Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on January 19, 2001, 08:32:00 AM
-
Interesting read:
China-Russia Pact and the New Danger
Christopher Ruddy
Monday, Jan. 15, 2001
Reports that China and Russia are preparing to sign a "friendship pact" should send a chill down your spine.
The signing of such an agreement is a natural outcome of a warming relationship between the two great nations that began more than a decade ago.
The two countries have made clear their reason for the new pact: to challenge the worldwide influence of the United States.
China openly calls the treaty a "strategic partnership" signifying that a new global axis has developed between Moscow and Beijing.
Press dispatches, including one in Sunday’s New York Times, cite a key reason for the closeness between Russia and China. The new Bush administration plans to build a missile defense system.
The new agreement is not an abrupt development. China and Russia have been stepping up economic and military cooperation in recent years, to the point they have been withdrawing troops on their once militarized borders.
Bill Clinton’s 1999 war in Kosovo also ignited old fears of an "imperialist" America and only helped to tighten the ties between Beijing and Moscow.
But recent events may have poured kerosene under the budding fire being kindled between the two nations.
The most important recent development was the election of George Bush.
Bush campaigned on rebuilding U.S. defenses. It was not a politically winning issue, but Bush went out of his way to decry the deplorable condition of our armed forces.
Bill Clinton took steps to cut America’s defenses almost in half during his two terms.
Today, no military man would dare claim the U.S. could, in a timely manner, handle another Gulf War, let alone a major blow up over Taiwan, Korea, Israel or some other hot spot.
I believe our adversaries – the Iranians, Khadafy, Saddam, and, yes, the Russians and Chinese – have kept quiet over the past eight years (have you noticed that?) because they knew they had a fool in the White House.
The last time such a man served in the White House was when Jimmy Carter was president.
But the enemies of the U.S. took advantage of Carter and overplayed their hand. Remember Afghanistan, the Iranian hostage crisis?
Americans realized that Carter was foolish, naïve and dangerous. In 1980 they took to the polls and voted for Reagan-Bush.
By making Carter look bad, America’s adversaries ended up with 12 years of Reagan-Bush military policies. Reagan quickly engaged the nation in the largest peacetime buildup ever.
Apparently, our enemies learned their lesson from the Carter days and figured it would be nice to have a two-term Carter in the person of Bill Clinton. Our enemies made Clinton look good at almost every turn. They almost succeeded with three terms of Carter in the person of Al Gore.
Unfortunately for our adversaries, the American public voted for a change this past November.
While I don’t believe Americans voted for Bush because of national security issues, it is our good fortune that our president-elect truly believes in rebuilding America’s defenses.
We know he believes it because personnel is policy. He picked, for starters, former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney as his vice president.
Perhaps the most important Cabinet selection was Donald Rumsfeld, another former secretary of defense.
Rumsfeld comes to the Pentagon without having to learn the job. At confirmation hearings last week, Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that building and deploying a missile defense system was his No. 1 priority.
I have only applause – and worry – about this.
First, I believe Ronald Reagan will be remembered as a great prophet for having sought the creation and deployment of a missile defense system. Almost two decades later, however, Reagan’s vision has yet to be fulfilled.
Cleverly, the Clinton administration created high and perhaps impossible standards for their proposed missile defense program. For eight years they sought to sabotage development of the system through every bureaucratic means.
Clinton never wanted the system, and Moscow and Beijing were happy with him for such a policy.
But Bush’s policies are exactly the opposite of Clinton’s.
Since Russia and China have made preventing the development and deployment of such a system the hallmark of their foreign policy toward the U.S. for more than a decade, we can only imagine what actions they may take to stop Bush.
Russia and China, despite all the media spin we hear, have continued to invest heavily in strategic weaponry – nuclear, biological and chemical.
Thanks to Bill Clinton, China was transferred ballistic missile technology that allows them to hit U.S. cities like Los Angeles with pinpoint accuracy.
Most Americans would be surprised to learn that Russia, not the U.S., has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal of strategic and tactical weapons. China has a growing nuclear arsenal and the world’s largest conventional army.
Both countries will not stand idly by as America tries to build a missile defense system. Nor will rogue countries like North Korea and Iran. All parties know that even if the Bush administration were to begin rebuilding America’s defenses tomorrow, it would still take three to five years to see any measurable result, including the development of a practical missile defense system.
