Bye-bye INF treaty?

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

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "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."?
:
:So US deployment isn't ours? What the hell does that mean? Poland and
:Czechoslovakia are customers as opposed to US being its own customer?

What the hell are you gibbering about now? The preceding bears no
relationship to anything said previously BY ANYONE.

Why don't you elaborate on what the US plans to install in Eastern
Europe, if you even understand it...

:
: You really cannot read and understand simple declarative sentences.
:
:No, you are totally unclear. Why, is what I don't know.

Because you can't read, which is both why I seem "totally unclear" to
you and why you "don't know".

: :
: : :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?
:
:Makes as much sense as saying an airport can only be used for landings
:and never takeoffs.

El Chimpko gibbers again.

In order to use an anti-missile system THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO BE FIRING
MISSILES AT YOU, El Chimpko.

Right.

One more time with the question you refuse to answer - HOW DO YOU
'ATTACK' WITH AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM?

You don't. You attack from the same location using missiles.

: : :Iraq, you stupid *******!
: :
: : Irrelevant, you dumb ****.
: :
: :Nope, you old fart.
:
: The only stinking thing here is your intellectual void.
:
:No, your lies stink much worse. There is truth and there is US
:sanctioned truth (i.e. propaganda). You speak the latter.

El Chimpko gibbers again.

: : :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?
:
:The fact that you implicitly believe we are beyond making attacks and
:attacks that are simply wrong. That somehow we are pure. You forget
:what Thomas Jefferson said and have somehow been swept into a
:Orwellian reality where the government is beyond being questioned.
:That in the face of you claiming to being sane simply because you have
:a paper to prove it! Sorry I go back to my American roots that
:question authority as being implicitly good. In that regard you are
:not free but I am.

What the **** are you gibbering about now? Where did I say anything
even remotely resembling "we are beyond making attacks"?

I merely recognize that AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM can't attack. You in
your ideological stupidity fail to recognize that.

Right, and an airport is only used for landings.

: :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.
:
:You said Cuba and Mexico knowing full well that there is no threat to
:us from the southern hemishere. You are intellectually dishonest in
:the guise of being coy.

Horse manure. US defense systems in Poland and Czechoslovakia are,
from the perspective of Russia, the precise equivalent of Russian
systems in Cuba and Mexico. Such systems in Poland CANNOT PREVENT
RUSSIA FROM ATTACKING THE UNITED STATES AND ARE USELESS IN THE EVENT
THAT THEY DO.

Which part of that is beyond you?

None.

: : 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?
:
:What are they complaining about, McClod?

Eric, do you not even know what we're talking about? They're
complaining about the deployment of US anti-missile equipment in
Poland and Czechoslovakia and threatening to withdraw from a treating
banning IRBMs in response.

Would you if the roles were reversed?

: : :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 have no idea what I do.

You keep making stupid remarks like this. Would you like me to call
you at work?

Sure, go ahead.

Better, why don't we meet in person and allow me to give you a tour of
my facility and have you recant all the 'moron' and 'idiot' comments
you have been making about me? Unless you're chicken of course?

: 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).
:
:Looking stupid because you say so is pure victory.

Then you 'win', because you have succeeded in looking abysmally
stupid.

....only to you McClod...

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

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

The "Silver Surfer" discussion is a classic. :-D


Who the hell is Moebius?

Watch "The Fifth Element".
Moebius was the French cartoonist who did all the great design work on
that movie, and I figured that out around five minutes after they hit
the new New York City, because it's got him written all over it.
He was one of the main contributers to Heavy Metal Magazine when it started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Giraud
Sticking him in with Marvel though was a mistake; their whole take on
comic art was wildly different.
Now _this_, by God, is Marvel Comic inspired art in its highest form:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ANNSILV002.jpg
Back in the Golden days of Marvel, when Lee, Kirby, and Steranko were
going full tilt, nobody could lay a finger on the stuff they could turn
out. You'd sit around turning the pages as a kid, and get your mind
blown with the genius of it all - super storylines, superb character
development, and art that would knock your ever-lovin' socks off. ;-)

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
At the moment, the power of radical Islam is waning in Iran, as the
local elections showed.

Amadinejad would never have won the *national* elections if it wasn't
for the fact that the clerics didn't allow the candidates of a more
progressive bent to stand for election.

Iran is effectively ruled, therefore, not by the wishes of its
electorate, but by unelected clerics.

Steps should be taken to ensu

that no innocent people get killed by an Iranian missile getting
anywhere *in the first place*, and

that the broad masses of the Iranian people, innocent of the crimes of
their warmongering leadership, are not placed in a situation where
they will unavoidably suffer for these crimes.

The best way to achieve this is to remove the "supporters of radical
Islam" within Iran from any position of political power as swiftly as
possible, *before* anything bad can happen. Iran is not a democracy,
therefore invading it any time we feel like does not constitute
aggression; as it is written, "governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed", therefore, any government that is
not democratic is really only just a gang of thugs, and the country in
question _has_ no legitimate government.

We must not make the mistakes that have been made in Iraq, however. We
can stop making these mistakes in Iraq now, too.

The Iraqi people do not have at their command the same level of
military force that the United States does. If the United States can't
crush terrorism in Iraq, the new government of Iraq will not be able
to do so. Instead of making threats and setting deadlines, to give
Iraq the peace it needs to build up its own political and military
strength, we should be acting in sufficient force to end conclusively
the current violence in Iraq.

This does not mean the generals who oppose the current troop surge
proposal are wrong; perhaps G. W. Bush's proposal is too modest, and
only a much larger troop surge will be sufficient to provide benefits
instead of giving the enemy more targets to shoot at.

John Savard

Pat Flannery wrote:
The Romans figured out how to do this over 2,000 years ago.

We don't have the option of waging war as the Romans did.

America loves every innocent civilian on the planet, and abominates
genocide, the evil crime of the Nazi enemy.

John Savard

(Derek Lyons) writes:

A) Trident's don't patrol in the Med. (We gave that up as soon as
we could.)

There is a special term for subs in the Med.

`Dead Meat'

No where to hide, no where to dive...

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:12:48 -0600, Quadibloc wrote
(in article .com):

perhaps G. W. Bush's proposal is too modest, and
only a much larger troop surge will be sufficient to provide benefits
instead of giving the enemy more targets to shoot at.

This is just about the oldest military/foreign policy mistake in the world.
Ask those foreign barbarians how increasing the numbers of the Legions worked
out for the Romans . . .

--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:51:52 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:12:48 -0600, Quadibloc wrote
(in article .com):

perhaps G. W. Bush's proposal is too modest, and
only a much larger troop surge will be sufficient to provide benefits
instead of giving the enemy more targets to shoot at.

This is just about the oldest military/foreign policy mistake in the world.
Ask those foreign barbarians how increasing the numbers of the Legions worked
out for the Romans . . .

It's unfortunate that they chose to call the new policy a "surge."
There is much more to it than simply adding more troops.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:04:58 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:


"Bill Bonde" wrote in message
...
Launch on warning to possibly save one missile is probably not
going to be ultimately justifiable to the congressional investigation
that will surely follow.

*Not* launching would not be justifiable to the voting public.

Who's talking about *not* launching?

We're talking about, if there's an actual nuclear attack on the United
States, launching a nuclear counterattack half an hour later. And if
it turns out to have been a false alarm, not launching at all.

You really expect us to believe that if, at the end of the day, New
York City is a smoking crater and half a dozen missile silos in North
Dakota are smoking craters[1], and Tehran is a smoking crater three
times over and Abadan and Avahz and Bakhtaran and Bandar Abas and
Bandar e Bushehr and Esfahan and Khorramshahar and Meshed and Qum
and Shiraz and Tabriz are smoking craters and the United States still
has four hundred and eighty out of five hundred ICBMs left to deal
with whatever happens next, that the voting public is going to say,
"Well, tough luck about New York, Mr. President, we'd have forgiven
you that, but if you'd launched half an hour earlier we'd still have
four hundred and eighty *six* ICBMs in reserve, so we're going to be
calling for your impeachment now"?

It's possible that the President's career was over the moment the
first Iranian missile was launched at NYC. Or possibly not. But
a half-hour's difference in the timing of the retaliation isn't going
to make any difference.

And it's *dead certain* that the President's career will be over if
he launches a bunch of nuclear missiles at Iran and it turns out to
have been a false alarm after all.

Anyone who can win the Presidency, is a shrewd enough politician to
do that math. The President will wait. And if he doesn't, every
military officer in the chain of command will know for sure he's
gone completely bonkers.


[1] And what's with the utterly riduculous idea that Iran is going to
shoot at our missile silos? Really, where does that come from?


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
perhaps G. W. Bush's proposal is too modest, and
only a much larger troop surge will be sufficient to provide benefits
instead of giving the enemy more targets to shoot at.

