Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Mon, 07 May 2018 16:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


===

Not for nothing is it called an arms race. I fully expect it to move
into space based weapons at some point, if it hasn't already. EMP
generators in low earth orbits could certainly create a great deal of
havoc without any loss of life, and might be almost undetectable. It's
not inconceivable to me that we might eventually have space based
weather on demand. That could certainly be weaponized, right along
with high powered lasers. Of course internet based attacks are
already happening and will no doubt grow more intense, along with
attacks on satellites.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On 5/7/2018 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


Any military expert will say that the only way to engage to *win* is
with overwhelming force and resources. Makes for the shortest war with
the least casualties. That's the big mistake made in Vietnam. The
mission wasn't to win.

I just read up on budgets in past years, going back to Woodrow Wilson.
The only president who is listed as actually *decreasing* a US budget
was Bill Clinton. It was a decrease of 1 percent but many consider
it bogus due to taking the surplus from Social Security funds and
putting it in the general fund. I am sure others have done that.

Anyway, even if you eliminate Wilson and FDR who ran World Wars,
every president has had some serious increases. Even Jimmy Carter
had a 36 percent over his four years.

Some ... including Harry here ... have advocated cutting defense
spending by as much as *half* and reallocate that money for domestic
programs. That may be a feel good thing to do but it doesn't do
a thing in terms of reducing the overall budget. In fact, if spent
in the wrong places it could actually increase dependency on
government funding of programs that would only further increase
future budgets.

I was curious so I found this. It's for 2015 but the breakdown is
close to now. It's a graph of all three budget components showing
mandatory spending, discretionary spending and interest on debt.
It shows that although the military spending is large (16%) it is
dwarfed by Social Security, Unemployment and Labor (33%) and Medicare
and Health at 27%. Interest on debt is 6%. The rest of the budget
items are at 4% or less.

So, if you want to reduce the budget by cutting expenditures, where
is the leverage?

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On 5/7/2018 6:27 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2018 16:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


===

Not for nothing is it called an arms race. I fully expect it to move
into space based weapons at some point, if it hasn't already. EMP
generators in low earth orbits could certainly create a great deal of
havoc without any loss of life, and might be almost undetectable. It's
not inconceivable to me that we might eventually have space based
weather on demand. That could certainly be weaponized, right along
with high powered lasers. Of course internet based attacks are
already happening and will no doubt grow more intense, along with
attacks on satellites.


Yup. The threats continue, they are just different. We need to adjust
for the times and technology.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On 5/7/2018 6:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/7/2018 6:27 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2018 16:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on
military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder
what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or
nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall
out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and
pessimistic as
you seem to be.Â* I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on
stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off
and
we're all dead anyway.Â* :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst.Â* ;-)



That's our difference.Â* I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and
militarily.
Â* I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


===

Not for nothing is it called an arms race.Â* I fully expect it to move
into space based weapons at some point, if it hasn't already.Â* EMP
generators in low earth orbits could certainly create a great deal of
havoc without any loss of life, and might be almost undetectable. It's
not inconceivable to me that we might eventually have space based
weather on demand.Â* That could certainly be weaponized, right along
with high powered lasers.Â* Of course internet based attacks are
already happening and will no doubt grow more intense, along with
attacks on satellites.



Yup.Â* The threats continue, they are just different.Â* We need to adjust
for the times and technology.


Then again, I can understand where Greg is coming from.
His computers run on vacuum tubes so they are pretty much immune to EMP
blasts. :-)

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Mon, 07 May 2018 18:27:21 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 07 May 2018 16:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


===

Not for nothing is it called an arms race. I fully expect it to move
into space based weapons at some point, if it hasn't already. EMP
generators in low earth orbits could certainly create a great deal of
havoc without any loss of life, and might be almost undetectable. It's
not inconceivable to me that we might eventually have space based
weather on demand. That could certainly be weaponized, right along
with high powered lasers. Of course internet based attacks are
already happening and will no doubt grow more intense, along with
attacks on satellites.


I guess the question is whether an arms race is the best use of money
neither of us has. The reality is a war we are spending a trillion a
year to tool up with will be ended with a few million dollar nukes.
The only question is how long we well try to win with conventional
forces until someone pushes that button. You know damn sure nobody
with a nuke is going to lose their country in a conventional war,
whether that is the US, Russia or Pakistan.
All of the wars any of the super powers have had were over some 3d
party's territory and I have had a hard time thinking of one of those
we have won either.
The Israelis are the only ones I can think of who have actually taken
land away from people in a war since 1945.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Mon, 7 May 2018 18:52:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


Any military expert will say that the only way to engage to *win* is
with overwhelming force and resources. Makes for the shortest war with
the least casualties. That's the big mistake made in Vietnam. The
mission wasn't to win.

