Lucky...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Amazing someone else had to point out your data

One thing is for sure - the least effective way to let people forget about such an embarrassment is to keep posting (8 in a row) new entries to the thread. I don't care if the world is aware I didn't know what the Onion was or is. I think that skit was hillarious and illustrative at showing what a bunch of homophobes conservatives are, even the Larry Craig variety. Not amazing that no neo-cons want to talk about GDP, the stock market or how Belgian thinks PH was attacked in 1945, they instead want to act as tho me not knowing the Onion is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more important. We hear your strawman loud and clear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B3yuiE90LI

I was inquiring; see the question mark on the thread title? May be new to you, but that denotes a question. Now would I be surprised to see the party that thinks Obama is a Muslim terroist also would post this; just listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter and that's what I walk away with. I listened to hos as a co-worled did and I like to hear what the opposition says, unlike the RW who wants to shield out any opposing views. Your views seem to be in line with Limbaugh's. I don't find a lot of agreement with much the right has to say. As for the koolaid, I'm the one mixing it; my thoughts are simulaneously that of the left - no ear-bending. I see you espouse typical things from the right, how are you different from garden variety RW? Do you think Obama is Muslim? Do you think he isn't an American-born man? Etc.. And this is where you make yourself a centrist; you call extremists, all extremists stupid. The diifference is that in your world, any leftist is an extremist and only abortion doctor-killers are RW extremists, all others are normal. I think you are consdidered by most to be pretty RW extreme. So much for your hollow apology for your PA. I guess whatever gets you by at the moment. As fro well-known, I didn't, am I damned to hell because I didn't know the Onion was satire? Yet in great cheerleader fashion you ignore your conservative bretheren calling Pearl Harbor's attack a 1945 event. I see the fence swings one way.

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

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.

I would agree that the Wikipedia Foundation is generally objective. The article authors, who actually write the articles, are not always so objective and sometimes have agendas other than dissemination of accurate information. Exactly and then the staff pipes in if there are a lot of alterations to it or disputes and states the article/subject has neutrality issues. Truthfully, from a scientific position, unless we're talking to a neo-con, there is no such thing as eternal proof or fact, it's all up for grabs, so even other sites will have credibility issues. It's about reasonableness.

...and wiki too... With time, I think we can get some of the tabloids on his must-read list for news. And Wiki Answers. He has used that one also. That one is not good, I've stated that. Of course you also ignore BEA data, so it really matters not which I cite, it's: - Love Jesus Christ our load and savio - Love me some GWB; he's the best THis is all you need to know. Execute em, cut taxes and burn fags at the stake while RWers go have gay affairs; this is the RW protocol. Here's part of my bible: http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

...and wiki too... With time, I think we can get some of the tabloids on his must-read list for news. Wiki, yes. It has no agenda. It's accuracy is generally supported by its bib, so I think it's great. Show me several Wiki errors. If there are, people refine it and if it gets too debated, they state so.

Perhaps the title will give you a clue... IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT? Ah, I see, because I wasn't familiar with the Onion, Bush really was a great president and Reagan wasn't a fascist pig . Niiiiice logic. Each element stands alone, unless you are of the party that states, 'With us or against us." I couldn't find you attacking when one of the guys 'with you and not against you' thought Japan was atatcked in 1945. I guess you're selective. Remember, attack the person, not the issue. Verifed in your sig I am an open minded centrist. If you disagree with me, then you are just wrong and goat fuck stupid. Go Republicans Like I said, I knew you would find a way to spin it in your favor. But you still lose. All you had to do is research the Onion and you would have know what type of site is was. Although you expect everyone else to research any info posted here, you are exempt I guess. Spin away if you wish. It won't change that you screwed up. I can't wait to see how you spin your screw up into a positive. (stop feeding the trolls, stop feeding the trolls) That's a laugher, I do more research here than most. Hey, I threw it up there as a question, as stated in the title, I didn't know the Onion was a satrical site; where's the spin? So your boy stating Pearl Harbor was atatcked in 1945 isn't worth a mention, but something as important as the Onion is something we must all be aware of? We get it. One sheep follows the other. This is why the left calls the right a bunch of sheep; they have very good solidarity. In fact SNL did a skit on that and it was hillarious. The drones were arguing over one guy liking Hannity, the other Limbaugh, it started getting ugly and the moderator piped in and basically said we all think basically the same way, let's not infight.

