The original US ABM systems (safeguard)

"Guilty to some degree of supporting brutal mass murdering tin pot third world dictators and savages? Lets protect democracy by getting rid of it? It's this towing-of-the-line type text book quoting that worries/bores me to death."

Heaven knows I don't wish to bore you.

There are many uncomfortable allies the US made during the cold war, some of which were Iraq, and Iran, as well as many Central and South American countries. Iran had 24 Russian divisions poised to invade Iran and the Persian Gulf, afterwhich the US designed and deployed the "quick reaction force" in the mid 1970s, complete with tac nukes, and developed Diego Garcia as a major US base.
South Aferica certainly has had a colorful history as well, however I am not commenting on that because it would demand a whole thread, and one in which I would not participate because it really doesn't interest me.
I don't doubt that the "necessary evils" done in the name of the Cold War has chickens comming home to roost... It was in the name of survival, and while it did hurt some democracy in the world, as a whole it ultimately preserved it. Doing what is right to the point of suicide seems self defeating, don't you think?

"Debating ignorence is rarely fun and almost never enlightening.

Stellar"

It is allways a pleasure.

Sandman11

Originally posted by StellarX
And we were, as all the other pariah states, supported fully by the west till the bitter end. I doubt you know anywhere near as much as you supposed you do and if you continue i will have to correct your ignorence publicly.

Probably one of the most embarassing words to spell incorrectly would be "ignorance".

As for not knowing much about SA, I rather think I know a fair amount. On November 6, 1962, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 1761, condemning South African apartheid policies. On August 7, 1963 the United Nations Security Council established a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa. Following the Soweto uprising in 1976 and its brutal suppression by the apartheid regime, the arms embargo was made mandatory by the UN Security Council on November 4, 1977 and South Africa became increasingly isolated internationally. Numerous conferences were held and the United Nations passed resolutions condemning South Africa, including the World Conference Against Racism in 1978 and 1983. A significant divestment movement started, pressuring investors to refuse to invest in South African companies or companies that did business with South Africa. South African sports teams were barred from participation in international events, and South African culture and tourism were boycotted. Remember Zola Budd ? I do, they had to "label" her as Brirish just so she could compete - such was the shame of being South African.

Additionally, having to steal Mirage III plans from the French to build the Cheetah doesn't really sound much like Western support to me,

As for other pariah states, no one quite managed the elevated status that your dirty little nation achieved thanks to that delightful policy of apartheid, and your typical Dutch arrogance and intolerance of others here on these boards does nothing to shirk that image.

But please do enlighten us about ABMs, I find your posts so very interesting.

Ohhh, I think I will just walk over here, in the corner.... Don't mind me, I'm just here for the band...

Baaahahahahahahhhaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


(stellar has some work to do here)

Bah, I know the fallout from a high altitude detonation is negligable compared to that from those which reach the ground. Which is why I called it a "dirty bomb", a refrence to a bomb with the sole purpose of spreading radioactive matter to create fallout effects. My comments about the negative effects of detonating nukes over one's own country stand though, as that's just setting yourself up for a terrible EMP bath.

Originally posted by Travellar
My comments about the negative effects of detonating nukes over one's own country stand though, as that's just setting yourself up for a terrible EMP bath.

No doubt any household appliance and civil transportation would halt, however many articles about the US and Russian ABM systems declare some resistence to EMP. EMP "shielding" is not a complex thing, I wonder how much EMP they could handle, if not disabeling them, what about the temporary white out effects, which dissapate over time but might be used to the attackers advantage in a coordinated attack... I am afraid this is over my payscale, any ideas?

nope, you just summed up perfectly the reasons for discontinuing the program.

Originally posted by Sandman11
Heaven knows I don't wish to bore you.

Your doing that and far worse. Please learn how to quote properly as your not doing anything worth special privilege.

There are many uncomfortable allies the US made during the cold war, some of which were Iraq,

They helped sponsor SH into power ( or was it the Brits?) so it's not just dealing with someone you have to. They picked him caused he would do what they wanted.

and Iran,

The CIA and British intelligence ousted the democratically elected government of Iran and then supported the brutal "King of kings" the Shah. It's not like they HAD to put up with a dictator as much as the fact that they CREATED him.

as well as many Central and South American countries.

The US created and sponsored most of the brutal repressive regimes in the region and when they could not manage they sponsored the most brutal murdering opposition group they could find. Failing that they created such groups from scratch.

Iran had 24 Russian divisions poised to invade Iran and the Persian Gulf, afterwhich the US designed and deployed the "quick reaction force" in the mid 1970s, complete with tac nukes, and developed Diego Garcia as a major US base.

After they created the dictator wich then allowed the US to build massive observation complexes ( to spy on the USSR) in his country aswell as providing cheap oil and what not else. The fact that the USSR did NOT invade Iran for all that time just goes to show how much they would do to avoid war.

South Aferica certainly has had a colorful history as well, however I am not commenting on that because it would demand a whole thread, and one in which I would not participate because it really doesn't interest me.

The colorful history mostly intistigated by the US and supported by the west in general ? You should avoid talking about this as your bound to show just how little you know.

I don't doubt that the "necessary evils" done in the name of the Cold War has chickens comming home to roost...

Most of these evils were never justified by actions taken by the USSR and were taken only in economic and strategic self interest. The chickens that will come home for another century or more will be well deserved as all the evil done in the name of democracy and "fighting communism" was mostly a sham for imperialistic ends.

It was in the name of survival, and while it did hurt some democracy in the world, as a whole it ultimately preserved it.

The West and specifically destroyed far more democracy than the USSR ever ever ever managed to. We can do a head/body count if you like.

Doing what is right to the point of suicide seems self defeating, don't you think?

Doing evil in the name of "good" is never going to be ok but doing evil using that excuse is far worse. The US used and abused the fight against "communism" in vain self interest ( and the rest of the west mostly supporting this obviously) for it's own aims ever since 1917.

It is allways a pleasure.

It really is not. If you said anything that was not wrong or otherwise false in nature it might start becoming interesting but all i do is correct your patently false claims while you avoid acknowleding the fact.

Stellar

[edit on 8-2-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Probably one of the most embarassing words to spell incorrectly would be "ignorance".

That's true. As long as you understood my intent i guess it's ok and its still rather better than people spouting nonsense wich is rather harder to check up on.

As for not knowing much about SA, I rather think I know a fair amount.

Well actually it's still rather obvious that you do not and your googling attempts is not obscuring the fact. We can all do that but unless you know something more your always going to be stuck with the text books version of history. The West actively supported South-Africa till the last day and trying to argue differently just shows that you are fooled by all the events staged to hide the fact. While Ronnie supported South Africa we really did not need much help anyways so you just go ahead and keep believing the nonsense you saw on TV or googled fin 5 minutes.

Additionally, having to steal Mirage III plans from the French to build the Cheetah doesn't really sound much like Western support to me,

Actually we bough some before the arms embargoes started and then had some help from the Israeli's in building our own. Why stealing would be a bad idea i dont know since it saves alot of money. Funny how such a backwards country can so easily steal such plans if that had somehow happened.

As for other pariah states, no one quite managed the elevated status that your dirty little nation achieved thanks to that delightful policy of apartheid, and your typical Dutch arrogance and intolerance of others here on these boards does nothing to shirk that image.

Well i guess we should have gone with the American or Australian policy and just killed the natives as far and as much as we could for as long as we could get away with it. Funny how we inherited Apartheid from the British but were then blamed for not having the guts to change the policy that would have resulted in Whites losing their privilege. Will America let go of the empire that makes it's high living standards possible? Did our actions results in the death of tens of millions all around the world? We tried something that was bound to fail for lack of courage and political will that might have changed things sooner. We can debate this endlessly if your interested in staying civil and on topic.

Intolerance? Well you should talk!

But please do enlighten us about ABMs, I find your posts so very interesting.

I dont think someone as "ignorant" ( thanks) and agressive is interested in what i have to say. Keep posting as i have no interest in hiding the crimes commited by South African governments over the years.

Stellar

Originally posted by Sandman11
No doubt any household appliance and civil transportation would halt, however many articles about the US and Russian ABM systems declare some resistence to EMP. EMP "shielding" is not a complex thing,

Building on the ABRES experience, the NIKE-X system that emerged in 1963-64 was a revolutionary advance in ABM technologies combining a powerful, multi-aperture phased array radar (MAR), an IBM 360 type computer, and a high acceleration missile (SPRINT) for low altitude intercepts. NIKE-X was designed against MIRVs with high performance RVs, while the computer and the SPRINT interceptor took advantage of atmospheric filtering to discriminate precision engineered decoys and other countermeasures. The MAR radar combined battle management, target and interceptor tracking functions and was highly resistant to nuclear effects. The only high confidence way to overcome the NIKE-X system was to exhaust the stock of interceptors with real RVs

www.fas.org...

As i have showed you before many times. If you were reading you could have quoted that but i guess it just goes to show how little interest you have in objectivity.

I wonder how much EMP they could handle, if not disabeling them, what about the temporary white out effects, which dissapate over time but might be used to the attackers advantage in a coordinated attack... I am afraid this is over my payscale, any ideas?

It seems most of that was just propaganda used by the disarmament campaigners to help reduce the possibility for funding for such a system in the US. MacCarthy had it right all along but protecting your country from the real threats went out of fashion in America long long ago.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

As i have showed you before many times. If you were reading you could have quoted that but i guess it just goes to show how little interest you have in objectivity.
Stellar

So your sources are the only "objective" ones huh?
You clearly are a Soviet apologist justifying something far more evil in its application than any government the West ever proped up. Heck, communism only killed 100 million people, why not give it another try!

And SF is too insignificant of a corner of the world to interest me, and is why I care so little about anything you care to say about it. The real history is from those countries you claim expertise in from your distant corner. Dream on.

Originally posted by StellarX

as well as many Central and South American countries.

The US created and sponsored most of the brutal repressive regimes in the region and when they could not manage they sponsored the most brutal murdering opposition group they could find. Failing that they created such groups from scratch.

Unfortunately, most of the things you've stated, (and none more than the excerpt above), are more the work of Soviet propaganda than reality. The primary export of communist countries throughout the cold war was revolution.

One would hope those posting to a forum such as this would be a little better at discerning truth from propoganda.

Originally posted by Travellar
Unfortunately, most of the things you've stated, (and none more than the excerpt above), are more the work of Soviet propaganda than reality.

Wich is exactly how it was set up to look. Fact is the historic record does not back the assertian that the US got involved in domestic affairs all over the world to save said countries from communism. It's just shear fantasy and not all that hard to disprove.

The primary export of communist countries throughout the cold war was revolution.

They failed badly then as the US did much better without apparently even having such a policy.

One would hope those posting to a forum such as this would be a little better at discerning truth from propoganda.

One would hope that people read more than one book on any given topic trying to take all facts and points of views into consideration without coming on a public forum and assuming they happened on the truth with their fist try. Your free to pick any of the American interventions in the cold war as example so that i may show you why your the one who's mind has been clouded by lies and cleverly planted propaganda.

Stellar

Originally posted by Sandman11
So your sources are the only "objective" ones huh?

No i used to believe much the same as everyone else and was thus duped for most of my life. Sources are enver reliable in isolation as understanding context is what really makes investigation into history possible, imo.

You clearly are a Soviet apologist justifying something far more evil in its application than any government the West ever proped up.

Yeah i am a evil communist for disagreeing with you. I guess it's about time for you to go for personal attacks now that your realising just how outclassed you are. Whatever the crimes of the USSR it was at least honest about its intent in the world and it's civillians were not in the main fooled. The USA did the same kind of evil with far more gusto and absolutely no motivation other than naked self interest. Survival was never a issue as that could best be handled by rooting out all the parties native to America who were doing their damnnest to weaken the country internally.

Heck, communism only killed 100 million people, why not give it another try!

Nonsense. Have you ever checked even one of your claims before mouthing off?

And SF is too insignificant of a corner of the world to interest me, and is why I care so little about anything you care to say about it.

Even if you cared i do not think i would make much the difference considering your record on topics you claim knowledge on.