I just read up on budgets in past years, going back to Woodrow Wilson.
The only president who is listed as actually *decreasing* a US budget
was Bill Clinton. It was a decrease of 1 percent but many consider
it bogus due to taking the surplus from Social Security funds and
putting it in the general fund. I am sure others have done that.

Anyway, even if you eliminate Wilson and FDR who ran World Wars,
every president has had some serious increases. Even Jimmy Carter
had a 36 percent over his four years.

Some ... including Harry here ... have advocated cutting defense
spending by as much as *half* and reallocate that money for domestic
programs. That may be a feel good thing to do but it doesn't do
a thing in terms of reducing the overall budget. In fact, if spent
in the wrong places it could actually increase dependency on
government funding of programs that would only further increase
future budgets.

I was curious so I found this. It's for 2015 but the breakdown is
close to now. It's a graph of all three budget components showing
mandatory spending, discretionary spending and interest on debt.
It shows that although the military spending is large (16%) it is
dwarfed by Social Security, Unemployment and Labor (33%) and Medicare
and Health at 27%. Interest on debt is 6%. The rest of the budget
items are at 4% or less.

So, if you want to reduce the budget by cutting expenditures, where
is the leverage?

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png



The best justification I can see for defense spending is it is a
"jobs" program, spreading federal dollars across virtually every
congressional district and employing a lot of white collar and factory
people.
That still does not excuse the fact that all of it is borrowed money,
assuming we pay interest on the debt and the entitlements first. After
that there isn't much if any money left over for anything else.

I think Clinton's numbers were so good because there were so many tech
geeks becoming millionaires before they had a chance to hire decent
tax lawyers and so many companies were paying taxes on phony profits
to make them look real. Then you had the 94th congress actually
working to cut spending and balance the budget. (Thank you Ross Perot)
It made things look great until the tech bubble popped and we found
out that money didn't really exist.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On 5/7/2018 8:40 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 18:52:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


Any military expert will say that the only way to engage to *win* is
with overwhelming force and resources. Makes for the shortest war with
the least casualties. That's the big mistake made in Vietnam. The
mission wasn't to win.

I just read up on budgets in past years, going back to Woodrow Wilson.
The only president who is listed as actually *decreasing* a US budget
was Bill Clinton. It was a decrease of 1 percent but many consider
it bogus due to taking the surplus from Social Security funds and
putting it in the general fund. I am sure others have done that.

Anyway, even if you eliminate Wilson and FDR who ran World Wars,
every president has had some serious increases. Even Jimmy Carter
had a 36 percent over his four years.

Some ... including Harry here ... have advocated cutting defense
spending by as much as *half* and reallocate that money for domestic
programs. That may be a feel good thing to do but it doesn't do
a thing in terms of reducing the overall budget. In fact, if spent
in the wrong places it could actually increase dependency on
government funding of programs that would only further increase
future budgets.

I was curious so I found this. It's for 2015 but the breakdown is
close to now. It's a graph of all three budget components showing
mandatory spending, discretionary spending and interest on debt.
It shows that although the military spending is large (16%) it is
dwarfed by Social Security, Unemployment and Labor (33%) and Medicare
and Health at 27%. Interest on debt is 6%. The rest of the budget
items are at 4% or less.

So, if you want to reduce the budget by cutting expenditures, where
is the leverage?

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png



The best justification I can see for defense spending is it is a
"jobs" program, spreading federal dollars across virtually every
congressional district and employing a lot of white collar and factory
people.
That still does not excuse the fact that all of it is borrowed money,
assuming we pay interest on the debt and the entitlements first. After
that there isn't much if any money left over for anything else.

I think Clinton's numbers were so good because there were so many tech
geeks becoming millionaires before they had a chance to hire decent
tax lawyers and so many companies were paying taxes on phony profits
to make them look real. Then you had the 94th congress actually
working to cut spending and balance the budget. (Thank you Ross Perot)
It made things look great until the tech bubble popped and we found
out that money didn't really exist.



If you think the "best" justification for defense spending is that it
is a "jobs" program, we will never agree. The best justification is
to ensure a safe nation by being the best equipped and trained we can
be.

Sure, I agree, it results in jobs but politicians are not designing
and building the next generation of advanced military gear. Companies
are and we need those companies. My concern is that we have lost
many domestic assets over the years and have to rely on foreign
sources for much of our raw materials and technology. There are not
that many major defense contractors left and once the talent and
corporate knowledge is gone it takes a long time to restore it.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On 5/7/2018 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2018 18:27:21 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 07 May 2018 16:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


===

Not for nothing is it called an arms race. I fully expect it to move
into space based weapons at some point, if it hasn't already. EMP
generators in low earth orbits could certainly create a great deal of
havoc without any loss of life, and might be almost undetectable. It's
not inconceivable to me that we might eventually have space based
weather on demand. That could certainly be weaponized, right along
with high powered lasers. Of course internet based attacks are
already happening and will no doubt grow more intense, along with
attacks on satellites.


I guess the question is whether an arms race is the best use of money
neither of us has. The reality is a war we are spending a trillion a
year to tool up with will be ended with a few million dollar nukes.
The only question is how long we well try to win with conventional
forces until someone pushes that button. You know damn sure nobody
with a nuke is going to lose their country in a conventional war,
whether that is the US, Russia or Pakistan.
All of the wars any of the super powers have had were over some 3d
party's territory and I have had a hard time thinking of one of those
we have won either.
The Israelis are the only ones I can think of who have actually taken
land away from people in a war since 1945.



The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On 5/8/2018 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.



Hope for final proof of unfriendly aliens from outer space.

It's really the only way people on this planet will ever agree
to work together as allies.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On 5/8/2018 12:01 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/8/2018 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.



Hope for final proof of unfriendly aliens from outer space.

It's really the only way people on this planet will ever agree
to work together as allies.




You watch too much sci-fi. The corporationists will sell us out to turn a
larger profit, as usual. :)



It was a joke. I don't watch sci-fi. Don't even like it.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Tue, 8 May 2018 11:57:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/8/2018 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.



Hope for final proof of unfriendly aliens from outer space.

It's really the only way people on this planet will ever agree
to work together as allies.


If you are just using that as a metaphor for a common enemy, you are
right. America forgot about fighting communism to fight the Germans
and the Japanese, then we started right back up on each other.

Have you watched the Oliver Stone "Untold History" show. He definitely
puts the Stone spin on things but there are still a lot of things we
don't hear, backed up by actual footage and news coverage, that he
points out.
It is on Netflix.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On 5/8/2018 1:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 11:57:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/8/2018 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.



Hope for final proof of unfriendly aliens from outer space.

It's really the only way people on this planet will ever agree
to work together as allies.


If you are just using that as a metaphor for a common enemy, you are
right. America forgot about fighting communism to fight the Germans
and the Japanese, then we started right back up on each other.

Have you watched the Oliver Stone "Untold History" show. He definitely
puts the Stone spin on things but there are still a lot of things we
don't hear, backed up by actual footage and news coverage, that he
points out.
It is on Netflix.




I started watching it a couple of weeks ago but fell asleep.
Didn't finish it.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 12:43:13 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/8/2018 12:01 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/8/2018 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.



Hope for final proof of unfriendly aliens from outer space.

It's really the only way people on this planet will ever agree
to work together as allies.




You watch too much sci-fi. The corporationists will sell us out to turn a
larger profit, as usual. :)



It was a joke. I don't watch sci-fi. Don't even like it.

Harry drinks too muck Kool-aide. Those evil corporations are the ones that will invest in developing and deploying the new technology weapons that will destroy the evil alien race. :)

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

Its Me
- show quoted text -
"Harry drinks too muck Kool-aide. Those evil corporations are the ones that will invest in developing and deploying the new technology weapons that will destroy the evil alien race. :)"



Say what?
What the 'll flavour is "to muck"?
We can't get that up here. Y'all southern boys sure do have odd tastes.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:54:53 PM UTC-4, True North wrote:
Its Me
- show quoted text -
"Harry drinks too muck Kool-aide. Those evil corporations are the ones that will invest in developing and deploying the new technology weapons that will destroy the evil alien race. :)"



Say what?
What the 'll flavour is "to muck"?
We can't get that up here. Y'all southern boys sure do have odd tastes.

That ship has sailed, doneee. You were typing like a drunken sailor just a day or two ago. Remember, or was that a blackout? A reminder:

"Now we just need s9meone to identify y'all do we can shine a light on your roach nest and set you scurrying."

s9meone? do we can?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!! Bow-legged canuck idiot.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Tue, 8 May 2018 12:25:14 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:54:53 PM UTC-4, True North wrote:
Its Me
- show quoted text -
"Harry drinks too muck Kool-aide. Those evil corporations are the ones that will invest in developing and deploying the new technology weapons that will destroy the evil alien race. :)"



Say what?
What the 'll flavour is "to muck"?
We can't get that up here. Y'all southern boys sure do have odd tastes.

