GMAC is gonna suck the bailout tit again....

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

The Reagan buidlup was about conventional military, so explain how the USSR was so tough and wanting to attack us in 1981.

I am so sorry. How could I, or anyone for that matter, ever think that a conventional military force could be of use other than to defend against an attack by the USSR. Here I was thinking it might come in handy to protect US interests around the world as well as assist here in times of disaster if the NG became overwhelmed.
You have changed my mind. I'm with you now. Reagan wasted money on conventional weapons. Hell, we had NUKES!

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

1: The only ones who know whether or not the Soviet Union was an imminent thereat were the Soviet leadership and those who had access to intelligence pointing one way or the other.

Here we go again, we need an affidavit from God in order to be sure. In teh law it's called the "Reasonable man standard." This is basically a no-BS, cu the crap, don't need to hear every puny semi-relevant detail, just cutthe shit and tell me the fatcs. IOW's, altho Clinton was correct in asking what the definition of, "is" is, (he really meant context or usge) it could have been a directive, an inquiry or a conjunctive I guess, the REASONABLE MAN would say BS, you know what the fuck we're asking. Same here, we see the USSR was a mess in 1981 as was teh US with our recession and interest. A REASONABLE MAN would say yea, I don;t see them wanting to attack or being very able to bring a strong attack even if they wanted to.

Quote

I'm pretty sure you don't fall into either one of those categories. That means you have to make your best guess without the benefit of knowing what Reagan knew.

That's right, the REASONABLE MAN would declare that both were there, neither IMO were there actually. And guess what? I WAS RIGHT as were the rest of the reasonable men. WMD's in Iraq? The reasonable men were all saying BS, they were right. We can reach for BS rationale, but if you can seperate yourself from the emotion you can find yourself reasonable.

Quote

Were they an imminent threat? My guess is the same as yours; No. But that doesn't mean that status could not change at the drop of a hat.

We've already forfeited our future on the whim of 2 maddmen, Reagan and GWB, let's just be sure and take that 8 times military spending over #2 and triple it. Wait , wait, wait, never can be too safe, let's militarize everyone from age 8 and up, sped every penny we have and can borrow onteh military - never can be too safe. There comes a point where you have to be REASONABLE with the military preparedness and just live life and count on the rest of the reasonable world to watch your back as you would theirs. There are no guarantees other thma when you mox out the military and cut social spending and let corporations run everythig for profit that you will end up with a POS.

Quote

Since you are so fond of diiging in the past, the US cut off trade with Japan in July of 1945. Less than 5 months later they attacked Pearl Harbor and caught the US with our pants down.

And here I thought Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec 7, 1941. I must need to go back to school and take history lessons.

Quote

2: Exactly my point, thank you very much. Since we didn't know what the future of US-Soviet relations was going to be we had no choice but to be prepared for any eventuallity.

And there's no end to the madness of that mentality. It's like a bulimic chick barfing because she might see an oune of fat between her ribs. We can be as OCD and extreme as we want, but what is a REASONABLE compromise between national security and not slamming the debt all to fuck? We've already passed that, too late, 2 shitheads have hammered this country into the ground in the name of national security and the irony is that we were attacked in spite of that.

Quote

That includes conventional as well as non-conventional warfare.

Nuclear warfare = all bets off, you can have the biggest conventional force you want, if they push teh button it really doesn't matter. Conventional warffare is used when you want to have a tomorrow the ay you want it to be, nuclear warfare is when you don't care about tomorrow; different animals.

Quote

If you don't understand that concept, watch the Reagan ad again.

I get the concept; FEAR - CREATE FUCKING FEAR TO JUSTIFY GIVING AWAY THE COUNTRY.

Quote

Selling lots of grain to the Soviets is a poor reason to think we were immune from any conflict with them.

Did I say immune? Your word. But the likelyhood is a lot lower if you have trade. again, no guarantees, just what a REASONABLE MAN would do/think.

Quote

Most wars through history have been over one of two things: Resources or religion. Sometimes both.

Don't forget politics, land (which is a sort of resource), religion is a sort of ideology, but capitalism vs communism isn't exactly religion, so my point is that it's so much more than resource or religion.

Quote

BTW, I did post an example of you contradicting yourself. Re-read my post and pay attention to what lines of yours i quoted.