The real history is from those countries you claim expertise in from your distant corner. Dream on.

If i was dreaming i would probably not find sources in the numbers i do. Once you start sourcing your claims you can start insulting mine all you want. Untill that time i suggest you start acting the part and doing your share of the work.

Well done with the quote tags you managed. I was fearing you were simply incapable.

Stellar

[edit on 9-2-2006 by StellarX]

"Yeah i am a evil communist for disagreeing with you. I guess it's about time for you to go for personal attacks now that your realising just how outclassed you are. "


The only insults are on your part. Putting down people is the clear and obvious lost arguement, and closed mind. I will not descend to that level but I do grow weary of it.
Calling you a soviet apologist is not an insult. It is an obvious clear identification. Calling a duck a duck is not a put down, unless the duck either doesnt' think he is a duck or doesn't want to be identified as one.


"Whatever the crimes of the USSR it was at least honest about its intent in the world and it's civillians were not in the main fooled.."


You are right in that the civillians in the USSR were not fooled, but the government of the USSR was rarely honest with anyone. They used terror on its own people to the extent that they were just too terrified to be able to stand up to it. That is honest huh? And the KGB must be a bastion of honesty and justice in your opinion.
The US didn't purge tens of millions of it's own poeple. It didn't starve intentionally entire regions of its population as Stalin did to the Ukranians, wiping out Kulaks. It didn't take people away in the middle of the night for no reason other than having an opinion for a "trial" without appeal lasting minutes followed by years in the Gulag or a bullet to the neck. Alexander Solzenitzens book "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch", and "Gulag Archipelago" went into much detail of the atrocities done to the Soviet people in the name of "the people".
Do you deny that in Stalin's days this conversation we are having wouldn't be our death sentence? Between the purges of the Soviet Union, and Soviet Russia just before that under Lenin upwards of 60 million were put to death. Cambodia under Pol Pot killed 40 percent of everyone in that country. China is still a mystery as to how many have died, but it is probably at least in the tens of millions. North Korea, still has executions to this day for dissent. All in the name of "the people".
The horrors of communism are well documented, but I find these books to be pointed at our discussion. I am sure you will deny them, but they (and hundreds like them) are generally accepted both inside and outside the West. Please attach your own reading list so that I can evaluate your sources on this subject, and please keep your personal put downs to a minumum. Such tactics as your insults are the maturity level of a teenager.

www.amazon.com...=1139577276/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-9636364-8785749?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
www.amazon.com...=1139577276/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-9636364-8785749?s=books&v=glance&n=283155



[edit on 10-2-2006 by Sandman11]

Originally posted by StellarX
One would hope that people read more than one book on any given topic trying to take all facts and points of views into consideration without coming on a public forum and assuming they happened on the truth with their fist try. Your free to pick any of the American interventions in the cold war as example so that i may show you why your the one who's mind has been clouded by lies and cleverly planted propaganda.

Stellar

Challenge accepted. We'll start with Grenada.

Originally posted by Travellar
Stellar

Challenge accepted. We'll start with Grenada.

It's not a challenge really as there is not much to argue about. Your ignorance on the topic have not and will not change history.

Lying -- one of the few growth industries in Washington

You would do very well getting his book ( " Killing hope") as long as you dont want to maintain your badly misinformed views about the last few decades.

Stellar

These countries purportedly feared some form of aggressive act from the new ultra-leftist regime in Grenada which had deposed socialist leader Maurice Bishop. Bishop had been expelled from the ruling party on 12 October, placed under house arrest the next day, and murdered on the 19th.

The implication there is the US decided to throw out someone else's revolution on idealogical grounds. That the people of Grenada wished to be rid of thier former government. That this 'revolution' was thier doing.

So let's skip down the article a ways to the seemingly mandatory "US troops are murdurous thugs" excerpts.

captured Cubans used as hostages, ordered to march in front of American jeeps as they advanced on Cuban positions, a violation of the Geneva Convention

Even the author is very selective in choosing just bits and pieces of events, while writing in sentance fragments. I'll only pose two questions here; 1) If this was an internal affair of the people of Grenada, why were our marines capturing Cubans there? 2) If we were rushing in so fast and uninvited to depose thier 'revolution', why were our troops advancing on Cuban positions?

Might I suggest "Ragged War" by Leroy Thompson. It is not about the invasion of Grenada specificly, but that invasion is mentioned along with surrounding events. Since you choose to engage in personal attacks on me every chance you get, do not expect me to go out of my way to provide links to a more extensive library for you.

Next on the list, Korea. (to eventually be followed with Nicuragua, Afganistan, and perhaps a few others, but for now, Korea)

Originally posted by Sandman11
The only insults are on your part. Putting down people is the clear and obvious lost arguement, and closed mind. I will not descend to that level but I do grow weary of it.

Well i have been trying to stick with the facts and trying to answers your questions on every thread but i have realised that you care nothing for the facts and don't care to post the facts you base your disagreement on. You avoid my points like i did not even mention them and then you say i insult you? Once you start having enough respect to address my carefully prepared points i might start taking you seriously.

Calling you a soviet apologist is not an insult. It is an obvious clear identification. Calling a duck a duck is not a put down, unless the duck either doesnt' think he is a duck or doesn't want to be identified as one.

Why do you call me a Soviet apologist? By the logic you employ capitalism has killed many more people even if that 100 million claim was anywhere near true. I do not have the apologise for the Soviet Union and interpreting my words is such is just trying to avoid the fact that you believed western propaganda more than i ever believed Soviet.

You are right in that the civillians in the USSR were not fooled, but the government of the USSR was rarely honest with anyone.

Global revolution and death to the imperialist? I think that is pretty honest even if they did not try or manage anything like it.

They used terror on its own people to the extent that they were just too terrified to be able to stand up to it.

People will always fight back at a certain point so they obviously struck a balance between meeting most basic needs while taking away some other rights. People put up with as much as they can before rebelling and any government who thinks it can get away with anything it likes is profoundly stupid and ignorant of history.

That is honest huh? And the KGB must be a bastion of honesty and justice in your opinion.

Their actions resulted in less deaths than CIA action. They were more truthful in their global actions than the CIA ever was. It's just the facts if you cared to look.

The US didn't purge tens of millions of it's own poeple. It didn't starve intentionally entire regions of its population as Stalin did to the Ukranians, wiping out Kulaks.

The use don't have the purge as you can consign your problem people to poverty with much the same result as killing them ( which happens in the long run anyways). Our best information indicates that there was never an intentional policy of starving millions and it was more mismanagement than genocide even given the results being much the same. The tens of millions number is has always been disputed by right minded people so i suggest you start investigating.

It didn't take people away in the middle of the night for no reason other than having an opinion for a "trial" without appeal lasting minutes followed by years in the Gulag or a bullet to the neck. Alexander Solzenitzens book "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch", and "Gulag Archipelago" went into much detail of the atrocities done to the Soviet people in the name of "the people".

I guess you really do believe everything you read about communism. Believing Solzenitzens is a really pathetic thing to do as it was speculation and lies, not detail.

Do you deny that in Stalin's days this conversation we are having wouldn't be our death sentence?

Yes i would as you first have to be caught and be caught by someone who wanted you dead anyways. If your stupid you will meet your death in almost any country.

Between the purges of the Soviet Union, and Soviet Russia just before that under Lenin upwards of 60 million were put to death.

Shear complete nonsense no serious scholar has ever believed.

Cambodia under Pol Pot killed 40 percent of everyone in that country.

Backed by the US government.

China is still a mystery as to how many have died, but it is probably at least in the tens of millions.

Just go with mindless speculation since it must be horrible given their communist! Well done man.

North Korea, still has executions to this day for dissent. All in the name of "the people".

That sort of thing is never done in the interest of the people anymore than the Iraq invasion was in the interest of the people. Don't think for a moment that communist countries are not run by the same old killers that we have in our so called democratic countries. Their the same people only in same countries they can get away with killing their opposition.

The horrors of communism are well documented, but I find these books to be pointed at our discussion.

It is well documented yes but i guess you chose to obviously lies to make try defend something i never attacked.

