Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:t06bo8$cpf$1@dont-email.me:

> On 3/7/2022 5:29 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:e0bdb3eb-4b0e-4f5f-857b-eaf5a9627154n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:02:26 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:56:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-5, Robert
>>>>> Woodward wrote:
>>>>>> In article <tnpVJ.46115$mF2....@fx11.iad>,
>>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>>>> "peterw...@hotmail.com"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic
>>>>>>>>> lift-to-drag ratio? NASA has flown experimental
>>>>>>>>> scramjets in that speed range. Another approach would be
>>>>>>>>> to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
>>>>>>>>> the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a
>>>>>>>>> lot written about the proposed "wave rider" advanced
>>>>>>>>> re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps an L/D ratio of
>>>>>>>>> somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a
>>>>>>>> target" then what is the point of making it hypersonic in
>>>>>>>> the first place? Most of the defenses that it needs to
>>>>>>>> defeat are near the target.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key word is "drag".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " glider at Mach 5 is subjected to 25 times the drag force
>>>>>>> than when it flies at Mach 1, for example, and one at Mach
>>>>>>> 20 faces 400 times the drag of when it is at Mach 1."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "So a glider flying at Mach 5 will lose energy 125 times
>>>>>>> faster than at Mach 1; one flying at Mach 20 will lose
>>>>>>> energy 8,000 times faster."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is at best an excessive simplification. There is a
>>>>>> drag coefficient involved in the drag equation. It is
>>>>>> relatively low at subsonic speeds, increases rapidly
>>>>>> (starting at Mach .7?) to a spike at Mach 1 and decreases
>>>>>> at higher Mach numbers (but is still significantly higher
>>>>>> than the subsonic number even at Mach 20). Also, the drag
>>>>>> includes induced drag (proportional to the lift) which is
>>>>>> less important at higher Mach numbers. Thus, while the drag
>>>>>> on a vehicle is higher at Mach 20 than at Mach 4, it is
>>>>>> less than 25 times higher.
>>>>>>> "Yet after decades of research and development, U.S.
>>>>>>> hypersonic weapons tested in the past decade appear to
>>>>>>> have L/D values less than three. Such low L/D ratios mean
>>>>>>> low lift and high drag\u2014which limits the speed and
>>>>>>> range of a hypersonic glider, reduces its maneuverability
>>>>>>> and increases surface heating."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have
>>>>>>> advantages in certain scenarios, but by no means do they
>>>>>>> constitute a revolution. Many of the claims about them are
>>>>>>> exaggerated or simply false. And yet the widespread
>>>>>>> perception that hypersonic weapons are a game-changer
>>>>>>> has increased tensions among the U.S., Russia and China,
>>>>>>> driving a new arms race and escalating the chances of
>>>>>>> conflict."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-
>>>>>>> hype-of-hypersonic- weapons/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A good overview of the consequences of GWB's unilateral
>>>>>>> withdrawal from the ABM treaty.
>>>>>> It has been my experience over the years that the
>>>>>> Scientific American is frequently wrong when discussing
>>>>>> military affairs (this included stupid statements about the
>>>>>> Battle of Cape St. Vincent in an article about c. 1800
>>>>>> warship construction).
>>>>>
>>>>> SciAm has fallen far from its zenith in the early 70s.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll bring a note of reality to this discussion.
>>>>> This isnt theoretical, or just under development.
>>>>> The Russians already have
>>>>> a hypersonic cruise missile in service, the 3M22 Zircon:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
>>>>> capable of Mach 8-9, about 1000 km range. It can carry
>>>>> conventional or nuclear payloads (and just its kinetic
>>>>> energy is equivalent to 2 tons of TNT).
>>>> So basically the Russians managed to test some object about
>>>> which they are making outlandish claims. So how does it find
>>>> its target through that "plasma sheath" that somehow makes it
>>>> "invisible" while lighting up half the universe? Just for
>>>> openers.
>>>
>>> They are hitting targets at hundreds of miles range
>>
>> Well, they say they are.
>>
>>> , so they've
>>> solved the problem. How, I don't know.
>>
>> And perhaps they don't know, either.
>>>
>>>>> For more scary stuff:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nuclear powered, unlimited duration, very dirty cruise
>>>>> missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
>>>>>
>>>>> Compare to Project Pluto, 60 years earlier
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
>>>> Yeah, yeah, the Russians have no shortage of bad ideas.
>>>
>>> Project Pluto was American.
>>>
>> No stupider than Project Oilsand.
>
> Just bring a Geiger counter to the gas pump.
>
I can't afford one when gas is nearly $6/gallon. And going up.
