A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bye-bye INF treaty?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old February 17th 07, 06:29 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?


Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :On Feb 16, 1:50 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Pat Flannery wrote:
: :
: : :Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move,
: : :because the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't
: : :worth the paper it was written on?
: : :Well, guess what?:
: : :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ..._Quit_INF_Trea...
: :
: : So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what is the
: : problem?
: :
: :So that is why we allowed nukes in Cuba? Oops, we didn't allow them
: :and we don't have plans to shoot at Cuba either. Counterintel just
: :isn't your bag is it Freddy?
:
: Sense just isn't your bag is it El Chimpko?
:
: What, pray tell, does your preceding spew have to do with ANYTHING?
:
: : So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what do they
: : want to get back into the IRBM business for?
: :
: : So, who do you think the Europeans will blame for the Russians
: : building a nuclear arsenal aimed straight at them?
: :
: :I guess it all depends where we plan on putting ours.
:
: We're talking about US deployment of AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM IN POLAND
: AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA, you stupid *******. *WE* are not talking about
: "putting ours" anywhere at all.
:
:Yes, yes the Department of Defense doesn't attack, they merely defend.

So you ignore THE FACTS and just bleat. Typical El Chimpko.


What facts? Making the words in a caps doesn't explain them. You are
vague yet again because you again have nothing real to say.


:You have the nerve to call me a stupid ******* yet you believe that we
:are beyond attacking anyone and merely defend ourselves.

Where did I say that, you stupid *******?


The implication that an anti-missile system would never be used to
attack, in all caps at that.

:Iraq, you stupid *******!

Irrelevant, you dumb ****.


Nope, you old fart.

:Would YOU trust any country putting anti-missile sites around the US
:as being merely prudent as you seem to think we are in Eastern Europe
:doing the same damn thing!?

El Chimpko, you dumb ****, look at the FACTS. Such weapons in the
places described are no good at stopping weapons aimed at the US from
Russia or China (or even North Korea).


No **** you dumb ass, I was talking about protecting other countries
from attacks by US! You really think we are beyond attacking anyone
and that if someone acts as if we might that that action is somehow an
act of aggression. Your mentality is at the root of the problem.

Again, would you trust a country placing anti-missile sites around the
US to protect itself from the US as an act of being prudent as you
seem to think placing anti-missile sites in Eastern Europe is prudent
on our part as protection for us?

If someone wants to put anti-missile sites in Cuba or Mexico, why,
more power to them!


Oh really? How about Canada or the Arctic?

:We are so easy because too many people think just like you and not
:like the enemy. Again, counterintel-challenged aren't you Freddy?

Need to smarten up to work your way UP to 'dumb ****', don't you, El
Chimpko?


Hey, just because you're a janitor at a nuclear facility doesn't give
you the right to act so cocky. Perhaps you're a farmer with a silo?
hahahahahaha

Eric

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson


Ads
  #42  
Old February 17th 07, 06:38 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
Is there something funny going on with your computer's clock,or your ISP
BTW?
Your messages are showing up several hours after you have written them
over the past few days.


Definitely not a clock problem. But there are at least a couple of
machines on the path between me and the rest of the net which do some of
their news handling in batches on an hourly cycle. Not to worry.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #43  
Old February 17th 07, 08:58 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote:
: :
: : :On Feb 16, 1:50 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Pat Flannery wrote:
: : :
: : : :Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move,
: : : :because the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't
: : : :worth the paper it was written on?
: : : :Well, guess what?:
: : : :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ..._Quit_INF_Trea...
: : :
: : : So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what is the
: : : problem?
: : :
: : :So that is why we allowed nukes in Cuba? Oops, we didn't allow them
: : :and we don't have plans to shoot at Cuba either. Counterintel just
: : :isn't your bag is it Freddy?
: :
: : Sense just isn't your bag is it El Chimpko?
: :
: : What, pray tell, does your preceding spew have to do with ANYTHING?
: :
: : : So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what do they
: : : want to get back into the IRBM business for?
: : :
: : : So, who do you think the Europeans will blame for the Russians
: : : building a nuclear arsenal aimed straight at them?
: : :
: : :I guess it all depends where we plan on putting ours.
: :
: : We're talking about US deployment of AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM IN POLAND
: : AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA, you stupid *******. *WE* are not talking about
: : "putting ours" anywhere at all.
: :
: :Yes, yes the Department of Defense doesn't attack, they merely defend.
:
: So you ignore THE FACTS and just bleat. Typical El Chimpko.
:
:What facts? Making the words in a caps doesn't explain them. You are
:vague yet again because you again have nothing real to say.

Eric, what is vague about "We're talking about US deployment of AN
ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM IN POLAND AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA, you stupid *******.
*WE* are not talking about "putting ours" anywhere at all."?

You really cannot read and understand simple declarative sentences.

:
: :You have the nerve to call me a stupid ******* yet you believe that we
: :are beyond attacking anyone and merely defend ourselves.
:
: Where did I say that, you stupid *******?
:
:The implication that an anti-missile system would never be used to
:attack, in all caps at that.

How do you 'attack' with an anti-missile system, Eric?

: :Iraq, you stupid *******!
:
: Irrelevant, you dumb ****.
:
:Nope, you old fart.

The only stinking thing here is your intellectual void.