This is why the next few years are ominous ones.
Our adversaries know we will be weak for just a little while longer before their window of opportunity will begin to close. The new China-Russia pact should be viewed in that context and with great concern.
Newsmax.com
Eagler
-
Very good size up, Eagler. I posted last year that China has been training for an actual military confrontation with the US because they considered the US to be a major security threat thier country. I hope this new developement really gets the attention it deserves...
Gunthr
-
More info on the matter:
(Colonel Stanislav Lunev is the highest-ranking military officer ever to defect from Russia to the United States. )
Col. Stanislav Lunev
Wednesday, Jan. 17, 2001
At week’s end President-elect Bush will relocate his residence to the White House, nicknamed "Motel 1600" by cynical Washingtonians during recent years when President Clinton and his wife were renting out rooms in return for hefty campaign contributions.
Unlike his predecessor, who inherited a robust economy and the strongest military in the world, Bush has many problems left over from the previous administration to resolve.
Among them is U.S. policy toward Russia, which eight years ago was mostly friendly to the United States, but is no longer, thanks to the flawed Clinton/Gore policies.
The incoming Bush administration may soon find that the present government of the Russian Federation is very different from the previous one, and under President Vladimir Putin his country is heading toward a domestic dictatorship and to the restoration of Soviet Russia’s international influence and domination.
The new people in the White House could also soon find that Putin, who was vigorously promoted by the Clinton-Gore administration as a supporter of democracy and a free-market economy, is, in reality, as aggressive and energetic in his efforts domestically as he is in pursuing an ambitious foreign policy agenda hostile to the U.S. and its allies.
Consolidating state power in Russia and reaping the benefits of skyrocketing oil-gas prices in the international markets, Putin has spent the past several months systematically constructing a framework with which to engage the new U.S. administration. He visited North Korea, Cuba and other old Soviet satellites in an attempt to restore Russia’s relations with former allies that remain hostile to America.
He sent his Security Council Secretary Sergei Ivanov to the Middle East and his Defense Minister Igor Sergeev to Iran, in an effort to restore Moscow’s strategic position and to establish new military ties in violation of agreements signed by Russia’s previous government with the gullible Clinton-Gore administration.
Also in violation of previous Kremlin promises, Putin’s government said recently that Russia "cannot make full payment" of its foreign debt and requested the finance minister to begin negotiations with creditor nations, known collectively as the Paris Club, which includes the U.S.
As Russia’s ORT TV channel said, Russia’s payment in January to the Paris Club will be only about 10 percent of the originally scheduled $316.4 million, because of an alleged "dramatic decline in oil prices at the international market."
Practically ignored by the mainstream American press, this announcement that Russia will miss some first-quarter payments raised serious questions about whether the country’s economic recovery is really as strong as the Kremlin has claimed, and could potentially dampen Putin’s attempts to encourage foreign investment.
In relations with European and other Western countries, the Kremlin is using every opportunity to create a split between the U.S. and its traditional friends and allies.
Most notably, Putin has launched a broad campaign against American plans for a national missile defense (NMD) system, promoting alternative programs that include Russia’s participation, and are especially designed to undermine European public support for the NMD and cause them to challenge their governments’ support of the U.S. defense plans.
Actually there is nothing new in Putin’s tactics – this divide-and-conquer approach was exactly the method that was a favorite practice of the former Soviet leaders in dealing with NATO’s member nations in the days of the Cold War.
During his time in power Putin has worked feverishly to improve the strategic alliance with Red China and to engage India and other countries with anti-American sentiments in a some kind of coalition directed against the U.S. Moscow has already established military cooperation with Byelorussia and Central Asia’s newly independent states, based on the grounds of Russia’s military presence in those countries.
The Russian president also has stepped up pressure on other former Soviet republics, such as Armenia and Georgia, which have Russian military bases on their soil but have nevertheless leaned westward
Using a dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, Putin has also tried to increase Moscow’s influence in Azerbaijan, the only former Soviet republic in Trans-Caucasus that doesn’t have a Russian military presence on its territory.
On Jan. 10 Putin said he wanted more military cooperation with this Trans-Caucasus country. "Military cooperation between Russia and Azerbaijan has been showing signs of progress lately. I think our contacts in this area may be intensified," Putin told the Azeri Parliament during his first visit to Azerbaijan.
