Bass Fishing HomeBass Fishing Forums

Go Back   BassFishin.Com Forums > Additional Categories > Non-Fishing Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 12-21-11, 04:12 AM   #51
lilmule
BassFishin.Com Super Veteran
 
lilmule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Buchanan,Tn
Posts: 2,685
Default

Boy I never knew how bad I missed Paul Harveys broadcasts till I read this,to bad being written cant put in his dramatic pauses and quirky intonations.
lilmule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 07:58 AM   #52
Dogmatic
BassFishin.Com Veteran Member
 
Dogmatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofearengineer View Post
Are you blind? Conservatives can disagree and still be respectful. Because our debate is on an intellectual level and not an irrational, emotional level, it seems like ego stroking to you. I suppose your only understanding of debate would be namecalling, and angry logical fallacies. But then again, you are a liberal.

There...is that better? Does that qualify as "real debate?"
No, but you believe what you want, because anyone else reading through your two post would agree with me, but then again your both conservatives, and think you're the only ones with rational intellectual thought.
Dogmatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 11:01 AM   #53
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

Actually dogmatic, you and me seemed to be in agreement till about 3 yesterday, when you disappeared from the thread. Now you re-emerge, claim that me and nofear agree (we dont), and claim that we somehow have acted as if we are the only ones with rational thought.

__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 11:05 AM   #54
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethdaysale View Post
If this supposed to be the Iranian perspective so be it....if this your take on 47-48 you've got some "splaining" to do mister.
That is the Iranian perspective. The truth of the founding of Israel is much more complicated, and I see no definitive guilt for the situation resting on either the Jews or Muslims of Palestine.
__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 11:14 AM   #55
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

Bryce, I think your idea of blowforward is off. Inaction doesn't produce externalities. They may occur, but not as a but for result of the inaction.

I dislike the idea of preventative war when the only reason is that another country is arming itself. It just encourages more arms races and more war. And nobody is denying the right of Americans to respond when attacked. That is where the line should be drawn.

As with any policy, but especially foreign policy, I can forsee exceptions being made, but it would take a lot. I am not an idealist in foreign policy, I am a realist.
__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.

Last edited by WTL; 12-21-11 at 11:22 AM.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 11:22 AM   #56
nofearengineer
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
nofearengineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southwest IN
Posts: 5,630
Default

Aside from the Arab/Jew millennium-long war, the real root of the modern problem in Iran is the way we backed up the Shah, while he brutalized his own people. Then we gave him refuge, while we betrayed his supporters to be slaughtered by revolutionaries. We have allowed half of our politicians (you know which half) to turn us into not only a villain, but a cowardly villain in the Middle East.
__________________
Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing it is not fish they are after.
nofearengineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 11:31 AM   #57
nofearengineer
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
nofearengineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southwest IN
Posts: 5,630
Default

Unfortunately nukes, by their very nature have changed the rules. A first strike is no longer a singular incident. When a conventional bomb goes off, damage is done and then can be rebuilt. In a sense, one can wait to be attacked, and then react accordingly.

Nukes, on the other hand, are the gift that keeps on giving. A nuke would render New York City unlivable for thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years. I do not want to even allow a scenario like that to occur.

We pursued MAD with the Russians, but only because they were of a similar mind. Above all else, they are not big fans of dying. The Iranians on the other hand, are a de facto theocracy. I am unequivocally against any theocracy having a nuke, due to the possibility of religious justification of apocalypse.

And as I said before, I consider preventing other nations from getting nukes a lesser evil than having to deal with them after they do.
__________________
Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing it is not fish they are after.
nofearengineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 11:42 AM   #58
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofearengineer View Post
Unfortunately nukes, by their very nature have changed the rules. A first strike is no longer a singular incident. When a conventional bomb goes off, damage is done and then can be rebuilt. In a sense, one can wait to be attacked, and then react accordingly.

