On 5/20/2022 8:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>> And after Russia controls the entirety of Europe then what?
>>>
>>> Not our war. Europe needs to defend itself.
>>
>> Well, there's Alaska... if the US does not want to return it to
>> Russia peacefully.
>
> The ironic thing about that is the reason Russia sold Alaska to
> the United States in the first place was to poke Britian in the eye
> and quash British ambitions in the Oregon territory.

Well, that and the fact that they couldn't defend or hold it if the UK
wanted to take it.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 5/20/2022 12:55 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/19/2022 10:55 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 5/19/2022 7:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:31:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 17:52:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 11:41 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Not that there aren't Americans on the fringe in *both* parties
>>>>>>>> that seem
>>>>>>>> to think George Washington was right, and America should stay
>>>>>>>> out of the
>>>>>>>> business of defending freedom beyond its own borders. One would
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> that the experience of two World Wars and the Cold War would have
>>>>>>>> shown why this is mistaken... but other inferences can be drawn, I
>>>>>>>> suppose, from a different viewpoint.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Why Would US Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://buchanan.org/blog/why-would-us-give-a-war-guarantee-to-finland-159385
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War
>>>>>>> ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten the
>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>> States. As for any threat that it poses to its European
>>>>>>> neighbors, let
>>>>>>> them deal with it.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then the Russians start digesting the EU and we're back there but
>>>>>> without the forward basing and commonality of systems and coordinated
>>>>>> doctrine that we have now.
>>>>>
>>>>> We already fought WWI and WWII in Europe.  We, the USA, need to sit
>>>>> this
>>>>> one out and let those people defend themselves.
>>>>
>>>> And after Russia controls the entirety of Europe then what?
>>>
>>> You do know that the USA is broke, right ?  With the costs of Social
>>> Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spiraling out of control, there is
>>> no money to make war with.
>>>
>>> BTW, are we talking about the same Russia that is getting its butt
>>> kicked by Ukraine ?  Would Poland, France, and Germany not push
>>> Russia off the side of the continent ?
>>>
>> Without the US nuclear umbrella?
>
> The UK and France have many nuclear weapons including ICBMs in
> submarines.  The UK even has several modified Trident submarines but
> they use their own boomer sub.
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service
>
> I am not sure about Germany.
>
> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/11/19/nuclear-weapons-debate-in-germany-touches-a-raw-nato-nerve/
>
>
> I doubt Poland has nuclear weapons.
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10682921/Poland-says-open-putting-nuclear-weapons-soil-leaders-American-troops.html
>
>
> Israel got their nuclear breeder reactors (they have three) from the
> French.  Not sure if they got their nuclear weapons from the French.
> Israel has six German built Dolphin submarines that carry 12 ??? nuclear
> ICBMS each.
>
The UK and France together have a small fraction of the nuclear capacity
of the US. Not enough to deter a determined Russia. They could hit
some Russian targets and become glow-in-the-dark glass parking lots in
return.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 5/20/2022 9:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 17:51:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2022 5:31 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:t66e5t$43v$3@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 5/19/2022 4:19 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>> On 5/19/2022 11:11 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/19/2022 10:56 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:21:46 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2022 4:29 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:t63no6$c1e$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea why GWB moved troops into Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Couldn't possibly have had anything to do with them
>>>>>>>>> providing a safe haven for the Taliban, eh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> B-52s at 40,000 feet and a few CIA officers on the ground
>>>>>>>> destroyed the warlords in Afghanistan after 9/11.  That
>>>>>>>> worked fine, we should have stayed with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, Osama Bin Laden turned up in Pakistan later and
>>>>>>>> we took care of him and his family.  And we did not invade
>>>>>>>> Pakistan nor did we overturn its government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course not, they have nuclear weapons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Pakistan does not have ICBMs.  That is an even more
>>>>>> exclusive club.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Only because the people they most want to use them on are just
>>>>> on the other side of the mountain.
>>>>
>>>> And the Pakistani nuclear weapons start at two tons and go to
>>>> ten tons.
>>>> Not very ICBM friendly.
>>>>
>>> ICBMs with that kind of payload have been built.
>>
>> By Pakistan ??? I highly doubt it.
>
> What leads you to believe that it is a difficult problem?

Because their huge neighbor would destroy any facility designing and
building ICBMs the minute they found out about it. Those two have
active border skirmishes daily.

