War on Terror deaths Vs other War

Carl Sundquist

"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rcousine-AFB638.21044201062008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>>
>> Yes. Note that Cuba and North Korea are still creaking along under
>> communism, and Cuba is only a few miles away from the US. How is it
>> that Reagan was able to cause the collapse of the mighty Soviet Union
>> half way around the world, but was totally impotent when it came to
>> itty bitty Cuba, which was being propped up by the Soviet Union?
>
> Because the USSR was much more susceptible to the pressure Reagan had to
> apply, particularly in the matter of convincing the Soviets that they
> could not maintain martial parity with the US.
>
> Cuba had some very lean years between the fall of the USSR and the rise
> of Hugo Chavez, who has been an immensely useful contributor to Cuban
> coffers.
>

I think there is a general impression in the US that most other countries
are part of the trade/travel embargo that the US has against Cuba. Ryan (not
that you allayed anything to this effect), as a non US citizen you should
understand that is not the situation.

I believe that Cuba has relatively normal trade relations with every other
country other than the US. Thus, aside from being physically proximal to the
US and it's very deep pockets in terms of commerce, Cuba manages to continue
with trade involving many countries on the planet.

Chavez has built a house of cards that will eventually collapse.

Paul G.

On Jun 1, 9:04 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <95bd22f6-6eda-484a-80b4-5534318c8...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:16 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 1, 6:07 pm, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Thank you. How refreshing to have someone simply admit an error and
> > > > move on. You are correct that Reagan may not have known that the
> > > > Libyans did it before he left office, but my statement "Reagan never
> > > > did a damn thing about that" is still true. The Libyans were also
> > > > behind the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking on September 5, 1986, in which
> > > > 19 Americans died. Reagan had several years to respond to that, and
> > > > didn't. Bush's father also did not respond to these attacks with
> > > > military force.
>
> > > > The Republican propaganda machine has been very effective at rewriting
> > > > history to delete Reagan's colossal failures, and give him credit for
> > > > things he had little or nothing to do with.
>
> > > Like the fall of the Evil Empire?
>
> > Yes. Note that Cuba and North Korea are still creaking along under
> > communism, and Cuba is only a few miles away from the US. How is it
> > that Reagan was able to cause the collapse of the mighty Soviet Union
> > half way around the world, but was totally impotent when it came to
> > itty bitty Cuba, which was being propped up by the Soviet Union?
>
> Because the USSR was much more susceptible to the pressure Reagan had to
> apply, particularly in the matter of convincing the Soviets that they
> could not maintain martial parity with the US.
>

Jesus Christ. I'm trolling for Republicans here, and I reel in my
coach. Thanks for stealing my bait, coach. Now where was I. Oh yeah.
It was immaterial that the Soviets could not maintain martial parity
with the US, since there was no war. If there HAD been a war, sure, we
would have "won" but at a terrible price. So it wasn't going to
happen.

That's the Republican party line, that somehow all the money we spent
on weapons magically caused the Soviet empire to collapse. It's
nonsense. The truth is that the Soviet Union is still there, just in
pieces. Nothing much has really changed. They still have nukes, for
example. They are rich in resources, unlike North Korea and Cuba.
Therefore a guy like Stalin could have shot enough people to keep
things going indefinitely. Things were WAY tougher during WWII than
they were when Gorby pulled the plug.

>
> Reagan is sensibly creditable with using the bully pulpit ("tear down
> this wall!") to up the internal and external pressure on the USSR, as
> well as using military initiatives ranging from the practical to the
> ludicrous to drive the Russians completely nuts in a game of catch-up
> they utterly could not afford.
>

OK, Reagan huffed and he puffed and blew the wall down. No wait. He
was out of office when the wall came down in 1989. Giving the credit
to Reagan is an insult to all the Presidents who did far more to
contain the Soviet Union.

The Russians had zillions of ICBM's and SLBM's, and still have plenty
of them. Nothing else would have mattered in the event of WWIII. They
didn't have to maintain parity in battleships or bombers in the
missile age, mutual assured destruction was a very effective
deterrent.