You didn't. If you don;t have the energy or desire to cut-n-patse your claim, it falls flat. BTW, you have addressd maybe 20% of what I wrote, I assume you are acquiescing and agree then.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

THREE, you clearly are not looking at what is currently going on.

1) What has Obama spent money on?

2) Of those things, which is wasteful and not necessary?

Please be specific to all accounts.

Quote

Carter lead that, Reagan had to try to turn around the economy while trying to bust the USSR.

You haven't addressed how Russia was, A) a trheat and B) militarily dominant. Guess what? You won't - just keep runnin from that.

The economy was bad, but teh debt was under control. The debt was caused by 2 things:

1) Overspending on the military when there was no need

2) Grossly cutting taxes to hook-up his corporate buddies

Quote

GWB inherited the recession from Clinton (now, unlike you I don't blame this things on party's... There are plenty of reasons why the Clinton recession happened). GWB then had to deal with not only the recession, but 9/11.

Technically there was no Clinton recession, but realistically there was a very minor one. If you believe there was a realistic recession at teh end of Clinton term, by the same criteria you must also believe we were in a recession at the mid-end of 2007. It was minor as evidenced that after 911, the following Q was +. He also left a 236B surplus, and the was virtually even, the first time since 1969. Clinton had the most growth of any pres and left a big surplus, that was teh best handoff since probably Eisenhower to Kennedy.

Quote

Again, if you look at the data, Obama is spending at a rate that makes anyone else look pennywise and thrifty.

That's because he entered office at a time when the 700B bailout was just done by Bush and the 787B stimulus was needed. What you say makes as much sense as FDR's VP calling Hoover a socialist for virtually trippling taxes in Hover's last year. These things are needed, to scowl from the sideline is ridiculous and if he did tax cuts my friends you would be blaming him for doing nothing.

What spending has he done in total?

What spending is unneccesary?

What shoud he do?
(I don't expect answers here)

Quote

But your partisan blinders prevent you from seeing that.

No, but it's being abstract and omits the entire picture. Obama inherited a mess he had to fix and it has cost money early. IF Obama signed a 787B bill once a year for all 8 years, then yes, he would spend at the rate to which you state. You need to understand and admit 2 things:

1) He inherited a mess he has to buy our way out of; do you have a better idea?

2) He won't be enacting a 787B stimulus every year for 8 years.

Quote

You bitch about debt, but Obama is increasing the deficit faster than any other person EVER. Where is your outrage at that?

Faster: based on 10 months in office and a 787B stimulus. Even if you don't blame Bush, REGARDLESS, it's a fucking mess: quit posturing and WHATTHE FUCK WOULD YOU DO? I know, you don't wanna talk about that.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Typo corrected. (1945 changed to 1941.)


A reasonable man would be reasonably prepared for any situation that had a reasonable chance of happening. Roosevelt didn't and we got slammed. Reagan was prepared.
If Reagan had not built up our conventional military the only options we would have had would have been to surrender or to use nukes. I'd rather build up the military, thank you.

Quote

You didn't

Yeah, I did. You just can't read.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kallend 2,146]

Lucky's statement about the debt was quite correct. Well over one half of the total debt was incurred under just two administrations: Reagan and Bush II.

On the whole I'd rather spend $1T of borrowed money on US infrastructure than on unnecessary wars and outspending the rest of the world combined in military spending.

Even more, I'd like to see us save during times of prosperity by increasing revenues so they exceed spending, something neither Reagan nor Bush did.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Jeez Lucky. You must really like hearing yourself post.

Hi Air

Lucky

He's back

As soon as see lucky's name I don't bother reading further.

Don't feed the trolls

One Jump Wonder

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Now for the second, how do we determine how conventionally lethal the USSR is in 1981?

Well, I can tell you that in the period we're talking about, a single Armored Cavalry Regiment was facing one Soviet Tank Regiment, one Soviet Tank Brigade and THREE Motor Rifle Divisions across a 150 mile front in the Fulda Gap.

Is that lethal enough for you?

Quote

I just can't make an argument for how tough Russia was in 1981 by looking at ANY of their past performances

That's what we keep telling you every time you bring it up - you can't use that type of historical data to guage present-day effectiveness.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you surprised???? Obama's wasteful spending hasn't fixed anything......... Call Congress and tell them to quit poisoning captialism.

