Multiple interceptor ABMs

On Jun 6, 9:48 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

Jim Davis wrote:

Afghanistan: former British colony

Really? I don't think so.

Well, at least we tried.

Everybody that has tried so far, which includes the Mughals, the British,
the Russians and a few others, have all failed. You would think that the
American government would have noticed this, but apparently not.

In what alternate universe has the US government attempted to colonize
Afghanistan? What I keep heairng people bitch about is how the US is
*ignoring* Afghanistan, and not sending near enough troops there.

wrote:
On Jun 2, 3:51 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Who is our Arab friend in the Mideast?
Saudi Arabia.

Who is our Anglo-Saxon friend in Europe?
Britain.

Where did the majority of the hijackers in the 12-21 attack come from?
Britain.

Where has heroin production gone through the roof?
Afghanistan: former British colony


Who has large military forces in Afghanistan, the ability to spot
poppy fields via satellite or unmanned drones, and yet does nothing to
eradicate the poppy fields via military means?

Britain.

Time to deal with the Brits, it seems. Along with their toadies the
Canadians. Shifty, weaselly *******s, the lot of 'em.

Lyndon LaRouche was right all along! Stop the world's heroin kingpin,
Queen Elizabeth!

eatfastnoodle wrote:

:On Jun 6, 10:54*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: eatfastnoodle wrote:
:
: :
: :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real
: :world scenario *worth the risk and consequence of ****ing off Russia.
: :
:
: Why does Russia care?
:
:Because ABM, as seen by Russia, is not just a weapon system, it's a
:means to eat away Russian sphere of influence and to bind Eastern
:European countries more tightly to the US.
:

So why isn't THAT what they're whinging about?

:
:
: :
: :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase
: :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for-
: :tat game?
: :
:
: Iran.
:
:No, Iran gets more help from Russia which may not be there if Russia
:and US were on good terms with each other.
:

And if we don't do anything, why then they don't need more help and we
STILL eat Iranian nukes.

How is that 'better'?

:
:
: :
: :Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it.
: :
:
: So what are they so ****ed off about, again? *That single statement is
: a pretty convincing reason why nobody should believe that this handful
: of defensive missiles is aimed against Russia.
:
:
:It's not just military, it's political.
:

Well, DOH!

So why is it that the only thing the Russians are complaining about is
how these interceptors are intended to intercept THEIR missiles?

:
:
: :
: :US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran
: :knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game.
: :
:
: And the preceding statement is a convincing reason for deploying such
: missiles. *And, oddly, this is precisely the reason that the United
: States has given for their deployment.
:
: Funny how that works, isn't it?
:
:
:Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real
:conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology
:with far higher success rate.
:

Poppycock.

:
:
: So why, given your opinion above, does it make sense to you to NOT
: defend against the handful of missiles that Iran might have in the
: immediate future?
:
:
:No, post revolution Iran is often painted as a irrational state of
:terrorism while in reality, Iran almost always behaves rationally. A
:handful of missiles that can't reach US won't be a threat to anybody
:since nobody, nobody in Europe at least, will join the US in military
:action against Iran. Saddam didn't put chemical warheads on Scuds
:targeting Saudi and Israel in 91. It's not unreasonable to assume that
:Iran has common sense and Iran isn't dumb enough to risk nuclear
:response to attack Europe or the US. (notice despite 30 years of non-
:stop "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric, Iran hasn't carried out its
:threat)
:

I'm not willing to bet my life on a country which behaves as
irrationally is Iran seems to being rational.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

OM wrote:
...No, his *men* were the ones who essentially gave up.

That's because they realized that the concept of taking over all of the
world has a real problem if the world is a whole lot bigger than to
thought it is.
They had already gone a lot further than Aristotle had said was the
distance to the shores of the sea that surrounded the world.
Taking on the elephants in India was tough... they kept going the way
they were, and they would have run into the vast areas and armies of China.
Then they would have had a _real_ problem.
Lewis and Clarke accomplished a lot, but did it via a small exploration
team.
Imagine Jefferson sending out a few-thousand-man US army to have a peek
at the Louisiana Purchase, and leading the force himself.
Imagine the Federalists: "Go for it, Tommy, go for it! We'll watch out
for things around here while you're gone...yes, we will." :-D

rather interesting facts that history teaches us is that when told not
to fraternize with the local women, troops will do exactly wnat
they're not told to do. What Alexander discovered was that when told
*to* mix with the locals, knock their women up and thus make them part
of their people, they had to forced to under point of spear and sword.
This led to much of the dissention that previously had been only
limited to "gee, I wish I was at home spending all this plunder and
maybe seeing mom!" Ergo, when it comes to fracking around with the
local women, the grunts will always do the opposite of what the CO
wants them to do.

