miko: In view of their need for such an event, it was not in their interest to stop an attack if they learned about it.
GRUNHERZ: GRUNHERZ: Miko... Now you are going off the deep end.
I suppose you think roosevelt knew of pearl harbor attack but let it happend so we could get in the war and he could get his way against the isolationsts.
miko: Why don't you stick to what I've actually said, rather than idiotic crap that you suppose I should be thinking?
GRUNHERZ: You said exatly that miko - that PNAC it it maybe knew of 911 wouldnt tell everyone.
You are lying, GRUNHERZ, as you often do when you say a stupid thing. You are attributing to me things that I clearly not said as anyone with a scrolbar can verify.
You seem to be very incoherent. I denied saying that Rusevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and you counter it by allegation that I did say that "PNAC maybe knew about 911". Pearl Harbor - 911 - those are different events, remember?
Besides, I never said that "PNAC it it maybe knew of 911 wouldnt tell everyone", whatever this ungrammatical sentense means.
I have no idea what they knew and even less what they would have done.
What I said, was "it was not in their interest to stop an attack if they learned about it" - because the success of their doctrine was based on such an event.
That does not mean they would not tell anyone. People with concience are known to act against their interests. But the fact that their agenda was advanced by such an event - as they openly admitted before the event - is significant.
And for the rest about the cold war being fake thats just more of your bizzare obseesion about fake money and trade imbalances.
You are ranting - and lying as usuall.
I never said "cold war" was fake. I said that "cold war" was not a war - which it was not. It was an armed standoff.
In case you forgot, a "war" is when the armed forces of two countries fight each other. There was no fighting between Soviet and European/American armed forces during the period labeled as "cold war" but there was a lot of trade going on. there were embassies, tourists, etc.
In fact the USA sales of grain, food and materials to the Soviet Union went a long way towards preserving and fortifying the communist regime. Europeans traded with USSR even more that USA did. Some war...
USA was there to protect them from you and hordes of T72s
Leaving aside the fact that Soviet forces were too incompetent to wage a war on a large scale (my personal opinion as an insider), the idea of US "protection" consisted of blowing dozens of nuclear charges all over Europe to slow down the soviet advance, then nuclear bombing the soviet troops in Europe and then nuking the Soviet Union itself which is right next to Europe.
Considering that socialism in Soviet Union was on the decline while Europeans seem to actually want socialism, many would probably find the takeover by soviets preferable to being nuked and radioactively dusted.
Soviet invasion, if it was ever contemplated, was deterred by mutually assured nuclear destruction. The nuclear arsenal posessed by UK and France was totally sufficient for that. If USA was not there, euros could have bought more nukes for themselves - and alowed Germany to have them - rather than paying for the US nukes.
Nice to see how you ignore the guilt of communism in threating the western world - still a party man at heart I see...
This just does not make any sense or connection to anything said here, so I will not even respond to it.
Anyway, I am glad that now that the communism threat is gone, the US can finally dismantle its military, drastically cut its defence budget and remove its troops from overseas. Oh, wait...
miko
