When you pay for a trip on the Central Link light rail, the machine makes change in dollar coins. Will wrote about the coins a while ago. They’re going through all the presidents. Recently I got me a John Tyler, and I couldn’t help but think that maybe America shouldn’t be celebrating someone who supported the treason side in the Civil War.
There have been some shitty presidents, and maybe we shouldn’t be honoring Tyler, Nixon, Reagan, Truman, Hoover, either Bush or the whole host of corrupt Republican presidents between Grant and Harding or asleep at the wheel presidents before the civil war. Not to mention the assortment of slave owners and the trail of tears guy on the money now. At the very least though, why are we celebrating the one who committed treason?
I have a three-dollar bill with Bill Clinton’s pic on it.
The denomination of coin or currency that merits Jimmy Carter’s pic isn’t low enough to be minted or printed. Well, maybe you could put him on a bounced check…
We’re still waiting to see how bad BHO trashes America before deciding where to put him. Maybe on currency issued by Poland or the Czech Republic, where he’s currently persona non grata?
The Piper
Yeah, we know. We’re living under one now. This polished turd doesn’t have a clue how to lead a nation.
1) Tyler was a Democrat.
2) Treason is a legal term, and Tyler was never convicted of treason, so Carl is wrong, he never legally “committed treason.”
I enjoy drawing a devil face on Jackson. What an asshole. I’m going to start drawing an arrow though his fat head.
@1,
You probably shouldn’t be drinking this early in the morning.
@3,
He ran for Vice President as a Whig, not that it matters to 21st century politics if he had been a Democrat. He died before the end of the Civil War, but I think joining the Confederate House of Representatives counts as an act of treason.
Love how the HA Happy Hooligans diss Ol’ Hickory. Wonder if they’re enthusiastic participants at annual Dem fundraisers that are named after him?
The Piper
Troll @3,
You’ve committed treason, and we hang traitors.
haha, what an ignorant fuck. David Goldstain doesn’t know his history.
@7…Goldy…
Thank you for going on the record in favor of the death penalty – should drive a lot of so-called “progressives” crazy since they’re still upset over Wesley Allen Dodd and Charles Rodman Campbell, two candidates for rehabilitation.
The Piper
I miss the Sacajawea dollars. The only American coin to honor a single mom. The presidents on US coinage thing really didn’t get started until the 20th century. The first was Lincoln on the penny in 1909 to celebrate the centennial of his birth. Before that it was mostly a figure of Liberty or an anonymous Indian. The liberty figure long predated the statue of the same name. If the statue was made today, someone would probably sue for copyright or trademark infringement. I think the whole honoring presidents thing was a bad idea. If you look closely enough, they all suck.
Uhhh.. Sacajawea was married to Toussaint Charbonneau, the Quebecer fur trapper.
I see Piper, member of the Society for Freeing Terrorist on Compassionate Grounds is making another wildly hypocritical appearance here.
Wearing a new skirt for the occasion Pipsqueak?
Bring any OTHER Scottish sheep with you?
How IS cousin Mohammar?
Maybe we need a special set of faux coins for the Presidents who were appointed rather than elected?
I think it makes the coins a lot harder to use when the quarters rotate through all the states and the dollars rotate through all the presidents, etc. It makes it a lot harder to glance at a handful of change and quickly pick out what you want.
We need a P.O.E. movement (purity of engraving)!
@3 Troll
treason
Hmmm …
by this definition …
Tyler (Whig)
Hayes (Republican)
Nixon (Republican)
and then there is Dereliction of duty.
GW Bush (Republican)
Impressive!
Mr Troll
BTW ..
Sarah Palin and John McCain also qualify for the Red Republican award .. she advocated secession and he conspired to over throw Nicaragua.
I remember when a dollar was bigger and made of real silver.
@1 I copied your likeness from your website and had it silk-screened on my toilet paper.
@9 I see in the fishwrapper, Danny Westneat’s column to be precise, that unfortunately I-1033 has a 61%-31% lead in the latest polls. This is the end of public education in Washington.
@18…RR…
Since silk screeing is a wet process, you must have destroyed a lot of Charmin in the process.
Next time you’re at the food bank, throw some of this in your basket.
The Piper
if we are going to stop celebrating those who were in the confederacy there’s about 5,000,000 names we have to change all over the South. If we’re going to stop celebrating slaveowners there’s about 20,000,000 neames we’re going to have to change all over the South, North, East and West, including
Washington State.
George, Washington.
And probably a few Leif Ericson statues need to come down, too, and that Viking Bar over in Ballard? It’s named after people who took lots of slaves.
If we’re going to stop celebrating all European whites who did bad things there’s even more names we have to change like Columbus Circle and, um, the Columbia River (methings it ain’t named for lady columbia….but for cristobal colon? not sure).
Anyways, then once we have finished with Europeans who did bad things we can get on to Asians and blacks who’ve done bad things, too, like Ho Chi Minh City and India (I believe this is derived from the same word as Indo- referring to the Indo-Aryan invaders from the north who took over what is now India and created the caste system and pushed the Drividans and other more dark skinned folks to the south), and in fact you end up having the change the names of about 2.3 of all places named for tribes, people, nations or individuals becuase it seems like that’s the percentage who abused other people when they had the chance.
As to the Jefferson Jackson dinner thing, yes, by all means, we should do a little updating and call it the Roosevelt Kennedy King dinner IMHO.
We should also change the name of New England, it was England that was bad to us before the american revolution….and Georgetown, my god, that’s named after King George!
Delete “@9” from @19.
@20 Personally, I think you should get on your knees and kiss President Obama’s likeness every morning when you wake up, because he just saved the American economy from another Great Depression. If Obama does nothing else for the rest of his presidency, he’s already earned himself a place in history as the most important president since FDR.
@21 The cheap labor conservatives’ nostalgia for slavery never ends … even as I type this, they’re trying to replicate it in Asia’s sweatshops.
@20 What’s the matter, Lockerbie Piper? No asshole rejoinders today? Pretend you don’t read comments directed at you?
Sniveling Scottish Coward
@26…X…
You’re grist for American Standard, though your amount is large enough to clog.
The Piper
@27 Plaid blowhard
You don’t need the company, what with your buddies Salmond and McAskill. though I am sure there are lots of assholes ABOVE you, too.
Why does it bother you so much when the adults ignore you?
Hey, you’re not getting your panties wet for The Piper are you? I liked it when you would follow me around and always refer to me in your messages.
Fuck you, you totally repulsive pool of vomit.
I am more than sure that you are as much of a shithead coward as your weasel buddy.
Prove me wrong by doing the world a favor and putting a bullet through your demented skull.
