Was Reagan right to pump up the military and drive debt due to the alleged USSR threat?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's the comparison to your "alleged" threat.

That's the difference between fact and opinion.

Mike, you asked me to answer a question or questions, you said they were here in this post, They're not. Go ahead and post it / them. Be detailed an enumerate; I will answer them with detail.

No, I asked you when you were going to refute the data I posted.

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

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here's the comparison to your "alleged" threat.

That's the difference between fact and opinion.

Mike, you asked me to answer a question or questions, you said they were here in this post, They're not. Go ahead and post it / them. Be detailed an enumerate; I will answer them with detail.

No, I asked you when you were going to refute the data I posted.

Oh shit. You confused the Hell out him again.
First you post facts, now this.
Yeah, I agree we'll have to start calling you "Thread Killer".

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

Quote

Quote

Here's the comparison to your "alleged" threat.

That's the difference between fact and opinion.

Mike, you asked me to answer a question or questions, you said they were here in this post, They're not. Go ahead and post it / them. Be detailed an enumerate; I will answer them with detail.

No, I asked you when you were going to refute the data I posted.

It isn't here in this thread, find it and post it - I will be happy to address it. Is this a difficult proposition? You ask, I answer.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here's the comparison to your "alleged" threat.

That's the difference between fact and opinion.

Mike, you asked me to answer a question or questions, you said they were here in this post, They're not. Go ahead and post it / them. Be detailed an enumerate; I will answer them with detail.

No, I asked you when you were going to refute the data I posted.

I'll just cheerlead since I have nothing to add.

OK

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Uhhh....what do you call this?? Could it be the missing dat??? Hmmm...


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3727608#3727608

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.

[mnealtx 0]

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Amazing someone else had to point out your data

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Amazing someone else had to point out your data

That'd be a lot more believable if you hadn't DIRECTLY REPLIED TO THE POST, especially given your penchant for complaining about people not providing data with their claims.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Apparently it would have been too much trouble to post the ISS home page or a website of where you got this info from. Here's the homepage: http://www.iiss.org/

I tried a search of the military balance 1981-1982 and many variatons. I found recent military balance data, but nothing from that era, could you post where you got it. Now this data, if true, doesn't say, "there, we had fewer arms, it was all neccessary and worth it." The issues of threat, USSR dispersion to AFG and many other issues are relevant, but I want to see the source, not just a typed page with a source that cannot be verified otherwise. The IISS seems legit on the surface, I will do more investigating. Don't get nasty at this point, I like where this is going - new data - but post where you go tthis or find it thru the IISS so we can delve further. It also states "Chart II." So what is on the other charts? I'm not calling shenanigans on your data, let's just source it better. I tried, "u.s. - soviet military balance" too - nothing. Post your exact website you found this from.

[mnealtx 0]

Gee, I sure didn't expect THAT response...

How about you just refute the data as provided, Lucky - call it a theoretical exercise if it'll save your pride.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Amazing someone else had to point out your data

That'd be a lot more believable if you hadn't DIRECTLY REPLIED TO THE POST, especially given your penchant for complaining about people not providing data with their claims.

Amazing you didn't say - see attachment. But of course you like atatchments as it's like pulling teeth to get a source via a website. You need to cough up the website you got this from or find the IISS site so we can verify it came from them - that's for starters, but I'm game; let's explore this one leg of many in this issue. Again, even if this data is true and valid, the US has them beat is some areas, it doesn't mean therefore the USSR was a threat to us. So many more prongs to the issue, but it important to know how the military's sized up.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Gee, I sure didn't expect THAT response...

How about you just refute the data as provided, Lucky - call it a theoretical exercise if it'll save your pride.

AS PROVIDED BY WHAT? A TYPED ASSERTION ON THE BOTTOM WITH NO WAY OF VERIFYING IT? You would be fun to argue in court. Explain, Mike, why you're so immune from posting a website?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Explain, Mike, why you're so immune from posting a website?

Explain, Lucky, why you're refusing to refute the data you've been given after all the CRAP you've been spouting in the thread.

Maybe you're not such a military and political expert as you make yourself out to be?

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

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Amazing someone else had to point out your data

That'd be a lot more believable if you hadn't DIRECTLY REPLIED TO THE POST, especially given your penchant for complaining about people not providing data with their claims.

Amazing you didn't say - see attachment. But of course you like atatchments as it's like pulling teeth to get a source via a website. You need to cough up the website you got this from or find the IISS site so we can verify it came from them - that's for starters, but I'm game; let's explore this one leg of many in this issue. Again, even if this data is true and valid, the US has them beat is some areas, it doesn't mean therefore the USSR was a threat to us. So many more prongs to the issue, but it important to know how the military's sized up.

My God...you are blonde!

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

Gee, I sure didn't expect THAT response...

How about you just refute the data as provided, Lucky - call it a theoretical exercise if it'll save your pride.

Whatever the numbers of arms, the other aspect is lethality and it appears we had better stuff.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-8606:1

Page 7: Our Army has access to firepower unprecedented in the past. Tanks with
stabilized turrets and night sights can attack targets on the move, in
daylight or darkness. What they see, they can generally stop. Our TOW
antitank weapons not only exceed the range of Soviet tank cannons, but
possess penetration powers that outpaced opposing armor by the mid-1970s.
Improved artillery ammunition can cause up to four times as many personnel
casualties per round as conventional high explosives could in past conflicts.
Projectiles with time-delay submunitions extend suppression capabilities for
protracted periods after impact. Laser range finders for forward observers
reduce target estimation errors from 400 meters to about 10, hugely
increasing probabilities of first-round hits. Response times have been cut
from minutes to seconds. Precision-guided artillery projectiles, when
perfected, should cause a quantum jump in destructive power. Land mine
lethality has increased dramatically in this decade.

And:

America's tactical air combat assets furnish flexibility not available to the Soviet Union, whose Frontal Aviation ( r o u g h l y e q u i v a l e n t t o o u r Tactical A i r Command, U.S. A i r F o r c e E u r o p e , a n d P a c i f i c A i r F o r c e ) i s l a r g e l y c o n f i n e d t o t h e E u r a s i a n l a n d mass. Our c l e a r q u a l i t a t i v e e d g e i s s t i l l e v i d e n t i n most r e s p e c t s , a l t h o u g h t h e gap i s c l o s i n g .

It copied over fucked up, but what this says is that our force is smaller but smarter and better. IOW's; size isn't everything.

Page 17 shows some military data:

- It shows we have them smoked in bombers acft.

- They have more military members

- They have us beat in land-based figheters, we have them beat in carrier-based fighers, MEANING THEY WOULD HAVE A HARDER TIME BRINGING THE FIGHT TO US THAN US TO THEM. In fact they had 0 acft carriers.

- We had almost 2:1 destroyers

- They had us 4:1 on subs

- They had 0 amphibious ships to our 113

And the data goes on, but what I extrapolate is that they weren't really designed to take their fight abroad, we were. They were more well equiped to withstand a long fight on their soil, but that doesn't make them a threat to us in that accord.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Explain, Mike, why you're so immune from posting a website?

Explain, Lucky, why you're refusing to refute the data you've been given after all the CRAP you've been spouting in the thread.

Maybe you're not such a military and political expert as you make yourself out to be?

The data I've been given, as tho you are my teacher? What a laugher. Post the source as honest people do. But the data I provided (with a link - I know, foreign idea to you) looks as tho it basically agrees with yours:

- The USSR had more inferior tanks and a shitty land-based air force. OK, so they were designed to defend their homeland, we were designed to defend ours and be able to reach out and touch people. They had a larger, in some areas, military that was lower quality. As any neo-con will tell you, they produced inferior stuff in that era and the data provided for that as well as their losing almost twice the troops of Germany in WWII with the rest of the world helping.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Amazing someone else had to point out your data

That'd be a lot more believable if you hadn't DIRECTLY REPLIED TO THE POST, especially given your penchant for complaining about people not providing data with their claims.

Amazing you didn't say - see attachment. But of course you like atatchments as it's like pulling teeth to get a source via a website. You need to cough up the website you got this from or find the IISS site so we can verify it came from them - that's for starters, but I'm game; let's explore this one leg of many in this issue. Again, even if this data is true and valid, the US has them beat is some areas, it doesn't mean therefore the USSR was a threat to us. So many more prongs to the issue, but it important to know how the military's sized up.

My God...you are blonde!

Says the guy that called the PH attack a 1945 venture.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Says the guy that called the PH attack a 1945 venture.

Says the guy that swears were were gearing up for the war in 1940.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Says the guy that called the PH attack a 1945 venture.

Says the guy that swears were were gearing up for the war in 1940.

I wrote that we were ramping up for war in 1940, THE SAME YEAR WHEN WE HAD A PEACETIME DRAFT AND SENT SHIPS TO EUROPE, if that isn't ramping up for war then I guess we'll have just think it's a peacetime policy.

Remember that link I posted? I know, a strange thing for you to notice.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

History lesson #3: When the peacetime draft was imposed it was only allowed by congress under the condition that the troops were only to be used to defend US territories. Our military at that time had been depleted to the point where we did not even have the capability to defend our own shores.
Again, the ships being sent over the Atlantic were part of the lend-lease act. They were being used by other countries, not the US. Up until late 1941 the US still was practicing a policy of neutrality with no intent to enter the war.
If we had been ramping up for war during 1940, don't you think our men would have been training with real rifles instead of broomsticks when we did enter the war? That our men would have been issued state of the art rifles instead of leftover WWI Springfields (a fine rifle in its own right)? That we would have had tropop ships instead of converted cruise ships to move our men to the places they were needed?

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.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

- The USSR had more inferior tanks and a shitty land-based air force.

Is this your professional military opinion, General?

You *DO* know that the T-80 was considered to be roughly equivalent to the M1 and had a longer ranged main cannon, right? You *do* know that their anti-tank missiles and artillery were more advanced than ours at the time, right?

Quote

OK, so they were designed to defend their homeland, we were designed to defend ours and be able to reach out and touch people. They had a larger, in some areas, military that was lower quality. As any neo-con will tell you, they produced inferior stuff in that era and the data provided for that as well as their losing almost twice the troops of Germany in WWII with the rest of the world helping.

Produced inferior stuff? Yeah, I suppose that's why nobody in the world uses those Avtomat Kalashnikova things, right?

The rest of their equipment sucked so bad that planning figured the Soviets would be at the English Channel within a week (if they won the initial battles breaking into West Germany) to two weeks (if they lost the initial battles).

As for the WWII stuff you keep bringing up...so fucking what? It was irrelevant the first time you mentioned it and it's irrelevant now. You don't stand up 170+ Army divisions without a WHOLE lotta troops, General.

Maybe you better go back to Command and Staff school.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

History lesson #3:

From Mr. PH was attacked in 1945.

Quote

When the peacetime draft was imposed it was only allowed by congress under the condition that the troops were only to be used to defend US territories.

Like Guam? Yea, that wasn't invloved in WWII. Also, I didn't state what or why, THERE WAS A PEACETIME DRAFT IN 1940 IN PREPARATION FOR THE WAR. You don't want to acknowledge it? Cool. Draft = war; not real hard to understand. Source.

Quote

Our military at that time had been depleted to the point where we did not even have the capability to defend our own shores.

Depleted by whom and why (GD or ?). If depleted, was it worse than Germany? Source.

Quote

Again, the ships being sent over the Atlantic were part of the lend-lease act. They were being used by other countries, not the US.

Right, in preparation of the war, as the US got startegic trade for this. These were loaned/leased to the Britts for military bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda, and the British West Indies. So we lend the Britts and other countries war supplies to fight Germany and Italy and we're not ramping up for teh war. If you lend a gun to a person who you know has the inteent to shoot someone, YOU ARE AS COMPLICIT AS THEY ARE. And why did we want these bases? So when we had to launch from there to Germany/Italy it would be more strategic.

Here's a chronology of WWII preparation in 1940, 5 years before PH was atatcked according to you

BTW, the Pacific Theatre was being prepared before the European Theatre.

http://www.navsource.org/Naval/1940.htm

- 09/03 Tue. President announces "Destroyers for Bases" executive
agreement with Great Britain; the United States to give Great
Britain 50 destroyers in return for 99-year leases on bases
in the Bahamas, Antigua, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Jamaica, and
British Guiana.


- 09/06 Fri. First eight destroyers are transferred to Britain under
"Destroyers for Bases" agreement.


Really? We lend 8 destroyers to the britts, making us more vulnerable and that's not actively preparing for the war? We draft in so-called peacetime an we're not preparing for the war. Dude, you have a real weak knack for trying to split hairs on issue and get your cheerleaders in tow.

Quote

If we had been ramping up for war during 1940, don't you think our men would have been training with real rifles instead of broomsticks when we did enter the war?

Yawn; you're easy.

- 08/31 Sat. President calls 60,000 National Guardsmen into Federal service.

Oh and lending money to China for teh war isn't ramping up either - no way.

- 11/30 Sat. United States lends $50 million to China for currency
stabilization, and grants an additional $50 million credit for purchase of supplies.

Quote

That our men would have been issued state of the art rifles instead of leftover WWI Springfields (a fine rifle in its own right)?