...On a side note, there are a few historical pieces that may or may
not be apocryphal, but give another reason as to why Alexander's army
didn't willingly mix with the local women. It basically translates
into their "tasting" and "smelling" too foreign for their tastes.
Considering that bathing in a desert region is a rare luxury, this
should surprise no one :-)


That's just what they said about Jefferson...but Alexander had his
Roxanne, and TJ had his Sally Hemmings.
The strange sexual lure of exotic women.
Which makes perfect sense from a sociobiological point of view - the
wider the differences between the genetics of the two parents, the more
likely their offspring are to embody "Hybrid Fervor" - the canceling out
of most of the weak points of the two parent's recessive genetic traits,
while reinforcing the strong genetic traits.
Which shows you how just how head-in-the-ass the Nazi concept of "pure
blood" was.
They not only got it wrong...they got it _180 degrees wrong_ from a
genetic point of view.
Surprisingly, this was enforced by the mad chicken breeder - Heinrich
Himmler... who was pretty slight in stature, and wore glasses.
A classic case of "The blind leading the inbred chickens".
Now, if he had imported Haitian roosters that would have been mounting
his Aryan hens on a regular basis, the whole SS might have been avoided,
and he'd have been heavy into jazz music.
Well, at least that's my take on things. :-D

Pat

wrote:
In what alternate universe has the US government attempted to colonize
Afghanistan?

We're working on it as "Phase 2".
I'd write more, but no one has told me what to write yet.

Dubya

What I keep heairng people bitch about is how the US is
*ignoring* Afghanistan, and not sending near enough troops there.


As for Iraq, it's on the front burner as "Phase 1":
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...09_pacted.html
David Addington has found a legal precedent for this in medieval Viking
law; right between the section involving trial by combat with live
weasels as weapons, and the one about gargling with a live viper for
insulting King Harold's B.O.
The guy's a fukin' legal shark!
If he was any sharper, I'd use sandpaper to dull down his brain a
bit....just on general principles. :-)

Dick

Norm De Plume wrote:
Lyndon LaRouche was right all along! Stop the world's heroin kingpin,
Queen Elizabeth!


This is a complete non-sequitur, but do you think that singing all those
blues songs eventually got him morbidly depressed?:
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/g...ent?oid=492999
I mean, you do that year-in-and-out, and it's bound to have a profound
effect on your overall world-view.
When is the last time you heard of a bubblegum rocker dieing of a drug
overdose?

Pat

On Jun 7, 10:56*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
eatfastnoodle wrote:

:On Jun 6, 10:54*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:: eatfastnoodle wrote:

:
: :
: :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real
: :world scenario *worth the risk and consequence of ****ing off Russia..
: :
:
: Why does Russia care?
:
:Because ABM, as seen by Russia, is not just a weapon system, it's a
:means to eat away Russian sphere of influence and to bind Eastern
:European countries more tightly to the US.
:

So why isn't THAT what they're whinging about?
First, you need to read between lines.
Second,
They are not whining, they are actively creating problems for you. In
case you haven't noticed yet, US isn't really in very good shape.

:
:
: :
: :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase
: :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for-
: :tat game?
: :
:
: Iran.
:
:No, Iran gets more help from Russia which may not be there if Russia
:and US were on good terms with each other.
:

And if we don't do anything, why then they don't need more help and we
STILL eat Iranian nukes.

How is that 'better'?

It's better because if you don't **** off Russia, you may have one
more ally on your side.

:
:
: :
: :Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it.
: :
:
: So what are they so ****ed off about, again? *That single statement is
: a pretty convincing reason why nobody should believe that this handful
: of defensive missiles is aimed against Russia.
:
:
:It's not just military, it's political.
:

Well, DOH!

So why is it that the only thing the Russians are complaining about is
how these interceptors are intended to intercept THEIR missiles?

:
:
: :
: :US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran
: :knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game.
: :
:
: And the preceding statement is a convincing reason for deploying such
: missiles. *And, oddly, this is precisely the reason that the United
: States has given for their deployment.
:
: Funny how that works, isn't it?
:
:
:Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real
:conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology
:with far higher success rate.
:

Poppycock. *

:
:
: So why, given your opinion above, does it make sense to you to NOT
: defend against the handful of missiles that Iran might have in the
: immediate future?
:
:
:No, post revolution Iran is often painted as a irrational state of
:terrorism while in reality, Iran almost always behaves rationally. A
:handful of missiles that can't reach US won't be a threat to anybody
:since nobody, nobody in Europe at least, will join the US in military
:action against Iran. Saddam didn't put chemical warheads on Scuds
:targeting Saudi and Israel in 91. It's not unreasonable to assume that
:Iran has common sense and Iran isn't dumb enough to risk nuclear
:response to attack Europe or the US. (notice despite 30 years of non-
:stop "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric, Iran hasn't carried out its
:threat)
:

I'm not willing to bet my life on a country which behaves as
irrationally is Iran seems to being rational.