: :Would YOU trust any country putting anti-missile sites around the US
: :as being merely prudent as you seem to think we are in Eastern Europe
: :doing the same damn thing!?
:
: El Chimpko, you dumb ****, look at the FACTS. Such weapons in the
: places described are no good at stopping weapons aimed at the US from
: Russia or China (or even North Korea).
:
:No **** you dumb ass, I was talking about protecting other countries
:from attacks by US! You really think we are beyond attacking anyone
:and that if someone acts as if we might that that action is somehow an
:act of aggression. Your mentality is at the root of the problem.

What are you gibbering on about now? What connection does the
preceding spew have to ANYTHING?

:Again, would you trust a country placing anti-missile sites around the
:US to protect itself from the US as an act of being prudent as you
:seem to think placing anti-missile sites in Eastern Europe is prudent
n our part as protection for us?

Already answered. Again, you don't read very well.

: If someone wants to put anti-missile sites in Cuba or Mexico, why,
: more power to them!
:
:Oh really? How about Canada or the Arctic?

Different case. Russia would have better grounds to complain about
that. But that's not what they're complaining about, now is it?

: :We are so easy because too many people think just like you and not
: :like the enemy. Again, counterintel-challenged aren't you Freddy?
:
: Need to smarten up to work your way UP to 'dumb ****', don't you, El
: Chimpko?
:
:Hey, just because you're a janitor at a nuclear facility doesn't give
:you the right to act so cocky. Perhaps you're a farmer with a silo?
:hahahahahaha

ANY of those would know more than you apparently do.

You really need to stop laughing at your own 'jokes', El Chimpko. It
just makes you look even stupider (and while that is something of an
achievement, I wouldn't think it would be one you'd be striving
toward).

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #44  
Old February 17th 07, 09:39 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dave Michelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 512
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

Darren J Longhorn wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 06:35:32 -0800, "Quadibloc" wrote:

I'm glad to hear that the United Kingdom has been able to abolish
national service for the time being. I had thought that even after
they did not need large forces for Northern Ireland, they were still
maintaining it for various purposes.


National in the United Kingdom ended on 31 December 1960, before 'the
troubles' began in Northern Ireland.


In fact, the all-volunteer nature of their forces has long been a source
of pride for the British military.

Moreover, the US military studied the British all-volunteer experience
closely when Selective Service ended in the early 70's.

--
Dave Michelson

  #45  
Old February 18th 07, 05:57 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

Jim Oberg wrote:
It's unclear to me if the INF treaty has, like the ABM treaty did have,
the legal option for parties to withdraw with appropriate notice -- or was
it open-ended? The US did not 'break' the ABM treaty -- the question
remains, do the Russians intend now to 'break' the INF treaty, or are
they legally exercising a codacile in it?



http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/inf2.html


"Article XV

1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the
right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary
events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its
supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to
the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such
notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the
notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."



"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move, because
the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't worth the
paper it was written on?
Well, guess what?:
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...reaty_999.html

Pat



  #46  
Old February 18th 07, 06:55 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Stephen Horgan wrote:
The ayatollahs may chant a lot, but they are as keen to get destroyed as
TV evangilists are to have Christ really show up and start passing out
the judgments on people.


You do not base the safety of your people on such simplistic
psychological analysis. These are the people who run mass
demonstrations where the chant is 'death to America'. It is possible
that they mean it.


Yeah, but are they the ones with the launch codes?

Pat
  #47  
Old February 18th 07, 07:43 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Darren J Longhorn wrote:

National in the United Kingdom ended on 31 December 1960, before 'the
troubles' began in Northern Ireland.


Oh, I remember growing up with that mess on TV every day; the nail bomb
of the week show.
Remember the time the IRA almost blew up Thatcher on the toilet?:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_I...325088,00.html
I like that turn of phrase: "On October 12 1984 the IRA exploded a bomb
planted behind a bath-panel in the hotel, aimed at wiping out Margaret
Thatcher".

Pat

  #48  
Old February 18th 07, 09:21 AM posted to sci.space.history
OM[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,849
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:43:06 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Oh, I remember growing up with that mess on TV every day; the nail bomb
of the week show.


....When you get down to it, two things ruined the party for the IRA:

1) More and more of their so-called "patriot recruits" became
disenchanted with the effort when it became quickly apparent that it
was cutting the average Mick's drinking time down to 1/3 of what their
forefathers had even after getting married to an overbearing wife.

2) U2 quit running guns and ammo to them on their return trips from
the States after Bono decided to go all Bob Geldof and try for his own
Nobel Peace Prize.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
  #49  
Old February 18th 07, 10:18 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Dave Michelson wrote:

In fact, the all-volunteer nature of their forces has long been a source
of pride for the British military.


(Cut to image of drugged tramps waking up in the bowels of the Ark Royal.)

Pat
  #50  
Old February 18th 07, 10:31 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

Pat Flannery wrote:
Yeah, but are they the ones with the launch codes?


Ahmadinejad would be the guy with the launch codes. The one who dreams
about a future world without those twin monsters of evil, Israel and
the United States of America.

I would take steps now to ensure no Iranian nuclear-armed missile can
reach Israel, let alone the United States. Because Israelis, like
Americans, or Dutchmen for that matter, are peace-loving people who,
like us, simply want their children to get a good education and have a
bright future. They do not think being a suicide terrorist is the way
to go to heaven!

John Savard

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bye-bye INF treaty? Pat Flannery Policy 418 March 20th 07 03:12 AM
Limited ASAT test ban treaty Totorkon Policy 3 March 9th 07 02:19 AM
Outer Space Treaty John Schilling Policy 24 May 24th 06 03:14 PM
Bush to Withdraw from Outer Space Treaty, Annex the Moon Mark R. Whittington Policy 7 April 2nd 05 08:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.