I provided the data to prove it, you get to refute it. No affidavits from God except in your demands to everyone else. The question isn't in that thread. Repost it and I will be glad to answer it.

You betcha. Case in point; a Palin knock-off. As nuts as the RW rags are to most 'normal-thinking' people, when I see something like that it gives me pause to wonder about its legitimacy. Be real, most neo-cons think like that satirircal presentation.

And that's my point, a rag like Hannity who just, uh, made an error and posted a video/pics of a rally quite a while ago and tried to represent it as one from last week or two because the former had a much higher turnout, well, you would still consider that credible. Not to mention the littany of all the other BS and blatant lies from that rag. So for me to wonder WTF the Onion was after seeing that skit isn't that far off. Hell, listen to Limbaugh (as if you don't already) and hear him call Obama by his middle name and state / infer he's Muslim and a terrorist. When I see radical paranoia from the right or the perception of it I'm not surprised; you call it normal. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I don't follow him, just as I didn't follow the Onion. Now that I can recite.

Why not, you use Hannity, nothing would surprise me from the right.

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.

It should be easy to find all on your lonesome: YOU started it, and it was about Reagan and the Russian military. You've also made several posts in it SINCE I posted the proof. I'll be headin there tomorrow after work - nighty nite time. I've been letting the rersponses mount, I think I answered one. Again, it will be circular, as I want to know the outstanding threat from the USSR in 1981, and you want an affidavit from god that there wasn't one.

Talk about a classic strawman - changing the issues. From the guy who derrided me for saying PH was attacked on Dec 7, 41, D-Day June 6, 44 I'm getting made a fart smeller by him . Spending when? What year(s)? So you transpose that I wouldn't think Imperialistic Japan wasn't a threat even after they were eating up all teh South Pacific countries after WWI? And that Germany wasn't a threat even tho they were eating up W.E. with Italy? Nice, don't see how you go that, but the truth is you won't tell me how you feel 1981 USSR was an active threat, all tehy were doing is wasting their time and resource in AFG, so how are they a threat to the US? I mean, if they were planning an attack, they wouldn't waste their resource in AFG, right? Never said we were; we were ramping up in Europe. http://www.shmoop.com/wwii/timeline.html --> August 1940 Congress Enacts Draft Congress appropriates $16 billion for defense needs, and enacts the first peacetime draft in American history. --> September 3, 1940 Roosevelt Aids Britain President Franklin D. Roosevelt makes a deal to give Great Britain 50 destroyers in exchange for naval bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda, and sites in the Caribbean and the South Atlantic. --> October 29, 1940 Draftees to Camps The first draft numbers are drawn, sending thousands of draftees to drill camps all over the country. Peacetime draft, moving ships to Europe as I said... no, we weren't RAMPING UP FOR WAR IN 1940, no, no, I see no evidence of that. Maybe if you weren't sucking up so much you would have learned when PH was attacked. Drop the petty BS and so will I. Yea, you make about 300 or more of those in short posts. The Onion is real. It is a real satirical website.

Yes, we were ramping up for Europe in 1940, actually spending had increased 2-3 years before that. Ramping up for doesn't mean fighting, it means: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ramp+up Verb 1. ramp up - bolster or strengthen; "We worked up courage"; "build up confidence"; "ramp up security in the airports" work up, build up, build increase - make bigger or more; "The boss finally increased her salary"; "The university increased the number of students it admitted" work up, build, build up, progress - form or accumulate steadily; "Resistance to the manager's plan built up quickly"; "Pressure is building up at the Indian-Pakistani border" Your welcome. And your chronology of me saying: - Ramp up for Europe in 1940 - Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941 - D-Day June 6, 1944 (2 1/2 years after PH) Where is the flaw? Did you realize you stepped in it? Exactly, we were ramping up for it. We were moving ships to the region, etc. I think this is one of those cases where everyone's right: You didn't know when PH was attacked and I didn't know what the Onion was about; you win. OK, I'll admit ignorance to the onion, you to Pearl Harbor; Nuff said.