>
> All four of the Reagan-era battleships were recommissioned WW2-vintage
> hulls. Two of them saw action doing shore bombardment during Operation
> Desert Storm. It turns out when you can rely on air supremacy (which, to
> this day, the US can in almost every conceivable military circumstance),
> battleships make great artillery platforms.
>

The bombardment during Desert Storm was to create the illusion that
the marines were going to storm the beaches of Kuwait. They didn't do
anything that couldn't have been done cheaper and better with other
platforms. Battleships are lousy artillery platforms, because their
range, speed and accuracy are so limited. They were a hyper expensive
boondoggle.

> It's fun to mock bombers, but US bombers sure have done a lot of work
> for an obsolete technology.

I was in the USAF. I like planes, but the B1 and B2 were like swords
in the era of the assault rifle. They don't dare use them in defended
airspace, so you have the absurd spectacle of the B2 stealth bomber
dropping bombs on Afghanistan, which had no real air defenses. You
could have dropped bombs from cargo planes. B2's cost half a billion
dollars each, and the operating costs are astronomical. In the case of
a war against the Soviet Union, it would have been over before the
subsonic B2's could get to the targets.

> If you want to mock specific
> military-technology boondoggles, there's plenty to choose from.

Sure, but how much did they cost? The ones I mentioned were
astronomically expensive.
-Paul

Howard Kveck

In article <83d644pjji7s7m8bl4821tgpm8f368ttvd@4ax.com>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 16:22:59 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><2c26249d-f74a-4023-a207-4532780270f9@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The Republican propaganda machine has been very effective at rewriting
> >> history to delete Reagan's colossal failures, and give him credit for
> >> things he had little or nothing to do with.
> >
> > The "Republicans own National Security as an issue" concept has always
> > been a joke.
>
> A joke in terms of reality. A real issue in terms of helping
> Republicans win elections.

There's a good example here:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/111407a.html

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Donald Munro

Howard Kveck wrote:
>> The "Republicans own National Security as an issue" concept has always
>> been a joke.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> A joke in terms of reality. A real issue in terms of helping Republicans
> win elections.

Surely you're not suggesting American voters are guillible or just dumb.

Donald Munro

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> Because the USSR was much more susceptible to the pressure Reagan had to
>> apply, particularly in the matter of convincing the Soviets that they
>> could not maintain martial parity with the US.

Paul G. wrote:
> Jesus Christ. I'm trolling for Republicans here, and I reel in my coach.
> Thanks for stealing my bait, coach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azukIc-J9PY

Ryan Cousineau

In article <GzK0k.188$js1.16@newsfe24.lga>,
"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net> wrote:

> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-AFB638.21044201062008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> >>
> >> Yes. Note that Cuba and North Korea are still creaking along under
> >> communism, and Cuba is only a few miles away from the US. How is it
> >> that Reagan was able to cause the collapse of the mighty Soviet Union
> >> half way around the world, but was totally impotent when it came to
> >> itty bitty Cuba, which was being propped up by the Soviet Union?
> >
> > Because the USSR was much more susceptible to the pressure Reagan had to
> > apply, particularly in the matter of convincing the Soviets that they
> > could not maintain martial parity with the US.
> >
> > Cuba had some very lean years between the fall of the USSR and the rise
> > of Hugo Chavez, who has been an immensely useful contributor to Cuban
> > coffers.
> >
>
> I think there is a general impression in the US that most other countries
> are part of the trade/travel embargo that the US has against Cuba. Ryan (not
> that you allayed anything to this effect), as a non US citizen you should
> understand that is not the situation.

The frequent ads in local media for holiday charters to Cuba keep me up
to date on that point.

> I believe that Cuba has relatively normal trade relations with every other
> country other than the US. Thus, aside from being physically proximal to the
> US and it's very deep pockets in terms of commerce, Cuba manages to continue
> with trade involving many countries on the planet.

Well, yes. It has often been said that the embargo was a great excuse
for Castro, but that's all it was. I am fond of the comparison to
Taiwan, though its relations with its gargantuan and hostile mainland
neighbour are much more normal.

> Chavez has built a house of cards that will eventually collapse.

The Bolivarian Devolution.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Paul G.

On Jun 2, 1:22 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> >> The "Republicans own National Security as an issue" concept has always
> >> been a joke.
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > A joke in terms of reality. A real issue in terms of helping Republicans
> > win elections.
>
> Surely you're not suggesting American voters are guillible or just dumb.