Rapidly.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7fc9c783-187d-44de-ac37-416ac198cfafn@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 8:36:33 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:49:13 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:02:26 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:56:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> >> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-5, Robert
>> >> >Woodward wrote:
>> >> >> In article <tnpVJ.46115$mF2....@fx11.iad>,
>> >> >> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> >> > >On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST),
>> >> >> > >"peterw...@hotmail.com"
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >>Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic
>> >> >> > >>lift-to-drag ratio? NASA has flown experimental
>> >> >> > >>scramjets in that speed range. Another approach would
>> >> >> > >>be to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
>> >> >> > >>the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also
>> >> >> > >>been a lot written about the proposed "wave rider"
>> >> >> > >>advanced re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps
>> >> >> > >>an L/D ratio of somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a
>> >> >> > >target" then what is the point of making it hypersonic
>> >> >> > >in the first place? Most of the defenses that it needs
>> >> >> > >to defeat are near the target.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The key word is "drag".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > " glider at Mach 5 is subjected to 25 times the drag
>> >> >> > force than when it flies at Mach 1, for example, and
>> >> >> > one at Mach 20 faces 400 times the drag of when it is
>> >> >> > at Mach 1."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "So a glider flying at Mach 5 will lose energy 125
>> >> >> > times faster than at Mach 1; one flying at Mach 20 will
>> >> >> > lose energy 8,000 times faster."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> This is at best an excessive simplification. There is a
>> >> >> drag coefficient involved in the drag equation. It is
>> >> >> relatively low at subsonic speeds, increases rapidly
>> >> >> (starting at Mach .7?) to a spike at Mach 1 and
>> >> >> decreases at higher Mach numbers (but is still
>> >> >> significantly higher than the subsonic number even at
>> >> >> Mach 20). Also, the drag includes induced drag
>> >> >> (proportional to the lift) which is less important at
>> >> >> higher Mach numbers. Thus, while the drag on a vehicle is
>> >> >> higher at Mach 20 than at Mach 4, it is less than 25
>> >> >> times higher.
>> >> >> > "Yet after decades of research and development, U.S.
>> >> >> > hypersonic weapons tested in the past decade appear to
>> >> >> > have L/D values less than three. Such low L/D ratios
>> >> >> > mean low lift and high drag\u2014which limits
>> >> >> > the speed and range of a hypersonic glider, reduces its
>> >> >> > maneuverability and increases surface heating."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have
>> >> >> > advantages in certain scenarios, but by no means do
>> >> >> > they constitute a revolution. Many of the claims about
>> >> >> > them are exaggerated or simply false. And yet the
>> >> >> > widespread perception that hypersonic weapons are a
>> >> >> > game-changer has increased tensions among the U.S.,
>> >> >> > Russia and China, driving a new arms race and
>> >> >> > escalating the chances of conflict."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-a
>> >> >> > nd-hype-of-hypersonic- weapons/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A good overview of the consequences of GWB's unilateral
>> >> >> > withdrawal from the ABM treaty.
>> >> >> It has been my experience over the years that the
>> >> >> Scientific American is frequently wrong when discussing
>> >> >> military affairs (this included stupid statements about
>> >> >> the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in an article about c.
>> >> >> 1800 warship construction).
>> >> >
>> >> >SciAm has fallen far from its zenith in the early 70s.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'll bring a note of reality to this discussion.
>> >> >This isnt theoretical, or just under development.
>> >> >The Russians already have
>> >> >a hypersonic cruise missile in service, the 3M22 Zircon:
>> >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
>> >> >capable of Mach 8-9, about 1000 km range. It can carry
>> >> >conventional or nuclear payloads (and just its kinetic
>> >> >energy is equivalent to 2 tons of TNT).
>> >> So basically the Russians managed to test some object about
>> >> which they are making outlandish claims. So how does it find
>> >> its target through that "plasma sheath" that somehow makes
>> >> it "invisible" while lighting up half the universe? Just for
>> >> openers.
>> >
>> >They are hitting targets at hundreds of miles range, so
>> >they've solved the problem. How, I don't know.
>> Most likely by attacking stationary targets with known
>> positions that can be reached with inertial guidance.
>
> So, you're saying the Russians are developing and fielding at
> vast expense, a weapon that is actually useless? I don't like
> their ideology, but they're not that dumb.