According to news sources, the U.S. is engaged in “intense” discussions with Iran over its nuclear program, and the U.N. nuclear watchdog reports a breakthrough:
“TEHRAN, Iran – The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday there is a ‘shifting of gears’ in Iran’s confrontation with the West to more cooperation and transparency and he announced that international inspectors would visit Tehran’s newly revealed uranium enrichment site on Oct. 25. … ‘I see that we are at a critical moment. I see that we are shifting gears from confrontation into transparency and cooperation,’ said ElBaradei.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33.....tn_africa/
It seems obvious to me that Iran is after nuclear weapons, although I think our conservative friends misunderstand the reasons why. Iran is surrounded by nuclear armed nations, and its leaders feel insecure.
It seems equally obvious they willingly risked the fury of the Iranian public by reinstalling Ahmadinejad in an obviously rigged election because his job is to push the nuclear program forward. That’s how he earns his paycheck.
Newsweek magazine’s Fareed Zakaria says the U.S. had three choices: “We can bomb Iran, engage it diplomatically, or contain and deter the threat it poses.” He argues only the latter option is practical.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216702
The blustery Bush administration had no success at all on getting movement from Iran on this issue. President Obama’s more competent diplomacy is getting somewhere. This new development has to be kept in perspective, of course. It doesn’t mean Iran will stop seeking the capability of building a bomb. They won’t. But by getting a dialogue going with Iran’s leaders, Obama is laying the foundation for a policy of containment, and making the situation less volatile and therefore less dangerous. Among other things, simply being able to talk to them for the purpose of discouraging them from sharing their bomb-making technology with others is valuable in itself.
Far from making the world safer, Bush’s bluster and saber-rattling motivated tinpot dictators all over the world to acquire nuclear arms as quickly as they could. The anti-proliferation strategy probably was doomed to long-term failure anyway, but Bush may have greatly speeded up the timetable under which the Third World becomes nuclear-armed. Bluster and threats are no policy at all; they’re impotence.
With competent leadership back in the White House, which understands that long term the West must deal with nuclear arms the way we’ve always dealt with them — by deterrence — we at least have a decent chance of those weapons existing unused.
Bullshit, Roger. We need to nuke them into the paleolithic era. We should have done so when Carter was in office. This would be a most salubrious disincentive for dictators to see.
Pray that Obama is not going to handle them the way Carter did(n’t).
Now that we have a competent president we need to remind people that we can grow back our balls.
The ones we surrendered to big business in the Republican Most Favored Nation era, then sell out to the Chinese communists to fund a meaningless and allow Iran to develop theri weapons in the ensuing vacuum.
If not NUKE them, at least stop providing them with vaseline. Under Bush we turned into a nation of sheep picking on feckless dictators and ignoring real threats in order to settle family scores.
Where is Bin Laden?
Why does Iran figure it can build nukes??
What did the money poured into Iraq do for our image?
Where is our strength NOW?
Nuclear weapons programs are extremely expensive.
No country once they see the bill wants to maintain a weapons program for the long term. Russia learned that long ago.
They’ll buy a little basket case of a country like North Korea a small bit of leverage – otherwise they’re a total drain of scarce resources.
For Iran, a weapons program is just taking resources from a nuclear energy program which they really need and should be allowed to pursue as much as they’d like, that is, if they play ball and renounce nuke weapons.
@32 You’re being facetious, right? I mean, the idea of nuking a country that hasn’t attacked us is so profoundly immoral that no serious person could seriously suggest it without branding himself as gravely mentally ill.
@33 “Why does Iran figure it can build nukes??”
I can think of several reasons:
1) They’re a sovereign nation, and as such, don’t have to take orders from us or anyone else.
2) They’re surrounded by nuclear-armed states.
3) Other countries are doing it, so why shouldn’t they?
4) Because they’re as given to nationalistic jingoism and patriotic fervor as we are.
5) To deter tinpot politicians like Bush who indiscreetly make noises about attacking them.
6) To feel like THEY have a big pair of balls.
7) In other words, they want nuclear weapons for the same reason you want them, i.e., human nature is the same everywhere.
If I-1033 passes — as a poll cited by Danny Westneat today suggests — one large state budget item likely to face cuts is Medicaid payments for nursing care.
According to an article in Business Week magazine, 24 states have already cut nursing care and health services for disabled and elderly people; and in some states, nursing homes are reducing staffing and even closing for lack of adequate funding.
Nursing home workers are the lowest-paid in the health industry, and with certified nursing assistants earning only a few cents above minimum wage in most places, there’s no room to save money by slashing wages. Cutting staff means leaving patients laying unattended in their own vomit and feces.
Nursing home work is dirty, physically demanding, and injury-prone. Most nursing homes experience high turnover and must rely on inexperienced, overworked, and stressed out caregivers. Quality of care suffers — sometimes egregiously. But as bad as this situation is, for the present, those who can’t live in their own homes because of their medical needs at least have beds and a modicum of nursing care. That will change if I-1033 passes.
About 20 years ago, the right floated an initiative to repeal our state’s inheritance tax, and promoted it with billboards depicting granny sitting in her rocking chair with her possessions piled on the curb in front of her little house with the white picket fence. These ads, of course, were bullshit because only millionaires pay inheritance taxes.
But I-1033 will, in a different way, make those ads come true. The right’s worst nightmare is about to come true — granny will indeed be put out on the curb. The irony is, they will have done it themselves.
A few of us have been saying that about x’ad for a while now.
In the New Republican Economy you’ll be able to buy a McMansion for $250,000. The problem is you’ll be earning $2,500 a year.
Truman? Truman??? What the $#!^#**!!?
@38 A nuclear war would kill millions of innocent people. Anyone who seriously suggests taking such action is on the same moral plane as Stalin or Hitler. However, it’s not clear to me that X’ad wasn’t being satirical to make fun of you wingfucks. After all, calls for preemptive nuclear war almsot always come from the right.
@40,
Waging nuclear war on civilians and instituting loyalty oaths and a national security state back home ought to lose a president their being-on-a-coin privileges.
@42 The eminent British military historian Sir Basil Liddell-Hart, among others, argued the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary. Japan, he pointed out, was a maritime nation and, with 98% of her shipping destroyed, was already defeated.
We know from archival sources there never was a debate within the Truman administration about whether the bomb should be used. Its use was a given, unless the war ended before it became available. But economic strangulation, while decisive, is a slow process. Meanwhile, soldiers and civilians were dying in large numbers.
The decision to drop the bombs has always been, and always will be, controversial. Truman made the final decision, and he will always have supporters and detractors.
But regardless of how one feels about this issue, the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan is qualitatively different from the preemptive nuclear warfare that has repeatedly been advocated by America’s rightwing extremists, starting back in the early ’50s when these people wanted to nuke the Soviet Union.