How short are the memories. The bailouts were initiated by the Bush administration.

The financial industry precipitated this mess because deregulators left no adult supervision of the banks.

Oh please brother..... Obama out spent bush in 8 months and he wants to bankrupt us with this pork barrell health care bill. Get real

INCORRECT. You might want to check the deficit projections as of the last day of the Bush administration. While the current projections are indeed higher, the bulk was already committed well before Obama was inaugurated. Not to mention the $5 TRILLION housing bubble disaster he inherited as a drain on the economy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Lucky's statement about the debt was quite correct. Well over one half of the total debt was incurred under just two administrations: Reagan and Bush II.

If you take debt incured under Reagan, Bush, Bush (altho I don't blame the elder Bush) it was:

- 2T
- 1.3T
- 5T

For a tally of 8.3T, well over 1/2. Again, I blame GHWB's increase on Reagan, since GHWB inherited that increase and did all he could to curtail it and had to deal with a real war inhis term, not a fabricated war off off paranoia.

So 8.3 from 12T is > 2/3.

Now, let's look at the 1.6T under Clinton. Clinton inherited a recovering recession and an out of control deficit/debt. He finished the recession recovery, turned a 290B deficit into a 236B surplus and turned the debt increase almost flat. So can we blame Clinton even tho every last year of his 8 showed a lower debt increase and a deficit that went to 0, then up on the otehr side to a black? I don't see how we can blame any person for receiving a POS and leaving a much better economy. The 900B that Reagan inherited were mostly war costs from the Civil War, VN and WWII, so blame who ya want with that, but how can anyone conscionably blame a person for receiving a mess and turning it to gold?

Quote

Even more, I'd like to see us save during times of prosperity by increasing revenues so they exceed spending, something neither Reagan nor Bush did.

Yep, lines only crossed under Clinton at the end....they uncrossed shortly in to GWB's time.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Jeez Lucky. You must really like hearing yourself post.

Hi Air

Lucky

He's back

As soon as see lucky's name I don't bother reading further.

Don't feed the trolls

Why not go address some things. Hey, might even teach me a thing or two.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Well, I can tell you that in the period we're talking about, a single Armored Cavalry Regiment was facing one Soviet Tank Regiment, one Soviet Tank Brigade and THREE Motor Rifle Divisions across a 150 mile front in the Fulda Gap.

Is that lethal enough for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap

Right, it was more of the same; like cat's fighting and screaming all night but no fur every flying. There was never a cold war fight between the USSR and the west. It was a low-key long-term version of the Bay of Pigs. Big countries never fight, they just have proxy wars. The Soviets, after the BOP, never offered a threat to the US; perhaps you and Ronnie both watched too many Top Gun-type movies before 1981.

As far as lethal, the armament you listed was not collectively lethal enough to overthrow a nation. The questions I'm asking are:

1) Was there a threat other than the typical grumbling of 2 superpowers flwxing muscle who would NEVER actually fire a shot? If you think so then you were deceived, just as GWB was with WMD's. But let's be real, no one was deceived, it was the artifical creation of an enemy to justify gross spending.

2) Did they have COLLECTIVE ARMAMENT, not just enough for one batttle on one field, but enough to justify hawking our future? Were that even ahead of us in conventional arms? And they were entangled in the Afg War, so they were spead out some, they have fewer people than we do and a lot less resource.

Answer those literally, not thru some pseudo-patriotic reference. Your answer is akin to Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men when he said something like: You wear those faggoty white uniforms and ......... you don't get it..... bla. It's pseudo-patriotic bravado, it doesn't address the issue of need, it just paints it over with a broad brush of, "we can excuse the RW for trashing this country with over-spending on the military; it's ok."

Quote

That's what we keep telling you every time you bring it up - you can't use that type of historical data to guage present-day effectiveness.

I'm not taking present day as in today, I'm talking about putting ourselves back in 1981 and then build an argument as to how A) aggressive the USSR was toward us; were they about to attack? B) Did they have the means if they had the desire?

I don't think we get past A and even if we did somehow, how do we get into B and determine their lethality reasonably? I guess we just say, "Well, we don't know, so we'll just do generational theivery as McCain says and spend the next 100 years of our GDP on a paranoid dellusional dream of star wars meets a wild guess.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Typo corrected. (1945 changed to 1941.)

