Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24
  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default Peace In Our Time



  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    There will never be peace on Earth as long as people are allowed to be individuals and form their own opinions.

    This is something I can agree with. I don't think it is enough though. We need to reduce our overall military presence in the world. Bringing all of our troops back home and having just enough to defend our soil would easily pay for any silly health care reform proposal out there. Probably part of the reason we don't have the money for other initiatives stems from the fact we supply half of the worlds Armies.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    By using some diplomacy and working with Russia we are able to move trains carrying US supplies through Russia to Afghanistan, reducing the risk of attacks from the Taliban and the risk of loosing US lives.

    We have some leverage now regarding Russia and Iran.

    We took a big chunk of Defense spending out of the budget.

    We are showing the rest of the world that we can actually engage in Diplomacy, which involves a delicate give and take, instead of just doing whatever we want, wherever we want it.

    Maybe the times of "F*** You World!!! We are the USA and we do what we want!!!!" are slowing down...
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    New Defense Plan Announced

    The Europeans will be able to sleep safely again...
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    By using some diplomacy and working with Russia we are able to move trains carrying US supplies through Russia to Afghanistan, reducing the risk of attacks from the Taliban and the risk of loosing US lives.

    We have some leverage now regarding Russia and Iran.

    We took a big chunk of Defense spending out of the budget.

    We are showing the rest of the world that we can actually engage in Diplomacy, which involves a delicate give and take, instead of just doing whatever we want, wherever we want it.

    Maybe the times of "F*** You World!!! We are the USA and we do what we want!!!!" are slowing down...
    AMEN to that. Hopefully we can reverse a 70 year trend

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    New Defense Plan Announced

    The Europeans will be able to sleep safely again...
    How about the Europeans build their own missile system. The idea behind NATO was to help out when needed, not be the provider of defense for the rest of the world.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    You two teamup on this in the clueless pollyanna club.

    This world is still a dangerous plan and playing 1938 borders at the ocean is not going to work any better not that it did in. Good case that the world is more dangerous now that in 1985 when NATO/US and Warsaw/USSR were keeping opposing wack jobs in their place. Now we have islamist wackos intent on taking the West down. Forgot about the war on terror? Or did you surrender at same time as Obama? The islamists have not surrendered.


    Who is "we" bub? The Clintonistas that gutted DOD with the idiotic "peace divident" in the 90s and gave us 9-11? Or Obama.

    The US has made a promise to Poland and Czech at we (NATO) will protect them from the resurgent (KGB) Russian. The Missle shield has a mission to protect Europe form Iranian nukes on Intermet range Ballistic missles. The , Iranians already have the missle required (purchased from the Russians) and absent LEADERSHIP and ACTION will have nuc warheads within a couple years. Not a pretty picture for anywhere within 1000mi of Iran. We have stabed Poland and Czech in the back. Both are better friends of the US that most European countries.

    The Obama speach on the cut was total BS. Mobile - Patriot. Have had in Eastern Europe. Dispite the Gulf war PR spin are very limited in anti-missle role. Total BS AGAIN from Obama.

    I think not a done deal. As idiotic as anything else Obama has come up with.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    And here I was, reading the title and wondering who da world decided to post something about British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his bid for peace with the Nazis. Ok, so the second reference was directed that way, and in reading the first article, I can see what neiowa was after.

  9. #9
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    The SecDef disagrees with you.

    No one has forgotten anything.

    Even during the 90's, the US spent as much on defense almost as much as the rest of the world combined.

    How much is enough?
    Last edited by scfire86; 09-17-2009 at 07:47 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    You two teamup on this in the clueless pollyanna club.

    This world is still a dangerous plan and playing 1938 borders at the ocean is not going to work any better not that it did in. Good case that the world is more dangerous now that in 1985 when NATO/US and Warsaw/USSR were keeping opposing wack jobs in their place. Now we have islamist wackos intent on taking the West down. Forgot about the war on terror? Or did you surrender at same time as Obama? The islamists have not surrendered.


    Who is "we" bub? The Clintonistas that gutted DOD with the idiotic "peace divident" in the 90s and gave us 9-11? Or Obama.

    The US has made a promise to Poland and Czech at we (NATO) will protect them from the resurgent (KGB) Russian. The Missle shield has a mission to protect Europe form Iranian nukes on Intermet range Ballistic missles. The , Iranians already have the missle required (purchased from the Russians) and absent LEADERSHIP and ACTION will have nuc warheads within a couple years. Not a pretty picture for anywhere within 1000mi of Iran. We have stabed Poland and Czech in the back. Both are better friends of the US that most European countries.

    The Obama speach on the cut was total BS. Mobile - Patriot. Have had in Eastern Europe. Dispite the Gulf war PR spin are very limited in anti-missle role. Total BS AGAIN from Obama.

    I think not a done deal. As idiotic as anything else Obama has come up with.
    Then let the rest of the world foot the bill. What next the Universe???

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default Did Putin buy Obama flowers first?

    Now Obama arbitraily decides to get rid of the nasty ole nukes (which Putin and the rest of the KGBistas still fear).

