems that you tend to sing the party fight songs... I am not attached to a party so I'd like to think of myself as more of an independent thinker... I hated most of Bill Clinton's policies, for instance... I suspect that you have supporsted 100% of George Bush's policies... If I am wrong it isn't bwecasue you have ever broken ranks... This is why it is im[possible to discuss things with you... You have no interest in discussing things becasue you are always on the Bush defensive... That will never bring about any discussion but rather Bush "talking points"... Talking points are not discussion... They are defensive... So after a while it just comes dowen to the same ol' impass... I have asked you to express your" ideas and opinions... What I get is not that but some reference to a post from the past where you, more likely, couched your opinion between cut 'n posts... I wouldn't mind going head to head with you if you would quit the games and leave the cut'n posts outta it... But, seein' as that ain't gonna happen, discussing stuff with you is insane: repeating a behavior and expecting different results... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:39 PM Bobert, "You wouldn't consider or reconsider anything that you believe becasue you are genetically incapable of independent thought... " A false statement- YOU ( yelling) do not know anything about my genetic capabilities, nor would you understand them if you did know. I have spent the last 29.5 years in the field of missiles, satellites, and space operations. Yet you present lies about space capabilities that YOU ( yelling) do not even understand, and themn insist on repeating them after you have been given the refernces that show them to be wrong. Seems like YOU ( yelling) are the one incapable of deviating from your programmed "anti-Bush" mindset. As I have stated, the insistance on giving a future US leader ONLY ( yelling) the choice of doing nothing, and having the whole principle of MAD brought into doubt, or destroying millions of innocents, which YOU ( yelling) claim is far better than to allow another option, that of destroying missiles BEFORE ( emphasis) they can impact the US or our allies, or even others ). The idea that the only "peaceful" way is to insure that millions die if a single madman gets WMD, as the lack of ABM systems does, seems about as warped and evil as it is possible for one to be. "This is why it is im[possible to discuss things with you... You have no interest in discussing things becasue you are always on the Bush defensive... That will never bring about any discussion but rather Bush "talking points"... Talking points are not discussion... They are defensive..." And when have YOU ( emphasis, not yelling) EVER ( more emphasis) presented any point other than the "anti-Bush" talking points????? I have disagreed with SOME ( emphasis) of the Bush administration actions- Have you EVER ( emphasis) agreed with any of them? Seems as if you are more narrow-minded than even I am. "But, seein' as that ain't gonna happen, discussing stuff with you is insane: repeating a behavior and expecting different results..." THIS ( ephasis) I can agree with you entirely on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:40 PM Perhaps more than anything, I cannot discuss anything with someone who continually SHOUTS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 05 Jan 08 - 09:11 AM Amen, TIA, amen... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:36 PM "the folks they are aimed at" They are not aimed at people. They are aimed at other launched missiles. "if Russsia were to plant ABM's in Cuba the US would throw a fit," That is pure speculation. With ABMs on both sides what is the problem? Would I be a threat to you if I have a fire extinguisher but you don't? I still haven't seen one constructive word about what should be done about Iran's threat to peace and the middle east. Perhaps wallowing around in victimhood, whining and bitching about George Bush will take care of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 16 Jan 08 - 12:20 AM Teddy Roosevelt said "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." All the Bush administration knows how to do is wave the big stick. Anybody tried a little diplomacy lately? Not so's anybody could notice. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 16 Jan 08 - 02:19 AM "Anybody tried a little diplomacy lately?" Over the last eight years rather a great deal of it Don. Your current administration using purely diplomatic means resolved the rather serious situation regarding North Korea. A certain amount of diplomatic effort has gone into the Israel/Palestine peace process. On the other hand, the EU has been negotiating with Iran for seven years now with absolutely no result. Inside Iran things are changing, the sanctions imposed both unilaterally and by the UN are having an effect, you have a very young population who are largely critical of the situation within. As the old line goes, "Somethings got to give" and that will occur without the US having to do a thing. On the subject US Foreign Policy in the region seems to have dropped out of the topics being discussed by the Democrat Presidential hopefuls. Just as well Senator Joe Biden has pulled out as by now I'd be sending him quotes from his statements directed at General Petraeus last September. Further down the