They have been in the past. Does the name Lysenko ring any bells?
>
> For example, perhaps the 'plasma sheath' is only seriously dense
> when viewed from the front.

And in the front is where the guidance system would be looking.

Dumbass.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 2022-03-07 10:48 p.m., Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:t06bo8$cpf$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 3/7/2022 5:29 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:e0bdb3eb-4b0e-4f5f-857b-eaf5a9627154n@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:02:26 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:56:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-5, Robert
>>>>>> Woodward wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <tnpVJ.46115$mF2....@fx11.iad>,
>>>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>>>>> "peterw...@hotmail.com"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic
>>>>>>>>>> lift-to-drag ratio? NASA has flown experimental
>>>>>>>>>> scramjets in that speed range. Another approach would be
>>>>>>>>>> to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
>>>>>>>>>> the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a
>>>>>>>>>> lot written about the proposed "wave rider" advanced
>>>>>>>>>> re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps an L/D ratio of
>>>>>>>>>> somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a
>>>>>>>>> target" then what is the point of making it hypersonic in
>>>>>>>>> the first place? Most of the defenses that it needs to
>>>>>>>>> defeat are near the target.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The key word is "drag".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " glider at Mach 5 is subjected to 25 times the drag force
>>>>>>>> than when it flies at Mach 1, for example, and one at Mach
>>>>>>>> 20 faces 400 times the drag of when it is at Mach 1."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "So a glider flying at Mach 5 will lose energy 125 times
>>>>>>>> faster than at Mach 1; one flying at Mach 20 will lose
>>>>>>>> energy 8,000 times faster."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is at best an excessive simplification. There is a
>>>>>>> drag coefficient involved in the drag equation. It is
>>>>>>> relatively low at subsonic speeds, increases rapidly
>>>>>>> (starting at Mach .7?) to a spike at Mach 1 and decreases
>>>>>>> at higher Mach numbers (but is still significantly higher
>>>>>>> than the subsonic number even at Mach 20). Also, the drag
>>>>>>> includes induced drag (proportional to the lift) which is
>>>>>>> less important at higher Mach numbers. Thus, while the drag
>>>>>>> on a vehicle is higher at Mach 20 than at Mach 4, it is
>>>>>>> less than 25 times higher.
>>>>>>>> "Yet after decades of research and development, U.S.
>>>>>>>> hypersonic weapons tested in the past decade appear to
>>>>>>>> have L/D values less than three. Such low L/D ratios mean
>>>>>>>> low lift and high drag\u2014which limits the speed and
>>>>>>>> range of a hypersonic glider, reduces its maneuverability
>>>>>>>> and increases surface heating."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have
>>>>>>>> advantages in certain scenarios, but by no means do they
>>>>>>>> constitute a revolution. Many of the claims about them are
>>>>>>>> exaggerated or simply false. And yet the widespread
>>>>>>>> perception that hypersonic weapons are a game-changer
>>>>>>>> has increased tensions among the U.S., Russia and China,
>>>>>>>> driving a new arms race and escalating the chances of
>>>>>>>> conflict."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-
>>>>>>>> hype-of-hypersonic- weapons/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A good overview of the consequences of GWB's unilateral
>>>>>>>> withdrawal from the ABM treaty.
>>>>>>> It has been my experience over the years that the
>>>>>>> Scientific American is frequently wrong when discussing
>>>>>>> military affairs (this included stupid statements about the
>>>>>>> Battle of Cape St. Vincent in an article about c. 1800
>>>>>>> warship construction).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SciAm has fallen far from its zenith in the early 70s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll bring a note of reality to this discussion.
>>>>>> This isnt theoretical, or just under development.
>>>>>> The Russians already have
>>>>>> a hypersonic cruise missile in service, the 3M22 Zircon:
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
>>>>>> capable of Mach 8-9, about 1000 km range. It can carry
>>>>>> conventional or nuclear payloads (and just its kinetic
>>>>>> energy is equivalent to 2 tons of TNT).
>>>>> So basically the Russians managed to test some object about
>>>>> which they are making outlandish claims. So how does it find
>>>>> its target through that "plasma sheath" that somehow makes it
>>>>> "invisible" while lighting up half the universe? Just for
>>>>> openers.
>>>>
>>>> They are hitting targets at hundreds of miles range
>>>
>>> Well, they say they are.
>>>
>>>> , so they've
>>>> solved the problem. How, I don't know.
>>>
>>> And perhaps they don't know, either.
>>>>
>>>>>> For more scary stuff:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nuclear powered, unlimited duration, very dirty cruise
>>>>>> missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Compare to Project Pluto, 60 years earlier
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
>>>>> Yeah, yeah, the Russians have no shortage of bad ideas.
>>>>
>>>> Project Pluto was American.
>>>>
>>> No stupider than Project Oilsand.
>>
>> Just bring a Geiger counter to the gas pump.
>>
> I can't afford one when gas is nearly $6/gallon. And going up.
> Rapidly.
>

Oh, no!

The price of gas is going up!

It's Biden's fault!

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 6:39:44 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:41:28 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:

> >If you go far enough back, of course, there is the Trail of Tears, but using
> >distant history to interfere with the ability of the democratic United States
> >of today to fight against present-day tyrannies is hardly constructive.

> How does recognizing that the US is not a paragon of virtue prevent it
> from engaging in war?

One of the most basic, routine, and common components of the propaganda
offensive against any participant in a war is to claim that it is acting as an
aggressor. Repressive tyrannies are more likely to be aggressors, so providing
evidence that a country is a repressive tyranny is part of that.

John Savard

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:07:49 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>wrote:

>This attitude of intrinsic superiority over everyone is precisely what
>makes the alledged goal of having friendly nations on their borders
>unachievable. Centuries of pride and abuse and made them loathed by
>everybody who lives near them.

