On Fri, 20 May 2022 12:10:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:57:56 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>> We are now learing the hard way that Trump's analysis was correct,
>> and that the analysis of a long progression of German governments,
>> including those of Merkel and Schröder, was wrong.
>
>This is true.
>
>While one could argue that Donald Trump had to "make it look good",
>so that it wasn't _obvious_ he was working for Russia - and addressing
>this issue with Germany was safe, as it was clear there was no risk of
>Germany following his advice - that is stretching things a bit.
>
>We do know, for a fact, that his last bankruptcy didn't stop him from
>being a rich man because is last bailout afterwards came from Russian
>oligarchs. That is suspicious, but not conclusive proof.

Alternately, he was just using it to undermine NATO.

On behalf of Putin.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 2022-05-17 9:31 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/17/2022 8:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 18:57:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> 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).
>>
>> What does any of that have to do with the US belonging to NATO?  Are
>> you under the mistaken impression that those wars happened because a
>> NATO member invoked the NATO treaty rather than because Shrub didn't
>> think his dick was big enough?
>
> Both Iraq and Afghanistan were NATO joint ventures.

They were NATO joint ventures because NATO nations were coming to the
assistance of the United States, not vice versa. The United States was
doing those wars with or without NATO.

On 19 May 2022 03:21:30 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> 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.

The catch is that the United States has always used a different
definition of "weapons of mass destruction" than the rest of the
world.

Most of the world defines WMD's as "nukes + biological warfare"
whereas the United States defines WMD's as "nukes + biological warfare
+ poison gas" and specifically with respect to Iraq under Saddam
Hussein Iraq HAD used poison gas against both the Kurds and Iranians.

(Hell, Saddam used gas against the Iranians almost all of the 1980-88
period)

Thus in 2003 there was absolutely no question that Iraq met the US
definition of "users of WMDs" but not the definition used by anybody
else since the evidence that Iraq had made significant steps towards
nukes just wasn't there.

Which is basically the argument made by Rep. Edward Kennedy Jr. (e.g.
JFK's nephew not his brother) in 2003.

The difference in definitions made a huge difference in the
contraversy over going to war.

On 20 May 2022 01:00:04 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-19, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 12:50:40 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, John, that's simply another conspiracy theory - I would have thought you
>>> read enough to know better.
>>>
>>> There were no doubts expressed by any of the intelligence agencies (US,
>>> British and allies) that Iraq had some WMDS.
>>>
>>> There was complete agreement on Iraq having chemical WMDS.

Given that Iraq had already used them against the Kurds and for
several years against the Iranians, how could that be credibly
questioned?

On 2022-05-19 2:21 p.m., Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 5/19/2022 7:49 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-05-18 2:32 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:t63o45$j68$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2022 10:43 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:t61p7g$rur$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 7:45 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 4:57 PM, 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
>>>>>>>>>> -t o-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).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, all the Middle East adventures weren't NATO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second, if Trump hadn't spent four years trying to undermine
>>>>>>> and dismantle NATO there is a good chance that Russia
>>>>>>> wouldn't have invaded Ukraine.  Being part of a strong
>>>>>>> alliance is a way to AVOID wars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.  Both Iraq and Afghanistan were NATO joint ventures.
>>>>>> The British, French, Canadians, and others sent troops in
>>>>>> because the USA invoked the NATO treaty.  Not as many as the
>>>>>> USA did but they did send troops.  Shoot, Britain even sent a
>>>>>> royal grandchild under an assumed name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still say, lets send your kids to the next NATO joint
>>>>>> venture, probably Ukraine or Finland.  I have already sent
>>>>>> mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Lack of involvement in foreign affairs leads to things like
>>>>> 9/11. The philosophy of "do we want to fight them there, or
>>>>> here at home" has significant merit.
>>>>
>>>> I think that is a little too simplistic but,
>>>
>>> It's a long term factor, but it's a big one.
>>>
>>>> you could be right.
>>>
>>> I am.
>>>
>>>>   There was lots of things going on in the middle east and we got
>>>> blamed for a lot of it even though we were not totally at fault.
>>>
>>> We were at fault for enough to piss off some violently crazy
>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> The previous major involvement on USA soil was Pearl Harbor in
>>>> 1941.  We were messing with the Japanese because they were
>>>> messing with China. Whom, we were supporting and running large
>>>> gunboats up and down the Chinese rivers.
>>>>
>>> And? Not all US interests are confined to US soil. That has always
>>> been the case, and always will be. There are entire cultures that
>>> hate us and want to murder us all simply because we are not like
>>> them, and they aren't going away. Ignoring them signals that we are
>>> weak and encourages attacks.
>>>
>>
>> No. There are no such cultures.
>>
>> There may be a large number of PEOPLE within some cultures that feel
>> that way, but even there, I'd bet large that they aren't nearly in the
>> majority.
>
> I think the word "culture" needs to be defined for this sub-discussion
> to have any meaning.
>