When Japan was bombed, it was still fighting a war it had started which had taken of millions of lives and was continuing to take lives. Truman’s supporters at least can argue the bombs ended the war, and more people would have been killed if the war continued. The moral issues also are colored to a degree by Japan’s extreme brutality against conquered peoples and prisoners of war, which in some way creates a sense they had it coming.
In any case, the A-bombs dropped on Japan were nowhere near as lethal or destructive as the firebombings of Japanese cities. These deliberately created firestorms killed far more people than the A-bombs, and in an even grislier manner.
I wonder how many of our rightwing friends who rant about nuking Iran or whoever have ever looked at World War 2-era photos of flattened cities and charred corpses of A-bomb or firebomb victims. And thought about the fact most of these people were civilians who had no say in what their governments or their nations’ armies did. A-bombs and firestorms can’t, and don’t, make distinctions between the guilty and innocent, or combatants and noncombatants. They are the antithesis of precise strikes against military targets. They represent the intentional mass killing of civilian populations.
The theory behind massive terror bombing of civilian populations is that it breaks a nation’s political will to fight. World War 2 proved that theory is bullshit. It doesn’t work. Far from ending wars earlier, it hardens resistance and strengthens the grip of oppressive dictators on their peoples. It wasn’t even effective to destroy war production; Germany’s peak war production was achieved in mid-1944, coinciding with the most intense phase of the strategic bombing campaign against Germany’s cities and factories.
The impulse to use terror weapons as a visceral reaction to outrages committed by enemy governments must be resisted, not only on moral but also on practical grounds. The objective of military strategy should be the achievement of victory in the manner most economical of both soldiers’ and civilians’ lives. Even in the most brutal wars, there always are survivors, and the nations you’ve destroyed will have to be rebuilt, and you will have to live with the survivors of the peoples you’ve warred against and their descendants after the guns fall silent and your task becomes rebuilding the world and making it livable for future generations.
@42, @43 Neither of you got it, did you?
Did anyone hear Joe Mallahan say last night that if he could have dinner with any 19th century president, he’d choose Ulysses S. Grant?
Hmmm. Grant may of not been one of our better presidents, but at least he seems like he had good intentions. He was the only president who tried to make a go of reconstruction — unlike his predecessor Johnson who fought the interests of the free blacks at every turn, and his successor Hayes who abandoned them for good.
Maybe Mallahan is saying he likes to drink.
aha!
@36
You forgot an eighth reason. In order to build suitcase nukes to give to Jihadists to plant in Tel-Aviv and Washington D.C.
36. Roger Rabbit spews:
That is crazy. So are Cuba and Canada. Sovereignty does not mean you can or should ignore bigger powers.
Moreover, by that logic, Iraq had a perfect right toi invade Kuwait and China to invade Tibet.
Really? Exactly WHO is a nuyclear threat to Iran? Iraq? Turkey?
By your logic Japan, Germany, Cuba .. all better get themselves a bomb.
You mean as in Libya or N Korea?
And your point is?
Wheh did GWB make that threat?
Exactly.
So?? I wanna be rich, my neighbor is rich .. I should steal from him?
Roger @ 43- For a history project I took one of my sons to interview a gentleman who worked on the bomb project at Hanford. During the interview my son asked him how he felt about his role building the bomb. He took a long pause and answered his brother was on a troop ship bound to invade Japan.
There was no easy answer.
@51 k
Good post.
My only issues with Truman dn Hiroshima/Nagasaki is with whether he actually understood WHAT he has done and if he did, might he not have bombed something uninhabited first?
actually, it is pretty easy. japan was morally at fault for starting wars of aggression; we were entitled to stop them and invade them. at any moment they could have stopped it by GIVING UP. they chose not to do so. rather than expend about 700,000 us solder casualties taking japan itself, when we already saw their tenacitiy in every little island and fighting like hell, we said fuck it, bomb them to get them to stop; and they did.
And now here’s the key.
JAPAN HAS NO COMPLAINT AGAINST US FOR DOING THAT.
Think about that. The conquered nation is now free of our military takeover, they are basically economically okay, they have elections and THEY NEVER COMPLAIN TO THE WORLD about what we did.
That’s saying a lot.
And ditto for Germany and Desden, etc.
End of debate. And hell yes back then it was easy it’s only today’s goo goo moralists who pretend that somehow if they were put back in time they wouldn’t have supported it too.
There were very large numbers of troops being shuffled from Europe and aggregated in US ports to get ready to send a huge invading army to japa and if truman HAD the bomb and HADN”T used it it’s damn straight sure he would have been impeached or let’s say the subject of charges of treason if he hadn’t used those bombs.
19 Mmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm.
24 We could put Obamas face on the food stamps because when he gets done “saving” the economy thats all that will be left. Rabbit, you are commander of tard central. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
53. you will be told the truth spews:
Gosh it must be Godly to see so clearly!
But .. what about our grandchildren when they die in a nuc blast? Will that be OUR fault for being first to use this fucker?
Ahh so grasshopper! So it is OK by you is the Dalai Lama sets of an H bomb in Beijing? How about if we used one in N Korea?
BTW, we took the first hostile act toward Japan … they, so to speak, followed the Bush policy of pre-emptive war so by your standards Pearl harbor was OK too?
Just for fun, suppose Japan had the bomb and they used it on Hawaii? OK by you bud?
@49 Point #1, “suitcase nukes” are a rightwing myth. The smallest U.S. nuclear weapon could be carried by one person in a large backpack, but weighed over 50 lbs., and would not fit in a suitcase or briefcase. It was roughly the size and weight of a 2000-watt Honda portable generator. The smallest known Soviet nuclear weapon was the size of a refrigerator.
Point #2, these weapons were low yield, and while they would do more damage than Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma City truck bomb, they would not destroy a city or a large area-type target. They could take out a few city blocks or a structure the size of the U.S. Capitol building, but not much more than that.
Point #3, these miniaturized nuclear weapons were extremely sophisticated designs that were far beyond the technical and engineering capabilities of an entry-level nuclear power like Iran which hasn’t even tested a basic A-bomb yet.
Point #4, it’s no more difficult to deter a country like Iran from giving a nuclear weapon to terrorists than it is to deter the same country from directly attacking us, because nuclear materials can be identified to their source after the blast. All you need is a policy that a terrorist nuclear attack will be treated as a nuclear attack by the government that gave the terrorists the nuclear weapon or materials. That is sufficient to deter nuclear-armed governments from sharing their weapons with terrorists. That is, in fact, our policy and even North Korea isn’t stupid or crazy enough to give a nuclear bomb to a group like Al Qaeda.
