Obama = Reagan

[NewGuy2005 53]

Why is it that when Reagan wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons, he was a visionary and when Obama wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons, he's selling us out to our enemies?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Because it's Bush's fault and Clinton did it first.

Gee whiz, we gotta explain everything around here?

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

Why is it that when Reagan wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons, he was a visionary and when Obama wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons, he's selling us out to our enemies?

I don't think anyone bought the notion Reagan wanted to rid the world of weapons, nuclear or otherwise. He was a huge proliferator of conventional weapons regardless of SALT, which we all knew was just a ploy to get them to drop arms while we kept ours. FR was senile and delluded thinking the USSR was a threat anyway.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

You still think the Soviets weren't a threat, do ya?
Go on and keep living in your little fantasy world. Don't forget to water the garden gnomes!

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

You still think the Soviets weren't a threat, do ya?
Go on and keep living in your little fantasy world. Don't forget to water the garden gnomes!

Tell me a time when they were militarily tough? When did they ever kick anyone's ass? As for nuclear, many, mnay nations have them and can push the button, so far only the US has been so depraved.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

You still think the Soviets weren't a threat, do ya?
Go on and keep living in your little fantasy world. Don't forget to water the garden gnomes!

Tell me a time when they were militarily tough? When did they ever kick anyone's ass? As for nuclear, many, mnay nations have them and can push the button, so far only the US has been so depraved.

Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, Hungary are two notable ones. The Finns successfully resisted as did the Afghans obviously (with help of course).

Their sh*t was rusty for all we know, but they had so many of them. We would literally run out of ammunition in the face of an all out assault.

Nuclear capabilities are another issue altogether. I met some guys at Altus AFB that did a lot of inspection work, their assessment was that the "Soviet" era capabilities were likely overestimated, or overstated. Could they hit Nevada on a clear day? Probably. Reno? Maybe not.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

You still think the Soviets weren't a threat, do ya?
Go on and keep living in your little fantasy world. Don't forget to water the garden gnomes!

Tell me a time when they were militarily tough? When did they ever kick anyone's ass? As for nuclear, many, mnay nations have them and can push the button, so far only the US has been so depraved.

We discussed all that in another thread some time ago. More than one person in that thread showed you the numbers that proved you wrong, you chose to ignore them. Why should I think you would act any differently now?

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.

[rehmwa 2]

the closest pres Obama approaches is GWB than any of the other ones - just on steroids

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, Hungary are two notable ones.

Right, my point. Who were they?

Quote

The Finns successfully resisted as did the Afghans obviously (with help of course).

Right, which accents my point, the USSR didn't have a reach out and touch military, more of a homeland military and they were strewn over AFG from 79 to 88, so even tho they had an emminsely inferior military to the US, one that wasn't designed to travel, on top of that they were engaged in a mess in AFG. And then they couldn't even control that mess and pulled out after losing what, 20k?

Quote

Their sh*t was rusty for all we know, but they had so many of them. We would literally run out of ammunition in the face of an all out assault.

Our population was bigger, I don't know the troop numbers in the 80's. I will say this, I wouldn't want to fight them over there, esp in the winter, but conventionally they were crap, esp considering they didn't have a real ability to deploy. They were never a conventional military threat and we can see after the bay of pigs that they weren't really hip to ending the world as we know it, as we weren't either. CONCLUSION: they were never a threat other than with a proxy war.

Quote

Nuclear capabilities are another issue altogether. I met some guys at Altus AFB that did a lot of inspection work, their assessment was that the "Soviet" era capabilities were likely overestimated, or overstated. Could they hit Nevada on a clear day? Probably. Reno? Maybe not.

W/o being an expert; agreed. Look at thier nuclear power capabilities with Chernobyl. Check out utube for a city called Pripyat, that was 3KM from Chernobyl powerplant, a population of 50K before the mess. Just look at their architecture and the amusement park in 1986 and compare it to our stuff. Nothing they had was worth a fuck, hence they weren't a conventional military threat and probably not a nuclear one either.

