What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-25 01:33:17

GW Johnson wrote:

Tom:
No, I am not related to LBJ, not within about the last 6 or 7 centuries, anyway.
Texas is a big state, some 800 miles across, both N-S and E-W. It now has a population well over 20 million. Chances are getting good for two people here to share the same surname. They were good back then, actually, at 9-10 million.
There was no "winning" in Vietnam, any more than there is "winning" to be had in either Iraq or Afghanistan or any of those other putrid cesspit-examples of "civilization" in which we have sacrificed our young. I am a Vietnam-era vet, and I understand what went wrong in SE Asia, even though I did not serve in-theater there. I saw that idiocy first-hand, every single day.

Just because Nixon couldn't do it, doesn't mean no one could. Are you saying that Richard Nixon was the best of all possible presidents? We haven't had all possible presidents trying to win the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese aren't a race of supermen, they aren't unbeatable! The thing that the Vietnamese still don't have today that they had back then is democracy, so the real losers in the Vietnam War were the Vietnamese that lost their freedom, they may have gained some economic prosperity, but they still haven't regained their freedom. I say ditto for the Russians, they are no longer living under a democratic regime, and some on the left would say their return to serfdom is "progress!" Russia is back to where it was at the beginning of the 20th century, it has a class of peasants, and it has an informal "Nobility" ruling over them, and a "Czar" named Putin. The Russians are once again downtrodden, and living in the most socially backwards country in Europe, that borders on a Third World standard of living, with a tin pot dictator and phony elections to legitimize his rule. Vietnam could have been won, it was only a matter of national will on our part, and our willingness to do the things that were necessary in order to defeat the enemy in World War II, for example. Defeating Japan during World War II was harder than defeating Vietnam, which in case you forgot, Japan conquered and occupied during World War II. The Vietnamese weren't undefeatable supermen back then.

In the case of Iraq, what were talking about now is ISIS, we have no choice but to defeat them, or otherwise they will try to defeat us. Not that they can of course, but they will keep on trying and keep on killing Americans until we develop the backbone so we do the things necessary to defeat them like we did to the Japanese to cause them to surrender, and I don't mean just the atomic bombs! The atom bombs were just icing on the cake, we also destroyed Tokyo with conventional incendiary bombs. When the Japanese attempted to use their own civilians as human shields and strapped bombs to them and told them to surrender to American GIs so they could blow them up, our soldiers learned to cut them down mercilessly to discourage that tactic, and FDR and Truman supported them when they did that. LBJ unfortunately tied our soldiers hands, and did not allow closure for the Vietnam war out of humanitarian concerns. Sherman said it, "War is Hell, there is no reforming it," we can only end it quickly, or let it drag on and on, or let the enemy have his victory. If we say yhe enemy cannot be beat, we might as well surrender, take out the white flag and give up our country. There are certain wars, the enemy just won't let us walk away from, and the War against ISIS is one of those. Their purpose is to defeat and conquer us, and force us all to convert to Islam at the point of the sword! We can end this quickly by waging total war against them without let up until they are defeated, or we can let it drag on and on, it is our choice, but walking away from it will only result in the enemy taking it to us!

I will say the Vietnamese have made significant progress toward being more civilized since we left. It only took them 4 decades or so. None of the middle eastern cesspits can make that claim. None of them has been worth anything since the end of the Moors about 12 centuries ago.

The Vietnamese are still not free, they are living under an undemocratic regime, which may however see the merits of Capitalism, but they still rule undemocratically, they are no better off in fact than the Chinese. Once upon a time the Chinese had democracy, where was a Republic of China between the last Emperor and the rise to power of the Communists, who only rose to power because the Japanese destabilized China with their invasion and occupation of the same!

As for LBJ, like all men, whether they serve as president or not, he had his good points and bad points. We are all mixtures of the light and dark sides; that is the fundamental nature of being human. At the time, I liked him for his basic sense of humanity and decency. I still do. Although I disagreed quite strongly with what he did about Vietnam. Even so, may he R.I.P.
Even McNamara has come to agree with my viewpoint about Vietnam, although he took decades longer than me to see the truth, and I have always despised him for that lack (plus a number of other of his sins as head of the Defense Dept). Can't help it, I'm just human. But I do not suffer fools gladly.

He obviously has a high opinion of himself, if he takes the opinion that if he can't do it, it must be impossible!

As I said, it would not have made any significant difference who LBJ's successor was to the outcome of the Apollo program. There are two big reasons for that: (1) none of the politicians since, not even Reagan, were passionate about space the way LBJ was, and (2) when you do "flag-and-footprints", there is no lasting return on the investment of resources and effort.

Ronald Reagan wasn't passionate about the Space Shuttle either, but he let it continue, Why do you think he would have ended the Apollo Program? Does he look the sort to abandon space to the Soviets? Reagan was big on symbols, and he would have known that cancelling Apollo would have looked like a retreat, and that in the face of Soviet aggression he would not do! Now he did not start a new Moon Program, but he would have continued one that already existed, and as I stated before those Saturn Vs could have been used to place ABM systems in orbit, so that would have been the justification for keeping them.