The Russian press said that as a first step Moscow would like to re-establish its control over the Gabalinsky radar station in Azerbaijan, which was an important link in the Soviet integrated system for the national air and missile defense.
As NewsMax.com has reported, under Putin Moscow’s military preparations have increased dramatically. The whole world should be alarmed by re-deployment of Russian tactical nukes to Kaliningrad, which has undermined the global security because it signals a worrisome departure from the previous Moscow policy and a new level of brinkmanship. But it appears as if, from the beginning, the Clinton-Gore team was determined to pass the so-called Kaliningrad crisis on to the next administration.
Recently Moscow has lowered the threshold for nuclear weapons use and increased its reliance on tactical nuclear arms and hidden stocks of germ warfare and poison gas to compensate for its declining conventional forces. As Putin stated in January, his government would use "all forces and means, including nuclear weapons if necessary, to repel armed aggression."
Recent Russian military field exercises used the scenario of a NATO attack on Kaliningrad and allowed participating troops to launch mock nuclear attacks on the Europe and the U.S.
In other words, President Bush and his team may soon find that they inherited from the previous administration some very touchy relationships with Russia, which has successfully resumed alliances with such states as Red China, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Cuba. Putin has built a coalition that will counter the U.S. and try to thwart any American defense initiatives, including such extremely important strategic programs as NMD.
From now on, the future of the U.S. policy vis-a-vis Russia will depend on how well the new American president can handle Clinton’s Russian legacy to his administration – an aggressive and ambitious Russian leader of a still militarily powerful country
_____________________________ ________
You realize together, Russia and China could take the US in our present downgraded military status... thanks billy bob. Isn't social economical repression one of the main reasons you wage a war? Aren't both China and Russia experiencing this now?
Eagler
-
i think it is an economical move- not like they are being threatened - in fact china (cant speak for russia) is booming with private commerce like never before.
i was lucky enough to spend the better half of march 2000 in the southern part of china - gong yi, taishan and hong kong and dont really think that the chinese will be sharpening their chopsticks and coming to kung fu us any time soon-
2 hours into the mainland - all the street and highway signs are in english and chinese. there are bars an shops and all kinds of things with english writing over the doors - even a place called 'the lauderdale steakhouse' with a miami theme and damn good steaks - and this is in a part of china where few westerners even visit - mostly business travelers and no tourists.
all along the highways(which are great btw) you can see the real reasons for all of the stuff in english and the reason we arent likely to have any problems....factory after factory owned by american companies - i mean everywhere
china is like the world's biggest industrial park! i can tell you that in the last 10 years or so china has put up a ton of big western style hotels, beefed up their transportation infrasructure and done everything they can to make it easier for businessmen, especially americans to get around easily.
at the passport checkpoints i was always pulled out of the main line(sometimes with over 500 people in it!) and taken to the front by the guards who speed up my passage and didnt even check my bags while they were scrutinizing all the locals. even at hotels when i went to diner they would clear a huge table and dedicate 3 or 4 people just to any westerners that came in - the bathrooms even say "MEN" and "WOMEN"...which struck me as odd - i mean, it would be like going to pampas texas and seeing chinese writing on the doors! you expect it in the big cities like hong kong but way into the mainland????
- there could be somethin brewin but my guess is that they want to team up economically to get a piece of the pie -
[This message has been edited by mrfish (edited 01-19-2001).]
-
Yeah, now that you got God fearing republicans in control, le's paint up a scary picture and find ourselves an enemy.
Who knows, if we're lucky we might even become as paranoid as back in the 50-s - true commie haters every one of us
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
If Clinton was so weak and dumb and naieve, why dinnae the Chinese just run straight over Taiwan, eh?
Some of you reps won't give the slightest credit to Clinton. That's sad, because it shows that you're incapable of objective thinkingwhen it comes to politics.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
"I am the light at the end of your sorry little tunnel." - A. Eldricht
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
If Clinton was so weak and dumb and naieve, why dinnae the Chinese just run straight over Taiwan, eh?