OK, it's your choice to waste money in pursuit of "security". Let's
wait and see what result you will get.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

eatfastnoodle wrote:
OK, it's your choice to waste money in pursuit of "security". Let's
wait and see what result you will get.


I completely agree.

President Mahmoud Ahmed...Amhed...Ahmad...
Oh, hell.... even I can't spell it, much less pronounce it.
Anyway, I'm the big cheese in Tehran who doesn't like Jews.

What's-His-Name
Tehran
Light of the Aryans and all that stuff.

eatfastnoodle wrote:

:On Jun 7, 10:56*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: eatfastnoodle wrote:
:
: :On Jun 6, 10:54*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:: eatfastnoodle wrote:
:
: :
: : :
: : :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real
: : :world scenario *worth the risk and consequence of ****ing off Russia.
: : :
: :
: : Why does Russia care?
: :
: :Because ABM, as seen by Russia, is not just a weapon system, it's a
: :means to eat away Russian sphere of influence and to bind Eastern
: :European countries more tightly to the US.
: :
:
: So why isn't THAT what they're whinging about?
:
:First, you need to read between lines.
:

Translation: You need to make things up that fit with your ideology.

:Second,
:They are not whining, they are actively creating problems for you. In
:case you haven't noticed yet, US isn't really in very good shape.

In case you haven't noticed, Russia is pretty irrelevant to all that.

:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase
: : :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for-
: : :tat game?
: : :
: :
: : Iran.
: :
: :No, Iran gets more help from Russia which may not be there if Russia
: :and US were on good terms with each other.
: :
:
: And if we don't do anything, why then they don't need more help and we
: STILL eat Iranian nukes.
:
: How is that 'better'?
:
:It's better because if you don't **** off Russia, you may have one
:more ally on your side.

And you may not (and probably won't). So your view is it's better to
make it EASY for the other side to nuke you.

Your view isn't very bright.

:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it.
: : :
: :
: : So what are they so ****ed off about, again? *That single statement is
: : a pretty convincing reason why nobody should believe that this handful
: : of defensive missiles is aimed against Russia.
: :
: :
: :It's not just military, it's political.
: :
:
: Well, DOH!
:
: So why is it that the only thing the Russians are complaining about is
: how these interceptors are intended to intercept THEIR missiles?
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran
: : :knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game.
: : :
: :
: : And the preceding statement is a convincing reason for deploying such
: : missiles. *And, oddly, this is precisely the reason that the United
: : States has given for their deployment.
: :
: : Funny how that works, isn't it?
: :
: :
: :Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real
: :conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology
: :with far higher success rate.
: :
:
: Poppycock. *
:
: :
: :
: : So why, given your opinion above, does it make sense to you to NOT
: : defend against the handful of missiles that Iran might have in the
: : immediate future?
: :
: :
: :No, post revolution Iran is often painted as a irrational state of
: :terrorism while in reality, Iran almost always behaves rationally. A
: :handful of missiles that can't reach US won't be a threat to anybody
: :since nobody, nobody in Europe at least, will join the US in military
: :action against Iran. Saddam didn't put chemical warheads on Scuds
: :targeting Saudi and Israel in 91. It's not unreasonable to assume that
: :Iran has common sense and Iran isn't dumb enough to risk nuclear
: :response to attack Europe or the US. (notice despite 30 years of non-
: :stop "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric, Iran hasn't carried out its
: :threat)
: :
:
: I'm not willing to bet my life on a country which behaves as
: irrationally is Iran seems to being rational.
:
:OK, it's your choice to waste money in pursuit of "security". Let's
:wait and see what result you will get.

You Chinese shills are SO funny! As if China isn't spending any money
"in pursuit of 'security'"...

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:
:eatfastnoodle wrote:
: OK, it's your choice to waste money in pursuit of "security". Let's
: wait and see what result you will get.
:
:
:I completely agree.
:
:President Mahmoud Ahmed...Amhed...Ahmad...
:Oh, hell.... even I can't spell it, much less pronounce it.
:Anyway, I'm the big cheese in Tehran who doesn't like Jews.
:
:What's-His-Name
:Tehran
:Light of the Aryans and all that stuff.

You mean Mahmoud I'mANutJob, right?