No... ...I don't see that.

The word is fine exactly as it is.

"There are entire cultures that hate us and want to murder us all simply
because we are not like them"

I'm sorry, but that is simply hyperbolic bullshit.

On 2022-05-20 9:18 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:49:35 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-05-18 2:32 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:t63o45$j68$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2022 10:43 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:t61p7g$rur$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 7:45 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 4:57 PM, 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
>>>>>>>>>> -t o-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).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, all the Middle East adventures weren't NATO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second, if Trump hadn't spent four years trying to undermine
>>>>>>> and dismantle NATO there is a good chance that Russia
>>>>>>> wouldn't have invaded Ukraine.  Being part of a strong
>>>>>>> alliance is a way to AVOID wars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were NATO joint ventures.
>>>>>> The British, French, Canadians, and others sent troops in
>>>>>> because the USA invoked the NATO treaty. Not as many as the
>>>>>> USA did but they did send troops. Shoot, Britain even sent a
>>>>>> royal grandchild under an assumed name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still say, lets send your kids to the next NATO joint
>>>>>> venture, probably Ukraine or Finland. I have already sent
>>>>>> mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Lack of involvement in foreign affairs leads to things like
>>>>> 9/11. The philosophy of "do we want to fight them there, or
>>>>> here at home" has significant merit.
>>>>
>>>> I think that is a little too simplistic but,
>>>
>>> It's a long term factor, but it's a big one.
>>>
>>>> you could be right.
>>>
>>> I am.
>>>
>>>> There was lots of things going on in the middle east and we got
>>>> blamed for a lot of it even though we were not totally at fault.
>>>
>>> We were at fault for enough to piss off some violently crazy
>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> The previous major involvement on USA soil was Pearl Harbor in
>>>> 1941. We were messing with the Japanese because they were
>>>> messing with China. Whom, we were supporting and running large
>>>> gunboats up and down the Chinese rivers.
>>>>
>>> And? Not all US interests are confined to US soil. That has always
>>> been the case, and always will be. There are entire cultures that
>>> hate us and want to murder us all simply because we are not like
>>> them, and they aren't going away. Ignoring them signals that we are
>>> weak and encourages attacks.
>>>
>>
>> No. There are no such cultures.
>>
>> There may be a large number of PEOPLE within some cultures that feel
>> that way, but even there, I'd bet large that they aren't nearly in the
>> majority.
>
> Perhaps "sub-cultures" would be better, since they are clearly more
> than just a bunch of separate individuals.

I'd argue that the only way to make "sub-culture" fit is to redefine it
as people who are part of the same culture who share the "hate" you want
to talk about.

>
> As the majority, if it tolerates and protects them, then eventually
> the larger culture will become co-responsible with the sub-culture for
> their bad behavior.

On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:10:21 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> 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.

You mean like the US has destroyed ever facility in North Korea
designing and building ICBMs? Easy way to end up eating nukes.
>
>Lynn

On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:55:44 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> 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.

No, they do not.

The Dolphin has 10 torpedo tubes. It is _speculated_ that there is a
nuclear-capable cruise missile in the Israeli inventory that can be
launched from those tubes. The Dolphin has a documented capacity to
carry 16 tube-launched weapons. To carry 12 missiles it would be left
with minimal non-nuclear capability.

On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:40:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> 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.

One would hope so but it's not the way to bet.