That ship has sailed, doneee. You were typing like a drunken sailor just a day or two ago. Remember, or was that a blackout? A reminder:

"Now we just need s9meone to identify y'all do we can shine a light on your roach nest and set you scurrying."

s9meone? do we can?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!! Bow-legged canuck idiot.

LOL! (Even though I shouldn't laugh. It's not Donnee's fault.)

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-4, John H wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 12:25:14 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:54:53 PM UTC-4, True North wrote:
Its Me
- show quoted text -
"Harry drinks too muck Kool-aide. Those evil corporations are the ones that will invest in developing and deploying the new technology weapons that will destroy the evil alien race. :)"



Say what?
What the 'll flavour is "to muck"?
We can't get that up here. Y'all southern boys sure do have odd tastes.

That ship has sailed, doneee. You were typing like a drunken sailor just a day or two ago. Remember, or was that a blackout? A reminder:

"Now we just need s9meone to identify y'all do we can shine a light on your roach nest and set you scurrying."

s9meone? do we can?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!! Bow-legged canuck idiot.

LOL! (Even though I shouldn't laugh. It's not Donnee's fault.)

Hey, live by the sword, die by the sword. He could choose to be a decent poster, but instead smoozes up to the fat one and tries to be an ass with every post. That's probably not his fault either, just his nature.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Tue, 8 May 2018 13:20:51 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-4, John H wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 12:25:14 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:54:53 PM UTC-4, True North wrote:
Its Me
- show quoted text -
"Harry drinks too muck Kool-aide. Those evil corporations are the ones that will invest in developing and deploying the new technology weapons that will destroy the evil alien race. :)"



Say what?
What the 'll flavour is "to muck"?
We can't get that up here. Y'all southern boys sure do have odd tastes.

That ship has sailed, doneee. You were typing like a drunken sailor just a day or two ago. Remember, or was that a blackout? A reminder:

"Now we just need s9meone to identify y'all do we can shine a light on your roach nest and set you scurrying."

s9meone? do we can?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!! Bow-legged canuck idiot.

LOL! (Even though I shouldn't laugh. It's not Donnee's fault.)

Hey, live by the sword, die by the sword. He could choose to be a decent poster, but instead smoozes up to the fat one and tries to be an ass with every post. That's probably not his fault either, just his nature.

Hey, he owns an infla*tit*able, right?

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

On Tue, 8 May 2018 13:12:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/8/2018 1:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 11:57:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/8/2018 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.



Hope for final proof of unfriendly aliens from outer space.

It's really the only way people on this planet will ever agree
to work together as allies.


If you are just using that as a metaphor for a common enemy, you are
right. America forgot about fighting communism to fight the Germans
and the Japanese, then we started right back up on each other.

Have you watched the Oliver Stone "Untold History" show. He definitely
puts the Stone spin on things but there are still a lot of things we
don't hear, backed up by actual footage and news coverage, that he
points out.
It is on Netflix.




I started watching it a couple of weeks ago but fell asleep.
Didn't finish it.


You definitely get the idea he thinks we should have embraced the
communists but the show was fairly well researched and most of the
"facts" seem true, even if taken out of context.
He really hates the Bushes, and the big American corporations who he
blames for most of the problems in the last 120 years. He beats up
every president since McKinley except JFK, who seems to get a pass and
Carter who he calls a good guy but naive.
It is still an entertaining show, just for the amount of archival
footage he managed to dig up, especially the quotes on mike. It was a
perfect "headset" show for me since most of it is in the narrative,
not the pictures. Most documentaries are that way tho. They all seem
to use the same film.

Yo Greg..The Navy and I agree
 

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 12:25:14 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:54:53 PM UTC-4, True North wrote:
Its Me
- show quoted text -
"Harry drinks too muck Kool-aide. Those evil corporations are the ones that will invest in developing and deploying the new technology weapons that will destroy the evil alien race. :)"



Say what?
What the 'll flavour is "to muck"?
We can't get that up here. Y'all southern boys sure do have odd tastes.
That ship has sailed, doneee. You were typing like a drunken sailor just a day or two ago. Remember, or was that a blackout? A reminder:

"Now we just need s9meone to identify y'all do we can shine a light on your roach nest and set you scurrying."

s9meone? do we can?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!! Bow-legged canuck idiot.
LOL! (Even though I shouldn't laugh. It's not Donnee's fault.)

True - he's just dumb.