's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

A Rant....(58 posts)

A Rant....pisser
Dec 13, 2001 9:44 AM
G'dubya, just backed out of the 1972 NATO missle treaty saying that " the events of 9/11 have showed us that we need to develop a missle defense system to defend outselves from terrorist attacks and rouge nations, seeking weapons of mass destruction.

Meanwhile the International Relations community says that a missle defense system would have been no help in attacks like that of 9/11, an enemy such as those who attacking us, or many types of future atacks with such things as antrax. And that the withdrawl of the US from the treaty adds instability to a treaty that has resulted in 3 decades of stability.

Hey, a$$hole, missles and the threat of them worked when we had a rational, predictable and methodical enemy in the form of a country. Now our enemy (really isreals) is driven by irrationality, spatually distributed over an entire bio sphere, and its methods are random and primative.

I swear this focking wanker's going to get all killed with this 80's (just like daddy) circa international and domestic policy. Cant people see that this is a "we can do it better this time around" idealogy of the conservative right. The world has changed a shIt load since daddy was president and did his best to run this country into the focking ground. Now we have the same old men from the bush #1 making bush #1 decisions in an era that is now bush #2 and completely different. Hey folks..the old men are back and theyre playing army again.

All for the sake of revitailizing a defunct defense industry. man are there going to be some swwweeettt govt contracts to be had on this one? And guess who's gonna get um too? that 10 % of the population who voted for this focking wanker. And yes everyone all at the expense of jepordizing a 3 decade old worldwide stability. What a dumb ass.

OK, all you romantic conservative types...flame away. This place was getting kinda boring anyway..peace..have a nice day.
Yes, it's a rant...Me Dot Org
Dec 13, 2001 10:16 AM
I have a lot of concerns about the U.S. withdrawing from this treaty, primarily because I don't see it protecting us from rogue states or terrorists.

I think it would be easier to for the enemies of the United States to smuggle in biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons (or the materials to assemble them) than it would to come up with a long or mid-range delivery system. If an enemy was thinking of a missle delivery system, they would probably MIRV them with dummy warheads, greatly complicating the task of an ABM system.

One thing I was thinking about the ABM treaty is that it is based on the concept of preseving M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) which was possible in the zero-sum environment of the cold war. That world power dynamic no longer exists, so someone could say that the treaty no longer serves U.S. interests. At the same time it changes our relationship with the Chinese, at a time when the fate of Taiwan is unclear.

I guess the bottom line is this: Do you see the potential benefits of security (our potential ability to knock down incoming enemy missles) as being worth the risks (emnity in our relations with Russia, China, and other nations)?

Finally, I don't think it's an accident that the Bin Laden tape and the A.B.M. treaty aborgation were announced on the same day. I'm sure the intent was to diffuse the impact of the A.B.M. announcement.
a short rebuttalDog
Dec 13, 2001 10:26 AM
I think we should be protected from all forms of threats, including missles. I trust that they would not spend this money unless the threat potential is real, and we have the feasible technology to make the defense system work.

Before 9/11, people did not conceive of such an act. Especially in light of that, I applaud proactive approaches to avoiding mass killings in any form. Must we wait for a missle containing a nuclear or biological warhead to kill thousands more before doing something?

How naiveJason H
Dec 13, 2001 10:39 AM
" I trust that they would not spend this money unless the threat potential is real".....arms and oil is where their political money comes from.
Maybe Dog is still in hisrogrrl
Dec 13, 2001 11:15 AM
third grade civics class
Making dad's buddies richcory
Dec 13, 2001 10:44 AM
Ah, man, I don't even want to START about Bush...we're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to counteract the technology of the $1.29 boxcutter, and anybody with the brains to stick a plastic letter opener in his shoe will STILL be able to hijack a plane. I inadvertently got on a flight last week with a Swiss Army Knife in my pocket, and I didn't know whether to turn myself in or go flush it down the toilet.
But it's worth considering, I think, the Bush family's huge financial ties to the defense industry, which tends to be overwhelmingly Republican in its philosophy and contributions. Throw in Cheney's and Rumsfeld's connections, and that alone could explain W's fascination with this blast from the past. I mean, jeez, who's going to spend millions building a missle when you can carry your weapon in a suitcase from Toronto or somewhere?
bias and prejudiceDog
Dec 13, 2001 11:13 AM
Some people are so biased and prejudiced against any Republican or Conservative that no matter who they are or what they say, they will mock and call them idiots and war-mongers. These anti-conservatives (dare I say "liberals"?) knee-jerk oppose anything proposed by the Conservatives. They arrogantly believe that only they are enlightened, and those who disagree are morons, incapable of truly understanding their superior world view. They truly believe to the depths of their souls (dare I say "souls"?) that they only have all the answers. They are the self-anointed (dare I say "anoint"?) intellectual superiors of our world.

What's odd about some of these anti-conservatives though, is that they truly believe that they are the most open minded, free-thinking, non-judgmental intellects on the planet. Yet, they nearly every time they speak reveal bias and prejudice against anything not conforming to their views. Pure arrogance.

Calling someone and idiot or moron is a weak replacement for true rational opinion. Anti-conservatives seem to resort to the ploy in nearly every attack. If not a moron, though, then next best attack is to claim religious zealotry. Those are weak, trite, tiresome tactics.

Those posting here may or may not fit the description. I'm generalizing. So, don't take it personally. The tenor of some of the statements in this thread certainly would make it appear that some qualify, though.

your actually talking aboutrogrrl
Dec 13, 2001 11:17 AM
Limbaugh and the rest of the right.....
Dec 13, 2001 11:27 AM
This argument always strikes me as amusing, whether it comes from the left or the right. Elements on both sides are equally guilty of this type of mockery, name-calling, and prejudice. Now, much of it is directed at Bush. For eight years before that, much of it was directed at Clinton.

How's this:

Some people are so biased and prejudiced against any Democrat or Liberal that no matter who they are or what they say, they will mock and call them idiots and big-spenders. These anti-liberals (dare I say "convservative"?) knee-jerk oppose anything proposed by the Liberals. They arrogantly believe that only they are enlightened, and those who disagree are morons, incapable of truly understanding their superior world view. They truly believe to the depths of their souls (dare I say "souls"?) that they only have all the answers. They are the self-anointed (dare I say "anoint"?) intellectual superiors of our world.
cute but incorrectDog
Dec 13, 2001 11:52 AM
When was the last time you saw someone making up "Dummies" book covers showing a Democrat or Liberal on the cover? On the other hand, nearly every Republican leader is charicaturized as a buffoon. Take a look at political cartoons. Repubs are often made to look goofy, while Demos are made to look scholarly. The allegiant liberals enjoy this and take it as reflective of the truth. It's pure smear, though.

Merely taking the same paragraph and substituting the words is a cute trick, but unfortunately it doesn't reflect reality.

cute but incorrectzzz
Dec 13, 2001 12:16 PM
Your too aligned to your own ideology to see the truth of conservative self-righteousness. Just because you made a naïve remark in your first post doesn't mean those that point it out are somehow extreme in their political views. You have numerous times aligned yourself with Limbaugh on this board. He is just as much a purveyor of the things your ranting against as those on the extreme left. It's your blindness to this that makes you not credible on this subject.
Oh, pleasemickey-mac
Dec 13, 2001 12:49 PM
Isn't "cute" a little condescending and perhaps even more reflective of the self-righteous attitude you're copping here? For every simple-minded caricature that has been directed at someone on the right, you'll find one directed at someone on the left. Thanks to the antics of some dems like Hart, Clinton, and Condit, dems are often portrayed by conservatives as leches in search of young tail. Has Ted Kennedy been given a free ride? He's been the target of more negative caricatures and jokes than just about anyone in U.S. politics in the past 30 years. Hasn't Jimmy Carter been portrayed as a bit of a bumpkin? How about Algore, as those on the right like to call him? IMO, it strains your credibility when you can't concede that those on the right can be just as vicious as those on the left.
As a hard-core Independent...Brooks
Dec 13, 2001 1:04 PM
I have real problems with both major politcal parties. Both seem to be driven by the far end of the politcal spectrum, although the Repub more so than the the Dems. It's all about the party (and their major $$$ funders) and not about the country. Notice any time a Senator or Congressman votes against the party line, he/she gets rebuked? What happened to voting your conscience or following the general will of your constituents? Do you wonder why the Repub Senator went Indie?

Do you have such a short memory as to forget the portrayals of Clinton as a buffoon and Gore as a stiff? Scholarly? I don't think so. You do seem to take this very personally, Doug. Take a step back and view the whole scene. it is entertaining!

well said zzz, mickey-mac and Brooks nmgtx
Dec 13, 2001 1:11 PM
not personalDog
Dec 13, 2001 2:23 PM
No, I don't take it personally. Even with heated debate, I don't take it personally until someone calls me an idiot or claims I'm not a "real cyclist." :-) Everyone here has been quite civil - as I try to be. Don't confuse passion for taking something personally.

I don't quite think Clinton was portrayed as a buffoon. I think rather he was portrayed as an immoral party animal, but still intelligent. Gore may well be intelligent, but there's no doubt he's a stiff. But, someone can be very intelligent and still be wrong.

Yes, it's all entertaining. Sometimes we participate in these debates purely for fun, don't you think? As such, we might all tend to over state our cases a bit. Makes better reading... :-)

I do try to leave open the possibility that I'm wrong. I've been wrong many times, politically, socially, and even re: bikes (oops, this is the non-bike forum). I'd rather see someone be well-reasoned and wrong than dogmatically right, though.

Ah yes, the liberal press!mr_spin
Dec 13, 2001 2:52 PM
I always laugh when I hear someone mention the "liberal press." Please. There was a feeding frenzy on Clinton and his administration all through his presidency and beyond. It was particularly vicious and nasty regarding Hilary. That's hardly something I would expect from a liberal press. And I won't even mention the stuff that was purely fabricated, like the whole fiasco about shutting down LAX so Bill could get a $200 haircut on the runway.

In contrast, Bush has had it relatively easy so far, and his wife Laura has gotten off clean.

Sorry, but anyone who believes the press is "liberal" is just plain nuts. The press will shred anyone at anytime just for the sheer thrill of it all.

And what's really sad is that politicians these days spend most of their time in fear of attracting the ire of the press. So as a result, they do nothing, take no risks, do no harm, and do no good. It's a fine system.

Luckily, the country seems to run pretty well on its own. It's amazing how much more pleasant and safe life becomes when you turn off the news.
all views, any time?Dog
Dec 13, 2001 3:27 PM
Great arguments both ways:
Another viewbikedodger
Dec 13, 2001 3:40 PM

waiting for the disingenuous disclaimernm
Dec 13, 2001 1:16 PM
waiting to know what the heck that means nmDog
Dec 13, 2001 2:26 PM
It's the 80's idealogy i have a problem with..jrm
Dec 13, 2001 11:38 AM
I have a problem with..its g'dubya in office, surrounded by the same idealogy his father had in his office, and making decisions like its the 80's.

Then he sells this rearmament to US, the public using the images and fear still fresh in our mines from the 9/11 attack. And in the end all his buddies are going to get richer than they already are. What do you think trickle down worked the first time..geez

hey the knee jerk liberal decision to align with the ATM resulted in 3 decades of stability in the escallation of nuclear weapons and technology...Not bad...huh
yeah but..jrm
Dec 13, 2001 11:29 AM
It's one thing to have the technology and another completely different thing to be able to DELIVER IT. By abandoning the treaty, we are reintroducing TO THE WORLD the technology to create and possibly deliver a weapon of mass destruction.

Just would take one person willing to sell this technology for a large amount of $$$ and poof someone like those responsible for the 9/11 act would be able to build and maybe deliver a weapon of mass destruction. This really scares the shIt outta me the more i think about it.
if this country gets nuked...gtx
Dec 13, 2001 12:07 PM
it's gonna be a small suitcase style nuke, and it's gonna come in on a truck, boat or small plane. It's ain't gonna be some fancy smanshy missle. And even if someone did manage to lob a missle at us, I doubt this system would really work all that well. Remember how well everyone thought the Patriot missle was working in the Gulf war? Then it came out later that they didn't hit squat. I do consider nuclear threat to be real, but this missle defense systems is purely about $$$.
Dumbas dumb is
Dec 13, 2001 10:34 AM
Dec 13, 2001 11:01 AM
1972 was a long time agomr_spin
Dec 13, 2001 10:52 AM
I'm no conservative--I consider myself a hardcore moderate. But the world in which this treaty was very different than it is now. The Cold War was in full swing. The US and USSR were building missles and bombs like crazy. The threats were real and numerous and truly scary. Thankfully, that world doesn't exist anymore.

Nevertheless, I don't see why we had to abandon the treaty. It's a meaningless treaty now, so why go through the trouble and bad press of abandoning it? The number of missles has been reduced to a fraction of the 1972 level. The threat of Russia or anyone else with intercontinental capability of launching a strike is almost nil.

And why? There isn't any proof that we can even build an ABM system. Don't believe the press you read on successful tests--it is very, very hard to intercept an incoming missle. They've only had minimal success under very controlled situations so far, and that's after 20+ years of trying.

Even the glorious Patriot missles of the Gulf War didn't work all that well. As Isaac Newton pointed out, what goes up, must come down. Most of the damage from the Scud missles, including the deaths of 28 members of the Pennsylvania National Guard, was from the debris falling from the sky after the missle had been intercepted. That should be a good lesson. We might be able to intercept these things, but unless we vaporize them completely, they are still coming down somewhere.

As we've seen from Sep 11, relatively small scale actions can have huge consequences and do amazing levels of damage and destruction. We will never be safe from that kind of thing. We can strip search everyone on the plane and eliminate baggage completely, but all it takes is a pilot willing to crash the plane into a building. Meanwhile, our expensive ABN system sits idly by and waits.

I think Bush started talks of abandoning the treaty as part of a shift to restore US policy to the old kick-ass superpower days. He wanted to show the world that we're no paper tiger anymore. Don't mess with us, we'll beat your ass silly. Sep 11 and the Afghan war has done that and more, making this whole treaty thing seem so stupid and meaningless. It's a bad move, on so many levels.
Very well said. (nm)look271
Dec 13, 2001 7:02 PM
Moe Dubyadumber
Dec 13, 2001 10:56 AM
My thought on thisErik W
Dec 13, 2001 4:10 PM
I don't think we need this missle defense system. It's a lot cheaper for rouge groups to just smuggle a warhead in. This won't protect us from that threat. A nuclear missle is extremely expensive. ICBM's Are something nations possess, not individual groups. If a nation had missle launched nuclear weapons, they would not dare use them on us, why? Deterence. Even with cutting our number of warheads we still have THOUSANDS of warheads. THATS our missle defence system. The whole world knows that. You can't launch a missle without us knowing instantly exactly where it came from. The threat of complete and total devistation would prevent any nation from launching missles in the first place. Now a nuke in one of the thousands of uninspected sea containers that arrive here every day. . .
Everyone agrees but DogMJ
Dec 14, 2001 2:03 AM
with the exception of Dog, it appears that nobody on the board thinks a missile defence system is a good idea for the reality of the modern world

I agree and think any nuke delivered to the west will be in a backpack rather than in a sophisticated delivery system and anti-missle technology is unproven in controlled circumstances anyways. You'd think the west would figure it out if someone were developing ICBM capabilities.

How much better would the money spent on developing a further reliance upon technology be spent on real intelligence and effective/focused aid programmes. This approach may force the US to deal (fairly) with the international community and confront any number of difficult issues, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (The prevention being - avoiding and resolving disputes prior to someone wanting to attack the west.)

does anybody, other than Dog (who is after all a Limbaugh supporter) think it's a good idea?
who said this:...?Dog
Dec 14, 2001 6:47 AM
"When American military men approach some serious situation they are wont to write at the head of their directive the words "over-all strategic concept." There is wisdom in this, as it leads to clarity of thought. What then is the over-all strategic concept which we should inscribe today? It is nothing less than the safety and welfare, the freedom and progress, of all the homes and families of all the men and women in all the lands. And here I speak particularly of the myriad cottage or apartment homes where the wage-earner strives amid the accidents and difficulties of life to guard his wife and children from privation and bring the family up in the fear of the Lord, or upon ethical conceptions which often play their potent part.


"Our supreme task and duty is to guard the homes of the common people from the horrors and miseries of another war. We are all agreed on that...."

Winston Churchill, at Westminster College, 1946

I think the goals of missle defense are just that -- to protect human lives. If we have the capability, why not try? That seems to me to be respectable foresight.

Churchill now is seen as a great leader, statesman, and visionary. At the time, his views were not universally accepted. We cannot forget that now, as then, the Number One priority and responsibility of the federal government is defense.

BTW, it doesn't matter to me whether anyone agrees with me or not, just as it likely would not matter to most of you. Oh, and BTW again, linking me to Limbaugh as a supportor you might think is negative -- I don't see it that way at all.

who said this:...?Jason H
Dec 14, 2001 7:56 AM
Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Much like Limbaughs. Churchhill's remarks were made in regards to conventional weapons being rained down on England by the Germans. I don't think we are threatened by Iraq or Somalia planes dropping bombs on New York. Just like Reagan's plan to fulfill campaign promises, Bush is trying to reward certain contributors with this "new" star wars defense money.
Dec 14, 2001 8:48 AM
Hey, just because you disagree with me, don't go calling me dishonest. Do that, and I'll just not participate. If that's what you want, fine.