You haven't read "Gullible: The Scott McClellan Story"? He's going to
be on the Daily Show tonight, should be interesting.

Kurgan Gringioni

On Jun 2, 12:11*am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Reagan is sensibly creditable with using the bully pulpit ("tear down
> > this wall!") to up the internal and external pressure on the USSR, as
> > well as using military initiatives ranging from the practical to the
> > ludicrous to drive the Russians completely nuts in a game of catch-up
> > they utterly could not afford.
>
> OK, Reagan huffed and he puffed and blew the wall down. *No wait. He
> was out of office when the wall came down in 1989. Giving the credit
> to Reagan is an insult to all the Presidents who did far more to
> contain the Soviet Union.

<snip>



Dumbass -


I disagree.

Reagan and Gorbachev both deserve credit for what happened, but it was
a triumph of diplomacy.

It wasn't John Wayne-style grandstanding that did it. It wasn't a
result of massive spending on defense (offense) as some of the
ignorant blowhards are fond of maintaining.

It was diplomacy. They both deserve credit and the entire world is
better off for it.


thanks,

K. Gringioini.

Paul G.

On Jun 2, 10:36 am, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:11 am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Reagan is sensibly creditable with using the bully pulpit ("tear down
> > > this wall!") to up the internal and external pressure on the USSR, as
> > > well as using military initiatives ranging from the practical to the
> > > ludicrous to drive the Russians completely nuts in a game of catch-up
> > > they utterly could not afford.
>
> > OK, Reagan huffed and he puffed and blew the wall down. No wait. He
> > was out of office when the wall came down in 1989. Giving the credit
> > to Reagan is an insult to all the Presidents who did far more to
> > contain the Soviet Union.
>
> <snip>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I disagree.
>
> Reagan and Gorbachev both deserve credit for what happened, but it was
> a triumph of diplomacy.
>
> It wasn't John Wayne-style grandstanding that did it. It wasn't a
> result of massive spending on defense (offense) as some of the
> ignorant blowhards are fond of maintaining.
>
> It was diplomacy. They both deserve credit and the entire world is
> better off for it.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioini.

I certainly agree that the entire world is better off for it. I
consider it a miracle that there wasn't a bloodbath.

I disagree that Reagan had much of anything to do with it. Look it up.
It was an internal thing among the Soviet Republics. Gorby loosened
the chains a bit and it all got away from him. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...and_dissolution

Note that the word "Reagan" does not appear in that section. It was
internal Soviet politics, between the republics, so there was nothing
for Reagan to negotiate. It could have been snuffed out like the
Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Prague Spring in 1968, if Gorby had
been willing to have a bunch of people shot.

You people who think you know it all annoy the hell out of those of us
who actually DO know it all. ;-))
-Paul

Kurgan Gringioni

On Jun 2, 12:00*pm, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:36 am, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 12:11 am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Reagan is sensibly creditable with using the bully pulpit ("tear down
> > > > this wall!") to up the internal and external pressure on the USSR, as
> > > > well as using military initiatives ranging from the practical to the
> > > > ludicrous to drive the Russians completely nuts in a game of catch-up
> > > > they utterly could not afford.
>
> > > OK, Reagan huffed and he puffed and blew the wall down. *No wait. He
> > > was out of office when the wall came down in 1989. Giving the credit
> > > to Reagan is an insult to all the Presidents who did far more to
> > > contain the Soviet Union.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > I disagree.
>
> > Reagan and Gorbachev both deserve credit for what happened, but it was
> > a triumph of diplomacy.
>
> > It wasn't John Wayne-style grandstanding that did it. It wasn't a
> > result of massive spending on defense (offense) as some of the
> > ignorant blowhards are fond of maintaining.
>
> > It was diplomacy. They both deserve credit and the entire world is
> > better off for it.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioini.
>
> I certainly agree that the entire world is better off for it. I
> consider it a miracle that there wasn't a bloodbath.
>
> I disagree that Reagan had much of anything to do with it. Look it up.
> It was an internal thing among the Soviet Republics. Gorby loosened
> the chains a bit and it all got away from him. *See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...orbachev_and_di...
>
> Note that the word "Reagan" does not appear in that section. It was
> internal Soviet politics, between the republics, so there was nothing
> for Reagan to negotiate. It could have been snuffed out like the
> Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Prague Spring in 1968, if Gorby had
> been willing to have a bunch of people shot.
>
> You people who think you know it all annoy the hell out of those of us
> who actually DO know it all. *;-))





Dumbass -


They wouldn't have broken up the Eastern Bloc if they weren't sure
that NATO wasn't going to launch an attack on them.

Granted, it could easily have happened w/ another president in office,
but Reagan was there and he deserves credit as does Gorbachev. My
point was that it was a triumph of diplomacy and not a triumph of
trying to build a missile shield or some other such nonsense.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Paul G.

On Jun 2, 2:29 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:00 pm, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 10:36 am, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 12:11 am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Reagan is sensibly creditable with using the bully pulpit ("tear down
> > > > > this wall!") to up the internal and external pressure on the USSR, as
> > > > > well as using military initiatives ranging from the practical to the
> > > > > ludicrous to drive the Russians completely nuts in a game of catch-up
> > > > > they utterly could not afford.
>
> > > > OK, Reagan huffed and he puffed and blew the wall down. No wait. He
> > > > was out of office when the wall came down in 1989. Giving the credit
> > > > to Reagan is an insult to all the Presidents who did far more to
> > > > contain the Soviet Union.
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > Dumbass -
>
> > > I disagree.
>
> > > Reagan and Gorbachev both deserve credit for what happened, but it was
> > > a triumph of diplomacy.
>
> > > It wasn't John Wayne-style grandstanding that did it. It wasn't a
> > > result of massive spending on defense (offense) as some of the
> > > ignorant blowhards are fond of maintaining.
>
> > > It was diplomacy. They both deserve credit and the entire world is
> > > better off for it.
>
> > > thanks,
>
> > > K. Gringioini.
>
> > I certainly agree that the entire world is better off for it. I
> > consider it a miracle that there wasn't a bloodbath.
>
> > I disagree that Reagan had much of anything to do with it. Look it up.
> > It was an internal thing among the Soviet Republics. Gorby loosened
> > the chains a bit and it all got away from him. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...orbachev_and_di...
>
> > Note that the word "Reagan" does not appear in that section. It was
> > internal Soviet politics, between the republics, so there was nothing
> > for Reagan to negotiate. It could have been snuffed out like the
> > Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Prague Spring in 1968, if Gorby had
> > been willing to have a bunch of people shot.
>
> > You people who think you know it all annoy the hell out of those of us
> > who actually DO know it all. ;-))
>
> Dumbass -
>
> They wouldn't have broken up the Eastern Bloc if they weren't sure
> that NATO wasn't going to launch an attack on them.
>

Sure. But NATO was never going to attack the Soviets, and once again
the Russians still had their nukes as a deterrent. As long as they
have them, there is no possibility of successfully attacking them.
Hell, all they have to do is detonate them on their own soil to
totally screw up the entire earth.

> My
> point was that it was a triumph of diplomacy and not a triumph of
> trying to build a missile shield or some other such nonsense.
>

We can agree on that. But if you think Reagan had anything to do with
the breakup of the Soviet Union, what specifically do you think he
did, and specifically what was the effect?
-Paul

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Jun 2, 2:54*pm, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:

> But if you think Reagan had anything to do with
> the breakup of the Soviet Union, what specifically do you think he
> did, and specifically what was the effect?

Big Dumb Paul,

"That's amusing. Summarize the end of the cold war in usenet
post. ;-)"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec....f0b8534e156309?

http://www.amazon.com/Witnesses-End.../dp/0801853826/
http://www.amazon.com/Reinterpretin.../dp/0714684929/



Good luck and you're welcome,
SoTS

Donald Munro

Paul G. wrote:
> Just curious- do you live in a trailer behind your folk's house? -Paul

Is that better or worse than the basement ?

Paul G.

On Jun 3, 12:45 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Paul G. wrote:
> > Just curious- do you live in a trailer behind your folk's house? -Paul
>
> Is that better or worse than the basement ?

I provide him with debasement, free of charge. :-)
-Paul