Ok, so restate your assertion with your revised dates.

Quote

A reasonable man would be reasonably prepared for any situation that had a reasonable chance of happening.

OK, determine that it was reasonable to believe in 1981 that the USSR was able and willing to attack us. I don't think they had teh desire and if they did, did they have a lethal enough military to warrant us throwing it all at the military? You know, GWB said one thing, he said he was a war president; I think there was a certain bravdo that went with that. Perhaps Reagan had that same secret desire. Amazing at how the presidents who have the leat war in their personal history also have the most desire to be in another one.

Quote

Roosevelt didn't and we got slammed.

Roosevelt wasn't prepared for Pearl Harbor? Was there intel available to forsee that? It sounds as tho he was prepared in that there were enough battle forces there, it's just that no on eknew it was comming. So militarily as far as machines, the FDR military was ready. Perhaps lax intel and/or local command. Did they have watches (radar or eyeball)for incomming acft back then?

Quote

Reagan was prepared.

Reagan was waaaaay overprepared and that cost us and it still does today.

Quote

If Reagan had not built up our conventional military the only options we would have had would have been to surrender or to use nukes. I'd rather build up the military, thank you.

Making a bold assumption that the USSR wanted to attack when there was no evidence of that. Not to mention, being spread over in AFG wasn't a good startegy if they wanted to attack, as they would need all teh resource they could get to come after us.

Quote

Yeah, I did. You just can't read.

Show me.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

If the only reason for having a military was the Soviet Union, then there would be no reason to build up the military if they were no threat. Problem with that is twofold: The consequences of not being prepared to defend our country if they were a threat or if they were the only possible threat.

Yes, we got slammed at and after Pearl because our military was not prepared. Leaving out the unforeseen attack on Pearl it took ous months to bring our military up to speed enough to put up a good fight. Yes, we had some victories soon after Pearl, but the fact is we got damn lucky. Reagan lived through that and wasn't about to let it happen again.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

Not to mention the $5 TRILLION housing bubble disaster he inherited as a drain on the economy.

Due to giving every human being in America a home whether or not they could afford it (Clinton's Baby). Regulation that was needed but stopped short of manifesting because of Barney Frank and his lover at Fannie Mae. That's not Bush's fault.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Not to mention the $5 TRILLION housing bubble disaster he inherited as a drain on the economy.

Due to giving every human being in America a home whether or not they could afford it (Clinton's Baby). Regulation that was needed but stopped short of manifesting because of Barney Frank and his lover at Fannie Mae. That's not Bush's fault.

Who blamed Bush? Feeling defensive?

Bankers are responsible for managing their banks' financial affairs. AIG was not managed by Frank or Obama. NINJA loans were not forced on banks by Frank or Obama. AAA ratings for junk mortgage backed securities were not handed out by Frank or Obama. Obama had nothing to do with Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

Perhaps you've forgotten that McCain called himself "The Deregulator" until it became apparent that adult supervision of the financial industry really was necessary.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

If the only reason for having a military was the Soviet Union, then there would be no reason to build up the military if they were no threat.

Oh, was someone else a credible threat?

Quote

The consequences of not being prepared to defend our country if they were a threat or if they were the only possible threat.

We now spend 8 times that of #2 China (not incl Iraq spending), how would cutting that in half not be prepared? See, the danger now is being too prepared and ruining our country fiscally. There's a happy middle and we surely have missed it by far; why do you insist we ruin our country fiscally under the guise of, 'they're out to get us?'

Quote

Yes, we got slammed at and after Pearl because our military was not prepared.

Ok, so was it that we weren't built up enough or we were, but they caught us sleeping?

Quote

Leaving out the unforeseen attack on Pearl it took ous months to bring our military up to speed enough to put up a good fight.

Well we had the entire world to travel unlike most countries that focused on one theatre or the other. In 1940 we started moving ships to the European theatre, so we had the disadvantage of thining ourselves unlike many countries. Again, cut all social programs, quadruple deficit spending to overbuild the military so we'll win. Of course that is a recipe for losing. You have to have a reasonable military and rely on the world community to pull together collectively.

Quote

Yes, we had some victories soon after Pearl, but the fact is we got damn lucky.