Reagan was just so ghey in love with the notion that Communism was out to get us and he blew the load on that errant notion. I bet the USSR just wanted to make it thru and had to put up a tough front to keep the US at arm's reach. Hell, we provided a lot of their grain, why would they want to kill us? The ME is and has always been the mess and it is in part our fault. I wish they would just run out of oil so we could ignore them other than to ensure they don't get nukes.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You still think the Soviets weren't a threat, do ya?
Go on and keep living in your little fantasy world. Don't forget to water the garden gnomes!

Tell me a time when they were militarily tough? When did they ever kick anyone's ass? As for nuclear, many, mnay nations have them and can push the button, so far only the US has been so depraved.

We discussed all that in another thread some time ago. More than one person in that thread showed you the numbers that proved you wrong, you chose to ignore them. Why should I think you would act any differently now?

Ah, one other person. Showed me the way..... I see. As I recall, my research indicated they didn't have 1 acft carrier in 1980. As I said, they were never a deployment threat.

Oh, shall we talk WWII? The Lend-Lease Act provided some military tools from us to them, not mention the 200k US troops that died over there. Hell, Germany would have beat the USSR had they not tried to take them in teh Fall of 44. The USSR lost 12M troops, we lost 200K, the allieds lost 10's of thousands and Germany lost 3M or so. SO the USSR lost 4 times the troops Germany did and they had the help from 80% of teh rest of the world and you still think they ever did anything notable? They were somehow a deployment threat? I see . You better run back to the middle, you're showing your RW support, as usual, then declare you're moderate . Hillarious

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You still think the Soviets weren't a threat, do ya?
Go on and keep living in your little fantasy world. Don't forget to water the garden gnomes!

Tell me a time when they were militarily tough? When did they ever kick anyone's ass? As for nuclear, many, mnay nations have them and can push the button, so far only the US has been so depraved.

We discussed all that in another thread some time ago. More than one person in that thread showed you the numbers that proved you wrong, you chose to ignore them. Why should I think you would act any differently now?

Ah, one other person. Showed me the way..... I see. As I recall, my research indicated they didn't have 1 acft carrier in 1980. As I said, they were never a deployment threat.

Oh, shall we talk WWII? The Lend-Lease Act provided some military tools from us to them, not mention the 200k US troops that died over there. Hell, Germany would have beat the USSR had they not tried to take them in teh Fall of 44. The USSR lost 12M troops, we lost 200K, the allieds lost 10's of thousands and Germany lost 3M or so. SO the USSR lost 4 times the troops Germany did and they had the help from 80% of teh rest of the world and you still think they ever did anything notable? They were somehow a deployment threat? I see . You better run back to the middle, you're showing your RW support, as usual, then declare you're moderate . Hillarious

As I said, you just keep right on living in your little fantasy world and keep watering the garden gnomes.

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]

TRANSLATION: You have no reply. I can get rid of you easily by just posting fact. Here's the info again if you care to address it:

Ah, one other person. Showed me the way..... I see. As I recall, my research indicated they didn't have 1 acft carrier in 1980. As I said, they were never a deployment threat.

Oh, shall we talk WWII? The Lend-Lease Act provided some military tools from us to them, not mention the 200k US troops that died over there. Hell, Germany would have beat the USSR had they not tried to take them in teh Fall of 44. The USSR lost 12M troops, we lost 200K, the allieds lost 10's of thousands and Germany lost 3M or so. SO the USSR lost 4 times the troops Germany did and they had the help from 80% of teh rest of the world and you still think they ever did anything notable? They were somehow a deployment threat? I see . You better run back to the middle, you're showing your RW support, as usual, then declare you're moderate

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

TRANSLATION: You have no reply. I can get rid of you easily by just posting fact. Here's the info again if you care to address it:

Ah, one other person. Showed me the way..... I see. As I recall, my research indicated they didn't have 1 acft carrier in 1980. As I said, they were never a deployment threat.