Dec 14, 2001 9:24 AM
sayiing that someone is intellectually dishonest is different than calling someone a liar
Dec 15, 2001 10:29 PM
Go to, type in "dishonest" and get a clue. Either Dog is "dishonest" (a question of intent) or he is misreading Churchill's quote (a question of inability or ignorance). It doesn't seem either applies to Dog. But fear not, MJ. You are practicing a time honored rhetorical technic. My favorite historical example...John Milton puts together a logically flawless arguement on an issue of importance in his day. His opponent responds by saying you're absolutely correct, but your wife left you and you yourself are very, very short.
Question Dog's premise. Attack his support. But leave him alone. He's been writing at this site a long time; his character is above question. The idea is to hit the ball; not the pitcher.
Good grief.
Dec 16, 2001 4:28 AM
if you reread the above posts - it was another poster who made the intellectually dishonest argument - I didn't - I did make the point that calling someone intellectually dishonest is different than calling someone a liar as that appears to be the way it was taken - did I attack Dog or his character or did I disagree with him? - please check and reread the thread - maybe while you're doing that you could address some of the points that have been dropped about why the missile defence system is a waste of resources

I think I said everything that I want to about the use of a quote that just doesn't apply to a missile defence system that won't work and will direct money away from where it will be more effective
Dec 16, 2001 3:15 PM
It does appear that your comments were taken to mean that calling someone "dishonest" is a ballpark equivalent to calling someone a "liar". All I have is the dictionary here. Regardless of the way the original word is creatively qualified, I can't imagine any context inwhich the phrase "intellecually dishonest" is anything other than an attack when directed at another.
Actually, I mostly agree with the arguement the "liberal" side is presenting here. One of my best friends is a Cal-Tech physicist. He says the system will never work, and I believe him. There is enough evidence out there to strongly suggest that the technology simply has not yet come of age. I mean, how many times do you have to miss? To side with you in principle while chastising your rhetoric doesn't really help my arguement, does it?
You and others have suggested and/or supported the idea that Dog is being disingenuous in the way he is supporting his position. That's okay. There is nothing wrong with attacking the form of an opponent's arguement when you have come to an impass in the substance department. You just need to make sure that what you say is correct. A red-herring is still a red-herring, after all. I have read Dog's posts, including the Churchill quote. While it is true that Churchill is not speaking specifically about the merits of the proposed U.S. missle defense system (Uhm, duh), he is talking about national defense. I think the verb Churchill uses (twice) is "to guard". It's a close enough match to put the ball in play. There are all sorts of ways to attack this quote and its applications, but for anyone to impune Dog's character because he is using it is a bit goofy.
BTW, while many may dismiss the use of historical quotes and the opinions of those who have gone before us, those who would influence and lead us today have not turned a deaf ear. Just find a copy of George Bush Sr.'s January 16, 1991 Desert Storm speech and a copy of Aristotle's Rhetoric. Book 2 of A's Rhetoric is a verbal kung-fu textbook, and George argues from it by the numbers.
Anyway, you're a bright guy. I'm just suggesting that we play nicely. Let's kick different dead horse for a while.
I never called anybody intellectually dishonestMJ
Dec 17, 2001 2:09 AM
they weren't my comments - it wasn't my 'creative qualification' - I did point out that the other poster, who did call Dog intellectually dishonest, wasn't calling him a liar which seemed to be how Dog took it - in fact I said in another post that I found that Dog usually speaks his mind

I didn't qualify anything - I haven't run from any of the points I've made here (ever) - and I haven't insulted anyone, at least in this thread, other than Limbaugh who ((se) media personality) deserves it - far be it from me to speak about 'knowing' the guy!! - I'm playing fair - read the thread and connect the dots to the right poster

I think the standard of my rhetoric and substance of my arguments speak for themselves - at least I address my arguments to the right poster

I'm glad we agree about missle defence anyways
dishonest?Jason H
Dec 14, 2001 9:33 AM
In political threads you constantly act in an intellectual dishonest way. Your first few posts are usually dogmatic right-wing rhetoric. When challenged you always start to qualify your first posts in a way that tries to make you look more reasonable. What about your bogus post on the Chicago bicycle trial. Trying to link the thinking of those here who posted something about sept.11 in a thoughtful way to the way they thought about the driver who ran over the cyclist was intellectually dishonest. The post in this thread about your disingenuous disclaimers has it right.
Dec 14, 2001 12:00 PM
...his ideas, views, and opinions are the ideas, views and opinions of his producers & writers who spoon feed what he say and does in his show..I hope some of his followers (including my father)know this?

No higher education other than grade school, no formal professional political or policy experience, He doesnt have the capacity to harbor an personal idea, view or opinion.
sorry, you are flat out wrongDog
Dec 14, 2001 1:49 PM
Do you believe that people who do not get a college degree are all ignorant saps? That't not only wrong, but pretty arrogant. Limbaugh is a very knowledgeable person. There are many intelligent, well-informed people who do not have letters after their names (well, a "III" in his case).

Don't insult an entire segment of the population simply because you disagree with one of them.

Dec 18, 2001 12:39 AM
I have a college degree, but cannot hold a candle to Rush when it comes to intellect. Nor, likely, could anyone here. That is not to say that there are not some very intelligent people on this board, including Doug. It is common for those who are unable to effectively use logical arguments to begin name-calling, this appears to be what's happening here.
Dec 18, 2001 8:54 AM
I don't think you're talking about the same guy everybody else is - the guy I was referring to above doesn't actually ever listen to anybody else's viewpoints - not the mark of someone who is 'enlightened' - the guy I'm referring to is an extreme white wing X-Files conspiracy theorist - while he's worrying about black UN helicopters over his ranch the rest of us can get on with something worthwhile

I think you may have confused 'entertainment personality' with 'someone intelligent' - but style over substance in the perfect soundbite is the American way - your confusion is easily explained

I thought name calling was Limbaugh's sole raison d'etre - what's that you said about the inability to use logiacl arguments...?

if you're going to hold up someone from the right to aspire to at least give me PJ O'Rourke
Dec 18, 2001 9:52 PM
You have obviously not listened to Rush, if you had you would know that he is not a conspiracy theorist, I have never heard him discuss these, please show evidence of such. (you must be listening to "Dreamland"). It seems that you have listened to others talking ABOUT him. If you were speaking from first-hand experience you would know better, you would likely not agree with him, but would have a base from which to disagree. I am not sure what "extreme white wing" is (Perhaps "white, Right Wing"?) O.K., so it's bad to be white and right? ACE
you're the one who's confused...daddy_d
Dec 19, 2001 4:13 AM
...about who you've been listening to at least.

Rush doesn't live on a ranch.

The only time I've heard him mention black helicopters is when he did his 'Kook test', which basically mocks those who are consiracy theorists.

Rush loves to talk to Liberals. In fact he has a policy to put them to the front of the line when taking calls. Just because he doesn't AGREE with you doesn't mean that he doesn't LISTEN to you.

Rush couldn't be less 'extreme white wing'. He wants all people to be successful at what they do. Regardless of race or color or sex. He just disagrees, as do I, that they way to do that is to depend on the government to get 'it' for you.

If you're going to trash someone, please give some specifics rather than just spout some third-hand, derogatory remarks.
who are you calling intellectually dishonest?daddy_d
Dec 15, 2001 7:10 PM
What's really appalling is to disqualify Churchhill's premise simply because the specific are different. Churchhill was talking about protecting his countrymen from a real threat. His words applied then and they apply today too.

By the way, were all bombs that hit London delivered by plane?
who are you calling intellectually dishonest?MJ
Dec 16, 2001 4:47 AM
look at what may consitute a 'real threat' - is it an ICBM or a nuke in a backpack?; a guy with a knife?

an equivalent would be Churchill quoting any historical figure on the best way to defend England/the West and applying unrealistic defence strategies to WW2 - just like stationing soldiers with crossbows on the Channel wouldn't have dealt with the German air (frightening but generally uneffective missiles included) offensive in 1940-1942, an anti-missile system won't deal with someone with a nuke in a backpack - just because they're doing something doesn't mean they're doing the right thing and that it's justified - that's what this discussion is about - intention counts for nothing

it appears the real intention is not protection or defence but rather cynical public manipulation with the aim of pork barrels aiding the corporations that elected Bush that he is merely a mouthpiece for

you want to protect the west/US - do something that will work - if that is what Churchill is on about then yeah I agree - if it's a weak justification for an expensive unproven technology which will not offer protection from the most realistic threats while actively drawing attention and resources away from those defensive measures which will actually prove effective then I disagree - you should too

I think it's ridiculous that this is even a point of discussion - it's patently obvious where the US ended up by an over reliance on technology in defence of the homeland - deal with the real world; not the Cold War - it's over
who said this:...?MJ
Dec 14, 2001 9:08 AM
I love it when people use quotes from historical figures and then make a desperate attempt to make a link - what's next Cicero? Von Clausewitz? Oliver North? I wait with baited breath...

the problem with that approach is that it assumes that ICBM's are a realistic threat and that an anti-missile system is anything other than an econimics lesson in pork barrels - defence? - yes please by all means - but please defend me from something real rather than wasting resources on something that's irrelevant and not a genuine threat

the fact remains that the most realistic threat of a nuclear attack on the west is not from an ICBM but from a nuke in a backpack - that is the 'overall strategic concept' that must be addressed - not something that the pro anti-missle defense system people have yet acknowledged - it's about money

more specifically it's about an unproven technology - something else that's not been addressed honestly

we've seen where the reliance upon technology while ignoring the practical weaknesses, methods and possibilities has gotten the west/US now haven't we? = guys with boxcutters flying planes into buildings - smart bombs and systems aren't gonna stop the boxcutter or the nuke in a backpack - that is reality - that is what defence must address - that is where resources must be diirected to protect our 'fragile womenfolk' (Winston gave me a chuckle there)

the reason why the US shouldn't try is because there are more effective ways to deal with defence issues - like a realistic assessment of how to reduce risks - effective aid programmes, participation, inclusion etc. - by your logic the same approach could be taken to defend us from aliens and it would be justified - because after all - doing something is trying and that's what's important (BTW that's not what Kant meant)

Dog I think it's great that you say what you think here, just as I do when other people say what they think (and disagree with me vociferously)

I think it's most telling that you would herald Limbaugh as someone you aren't ashamed to be associated with - it is negative - he's an angry bitter white man who thinks there's some kind of X-Files conspiracy - he's only one step away from having nasty cartoons about the 'Jewish plot' - he's akin to televangelists - he's a laughing stock to most people who can read and wear shoes

because they're doing something does not mean that it's the right thing to do

are you in litigation?
you make some good pointsDog
Dec 14, 2001 9:56 AM
You do make some good points, particular how does the country distribute its defense assets. That is a very important and debateable issue. I don't pretend to have all the answers by any means.

1. I don't think we should reject an available technology because it's "unproven." Maybe it cannot be "proven" until someone tries. If it were pure science fictional fantasy, that might be different. According to this argument, we never would have gone to the moon.

2. I don't think we should reject this technology because other concerns exist, too, such as hijacking planes or suitcase bombs. I think all threats should be addressed.

3. I simply disagree with your view of Limbaugh. He is extremely intelligent, well reasoned, and ideological. No doubt, many people either disagree with his ideas or don't like his presentation. That's fine. We usually don't expect everyone to agree in this country, particularly with those who are most vocal and certain in their beliefs. BTW, there are some things I do disagree with Limbaugh about. Nonetheless, calling him a "bitter white man" is out of line. First, his color is irrelevant. Second, he is not the slighted bit bitter. I know the guy. I went to church with him, his family, and worked for years with his brother and grandfather, who practiced law with me at the time until age 104. It is an extremely well-respected family. I'd bet you don't know him 1/1000th as well as I do. You are just flat out misinformed. Talk about intellectual dishonsesty - don't confuse disagreement on the issues with calling someone names, as you have done. Disagreement is welcome; name calling is the refuge of cowards.

4. I don't understand this attack about coming out hard on an issue and then, according to some, meliorating the tone a bit. I suppose I could just be an asshole and stay that way. I'm not changing my mind or retracting anything. What happens on these boards is that people get pretty contentious, and often take things the wrong way. Because some of us are friends here, in a sense, or at least try to act that way, we try not to be continually offensive, but rather try to find some common ground, maintain civility and friendships, and move on. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, it seems. Besides, grant that at times I, and maybe others, might learn something through the debates, and concede a few points or possibly the entire argument. That's a sign of intellectual honesty and maturity, something sorely lacking among many people.

5. My trial was postponed; no courtroom available.

6. I appreciate good discussions. I don't appreciate name calling and incivility, whether it be about the President, Limbaugh, Lance Armstrong, me, or even you. I don't tolerate it against any person on this forum, and you'd know that if you'd been reading my posts for the last two years. I'll stick up for anyone who is being unfairly treated, whether the issue is components or world peace. Yes, at times I might have gotten a little out of line myself. To the extent that has happened, I have apologized. How many others do?

you make some good pointsMJ
Dec 15, 2001 6:16 AM
did going to the moon help anybody? anyways I understand the technology is science fiction - the point is there are other more effective measures that can be taken to greater benefit - an effective foreign policy that engages the international community and its' responsibilities rather than unilateral decisions would certainly be the best defence against guys with knives and a nuke in a backpack - 'defence' doesn't always mean bombs and guns; nor does 'effective foreign policy' - we're talking about the best use of resources (a conservative ideal it would seem) - but the conservative approach is generally one of non-engagement - sticking your head in the sand just isn't going to work any more - not with diplomacy; not with the military and the emerging modern concept of defence - realistically nobody else has ICBM's even if they have nukes and an attitude

I don't know Limbaugh at all - he may be a very nice person to know - separate the person from the views - the views are abhorrent and small minded - he doesn't listen - there is no engagement with the other 'side' - his race is important as his views stem from his inability to grasp that people have different experiences that engender an entirely different approach - simple solutions to complex problems don't work

going to church doesn't impress me or make me think that someone is respectable (or not respectable) - plenty of nasty, objectionable people go to church too

I'm not new here - you do step up to he plate when you think you've goofed - and good on you for it - as for melioration - but I don't think the other poster was calling you a liar but rather intellctually dishonest - I've always found you to speak your mind

delays suck when you're ready to rip the other sides' throat out
That is twistedmr_spin
Dec 14, 2001 9:17 AM
Maybe the goals of missle defense are to protect human lives. But only from missles. That's the fatal and seriously expensive flaw. Missles. Not bombs. Not commandos. Not ships. Not planes. Just missles. Who has missles capable of reaching the United States? The answer is: Russia.

There may be others who have sea launch capability, such as Britain and France, but I think the chance of Britain and/or France launching a strike against the USA is statistically insignificant. Real threats are China, North Korea, and Iran, who have a few diesel subs.

Sadly, a missle defense system wouldn't do very well against a sea launch because there simply isn't enough time. Unless the system is fully automated (what a nightmare that would be), the reaction time of the command authority will not be fast enough. You're looking at less than six minutes from launch to impact, which is not enough time to separate a missle from an inbound 757. If an enemy with sea launch capability managed to get a sub into New York harbor, forget it--it's all over. Thankfully, the American submarine force is the finest in the world, and no truly hostile nation will ever get close enough to do this.

The other thing is that the technology behind a missle defense system will never encompass the full scope of the problem. The United States is a huge place. Where are you going to put the system? Just around major cities? Who decides? Does San Francisco get less protection than New York? Do we write off Alaska completely? Remember, the last time this nation was attacked by another nation, almost exactly 60 years ago, the target was a navy base way out in the Pacific Ocean.

The message is clear. A missle defense system is a bad joke. It's an expensive boondoggle that is more likely to prop up the defense industry than increase the security of this nation. It's intent is to make Americans feel more secure. After Sep 11, I don't think Americans will buy it. There is nothing anyone can do to protect us from everything, all the time. Spending a ton of money in a vain attempt to protect us from the least likely and possible threat is ludicrous.

By the way, who said this:

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills;"

Everyone should know the answer. It was Churchill's finest hour. Note, he didn't mention missle defense.
I'm with Doug(nm)ACE-
Dec 18, 2001 12:20 AM
Ever wondered why....muncher.
Dec 14, 2001 3:38 AM
There are so many appauling politicians in the Western World?

Interesting link - ever wondered how many of them are/have been lawyers?

Hmmm - see the message?

A Lawyer.
Dec 14, 2001 11:48 AM
Your logic is fallacious.

many politicians are bad

many politicians are lawyers

therefore, lawyers are bad


birds can fly;

birds have legs;

therefore, things with legs can fly

This type of logical fallacy rings true when you believe the connection, but it doesn't make logical sense.

Err...yours actuallymuncher.
Dec 17, 2001 1:49 AM
Which is a rather good example of what I was talking about. You have contructed a syllogism that isn't there, and then dismissed it. In any event, it should have read "therefore Many lawyers are bad". Your second example is a plain fallacy of composition and therefore irrelevant.

Neither of which have anything to do with the plain fact that you are missing, which in turn has nothing to do with deductive logic, it's a simple question of observation. Many politicans are lawyers, and many of them (the inclusive sub-set) are bad. This is, in my and others' view, a function of the fact that lawyers are lacking many of the skill sets and experience sets needed to be good politicians (as opposed to legislators perhaps)today, simply because they tend to come from certain backgrounds, and have trodden fairly similar career paths, and tend to think in certain ways, as befits their training/profession, in combination that they tend to use advisors with similar backgrounds.

I am surprised that you find this difficult to deal with. As a lawyer myself, few things are more professionally embarrasing than hearing lawyer politicians giving every one of us (more of) a bad name by turning fine points on construction of phrases and the import of terms - "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" etc etc. It fools no-one, and doesn't befit the office that these prople hold.
Will Rogers said...DINOSAUR
Dec 15, 2001 11:09 AM
I tell you folks, all politics is applesauce....
Dog gettin' doggedcool!
Dec 16, 2001 7:10 AM
ya, real funnyDog
Dec 16, 2001 10:44 AM
Ok, mr. anonymous, why don't you stick your neck out and take a stand? Are you one of those guys who watches football on television and pokes fun at the quarterback because he got sacked? Sort of sounds that way.