Oh, tell me, where did we get lucky? That's an insult to all the soldiers crashing beaches everywhere giving up > 400K lives. Was D-Day luck? I thought it was exponential sacrifice.

Quote

Reagan lived through that and wasn't about to let it happen again.

Yes, lived thru it like GWB --> A COWARD WHO GOT A WAIVER TO AVOID. You see, Reagan had an eye problem and couldn't go. He enlisted in the guard or reserve in 37, but then when he was called in 42 he found a waiver for his eyesight and stayed in Cali doing admin BS and then to Hollywood to make training movies. Reagan is a disgrace to real men everywhere.

If we want to talk presidents who are storied in military duty we have to GHWB and Eisenhower, the rest have not had a real atatchment to the military in the aspect we are talking.

As for Reagan's delluded vision of Commies in his head, after the BOP in 1960 the real hostility was over and it turned petty. We boycotted the 1980 Olympics because the USSR invavded AFG. As an aside it turns out they were right. But at this point US / USSR relations were relegated to Olympics and top gun-type movies. I think I recall Iron Eagle or some anti-commie movie too. Point is, we had reduced our mutual hate to simple slander and no talk of war was present, just Reagan's delluded insanity and living in the past. The end verifies that truth.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Due to giving every human being in America a home whether or not they could afford it (Clinton's Baby).

Oh, that bill sponsored by 3 Republicans? Gramm, Leach, Bliley. The real killer were the low int rates, w/o them it couldn't happen.

Quote

That's not Bush's fault.

Tax cuts, my friends were his fault.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jeez Lucky. You must really like hearing yourself post.

Hi Air

Lucky

He's back

As soon as see lucky's name I don't bother reading further.

Don't feed the trolls

Why not go address some things. Hey, might even teach me a thing or two.

Dude your profile tells it all

6500 posts all of them in SC over a 4 yr period. some of your posts in the same thread are only 2 minutes apart

I know you can type real fast, like to argue. I suspect your posting from work and look real busy.[

I'm not going to waste my own time trying to have a debate with a head of lettuce. aka the dick

The cluster fuck in SC about the flag burning incident that went on forever got my attention. Lucky, Lucky lucky lucky WTF who is this guy that can't let it go?

One Jump Wonder

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Oh, was someone else a credible threat?

Depends on wha you consider to be credible. To let your defense capability suffer because nobody is challenging you at the time is stupid.

Quote

There's a happy middle and we surely have missed it by far

Yes, there is and whether we missed it or not is a matter of opinion. I feel we haven't.

Quote

Ok, so was it that we weren't built up enough or we were, but they caught us sleeping?

Caught sleeping. Unless you believe the conspiracy theirists who (wrongly) think Roosevelt knew of the impending attack. Taking months to recover was a result of Roosevelt allowing our military to degrade to a minimum.

Quote

Oh, tell me, where did we get lucky? That's an insult to all the soldiers crashing beaches everywhere giving up > 400K lives. Was D-Day luck? I thought it was exponential sacrifice.

We got lucky at Pearl in that the Japanese Navy decided not to send another wave of aircraft. Our defenses were shattered and Pearl could have easily been taken from us if the Japanese had decided to try. Midway was a battle that should have been a disaster for us but everything that could go right for us did and everything that could go wrong for the Japanese went wrong. Yes, our men fought bravely but there is no doubt that we got lucky. Sometimes in war things just happen that way. The invasion of Europe was long after the time period I was referring to. By then we had ramped up our military forces and supply system all the way from raw materials to ammo in hand.

Quote

But at this point US / USSR relations were relegated to Olympics and top gun-type movies

You have the luxory of being able to allow yourself to believe that. It's even easier now 25+ years later. Fact is, you have no idea as to what information the President had available to him and you most likely never will. Airmchair diplomacy is as easy as airmchair quarterbacking. And has about as much influence.
You entire last paragraph is nothing but a rant so I won't bother responding to it.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Dude your profile tells it all

Profile is for fun - same as not having any info in there.

Quote

6500 posts all of them in SC over a 4 yr period.

Not all, I psot in incidents sometimes.

Quote

some of your posts in the same thread are only 2 minutes apart

Because I reply to several in a row to me.

Quote

I know you can type real fast,...

Actually no.