thread McGrath of Harlow, came out with "Arriving at an opinion after examining the evidence isn't "prejudice". Very true Kevin, provided that all the available evidence is examined and provided that what you are examining is indeed evidence. Bobert tends to run on rumour and unsupported opinion that backs his adopted point of view. An example of this was given in his "little review": ***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading... Ask Bobert to provide links to the evidence he examined before making the above statement, one part of which (i.e. the grade obtained) is fact the other complete and utter supposition (Boberts prejudice is showing). ***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard... Not true, and absolutely no evidence to support that statement. ***Given the Texas Rangers by his daddy and the team's profits went down... Not true, any examination of the transaction will prove that GHWB had absolutely nothing to do with it. Where GWB got the money to buy into the Team is perfectly transparent for anybody that wants to look. ***Given Harkin Energy by his daddy and he ran it into the ground right after taking $700,000 out of the kitty for himself... Not true, again I would like to see the "evidence" that Bobert examined to back this up, as with the above the deals were all perfectly transparent. No money was "taken out of the kitty" as Bobert puts it. GWB objected to Harken plans to drill offshore Bahrain as it was clearly outside the company's core business. He resigned from the board and sold his stock, his dealings with Harkin were subject to a full investigation and nothing untoward was found - I imagine that that investigation did examine evidence to reach that conclusion. ***Cokehead and alcoholic Evidence Bobert? The man admits to having for period in his youth of "drinking too much" but accusations of drug abuse and alcoholism seems to belabour the point a bit. All of this what near twenty years ago? I wonder if Bobert and all others who lap this sort of stuff up apply the same yardstick to themselves? ***Convicted drunk driver and... Not a criminal offence at the time his drivers licence was suspended and he paid a fine. ...worst president in American history, bar none but given his record it shouldn't come as any surprise... Opinion, pure opinion, not fact. On the subject of losers, GWB put his own money into Arbusco Oil, which merged to become Spectrum 7 Energy, which was taken over by Harkin Energy. At every step of the way GWB translated his stake in the form of stock and made a profit. If that is "losing" then I know a large number of businessmen who would like to lose in a similar fashion. With the money he got from his sale of Harkin Stock he paid for his stake in the Rangers, which he sold in 1998 after eight years for an enormous profit - I just love Boberts definition of losing. Everything that Bobert comes out with is coloured by his prejudice and based on lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and myth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 16 Jan 08 - 11:58 PM Truman lowest approval rating = 23% all time worst of any president GWB lowest approval rating = 32% |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:12 AM The above was by me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:19 AM "I still haven't seen one constructive word about what should be done about Iran's threat to peace and the middle east." Assuming, that is, that Iran is a threat. Iran probably considers Israel and the U.S. a threat. Defense is quite different than a threat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:22 AM Besides that, what kind of 'peace in the middle east' do you think Iran is threatening? What does peace in the middle east look like? Seems to me the U.S. and Israel have made sure that there will be no peace in the middle east. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:04 AM Yo, t... Other than your *proclamations* you have not provided any evidence that my observations about Bush, which BTW have nothing to do with prejudice, are innacurate... Can you prove that Bush completed his stint in the Air National Guard??? He can't... Can you show us where Bush didn't take a $700,000 draw from Harkin Energy just months before it announced it was seriously in the red??? Can you tell us were Bush got the money to buy the Texas Rangers... How did he earn that money??? Please be specfic about juts who his employers were and how he could have amassed that kind of money to buy a baseball team??? You *proclaim* that things are "transparent" but I made several observation and you have not provided *evidence* that I am wrong... As for Iran, diplomacy is very complex... Maybe that is why the Bush foriegn policy on the Middle East has gotten us into such a mess... The problems of the Middle East cannot be solved militarially... Bush didn't understand that in 2000 as his main interst was attacking Iraq... That has been reported by his former Treasury Scretary... No, what Bush did was do a 180 on just about everything that Clinton has done in regards to Middle East Policy which, in essence, was to say "play nice" and then turn his back on Isreal and let the Plaiistianian?isreali situation deteriorate into chaos... This wasn't diplomacy... This was just plain stupid... Now 7 years later with Bush figuring out just how wrong he was in abandoning the Clinton Isreali/Palestian policy Bush is trying to salvage a legacy by doing exactly what Clinton was doing... Problem is is that's Bush's legacy has allready very much been cast... In other words, it's too late... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:27 PM I guess Bush is still trying his brand of diplomacy on Iran. He's done so BLOODY well with it in Iraq. After his feet fell out from underneath him on the most recent intellegance report on Iran's nuclear weapons abandonment program, he's still trying to bush & spin the issue for a defense & strike against this threat to the free world, his free world. To him diplomacy is an unknown, meaning that he hasn't a clue as to how to use it, speak it, weld it, or spell it. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM Whoa up there Hoss! The boot is on the other foot. You Bobert were the one that stated: 1. ***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading... Therefore, you Bobert have to provide links to the evidence that you examined before making the above statement with regard to the grade attained and to substantiate that rich kids get favourable grading. Perhaps Dianavan or other 'catters in the teaching profession can tell us that they give preferential grades to rich kids. 2. ***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard... You stated that Bobert now present the "evidence" that caused you to make that statement. At the same time explain how as a deserter the man managed to be given an honourable discharge from the Air National Guard. 3. ***Given the Texas Rangers by his daddy and the team's profits went down... Please provide "evidence" that GHWB had anything to do with GWB's purchase of the Texas Rangers Team. 4 ***Given Harkin Energy by his daddy and he ran it into the ground right after taking $700,000 out of the kitty for himself... Please present or provide the "evidence" and links to substantiate that GHWB purchased Harkin Energy for his son. Somebody mentioned by Guest Homey in another thread could tell you - one George Soros, he was part of Harkin Energy when they bought out Spectrum 7. ***Cokehead and alcoholic Evidence Bobert? Or do you firmly believe that once a man has a drink he remains an alcoholic forever. If so too bad for reformation and rehabilitation in your world Bobert. I wonder Bobert if you apply the same yardstick to yourself? ***Convicted drunk driver and... The current President of the United States of America does not have a criminal record. If you dispute that Bobert, as you appear to, please prove your case, should be fairly easy, all you have to do is do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:25 PM No, I don't have to provide any of that stuff, T??? You proclaimed that I was wrong on my assertions so I believe the ball is in your court to back up your proclamations... Alll of my assertions, other than perhaps my opiniopn that Bush is the worst presdient ever, have been news items so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find 'um... Have at it, ol' son!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Jan 08 - 05:25 PM Sorry, Bobert. If you claim that because it is in a newspaper it is true, I refer you to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119984087808076475.html Waiting for your retraction of statements pertaining to Iraqi casualties... YOU have been making claims here about a lot of topics, based on what you claim to have read in some newspaper, while denying that anything you disagree with can be true, even when you are given the newspaper article it is presented in. So please give us the SOURCE material, so that thinking people can make up their own minds about it, instead of relying on "Bobert Truth" which has been proven wrong in several ( numerous) cases. If YOU do not have source material that can support your claims, why should we give it any more value than YOU give to what you disagree with?? OK, uber-Bobert? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Jan 08 - 06:14 PM That's OK Bobert, the questions were asked knowing full well that not one single point that you mentioned, apart from the actual grade that he attained at University, would stand up to even the most cursory of examinations. So you believe that things are true just because you read it in a newspaper!!! Now that is absolutely priceless, how bloody naive can you get!!! By the bye Bobert having said that I can categorically state that I do believe the content of the WSJ article linked to in BB's post regarding the Lancet and the Hopkins Report. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 17 Jan 08 - 06:28 PM On the ABM's Putin has clearly explained his concerns relating to their proposed sighting. He knows and has acknowledged that they in themselves pose no direct threat to Russia, he knows exactly what threat they are being deployed to cover. His concern is that if fired from their intended locations at missiles fired in a "rogue" strike the ABM's might take out the IRBM's in locations that might cause their (the IRBM's) warheads to fall on Russian territory. Point indicating the above to be the case - Putin himself actually advocated alternative sites for these ABM's and for their guidance radars, the locations being equally on "Russias Doorstep" but where if struck the targetted IRBM warheads would fall into the Caspian Sea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 08 - 07:44 PM Well, of course you beleive MR. SCREAMER's link... He's yer "contract partner" here in Mudville... You both believe each others crapola... No one else does but, hey???... As for Putin-head... It is my beleif that he has to do a little Cold War posturin' to keep his folks happy... Hmmmmmmm??? Ain't that what Bush is doing, too??