Actually, for the last four centuries, the Russians have had a
huge inferiority complex when compared to the empire-builders
of that time (Spain, Portugal, England, France, Netherlands);
primarily due to their lack of warm-water ports. They didn't
sell Alaska to Seward because they liked the US, the did it to
poke the British in the eye and to thwart British ambitions on
the west coast of North America (Britian had claimed Oregon
and points north).

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Actually, for the last four centuries, the Russians have had a
> huge inferiority complex when compared to the empire-builders
> of that time (Spain, Portugal, England, France, Netherlands);
> primarily due to their lack of warm-water ports.

Before the Soviet Union was created, Imperial Russia could have
solved its problem. As a modern Western nation, facing an
impoverished nation to its south, it could just have invaded and
colonized China.

Of course, the Soviet Union did try that, with their proxy Mao
Tse-Tung, but it didn't quite go as well as planned. Even if relations
with Xi Jinping are currently cordial, that isn't the same as having
actual territory from which to deploy one's military.

And they even let China come up with the Belt and Road initiative
without doing something similar on their own. (Of course, Africa's
coastline happens to be quite poor in good ports - although
Slartibartfast's plans for Earth 2.0 would have corrected that.)

John Savard

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 10:12:02 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> This attitude of intrinsic superiority over everyone is precisely what
> makes the alledged goal of having friendly nations on their borders
> unachievable. Centuries of pride and abuse and made them loathed by
> everybody who lives near them.

As the Chinese would say: 聽其言，觀其行.

Listen to what they say, but then _watch how they act_.

Actions speak louder than Words and with more truth and certainty.

- A Letter from One in the Country to his Friend in Boston, containing
some Remarks upon a late Pamphlet, Entitled, _The Distressed State of the
Town of Boston, &c._ (1720)

from "Colonial Currency Reprints".

John Savard

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:47:00 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 6:17:42 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> >> John, the Russians lost 25,000,000 people in 1941 fighting off the
> >> Germans. The Russians are not going to allow any of their buffer
> >> countries like Ukraine invite the Germans back in. Not gonna happen and
> >> Ukraine knew it. Instead Ukraine was dancing around the place trying to
> >> get NATO in.

> John, I am not apologizing for anyone and you know it. I am simply
> stating the fact that people are poking the bear and have gotten bitten.

It's true that a lot of people have noted that Russia lacks good natural
barriers in the West, and so it has long desired to be surrounded by
buffer states.

And I definitely agree that there have been mistakes in Western policy.

If Russia says it is going to invade the Ukraine unless there's a
commitment not to bring the Ukraine into NATO, then, _either_
you agree to that demand, _or_ you bring the Ukraine into NATO
immediately so that an invasion can't take place. Biden did neither.

I don't wish to make false accusations, but I reacted to the way in
which you worded your statement.

The Ukraine is not a "buffer country" of Russia, even if the Russian
leadership may think it _should_ be. It is a sovereign state of free
people, with the right to manage its foreign affairs in the way that
it believes will best serve it.

What Russia suffered from the Nazi invasion is neither here nor
there. Nothing gives it any license to commit aggression.

John Savard

On 3/8/2022 10:46 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:02:02 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 9:43:24 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> And, since Trump is a Putin sock puppet, those calling Putin "fascist"
>>> are saying the Republican Party is /still/ the Party of Hitler. But I
>>> am not.
>>
>> Putin's the Hitler. Trump is only the Mussolini. Or maybe even the Franco.
>
> Well, Trump was as funny as Mussolini. That is, both were jokes as
> leaders go.
>
>> Trump as Franco - that would be a plus. That would mean that while Xi and
>> Putin were carving up the world, the U.S. would actually decline to invade
>> Canada.

Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
anything for it ?

Lynn

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:36:35 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> I hate to break it to you but Biden is not the King of NATO, able to
> admit new members by a royal edict. NATO has procedures and rules
> that have to be followed.

Well, I realized that was a possibility.

But I don't see how that changes anything _important_.

I mean, being able to invoke Article 5 on Germany and Latvia
and France is nice and all that, but it's really only the United
States that _counts_.

So if the United States had put its troops on the Ukraine's borders,
and announces that while Ukraine is waiting to get into NATO,
it will still have the full ability to call on the United States if it were
attacked - we wouldn't be seeing the current invasion. It would be
no less insane to invade Ukraine than to invade a NATO member,
since the consequences would be essentially the same.

John Savard

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
> anything for it ?

If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in November of 2024,
my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as the Ukraine
just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his most recent
bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it seriously that he sees
Russia as any kind of threat. U.S. support for Ukraine's freedom was to him a
bargaining chip that he could use to pressure that country into "investigating"
a complete fabrication concerning Hunter Biden's activities in Ukraine when he
was actually there acting on behalf of the Obama administration in the proper
support of U.S. interests.

I have zero respect for those who disrespect the privacy and modesty of women,
also.

And, without strong evidence to the contrary, I presume that the "mainstream
media" of any free, democratic country report the truth, and it is the politically
partisan media that is not to be trusted.

John Savard

On 3/8/2022 7:43 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:36:35 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> I hate to break it to you but Biden is not the King of NATO, able to
>> admit new members by a royal edict. NATO has procedures and rules
>> that have to be followed.
>
> Well, I realized that was a possibility.
>
> But I don't see how that changes anything _important_.
>
> I mean, being able to invoke Article 5 on Germany and Latvia
> and France is nice and all that, but it's really only the United
> States that _counts_.
>
> So if the United States had put its troops on the Ukraine's borders,
> and announces that while Ukraine is waiting to get into NATO,
> it will still have the full ability to call on the United States if it were
> attacked - we wouldn't be seeing the current invasion. It would be
> no less insane to invade Ukraine than to invade a NATO member,
> since the consequences would be essentially the same.
>
> John Savard

"US Policy: Cheer Ukrainians On — and Keep Us Out!"
https://buchanan.org/blog/us-policy-cheer-ukrainians-on-and-keep-us-out-159159

"Did Ukraine’s trolling for membership in NATO trigger Putin’s war?"

"Friday’s Wall Street Journal writes:"

"“The Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted from two immense strategic
blunders, (Russian historian) Robert Service says. The first came on
Nov. 10, when the U.S. and Ukraine signed a Charter on Strategic
Partnership, which asserted America’s support for Kyiv’s right to pursue
membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The pact made it
likelier than ever that Ukraine would eventually join NATO — an
intolerable prospect for Vladimir Putin. ‘It was the last straw,’ Mr.
Service says. Preparations immediately began for Russia’s so-called
special military operation in Ukraine.”"

Yup. I am sorry to say that Ukraine poked the bear and got bitten.

Lynn

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 8:13:19 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 8:36:33 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:49:13 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> > <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:02:26 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:56:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> > >> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > >> >> In article <tnpVJ.46115$mF2....@fx11.iad>,
> > >> >> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >> >> > >On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST), "peterw...@hotmail.com"
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > >>Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio?
> > >> >> > >>NASA has flown experimental scramjets in that speed range. Another
> > >> >> > >>approach would be to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
> > >> >> > >>the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a lot written about
> > >> >> > >>the proposed "wave rider" advanced re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps
> > >> >> > >>an L/D ratio of somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a target" then what
> > >> >> > >is the point of making it hypersonic in the first place? Most of the
> > >> >> > >defenses that it needs to defeat are near the target.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The key word is "drag".
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > " glider at Mach 5 is subjected to 25 times the drag force than when
> > >> >> > it flies at Mach 1, for example, and one at Mach 20 faces 400 times
> > >> >> > the drag of when it is at Mach 1."
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > "So a glider flying at Mach 5 will lose energy 125 times faster than
> > >> >> > at Mach 1; one flying at Mach 20 will lose energy 8,000 times faster."
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> This is at best an excessive simplification. There is a drag coefficient
> > >> >> involved in the drag equation. It is relatively low at subsonic speeds,
> > >> >> increases rapidly (starting at Mach .7?) to a spike at Mach 1 and
> > >> >> decreases at higher Mach numbers (but is still significantly higher than
> > >> >> the subsonic number even at Mach 20). Also, the drag includes induced
> > >> >> drag (proportional to the lift) which is less important at higher Mach
> > >> >> numbers. Thus, while the drag on a vehicle is higher at Mach 20 than at
> > >> >> Mach 4, it is less than 25 times higher.
> > >> >> > "Yet after decades of research and development, U.S. hypersonic weapons
> > >> >> > tested in the past decade appear to have L/D values less than three.
> > >> >> > Such low L/D ratios mean low lift and high drag\u2014which limits
> > >> >> > the speed and range of a hypersonic glider, reduces its maneuverability
> > >> >> > and increases surface heating."
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > "Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have advantages
> > >> >> > in certain scenarios, but by no means do they constitute a revolution.
> > >> >> > Many of the claims about them are exaggerated or simply false. And
> > >> >> > yet the widespread perception that hypersonic weapons are a game-changer
> > >> >> > has increased tensions among the U.S., Russia and China, driving a new
> > >> >> > arms race and escalating the chances of conflict."
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-hype-of-hypersonic-
> > >> >> > weapons/
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > A good overview of the consequences of GWB's unilateral withdrawal from the
> > >> >> > ABM treaty.
> > >> >> It has been my experience over the years that the Scientific American is
> > >> >> frequently wrong when discussing military affairs (this included stupid
> > >> >> statements about the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in an article about c.
> > >> >> 1800 warship construction).
> > >> >
> > >> >SciAm has fallen far from its zenith in the early 70s.
> > >> >
> > >> >I'll bring a note of reality to this discussion.
> > >> >This isnt theoretical, or just under development.
> > >> >The Russians already have
> > >> >a hypersonic cruise missile in service, the 3M22 Zircon:
> > >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
> > >> >capable of Mach 8-9, about 1000 km range. It can carry conventional
> > >> >or nuclear payloads (and just its kinetic energy is equivalent to 2 tons
> > >> >of TNT).
> > >> So basically the Russians managed to test some object about which they
> > >> are making outlandish claims. So how does it find its target through
> > >> that "plasma sheath" that somehow makes it "invisible" while lighting
> > >> up half the universe? Just for openers.
> > >
> > >They are hitting targets at hundreds of miles range, so they've solved
> > >the problem. How, I don't know.
> > Most likely by attacking stationary targets with known positions that
> > can be reached with inertial guidance.
> So, you're saying the Russians are developing and fielding at vast
> expense, a weapon that is actually useless? I don't like their
> ideology, but they're not that dumb.
>
> For example, perhaps the 'plasma sheath' is only seriously dense
> when viewed from the front.