Quote

like to argue

I like constructuve argument with data or other relevant evidene to find truths.

Quote

I suspect your posting from work and look real busy.[

I'm blue collar - no typy from worky.

Quote

I'm not going to waste my own time trying to have a debate with a head of lettuce. aka the dick

MORE PA'S FROM YOUR SIDE, WHY?

Quote

The cluster fuck in SC about the flag burning incident that went on forever got my attention. Lucky, Lucky lucky lucky WTF who is this guy that can't let it go?

It's called dissent, the things you pretend to stand for via harsh conservatism, yet denouce when it disgrees with you. Shall we call it selective support for dissent?

[kallend 2,146]

Is it possible that a long discussion on Soviet military capabilities in the cold war belongs in its own thread?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Depends on wha you consider to be credible. To let your defense capability suffer because nobody is challenging you at the time is stupid.

You have to use reasonable forseeability. Obviously by the end, Reagan was wrong. But to put ourselves back in 1981, let's look at what the circumstances were.

- We were trading with them
- The USSR was stretched into AFG with a lot of resources stuck there - a long war with the US would be foolish
- Much of the world was against them for being in AFG, so the world would likely back us if a war broke between the US and USSR.
- Russia was making no threats whatsoever.


OK, so with that set of objective criteria, tell me how the USSR was such a threat AT ALL, but esp one that we had to hawk our future over.

Quote

Yes, there is and whether we missed it or not is a matter of opinion. I feel we haven't.

You're welcome to your opinion as to whether Reagan did a great job pumping the military to ridiculous proportion, cutting taxes all teh while and tripling the debt. Some people think malaria is cool, so who am I to say you're wrong?

Quote

Caught sleeping. Unless you believe the conspiracy theirists who (wrongly) think Roosevelt knew of the impending attack. Taking months to recover was a result of Roosevelt allowing our military to degrade to a minimum.

I agree - caught sleeping.

So how, after FDR inherited a total mess, did FDR let the military degrade? Was it degrade when he took office? Where was it in Dec, 1941 regard to 1933? Had it degraded. I'd like to see support for your assertion. Please, no RW rag sites.

Quote

We got lucky at Pearl in that the Japanese Navy decided not to send another wave of aircraft.

Maybe they had other places to go. Do research, tell me what they did just after Dec 7, 1941. It was their strategy to use their resources where tehy saw fit, no luck but design.

Quote

Our defenses were shattered and Pearl could have easily been taken from us if the Japanese had decided to try.

Yep, but as I said, they had bigger fish to fry to take other places first. Pearl Harbor wsn't their immediate goal and frankly it was too far east at that time. They wanted to stun us so they could do something else; what was that?

Quote

Midway was a battle that should have been a disaster for us but everything that could go right for us did and everything that could go wrong for the Japanese went wrong. Yes, our men fought bravely but there is no doubt that we got lucky. Sometimes in war things just happen that way.

Please, outline the luck.

Quote

The invasion of Europe was long after the time period I was referring to. By then we had ramped up our military forces and supply system all the way from raw materials to ammo in hand.

1) What time period did you refer to?

2) We were ramping up for Europe in 1940, Pearl Harbor was later

Quote

You have the luxory of being able to allow yourself to believe that. It's even easier now 25+ years later. Fact is, you have no idea as to what information the President had available to him and you most likely never will. Airmchair diplomacy is as easy as airmchair quarterbacking. And has about as much influence.

Again, look at the list of WHAT WE DID KNOW IN 1981 and make that claim.

- We were trading with them
- The USSR was stretched into AFG with a lot of resources stuck there - a long war with the US would be foolish
- Much of the world was against them for being in AFG, so the world would likely back us if a war broke between the US and USSR.
- Russia was making no threats whatsoever.

Quote

You entire last paragraph is nothing but a rant so I won't bother responding to it.

Oh, about fascist Ronnie being a war coward. Yea, how can you repsond and answer questions like how FR was able to enlist in the guard/reserve and be ok, yet when wartime kicked off all of the sudden he has an eye problem? Really, what can ya say?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Is it possible that a long discussion on Soviet military capabilities in the cold war belongs in its own thread?

Sounds good to me, I'll start one.

[billvon 3,111]

>But you go ahead and keep blaming Bush.

And you can blame Obama. Both of you will be happy and nothing will change.