This is just about the oldest military/foreign policy mistake in the world.
Ask those foreign barbarians how increasing the numbers of the Legions worked
out for the Romans . . .

The approach is not ridiculous. The fact that it's been bungled in the
past doesn't mean it's inherently a bad idea.

(In particular, there's a peculiar superstition that conventional armies
just can't beat local guerillas. This ignores several campaigns in which
such guerilla forces *were* conclusively and permanently beaten. Notably,
the ownership of sizable areas of the US southwest was disputed for some
years by remarkably skilled guerillas, but once the US Cavalry figured out
the right tactics, the Apaches etc. were eventually forced to give up.)

Mind you, whether this particular attempt will succeed or fail is a
slightly different question... and the numbers do seem small, and it's not
clear that the necessary skillful leadership is available.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Another sockpuppet loon heard from...
:
:No. Just someone that stopped, read your post, and then left a
:followup post...

Oh, Eric must have had to do laundry...

:
: wrote:
:
: :On Feb 19, 6:40 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote:
: :
: : ::Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :
: : : "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."?
: : :
: : :So US deployment isn't ours? What the hell does that mean? Poland and
: : :Czechoslovakia are customers as opposed to US being its own customer?
: :
: : What the hell are you gibbering about now? The preceding bears no
: : relationship to anything said previously BY ANYONE.
: :
: : :
: : : You really cannot read and understand simple declarative sentences.
: : :
: : :No, you are totally unclear. Why, is what I don't know.
: :
: : Because you can't read, which is both why I seem "totally unclear" to
: : you and why you "don't know".
: :
: : : :
: : : : :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?
: : :
: : :Makes as much sense as saying an airport can only be used for landings
: : :and never takeoffs.
: :
: : El Chimpko gibbers again.
: :
: : In order to use an anti-missile system THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO BE FIRING
: : MISSILES AT YOU, El Chimpko.
: :
: : One more time with the question you refuse to answer - HOW DO YOU
: : 'ATTACK' WITH AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM?
: :
: : : : :Iraq, you stupid *******!
: : : :
: : : : Irrelevant, you dumb ****.
: : : :
: : : :Nope, you old fart.
: : :
: : : The only stinking thing here is your intellectual void.
: : :
: : :No, your lies stink much worse. There is truth and there is US
: : :sanctioned truth (i.e. propaganda). You speak the latter.
: :
: : El Chimpko gibbers again.
: :
: : : : :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?
: : :
: : :The fact that you implicitly believe we are beyond making attacks and
: : :attacks that are simply wrong. That somehow we are pure. You forget
: : :what Thomas Jefferson said and have somehow been swept into a
: : :Orwellian reality where the government is beyond being questioned.
: : :That in the face of you claiming to being sane simply because you have
: : :a paper to prove it! Sorry I go back to my American roots that
: : :question authority as being implicitly good. In that regard you are
: : :not free but I am.
: :
: : What the **** are you gibbering about now? Where did I say anything
: : even remotely resembling "we are beyond making attacks"?
: :
: : I merely recognize that AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM can't attack. You in
: : your ideological stupidity fail to recognize that.
: :
: : : :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.
: : :
: : :You said Cuba and Mexico knowing full well that there is no threat to
: : :us from the southern hemishere. You are intellectually dishonest in
: : :the guise of being coy.
: :
: : Horse manure. US defense systems in Poland and Czechoslovakia are,
: : from the perspective of Russia, the precise equivalent of Russian
: : systems in Cuba and Mexico. Such systems in Poland CANNOT PREVENT
: : RUSSIA FROM ATTACKING THE UNITED STATES AND ARE USELESS IN THE EVENT
: : THAT THEY DO.
: :
: : Which part of that is beyond you?
: :
: : : : 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?
: : :
: : :What are they complaining about, McClod?
: :
: : Eric, do you not even know what we're talking about? They're
: : complaining about the deployment of US anti-missile equipment in
: : Poland and Czechoslovakia and threatening to withdraw from a treating
: : banning IRBMs in response.
: :
: : : : :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 have no idea what I do.
: :
: : You keep making stupid remarks like this. Would you like me to call
: : you at work?
: :
: : : 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).
: : :
: : :Looking stupid because you say so is pure victory.
: :
: : Then you 'win', because you have succeeded in looking abysmally
: : stupid.
: :
: : --
: : "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: : territory."
: : --G. Behn
: :
: :...All that can be said in this case is that your reputation as a
: :moron is well and truely deserved.