Answer: They were waiting for four more years of clinton aka gore of "downsizing government" via downsizing the military along with chasing out the last of it's remaining experienced commanders.
mrfish, I hope you are correct. I do not believe the Chinese people nor Russian folk would wish US harm. Just their leaders...
But what do we have to fear, we'd just send StSanta over as Ambassador and they'd see the error of their ways (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
haha eagler- yeah i hear that sleigh of his is stealth enabled (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
the leaders are a threat but there is a real 'vibe' in hong kong since the take-over and on the mainland too these days. the commies know that they cant stop the momentum and they are getting a taste of success anyway and they like it - it is amazing, but on commie run govt television they even showed protests etc - not the falung gong stuff but any televised dissent at all is major change for the chinese -
my wife is chinese and when her family left 12 years ago it was a much different country - there was a time when she wouldnt have been allowed back but now they dont even care - in fact the govt isnt half as tight about things as they used to be - i was truly surprised
the people are getting sick of the leaders who are old and stoggy and slow to change - i swear though the funniest thing i have ever seen was out in a village off the pearl river where they had chickens in the street, all kinds of made up - rigged up mad max lookin cars and, i kid you not, this peasant guy pulls out a cell phone! every single person in this country has a cell phone i dont know why, and there are still places with no sewer -
-
QUOTE:
"Yeah, now that you got God fearing republicans in control, le's paint up a scary picture and find ourselves an enemy.
Who knows, if we're lucky we might even become as paranoid as back in the 50-s - true commie haters every one of us
.
If Clinton was so weak and dumb and naieve, why dinnae the Chinese just run straight over Taiwan, eh?
Some of you reps won't give the slightest credit to Clinton. That's sad, because it shows that you're incapable of objective thinkingwhen it comes to politics.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
-------------
Clinton made some good, moderate decisions that I agreed with. He also had some centrist leanings that made the Democratic hardliners cringe at times, in my opinion.
Clinton isn't dumb, or naive, either.
I just don't believe in BIG government, tons of laws and regulations, and promises to take care of me, and to provide for me from womb to tomb with money taken from others.
And I condemn Clinton for his towering arrogance, his lies, his treason, and the real damage he has done to the office of the President of the United States of America. I really didn't want my kids to become cynical about the President of the USA, but they are now. They don't look up to the man, and I don't either.
I would have a problem with it if he lived in my neighborhood in fact, because I care about having a wholesome place to raise my 4 daughters who are still in elementary and highschool.
Good riddance to Clinton. Unfortunately, I'm afraid he's gonna still be around to irritate the heck out of me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Gunthr
[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 01-19-2001).]
-
Just saw your post Mrfish. Man, do I envy you! I would love to go see China. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I still think we are looking at some trouble up ahead though from what I've been reading. What the heck are you doing eating steaks in China anyway, c'mon! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Gunthr
-
mrfish
Yes, I agree. If we make it through a generation or two, things will be different. As the old leaders and their old world ways die off, democracy will be given a chance. Today though China's leadership is basically backwards, ie state run abortion as a means of birth control, and Russia doesn't even have any heat. Giving more money to the Russian mob won't fix it either. Easy to build up an army if it's one of the only place to get three square meals, clothing and a warm residence. I think if we survive the current leaders and democracy and capitalism are given fertile grounds to grow, it'll work. If the leaders get greedy in their old age, it'll be a different story..
Then again maybe I am getting paranoid as I read too much Tom Clancy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
China and Russia have such a rich history of teamwork and comradery. I'm amazed this hasn't happened earlier. They were bound to forget that they have been fighting for nearly 5000 years and recognize the US as the new threat sooner or later.
AKDejaVu
-
LOL! Just had a vision of GW Bush at the Great Wall of China saying "Tear down that wall!".
Hehehehehe
AKDejaVu
-
I see the leader of china in New York saying "Tear down that squeak in the toga!"
*grin*
Russia always had the biggest nuke arsenal throught the entire cold war. Funny thing is, that only 300 nukes need be detonated on the same day to wipe out ALL LIFE on earth and make a nuclear winter that would make the ice age look like a cool spring morning. The US had like 1500 missiles while the USSR had like 5000 of them. With that much we wont have to worry about nuclear winter, but vacuum exposure once the continents achieve orbit.
I just wish the U.N. was a reality instead of a joke. Sad times folks!
