Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In the fight fire with fire category, we have W, who actually does have God on his side.

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Don't get me wrong, like Hitler, they actually believe in their cause, at least the "soldiers" on the ground do. But underlying that cause is a raw power grab, pure and simple.

On a related note, how do you explain the bombings in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both Muslim countires?

Like all religious fanatcis they are purists. Anyone who is not a fundamentalist, and does not want to set up a theocracy, is part of the enemy. That makes the Saudi and the Egyptian governments the enemy.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Have you ever heard of game theory? Why do you think liberals oppose SDI, apart from the likelihood that it won't work?

It was Reagan's idea. That is why most opposed it. They also thought it would escalate teh arms race.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Like all religious fanatcis they are purists. Anyone who is not a fundamentalist, and does not want to set up a theocracy, is part of the enemy. That makes the Saudi and the Egyptian governments the enemy.

Wasn't every attack in SA against Westerns? What attacks occured in Egypt?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Wasn't every attack in SA against Westerns? What attacks occured in Egypt?

No. There have been attacks against westerners and attacks against Saudis. 88 people did in a blast in Egypt this weekend.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
Like all religious fanatcis they are purists. Anyone who is not a fundamentalist, and does not want to set up a theocracy, is part of the enemy. That makes the Saudi and the Egyptian governments the enemy.

Exactly, they want to set a different power structure. Who do you think would have control in that power structure?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
It was Reagan's idea. That is why most opposed it. They also thought it would escalate teh arms race.

I agree with this. This is why it was opposed on the left originally, but that doesn't mean that is why there is some opposition today. I was and am a fervent Reagan supporter, and I am an SDI believer. But that doesn't mean that every SDI bill should be rubber stamped, especially when our military resources are being spread so thin.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As I stated before, I agree with SDI conceptually. But there are limits on how much of the military budget we can spend towards it. We do not have unlimited resources. So what do we do? We assess risks and allocate funds accordingly. This means that it may be rational to not allocate funds for SDI 100% of the time, and this is the part of your post that I was mainly refuting.

I don't think NK has the capacity to reach the US mainland yet, and even if they did, I highly doubt they would attempt it. It makes no sense for them. Far more likely, they would go after Japan.

You are both wrong. They can hit the west coast and they have had that ability for a while.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapc.../12/us.nkorea/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...k-warheads.htm

Senator Clinton: This is an area of grave concern to me and I assume, to many others of my colleagues and it's very frustrating. We have been locked into this six party talk idea now for a number of years and all the while, we've seen North Korea going about the business of acquiring nuclear weapons and the missile capacity to deliver those to the shores of the United States and so Admiral let me ask you, do you assess that North Korea has the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device?

Admiral Jacoby: My assessment is that they have the capability to do that, yes Ma'am

Senator Clinton: And do you assess that North Korea has the ability to deploy a two-stage intercontinental missile, a nuclear missile, that could successfully hit U.S. territory?

Admiral Jacoby: Yes, the assessment on a two stage missile would give capability to reach portions of U.S. territory and the projection on a three stage missile would be that it would be able to reach most of the continental United States. That still is a theoretical capability in a sense that those missiles have not been tested but that is part of the community position.

Senator Clinton: So the two-stage, you are testifying, is already within their operational capacity?

Admiral Jacoby: Assessed to be within their capacity, yes.

Senator Clinton: And that's the west coast of the United States?

Admiral Jacoby: I would need to look at the range arcs, it's certainly Alaska and Hawaii and I believe a portion of the Northwest.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree with this. This is why it was opposed on the left originally, but that doesn't mean that is why there is some opposition today. I was and am a fervent Reagan supporter, and I am an SDI believer. But that doesn't mean that every SDI bill should be rubber stamped, especially when our military resources are being spread so thin.

The biggest threat to my personal well being and to my friends and families are terrorist attacks and nuclear missiles. So stopping those two possible scenarios should be the Federal Government Priorities. You guys talk like we are spending significant resources on SDI. Which we are not. Any by signficant I mean tens of billions. With a two trillion dollars bugets tens of billions seems reasonable to me to spend on one of the top two priorities.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Get thee to this Sunday's "Opus" cartoon. The punchline was our (your's and mine) allergic reaction to the Clintons. I laughed.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It was Reagan's idea. That is why most opposed it. They also thought it would escalate teh arms race.

On your first point, not exactly, but thanks for playing. On your second, why do they think it would escalate the arms race?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
The biggest threat to my personal well being and to my friends and families are terrorist attacks and nuclear missiles. So stopping those two possible scenarios should be the Federal Government Priorities. You guys talk like we are spending significant resources on SDI. Which we are not. Any by signficant I mean tens of billions. With a two trillion dollars bugets tens of billions seems reasonable to me to spend on one of the top two priorities.

The difference in probability of those two threats is enormous and our relative allocations of resources should reflect that. Let me say this again. I am for SDI spending. Ask anybody on this board, I have argued in favor of it for years and, in fact, post updates on the tests nearly everytime I come across them. But your initial post suggested that anyone who voted against every single SDI bill that came up was an idiot, and that is where we differ.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Exactly, they want to set a different power structure. Who do you think would have control in that power structure?

I really don't think power is the main priority. The simply want theocratic states. And will do whatever it takes to get that. They want to be in power to institute a theorcratic state. Unlike most power grabbers, most of these fanatics would be happy with a theocratic state in which they did not hold power. The power is a means to end, not the goal itself. They think they have to grab power to institute Gods plan. But I bet if you gave Osama the choice of having power in a non theorcratic state, or dying with all of Islamistan becoming one big theocratic state, he would sacrifice his life in a heartbeat.

If these guys were just cynical power grabbers that were using religion as an excuse to gain power they would be much less of a threat. It is their overwhelming belief in that they are implementing Gods will and that they are fighting for a cause larger than themselves that makes them so dangerous.

It is their religious fanatacism that makes them so courageous and selfless, and therefore so dangerous. Terms like Homicide Bomber and Islamofascist try and hide that reality, and underestimating the enemy is a huge error. Ask Sun Tsu.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On your first point, not exactly, but thanks for playing. On your second, why do they think it would escalate the arms race?

It was Reagan's who brought it to the political forefront, but technically you are correct. On the second, I think this is self evident, because militarizing space is an escalation. The Russians viewed it this way as well, and Reagan's refusal to give in on this tanked an arms control reduction pact in Iceland in 1986 (I think that's the year).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On your second, why do they think it would escalate the arms race?

Are you really this ignorant, or are you just testing my knowledge? On the chance that you really are this ignorant, the whole point of the ABM treaty was to preserve MAD. If both sides got into missile defense plans, then the other side would have to build even more missiles in order to get throught the missile shield. If missiles were getting shot down then you could never have enough missiles to ensure you could survive a first strike and get enough missiles into the other country to ensure their destruction.

Assuming the logic of MAD, SDI was destabilising and would therefore escalate the arms race.