Some background: with a supersonic or hypersonic vehicle the shock wave typically
goes out in a cone shape in all directions. The shock wave is a major movement
of air, and the energy required to create it comes from the vehicle's interaction
with the air, and of course results in drag. The component of drag that goes into shock
wave formation is called, unsurprisingly, "wave drag", and can be half or more
of the total drag.

By the 1950s aerodynamicists realized that, if the shock wave could be directed
downward instead of going out in all directions, it would contribute to lift and
could result in an increased lift-to-drag ration for an aircraft. The North American
B-70 supersonic bomber was designed to do this, and hinging the outer wing panels
downward in cruise flight was one feature involved in shock-wave interaction. The
"waverider" is an extension of this concept to work at hypersonic speeds.

Years ago, in an article about the waverider when it was still in the idea
stage, the author discussed the possibility that by having the shock wave
form on the underside, the top side of such a vehicle could be free of the
plasma sheath that forms in re-entry and remain in radio communication
with a satellite above it. If this turns out to work in practice, a hypersonic
missile could receive targeting updates from an orbital observation and
control network.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On 2022-03-08 6:04 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/8/2022 7:43 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:36:35 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> I hate to break it to you but Biden is not the King of NATO, able to
>>> admit new members by a royal edict. NATO has procedures and rules
>>> that have to be followed.
>>
>> Well, I realized that was a possibility.
>>
>> But I don't see how that changes anything _important_.
>>
>> I mean, being able to invoke Article 5 on Germany and Latvia
>> and France is nice and all that, but it's really only the United
>> States that _counts_.
>>
>> So if the United States had put its troops on the Ukraine's borders,
>> and announces that while Ukraine is waiting to get into NATO,
>> it will still have the full ability to call on the United States if it
>> were
>> attacked - we wouldn't be seeing the current invasion. It would be
>> no less insane to invade Ukraine than to invade a NATO member,
>> since the consequences would be essentially the same.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> "US Policy: Cheer Ukrainians On — and Keep Us Out!"
>
> https://buchanan.org/blog/us-policy-cheer-ukrainians-on-and-keep-us-out-159159
>
>
> "Did Ukraine’s trolling for membership in NATO trigger Putin’s war?"
>
> "Friday’s Wall Street Journal writes:"
>
> "“The Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted from two immense strategic
> blunders, (Russian historian) Robert Service says. The first came on
> Nov. 10, when the U.S. and Ukraine signed a Charter on Strategic
> Partnership, which asserted America’s support for Kyiv’s right to pursue
> membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The pact made it
> likelier than ever that Ukraine would eventually join NATO — an
> intolerable prospect for Vladimir Putin. ‘It was the last straw,’ Mr.
> Service says. Preparations immediately began for Russia’s so-called
> special military operation in Ukraine.”"
>
> Yup.  I am sorry to say that Ukraine poked the bear and got bitten.

Spoken like a traitorous Putin cheerleader.

On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 1:04:47 PM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/8/2022 7:43 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:36:35 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> >> I hate to break it to you but Biden is not the King of NATO, able to
> >> admit new members by a royal edict. NATO has procedures and rules
> >> that have to be followed.
> >
> > Well, I realized that was a possibility.
> >
> > But I don't see how that changes anything _important_.
> >
> > I mean, being able to invoke Article 5 on Germany and Latvia
> > and France is nice and all that, but it's really only the United
> > States that _counts_.
> >
> > So if the United States had put its troops on the Ukraine's borders,
> > and announces that while Ukraine is waiting to get into NATO,
> > it will still have the full ability to call on the United States if it were
> > attacked - we wouldn't be seeing the current invasion. It would be
> > no less insane to invade Ukraine than to invade a NATO member,
> > since the consequences would be essentially the same.
> >
> > John Savard
> "US Policy: Cheer Ukrainians On — and Keep Us Out!"
>
> https://buchanan.org/blog/us-policy-cheer-ukrainians-on-and-keep-us-out-159159
>
> "Did Ukraine’s trolling for membership in NATO trigger Putin’s war?"
>
> "Friday’s Wall Street Journal writes:"
>
> "“The Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted from two immense strategic
> blunders, (Russian historian) Robert Service says. The first came on
> Nov. 10, when the U.S. and Ukraine signed a Charter on Strategic
> Partnership, which asserted America’s support for Kyiv’s right to pursue
> membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The pact made it
> likelier than ever that Ukraine would eventually join NATO — an
> intolerable prospect for Vladimir Putin. ‘It was the last straw,’ Mr.
> Service says. Preparations immediately began for Russia’s so-called
> special military operation in Ukraine.”"
>
> Yup. I am sorry to say that Ukraine poked the bear and got bitten.
>
You might want to refresh your memory of what happened in 2014...
Also the Ukraine government voted to pursue membership of NATO in 2017

as far as "support for Kyiv's right to pursue membership"
"At the 2008 Bucharest Summit, the Allies agreed that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO in future."

Here's a FAQ on requirements to join NATO
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/faq.htm#A3
"NATO has an open door policy with regard to enlargement. Any European country in a position to further the principles of the Washington Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area can become a member of the Alliance at the invitation of the North Atlantic Council.

Countries aspiring for NATO membership are also expected to meet certain political, economic and military goals in order to ensure that they will become contributors to Alliance security as well as beneficiaries of it.

NATO's Membership Action Plan (MAP) is designed to assist aspirant partner countries in their preparations by providing a framework which enables NATO to channel assistance and practical support to them on all aspects of NATO membership.

For more information, please see: NATO enlargement"

and here's the url to enlargement
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

By invading the Ukraine now Russia has started discussions of Finland and Sweden joining NATO...

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 8:42:03 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 17:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:

> >So if the United States had put its troops on the Ukraine's borders,
> >and announces that while Ukraine is waiting to get into NATO,
> >it will still have the full ability to call on the United States if it were
> >attacked - we wouldn't be seeing the current invasion. It would be
> >no less insane to invade Ukraine than to invade a NATO member,
> >since the consequences would be essentially the same.

> So you're saying that Biden should go conquer Poland, Slovakia,
> Hungary, Romania, and/or Moldova? Because he doesn't get to station
> US troops on the borders of those countries until they agree to it.
> You think they're going to agree to some Yankee shithead starting a
> war in their back yard?

No. I would have thought that what I was saying was not hard to
understand.

When the U.S. prevented a Russian invasion of the German Federal
Republic by stationing troops on West Germany's border with East
Germany, they did not invade and conquer the German Democratic
Republic to station their troops inside East Germany. The troops
protecting West Germany were stationed inside West Germany.

So what I am saying is: the United States does not need the permission
of other NATO countries to station U.S. troops inside Ukraine, with the
permission of the government of Ukraine, on its borders with:

- the Crimean peninsula, under Russian occupation;
- Donetsk and Luhansk, under effective Russian control;
- Russia
- Belarus
- Transnistria

Doing this would have eliminated the possibility of a Russian
invasion of Ukraine just as effectively as membership in NATO.

No invasion of any country, or stationing U.S. troops anywhere
where they are not wanted, is involved.

John Savard

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:07:25 PM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:

> By invading the Ukraine now Russia has started discussions of Finland and Sweden joining NATO...

But as the experience of Ukraine shows, this discussion needs to be converted to actual membership
for Finland very quickly, or Finland will be invaded. The same applies to Georgia.

John Savard

On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 2:19:25 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 8:42:03 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 17:43:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> > >So if the United States had put its troops on the Ukraine's borders,
> > >and announces that while Ukraine is waiting to get into NATO,
> > >it will still have the full ability to call on the United States if it were
> > >attacked - we wouldn't be seeing the current invasion. It would be
> > >no less insane to invade Ukraine than to invade a NATO member,
> > >since the consequences would be essentially the same.
>
> > So you're saying that Biden should go conquer Poland, Slovakia,
> > Hungary, Romania, and/or Moldova? Because he doesn't get to station
> > US troops on the borders of those countries until they agree to it.
> > You think they're going to agree to some Yankee shithead starting a
> > war in their back yard?
> No. I would have thought that what I was saying was not hard to
> understand.
>
> When the U.S. prevented a Russian invasion of the German Federal
> Republic by stationing troops on West Germany's border with East
> Germany, they did not invade and conquer the German Democratic
> Republic to station their troops inside East Germany. The troops
> protecting West Germany were stationed inside West Germany.
>
> So what I am saying is: the United States does not need the permission
> of other NATO countries to station U.S. troops inside Ukraine, with the
> permission of the government of Ukraine, on its borders with:
>
> - the Crimean peninsula, under Russian occupation;
> - Donetsk and Luhansk, under effective Russian control;
> - Russia
> - Belarus
> - Transnistria
>
> Doing this would have eliminated the possibility of a Russian
> invasion of Ukraine just as effectively as membership in NATO.
>
> No invasion of any country, or stationing U.S. troops anywhere
> where they are not wanted, is involved.