I am sure you will deny them, but they (and hundreds like them) are generally accepted both inside and outside the West.

Generally accepted being such a wonderful standard to base your view of history on. The West obviously having the final word on what reality and history really is/was.

Please attach your own reading list so that I can evaluate your sources on this subject, and please keep your personal put downs to a minimum.

You could not evaluate any sources i would give now any more than you could the dozens i did on our last thread. You don't care about sources if they do not agree with your narrow minded propaganda induced anti-communist-western-text-book view of history.

Such tactics as your insults are the maturity level of a teenager.

I said as much when we i realised how you were going to conduct yourself but i am still waiting for you to grow up and fact at least some of the facts i presented.

www.amazon.com...=1139577276/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-9636364-8785749?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
www.amazon.com...=1139577276/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-9636364-8785749?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Only you would list those as sources probably nor bothering to read all the posts which should have given you at least some reason for checking the facts. By the loose definition of communism employed by these books ( death due to starvation and poverty is murder and such ) capitalism has killed far more than even the ludicrous 100 million communism somehow managed.

Those books are not worth a damn and i suggest you start browsing the Internet ( plenty of official government websites would disagree with those numbers) to find just how badly you have been fooled all your life.

Stellar

Originally posted by Travellar
The implication there is the US decided to throw out someone else's revolution on idealogical grounds. That the people of Grenada wished to be rid of thier former government. That this 'revolution' was thier doing.

To some degree but mainly the fact that the US chose to intervene as if this country was a threat to them. IT was naked self interest and nothing all to do with Communism.

So let's skip down the article a ways to the seemingly mandatory "US troops are murdurous thugs" excerpts.

Well if they frequently turn out to be who's fault is that anyways; mine or the authors?

Even the author is very selective in choosing just bits and pieces of events, while writing in sentance fragments.

It's text from his book so if you want it all get the book. Stop grasping etc.

I'll only pose two questions here; 1) If this was an internal affair of the people of Grenada, why were our marines capturing Cubans there?

Probably there to help fitht off the invaders? Since when may countries no help each other ward off agression? I guess you must be assuming that that Evil Cubans set it all up to make America look bad or something?

2) If we were rushing in so fast and uninvited to depose thier 'revolution', why were our troops advancing on Cuban positions?

I have no idea but why were American troops there to advance on Cuban positions? Where these Cuban positions not allowed by the current government?

Might I suggest "Ragged War" by Leroy Thompson. It is not about the invasion of Grenada specificly, but that invasion is mentioned along with surrounding events.

Thanks and since i am really ignorant and dont know what the hell is going on i guess this book will cure me; right?

Since you choose to engage in personal attacks on me every chance you get, do not expect me to go out of my way to provide links to a more extensive library for you.

I only attack when attacked so go look at what you wrote the first time. I dont expect anything of you and that has been my point from the start. How much can be expected from anyone who believes cold war propaganda even if his being show that it's just that?

Next on the list, Korea. (to eventually be followed with Nicuragua, Afganistan, and perhaps a few others, but for now, Korea)

What about Korea? South Korea attacked North Korea and when they were beaten back they cried for help and help arrived. Just another case of American allies ( they tend to pick them) being dictators of note who do as they please and drag America into their mess. Why the American government always choose to sponsor the "wrong"( brutal/mass murdering0 side is something worth investigation.

Stellar

"Those books are not worth a damn and i suggest you start browsing the Internet ( plenty of official government websites would disagree with those numbers) to find just how badly you have been fooled all your life.

Stellar"

I would say you have that exactly backwards. Psychologists call it "projection".


In June 1992 Russian President Boris Yeltsin in an address to the US House of Representatives declared;

"The world can sigh in relief. The idol of Communism, which spread everywhere social strife, animosity, and unparalleled brutality, which instilled fear in humanity, has collapsed. It has collapsed never to rise again."

Thus the Cold war ended. The USSR no longer exists. We won. And it appears President Yeltsin was aware of the brutality of the Soviet system.

And now you say it is South Korea that is the brutal government of the two Korea's? I am speachless.





[edit on 11-2-2006 by Sandman11]