Lynn

On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 17:02:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 03:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 06:11:13 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:21:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
> >>
> >> > You do realize that Bill Clinton supported the war declaration and has
> >> > stated that Bush went to war out of a genuine belief that large quantities
> >> > of weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.
> >> I didn't know that.
> >>
> >> I simply thought that while the CIA told Bush that it believed that Saddam
> >> Hussein _probably_ didn't have any WMDs, they had also admitted they
> >> weren't 100% sure of that. Given that Saddam Hussein _was_ known to be
> >> obstructing the work of UN weapons inspectors at the time - I saw it on CNN
> >> just before Bush ordered the invasion - Bush made the decision that even a
> >> slight risk of Saddam Hussein having WMDs was an intolerable risk.
> >>
> >> Which is certainly a very reasonable decision, say, from the point of view of
> >> anyone living in Israel.
> >
> >My take is that Bill Clinton was onboard to slaughter
> >foreign Muslims needlessly, or just about any other
> >foreigners, when his political career called for him to
> >take that stance. As are most U.S. politicians.
> >
> >In this, I think that I know better than Bill Clinton, morally.
> >But if I was in line maybe to be President, I guess I'd
> >be weighing the importance of having moral principles,
> >versus not having principles but being President.
> >I hope I'd still stick to principles. But what shall it profit
> >a man? Plenty.
> Bill Clinton left office and politics on January 20, 2001. He wasn't
> "in line to be President", he had already served the two terms that
> were allowed him by the Constitution.

Did he leave politics? I gather his wife didn't.
And "slaughtering foreign Muslims needlessly"
didn't start in 2001. And I said that if /I/ was in
line to be President then I would face real temptation
to move to a less "not slaughtering foreign Muslims
needlessly" stance than I'm taking here. Because
slaughtering foreign Muslims needlessly is popular.
I say needlessly, do you know that lots of them
possess valuable oil reserves?

On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 06:11:13 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:21:35 PM UT C-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>
> > You do realize that Bill Clinton supported the war declaration and has
> > stated that Bush went to war out of a genuine belief that large quantities
> > of weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.
> I didn't know that.
>
> I simply thought that while the CIA told Bush that it believed that Saddam
> Hussein _probably_ didn't have any WMDs, they had also admitted they
> weren't 100% sure of that. Given that Saddam Hussein _was_ known to be
> obstructing the work of UN weapons inspectors at the time - I saw it on CNN
> just before Bush ordered the invasion - Bush made the decision that even a
> slight risk of Saddam Hussein having WMDs was an intolerable risk.
>
> Which is certainly a very reasonable decision, say, from the point of view of
> anyone living in Israel.

I suppose none of us know for sure that you yourself
don't possess weapons of mass destruction, and maybe
the CIA should start looking into that.

On 5/20/2022 3:04 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 5/20/2022 12:55 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 5/19/2022 10:55 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2022 7:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:31:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 17:52:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 11:41 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Not that there aren't Americans on the fringe in *both* parties
>>>>>>>>> that seem
>>>>>>>>> to think George Washington was right, and America should stay
>>>>>>>>> out of the
>>>>>>>>> business of defending freedom beyond its own borders. One would
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> that the experience of two World Wars and the Cold War would have
>>>>>>>>> shown why this is mistaken... but other inferences can be drawn, I
>>>>>>>>> suppose, from a different viewpoint.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Why Would US Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://buchanan.org/blog/why-would-us-give-a-war-guarantee-to-finland-159385
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War
>>>>>>>> ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten the
>>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>>> States. As for any threat that it poses to its European
>>>>>>>> neighbors, let
>>>>>>>> them deal with it.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And then the Russians start digesting the EU and we're back there
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> without the forward basing and commonality of systems and
>>>>>>> coordinated
>>>>>>> doctrine that we have now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We already fought WWI and WWII in Europe.  We, the USA, need to
>>>>>> sit this
>>>>>> one out and let those people defend themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> And after Russia controls the entirety of Europe then what?
>>>>
>>>> You do know that the USA is broke, right ?  With the costs of Social
>>>> Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spiraling out of control, there is
>>>> no money to make war with.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, are we talking about the same Russia that is getting its butt
>>>> kicked by Ukraine ?  Would Poland, France, and Germany not push
>>>> Russia off the side of the continent ?
>>>>
>>> Without the US nuclear umbrella?
>>
>> The UK and France have many nuclear weapons including ICBMs in
>> submarines.  The UK even has several modified Trident submarines but
>> they use their own boomer sub.
>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service
>>
>> I am not sure about Germany.
>>
>> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/11/19/nuclear-weapons-debate-in-germany-touches-a-raw-nato-nerve/
>>
>>
>> I doubt Poland has nuclear weapons.
>>
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10682921/Poland-says-open-putting-nuclear-weapons-soil-leaders-American-troops.html
>>
>>
>> Israel got their nuclear breeder reactors (they have three) from the
>> French.  Not sure if they got their nuclear weapons from the French.
>> Israel has six German built Dolphin submarines that carry 12 ???
>> nuclear ICBMS each.
>>
> The UK and France together have a small fraction of the nuclear capacity
> of the US.  Not enough to deter a determined Russia.  They could hit
> some Russian targets and become glow-in-the-dark glass parking lots in
> return.

Are you assuming that a significant number of Russian ICBMs can be used
? Recent issues with their army and air force equipment suggest that
the Russians have serious maintenance issues.

Lynn

On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-20 12:01 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-05-20, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>> On 2022-05-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:24 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 3:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a very expansive answer. Why not ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's send your kids then. Mine went to Iraq already. Twice. He was
>>>>>> smart enough to refuse to volunteer to go to Afghanistan after that. He
>>>>>> and his First Sergeant had a four hour talk about his lack of
>>>>>> volunteering skills during that talk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn, Iraq had nothing to do with NATO. That was the US GOP that invaded IRAQ
>>>>> specifically Dick and George after lying through their teeth about the
>>>>> causes belli.
>>>>
>>>> You do realize that Bill Clinton supported the war declaration and has
>>>> stated that Bush went to war out of a genuine belief that large quantities
>>>> of weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.
>>>
>>> Bill Clinton wasn't president and didn't make any of the decisions leading
>>> to the ill-considered and arguably illegal incursions into either Iraq
>>> or Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> What he said, or not, is an irrelevant diversion. Bush lied, and he
>>> knew it was a lie.
>>
>> I see. So the opinion of an ex-President who had access to the classified
>> information about WMDs and Iraq for almost a decade is irrelevant compared
>> to the opinion of a random person on the internet. Silly me...
>
> Sorry, but he had access to what the administration at that time wanted
> to let him know.

I didn't say Clinton had access in 2002. My "almost a decade" was what
Hussein did (rather, what the intelligence agencies thought he did!)
with WMDs post Gulf War. That was just short of 10 years when Bush
took over. Note that Clinton launched a massive bombing campaign in 1998
because of WMDs (as well as bombing other places in Iraq at least
once a week afterwards while enforcing the no-fly rules.)

Chris

On 2022-05-17 4:52 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/16/2022 11:41 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> ...
>> Not that there aren't Americans on the fringe in *both* parties that seem
>> to think George Washington was right, and America should stay out of the
>> business of defending freedom beyond its own borders. One would think
>> that the experience of two World Wars and the Cold War would have
>> shown why this is mistaken... but other inferences can be drawn, I
>> suppose, from a different viewpoint.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> “Why Would US Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?”
>
> https://buchanan.org/blog/why-would-us-give-a-war-guarantee-to-finland-159385
>
>
> “A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War
> ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten the United
> States. As for any threat that it poses to its European neighbors, let
> them deal with it.”
>
> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>
> Lynn

Spoken like Charles Lindbergh.

On 2022-05-17 5:57 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/17/2022 6:24 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 5/17/2022 3:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2022 11:41 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Not that there aren't Americans on the fringe in *both* parties that
>>>> seem
>>>> to think George Washington was right, and America should stay out of
>>>> the
>>>> business of defending freedom beyond its own borders. One would think
>>>> that the experience of two World Wars and the Cold War would have
>>>> shown why this is mistaken... but other inferences can be drawn, I
>>>> suppose, from a different viewpoint.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>>
>>> “Why Would US Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?”
>>>
>>> https://buchanan.org/blog/why-would-us-give-a-war-guarantee-to-finland-159385
>>>
>>>
>>> “A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War
>>> ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten the
>>> United States. As for any threat that it poses to its European
>>> neighbors, let them deal with it.”
>>>
>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> That is a very expansive answer.  Why not ?
>
> Let's send your kids then.  Mine went to Iraq already.  Twice.  He was
> smart enough to refuse to volunteer to go to Afghanistan after that.  He
> and his First Sergeant had a four hour talk about his lack of
> volunteering skills during that talk.
>
> He paid for that by getting his promotion to Corporal (USMC) from Lance
> Corporal delayed for a year, the day after he finished his four year
> active duty.  By promoting him to non-commissioned officer, they can now
> call him up for wartime duty until he is 45.  He is now 38.
>
> After his four years of inactive reserve duty, he was activated and had
> to explain to a Marine Corps General why he was not reupping with the
> Corps.  Marine Corp Generals do not readily take no for answer.  His
> answer was two of his buddies were killed in Iraq.  He had to shoot the
> Iraqi soldier who killed his buddy in their FOB (green on blue incident).

Note that neither of those conflicts and the ongoing practice of blowing
up random chunks of the middle east has nothing to to with coming to aid
of any American ally.

On 2022-05-20 1:54 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-05-20 12:01 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-20, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>> On 2022-05-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:24 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 3:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a very expansive answer. Why not ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's send your kids then. Mine went to Iraq already. Twice. He was
>>>>>>> smart enough to refuse to volunteer to go to Afghanistan after that. He
>>>>>>> and his First Sergeant had a four hour talk about his lack of
>>>>>>> volunteering skills during that talk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn, Iraq had nothing to do with NATO. That was the US GOP that invaded IRAQ
>>>>>> specifically Dick and George after lying through their teeth about the
>>>>>> causes belli.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that Bill Clinton supported the war declaration and has
>>>>> stated that Bush went to war out of a genuine belief that large quantities
>>>>> of weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Clinton wasn't president and didn't make any of the decisions leading
>>>> to the ill-considered and arguably illegal incursions into either Iraq
>>>> or Afghanistan.
>>>>
>>>> What he said, or not, is an irrelevant diversion. Bush lied, and he
>>>> knew it was a lie.
>>>
>>> I see. So the opinion of an ex-President who had access to the classified
>>> information about WMDs and Iraq for almost a decade is irrelevant compared
>>> to the opinion of a random person on the internet. Silly me...
>>
>> Sorry, but he had access to what the administration at that time wanted
>> to let him know.
>
> I didn't say Clinton had access in 2002. My "almost a decade" was what
> Hussein did (rather, what the intelligence agencies thought he did!)
> with WMDs post Gulf War. That was just short of 10 years when Bush
> took over. Note that Clinton launched a massive bombing campaign in 1998
> because of WMDs (as well as bombing other places in Iraq at least
> once a week afterwards while enforcing the no-fly rules.)

Ummmmm.... ...no.

1. The bombing campaign was not by any stretch of the imagination
"massive". It was conducted over just 4 days.

2. The campaign took place not because there was evidence that Iraq had
WMDs, but rather because Iraq was refusing to allow access by UN
inspection teams into certain facilities.

3. Even that was a bit of a sham as several details of the supposed
rationale for the campaign were false. The inspectors weren't kicked out
by Iraq for instance: the US embassy in Iraq suggested they pull out
because of forthcoming US and British airstrikes. Kind of puts the cart
before the horse, don't you think.

4. According to some, the operation was mostly an attempt to destablise
the Iraqi regime and degrade Iraq's ability to defend itself against
anyone in a future conventional war.

'Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst William Arkin contended in his
January 1999 column in The Washington Post that the operation had less
to do with WMD and more to do with destabilizing the Iraqi government.

....

"Only 13 targets [out of 100] on the list are facilities associated with
chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles,"'

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_bombing_of_Iraq>

One more tidbit from there:

'Dr. Brian Jones was the top intelligence analyst on chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons at the Ministry of Defence.[25] He told
BBC Panorama in 2004 that Defence Intelligence Staff in Whitehall did
not have a high degree of confidence any of the facilities identified,
targeted and bombed in Operation Desert Fox were active in producing
weapons of mass destruction.'

So your argument that Clinton had knowledge of the situation is correct
in general...

....but the reality is that what he would have heard is almost the exact
opposite of what you WANT him to have supposedly known.

On 5/20/2022 1:10 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/20/2022 9:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 17:51:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/19/2022 5:31 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:t66e5t$43v$3@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/19/2022 4:19 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/19/2022 11:11 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/19/2022 10:56 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:21:46 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2022 4:29 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:t63no6$c1e$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea why GWB moved troops into Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Couldn't possibly have had anything to do with them
>>>>>>>>>> providing a safe haven for the Taliban, eh?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> B-52s at 40,000 feet and a few CIA officers on the ground
>>>>>>>>> destroyed the warlords in Afghanistan after 9/11.  That
>>>>>>>>> worked fine, we should have stayed with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, Osama Bin Laden turned up in Pakistan later and
>>>>>>>>> we took care of him and his family.  And we did not invade
>>>>>>>>> Pakistan nor did we overturn its government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course not, they have nuclear weapons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Pakistan does not have ICBMs.  That is an even more
>>>>>>> exclusive club.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only because the people they most want to use them on are just
>>>>>> on the other side of the mountain.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the Pakistani nuclear weapons start at two tons and go to
>>>>> ten tons.
>>>>>     Not very ICBM friendly.
>>>>>
>>>> ICBMs with that kind of payload have been built.
>>>
>>> By Pakistan ???  I highly doubt it.
>>
>> What leads you to believe that it is a difficult problem?
>
> Because their huge neighbor would destroy any facility designing and
> building ICBMs the minute they found out about it.  Those two have
> active border skirmishes daily.
>
There is a difference between infantry/artillery skirmishes and send an
airstrike deep into the other country to bomb a facility that is likely
in a populated area. Neither India nor Pakistan are quite ready to piss
of a large section of the rest of the world that way.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 5/20/2022 1:40 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/20/2022 3:04 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 5/20/2022 12:55 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2022 10:55 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/2022 7:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:31:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 17:52:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 11:41 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Not that there aren't Americans on the fringe in *both*
>>>>>>>>>> parties that seem
>>>>>>>>>> to think George Washington was right, and America should stay
>>>>>>>>>> out of the
>>>>>>>>>> business of defending freedom beyond its own borders. One
>>>>>>>>>> would think
>>>>>>>>>> that the experience of two World Wars and the Cold War would have
>>>>>>>>>> shown why this is mistaken... but other inferences can be
>>>>>>>>>> drawn, I
>>>>>>>>>> suppose, from a different viewpoint.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “Why Would US Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://buchanan.org/blog/why-would-us-give-a-war-guarantee-to-finland-159385
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold
>>>>>>>>> War
>>>>>>>>> ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten
>>>>>>>>> the United
>>>>>>>>> States. As for any threat that it poses to its European
>>>>>>>>> neighbors, let
>>>>>>>>> them deal with it.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And then the Russians start digesting the EU and we're back
>>>>>>>> there but
>>>>>>>> without the forward basing and commonality of systems and
>>>>>>>> coordinated
>>>>>>>> doctrine that we have now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We already fought WWI and WWII in Europe.  We, the USA, need to
>>>>>>> sit this
>>>>>>> one out and let those people defend themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And after Russia controls the entirety of Europe then what?
>>>>>
>>>>> You do know that the USA is broke, right ?  With the costs of
>>>>> Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spiraling out of control,
>>>>> there is no money to make war with.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, are we talking about the same Russia that is getting its butt
>>>>> kicked by Ukraine ?  Would Poland, France, and Germany not push
>>>>> Russia off the side of the continent ?
>>>>>
>>>> Without the US nuclear umbrella?
>>>
>>> The UK and France have many nuclear weapons including ICBMs in
>>> submarines.  The UK even has several modified Trident submarines but
>>> they use their own boomer sub.
>>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service
>>>
>>> I am not sure about Germany.
>>>
>>> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/11/19/nuclear-weapons-debate-in-germany-touches-a-raw-nato-nerve/
>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt Poland has nuclear weapons.
>>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10682921/Poland-says-open-putting-nuclear-weapons-soil-leaders-American-troops.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Israel got their nuclear breeder reactors (they have three) from the
>>> French.  Not sure if they got their nuclear weapons from the French.
>>> Israel has six German built Dolphin submarines that carry 12 ???
>>> nuclear ICBMS each.
>>>
>> The UK and France together have a small fraction of the nuclear
>> capacity of the US.  Not enough to deter a determined Russia.  They
>> could hit some Russian targets and become glow-in-the-dark glass
>> parking lots in return.
>
> Are you assuming that a significant number of Russian ICBMs can be used
> ?  Recent issues with their army and air force equipment suggest that
> the Russians have serious maintenance issues.
>
A _significant_ number, yes, probably. A high enough probability that
enough could be to assume it. All of them, probably not, but then
Russia wouldn't _need_ all of them in a "take out France/UK" scenario.

I will also point out that neither France or the UK has enough nuclear
weapons to be involved in the SALT treaties.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 5/20/2022 1:20 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 06:11:13 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:21:35 PM UT C-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>
>>> You do realize that Bill Clinton supported the war declaration and has
>>> stated that Bush went to war out of a genuine belief that large quantities
>>> of weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.
>> I didn't know that.
>>
>> I simply thought that while the CIA told Bush that it believed that Saddam
>> Hussein _probably_ didn't have any WMDs, they had also admitted they
>> weren't 100% sure of that. Given that Saddam Hussein _was_ known to be
>> obstructing the work of UN weapons inspectors at the time - I saw it on CNN
>> just before Bush ordered the invasion - Bush made the decision that even a
>> slight risk of Saddam Hussein having WMDs was an intolerable risk.
>>
>> Which is certainly a very reasonable decision, say, from the point of view of
>> anyone living in Israel.
>
> I suppose none of us know for sure that you yourself
> don't possess weapons of mass destruction, and maybe
> the CIA should start looking into that.

I thought it was already established that Quadibloc itself was a weapon
of mass intellectual destruction.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 4:40:41 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/20/2022 3:04 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > On 5/20/2022 12:55 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> On 5/19/2022 10:55 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >>> On 5/19/2022 7:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:31:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> >>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 17:52:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> >>>>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 11:41 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>> Not that there aren't Americans on the fringe in *both* parties
> >>>>>>>>> that seem
> >>>>>>>>> to think George Washington was right, and America should stay
> >>>>>>>>> out of the
> >>>>>>>>> business of defending freedom beyond its own borders. One would
> >>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>> that the experience of two World Wars and the Cold War would have
> >>>>>>>>> shown why this is mistaken... but other inferences can be drawn, I
> >>>>>>>>> suppose, from a different viewpoint.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> John Savard
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “Why Would US Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://buchanan.org/blog/why-would-us-give-a-war-guarantee-to-finland-159385
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War
> >>>>>>>> ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten the
> >>>>>>>> United
> >>>>>>>> States. As for any threat that it poses to its European
> >>>>>>>> neighbors, let
> >>>>>>>> them deal with it.”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And then the Russians start digesting the EU and we're back there
> >>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>> without the forward basing and commonality of systems and
> >>>>>>> coordinated
> >>>>>>> doctrine that we have now.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We already fought WWI and WWII in Europe. We, the USA, need to
> >>>>>> sit this
> >>>>>> one out and let those people defend themselves.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And after Russia controls the entirety of Europe then what?
> >>>>
> >>>> You do know that the USA is broke, right ? With the costs of Social
> >>>> Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spiraling out of control, there is
> >>>> no money to make war with.
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, are we talking about the same Russia that is getting its butt
> >>>> kicked by Ukraine ? Would Poland, France, and Germany not push
> >>>> Russia off the side of the continent ?
> >>>>
> >>> Without the US nuclear umbrella?
> >>
> >> The UK and France have many nuclear weapons including ICBMs in
> >> submarines. The UK even has several modified Trident submarines but
> >> they use their own boomer sub.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service
> >>
> >> I am not sure about Germany.
> >>
> >> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/11/19/nuclear-weapons-debate-in-germany-touches-a-raw-nato-nerve/
> >>
> >>
> >> I doubt Poland has nuclear weapons.
> >>
> >> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10682921/Poland-says-open-putting-nuclear-weapons-soil-leaders-American-troops.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Israel got their nuclear breeder reactors (they have three) from the
> >> French. Not sure if they got their nuclear weapons from the French.
> >> Israel has six German built Dolphin submarines that carry 12 ???
> >> nuclear ICBMS each.
> >>
> > The UK and France together have a small fraction of the nuclear capacity
> > of the US. Not enough to deter a determined Russia. They could hit
> > some Russian targets and become glow-in-the-dark glass parking lots in
> > return.
> Are you assuming that a significant number of Russian ICBMs can be used
> ? Recent issues with their army and air force equipment suggest that
> the Russians have serious maintenance issues.

With ICBMs, a 'significant number' is 1.

As for whether any still work, pay attention to the news, for crissakes.
https://www.space.com/russia-test-launch-sarmat-icbm

Pt

On Thu, 19 May 2022 09:42:18 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Not to doubt your narrative or your conclusions, but
>
>-- the Taliban was the government in Afghanistan that was shielding
>Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin
>-- Osama was not "the leader of the Taliban"; he was the leader of
>Al-Qaeda
>
>Which doesn't affect your points, but accuracy would be appreciated.

Indeed - no question the Taliban and al Qaeda were allies but that no
more made bin Laden leader of the Taliban than it makes Joe Biden
prime minister of Canada or the UK.

Welcome guest -you bet. Our ruler? Not a chance.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 18:02:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The Ukranians seem to be doing a pretty good job of it so far.
>
>They are doing amazingly well. Much better than I hoped. Of course,
>the country has been totally trashed which may have been Putin's goal
>all along.
>
>Of course, every one has been dumping smart weapons on the Ukrainians.
>My former USMC son loved the fire and forget weapons. The TOW ???
>missile with the half mile of wire on a spool was scary to him as your
>Humvee had to remain perfectly still while it was traveling to the
>target. That made you a target.
>
Yes indeed though at the cost of partially disarming NATO till the
munitions refits come from the factory (more moolah for NATO
munitions companies - still most in the NATO countries feel it's worth
it to keep the Ukrainians able to fight).

I agree they've done a good job with what they have.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:07:09 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> My former USMC son loved the fire and forget
>> weapons. The TOW ??? missile with the half mile of wire on a
>> spool was scary to him as your Humvee had to remain perfectly
>> still while it was traveling to the target. That made you a
>> target.
>>
>Every magic toy has its downside.

Agreed - though the TOW was the #1 NATO tank killer of the 60s and 70s
and most shone in the 1973 Arab Israeli war where the Egyptian tank
assault was largely killed by these but was less effective in cross
canal fighting since those wires didn't work too well over water
barriers (not just the Suez Canal but that was a big one)

Not surprisingly technology has advanced in the nearly 50 years since
1973.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 14:26:56 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/19/2022 11:20 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:31:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 17:52:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 11:41 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Not that there aren't Americans on the fringe in *both* parties
>>>>>>> that seem
>>>>>>> to think George Washington was right, and America should stay out
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> business of defending freedom beyond its own borders. One would think
>>>>>>> that the experience of two World Wars and the Cold War would have
>>>>>>> shown why this is mistaken... but other inferences can be drawn, I
>>>>>>> suppose, from a different viewpoint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Why Would US Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://buchanan.org/blog/why-would-us-give-a-war-guarantee-to-finland-159385
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War
>>>>>> ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten the
>>>>>> United
>>>>>> States. As for any threat that it poses to its European neighbors, let
>>>>>> them deal with it.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then the Russians start digesting the EU and we're back there but
>>>>> without the forward basing and commonality of systems and coordinated
>>>>> doctrine that we have now.
>>>>
>>>> We already fought WWI and WWII in Europe.  We, the USA, need to sit this
>>>> one out and let those people defend themselves.
>>>
>>> And after Russia controls the entirety of Europe then what?
>>
>> Not our war.  Europe needs to defend itself.
>>
>> You know, when we dropped our army strength in West Germany from 300,000
>> ??? to less than 100,000 in 1995, we effectively left anyway.  There is
>> enough left for a good wienie roast and that is it.
>>
>> https://theconversation.com/the-us-military-presence-in-europe-has-been-declining-for-30-years-the-current-crisis-in-ukraine-may-reverse-that-trend-175595
>>
>He said "after" Russia has won that war, when it is preparing to invade
>North America.

I heard it said that even without British + Canadian aid (and the
Canadian combat arm WAS bigger than the US combat personnel for most
of the spring and summer of 1940 - obviously that was a temporary
condition as it was divided between Canada and the UK) Hitler couldn't
have successfully invaded the US if you PAVED the Atlantic and gave
him a choice of invasion sites which he would have to subsequentially
supply from Europe.

That's was the logistics arm is so important for the US (and Canada)
since anywhere the US has needed to fight the troops had to be they've
had to send them there. The US hasn't fought on North American soil
since 1865 after all.

On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:25:52 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>> And after Russia controls the entirety of Europe then what?
>>>
>>> Not our war. Europe needs to defend itself.
>>
>>Well, there's Alaska... if the US does not want to return it to
>>Russia peacefully.
>
>The ironic thing about that is the reason Russia sold Alaska to
>the United States in the first place was to poke Britian in the eye
>and quash British ambitions in the Oregon territory.

Bollocks - while Russia didn't want to sell Alaska to Britain (or
Canada) due to their anger over naval restrictions in the Crimean war
peace treaty, the 49th parallel as the boundary between America west
of the Great Lakes and Britain / Canada was settled on in the 1820s
long before sale of Alaska was contemplated by Russia.

Britain wanted the Columbia River as the boundary while the US wanted
54-40 (pretty much the present southern tip of the Alaska Panhandle)
and they compromised on the 49th parallel to the sea and the channel
midpoint between Vancouver Island and mainland North America. (There
are some minor islands between which had to have a demarcation line
and there's a small piece - about 2 mi x 2 mi - which extends south
from Canada but east of the channel midpoint which is US territory as
well and on the mainland though not with a land connection to Whatcom
Co, WA which is the border county where the ocean begins.

On Fri, 20 May 2022 13:01:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/20/2022 8:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Well, there's Alaska... if the US does not want to return it to
>>> Russia peacefully.
>>
>> The ironic thing about that is the reason Russia sold Alaska to
>> the United States in the first place was to poke Britian in the eye
>> and quash British ambitions in the Oregon territory.
>
>Well, that and the fact that they couldn't defend or hold it if the UK
>wanted to take it.

I don't know about that - the logistics were gawdawful before the
first railway in the 1880s.

The last Russian governor of Alaska took up his post by crossing the
US to San Francisco and taking a steamer to Alaska - he did NOT cross
Siberia to get there. The Trans-Siberian railway wasn't completed till
1904 and even if it had been available before 1867 it would have
required a 2000 mile sea journey to get there from Vladivostok.

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:14:10 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> and there's a small piece - about 2 mi x 2 mi - which extends south
> from Canada but east of the channel midpoint which is US territory as
> well and on the mainland though not with a land connection to Whatcom
> Co, WA which is the border county where the ocean begins.

Point Roberts, and there are people living there; these Americans were
inconvenienced by the border controls introduced due to the pandemic.

John Savard

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:17:21 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> The last Russian governor of Alaska took up his post by crossing the
> US to San Francisco and taking a steamer to Alaska - he did NOT cross
> Siberia to get there. The Trans-Siberian railway wasn't completed till
> 1904 and even if it had been available before 1867 it would have
> required a 2000 mile sea journey to get there from Vladivostok.

Aside from relationg between Russia and Britain being frosty at the time,
presumably another reason that he didn't pass through _Canada_ on his
way to Alaska could have been that the United States hadn't built the Alaska
Highway for us yet.

John Savard

On 5/20/2022 10:08 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 14:26:56 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2022 11:20 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:31:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 17:52:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 11:41 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Not that there aren't Americans on the fringe in *both* parties
>>>>>>>> that seem
>>>>>>>> to think George Washington was right, and America should stay out
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> business of defending freedom beyond its own borders. One would think
>>>>>>>> that the experience of two World Wars and the Cold War would have
>>>>>>>> shown why this is mistaken... but other inferences can be drawn, I
>>>>>>>> suppose, from a different viewpoint.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Why Would US Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://buchanan.org/blog/why-would-us-give-a-war-guarantee-to-finland-159385
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War
>>>>>>> ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten the
>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>> States. As for any threat that it poses to its European neighbors, let
>>>>>>> them deal with it.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then the Russians start digesting the EU and we're back there but
>>>>>> without the forward basing and commonality of systems and coordinated
>>>>>> doctrine that we have now.
>>>>>
>>>>> We already fought WWI and WWII in Europe.  We, the USA, need to sit this
>>>>> one out and let those people defend themselves.
>>>>
>>>> And after Russia controls the entirety of Europe then what?
>>>
>>> Not our war.  Europe needs to defend itself.
>>>
>>> You know, when we dropped our army strength in West Germany from 300,000
>>> ??? to less than 100,000 in 1995, we effectively left anyway.  There is
>>> enough left for a good wienie roast and that is it.
>>>
>>> https://theconversation.com/the-us-military-presence-in-europe-has-been-declining-for-30-years-the-current-crisis-in-ukraine-may-reverse-that-trend-175595
>>>
>> He said "after" Russia has won that war, when it is preparing to invade
>> North America.
>
> I heard it said that even without British + Canadian aid (and the
> Canadian combat arm WAS bigger than the US combat personnel for most
> of the spring and summer of 1940 - obviously that was a temporary
> condition as it was divided between Canada and the UK) Hitler couldn't
> have successfully invaded the US if you PAVED the Atlantic and gave
> him a choice of invasion sites which he would have to subsequentially
> supply from Europe.
>
> That's was the logistics arm is so important for the US (and Canada)
> since anywhere the US has needed to fight the troops had to be they've
> had to send them there. The US hasn't fought on North American soil
> since 1865 after all.

True but I wouldn't expect Russia to try a North America invasion soon
after taking control of all of Europe. 20 to 30 years later, after
"absorbing" their new territory and building up their naval
capabilities, seems more likely to me. (Assuming of course that they
don't decide that hey, we've got enough space now to absorb the
counter-strike, and launch the nukes.)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 5/20/2022 10:17 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 13:01:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2022 8:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> Well, there's Alaska... if the US does not want to return it to
>>>> Russia peacefully.
>>>
>>> The ironic thing about that is the reason Russia sold Alaska to
>>> the United States in the first place was to poke Britian in the eye
>>> and quash British ambitions in the Oregon territory.
>>
>> Well, that and the fact that they couldn't defend or hold it if the UK
>> wanted to take it.
>
> I don't know about that - the logistics were gawdawful before the
> first railway in the 1880s.
>
> The last Russian governor of Alaska took up his post by crossing the
> US to San Francisco and taking a steamer to Alaska - he did NOT cross
> Siberia to get there. The Trans-Siberian railway wasn't completed till
> 1904 and even if it had been available before 1867 it would have
> required a 2000 mile sea journey to get there from Vladivostok.

I suspect some misunderstanding here. I was saying Russia could not
hold Alaska if the British attacked it. Because of the factors you just
mentioned. The Royal Navy _did_ have the capacity to land enough troops
in Alaska (because the Russians had effectively no troops there) even if
they didn't go thru Canada.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Fri, 20 May 2022 21:53:03 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2022 09:42:18 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Not to doubt your narrative or your conclusions, but
>>
>>-- the Taliban was the government in Afghanistan that was shielding
>>Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin
>>-- Osama was not "the leader of the Taliban"; he was the leader of
>>Al-Qaeda
>>
>>Which doesn't affect your points, but accuracy would be appreciated.
>
>Indeed - no question the Taliban and al Qaeda were allies but that no
>more made bin Laden leader of the Taliban than it makes Joe Biden
>prime minister of Canada or the UK.
>
>Welcome guest -you bet. Our ruler? Not a chance.

A good point.

I feel it should be pointed out that, IIRC, the leader of the Taliban
was Osama bin Laden's son-in-law. This doesn't make Osama bin Laden
the leader of the Taliban, however.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."