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...uclear-weapons

  12. #12
    Forum Member DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Ask Neville Chamberlain and the elder generation of Brits how "Peace in our time" worked out for them.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaSharkie View Post
    Ask Neville Chamberlain and the elder generation of Brits how "Peace in our time" worked out for them.
    Actually, I get reminded of it regularlary, this past Sunday, at the Battle of Britain memorial service is a good example. The United Nations Veterans parade back in July is another.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    I was stationed in Germany in 70. We had a saying there, If the Russians decided to invade Europe, it would take them a week. One day to get there and the next 6 to quit laughing. We were so badly outnumbered that we could not have delayed the a day. the Nukes, MAD, may have held them in check, but if you think that the USA would have unleashed them on Europe, you are sadly mistaken. The best diplomats would be soldiers who have actually been there and know the horrors of war.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Here is a strictly rhetorical question:

    How many nuclear warheads does it really take to F*** the world to high hell?

    Let's say the USA has 500 and the Russians have 500. By the time both sides blow their warheads at each other we have 1000 nuclear bombs exploding around the world, in addition to the ones the rest of the countries will lob at each other.

    Once 1000 nuclear bombs have mushroomed around the globe, do an additional 2000 bombs really make that much difference?

    We are talking the difference of holding 5 guns against my head at point blank range, or 50 guns against my head at point blank range. Either way I'm f***ed.

    More bombs just mean more opportunities for screw ups. How many nuclear oops's have we had over the last 5 years?
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    How many do the forces of good need to have? How many of anything are required? Twice as many as controlled by the unreformed commie pinkos.

    The KGB back to funding the hyperventilating pants wetting antinuc activists of the 80s? Raise the price. Putin has LOTS of oil money today.

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    How many do the forces of good need to have? How many of anything are required? Twice as many as controlled by the unreformed commie pinkos.

    The KGB back to funding the hyperventilating pants wetting antinuc activists of the 80s? Raise the price. Putin has LOTS of oil money today.
    Please by all means post your refences which will confirm that Russia is using all that oil money to rebuild their nuclear capabilities. Your inane ranting would do old Joe McCarthy proud.

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    How many do the forces of good need to have? How many of anything are required? Twice as many as controlled by the unreformed commie pinkos.

    The KGB back to funding the hyperventilating pants wetting antinuc activists of the 80s? Raise the price. Putin has LOTS of oil money today.
    So if the Russians can blow up the world once, you think that they will stop because we can blow up the world twice?

    What stops the Russians from building more nukes than the USA? And really why shouldn't they? They are a country that is allowed to protect themselves just as much as we are.

    After all, who is the only country in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons against somebody else? Twice?

    And between the USA and the Russians, who is currently fighting two wars and occupying other countries?
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    I was stationed in Germany in 70. We had a saying there, If the Russians decided to invade Europe, it would take them a week. One day to get there and the next 6 to quit laughing. We were so badly outnumbered that we could not have delayed the a day. the Nukes, MAD, may have held them in check, but if you think that the USA would have unleashed them on Europe, you are sadly mistaken. The best diplomats would be soldiers who have actually been there and know the horrors of war.
    I was there in the late 70s. We had this place just down the road for our post that was about 7 or 8 acres in size. Some mounds of dirt well kept, fenced in. No one knew what it was, but I have my suspicions. Funny thing is I looked at the place on Google maps. You an see the post, and all of the helicopters, but that little area is blocked out.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Interesting - From the LA Times

    Missile defense shift has winners and losers

    Obama's decision to halt a proposed ground-based system in Europe will hurt Boeing, but Raytheon and Lockheed Martin stand to benefit because they make and control ship-based weapons.
    By Mike Musgrove

    Washington - President Obama's decision last week to scrap a proposed ground-based missile defense system in Europe was bad news for Boeing Co. and other contractors associated with the plan, but it could be a boon for Raytheon Co. and other companies that produce ship-based systems, analysts said.

    Boeing had been slated to manage the construction and installation of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland that were part of the Bush administration's original plans.

    "The losers are clear," said Phil Finnegan of research firm Teal Group. "Boeing was going to develop that site, and obviously that's not going to happen."

    The announcement also came as bad news, he said, for Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., which was going to supply 10 interceptors for the missile shield. During the Bush administration, the U.S. military designed its defense plans with the expectation that Iran would soon develop long-range missile capabilities, defense industry consultant Loren Thompson said. That didn't happen, he said.

    Raytheon of Waltham, Mass., and Lockheed Martin Corp. of Bethesda, Md., stand to benefit from what will probably be an increase in U.S. government contracts, analysts said. Raytheon makes the ship-based missiles, and Lockheed makes their control system.

    John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense industry research firm, said that under the Obama administration's proposed approach of using ship-based missiles to protect against threats from Iran, "you're going to need all these missiles that Raytheon makes, zillions of them."


    So...Does this count as anti-stimulus?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Even more fun from religion of peace-
    By SPFDRum in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 07:26 PM
  2. Orgasm for peace
    By kjohn23 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 11-22-2006, 03:40 PM
  3. Rest in Peace
    By Station292 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-21-2004, 12:33 AM
  4. May They Rest In Peace
    By jimhiggins in forum Line of Duty: In Memory Of
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-29-2002, 06:58 PM
  5. Rest in Peace
    By ResQRev in forum Line of Duty: In Memory Of
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-04-2002, 04:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts