Welcome to PatsFans.com

One again Democrat's prior policies put us at risk today.

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInMaine, Jul 7, 2006.

  1. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Notably silent on the North Korean story are those Democrats who worked to stall Reagan's "Star Wars" inititiative. One of the of the first things President Bush did when he took office was to retreat from the ABM Treaty signed with Russia that forbade our deployment of a missile defense system. Currently this program has about a 50/50 chance of shooting down in incoming missile. How safer would we be today if 10-15 years of development of this program were not lost while the Democrats stonewalled it's advancement?

    An interesting read can be found here.
    http://www.examiner.com/a-168837~Editorial__Where_are__Star_Wars__critics_now_.html
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Probably no safer as Al Qaeda showed us. If you can't attack us one way, you can attack us another way. If we're going to spend zillions, let's spend it on fighting poverty and global warming, not on creating a new arms race. That said, too bad Bush didn't do anything about North Korea for 6 years. He didn't even press them on existing treaties. I also doubt North Korea would attack us unless the whole nation decided to commit suicide. As others have said, NK flexes its muscle when it wants something from the west. A column in the Globe said what they really want is a communications satellite, which if we provided we could also secure.
  3. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Still in a pre-911 mindset I see.

    Do you think that a trillion dollars in missile defense will protect us from a genetically modified strain of smallpox?

    Clueless
  4. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,209
    Likes Received:
    61
    Ratings:
    +97 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    The partisanship on this board has reached a new low. I'm not talking only about this thread but some others I've just read.

    Yes, indeed we can get hit in many different ways. But, for the love of god, do you people stop to think what one (1) nuke missle can do to a city?

    Hundreds of thousand of Americans and illegal's dead!

    Do you people have any idea what one (1) nuke missle hiting a major city would do to our economy? Billions upon billions of dollars. Not to mention the lost tax revenue.

    If we have the technology we owe it to our children, grandkids, and great grandkids to deploy it as soon as possible. I don't give a big fart who is in the White House when this happens. I don't care if it's land based, water based, space based or comes out of George Clooneys ass.

    Let the Dem's and Rep's stand on some lawn and pat each others asses. I DON"T CARE. Just get it done.

    And, we can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can do missle defense and defend against other threats. Because, without national security, all the social programs and pork barrel projects won't mean anything.

    And on another thread there is partisan bickering over stopping a terrorsist plot or two.

    DO YOU THINK THOSE BASTARDS CARE IF YOU ARE DEM'S OR REP'S????? THEY WANT TO KILL YOU. THAT"S RIGHT, YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.

    Why can't we as Americans be happy that these plots were stopped instead of getting into political pissing contest?:eek: :eek: :eek:
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    PATSNUTme, the lesson of the past is that an arms race makes no one feel safer. That's why both Republicans and Democrats were for the various missile treaties. Now, if we start to develop new military technologies, the other side will have to respond in kind, and the arms race starts all over. After all, if we have 2000 nuclear war heads and so does Russia, what do you think Russia will do if we develop a way to stop them. North Korea won't attack us because the response would be devastating to them. The alternative approach to your way is called DIPLOMACY. That's what has kept America reasonably safe right up until Bush II came to office.
  6. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Its ridiculous to compare Reagan's pie in the sky plan to shoot down hundreds or thousands of missiles to the current efforts at containing the handful that lil' Kim's got. Especially since most of Kim's missiles failed miserably. Heck a boy scout with a slingshot would have been a pretty effective deterrent for his tests.

    and that 50% accuracy figure is a joke. Funny how right up 'till the shot hit the fan we were hopeless at hitting any ICBM. We didn't do 50% against Scuds in the Gulf War and now we're batting .500 against supersonic missiles that descend on us from space? What put us over the top? Windows XP?
  7. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,209
    Likes Received:
    61
    Ratings:
    +97 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    That is old cold war thinking. Russia is not the threat that this defense system would be for.

    Both Russia and ourselves know that a nuke exchange between us is MAD. That should be the deterrant enough and if isn't we have a half hour to kiss our asses goodbye.

    Now, forward thinking. NK, Iran, and some terrorist group, that is the threat. If we can stop one (1) incoming from those people then the system has paid for itself. We have to think about what the threats are now and in the future and defend ourselves.

    How could any president address the nation and tell us we might have been able to shoot the missle down but it could have been too expensive?

    I'd rather spend my tax bucks on that than some Senator or Congressmans pork project.

    Do you really think the NK or an Islamic extemist group cares what our response is going to be? If you do, you don't understand evil. I'm not a church going, deeply religous guy. I've just seen too many things in my life not to think that there is evil.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2006
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    PATSNUTme, you're saying Russia and China would trust us if we built an effective deterrent to their current weapons? I don't think so. And you're saying that NK or Iran would fire one of their nukes at us even though we have 2000 that we could fire in response? I don't think so.

    Besides, as AAB said, the star wars project would compel other nations to develop other alternatives. Did you know that Al Qaeda managed to kill 3000 New Yorkers without the use of nuclear weapons? Again, DIPLOMACY is a better solution, even carrot and stick diplomacy. Your way will simply lead to another arms race.

    Yes, there are evil people in the world, like George Bush, but they are reigned in to some degree by strong, open government. Through diplomacy and economic incentives, we can reign in evil. Through intelligence, we can reign in nutcases. The bigger danger, as our intelligence services have pointed out, are home grown nutcases. I don't see what star wars would do if a home grown nutcase got hold of a suitcase nuclear bomb. Better build a bomb shelter now, PATSNUTme. It's sca-a-a-ary out there!
  9. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,209
    Likes Received:
    61
    Ratings:
    +97 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    How can anyone have a real "discussion" on this board with pap like that. I expect it from NEM.

    Goerge Bush is evil???? That is absurd and not worth further dicussion.

    I didn't like Clinton very much but I would never call him evil.

    Never mind. Looks like training camp is starting early for me.

    Actually the name of this forum should be "Patisan Political Rants".
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    PATSNUTme, Bush has made the world a more dangerous place. There's evidence, which you choose not to accept, that he launched the war on Iraq by lying to the American people. That's pretty evil in my opinion. As Texas governor, he used the death penalty more than anyone else, even in cases where the religious right pleaded with him not to execute. That's pretty evil. Bush is no Osama bin Laden, but he's a very bad man. Take your blinders off.
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,572
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +107 / 7 / -10


    You might try checking out some of OBL tapes, Diplomacy is irrelevant to these folks.

    Diplomacy only works with sane people. Ghandi was able to use passive resistanence with the British because he understood they were rational and civilized (mostly). Had he tried the same approach with Germany or the Soviet Union (or Iraq under Saddam) he would have ended up with a bullet in the head and thrown in a mass grave.

    The response has to be calibrated to the situation one size does not fit all.

    I am dissapointed that you would think Bush 'evil' that starts putting you on the lunatic fringe.
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    patsfan13, I agree that it's probably not possible to negotiate with bin Laden, but it must be possible to work towards aleviating the problems that make people turn to him. In my view, he gets most of us power from three sources, similar to sources found in any country: true psychopathic criminals (like Zarqawi) who can be reined in through an effective state with good policing, people who are mentally ill (who can be reined in by a functioning state), and people who want something (such as power, money, etc.), who can be negotiated with. In bin Laden's case, I think this has to be part of an overall carrot and stick strategy that does not let him off the hook.

    I think Bush is evil in the same way that some righties think Ted Kennedy is evil. I think he's emotionally stunted, and thought so ever since reading this years ago:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2131451/

    The reporter in question was Tucker Carlson—hardly a hostile figure—and Carlson reported it in Talk magazine in 1999. It was about Karla Faye Tucker, a convicted murderer whose execution Bush, as governor, had refused to stay. Here is what Carlson wrote (as quoted in National Review, another source hardly known to be hostile toward Republicans):

    In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.

    Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'"

    "What was her answer?" I wonder.

    "Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,572
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +107 / 7 / -10

    The way to allieve the conditions that produced Bin Laden and Zawahiri is to change the game. The problem is cultural, in the Arab world there is almist no demoracy (and the self determination that implies0. and no economic freedom. Without that the Whabbist will win the day, and use Jews and the west as the scapecoats for their cultural poverty. Remember these guys both came from wealthy families. This is a long term problem. I'm not sure we will solve it, but we have no alternative.

    Here are some encouraging voices from the Arab world however.

    http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD119906

    For a Suadi columnist to critize Hamas for terrorsit acts (even in a Kuiwati newspaper) is shocking to me.

    Here is another linked from this site (they translate OpED's interviews and ndew stories from Arabic to English, interesting (and often disturbing) stuff.

    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2005
  14. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,785
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +77 / 5 / -7

    #37 Jersey

    I have no sympathy what so ever for someone who murdered two people with a pick axe, jailhouse conversion or not.
  15. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    The issue comes down to whether or not today we are more safer with a system that is beginning to function as opposed to having no system at all. I think we are.
  16. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Missile defense is a reactive position as opposed to a pro-active one. If a real adversary were to launch say, 20 missiles at US cities and there was even 75% efficiency, we would still be hit with 5 nuclear warheads. Unacceptable results, IMO. Now if we concentrated our efforts towards complete nuclear weapons reduction to zero worldwide, and made a real effort in conjunction with all the nuclear powers, that would seem more effective. Wasn't there ever a time when there was actually aspirations toward this goal? I seem to remember the administrations of the 70's actually proposing the goal of nuclear weapons elimination, with world consensus in agreement. Now we have our government working on new and more powerful systems that may be 50 years more adanced than our closest rivals. I don't understand why we've gone from point A to point B. In life I've learned it's always easier to be proactive than reactive.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>