On 5/21/2022 9:48 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-05-17 9:31 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 5/17/2022 8:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 18:57:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> 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).
>>>
>>> What does any of that have to do with the US belonging to NATO?  Are
>>> you under the mistaken impression that those wars happened because a
>>> NATO member invoked the NATO treaty rather than because Shrub didn't
>>> think his dick was big enough?
>>
>> Both Iraq and Afghanistan were NATO joint ventures.
>
> They were NATO joint ventures because NATO nations were coming to the
> assistance of the United States, not vice versa.  The United States was
> doing those wars with or without NATO.
>
So yes, Lynn is complaining about American allies coming to America's
aid. :D

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

In article <7gji8hpeuk56v686khouvl7ndg87d4eg78@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On 20 May 2022 01:00:04 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2022-05-19, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 12:50:40 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sorry, John, that's simply another conspiracy theory - I would have
> >>> thought you
> >>> read enough to know better.
> >>>
> >>> There were no doubts expressed by any of the intelligence agencies (US,
> >>> British and allies) that Iraq had some WMDS.
> >>>
> >>> There was complete agreement on Iraq having chemical WMDS.
>
> Given that Iraq had already used them against the Kurds and for
> several years against the Iranians, how could that be credibly
> questioned?

There was the question on whether Iraq had any chemical weapons left.
Supposedly, they made an effort to destroy their entire inventory (I
suspect, even so, there were a few shells misplaced during the war with
Iran and were still sitting in a bunker somewhere in 2003).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 2022-05-21, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On 19 May 2022 03:21:30 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> 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.
>
> The catch is that the United States has always used a different
> definition of "weapons of mass destruction" than the rest of the
> world.
>
> Most of the world defines WMD's as "nukes + biological warfare"
> whereas the United States defines WMD's as "nukes + biological warfare
> + poison gas" and specifically with respect to Iraq under Saddam
> Hussein Iraq HAD used poison gas against both the Kurds and Iranians.
>
> (Hell, Saddam used gas against the Iranians almost all of the 1980-88
> period)
>
> Thus in 2003 there was absolutely no question that Iraq met the US
> definition of "users of WMDs" but not the definition used by anybody
> else since the evidence that Iraq had made significant steps towards
> nukes just wasn't there.
>
> Which is basically the argument made by Rep. Edward Kennedy Jr. (e.g.
> JFK's nephew not his brother) in 2003.
>
> The difference in definitions made a huge difference in the
> contraversy over going to war.

I don't see anything to support your definitions and claims. It is
certainly not what I remember from the era. Lots of European
(British, Italian) uses of chemical weapons as WMD. Do you have
cites?

eg UN
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/
UNODA provides substantive support in the area of the disarmament of
weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological weapons).

eg Kennedy
https://www.emkinstitute.org/resources/speech-against-invasion-iraq
And the Administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam
would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to
Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization.
He seems to be calling them WMD here.

Chris

On 2022-05-21, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On 20 May 2022 01:00:04 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-05-19, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 12:50:40 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, John, that's simply another conspiracy theory - I would have thought you
>>>> read enough to know better.
>>>>
>>>> There were no doubts expressed by any of the intelligence agencies (US,
>>>> British and allies) that Iraq had some WMDS.
>>>>
>>>> There was complete agreement on Iraq having chemical WMDS.
>
> Given that Iraq had already used them against the Kurds and for
> several years against the Iranians, how could that be credibly
> questioned?

There was irrefutable evidence (and Iraq agreed) Iraq had active
chemical and biological WMD uses, stores and research programs pre-Gulf War.
They were required to destroy them post war (1991) and claimed they
did. That was what was in question.

Chris

On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> 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.

You do have a pretty unique idea of word definitions. I can guarantee
you that even now if Russia suddenly attacked 97 separate sites in
Ukraine with over 1000 bombs/missiles over a 4 day period, it would be called
massive.

> 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.

All I said was because of WMD, which you agree with here since the
UN teams were looking for WMD.

> 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.
So?

> 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.

So? It still was because of WMD (along with other reasons).

> ...
>
> "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.

What a silly statement (by you, not Jones). Of course they would not
have a high degree of confidence of active WMD! If they had solid
evidence, they would be directly deposing Hussein rather then just
pressuring him (and destroying the evidence). As you said, they
strongly wanted him gone.

And all of your inaccurate quibbles still don't offer any evidence
against Clinton believing that Iraq had WMDs.