-
Tac,
reserch had been done which deemed that about 1 in 6 soviet missles would actually make it off the ground because they were made in haste and with improper materials, andother 50% would be expected to fail in flight for similar reasons, If the soviets had ever tried to launch all 5000 they would probably wipe out their own country before anyone else got a shot off. the only reason so many were made is because they wanted to appear to have more destructive power, many of their ICBMs didnt even have warheads on the, just a rocket....not much more than a long range scud. Not that it matters any more anyway.
-
Originally posted by Tac:
I just wish the U.N. was a reality instead of a joke. Sad times folks!
Yep (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I usually only read this board but this time couldn't resist...
YOU GUYS ARE SICK!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Seems that you simply can't live without an enemy to lead you holy war against, eh? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
You still believe that
the whole world wants to destroy USA, right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I doubt there is second such brainwashed and xenophobic nation on earth.
Take care guys... and better dig some more shelters, beacause you know... Russians have 5000 nuclear rockets aimed at your schools and groceries hahahaha (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
All the best
Drummer
P.S.
Feel free to flame me - I am all that you hate: I'm a Pollack, a socialist and an atheist and I find you, Americans extremely funny (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
hmm, I think pollacks are out to get america, we must lead a holy war against them now..
-
BEWARE THE YELLOW MENACE!!! lol and there pink buddy as well. China is making money hand over fist in the us. Russia is plagued by crime aids and morale decay. So what if putin cracks the whip to get his country turned around. I saw NIGHTLINE the other night where they interviewed 3 people who put together a report on future threat evaluations and it seemed focused on terrorism (state and independent) and it seems to me that China would not want to bite the hand that is driving its economy and that a russia that is strong internally and externally doesn't mean they are out to get us. Any nuclear attack from either of them would mean mutual destruction and if Russia can be made strong (economically as well as militarily) they will be less likely to pedal thier weapons technology on the world market. I am no Dem or Rep. they both represent the 2 arms of the same body politic where consumerism wins out over everything else. The fact that we are exporting this crap to the rest of the world through our influence (polical, economic, military and culture; ie media television aand hollywood)ensures that a certain segment of the world will always view us as "the great Satan" Sharing our values with the world is not the same as Marketing them. 'cause some people aint buyin it
ps.... as for putin opposing misile defense is because it upsets the balance of power and lends credence to what those who are suspicious of the US any and while we are developing such a system what if the russian generals take it upon themselves to launch or more likely it will put putin in a tough political situation that actually isolates him from the US to satisfy hardliners. It seems to me that we better look to home for our enemies before we run out and create somemore.
------------------
Pray not for an end to the slaughter...but for VICTORY!!!
[This message has been edited by Wotan (edited 01-19-2001).]
-
It's my understanding that it just the idea of a Star Wars defense system which "encouraged" the USSR to break up. Personally I'd rather have the biggest gun on block or make the others think I had.
Yes, China makes $$ off the US but that is because labor is dirt cheap there. Look at our trade deficit. Just keeps geting bigger and bigger.
Eagler
-
But you do see what kind of a world that makes right... a world of resentment and distrust of those who hold the "big gun" and sooner or later someone will come lookin for the man with the "big gun"..
I know all about the labor conditions in China thats not the point the fact that thier economy is becoming more dependent on US imports reduces the likelyhood of an attack on the US. The reason the USSR broke up was caused by thier attempt to match US defense spending which collapsed thier economy (among many other internal factors) this was due to star wars and many other things but not solely caused by star wars.
-
GO CANADA!!!
http://www.peace.ca/mutuallyassuredpeace.htm (http://www.peace.ca/mutuallyassuredpeace.htm)
-
where do you buy your crack ? you guys sound as if you want a war. we have enough nukes left over from reagan to erase the world. now we make ourselves invunerable? are you incapable of understanding what that means to the rest of the world ?
-
Well i dont think i could pick a better country to have as "invulnerable" I sure as hell wouldent want china to be. They dont even have respect for their own people, they would really get out of control if they knew or even though that they could get away with some crazy toejam without fear or reprisal. I hate nukes, I think a country should should NEVER whield that much firepower or have the capablilty to, however you cannot expect any country much less china to not have them just because of moral responsability. If the US said "we are going to get rid of ALL of our Nukes becasue we feel having them is morally wrong and we hope you do the same" China would say "hmm thats nice........idiot" As long as the technology exists people will make use of it regardless of weather its fundamentally right or not, you just have to hope the country that has the most of it will act responsably. Its a basic idolagy,
"if its available, get it even if ya dont use it, get it cause if you dont get it and someone else does, and you dont have it, they know they can use it against you and you got nothin"
In other words the only thing worse than all countries having nukes or any other weapon that offers such an advantage is only 2 or 3 countries having them.
The missle defense system is just that DEFENSE, cant attack much with it its just there to protect, however keeping that in mind I dont think the gov would trust it enough to abuse it I.E. launch an un provoked attack and rely on it shooting down any reprisals, they will be just as frugal with nukes as always, the missle defence is there for those 3rd world regimes who just dont give a damn, and dont mind being erased from existance as long as they can damage the evel west, kinda like a very large scale suicide bomber.
-
I read somewhere, the Chinese are targeting our breweries. This is serious, guys.
-
LOL!,
leave my Ziegenbach(sp) alone (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I agree with mrfish, it's an economic move by the two countries. Last thing Russia wants is a war. All you have to do is live outside the USA for a number of months to see how prevalent US marketing is throughout the world. These two countries want to challenge that dominancy economically, nothing more. Happens all the time in business (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Gosh, I love you Paranoid Republicans. You're too much.
First, any economic good, or really anything good at all that happened for the last eight years was because of the hard work of Republicans, done while Bill Clinton sitting on his ass.
Then, we find out through Paranoid Internet Journalism, that the reason China and Russia didn't attack the US during Clinton's tenure in office, was because they wanted to sit back and let him undermine the military further.
Well, I guess the good thing is that I'll never think to myself, "Well, they can't get any freakin' weirder than this..." or "At least that's the boundary of their paranoia..."
Um...on the contrary, Russia wasn't real happy with us over how we handled the Balkans. That's the reason they were unhappy then, and they're a little cranky now. Clinton gracefully, without calling them an "Evil Empire", told them politely he begged to differ with their opinion, and would need to continue on with what he believed was right for the US and the world.
I guess if you want to believe they sat quietly in the background, and ignore all the statements made by Russia during that exercise, because you'd rather think they were sitting back, quietly letting Bill Clinton single-handedly destroy the military, you can.
And the idea that now they're on the prowl again, because they realize they've got a REAL MAN in the White House...oh, Lord, save us all...
And you know, Paranoid Republicans always accuse Democrats of not wanting to spend money on the military.
Well, you see, the Democrats just like to spend SMART money on weapons, not implausable Missile Defense Systems, or bombers that don't have a place in the world anymore, like B-1's.
B-2's seemed to have worked okay, they just have to fly a hell of a long way from my home state, and to fix that, DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, wheels were put in motion to build bases around the world that could be used in time of war to make for shorter flying times for the air crews when engaged in war.
Jimmy Carter should have a statue made of him in front of the Pentagon. If it weren't for his dogged insistence, cruise missiles wouldn't be at the level they are today.
It was he who first opposed the B-1 bomber as being too expensive, without a truly definitive role in the modern day field of combat, and lauded the use of cruise missiles carried by B-52's. Seems to work pretty whoopeeed good, eh gentlemen?
Now don't get me wrong. I AM a guy, and to a guy, the B-1 is real good lookin'. I definitely think we should keep a few around, just to show that the US is populated by a bunch of really cool guys, who can build really cool-lookin' planes. But if I'm a driver, I'd much rather be drivin' a B-2 into combat in the modern arena.
What Democrats have proposed instead of a Star Wars-like shield of protection that covers the nation like a blanket (which many really intelligent people doubt would ever work in the first place), is to base mobile missile platforms on ships, and position them around possible trouble-makers.
The missiles these missile-boats would carry, are a lot closer to actually working, given the technology we have now, because they would be designed to get missiles RIGHT AFTER LAUNCH, away from the US, on their WAY UP.
It's a lot easier to feed data into a missile and have it kill a missile as that missile is struggling upward against the Earth's gravity, than it is after it has started it's downward trajectory.
So let's just drop this idea that Democrats are a bunch of wussies who want to take guns out of soldiers' hands, and make them plant roses in Hillary's garden.