Point #5, nuclear weapons are extremely expensive to develop and build, generally requiring a massive commitment of national resources by the governments acquiring them; and no government which has exacted heavy economic sacrifices from its people to acquire nuclear weapons will give them away; and there is no terrorist organization with sufficient financial resources to pay actual cost for them.
For all of these reasons, the specter you raise of terrorists acquiring and deploying small, portable, nuclear weapons is a chimera — more suited to Hollywood moviemaking than serious public policy discussion.
Wow is X’ad the codpiece AKA headless?
Empty Codpiece Bush (Mission Accomplished??) spews: re 113: A real war on terror would involve voporizing the Middle East and then going after the rest of the world’s Muslims.
32. X’ad spews: Bullshit, Roger. We need to nuke them into the paleolithic era. We should have done so when Carter was in office. This would be a most salubrious disincentive for dictators to see.
Hmmm… The evidence is very compelling…
@50, Part 1: “Sovereignty does not mean you can or should ignore bigger powers.”
Sovereignty means you have ultimate authority within the territory you control and don’t need anyone’s permission for what you decide to do.
As for whether a small nation desiring to acquire nuclear weapons “can or should” ignore bigger powers (e.g., the United States), several countries (South Africa, North Korea, Pakistan, among others) have already demonstrated — and Iran is in the processing of demonstrating — that’s easy to do. If experience to date is any guide, any country that wants nuclear weapons, and has the resources and technical ability to produce them, can do so and there’s not much we can do about it.
Hey Roger,
Puddy knows you didn’t read this about Iran’s nuclear program and the call from Democrats to get Europe involved and not have Bush go at it alone…
Roger Rabbit and American Thinker… diametrically opposed activities. And if by a minuscule chance you did, well you forgot about it. Puddy remembers.
Can you imagine the progressives screaming and shouting in Truman’s day if they were as entrenched as they are now? Imagine the progressive Democratic anarchists attacking Truman over the bomb droppings?
@59Roger
I think that depends on who “we” is.
Challenges like global warming and nuc proliferation seem to me to have only only two outcomes. Doomsday or some sort of world government.
The devil here is in what SJ means by “world government.”
We already have a LOT of world government … in the form of the international agreements on currency. Without that, world trade would collapse.
How much further can we go?
If the principles at stake are mutual assured destruction, I suspect it is in the interest of the superpowers to limit small countries form acquiring Nukes if only because nukes wipe out the superpower hegemony.
Where does this lead? I suspect that we are headed toward the bane of the conservatives and the liberals … one world order. Thjis OWO will be an alliance between the US and China built on a common need for mutual security.
Getting their will be a lot easier for the PRC than for the USA. For our part we will need to cede our colonial allies, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and maybe even Australia to Chinese hegemony. We will also have to cede the extreme but unsustainable American life style so more Chinese can be wealthy. Finally, we will have to accept parity with a totalitarian/Confuscian super power.
The big players in this OWO will be the lesser countries with leverage … esp Brazil. Europe may be irrelevant. India could be a big player but only if it manges to control its population bomb AND becaomes thge big power controlling petro flow through the Indian Ocean.
Africa is likely to get fucked yet again by the shared imperialism of the Chinese and Americans.
You read it here.
@50, Part 2: “By that logic, Iraq had a perfect right toi invade Kuwait and China to invade Tibet.”
No, there’s no logical connection between building nuclear weapons as an exercise of sovereignty, and invading another country, which is an infringement of the invaded country’s sovereignty.
Of course, I’m not advocating proliferation or arguing that more countries should acquire nuclear arms. U.S. policy for decades has been to oppose proliferation, but that policy has been only partially effective, and probably isn’t a viable long-term security strategy for the simple reason that, as a practical matter, we can’t stop other countries from acquiring nuclear arms if they want them badly enough. The technology is so simple that making a bomb is largely a matter of resources, and there’s a limit to how much influence we can exert through use of incentives and disincentives. Even the threat of military attack probably isn’t a practical disincentive, unless you’re prepared to conquer and occupy the country, because nuclear facilities are easily dispersed. You can run centrifuges in huts, if you have enough huts.
If you discussed Tibet with Chinese diplomats, they would argue that Tibet has been a de jure part of China since the 7th century and a de facto subordinate region since the 15th century, with the exception of 1913 to 1951 when Tibet was functionally autonomous. They would compare their 1950 military invasion of Tibet with the North forcing the South to stay in the Union. The cases are not comparable, but the case for Tibetan independence is more sentimental than anything else.
Kuwait, on the other hand, existed as a sovereign state from the 16th century forward, although at times it was made a subject state of larger empires. However, it was never part of Iraq, which itself is an artificial state, and Iraq invaded Kuwait as a result of international disputes such as Kuwait’s alleged siphoning of oil from the Iraqi side of the Rumaila oilfield. Although Saddam couched his attack against Kuwait in such terms as “annexation” and “province,” it was a clearcut case of aggressive by one sovereign state against another.
Deciding to build a nuclear arsenal is, on the other hand, an exercise of an independent state’s sovereign authority. An international consensus frowns on such activity, and the acquisition of such weapons is widely considered an implied threat against other countries — and is always couched in defensive arguments — but it is not, in fact, an extraterritorial act that affects other countries until the weapons are actually used. The “right” to interfere with a sovereign government’s intention to acquire nuclear weapons must necessarily be couched in terms of some sort of international order that claims superseding authority over sovereign states, such as some sort of global security construct. Enforceability would depend on the willingness of states collectively asserting such authority to assert their power in derogation of the “offending” state’s sovereignty and perhaps its territory as well.
@50, Part 3: “Really? Exactly WHO is a nuyclear threat to Iran? Iraq? Turkey?”
“The Iranians … live in a neighborhood surrounded by nuclear powers — Israel, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216702/page/2
Note, I made no reference to “nuclear threats” to Iran, I said they were “surrounded by nuclear-armed states.” My statement was a direct reference to the Newsweek excerpt quoted above, and I will not add to what the Newsweek article said. Rather, my suggestion is to read that article yourself, in order to get the full context.
We should also posthumously change the name of McGeorge Bundy.
@50, Part 4: “By your logic Japan, Germany, Cuba .. all better get themselves a bomb.”
Again, this is an extension not expressed or implied by my comment, nor does it necessarily logically follow. I simply said Iran is pursuing its nuclear program as an exercise of its sovereignty. That statement contains no qualitative assessment of whether that’s a good or bad thing. I certainly don’t think it’s a good thing, but my point in making that statement is that it’s not an act of war against another country by Iran. It does, however, violate the Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran signed.
@ 63. Roger Rabbit
I disagree. There is no non aggressive function of nukes. Our having nukes limits the sovereignity of every other nation .. even those that also have nukes.
not really. BUT if you can buy enough fuel, you do not need the centrifuge.
Sorry, while the current imperialists may make that claim, the history is not at all so clear. In fact. most of Szechuan was part of Tibet and at one time was a real threat to China itself. Read Spence’s history. China has made this claim since the China .. but remember the Ching conquered China at a time when their empire included Tibet.
Since the Ching came from Korya, the obvious consequence of the Chinese claim is that Korea should own the whole effin thing?
The concept of “satte” under the Turks really did not mean much.
As for Kuwait now being a sovereign state .. that is true ONLY if we agree that UN membership makes one a sov. state. In which case Palestine can nto be an occupied state since it has never been recognized.
Roger .. you take the letter of the law too seriously. That may work in an American court room but nations are not … yet .. controlled by some greater force.
@50, Part 5: “‘3) Other countries are doing it, so why shouldn’t they?’ You mean as in Libya or N Korea?”
This was a facetious rhetorical questions, but the answer to your question basically is, yes, as in Libya or North Korea. My point is the Bush’s cowboy diplomacy encouraged, rather than discouraged, leaders of countries like North Korea to acquire nuclear arms — as a deterrent against implied threats of U.S. attacks against those countries. Libya is a different case because there diplomacy and use of incentives were successful in getting Ghadafi’s government to abandon its nuclear program. My main point is that saber-rattling by America’s rightwingers together with America’s long history of interfering with other countries’ internal affairs and overthrowing their governments creates a powerful incentive for third world dictators to acquire nuclear arms as a means of fending off that sort of foreign bullying. The implication of my argument, of course, is that these attitudes and activities are counterproductive to our nonproliferation goals.
@50, continued: The rest of your comments are pretty much a reiteration of what I addressed in #68 above, which I feel no need to discuss further. You know as well as I what effect Bush’s ham-handed “cowboy diplomacy” had in other countries, and I’m not inclined to belabor it in detail here.
@51 “There was no easy answer.”
Indeed. The U.S. invasion plans were drafted by military planners who weren’t in on the Manhattan Project secret. They didn’t know about the bomb. Thus, the invasion plan was designed for conventional tactics and weapons.
The operation was tentatively set for November 1, 1945, and its two phases were expected to take 90 days each. By that date, about half a dozen more A-bombs would have been available, and these bombs were incorporated into the invasion planning. Instead of bombing more cities, the U.S. would have used them to “prepare” the invasion beaches and deny reinforcements and supplies to the first-line defenders.
Radiological hazards were not well understood by American military leaders at the time, and the invading U.S. forces would have had to cross highly contaminated terrain, and would have done so without any radiological protection whatsoever. Thus, there would have been a very high incidence of radiological casualties among the invading troops.
I wonder how that man would have felt if he realized the bombs he helped build poisoned his brother? My guess is his answer would have been, “We didn’t know any better,” but there nevertheless would have been a nagging regret.
@51 (continued) I’ve always believed Truman had a motive for dropping the bomb beyond securing Japan’s speedy surrender. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to impress Stalin — and to warn him of the consequences of trying to grab Western Europe.
Roger
Good posts!
I absolutely agree in re Bush. However I would also fault Daddy Bush and Billy C. They had a huge opportunity to create something stable in the aftermath of the fall of the UUSR and both flubbed it.
I hope and believe that BHO, Jo, Hillary and Jim Jones are a hell of a lot wider than their predecessors.
In re Truman, I have always suspected that he rally did not understand that the A bomb was such a world changing thing. It must have seemed like a miraculous end to America’s righteous war.
Looking back is easier.
@52 “My only issues with Truman dn Hiroshima/Nagasaki is with whether he actually understood WHAT he has done and if he did, might he not have bombed something uninhabited first?”
Truman called the A-bomb “the greatest thing in history.” To him, it was the instrument that ended World War 2, secured Western Europe from Soviet invasion, and guaranteed the free world preservation from communist domination. What I think he didn’t foresee was how quickly the Soviets would get the bomb, and the arms race that followed.
The history of high-level policy discussions about using the bomb is well-known and complicated. A “demonstration” was discussed among military leaders and policy advisers, and the rejection of this option is sometimes explained in terms of fears the test might be a “dud,” but in reality the decision was Truman’s alone and he wanted Stalin to see what America’s new weapon could do.
@53 “THEY NEVER COMPLAIN TO THE WORLD about what we did.”
What rock are you living under? The atomic bombings are a huge issue in Japan even today.
“End of debate.”
Yes, it’s easy to think the issues are simple and you know the answers, when you haven’t a fucking clue of what you’re talking about.
@55 I don’t mind you calling me a “tard.” Coming from the likes of you it’s a compliment, really. My comment about Obama saving the world’s economy isn’t my personal opinion. That’s the view of nearly every respectable economist in the country, including Nobel Prize winners. If you want to argue the point, argue with them. As for me, I think you’re a fucking ignoramus with his head so far up his ass that you’re not fit to be on the same planet, let alone in the same room, with the experts I used as sources.
@58 “Hmmm… The evidence is very compelling…”
Of what, puddy? That you’re a fucking idiot and immoral bastard who thinks our government should vaporize millions of people to force their government to see things our way?
Fortunately for you, talk is cheap, and you’re nothing but a blowhard who thinks like Hitler but lacks the means to do what Hitler did.
You’ll probably go to Hell anyway just for thinking that way, but lacking culpability for actual actions, you have a decent shot at being assigned to one of the outer regions of Hell where it’s a little cooler.
Golly Roger,
Puddy remembers a Abdul Qadeer Khan who is the centerpiece of many a country forays into the nuclear zone…
Wascally Wabbit BULLSHITTIUM Alert BULLSHITTIUM Alert (Star Trek Klaxon horn sounds)
And your worthless point is wrong wrong wrong.
Just as Clinton-Carter-Albright tried to appease Kim Il-sung and his dunce of a son Kim Jong-il with bribes as such. Clinton gave North Korea nuclear technology. Just like Clinton gave the chi-coms Loral’s great rocket telemetry components so they can target your burrow with a specific ICBM warhead.
So let’s get the chronology straight here Feral Dumb Bunny… Puddy has placed this on HA before and you can contact HA arschloch ylb arschloch for technical verification with his tctmgr PuddyMissive Database. Here let Puddy remind you of the previously posted facts so your mind can explode again…
1994 – Clinton/Carter/Albright make a deal with The Ils. There is a negotiated 1994 “Framework of Understanding”. Under this Framework, President Bartholin Flavored Cigar Clinton agrees to light water nuclear reactors to replace North Korea’s home built nuclear reactors. Albright made all the news shows telling the world “The Agreed Framework, will freeze those fuel rods to stop, as people calculate, 50 to 100 nuclear weapons. “These paid State Department “experts” also claimed the light water reactors could not be used to make nuclear materials from those rods.
Weren’t these NK made reactors Chernobyl style?
Butt, there were some who claimed those reactors would easily make bombs… In an interview Puddy remembered on the BBC… “These reactors are like all reactors, They have the potential to make weapons. So you might end up supplying the worst nuclear violator with the means to acquire the very weapons we’re trying to prevent it acquiring,” Henry Sokolski told the Far Eastern Economic Review. Now where did North Korea get that knowhow? Abdul Qadeer Khan that’s who.
Now fast forward to 1999. A 1999 congressional study determined that Pyongyang was cheating on the agreement.
You can look it up Freal Dumb Bunny. Maybe you researching the truth will energize that dim watt bulb you call a brain.
So what did Albright do? Albright disregarded the 1999 warning and continued to claim that the Agreed Framework was a gigantic success.
October 2000 she goes back to North Korea. Puddy will give this to you…
Now to cover their Democratic ASSes, paid Democratic dupes have tried to blame this light-water reactor fiasco on Donald Rumsfeld when he was a director at ABB (Asea Brown Boveri). Did he sign the 1994 agreement Roger? Was Rumsfeld POTUS? Another silly Democratic canard destroyed.
Now fast forward to Iran 2003-2004. They negotiate an agreement with Germany France and Britain because the Democrats in Congress worry Bush gonna nuke Iran… Iran negotiators admit they didn’t bargain in good faith. Puddy placed the link on this blog this weekend Roger. Go find that one too.
A different case? He got his first wake up call when some bombs arrived in his tents one night. Then he got religion during Bush’s watch. Muammar got the financial incentives AFTER he gave up his nukes! Remember he claimed he didn’t have them Feral Dumb Bunny? Where did he get the terchnology? Abdul Qadeer Khan that’s who.
You blame that in hindsight on Bush when you were part of the cacophony of Libtardo voices calling for European involvement. This is why you are full of shit Roger and Puddy will call you on it every time you place this worthless argument here.
END of BULLSHITTIUM Alert Star Trek Klaxon ends.
@62 Nuclear proliferation isn’t a doomsday scenario, in my view. I feel nervous about it, but not terrified of it. Nuclear weapons are harmless until they’re used, and proliferation doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll be used, although it raises the risks. I have a considerable amount of confidence that deterrence will continue to work.
As for global warming, it won’t necessarily mean the demise of the human species, but it likely will change the world we know into something very different.
@67 “There is no non aggressive function of nukes.”
Of course there is. It’s not “aggression” to say you’ll defend yourself from attack, and to have weapons to do it with. The mere possession of nuclear weapons is not per se aggressive.
If your argument is that possessing nuclear weapons is inherently aggressive because it implies a threat, there may be something to that depending on who has them and what their policy is. I think this argument is more applicable to a country like India or Pakistan than to Great Britain or France.
@77 Thanks for pointing out that Bush stopped Khan from giving N. Korea et al nuclear technology.
What I’m saying is, that may seem real in the alternative world you live in, but it isn’t in this one.
@77 (continued) Ahhh, but in puddy’s universe, it’s all Clinton’s fault …
Let’s see, who was prez when NK acquired the bomb?
Clinton = NK contained, didn’t have bomb
Bush = NK not contained, got bomb
Every President deserves honour. Because they were the President. All from George Wahington to Barack Obama deserve a certain level of respect because they were given the position from God. I amy disagree with our current President, but I still respect im and will not say a bad thing about him in front of children. Just like I would not let people badmouth Bush in front of children.
@79 Roger: When is a gun a degense aganst a gun?
Legalistic newspeak furry one. By this logic whoever builds the bigger, badder offense is the best defended country IF “whoever” is us.
Tell me, how does carrying a gun protect one against being shot?
Roger ,, ther issues ..
Demonstration ..
Why would a “dud” be less frigtening if it went off unanounced over some atol the n if the bomb failed over Hiroshima?
Truman’s own statement seems to me to make it clear he did not understand ..as few did .. what he has begun.
The bomb and global warming .. along with some other things we have learned are huge changes because we do now have the capacity for suicide of our species. The US arsenal alone could end life on Earth.
@62
China is a long way from being a world power in a military sense. Their ability to do power projection outside of their borders is extremely limited. This won’t be the case forever, but at the moment it is a ways off.
From an economic and political sense China is much more of a power and has won a lot of friends since they don’t really give a damn about a country’s internal politics other than as it impacts their ability to make money or get access to resources. For example there are Chinese companies and workers all over Africa involved in all sorts of projects.
At this point Japan, South Korea, and Australia aren’t going to come under Chinese “influence” except willingly. To the extent it happens it will be more as a partnership as all three are rich, technologically sophisticated, and militarily powerful countries.
If anything China trying to play hegemon in East Asia will trigger a wave of nuclear proliferation as the richer countries could develop sophisticated nuclear weapons and delivery systems should they choose to do so.
Finally I’d say there does seem to be a movement toward world government on some level. Between the WTO, OECD, G-20, EU, NATO, and even UN there is much more international co-operation and co-ordination than in the past.
# 86: China is not yet a modern military power, but they are catching up rapidly. They’ve spent the last decade modernizing their aerospace capability, in part by simply subsidizing maintenance facilities and selling their service to the world’s airlines as a place for low-cost heavy maintenance and re-configuration (mostly at Xiamen). In hindsight, its a great way to learn a new technology quickly and in detail.
And don’t forget that China now has a manned space program.
What they are missing is the aircraft carrier task forces which are necessary to project forces over a considerable distance. But China has plans to have it’s first aircraft carrier operational by 2015, and to be building multiple aircraft carriers by 2020. What isn’t stated yet is whether they will have sufficient destroyers, frigates, high-speed supply ships necessary to outfit the rest of the task forces.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....na/cv.htm#
And don’t forget that China is now the world’s largest buyer of recycled metal, principaly from the U.S., Japan, and Russia. Most of it isn’t being used yet, it is being stockpiled. You have to wonder why?
86. Chris Stefan spews:
Good post!
I would put this in my “old thinking” portfolio. Modern geopolitical power is highly asymmetric so China’s ability to dominate a market or restrict the flow of material and goods does not depend on a great white fleet. If anything , the military is a reflection of economic power.
Korea and Japan will be increasingly unable to make geopolitical decisions that might not support China.
@87 rhp Good Post
I think China is smarter than we are. The military is secondary to the economy in building security and geopolitical power.