Oh, shall we talk WWII? The Lend-Lease Act provided some military tools from us to them, not mention the 200k US troops that died over there. Hell, Germany would have beat the USSR had they not tried to take them in teh Fall of 44. The USSR lost 12M troops, we lost 200K, the allieds lost 10's of thousands and Germany lost 3M or so. SO the USSR lost 4 times the troops Germany did and they had the help from 80% of teh rest of the world and you still think they ever did anything notable? They were somehow a deployment threat? I see . You better run back to the middle, you're showing your RW support, as usual, then declare you're moderate

Like I said, we discussed this once before. You got shut down, refused to acknowledge facts, and I don't expect you to act any differently this time.
Thus far I am right on target. You are so easy to predict it's almost funny!

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

TRANSLATION: You have no reply. I can get rid of you easily by just posting fact. Here's the info again if you care to address it:

Ah, one other person. Showed me the way..... I see. As I recall, my research indicated they didn't have 1 acft carrier in 1980. As I said, they were never a deployment threat.

Oh, shall we talk WWII? The Lend-Lease Act provided some military tools from us to them, not mention the 200k US troops that died over there. Hell, Germany would have beat the USSR had they not tried to take them in teh Fall of 44. The USSR lost 12M troops, we lost 200K, the allieds lost 10's of thousands and Germany lost 3M or so. SO the USSR lost 4 times the troops Germany did and they had the help from 80% of teh rest of the world and you still think they ever did anything notable? They were somehow a deployment threat? I see . You better run back to the middle, you're showing your RW support, as usual, then declare you're moderate

Like I said, we discussed this once before. You got shut down, refused to acknowledge facts, and I don't expect you to act any differently this time.
Thus far I am right on target. You are so easy to predict it's almost funny!

I post this:

Ah, one other person. Showed me the way..... I see. As I recall, my research indicated they didn't have 1 acft carrier in 1980. As I said, they were never a deployment threat.

Oh, shall we talk WWII? The Lend-Lease Act provided some military tools from us to them, not mention the 200k US troops that died over there. Hell, Germany would have beat the USSR had they not tried to take them in teh Fall of 44. The USSR lost 12M troops, we lost 200K, the allieds lost 10's of thousands and Germany lost 3M or so. SO the USSR lost 4 times the troops Germany did and they had the help from 80% of teh rest of the world and you still think they ever did anything notable? They were somehow a deployment threat? I see . You better run back to the middle, you're showing your RW support, as usual, then declare you're moderate

You post nothing and claim victory. If you want to believe that 1980 USSR was a threat w/o any real ability to reach out and touch, I'm good with that. You or anyone has yet to provide any evidence that the USSR has EVER been a force with which to be dealt. That's ok, you back tax cuts and are unable to show me 1 major tax cut that has led to anything but disaster. Yet you back fascist pig Ronnie for throwing the country down the shitter on his delluded fantasy that the commies were coming.

So at this point, don't dissapoint and keep making it about me, don't post any data where teh USSR was a threat or post a tax cut that actually helped; then create a pattern where several tax cuts helped. Non, no, don't do that, just keep trying to convince yourself you're right just 'cause.

[Lucky... 0]

Where'd ya go, newguy? Just wondering if you could connect fascist ronnie and Obama? I don't see any parallels.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

What part of "We discussed all of this in another thread" don't you understand?

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

What part of "We discussed all of this in another thread" don't you understand?

Do you realize how you *TRY* to come across as my mommy you sound? Go ahead and look it up then, it was a matter of Mike not getting how lame USSR's military was for not even having 1 acft carrier per my research......and they're supposed to reach out and touch us? As I recall, they had more tanks,but no way to get them here, esp under the radar of 1980's.

I realize you want to rest on your pseudo laurels, but look it up and make a case....for once.

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

Where'd ya go, newguy? Just wondering if you could connect fascist ronnie and Obama? I don't see any parallels.

I'm sorry. You may have misunderstood me. I think they have almost nothing in common. I'm just wondering why the guy is getting hammered by the right for trying to do something constructive like secure nuclear material and reduce the number of weapons.

I would add a few question marks to the end of the thread title, but it's too late to edit it.

FYI, I consider myself a member of the right and I think this is one of the few things he's done that I can agree with.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

What part of "We discussed all of this in another thread" don't you understand?