Nukes, on the other hand, are the gift that keeps on giving. A nuke would render New York City unlivable for thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years. I do not want to even allow a scenario like that to occur.

We pursued MAD with the Russians, but only because they were of a similar mind. Above all else, they are not big fans of dying. The Iranians on the other hand, are a de facto theocracy. I am unequivocally against any theocracy having a nuke, due to the possibility of religious justification of apocalypse.

And as I said before, I consider preventing other nations from getting nukes a lesser evil than having to deal with them after they do.

I've already pointed out that the Iranians value money more than religion, as they gladly sell their oil. The theocracy is overrated as a cause of how they react. It was behind the popular revolt in the late 70s, but it has long ago been co-opted as a political mechanism for holding on to power when challenged.

And they are 100% NO DIFFERENT than the USSR. You know well that the russians were on the record as calling for the world exportation of their civic religion, by force when needed.

Also might I remind you that you agreed above that the Iranian anger towards the US results from our actions in the 1950s. And yet, instead of seeing this as a reason to obstain from further involvement, you see their anger towards us as a reason to continually stoke the fire. When does it end? And are we safer by continually fighting these wars?

I think the older generation is so used to having an existential threat that they seek to create them, even when not there. Unfortunatly, we allowed our fear of the USSR to change the right in America, to where it no longer thinks through problems and instead reacts on a gut basis. "I feel like we will be safer if we constantly nip these nuke programs in the bud", even though there is evidence to show that we are not, we are stoking world anger, encouraging more nuke programs, and guess what? Our military might be good, but they arent so good that they can realistically prevent others from getting nukes, short of making every non-american country a parking lot.


Another thing; the strength of our military has encouraged asymmetric warfare, including terrorism, because it is the only plausible means by which a foreign political unit will be able to strike a blow. And our active involvement in the region makes it positively indispensable for the hot-heads in that region to feel the need to strike a blow, somewhere, somehow.
__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 11:54 AM   #59
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

Your alternative relies on the idea that the American military (or any military) is capable of enjoying almost God-like military sovereignty over the entire world. Without that power, there will always be WMD slipping through the cracks. The motivation for using that WMD, will be more than supplied by our belligerence. And its getting easier to make WMD too.

The only solution is a strategic pullback. We have to be thinking ahead here. Its going to get worse and worse. There will be more and more of these tinpot despots and their programs. We never will be able to regulate them all. (can you see how my idea is truly the conservative idea)?
__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 12:01 PM   #60
nofearengineer
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
nofearengineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southwest IN
Posts: 5,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTL View Post
I've already pointed out that the Iranians value money more than religion, as they gladly sell their oil. The theocracy is overrated as a cause of how they react. It was behind the popular revolt in the late 70s, but it has long ago been co-opted as a political mechanism for holding on to power when challenged.

And they are 100% NO DIFFERENT than the USSR. You know well that the russians were on the record as calling for the world exportation of their civic religion, by force when needed.

Also might I remind you that you agreed above that the Iranian anger towards the US results from our actions in the 1950s. And yet, instead of seeing this as a reason to obstain from further involvement, you see their anger towards us as a reason to continually stoke the fire. When does it end? And are we safer by continually fighting these wars?

I think the older generation is so used to having an existential threat that they seek to create them, even when not there. Unfortunatly, we allowed our fear of the USSR to change the right in America, to where it no longer thinks through problems and instead reacts on a gut basis. "I feel like we will be safer if we constantly nip these nuke programs in the bud", even though there is evidence to show that we are not, we are stoking world anger, encouraging more nuke programs, and guess what? Our military might be good, but they arent so good that they can realistically prevent others from getting nukes, short of making every non-american country a parking lot.
Iran is completely different from the USSR. The USSR had no universal racial or cultural identity, being composed of many, many different peoples. This helped cause the USSR to be more pragmatic. The Kazakhs really had no intrinsic reason to care whether we had missiles in Germany. The Iranians are a people as well as a nation. We have more reason (aside from economic power) to worry about Iran than we did the USSR. They only sell their oil because they have no gasoline. Oil is basically free to Iranian citizens. There is no downside to selling it.