Look at Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Chinese hegemony over them is not a military affair .. it is economic. But economic hegemony has a military side. Korea would be as foolish to waste dollars on armed defense against them as Canada is to waste dollars in their defense against the US.
The consequence, of course, is that these smaller countries will not be able to use their militaries independently from China … leaving the US with only three choices … follow Britain into minor power status, use our waning military power to build an alliance against China, or join China in a new world order.
The Feral Dumb Bunny walked right into the Puddy trap…
“I’m convinced the North Koreans will not test nuclear weapons.” – Jimmae Carter CNN on June 22, 1994, just after he met with NK dictator ummm… president for life Kim Il-sung. He died soon after and the Il one took his place.
“CARTER: what the North Koreans were waiting for was some treatment of their exalted leader with respect and a direct communication….I think he was quite ready. I didn’t have to argue with him. When I outlined the specific points that I had been informed in Washington was the administration’s position, I presented them to him. And with very little equivocation, he agreed…. I think it’s all roses now…. I’ve known that there were people in Washington who were skeptical about any direct dealing with the North Koreans. They were already condemned as outlaws. Kim Il-sung was already condemned a criminal.
Question: Are you absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are going to honour this agreement, that while talks are going on that it’s not just a matter of buying time on the part of the North Koreans, that they will not secretly pursue the nuclear program they were pushing earlier?
Carter: I’m convinced… But I said this when I got back from North Korea, and people said that I was naive or gullible and so forth… I don’t think I was. In my opinion, this was one of those perfect agreements where both sides won. We should not ever avoid direct talks, direct conversations, direct discussions and negotiations with the main person in a despised or misunderstood or condemned society who can actually resolve the issue.”PuddyEmphasis Yes Jimmae you were naive and gullible cuz it wasn’t roses dude!!!!
First you seem to forget the light water reactors and the fuel rod processing was going behind closed doors from 1994 through January 2001. When GWB came in he wanting to pull out of the agreement and did so when evidence surfaced the North Koreans were secretly enriching abrogating the Albright-Carter-Clinton Framework.
“Based on North Korea’s past behavior, the community agrees it would dismantle its known program, if it had covertly developed another source of fissile material.” – CIA Report 1995
If you go back Feral Dumb Bunny to 1997 the CIA came to believe North Korea had built an underground nuclear facility in Kumchang-ri. Well that was true. And all this happened during who’s administration again Feral Dumb Bunny? Search it out Feral Dumb Bunny.
On July 8, 1998, Mrs Albright told the Senate Finance Committee in chambers, “We had frozen North Korea’s dangerous nuclear-weapons program.” But something else Clinton didn’t tell the public everyone else knew… North Korea was getting much needed funds to keep this development going. NK was earning $1 Billion yearly from SCUD missile sales to nations that included Syria, Egypt, Libya,and Iran.
Now Feral Dumb Bunny guess who helped NK develop SCUD missiles for foreign sales? China. Guess who allows improved computers and telemetry system into China? Clinton did with his good bud Bernie Schwartz. Yep, Loral one of those cheep labor liberal companies you love and hold dear to your heart. Puddy been telling HA Libtardos about Loral for years. Ask HAs arschloch ylb arschloch for the original PuddyMissives on the subject. China gave NK some “blind help” behind our backs during the Clinton years on missile development. These missile sales provide the needed cash for NK to continue their clandestine nuclear activities all under Albright’s nose. So good old Mrs Albright still maintained all was well with the Agreed Framework.
But when new intelligence became public about the Kumchang-ri site at in August 1998, Albright told The Senate Armed Services Committee senators at another hearing that she didn’t know about the information until later in July 1998. Now what happened Feral Dumb Bunny? The Defense Intelligence Agency head Lieutenant General Patrick M. Hughes, present at the same Senate hearing, had to interrupt her: “Madame Secretary, that is incorrect. You had been told many months earlier.”
More history for you…
The finalization occurred while the IAEA was kicked out by NK. So what does Mrs Albright do?
February 2003 Albright blabs to MeetTheDepressed…
Notice the similarities?
Then a plutonium weapon explodes. Hmmm… Now what were they doing all that time from 1994-2002? Well here is Mrs Albright had to say…
Fast forward to September 2004. Again Mrs Albright visits MeetTheDepressed…”No, what they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating. The worst part that has happened under the Agreed Framework, there these fuel rods, and the nuclear program was frozen. Those fuel rods have now been reprocessed, as far as we know, and North Korea has a capability, which at one time might have been two potential nuclear weapons, up to six to eight now, we’re not really clear.”
So good job placing the blame on the wrong President. They had the six years to cheat and only through diligent spying of NK under GWB did he suspect and was right about NK!
So when Iran explodes a nuclear device on Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm. Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm watch by your dumb bunny reckoning we can blame that on Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm. Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm !!!!! Well we can blame that on Democrats who told GWB to get the Europeans involved. See comment above on that!
Roger (& others) at 43, 51, 70, 73:
Agreed that the wartime fire-bombing of Japan created more devastation and casualties among the civilian population than did the nuclear bombs. The accounts told by survivors of the fire-bombings are truly horrific. My own experience with Japanese nationals of that era was that they consider the atomic bombs to have been a reasonable weapons, and most conceed that if Japan had had them first, Japan would have used them.
Lidell-Hart is also correct that Japan was militarily defeated as of August 1945, with it’s shipping virtually destroyed and the islands isolated. But what do the allies do then: keep millions of men, ships and aircraft mobilized indefinately, hoping to “contain” Japan until it’s leadership died off? Or do they proceed with the planned invasion of Japan, a potentially gruesome and bloody slug-fest much like Iwo-Jima, but on a national scale?
Containment worked relatively well with Iraq between 1991 and March 2003, but the scale of commitment required in 1945 against Japan would be much higher, and the political pressures to “end it” would be even greater. Pictures of starving Japanese civilians would have made a
In the event of invasion, Japanese nation was prepared to fight literally to the last man, woman, and child to resist any invasion. Tens of thousands of cheap Kamikazi planes and boats were concealed within a short distance of all invasion beaches (the Allies were suprised by the number they counted after the surrender). Civilians were being issued sharpened sticks and taught how to make sure they took at least one American with them when they died. Years of wartime propoganda had generally radicalized the military and much of the population to the point where no “peace movement” could compel the nation’s leaders to sign a peace treaty. On the contrary, there were die-hard fanaticists within the Japanese military who even tried to prevent the Emperor’s recording of his surrender message from being delivered.
But one thing tipped the balance in favor of peace. Truman’s reference to the atomic bombs having harnessed the “power of the sun” had a big impact upon the Japanese. The Japanese believed that their emperor was a direct descendent of the sun-god. If the allies had harnessed the power of the sun, then who could fight against them?
