SCUDs found on their way to Yemen

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Would a pre-emptive Nuclear strike on the Soviet union by the USA have therefore been okay? What about during the 7-day crisis in Cuba? How close did we come to war then? Very close IIRC. What if someone then had decided then to make a pre-emptive strike? After all, It’s not like the soviet union was anything but an evil empire, But Would a war with them have caused the destruction of life as we know it? Probably.

The cuban crisis was all about avoiding a preemptive strike. Nobody wants nuclear war, even the old hardline Russians.

Cuban missiles would have put the Russians in a first-strike position, a very destabilizing situation. The Russians knew it, we knew it. That's why they ultimately caved in after some posturing.

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: You’re trying to tar all Muslims with the same brush. There are some Germans who are neo-nazis, therefore all Germans are neo-nazis. You see how it works?

Why didn't you just say so? By spouting a one word replies you just putting on an asbestos suit and arming the flamethrower.

[ 12-17-2002, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: quote: Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: You’re trying to tar all Muslims with the same brush. There are some Germans who are neo-nazis, therefore all Germans are neo-nazis. You see how it works?

Why didn't you just say so? By spouting a one word replies you just putting on an asbestos suit and arming the flamethrower.[/QUOTE]To make you think about what you were saying and how people will construe it?

HTH.
TIA.

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: quote: Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Would a pre-emptive Nuclear strike on the Soviet union by the USA have therefore been okay? What about during the 7-day crisis in Cuba? How close did we come to war then? Very close IIRC. What if someone then had decided then to make a pre-emptive strike? After all, It’s not like the soviet union was anything but an evil empire, But Would a war with them have caused the destruction of life as we know it? Probably.

The cuban crisis was all about avoiding a preemptive strike. Nobody wants nuclear war, even the old hardline Russians.

Cuban missiles would have put the Russians in a first-strike position, a very destabilizing situation. The Russians knew it, we knew it. That's why they ultimately caved in after some posturing.[/QUOTE]Hmm, so it violated the principles of mutually assured destruction then?
Rather like this anti-ballistic missile shield the USA is building?
In that case, Is China For example justified in attacking the USA since this anti missile shield could put them in a situation where they could launch their missiles and then destroy the incoming ones.

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: To make you think about what you were saying and how people will construe it?

Did nothing of the sort. My kneejerk reaction was to filter you. Everything I stated was FACT, whether you like to hear it or not.

Refusing to listen to factual information, no matter how defacing it may seem, is just as racist as taking a one-sided view of things.

I just thought I'd mention, I know some arabs...I won't call them friends, but I'm on good terms with them. They are very nice people, and I like them a lot. They are not muslim, however. They'll tell you a lot of the same things I'm telling you.

[ 12-17-2002, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Hmm, so it violated the principles of mutually assured destruction then? Rather like this anti-ballistic missile shield the USA is building? In that case, Is China For example justified in attacking the USA since this anti missile shield could put them in a situation where they could launch their missiles and then destroy the incoming ones.

The Americans are still building it? News to me. "Star Wars" was cancelled.

The USSR has already built an ABM system, in violation of many treaties I might add. They just haven't put it in orbit. (It's around moscow) Diplomats negotiated a compromise their, but it's potentially destabilizing too.

FWIW, the situation right now is actually worse with the power vacuum left by the USSR when it collapsed, that's one reason they considered developing Star Wars. To counter terrorist threats, not national ones.

I have to get to work, if I remember any of my points I'll get back this afternoon.

EDIT> Now the reason "Star Wars" wouldn't have been destablizing is because no defence system was perfect, there is no way to stop 100% of the missiles being shot at the US. In fact, it's likely at least 50% of the missiles would get through (assuming the system even achieved 100% coverage, which isn't a given)

Where the SDI comes in is it introduces UNCERTAINTY. No one power could be 100% certain of achieving a "kill" on the US infrastructure and defence network, this would make an attack that much less likely. On the flipside, if the US tried a first-strike, they couldn't be sure of surviving the retaliatory strike.

Now, of course since SDI will now never come to pass, this is all theoretical.

[ 12-17-2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: Did nothing of the sort. My kneejerk reaction was to filter you. Everything I stated was FACT, whether you like to hear it or not. Refusing to listen to factual information, no matter how defacing it may seem, is just as racist as taking a one-sided view of things. I just thought I'd mention, I know some arabs...I won't call them friends, but I'm on good terms with them. They are very nice people, and I like them a lot. They are not muslim, however. They'll tell you a lot of the same things I'm telling you.

Alright then. Provide us with these "facts", as you call them. Back them up with trustworthy statistics, with irrefutable evidence. Convince us. I dare you to. Show me why *I* am a racist according to your definitions for not believing your ridiculous claims you even call "facts" about all muslims being violent warmongers, or whatever you were trying to say. Make sure you check a dictionary for the word 'racist' while you're at it.
And "Ask all of my friends in the pub, they think it's true as well. So it *has* to be a fact, right?" doesn't count.

[ 12-17-2002, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

For all of you who are uninformed or silly enough to believe current rhetoric, Star Wars never existed and no one can "Prove" even one dollar was spent on it. All anyone can do is show that X number of Billions of dollars were allocated for a "Black" project, and that the Pentagon and Reagan used the press to tout a super expensive, futuristic missile defense system that forced the soviets to counter...whcih caused the economic collapse of the soviet union and the end of the cold war.

Star Wars was a ruse, some moeny was actually spent to produce nifty sound bytes for the press, what came out of Star wars was ...Nothing, the money actually went into black projects, and what came out? try the F-117A night Hawk and the B2 Spirit. It bugs me that the press today (just this morning on the radio) complains about billions spent on Star Wars. Get a grip people, the money was spent but it wasn't spent on that missile defense system (at least not the bulk of it). On the other hand, it was sucha great ruse, that it is still confounding people even after the ruse was exposed publicly>

[Cloudbringer]

OK, in case you didn't note the last time I said it, keep this civil! That means no trashing the other people who post here. Disagree all you like, but I don't want to see any more namecalling. PERIOD. You were having a pretty good discussion and some disagreements that were being dealt with in a reasonable manner. The namecalling is unnecessary. Argue the points being made and make your point intelligently. Labeling other parties in the conversation is a cheap debate tactic.

[ 12-17-2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

[Attalus]

Agreed, Cloudmoderator. Namecalling (I guess that is "flaming") Does no good, merely angers the other person, inciting them to retaliate. (Is that "Flamebaiting" or "trolling"? What is the difference? Wish I knew more about Net jargon.) MagiK, how about the anti-missle systems that we hear about being tested? Is that SDI? (don't like the term, "Star Wars") Or something else? We would be insane not to be looking into this.