Do you realize how you *TRY* to come across as my mommy you sound? Go ahead and look it up then, it was a matter of Mike not getting how lame USSR's military was for not even having 1 acft carrier per my research......and they're supposed to reach out and touch us? As I recall, they had more tanks,but no way to get them here, esp under the radar of 1980's.

I realize you want to rest on your pseudo laurels, but look it up and make a case....for once.

So you think the Soviets only having one carrier meant they were not a threat?
Don't know much about modern warfare, do ya?

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

Don't know much about modern warfare, do ya?

That's a given.

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

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, Hungary are two notable ones.

Right, my point. Who were they?

It sets the precedent.

Quote

Quote

The Finns successfully resisted as did the Afghans obviously (with help of course).

Right, which accents my point, the USSR didn't have a reach out and touch military, more of a homeland military and they were strewn over AFG from 79 to 88, so even tho they had an emminsely inferior military to the US, one that wasn't designed to travel, on top of that they were engaged in a mess in AFG. And then they couldn't even control that mess and pulled out after losing what, 20k?

They then were able to beat back the Nazis, by throwing waves of people at the problem. The Soviet ability to contain their "republik" as well as eastern Europe, and proliferation to Cuba, Central and South America...

Quote

Quote

Their sh*t was rusty for all we know, but they had so many of them. We would literally run out of ammunition in the face of an all out assault.

Our population was bigger, I don't know the troop numbers in the 80's. I will say this, I wouldn't want to fight them over there, esp in the winter, but conventionally they were crap, esp considering they didn't have a real ability to deploy. They were never a conventional military threat and we can see after the bay of pigs that they weren't really hip to ending the world as we know it, as we weren't either. CONCLUSION: they were never a threat other than with a proxy war.

Population has nothing to do with it. The size of the relative militaries is the factor. The Warsaw Pact standing armies were larger than the NATO forces. NATO forces trained around "die-in-place" defense postures. The Soviets had plenty of ability to move their troops. Mobility was not a problem.

Quote

Quote

Nuclear capabilities are another issue altogether. I met some guys at Altus AFB that did a lot of inspection work, their assessment was that the "Soviet" era capabilities were likely overestimated, or overstated. Could they hit Nevada on a clear day? Probably. Reno? Maybe not.

W/o being an expert; agreed. Look at thier nuclear power capabilities with Chernobyl. Check out utube for a city called Pripyat, that was 3KM from Chernobyl powerplant, a population of 50K before the mess. Just look at their architecture and the amusement park in 1986 and compare it to our stuff. Nothing they had was worth a fuck, hence they weren't a conventional military threat and probably not a nuclear one either.

Ten amateurs with AK-47s against one trained soldier with an M4 might be considered a "fair" fight by some doctrines, it doesn't mean the ten aren't a threat. Technology and number of people are only two of many variables. We know that the Soviets detonated the largest ever nuclear test in the atmosphere. We know that while their missiles may have been questionable. Other delivery systems from subs and bombers posed a real threat.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Where'd ya go, newguy? Just wondering if you could connect fascist ronnie and Obama? I don't see any parallels.

I'm sorry. You may have misunderstood me.

That's nothing new for Lucky. It is his MO.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Where'd ya go, newguy? Just wondering if you could connect fascist ronnie and Obama? I don't see any parallels.

I'm sorry. You may have misunderstood me. I think they have almost nothing in common. I'm just wondering why the guy is getting hammered by the right for trying to do something constructive like secure nuclear material and reduce the number of weapons.

I would add a few question marks to the end of the thread title, but it's too late to edit it.

FYI, I consider myself a member of the right and I think this is one of the few things he's done that I can agree with.

Surprise, surprise... the point you were making flew completely over his head. He couldn't possibly let anyone compare Obama to a republican, even if the overall point was taking a stab at the right.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why is it that when Reagan wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons, he was a visionary and when Obama wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons, he's selling us out to our enemies?

With Reagan touting the MX and Peace through Strength, and Star Wars, I don't see them as too similar.