While you Paranoid Republicans have been dancing around peeing on yourselves, the F-22 has continued to be developed further, and incredible ideas regarding the battlefield of the future have been being realized right and left.
Manned and unmanned aircraft and armor, unmanned spy planes, etc. I think we're still working on a little thing called "Aurora," and the space shuttle has done more military investigation flights than many pure scientists would have liked.
Probably the major problem facing the military today is how to get young, intelligent kids interested in trading four years of their lives for service to their country.
Maybe if we didn't go around preaching hate for our leaders, and spending money on ridiculous weapons that won't work, but give us brownie points with old buddies who have become consultants to weapons manufacturers, we'd have some money to raise pay levels in the military, and possibly entice more young, intelligent people into their ranks.
I'm sure there's folks out there who could dredge up more ridiculous ideas that came up during the Reagan years than I can, but I think we all know there was a bunch of stuff that happened that resulted in nothing more than military masturbation.
The York Gun comes to mind. What a ridiculous weapon to name after one of our greatest heroes.
Anyway, don't fool yourself into thinking Democrats want to strangle our military. Rather, they want to make sure that the soldiers who hit the line have good, solid weapons that work, and have a good chance of improving survival.
If I were in the infantry, probably one of my favorite weapons would plane and ship fired cruise missiles, and Hellfires launched from Apaches.
So if you REALLY want to help this country, stop squeaking about people who aren't around anymore.
Start leading by example instead. I know, I know, you're a Republican, and it's easier to squeak than it is to lead, but just give it a shot for a change.
Start investigating what weapons are being proposed, and then really look into them, and see what YOU think, as opposed to what someone says.
And by spending money wisely, let's start trying to make a military enlistment, even a career, a lucrative alternative to working at a Taco Bell.
And let's start talking about the future, and the greatness of our nation, instead of continuing to talk about somebody getting a blow-job.
Hell. Maybe we should talk about getting you guys one. Maybe if you got one occasionally, you wouldn't be so obsessed with it.
Mk
-
MK
Yes, I'm a Republican but I'm not paranoid. Just posting info for thread material.
Hell, I don't even own a gun (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) And my sex life is fine, but thanks for the offer MK (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
ps
Don't miss the schedule B-2 fly over at the start of the SuperBowl. If the weather holds (clear and 65 today), it should be awesome. I believe some F-117's from MacDill AF base are scheduled to buzz the stadium too.
[This message has been edited by Eagler (edited 01-23-2001).]
-
Well shoot Eagler, mine isn't. Can you help a brother out? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
-
I wish more people would see the movie "Dr. Strangelove". It'd expose alarmist rhetoric for what it is.
"Mr President! We cannot allow a Mine-shaft Gap!!" - Gen. Buck Turgidson.
*shaking head*
Jay.
-
Mk10 225th hate to burst your bubble, but the state of the economy can be credited mainly to Alan Greenspan, who is a Reagan appointee. The markets, and the economy, will have a short term reaction to political events/decisions made by government leaders around the world. But generally speaking it's a couple years after a president leaves office than the changes he started actually begin to take effect.
-
Americans realized that Carter was foolish, naïve and dangerous. In 1980 they took to the polls and voted for Reagan-Bush.
Ineffectual or not - he was the last American president with any integrity.
-
Ineffectual or not - he was the last American president with any integrity.
I actually agree with the aspect of this statement that pertains to Jimmy Carter's integrity. However, I don't only believe he was the last president with integrity, I believe he was the ONLY president with integrity that served in the second half of the last century.
AKDejaVu (and I'm a republican)
-
I used to work at a bookstore in Seattle, and we had Jimmy Carter in for a reading a number of years ago, maybe six years. After the reading the person in charge of the store's reading series took Mr. Carter and his wife, Roselyn, out for dinner. He asked Jimmy if he'd ever thought about running for president again, and Jimmy said, no, and that he was getting much more done outside of office than he could ever hope to in office.
-
Absolutely Caveman old boy, and thank God we had an administration who was smart enough to recognize that fact, and stay out of his way!
I have long been an admirer of Mr. Greenspan. I have always appreciated his intelligence, and his habit of telling people everything he wants them to know, and not necessarily telling them everything HE knows. He is a smart man, and I'm glad he's decided to stick around for a bit.
------------------