OK, so they had nice rifles but weren't preparing for war . This is a meaningless point of yours, whatever they did seemed to work well for the greatest generation minus that pussy Reagan who was worthless in WWII. My uncle died in Germany, that punk-bitch Reagan made movies and got primo Hollywood ass.


Look, what I wrote was that the US was ramping up for war to include things like the peacetime draft and sending ships to Europe. That's true, nothing I wrote was untrue. For some reason you want to qualify every last little part of ramping up, which is a general statement. I just don;t see, after you admit that we did enter a draft and did move ships to Europe in 1940 how you can try to spin it around that somehow these weren't acts of preparing for the war that we did enter into. It's just jaw-droppingly funny to watch the absurb ways that you try to say, 'well, it's completely treu other than these parts where it's kinda true but not, but it's ultimately true,but not at all. Dude, all I said was that we were ramping up for the war in 1940. By the chronology I attached we were. We did send ships over and we did enter a peacetime draft. To pretend that you know what transpired in basic training (esp for a guy who undoubtedly never served) in 1940 is also hillarious. Furthermore, whatever they did it seemd to work well considering we lost just over 400k and did a LOT in contribution to the war effort. A WWII vet would probably kick you in the teeth for saying their training was a joke. But you could defend by saying you don't know; you never enlisted.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

That our men would have been issued state of the art rifles instead of leftover WWI Springfields (a fine rifle in its own right)?

OK, so they had nice rifles but weren't preparing for war .

WRONG - they were training with BROOMSTICKS because they DIDN'T have rifles.

Quote

My uncle died in Germany,

Well, since we're appealing to authority, my Dad drove LCVPs into Omaha Beach, Peleliu and Iwo.

Quote

To pretend that you know what transpired in basic training (esp for a guy who undoubtedly never served) in 1940 is also hillarious.

So, where did YOU go through basic training in WWII, then?

Quote

A WWII vet would probably kick you in the teeth for saying their training was a joke.

He didn't say that - you did. Nice strawman, though.

Quote

But you could defend by saying you don't know; you never enlisted.

So, where did you say you did YOUR basic training during WWII, again?

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

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

From Mr. PH was attacked in 1945.

It was 1941. December 7 to be exact. I've told you that several times but obviously you don't learn well.

Quote

THERE WAS A PEACETIME DRAFT IN 1940 IN PREPARATION FOR THE WAR.

I stated the reasons for the draft. You are free to interpret the mindset of those who imposed it.

Quote

Depleted by whom and why (GD or ?). If depleted, was it worse than Germany? Source.

History Lesson #4: The US military was depleted after WWI when servicement returned home and very few had any inclination to stay in. No serious attempts were made to keep the military at much more than a minimal level.

Quote

Right, in preparation of the war, as the US got startegic trade for this. These were loaned/leased to the Britts for military bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda, and the British West Indies. So we lend the Britts and other countries war supplies to fight Germany and Italy and we're not ramping up for teh war.

Yep, exactly right. Many peacetime deals are made that trade equpiment for bases, etc. It was going on well before WWII and still happens today.
Lending assistance to a country actively involved in a war does not mean the lending country is "ramping up" for involvement. Just because you assume that was the case does not make it so. Sorry.

Quote

OK, so they had nice rifles but weren't preparing for war .

No, they had leftover rifles that served the purpose, but had not produced/purchased enough of the then-new M1 Garand to supply any new troops over those that were in the ranks when the US entered the war. One thing that is needed when "ramping up for war" is to outfit your basic infantry soldier.

Quote

My uncle died in Germany, that punk-bitch Reagan made movies and got primo Hollywood ass.

My dad worked on ocean freighters when the war broke out and served in the Merchant Marine during the war. My mother lost several uncles and cousins in eastern Europe starting before the US got involved in the war. Does that make my opinion carry any more weight than yours?
Reagan did serve in the military but he couldn't see worth a damn so he was relegated to desk jobs. I would not consider him a "punk bitch" because of that.

Quote

A WWII vet would probably kick you in the teeth for saying their training was a joke. But you could defend by saying you don't know; you never enlisted

Well, I never said their training was a joke, but I know at least two WWII vets who say the training they got at the beginning of the war WAS a joke. Their words, not mine. But what the hell do they know? They were only there, unlike you who wasn't.

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.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

My God...you are blonde!

Says the guy that called the PH attack a 1945 venture.

Says the guy that posted a link from the Onion and called it legit and an Republican rag.

(Remember that you referred to that Onion video with this: "I think it is real and legit".)