Chris

On Sat, 21 May 2022 15:27:10 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-20 9:18 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:49:35 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-05-18 2:32 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:t63o45$j68$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/18/2022 10:43 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:t61p7g$rur$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 7:45 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 4:57 PM, 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
>>>>>>>>>>> -t o-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).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, all the Middle East adventures weren't NATO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Second, if Trump hadn't spent four years trying to undermine
>>>>>>>> and dismantle NATO there is a good chance that Russia
>>>>>>>> wouldn't have invaded Ukraine.  Being part of a strong
>>>>>>>> alliance is a way to AVOID wars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were NATO joint ventures.
>>>>>>> The British, French, Canadians, and others sent troops in
>>>>>>> because the USA invoked the NATO treaty. Not as many as the
>>>>>>> USA did but they did send troops. Shoot, Britain even sent a
>>>>>>> royal grandchild under an assumed name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still say, lets send your kids to the next NATO joint
>>>>>>> venture, probably Ukraine or Finland. I have already sent
>>>>>>> mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lack of involvement in foreign affairs leads to things like
>>>>>> 9/11. The philosophy of "do we want to fight them there, or
>>>>>> here at home" has significant merit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that is a little too simplistic but,
>>>>
>>>> It's a long term factor, but it's a big one.
>>>>
>>>>> you could be right.
>>>>
>>>> I am.
>>>>
>>>>> There was lots of things going on in the middle east and we got
>>>>> blamed for a lot of it even though we were not totally at fault.
>>>>
>>>> We were at fault for enough to piss off some violently crazy
>>>> people.
>>>>>
>>>>> The previous major involvement on USA soil was Pearl Harbor in
>>>>> 1941. We were messing with the Japanese because they were
>>>>> messing with China. Whom, we were supporting and running large
>>>>> gunboats up and down the Chinese rivers.
>>>>>
>>>> And? Not all US interests are confined to US soil. That has always
>>>> been the case, and always will be. There are entire cultures that
>>>> hate us and want to murder us all simply because we are not like
>>>> them, and they aren't going away. Ignoring them signals that we are
>>>> weak and encourages attacks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. There are no such cultures.
>>>
>>> There may be a large number of PEOPLE within some cultures that feel
>>> that way, but even there, I'd bet large that they aren't nearly in the
>>> majority.
>>
>> Perhaps "sub-cultures" would be better, since they are clearly more
>> than just a bunch of separate individuals.
>
>I'd argue that the only way to make "sub-culture" fit is to redefine it
>as people who are part of the same culture who share the "hate" you want
>to talk about.

Part of the same /sub-/culture. And also of the wider culture, to
which they otherwise conform.

People are more than just one thing, and cultures are more than just
one issue. Sub-cultures can agree on some issues, and differ on
others.

>> As the majority, if it tolerates and protects them, then eventually
>> the larger culture will become co-responsible with the sub-culture for
>> their bad behavior.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 21 May 2022 19:48:27 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:10:21 -0500, Lynn McGuire
><lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> 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.
>
>You mean like the US has destroyed ever facility in North Korea
>designing and building ICBMs? Easy way to end up eating nukes.

You need to look at a map.

For the US, Canada and Mexico would be neighbors.

For N Korea, the huge neighbor is, of course, Commie China.

Which raises the question: why /hasn't/ Commie China invaded N Korea,
removed its nukes, and replaced its insane Commie leader with a
(hopefully) less insane Commie ruler?

Is it perhaps well-aware that a missile that can overfly Japan or
reach Midway can reach ... Beijing?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 21 May 2022 19:10:55 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/21/2022 9:48 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-05-17 9:31 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2022 8:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 18:57:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> 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).
>>>>
>>>> What does any of that have to do with the US belonging to NATO?  Are
>>>> you under the mistaken impression that those wars happened because a
>>>> NATO member invoked the NATO treaty rather than because Shrub didn't
>>>> think his dick was big enough?
>>>
>>> Both Iraq and Afghanistan were NATO joint ventures.
>>
>> They were NATO joint ventures because NATO nations were coming to the
>> assistance of the United States, not vice versa.  The United States was
>> doing those wars with or without NATO.
>>
>So yes, Lynn is complaining about American allies coming to America's
>aid. :D

I suspect his /real/ complaint is that the USA has any allies at all.