And Kruschev told the West "we will bury you without firing a shot." While definitely belligerent, I fail to see how more clearly the non-violent message could be. So far, Ahmadinejad has never said anything like "we will out-think you" or "we will win in the court of public opinion".

It seems as if you feel like we should take our licks and go home. If this were a non-nuclear scenario, I might be tempted to agree...just for the sake of getting rid of the annoyance of conflict. But as I said, nukes change everything. Let's assume Iran getting nukes is inevitable. If my only choice is delaying them getting nukes, or just letting them have them, I will take the delay every time. We're all going to die someday. Just because it is inescapable is no reason to commit suicide today.
__________________
Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing it is not fish they are after.
nofearengineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 12:11 PM   #61
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

By delaying them you are pissing them off more.

And that stuff you wrote about the USSR not being a real threat, was pure, unadulterated BS and you know it. My family was in a bunker in october 62 cause there were missiles 700 miles away with nukes on them. Khrushchev had one pointed directly at Huntsville. Not much more I can say about that.

Nofear, I say the following not to be condescending, but it might happen. You are right now where I was in 2006 on this issue. It takes a while to change your mind. You could be on your way, or you might re-entrench, but think over the logic of what I have said.

There is always a tendency for people to want to act boldly when threatened. It takes a little thought to realize why sometimes that is not the best action.
__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 12:12 PM   #62
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

BTW, Iran is also composed of different ethnic and religious groups.
__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 12:21 PM   #63
nofearengineer
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
nofearengineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southwest IN
Posts: 5,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTL View Post
And that stuff you wrote about the USSR not being a real threat, was pure, unadulterated BS and you know it. My family was in a bunker in october 62 cause there were missiles 700 miles away with nukes on them. Khrushchev had one pointed directly at Huntsville. Not much more I can say about that.
I was merely refuting your point as stated. You said they were on record. I pointed out the record. Of course they were a threat. Just as the Iranians are a threat. Kennedy didn't back down to the Soviets. Though I'm sure it pissed them off, it worked.

No condescension taken, and none intended on my part when I say I have already gone through more "back and forth" cycles in my life than you, simply by way of being older. I became very interested in politics when I was twelve. I had to wade through all of the indoctrination on both sides to arrive at where I am today. As I have completely given up on ever receiving my social security benefits, the last great bribe available to liberalism, I doubt my views will change much in the years to come.
__________________
Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing it is not fish they are after.
nofearengineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 01:28 PM   #64
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

Kruschev's statement wasn't the only time the USSR went on record as advocating the exportation of communism around the world. Again, you are aware of how militant and aggressive the USSR was, it just doesn't fit your point here.

Also note that Kennedy exercised the most conservative option in the cuban missile crisis. There were many calling for him to nuke the island. Thats a point in my favor, Bryce.

Don't forget that one reason the nukes were placed in Cuba was to protect Cuba from another Bay of Pigs, either.

I think that with foreign policy, changing someone's mind is different because it challenges notions of patriotism, and the media push behind aggressive internationalism is so comprehensive, that it takes people a long time to decide to go against the grain.
__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 01:57 PM   #65
nofearengineer
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
nofearengineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southwest IN
Posts: 5,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTL View Post
Kruschev's statement wasn't the only time the USSR went on record as advocating the exportation of communism around the world. Again, you are aware of how militant and aggressive the USSR was, it just doesn't fit your point here.

Also note that Kennedy exercised the most conservative option in the cuban missile crisis. There were many calling for him to nuke the island. Thats a point in my favor, Bryce.

Don't forget that one reason the nukes were placed in Cuba was to protect Cuba from another Bay of Pigs, either.

I think that with foreign policy, changing someone's mind is different because it challenges notions of patriotism, and the media push behind aggressive internationalism is so comprehensive, that it takes people a long time to decide to go against the grain.
Billy, did the USSR wind up exporting Communism around the globe? I would say not. We undercut them with threats of force (among other things). As I have said, threats of force are a vital part of diplomacy. Those threats worked. Just as the blockade of Cuba worked.

You can paint a naval blockade as conservative, but there were also many in this country who called it dangerous and inflammatory. It was certainly more aggressive than what Ron Paul would advise. He called the blockade "atrocious" and "an act of war." Ron Paul still thinks Kennedy called Kruschev and talked him out of a nuclear exchange. It was the threat of raw military force that succeeded then. This is why people (myself included) think Ron Paul is smart, but soft.

In my case, changing my mind is a function of neither of those mechanisms. My positions are well-thought out, and where they are based on feelings, rather than hard facts, I often say so.

Anyway, it's lunch time. And I had better get some work done this afternoon. I will try not to let my combativeness get the better of me so I can make some deadlines.
__________________
Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing it is not fish they are after.
nofearengineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 02:00 PM   #66
kennethdaysale
BassFishin.Com Super Veteran
 
kennethdaysale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: rock hill, sc
Posts: 2,315
Default

Hey Billy/Bryce...unlike dogm I don't quite see your debate as a two man circle jerk in need of a pivot man.................but I can see where he's coming from.
__________________
Sometimes you gotta risk it to get the biscuit.
kennethdaysale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 02:04 PM   #67
bassboogieman
BassFishin.Com Super Veteran
 
bassboogieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Parkesburg, Pa.
Posts: 3,762
Default

I have tried to stay out of this, but...............

Quote:
There is always a tendency for people to want to act boldly when threatened. It takes a little thought to realize why sometimes that is not the best action.
Pacifist statement if I ever heard one. I have no personal experience during my lifetime that proves dealing with a threat of any kind, with less than an equal or greater threat, resulted in my benifit. I don't personally believe in starting trouble with aggression, but if it comes my way, I do not adopt a passive response in defense. This all occurs on an individual level, a scale of far lesser magnitude than those of nations. However, the mentality of one who threatens is still the same, whether it be a person, group or nation. Take the passive route if you think it's in your best interest, but a passive respone to an aggressor is usually taken as a sign of weakness. If an agressor thinks you're weak you are in trouble, today and in the future. A second concern should be that when the agressor's "friends" find out you're weak they may also take a turn at you.
Civil relations can only exist if both side exibit comparable civility towards each other.
Teddy Roosevelt had it correct when he said: Speak soflty, but carry a big stick. That applies to individuals and more so to other nations. You may take several meanings from his quote, but to me it says: don't go looking for trouble, but if trouble finds you be prepared and deal with it. I find that sage advice.
Capitulation (passive response) to an obvious agressor never works, they keep comming back for more. You only need to look back in "recent" history to realize that as fact, and as you go further back historically, that notion is strongly reinforced.

Last edited by bassboogieman; 12-21-11 at 02:14 PM.
bassboogieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 02:14 PM   #68
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

If you think I'm a pacifist, you don't understand the word.
__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 02:23 PM   #69
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofearengineer View Post
Billy, did the USSR wind up exporting Communism around the globe? I would say not. We undercut them with threats of force (among other things). As I have said, threats of force are a vital part of diplomacy. Those threats worked. Just as the blockade of Cuba worked.

You can paint a naval blockade as conservative, but there were also many in this country who called it dangerous and inflammatory. It was certainly more aggressive than what Ron Paul would advise. He called the blockade "atrocious" and "an act of war." Ron Paul still thinks Kennedy called Kruschev and talked him out of a nuclear exchange. It was the threat of raw military force that succeeded then. This is why people (myself included) think Ron Paul is smart, but soft.

In my case, changing my mind is a function of neither of those mechanisms. My positions are well-thought out, and where they are based on feelings, rather than hard facts, I often say so.

Anyway, it's lunch time. And I had better get some work done this afternoon. I will try not to let my combativeness get the better of me so I can make some deadlines.
Those threats worked? Where, Korea? Vietnam (ahem, remember the Khmer Rouge - a direct result of our destabilization of the region)? Afghanistan, where we created the mujahadeen to fight the soviets? Go ask a Vietnam vet about the domino theory, and then count the curse words.

Communism failed to conquer the world because freedom is superior and the people preferred it. It also failed because the Soviet economy crashed in the mid 70s.

Again, I'm no pacifist, and people who think that non-interventionism is isolationism or pacifism are playing incredibly sloppy with words.

As for what RP would think of the blockade, I view it as acceptable, I don't know and dont really care if RP sees it as not. I am not his press secretary. Like I said above, there may be situations where I will come out of a strict non-interventionist stance, but it takes a much bigger pickle than some idiot in iran. And even then I am not given to support overreaction.
__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 08:34 PM   #70
nofearengineer
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
nofearengineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southwest IN
Posts: 5,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTL View Post
Those threats worked? Where, Korea? Vietnam (ahem, remember the Khmer Rouge - a direct result of our destabilization of the region)? Afghanistan, where we created the mujahadeen to fight the soviets? Go ask a Vietnam vet about the domino theory, and then count the curse words.
It worked out pretty well in Berlin. And we did have a hand in the downfall of the USSR. Not what I would call minor victories.

Quote:
Communism failed to conquer the world because freedom is superior and the people preferred it. It also failed because the Soviet economy crashed in the mid 70s.
A good part of the reason their economy crashed was because they were spending all of their money trying to keep up with us militarily. They were so intimidated, they bankrupted a nation.

Quote:
Again, I'm no pacifist, and people who think that non-interventionism is isolationism or pacifism are playing incredibly sloppy with words.
Passivism is the word I would use rather than pacifism.

Quote:
As for what RP would think of the blockade, I view it as acceptable, I don't know and dont really care if RP sees it as not. I am not his press secretary. Like I said above, there may be situations where I will come out of a strict non-interventionist stance, but it takes a much bigger pickle than some idiot in iran. And even then I am not given to support overreaction.
Billy, this whole debate started over the perception of Paul as weak. While Iran may or may not be as big a threat as Cuba was, I must insist that his position on Cuba is pertinent. His beliefs don't exist in a vacuum. I think it is fair to say that if he doesn't think it's okay to stop Russia parking missiles in Cuba, then he is at best an idealist, at worst weak. You disagree with Paul strongly on Cuban missiles. Surely it isn't unbelievable that I might disagree with him on another issue.
__________________
Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing it is not fish they are after.
nofearengineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 09:03 PM   #71
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

I'm not clear on what you mean in regards to Berlin. Besides the airlift, we didn't fight a war in Berlin.

Their military spending was to keep up. That is true. They still would have bankrupted themselves had the US not been building its military. Their system was untenable.

Passivism is a word that an opponent would do well to use, but I wouldn't call my position passive. Once war becomes necessary, I favor Colin Powell's doctrine of overwhelming force for most situations. But that is only when force finally becomes necessary.

Not unbelievable at all that you might disagree. If you will recall, this discussion began with someone posting a picture of a mushroom cloud and saying thats what RP would bring. I believe I have effectively demonstrated that to be not so. I think the majority of disagreements with RP are unfair. I have actually never heard of his position on the Cuban blockade, although it wouldn't surprise me. He sometimes seemingly takes extreme positions to try and teach his philosophy. I actually doubt that he would be so extreme if he sat in the oval office. Like even Jefferson, Paul bends sometimes.
__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 09:08 PM   #72
Tavery5
BassFishin.Com Super Veteran
 
Tavery5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,427
Default

Quote:
Communism failed to conquer the world because freedom is superior and the people preferred it. It also failed because the Soviet economy crashed in the mid 70s.

A good part of the reason their economy crashed was because they were spending all of their money trying to keep up militarily.

I'm not interested in entering your debate but I will offer this, I spent a little over 20 years in the military, part of that time was working with the Russians as a member of the START team. Stategic Arms Reduction Treaty, during this time I had an opportunity to be present for a speach given by Mikhail Gorbachev. During his speach he addressed the issue of the arms race, the thing in his speach that stood out to me was a comment he made about how the USA thought that Russia was spending all of its money to keep up with them in the arms race, he went on to say that was exactly what Russia wanted the US to believe and that he had records to show that they never significantly increased spending to support their Military. When asked why he felt Communism failed in Russia, his explanation was more along the lines that the younger generation would no longer support the hardline communist stance and that was the downfall.

Just food for thought
__________________
They call me Ishmael
Tavery5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 09:17 PM   #73
nofearengineer
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
nofearengineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southwest IN
Posts: 5,630
Default

The airlift is what I was referring to. We had B-29's parked in England that Stalin knew were fully capable of carrying nukes.

Billy, my position on war is it only takes one side to start it. The other side is in it whether they choose to fight back or not. This is in regards to passivism, by the way. I think many wars really start long before the first shell is fired. There is a tipping point, after which all of the other events that merely appear to lead up to the war are inevitable. So even while in peacetime, we may already have one foot in the foxhole, so to speak.

I think you and I are just at loggerheads over Paul, and that isn't going to change I think.

I must add that I made a mistake about the blockade. Paul was actually referring to the Israeli blockade against the Gaza flotilla. The article was comparing the two blockades and it was confusing. However, it still points out a pretty big contradiction that he would be against one blockade, but for another. Yada, yada, yada....I'm tired of arguing for at least another day or two.

Peace.
__________________
Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing it is not fish they are after.
nofearengineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-11, 09:31 PM   #74
WTL
BassFishin.Com Premier Elite
 
WTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 7,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofearengineer View Post
The airlift is what I was referring to. We had B-29's parked in England that Stalin knew were fully capable of carrying nukes.

Billy, my position on war is it only takes one side to start it. The other side is in it whether they choose to fight back or not. This is in regards to passivism, by the way. I think many wars really start long before the first shell is fired. There is a tipping point, after which all of the other events that merely appear to lead up to the war are inevitable. So even while in peacetime, we may already have one foot in the foxhole, so to speak.

I think you and I are just at loggerheads over Paul, and that isn't going to change I think.

I must add that I made a mistake about the blockade. Paul was actually referring to the Israeli blockade against the Gaza flotilla. The article was comparing the two blockades and it was confusing. However, it still points out a pretty big contradiction that he would be against one blockade, but for another. Yada, yada, yada....I'm tired of arguing for at least another day or two.

Peace.

That Stalin knew our capabilities is far different than us using them preemptively.

One blockade is 90 miles off the southern coast of florida, another is about 3,000 miles away. BIG difference.

So he would support a blockade of Cuba?

And as for your theory on when a war is started, when it is started, I am in favor of total war. I have pissed my Mom off in the past something awful by insisting that Sherman's tactics were justified (she is from Atlanta).
__________________
Selling live waterdogs for less since 2005.
WTL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-11, 04:41 PM   #75
joedog
BassFishin.Com Super Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: JANESVILLE,WI. 53545
Posts: 3,415
Default

Dosn't pertain to discussion but had to ask,
WTL and kenneth, do you guys use speech recognition software or are you guys actually physically typing out each response.
Hate typing so I'm currious.
__________________
"Fishing isn't life or death... it's more important than that."
joedog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Disclosure / Disclaimer
Before acting on the content posted, you should know that BassFishin.Com may benefit financially and otherwise from content, advertising, links or otherwise from anything you click on, read, or look at on our website. Click here to read our Disclosure Policy and Disclaimer.


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2013 BassFishin.Com LLC