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:25 PM "Assuming, that is, that Iran is a threat." Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "Iran is not just an Israeli problem, it's not just a problem for the region, Iran is a problem for the world." Sen. Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:34 PM "***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading..." AP Sen. John F. Kerry's [rich kid with a favorable grading] grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush's record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign. Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year - in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday. His grades improved with time, and he averaged an 81 his senior year and earned an 89 - his highest grade - in political science as a senior. "I always told my dad that D stood for distinction," Kerry said in a written response to reporters' questions. He said he has previously acknowledged focusing more on learning to fly than studying. Under Yale's grading system in effect at the time, grades between 90 and 100 equaled an A, 80-89 a B, 70-79 a C, 60 to 69 a D, and anything below that was a failing grade. In 1999, The New Yorker magazine published a transcript showing Bush had a cumulative grade average of 77 his first three years at Yale, and a similar average under a non-numerical rating system his senior year. Bush's highest grade at Yale was an 88 in anthropology, history and philosophy. He received one D in his four years, a 69 in astronomy, and improved his grades after his freshman year, the transcript showed. Kerry, a Democrat, previously declined to release the transcript, which was included in his Navy records. He gave the Navy permission to release the documents last month, the Globe reported. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 18 Jan 08 - 01:11 AM Ah Bobert, the only person laddling out "crapola" by the bucket is yourself: 1. ***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading... Matter of record Bobert he averaged 77, grade range for a C is 70 - 79. So with a score of 77 he was closer to a B than a D as you state. Deliberate misrepresentation on your part Bobert or just another lie. 2. ***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard... Matter of record Bobert, Lt G. W. Bush was given an honourable discharge from the Air National Guard. That would not have been the case had he indeed been AWOL. 3. ***Given the Texas Rangers by his daddy and the team's profits went down... Matter of record Bobert, GHWB had nothing to do with GWB's purchase of the Texas Rangers Team. Which puts rather a large hole in your statement that GWB was "given" the team by his father, to persist in that is to deliberately tell a lie. 4 ***Given Harkin Energy by his daddy and he ran it into the ground right after taking $700,000 out of the kitty for himself... Matter of record Bobert, Harkin Energy took over, i.e. bought Spectrum 7, nobody gave anybody anything, it was a straightforward business deal. Marks up another falsehood deliberately spread by Bobert. ***Cokehead and alcoholic Evidence Bobert? ***Convicted drunk driver and... Matter of record Bobert, the current President of the United States of America does not have a criminal record. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:37 AM First of all, Bush was 'convicted", T... Now when you are convicted that means you have a "criminal record"... Yes, we know that the courts have this screwed up system where they expunge folks records if they don't do the same dumb stuff but that doesn't chenage the ***fact*** that Bush was convicted, does it??? Second of all, Bush did take out $700,000 for himself, thereby devaluing Harkin Energy... The fact the Harkin was subsequently sold does not change that ***fact***, does it??? Now as for the Texas National Guard thing, T... Thie is what being a rick kid got you dyuring the Vietnam days... Rich kids only served if they wanted to... There was always a way out for them... The "contents" of the CBS reprot have never been proven to be false... I would think that Bush would have been able, if he actually did comp0lete his requirements, been ablee to provide evidence that he did, wouldn't you??? But rather (pun intended" do that he and Karl Rove put togteher a smear campaign against Dan Rather... Buit they never proved the "contents" of the documents to be false, did they??? More later... Or not... B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:53 AM "The "contents" of the CBS reprot have never been proven to be false" Nor have they been proven to be true. However the paper it was based on was proven to be a forgery simply by the fact that there was nothing that could type it at that time. Exactly when where was the trial Bush wherein convicted, what was he convicted of and where are the records and or witnesses? I see nothing to Bobert's claims of accuracy, just arrogant boasting. |