Putin would surely prefer it if we did not.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 21 May 2022 21:50:54 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <7gji8hpeuk56v686khouvl7ndg87d4eg78@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 20 May 2022 01:00:04 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2022-05-19, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 12:50:40 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Sorry, John, that's simply another conspiracy theory - I would have
>> >>> thought you
>> >>> read enough to know better.
>> >>>
>> >>> There were no doubts expressed by any of the intelligence agencies (US,
>> >>> British and allies) that Iraq had some WMDS.
>> >>>
>> >>> There was complete agreement on Iraq having chemical WMDS.
>>
>> Given that Iraq had already used them against the Kurds and for
>> several years against the Iranians, how could that be credibly
>> questioned?
>
>There was the question on whether Iraq had any chemical weapons left.
>Supposedly, they made an effort to destroy their entire inventory (I
>suspect, even so, there were a few shells misplaced during the war with
>Iran and were still sitting in a bunker somewhere in 2003).

If so, they were /very/ well hidden. I see no reason to believe we
didn't try to find them, and no reason to believe we ever did.

Hence the "moved them to Syria" theory.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 21 May 2022 13:36:59 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On 19 May 2022 03:21:30 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> 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.
>
>The catch is that the United States has always used a different
>definition of "weapons of mass destruction" than the rest of the
>world.
>
>Most of the world defines WMD's as "nukes + biological warfare"
>whereas the United States defines WMD's as "nukes + biological warfare
>+ poison gas" and specifically with respect to Iraq under Saddam
>Hussein Iraq HAD used poison gas against both the Kurds and Iranians.
>
>(Hell, Saddam used gas against the Iranians almost all of the 1980-88
>period)
>
>Thus in 2003 there was absolutely no question that Iraq met the US
>definition of "users of WMDs" but not the definition used by anybody
>else since the evidence that Iraq had made significant steps towards
>nukes just wasn't there.
>
>Which is basically the argument made by Rep. Edward Kennedy Jr. (e.g.
>JFK's nephew not his brother) in 2003.
>
>The difference in definitions made a huge difference in the
>contraversy over going to war.

Actually, "weapons of mass destruction" was a Soviet/WP term.

The USA term was originally NBC ("Nuclear, Biological, Chemical")
which was changed (to avoid confusion with the TV network) to "CBR"
("Chemical, Biological, Radiological").

I'm not sure when or why the Commie term was adopted.

It's meaning is broader, BTW; it can include conventional explosives
if the destruction caused is massive enough.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:40:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> 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.

As I have noted before, the Strategic forces are separate from the
non-strategic forces, and, since they are the guarantee (through MAD)
of Russia's survival, might well be better maintained.

Or, at least, not staffed by people who were drafted last week.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 5/22/2022 8:57 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2022 19:48:27 -0400, J. Clarke
> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:10:21 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>> You mean like the US has destroyed ever facility in North Korea
>> designing and building ICBMs? Easy way to end up eating nukes.
>
> You need to look at a map.
>
> For the US, Canada and Mexico would be neighbors.
>
> For N Korea, the huge neighbor is, of course, Commie China.
>
> Which raises the question: why /hasn't/ Commie China invaded N Korea,
> removed its nukes, and replaced its insane Commie leader with a
> (hopefully) less insane Commie ruler?
>
> Is it perhaps well-aware that a missile that can overfly Japan or
> reach Midway can reach ... Beijing?

They like having North Korea as a buffer keeping prosperous and
democratic South Korea from being a directly connected neighbor and any
attempt to invade North Korea would cause more problems than the present
regime does. Also China wouldn't need to invade to remove the Kim
dynasty. North Korea is dependent on China for its existence. Without
Chinese aid and trade North Korea would collapse. Well, collapse even
more than its current state.