And to clear up any further ambiguity: this is what _should have been
done_, *prior* to the current invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces,
in order to eliminate the possibility of such an invasion.

Now, the options available are different.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
>> anything for it ?
>
> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in November of 2024,
> my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as the Ukraine
> just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his most recent
> bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it seriously that he sees
> Russia as any kind of threat.

Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he berate
Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more for its defense?
Would it be in Russia's interest to have a well-armed Germany?

(Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what Merkel would
not do for Trump, by the way.)

On 09/03/2022 08.11, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
>>> anything for it ?
>>
>> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in November of 2024,
>> my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as the Ukraine
>> just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his most recent
>> bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it seriously that he sees
>> Russia as any kind of threat.
>
> Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he berate
> Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more for its defense?
> Would it be in Russia's interest to have a well-armed Germany?

Presumably, to stoke division and acrimony between countries that should
be allies against La Puta.

> (Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what Merkel would
> not do for Trump, by the way.)

And La Puta's actions backfire yet again. I just hope that the world
holds together long enough for us to gloat.

--
Michael F. Stemper
If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much
more like prunes than rhubarb does.

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 8:03:31 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-03-08 6:04 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:

> > Yup. I am sorry to say that Ukraine poked the bear and got bitten.

> Spoken like a traitorous Putin cheerleader.

While I am inclined to agree with the sentiment, I don't
want to destroy the hope of dialog.

The important thing is to effectively communicate _why_
this type of remark affects us in this manner.

Basically:

1) Although not actively engaged in hostilities, *we are
at war*. That is the first thing to remember.

2) Thus, there is only one admissible perspective on
the current events in Ukraine: *We are Ukraine* in the
sense of "Je suis Charlie". Total and absolute solidarity
with Zelensky.

That means no criticism of Zelensky's choices or actions
in any manner that could potentially be construed as
disrespectful.

So the failure that caused the current conflict is _not_
Zelensky's with to join NATO - why, the current invasion
*proves* that this was a perfectly reasonable desire -
but the West's abject failure to immediately whisk him
under the protective wings of NATO before an invasion
could take place.

John Savard

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 6:49:17 PM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:02:26 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> > So basically the Russians managed to test some object about which
> > they are making outlandish claims. So how does it find its target
> > through that "plasma sheath" that somehow makes it "invisible" while
> > lighting up half the universe? Just for openers.
> They are hitting targets at hundreds of miles range, so they've solved
> the problem. How, I don't know.

The plasma sheath defeats active radar. It does nothing in most
wavelengths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth

The wikipedia article implies that its design targets are large, like
aircraft carriers. Hitting an aircraft carrier *anywhere* at high Mach
is just as good as precisely hitting the bridge or whatever.

On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-5, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 09/03/2022 08.11, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> >> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
> >>> anything for it ?
> >>
> >> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in November of 2024,
> >> my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as the Ukraine
> >> just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his most recent
> >> bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it seriously that he sees
> >> Russia as any kind of threat.
> >
> > Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he berate
> > Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more for its defense?
> > Would it be in Russia's interest to have a well-armed Germany?
> Presumably, to stoke division and acrimony between countries that should
> be allies against La Puta.

He berated European countries for 'freeloading' on US military spending, as part
of his detestation of NATO, making a case that the US should withdraw from it.

pt

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:t08vsj$t1s$4@dont-email.me:

> On 3/8/2022 10:46 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:02:02 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 9:43:24 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And, since Trump is a Putin sock puppet, those calling Putin
>>>> "fascist" are saying the Republican Party is /still/ the
>>>> Party of Hitler. But I am not.
>>>
>>> Putin's the Hitler. Trump is only the Mussolini. Or maybe even
>>> the Franco.
>>
>> Well, Trump was as funny as Mussolini. That is, both were jokes
>> as leaders go.
>>
>>> Trump as Franco - that would be a plus. That would mean that
>>> while Xi and Putin were carving up the world, the U.S. would
>>> actually decline to invade Canada.
>
> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about
> taking anything for it ?
>
Perhaps it's being caused by what he's taking. Maybe something like
LSD, or some sort of muchroom.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:9a025e2b-26f5-4739-b958-0cd1f27a95een@googlegroups.com:

> and announces that while Ukraine is waiting to get into
> NATO, it will still have the full ability to call on the United
> States if it were attacked

Something the President does not have the authority to do, unless
given permission by Congress.

Who, if they had brought up the subject at all, would still be
debating it. Long after Putin has died of old age.

You've really lost your shit lately. Most of your insanity used to be
internally consistent, at least. Now, it's just incomprehensible.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB