That last sentence gives me a headache trying to figure out what it
might possibly mean? Can you give any hints?
One of the problems might be the use of words in ways that their basic
meaning doesn't support. An example would be your equating
"unilaterally disarming" with "suspend development of missile defense
systems and new weapon systems". You must not have any idea of exactly
what unilateral disarmament means.
Let me type this out more simply:
1. We have no position from which to negotiate with Saudi Arabia to get them
to produce more oil. i.e., if they say "no", we have no position of
strength from which to say, "OK, then we will do x, y, or z" such as
developing our own reserves because the Saudis know that the enviros here
would rather see people freeze to death than have a caribou have to skirt
an oil derrick in ANWR.
2. This forms a good analog for the same kinds of things the left wants to
do to our defense posture. For example, Obama talks a good game
about "tough diplomacy" (whatever the @#%$ that means) and talking to our
enemies with "tough negotiations". But, when the person on the other side
of the table says, "No, we still want to see you infidels killed and Israel
pushed into the sea, and by the way, we have xx nuclear missiles, so don't
you dare do anything to us", if we have nothing from which to respond --
for example, "your xx missiles are meaningless because they can be
destroyed before they leave your territories", we have no position from
which to bargain.
3. Obama has already stated his desire to place us in the same position
defensively as we currently stand regarding energy. He has pledged to stop
developing anti-missile defenses. Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country removing
a part of its ability to defend itself without any equivalent concessions
from other countries. It may not be the "unilateral disarmament" that you
equate only to the US destroying its own nuclear arsenal without others
doing the same, but the words are being used correctly. He has further
stated the desire to stop development of all new weapon systems. This is
not going to provide a position of strength from which to negotiate in the
See above. What do *you* think unilateral disarmament means? Would
particularly like to see your definition in light of the idea that we
would, unilaterally, stop development of the ability to defend ourselves
from missile attack. Please explain how this is not unilateral disarmament
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
While agreeing with part of your position, this is not the whole truth
and therefore it is (in my opinion) totally and absolutely false. You
are advocating that we spend ourselves to death the same way we forced
the Soviet Union to its death - spend and spend on useless (in the end)
technology and weapons.
For instance, we may eventually be able to shoot down a few missiles
lobbed in our direction, but what would be needed is a guarantee that
none come through such a missile defense system. I think that history
has proven that offensive strategies always win over defensive ones
(castles, Maginot line, Atlantic Wall). If too many missiles would come
at the same time, or a single missile would come from the "wrong"
direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to resortto
retaliatory strikes. Are we ready for such sacrifices on our own soil
and on theirs?
Some kind of early warning system would be fine with me. Also, as far as
monitoring and manning such installation(s), that can be done in
cooperation with others (Russians, Chinese) so we let them know that they
should be concerned about terrorist attacks as well. But the operative
mentality has to be one of brutality, with disregard for civilian
casualties, just like they don't care about that in attacking us.
Unilateral disarmament is to give up (disarm) what one
already has. It is not the same thing as eschewing
expansion of one's arms.
Personally, I favor the development of new weapons of
the sort we may need to use.
Or just sent into an American port on board a cargo ship.
That is why Iran must not be allowed to build an atomic
bomb. Missile defense, no matter how effective,
would never be sufficient. Preventing them from
obtaining a bomb is necessary.
That is why fissile material world-wide needs to be
secured and kept secure. Sadly, people in politics,
the press and the media who even know what fissile
material is, are few and far between, much rarer than
those who voice strong opinions on the subject.
For instance, recall that the Bush administration 'warned'
us that if Iraq were to obtain sufficient fissile, they
could build an atomic bomb in as little as n months
(typical values of n ranged from 6 to 12) .
Why didn't anybody ask them the obvious question:
"Why so long?". If *I* had sufficient fissile material I
could build an atom bomb in less than 6 months.
Obtaining the fissile material is the only technologically
difficult part of making an atomic bomb.
Plainly they were choosing their time frame based
on what would seem credible to the ignorant, and
few people pointed that out.
"Useless"? The Soviet Union didn't think so. That's why they objected so
strenuously to our development of a ballistic-missile defense system: because
they knew that it *would* work. They were developing one of their own.
"Useless"? Contemporary Russian leadership doesn't think so either. That's why
they object so strenuously to our placement of missile defense systems in
Poland and the Czech Republic.
"Useless"? Anybody who's been paying any attention to the testing the Navy has
conducted recently *knows* that's not so.
Nonsense. A defense system doesn't have to be 100% effective, or even close to
that, to serve as an effective deterrent. If it's accurate enough to preserve
our ability to retaliate, it's sufficient for that purpose. And obviously any
defense system that stops even *one* missile is better than having none at
And that is an improvement over having no defensive system at all, exactly
Probably not -- which is the most obvious reason of all for building and
deploying a defensive system. DUH!
But not a system that might actually, you know, *stop* one of those incoming
Whose side are you on, anyway?
You have a rich and vivid fantasy life. To whit:
1) The threat of those weapons caused *The Soviets* to spend themselves
into oblivion. There is no one who has remotely the same
capability to threaten us such that we'd have to do the same thing.
2) The overwhelming expenses incurred by the US are NOT military.
They are the non-Constitutional entitlement do-gooding that
fouls our Federal budget and agenda.
Sheer nonsense. Do you fail to wear your seatbelt because there
are some kinds of accidents where it does not save your life.
As opposed to what? Doing nothing and hoping they never attack anyway?
Do you keep your house door unlocked as proof of your good will and thereby
keep robbers out?
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A few nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels a day
from that field.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in equilibrium.
You don't believe your friends <grin>?
Conservation should be first and renewable energy second. Developing coal
strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of greenhouse
gases), nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of nuclear waste),
and developing new oil and gas fifth.
Just my opinion.
Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil, instead
put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and other
speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory differences
between global stock markets.
I agree with most, but I always cackle when these guys list $4
trillion (or mroe) in losses to foreign trade because of NAFTA. Sure,
we've lost mroe than we've gain to Mexico, and probably to Canada. But
most of that money went to the Pacific Rim, which is not part of the
North American Free Trade Agreement, or, at least, wasn't the last
time I looked. Christ alone knows what our lunatic Prez is claiming
Some pundits speculate that it was the underlying cause for getting
rid of Sadam; he wanted to switch to the Euro.
The same bunch thinks that the sabre-rattling with Iran is all about
If oil no longer holds up the USD, the US economy collapses.
It's always the same: Follow the money!
The huge tax breaks for the rich is just another transfer of wealth
before the corps starts to rot.
That's pretty much what Spencer Tracy said about Katherine Hepburn.
I didn't believe him, either.
My favorite Spotted Owl sentiments are:
"I love the Spotted Owl - Boiled, Broiled, Fried..." (T Shirt)
"Spotted Owl - The Other White Meat." (A variation of which may turn
up in the presidential race)
"Spotted Owl - It's What's For Dinner."
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.