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

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> schrieb:
> On Sat, 21 May 2022 21:50:54 -0700, Robert Woodward
><robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <7gji8hpeuk56v686khouvl7ndg87d4eg78@4ax.com>,
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 May 2022 01:00:04 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 2022-05-19, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> >> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 12:50:40 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Sorry, John, that's simply another conspiracy theory - I would have
>>> >>> thought you
>>> >>> read enough to know better.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There were no doubts expressed by any of the intelligence agencies (US,
>>> >>> British and allies) that Iraq had some WMDS.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There was complete agreement on Iraq having chemical WMDS.
>>>
>>> Given that Iraq had already used them against the Kurds and for
>>> several years against the Iranians, how could that be credibly
>>> questioned?
>>
>>There was the question on whether Iraq had any chemical weapons left.
>>Supposedly, they made an effort to destroy their entire inventory (I
>>suspect, even so, there were a few shells misplaced during the war with
>>Iran and were still sitting in a bunker somewhere in 2003).
>
> If so, they were /very/ well hidden. I see no reason to believe we
> didn't try to find them, and no reason to believe we ever did.
>
> Hence the "moved them to Syria" theory.

What I read is that Iraq had them, destroyed them, did not keep
adequate records of the destruction, and that Sadaam Hussein liked
to hint that he still had them, to instill fear in his neighbours.

Worst of all possible words, indeed.

On 2022-05-22, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> schrieb:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2022 21:50:54 -0700, Robert Woodward
>><robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <7gji8hpeuk56v686khouvl7ndg87d4eg78@4ax.com>,
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20 May 2022 01:00:04 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On 2022-05-19, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> >> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 12:50:40 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Sorry, John, that's simply another conspiracy theory - I would have
>>>> >>> thought you
>>>> >>> read enough to know better.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There were no doubts expressed by any of the intelligence agencies (US,
>>>> >>> British and allies) that Iraq had some WMDS.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There was complete agreement on Iraq having chemical WMDS.
>>>>
>>>> Given that Iraq had already used them against the Kurds and for
>>>> several years against the Iranians, how could that be credibly
>>>> questioned?
>>>
>>>There was the question on whether Iraq had any chemical weapons left.
>>>Supposedly, they made an effort to destroy their entire inventory (I
>>>suspect, even so, there were a few shells misplaced during the war with
>>>Iran and were still sitting in a bunker somewhere in 2003).
>>
>> If so, they were /very/ well hidden. I see no reason to believe we
>> didn't try to find them, and no reason to believe we ever did.
>>
>> Hence the "moved them to Syria" theory.
>
> What I read is that Iraq had them, destroyed them, did not keep
> adequate records of the destruction, and that Sadaam Hussein liked
> to hint that he still had them, to instill fear in his neighbours.
>
> Worst of all possible words, indeed.

Yes, I would agree that was almost certainly the case.

A fellow baseball parent was an active CIA agent at the time (not that
he would ever tell us that or anything of what he did, but his son
missed a year with the team when the family went to Moscow.) He would
regale us with stories of the great lengths Hussein was going to in
order to conceal any information about presence or absence of WMDs.
An astounding number of offices would close for the day as the UN and
other investigatory teams approached and would discover that their
disks were no longer working when they reopened in a couple of days.

Chris

On Sat, 21 May 2022 21:50:54 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <7gji8hpeuk56v686khouvl7ndg87d4eg78@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 20 May 2022 01:00:04 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2022-05-19, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 12:50:40 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Sorry, John, that's simply another conspiracy theory - I would have
>> >>> thought you
>> >>> read enough to know better.
>> >>>
>> >>> There were no doubts expressed by any of the intelligence agencies (US,
>> >>> British and allies) that Iraq had some WMDS.
>> >>>
>> >>> There was complete agreement on Iraq having chemical WMDS.
>>
>> Given that Iraq had already used them against the Kurds and for
>> several years against the Iranians, how could that be credibly
>> questioned?
>
>There was the question on whether Iraq had any chemical weapons left.
>Supposedly, they made an effort to destroy their entire inventory (I
>suspect, even so, there were a few shells misplaced during the war with
>Iran and were still sitting in a bunker somewhere in 2003).

All Saddam really needed to do was let the UN inspectors do their job.
But he had to play his little game of declaring every doghouse and
outhouse in Iraq to be a "presidential palace".

On Sun, 22 May 2022 09:07:07 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:40:35 -0500, Lynn McGuire
><lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> 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.
>
>As I have noted before, the Strategic forces are separate from the
>non-strategic forces, and, since they are the guarantee (through MAD)
>of Russia's survival, might well be better maintained.
>
>Or, at least, not staffed by people who were drafted last week.

Which means that they are staffed by people with more experience
diverting equipment to line their own pockets.