Most Japanese consider the surrender to have been “just in time” and generally beneficial. Before WWII, the order of Japanese society remained with the military first (as remnant of the Samurai class), then farmers, then fishermen, then merchants. Now the order of society is completely reversed, with merchants being the highest class, taking on the informal class of “economic warrior”. Most Japanese also appreciated the general reforms which instituted democracy and relative equality (at least by mid-1900’s standards) with respect to women. They also appreciate that the atomic bombs prevented Japan losing large portions of it’s territory to Soviet occupation (a few northernmost islands remain an open issue between Japan and Russia).
SJ the Chinese economic power is helping to build the Chinese military power. Now granted they are not a super naval power yet but they are coming along per Jane’s.
“China has more than 50 submarines”
One more thing missing in the Feral Dumb Bunny’s attack on Puddy
he can read all about Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan and his North Korean exploits before Jan 2001 in WikiPedia, that left leaning electronic pixel generator.
@92 Puddy
AND the Repricans are doing serious harm to US security by pushing the false idea that the US can deal with this by spending an even biugger part of our GDP on the military.
WE beat the USSR, not be outbuilding them with planes and missiles but by building cheaper and better consumer goods so they could no longer waste rubles on planes.
While Bushie wasted $1000000000000 on Iraq and Ronnie refloated battleships and im aginary SDI, the Chinese built their economy. Imagine where we would be now if the US had .. under Raygun, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II made that sort of investment?
X’ad has no opinions on codpieces, empty or otherwise. Sounds like a Puddy thing.
You do not think Carter should have destroyed Iran after the hostage debacle?
Would have discouraged Bin Laden, don’tcha think?
Or don’tcha think…..?
Wait a minute X’ad…
If Puddy sez sure we should have nuked them then the progressive Libtardos would start their caterwauling all over this thread against Puddy. If Puddy sez no we should have opened our hand to them in “friendship” the progressive Libtardos would start their caterwauling all over this thread against Puddy.
Puddy can’t win either way. Butt really Puddy has previously said they only understand strength. We should have hit some military installation hard. But Carter was a weakling. See Puddy’s commentary above on NK. Even the HA hero Bin Laden called the US a paper tiger after the Somali Black Hawk Down incident. And who was the leader then?
SJ (insert wrong buzzer sound here)
That’s not what Mikhail Gorbachev said and you know it dude! Reagan kicked his ASS all over the world stage and the USSR fell apart.
None of us can win in THIS place, we can only hope to make it out alive.
You will never hear me defend Bill Clinton over somalia (or over penile placement, for that matter), but in the (inadequate) Carter rescue effort, which fell dramatically apart, it was the Exalted Colin Powell who mismanaged the debacle.
Don’t believe me? Check the vaunted Puddy Library of Arcane Embarrassments. Works in both directions.
OBTW, Puddy. Carter is a Southern Baptist. Isn’t that your thing……….You don’t sound RC and you fershure don’t sound like one of us Epis Colopians…..
what about the one who got his dick sucked in the oval office by a 21 year old intern, had his deputy white house counsel killed, sold technology secrets to the chinese, was accused of rape, looked the country in the eyes and lied, etc, etc, etc.
You’re one of Cynical’s kids, right?
@101
You’re one of Cynical’s kids, right?
no, i’m david letterman’s love child.
@87
I didn’t mean to imply China was unsophisticated, just that as military power goes they are far from having much more than decent defensive capabilities.
Fundamentally China still lacks the long-distance logistics capability to credibly project force outside of its borders. This is much more than a matter of equipment, but also one of training, doctrine, and force structure. The diplomatic angle is also important as it helps to have places in-theater to use as forward supply bases.
Sure Chinese aircraft, missiles, warships, and submarines are far more sophisticated and capable than they were a few short years ago but they are still well behind the US, Europe, or Russia.
The capability to build these things, much less use them effectively is the result of a lot of hard-won knowledge.
No, David’s not Jewish.
@97 Puddy in the litter box.
What BS. Where did Gorby say he used perestroika out of fear of our military????
@103 Chris
I think the point is that a new cold war between us .. based on our legions vs the Chinese based on their factories is a recipe for defeat.
Military failed as an imperialistic tool the twentieth century. Any military, no matter hoiw good, is now an ancillary support structure for geo-economic competition.
This does not say LOCAL military is not important .. Israel would die in 36 in 36 hrs if the IDF were not there. Pakistan, sans military, would implode. Buut we are not threatened with military destruction internally or externally.
I really believe our best hope is to create treaties and alliances that will allow us to downsize the absurd amount of our GDP we spend on the military. Doing that will require accepting some things neither the Reprican Remnant nor the Liberal Cusaders can stomach.
The first good example may be Afghanistan. What in hell is victory? Perhaps victory means a Taliban takeover under conditions that do not allow a recrudescence of Islamo Fascism. This might well require ceding turf in Afghanistan to a Pakistani/Chinese alliance.
Is America ready for a return of the burkha and religous law? Can any of our purists accept child marriage, slavery, and the outlawing of all religions but the one true faith?
Chris …
Hope to see you at DL sometime!
SJ,
Again Puddy is tired of having to replace link after link. Contact HA arschloch, ylb arschloch. He can run tctmgr and provide you the link. He can be reached at unemployedHAlurker@idiotspace.com Or do some DD and Google it my man!
Well Puddy will relent.
PBS March 26, 2009 Mikhail Gorbachev and George Schultz with Charlie Rose. http://www.pbs.org
“So Reagan definitely was a person who played a very important role. But of course together with Shultz, and next to me was Shevardnadze. Those two persons played a very important role in all of those things.”
“So my final view of President Reagan is that he was a great president. He was a person who represented the right wing of the Republican Party and who was able to go beyond many stereotypes. And despite all the criticism from some members of his own team, from some people who are present here today, he still made reciprocal steps working with Gorbachev, working with the Soviet Union.”
Then visit http://www.globalsecurity.org and Stanford University at wais.stanford.edu
Hey there I’d see you at DL tonight but I have a re-certification test to take tomorrow so it’s refresher studying tonight. Mrs Puddy said the restaurant idea sounds great. Maybe Saturday Night? Will call you to confirm later in week.
Puddy sounds good.
BUT .. you never found your quote. You calimed thgat Gorby credited Raygun with beating us by military excess.
Raygun’s strategy was bad for thne CCCP. but Gorby was the guy who decided that war war was no way to make car cars. We had the excess capacity to force more spending on the CCCP, Gorby was smart enough not to give in.
Bush, unfortunately for us all, was not as smart as Gorby and let others play the same Rope a Dope in us that Raygun tried to use on Gorby.
talk tomorrow.