I still see "flag-and-footprints" in almost everything NASA proposes about Mars. Whether this is driven by them, or by the ULA monopoly they have supported for so long, or both together, is moot. It cannot lead anywhere. Wrong model.
GW

SpaceNut · 2016-04-25 18:30:41

Thank you Tom...
The world has changed a great deal over the last century for sure. As we went from a strategical war to one of gorilla war tactics all over again...in cycles with each conflict...after WWII....of course with each the Nasa that we thought was civilian was put into hybernation as the military powers waged war...

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-26 00:24:07

The short version is that the terrorists have backed us into a corner, the North Vietnamese have not, they allowed the United States to exit their civil war, and they did not go after the United States after it had withdrawn from the Vietnam War. the ISIS-AL Qaeda-Taliban Terrorists have not, unfortunately for them, they view the Vietnam War as a sign of our weakness, and that we are not capable of wiping them out, if they force us to, by making it into an existential war between them and us, and if they do that, it will be the end of them! We don't want to go down to their level, but if they force us to, then it will be very bad for them. The United States will survive, we survived decimating the Native Americans after all, we survived destroying Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, because the enemy gave us no choice. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS are making the same mistake! We are not going to tolerate an endless war indefinitely, and surrender to them and conversion to Islam is not an option, so we have only one choice to end this war, unless the enemy ends it themselves, we need to make that clear to them and make them know that we mean it, and maybe they will do the wise thing and end this war themselves rather than bring us down to their level.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-04-26 09:29:05)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-26 13:14:13

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom, that's politics again. I respond to that claim before, and won't do it here. Please put that stuff in the Politics thread.

This is a map of the Baltic region. Honestly do you see a lot of Russia there? Where does Putin come off saying that the Baltic belongs to him? Why should we entertain a would be "Napoleon" who thinks it is his right to conquer the World in the name of Russia? Honestly Russia can't conquer the World, it can destroy much of the World with its nuclear arsenal, but it can't conquer it! The rest of the World has its own nuclear arsenal, and if Russia uses its nukes, its not going to be around to rule anything, and if Putin somehow survives, he won't have a country, He would have killed off 90% of the human race and not gotten anything for Russia, he will be remembered as a mass murderer if there is anyone to remember him at all. It is Putin's Cold War, it is Putin's hot war, any war he starts in Europe belongs to him, and it is up to him not to have this conflict if he so desires!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-04-26 13:14:52)

SpaceNut · 2016-04-26 14:18:16

Current map but in the past USSR was partly in control

Established on 24 February 1918, the Republic of Estonia came into existence towards the end of World War I. During World War II, Estonia was then occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, then Nazi Germany a year later and again in 1944 establishing the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1988, during the Singing Revolution, the Estonian SSR issued the Estonian Sovereignty Declaration to defy against the Soviet rule. Estonia then restored its independence during the 1991 coup by the Soviets on the night of 20 August 1991.

As World War I neared its end, Lithuania's Act of Independence was signed on 16 February 1918, declaring the establishment of a sovereign State of Lithuania. Starting in 1940, Lithuania was occupied first by the Soviet Union and then by Nazi Germany. As World War II neared its end in 1944 and the Germans retreated, the Soviet Union reoccupied Lithuania. On 11 March 1990, a year before the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union, Lithuania became the first Soviet republic to declare itself independent, resulting in the restoration of an independent State of Lithuania.

In the aftermath of the 1917 Russian Revolution, Belarus declared independence as the Belarusian People's Republic, succeeded by the Socialist Soviet Republic of Byelorussia, which became a founding constituent republic of the Soviet Union in 1922 and was renamed as the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (Byelorussian SSR). Belarus lost almost half of its territory to Poland after the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921. Much of the borders of Belarus took their modern shape in 1939 when some lands of the Second Polish Republic were reintegrated into it after the Soviet invasion of Poland and were finalized after World War II. 1945 Belarus became a founding member of the United Nations, along with the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian SSR. The parliament of the republic declared the sovereignty of Belarus on 27 July 1990, and during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Belarus declared independence on 25 August 1991.[16] Alexander Lukashenko has served as the country's president since 1994. Lukashenko continued a number of Soviet-era policies, such as state ownership of large sections of the economy. Elections under Lukashenko's rule have been widely criticized as unfair by the international community; and according to many countries and organizations, political opposition has been violently suppressed. In 2000 Belarus and Russia signed a treaty for greater cooperation, with some hints of forming a Union State.

Latvia is a democratic parliamentary republic established in 1918. The Republic of Latvia was founded on 18 November 1918. However, its de facto independence was interrupted at the outset of World War II. In 1940, the country was forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union, invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany in 1941, and re-occupied by the Soviets in 1944 to form the Latvian SSR for the next fifty years. The peaceful Singing Revolution, starting in 1987, called for Baltic emancipation of Soviet rule. It ended with the Declaration on the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia on 4 May 1990, and restoring de facto independence on 21 August 1991.

In the length of a century the peoples of these areas were occupied and were part of Russia but have only become free so long as each creates allies and a strong military to defend its self with..I would say that none would last long if Russia did invade but that is where the idea of treaties begin with allies....to give aid to the occurence if such an event did happen.

RobertDyck · 2016-04-26 15:41:01

Conflict resolution starts with respect. You can't act like a dictator, demanding everyone else do what you say, and only when they're obediently obey like a lap dog do you deign to show respect. No, it STARTS by showing respect. We had solved the Cold War. It was OVER! The Soviet Union was an ally during World War 1 & 2. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia was a democracy and engaged the world with trade. But NATO asked all former Warsaw Pact countries to join, and even the Baltic states joined.

In the late 1700s, Crimea and what is now East Ukraine was conquered by Russia. That was to gain an all weather port for both navy and trade. Europe had a lot of wars, from the fall of the Roman Empire until World War 2. Borders of all European countries changed by these wars. Russia was not unique. We had stability, even with the breakup of the Soviet Union, there was still no war between nations over borders. But no, the US couldn't leave well enough alone. Military contractors didn't like cut-backs to military spending. That mean fewer orders for weapons and ammunition, so less business for them. They wanted the extreme overspending during Ronald Regan's administration. Even Ronald Regan knew that level of spending wasn't sustainable, if the US tried it would cause economic collapse. But military contractors didn't care, they just wanted profits. They pressured candidate George W. Bush to increase spending to SDI levels. He did. But it didn't stop there, they wanted active military engagement to justify sustained purchases of their products. They lobbied everyone with influence to stir up trouble. Too many American politicians bragged that the US was the only remaining superpower. That sort of bragging just begs someone to knock you down. That resulted in something I hadn't expected: Al-Qaeda. However, after Al-Qaeda unsuccessfully attacked the World Trade Center, I believed they would keep trying until they succeeded. I wasn't the only one, a lot of people saw that coming.

Meanwhile those lobbied to stir up trouble tried to rub Russia's face in the fact they were an "ex"-superpower. That sort of insult just demands a backlash. You don't do that to an opponent. Being poor sport, being a poor winner, demeaning your opponent, just begs trouble. A lot of citizens in Russia demanded their politicians do something to restore their pride. This laid the same groundwork as Germany before Word War 2. Putin is that strong leader, if it wasn't him it would have been someone worse. America sowed the wind, now reap the whirlwind.

America didn't just absorb all the former Warsaw Pact countries, and the former Soviet Republics that are the Baltic States. President Clinton went to the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. While Clinton's administration played politics and foreign affairs games to draw George into their sphere of influence, Putin did everything he could to ensure George remained part of the Russian sphere. The final result was civil war in the northern province of Georgia. Then America started negotiations with Ukraine. The Donbas is still a major part of Russia's military industrial complex. This would be like Russia negotiating with Utah. Ain't no way Putin could afford to lose that. Ain't going to lose control over navy ports in Crimea, and ain't no way they're going to lose military manufacturing in Donbas.

You realize Crimea was never part of a separate Ukraine. It was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire before Russia captured it in 1783. In 1954 the Head of State of the Soviet Union put Crimea under administration of the Republic of Ukraine. After all, what does it matter which part of the Soviet Union administers it? This move gave him political support, and East Ukraine had highly productive industry at the time. So Russia has considers Crimea to be Russian, not Ukrainian.

But you asked "Honestly do you see a lot of Russia there?" Do you notice that the former Prussia is now called Kaliningrad, and is part of Russia? The Baltic States are between two parts of Russia.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-26 20:24:11

RobertDyck wrote:

Conflict resolution starts with respect. You can't act like a dictator, demanding everyone else do what you say, and only when they're obediently obey like a lap dog do you deign to show respect. No, it STARTS by showing respect. We had solved the Cold War. It was OVER! The Soviet Union was an ally during World War 1 & 2. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia was a democracy and engaged the world with trade. But NATO asked all former Warsaw Pact countries to join, and even the Baltic states joined.

Asked not forced! The Russians don't know how to ask, and they don't give the former Soviet Republics that are now sovereign states any respect! All Russia knows how to do is bully other states with threats of force, their relationships with other countries and their so called "Sphere of Influence" is all about bullying and threatening those states and giving ultimatums about what would happen if they don't comply! That is what happened to Ukraine! the United States' "Sphere of Interest" is all about mutual respect and common interest. No country is a member of NATO because the United States threatened them if they did not join, they saw the mutual benefit of joining, they understand that the United States does not want to annex their territories, and the United States has not actually expanded its territory since the 19th century. (Alaska and Hawaii were added as states in 1959, but they were US territories long before that. Alaska was sold to the US by Russia in the 19th century for example)

In the late 1700s, Crimea and what is now East Ukraine was conquered by Russia. That was to gain an all weather port for both navy and trade. Europe had a lot of wars, from the fall of the Roman Empire until World War 2. Borders of all European countries changed by these wars. Russia was not unique. We had stability, even with the breakup of the Soviet Union, there was still no war between nations over borders. But no, the US couldn't leave well enough alone.

The US did not start any wars in Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a war that was started by Serbia for instance, but not by us.

Military contractors didn't like cut-backs to military spending. That mean fewer orders for weapons and ammunition, so less business for them. They wanted the extreme overspending during Ronald Regan's administration. Even Ronald Regan knew that level of spending wasn't sustainable, if the US tried it would cause economic collapse.

Well, he sustained it through all 8 years of his Administration and the United States didn't collapse, and the US debt incurred was less than it has been under the Obama Administration.

But military contractors didn't care, they just wanted profits. They pressured candidate George W. Bush to increase spending to SDI levels. He did. But it didn't stop there, they wanted active military engagement to justify sustained purchases of their products.

So they launched a surprise missile attack on the Soviet Union and World War III started and civilization was destroyed with 90% causalities on both sides, and radiation levels in the upper atmosphere that would last decades! Oh excuse me, that was alternate history!

They lobbied everyone with influence to stir up trouble.

"Oh please Mr. Slobodan Milosevic can you please start slaughtering and raping Bosnian civilians, so we can start spending more on our military? Oh please Saddam Hussein, could you please invade Kuwait so we can get to spend more on our military as we try to stop you?" Does this line of thought sound ridiculous, or is it just me?

Too many American politicians bragged that the US was the only remaining superpower.

That is true.

That sort of bragging just begs someone to knock you down.

Why would they want to? We would only kill them in the end, and we have, and we are not finished doing the killing in the middle east, not by a long shot! These people want wars? We are going to kill them in order to stop them. Why not just have peace? That has been what we've been advocating all along. No one from the United States has suggested that we start a war here or their, and you can't prove the opposite! All the wars that have occurred since the end of the Soviet Union has been someone else's idea, not ours!

That resulted in something I hadn't expected: Al-Qaeda. However, after Al-Qaeda unsuccessfully attacked the World Trade Center, I believed they would keep trying until they succeeded. I wasn't the only one, a lot of people saw that coming.

And they will keep trying until we turn them into a pile of ash! So tell me how it is our fault that they are this way? They love war and they like to die.

Meanwhile those lobbied to stir up trouble tried to rub Russia's face in the fact they were an "ex"-superpower. That sort of insult just demands a backlash.

Why? We were just being honest, in fact Russia hasn't been a Superpower since the 1950s, its economy lagged behind our, its GDP could keep up with the United States, its weapons became obsolete, and our weapons slaughters theirs in the battlefield every time a brushfire war flared up. The Russians couldn't grow their economy, and they still can't. What they are doing now is drilling for oil and extracting mineral resources for export Russia and Germany have the same size economy, Germany is a smaller nation, but Russia just can't bring up its standard of living, because it won't adopt market forces, its economic managers just don't want to give up their centralized control over Russia's economy, and they are lousy managers! If Russia wants to be a superpower again, it needs to do what Germany and Japan have done. There are a lot of Toyotas and Volkswagens on our roads, I don't see a lot of Russian cars on them. I go to a Walmart, and very few products are ever labeled, "Made in Russia!" Russia makes some second rate weapons, people buy from them, because the US won't sell to them, so they settle for second best and buy from Russia. Russian airplanes, such as the Tuplev are creeky and dangerous to fly in. Russian pilots are poorly trained as we have seen by their close calls with US destroyers, they just don't know how to keep a safe distance from them, and their is all that air space they can fly in! The Russians don't know how to be a great nation, and they haven't tried, all they know how to do is cause trouble, and they equate "causing trouble" to "being great" and its not!

You don't do that to an opponent. Being poor sport, being a poor winner, demeaning your opponent, just begs trouble.

What do you want us to do? Lie to them? The Soviet Experiment failed, we shouldn't tell them any different, and naturally their are consequences to that failure. If the Russians really want to be great, they have to be like the United States, and to be honest, they have never tried! Russia has all the right ingredients, they have a lot of land and resources, and an educated and skilled populace, but they use these resources to start wars with their neighbors and to try and take their land. The Russians don't seem to know anything else other than territorial conquest, they are still playing Napoleon's great game. No one else is, besides a handful of Third World countries! Does Russia want to be like them, or does it want to be a part of the First World? If it wants to be like one of us, it should act like one of us! So far it is not doing that! Russia is not behaving like Germany! Nazi Germany maybe, but not the Germany of today Putin is following in Hitler's footsteps, is he aware that Hitler lost World War II? Why doesn't he follow the example of history's winners and not its losers. Hitler was a loser, that is for sure!

A lot of citizens in Russia demanded their politicians do something to restore their pride. This laid the same groundwork as Germany before Word War 2. Putin is that strong leader, if it wasn't him it would have been someone worse. America sowed the wind, now reap the whirlwind.

Why does Russia want to be like Germany before World War II and not Germany after World War II? Seems to me, the After World War II Germany has been more successful than the before World War II Germany, don't you think? Germany today has the same GDP as Russia, why doesn't Russia follow that successful model? Don't Russians want to raise their standard of living?

America didn't just absorb all the former Warsaw Pact countries,

Well actually we didn't, we still have 50 states, no more no less, our territories are the same, and they don't include any former Warsaw Pact Nations, not that they wouldn't be welcome to join, they just haven't.

and the former Soviet Republics that are the Baltic States.

They were conquered during World War II, then never joined the Soviet Union of their own free will, just as they didn't join their Third Reich when they were invaded by them. Seems to me they don't belong to either Germany or Russia, don't you agree? Germany is not making Imperious noises in the Baltic, they are buzzing our warships with their fighter planes, now if Germany can behave, why can't Russia? And why shouldn't we be holding Russia up to the same standards to which we hold Germany? As I said before, if Russia wants to be one of us, they should act like one of us, and we would welcome them in. No one has ever said any different!

President Clinton went to the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. While Clinton's administration played politics and foreign affairs games to draw George into their sphere of influence, Putin did everything he could to ensure George remained part of the Russian sphere.

Every bullying tactic he could think of you mean, including an invasion! Georgians don't love Russia, they don't love the widespread destruction the Russians have caused to their countryside, they don't admire all the bridges they've knocked down, and they don't like the seizing of their territory. Russia has made very few actual friends it seems, all they do is threaten and cajole.

The final result was civil war in the northern province of Georgia.

A "civil war" between Georgians, and Russians who were planted there by the Soviets, when Georgia was a part, and an unwilling part of the Soviet Union. Naturally the Georgians feel sore about having their former occupiers still living in their country, wouldn't you be?

Then America started negotiations with Ukraine. The Donbas is still a major part of Russia's military industrial complex. This would be like Russia negotiating with Utah.

No, more like Russia negotiating with Cuba. (A former US territory)

Ain't no way Putin could afford to lose that.

They had already lost it.

Ain't going to lose control over navy ports in Crimea, and ain't no way they're going to lose military manufacturing in Donbas.

Why not? The Russians have been very unfriendly and Imperial with Ukraine, and I'm sure taking their territory hasn't generated a lot of warm feelings towards the Russians on the part of Ukraine.

You realize Crimea was never part of a separate Ukraine. It was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire before Russia captured it in 1783. In 1954 the Head of State of the Soviet Union put Crimea under administration of the Republic of Ukraine.

Well, they shouldn't have done that then! There are no take backs! The Russians also made a deal with the United States, they sold us Alaska, do the Russians get to use military force to take back that too? How would Alaskans feel about that do you suppose?

After all, what does it matter which part of the Soviet Union administers it?

It matters a great deal, the nationalities still existed even in Soviet Times, the Russians didn't wipe them out!

This move gave him political support, and East Ukraine had highly productive industry at the time. So Russia has considers Crimea to be Russian, not Ukrainian.

The thing is, you make a deal, you stick to it! If it was a bad deal, they Russians shouldn't have made it, just as they probably shouldn't have sold us Alaska, but they made the deal, and Alaska is now part of the United States! If the Russians don't like the decision their former Czar made, too bad! We're not giving it back!

But you asked "Honestly do you see a lot of Russia there?" Do you notice that the former Prussia is now called Kaliningrad, and is part of Russia? The Baltic States are between two parts of Russia.

Yes, I did notice that. Kaliningrad is a part of the illegitimate War Booty the Soviet Union collected as their part in starting World War II with the Germans. They invaded Poland on September 17, 1939, the Germans and the Russians were then working together to divide Poland between their two spheres of influence. Germany took the Baltic States, but then handed them over to the Soviets. So tell me, after the Nuremberg trials for all the war crimes Germany has committed, why did the Soviets get to keep Kaliningrad? There was no justification for it, it was culturally a part of Germany, and since one of the main victims of Germany was Poland, and it was right next to Poland, Poland should have gotten Kaliningrad as part of the compensation for all the destruction visited on their country by both the Germans and the Russians. The Russians should be feeling very sorrowful for their role in starting World War II, and should be making amends by offering this parcel of land to Poland!

RobertDyck · 2016-04-27 11:30:02

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Asked not forced! The Russians don't know how to ask

Ukraine asked to join. According to history, there was debate within Ukraine, but overall they willingly joined. Ukraine was one of the founding members of the Soviet Union. Farmers in west Ukraine regretted that: Holodomor. But that's another story.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

No country is a member of NATO because the United States threatened them if they did not join

And the United States does not rule NATO, it is just one member. I'm told several European members would like to remind the United States of that. But overall I'm glad my country is part of NATO. That doesn't mean we can't show others respect.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

the United States has not actually expanded its territory since the 19th century.

Tell Iraq that.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

The US did not start any wars in Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union

I didn't say you did. I said Russia is a European country, no different than UK or France.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Well, he sustained it through all 8 years of his Administration and the United States didn't collapse

cough cough! 2008 financial system collapse! cough cough!

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

And they will keep trying until we turn them into a pile of ash! So tell me how it is our fault that they are this way?

The US started it when the US sent covert ops to assassinate their leaders, any leader that didn't obey orders from Washington. Continuing to murder them sends the signal that they must fight back, fight or die. So how is US behaviour in the Middle East different than Russian behaviour? Two wrongs do not make a right.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Why? We were just being honest, in fact Russia hasn't been a Superpower since the 1950s, its economy lagged behind our, its GDP could keep up with the United States, its weapons became obsolete, and our weapons slaughters theirs in the battlefield every time a brushfire war flared up.

Their weapons were not behind in the 1950s, conflict in Korea showed they were ahead in some ways, overall about equal.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

If Russia wants to be a superpower again, it needs to do what Germany and Japan have done. There are a lot of Toyotas and Volkswagens on our roads, I don't see a lot of Russian cars on them. I go to a Walmart, and very few products are ever labeled, "Made in Russia!" Russia makes some second rate weapons, people buy from them, because the US won't sell to them, so they settle for second best and buy from Russia. Russian airplanes, such as the Tuplev are creeky and dangerous to fly in. Russian pilots are poorly trained as we have seen by their close calls with US destroyers, they just don't know how to keep a safe distance from them, and their is all that air space they can fly in! The Russians don't know how to be a great nation, and they haven't tried, all they know how to do is cause trouble, and they equate "causing trouble" to "being great" and its not!

True. And be careful what you wish for. Russia is exporting MiG and Su fighter aircraft that are newer and more advanced than F-15, F-16, or F/A-18 aircraft. Not as advanced as F-22, but the United States won't export that. And they're building PAK-FA that is as advanced as F-22, although I doubt they're going to export that either. I saw a video this week, Russian fighter aircraft are built like tanks, not finely tuned watches. Their intakes that have a door that drops, blocking intake from the front, instead air intake from the top of the wing. So if there's debris on the runway it won't be ingested into the jet engine. They're designed for combat conditions that would actually occur during war. American aircraft have to be pampered, it's questionable whether they would survive combat conditions. Russia is also exporting AK-47 assault rifles, BUK surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile systems, RPG and MAN-PAD weapons. The American equivalent to RPG is so expensive that it's not worth it. The Russian MAN-PAD is a very close second to the Stinger missile, so close that it's practically equal. And the BUK is actually *MORE* advanced the American equivalent. Do we really want them exporting all this stuff?

Russian pilots are not poorly trained, they're very well trained. Some of the pilots of countries like North Korea or North Vietnam were (to name some decades old conflicts), but Russian pilots are equal to Top Gun pilots. And do you really think the flyby of the American destroyer was not authorized?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

The Soviet Experiment failed, we shouldn't tell them any different

Whenever the United States tried to export its system of government, it failed. And the United States itself is having trouble. There was the Civil War. You said NATO members joined willingly, but Southern States themselves were not allowed to leave peacefully, the US had a Civil War to keep them! Yea, Canada had some ugly things in its past too, but my point is don't be "holier than thou" with Russia. If you want to rub in their face that "The Soviet Experiment failed" then I have to point out whenever the US tried to export its system of government, that failed too. Yet Canada exported its system almost all British Commonwealth Countries, and it worked. Do you like it when I rub that in your face?

If you think the US is doing so well, I could post a picture of Trump.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

they are still playing Napoleon's great game. No one else is

What?! Russia currently has 2 foreign military bases (according to Putin). The US has hundreds. Wikipedia: List of United States military bases

When the Warsaw Pact collapsed and members joined NATO, Yeltsin suggested NATO was no longer relevant either, and suggested NATO disband. That would leave the UN. Actually, a valid argument. When NATO refused, it asked to have Russia join. That would have ended any further conflict. But the US wanted an enemy, so wouldn't allow it.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

they are buzzing our warships with their fighter planes, now if Germany can behave, why can't Russia? ... As I said before, if Russia wants to be one of us, they should act like one of us, and we would welcome them in.

Germany was chopping into 4 pieces, occupied by foreign conquering nations for years, and their economy only recovered due to welfare from other countries. Marshall Plan in the 3 western pieces, Russian support in the East Germany. Russia doesn't want to be conquered, divided, and dependant on foreign welfare.

As for "should act like one of us"... Confederacy of States. Do I need to say more? You could say they are acting like the US.

Yeltsin tried to make Russia a modern western country. But Russia still wasn't accepted in. That didn't work, so Russian voters elected Putin.

And from Russia's perspective, you tried to take their Navy ports and military industry. From Russia's perspective, America started it.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

A "civil war" between Georgians, and Russians who were planted there by the Soviets

As America did with Texas. Are you going to give Texas back to Mexico?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

The Russians should be feeling very sorrowful for their role in starting World War II, and should be making amends by offering this parcel of land to Poland!

Good luck with that. All non-Russia people who lived there were either forced to leave, or wiped out. There aren't any left, they're all Russian now. And your argument could be thrown back at you: America should be sorrowful that it wiped out North American aboriginals (Indians). Are you going to give back land to them, so they can form independent countries?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-27 21:47:57

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Asked not forced! The Russians don't know how to ask
Ukraine asked to join. According to history, there was debate within Ukraine, but overall they willingly joined. Ukraine was one of the founding members of the Soviet Union. Farmers in west Ukraine regretted that: Holodomor. But that's another story.

You know as they say, the winners of History write the history books. The question is, where the leaders of this so called Ukrainian government true representatives of the Ukrainian people. Did the Ukrainian people actually vote to lose their nationality, forget their language and culture and become Russians? Or is that just Soviet Propaganda talking? Another question: Suppose the United States lost its Revolutionary War and Benedict Arnold was appointed by the British Government as governor of all the 13 colonies. Does Benedict Arnold then represent the American People, since he is after all an American? I think the Soviets found some "Benedict Arnolds" of various nationalities to say and agree to what the Soviets wanted them to agree to. The Warsaw Pact governments were just appendages of the Soviet Government, the Nazis had their equivalents when they occupied Europe as well.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
No country is a member of NATO because the United States threatened them if they did not join
And the United States does not rule NATO, it is just one member. I'm told several European members would like to remind the United States of that. But overall I'm glad my country is part of NATO. That doesn't mean we can't show others respect.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
the United States has not actually expanded its territory since the 19th century.
Tell Iraq that.

Iraq is a US territory? I still count only 50 stars on the American flag, and if we are governing the place, how come ISIS is there chopping off heads and burning people alive in cages? I bet you there are a lot of people in Iraq, after seeing what ISIS has done, that now wish the United States simply conquered, annexed, and ruled Iraq as a US territory. There are Cuban Exiles in America that wished that Cuba was the 51st state, and that way it would have a communist government of Castro in there.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
The US did not start any wars in Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union
I didn't say you did. I said Russia is a European country, no different than UK or France.

It sure behaves different, the UK and France spend money on national defense, Russia spends money on offense and conquest. It doesn't build an army simply for the purpose of defending itself, it builds an army to invade and conquer someone else! The reason it doesn't like NATO is not that NATO threatens Russia, it never has, it is that NATO gets in the way of Russia's plans to conquer Europe, one nation at a time, the same way Hitler did. What Putin wants is a bunch of squabbling European Nations, that allow him to conquer one European nation at a time, while they others send over diplomats to try to negotiate a "peaceful solution" while it is doing that!

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Well, he sustained it through all 8 years of his Administration and the United States didn't collapse
cough cough! 2008 financial system collapse! cough cough!

We're still here aren't we? There is still a nation called the United States, and we have all 50 states! that is more than can be said about the Soviet Union! And Canada is still in the United States "shadow", with a population about the same as California. California happens to be our most populous state, but still!

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
And they will keep trying until we turn them into a pile of ash! So tell me how it is our fault that they are this way?
The US started it when the US sent covert ops to assassinate their leaders, any leader that didn't obey orders from Washington. Continuing to murder them sends the signal that they must fight back, fight or die. So how is US behaviour in the Middle East different than Russian behaviour? Two wrongs do not make a right.

What happened with Stalin started murdering people? Did it turn the Russians into fanatics? No it did not!
The Soviet Union lasted as long as it did, because its government terrified its inhabitants into obedience. You say such behavior turns people into religious fanatics willing to blow themselves up! I say the Middle Easterners were abnormal to start with, they had this character long before we ever got involved with them. We did not make them into the fanatics they are!

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Why? We were just being honest, in fact Russia hasn't been a Superpower since the 1950s, its economy lagged behind our, its GDP could keep up with the United States, its weapons became obsolete, and our weapons slaughters theirs in the battlefield every time a brushfire war flared up.
Their weapons were not behind in the 1950s, conflict in Korea showed they were ahead in some ways, overall about equal.

The Russians were a bunch of copy cats, they copied our B29 bomber and they copied our atomic bomb, their scientists weren't allowed the freedom to be innovative, all they could do was steal and copy western technology, because their economy didn't work!

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
If Russia wants to be a superpower again, it needs to do what Germany and Japan have done. There are a lot of Toyotas and Volkswagens on our roads, I don't see a lot of Russian cars on them. I go to a Walmart, and very few products are ever labeled, "Made in Russia!" Russia makes some second rate weapons, people buy from them, because the US won't sell to them, so they settle for second best and buy from Russia. Russian airplanes, such as the Tuplev are creeky and dangerous to fly in. Russian pilots are poorly trained as we have seen by their close calls with US destroyers, they just don't know how to keep a safe distance from them, and their is all that air space they can fly in! The Russians don't know how to be a great nation, and they haven't tried, all they know how to do is cause trouble, and they equate "causing trouble" to "being great" and its not!
True. And be careful what you wish for. Russia is exporting MiG and Su fighter aircraft that are newer and more advanced than F-15, F-16, or F/A-18 aircraft.

Courtesy of Obama and his military cutbacks, and his limiting the production run of F22s, making just enough so our enemies can copy them.

Not as advanced as F-22, but the United States won't export that. And they're building PAK-FA that is as advanced as F-22, although I doubt they're going to export that either. I saw a video this week, Russian fighter aircraft are built like tanks, not finely tuned watches. Their intakes that have a door that drops, blocking intake from the front, instead air intake from the top of the wing. So if there's debris on the runway it won't be ingested into the jet engine. They're designed for combat conditions that would actually occur during war. American aircraft have to be pampered, it's questionable whether they would survive combat conditions. Russia is also exporting AK-47

That would be AK-1947 Rifles, the '47 is short for 1947, the year they were first made, You know what that is equivalent to? Using Springfield rifles from the American Civil War in World War II!
1967-sa.a.1-edit.jpg
This is the standard issue rifle of the Union Army during the Civil War. Now imagine using that in the battlefields of World War II.

This on the other hand was the standard issue of the World War II American Soldier, the M1 Rifle. So what would happen if you had a line of soldiers fighting with M1s versus a line of soldiers fighting with Civil War Springfields?

assault rifles, BUK surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile systems, RPG and MAN-PAD weapons. The American equivalent to RPG is so expensive that it's not worth it. The Russian MAN-PAD is a very close second to the Stinger missile, so close that it's practically equal. And the BUK is actually *MORE* advanced the American equivalent. Do we really want them exporting all this stuff?

Notice how the Russians never export anything nice, they always export things that are nasty and violent, things you wouldn't want your children playing with!

Russian pilots are not poorly trained, they're very well trained. Some of the pilots of countries like North Korea or North Vietnam were (to name some decades old conflicts), but Russian pilots are equal to Top Gun pilots. And do you really think the flyby of the American destroyer was not authorized?

Well is Russia at war with the United States? The only reason to do that is if Russia is at war with the United States, in a peacetime situation, there is no reason to do that! The Germans don't do that, the French don't do that, the UK doesn't do that!

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
The Soviet Experiment failed, we shouldn't tell them any different
Whenever the United States tried to export its system of government, it failed. And the United States itself is having trouble. There was the Civil War. You said NATO members joined willingly, but Southern States themselves were not allowed to leave peacefully, the US had a Civil War to keep them! Yea, Canada had some ugly things in its past too, but my point is don't be "holier than thou" with Russia. If you want to rub in their face that "The Soviet Experiment failed" then I have to point out whenever the US tried to export its system of government, that failed too. Yet Canada exported its system almost all British Commonwealth Countries, and it worked. Do you like it when I rub that in your face?
If you think the US is doing so well, I could post a picture of Trump.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
they are still playing Napoleon's great game. No one else is
What?! Russia currently has 2 foreign military bases (according to Putin). The US has hundreds. Wikipedia: List of United States military bases
When the Warsaw Pact collapsed and members joined NATO, Yeltsin suggested NATO was no longer relevant either, and suggested NATO disband. That would leave the UN. Actually, a valid argument. When NATO refused, it asked to have Russia join. That would have ended any further conflict. But the US wanted an enemy, so wouldn't allow it.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
they are buzzing our warships with their fighter planes, now if Germany can behave, why can't Russia? ... As I said before, if Russia wants to be one of us, they should act like one of us, and we would welcome them in.
Germany was chopping into 4 pieces, occupied by foreign conquering nations for years, and their economy only recovered due to welfare from other countries. Marshall Plan in the 3 western pieces, Russian support in the East Germany. Russia doesn't want to be conquered, divided, and dependant on foreign welfare.
As for "should act like one of us"... Confederacy of States. Do I need to say more? You could say they are acting like the US.
Yeltsin tried to make Russia a modern western country. But Russia still wasn't accepted in. That didn't work, so Russian voters elected Putin.
And from Russia's perspective, you tried to take their Navy ports and military industry. From Russia's perspective, America started it.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
A "civil war" between Georgians, and Russians who were planted there by the Soviets
As America did with Texas. Are you going to give Texas back to Mexico?
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
The Russians should be feeling very sorrowful for their role in starting World War II, and should be making amends by offering this parcel of land to Poland!
Good luck with that. All non-Russia people who lived there were either forced to leave, or wiped out. There aren't any left, they're all Russian now. And your argument could be thrown back at you: America should be sorrowful that it wiped out North American aboriginals (Indians). Are you going to give back land to them, so they can form independent countries?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-04-27 22:15:59)

RobertDyck · 2016-04-27 23:21:53

I don't think most Americans are as annoying as you, Tom. I know a number of them. Dated a few American ladies.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Benedict Arnold...

You realize Canada was on the opposite side of the American war of Independence. There were 16 British colonies, American revolutionaries went to all 16 colonies to try to get them to sign the Declaration of Independence. Only 13 signed, 3 said no. Those 3 were Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Upper Canada (now Ontario). They didn't think the French colonies counted. When the 13 colonies did Declare Independence, many citizens considered themselves British citizens; they didn't want any part of a revolution. So they escaped north to the 3 loyal colonies. Upper Canada was flooded with refugees. So was mainland Nova Scotia. In fact, so many refugees from the 13 colonies settled in mainland Nova Scotia that it separated, became a new colony. I became known as New Brunswick. So what is now the Canadian province of New Brunswick was founded by Americans who didn't want to be American.

You talk of Benedict Arnold as a traitor. Was he a hero of Canada? No. He actually betrayed both sides. He wasn't welcome anywhere.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Iraq is a US territory? ... now wish the United States simply conquered, annexed, and ruled Iraq as a US territory.

For one, Saudi Arabia supported and in essence created ISIS. To counter American support for Shia Isam. So a major American ally is spending treasure, political capital, and lives to counter attempts by America to rule that part of the world. Do you still think it's a good idea? Why are you trying to control Iraq as if it's a US territory?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Russia spends money on offense and conquest.

Russia's military budget for 2015, according to "International Institute for Strategic Studies": $51.6 billion
according to "Stockholm International Peace Research Institute": $66.4 billion

America's military budget for the same year, according to the first source: $597.5 billion
according to the second source: $596.0 billion

America's military and national security spending for 2015, according to the US Budget Poster: $628 billion

I already gave you a link to the Wikipedia list of American military bases, foreign and domestic. How many hundred foreign military bases does America have? So who is spending money on offence and conquest?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

2008 financial system collapse!
We're still here aren't we?

Because of charity from Europe and China. You couldn't survive without hand-outs from others. So you want to pound your chest? After begging?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

I say the Middle Easterners were abnormal to start with, they had this character long before we ever got involved with them. We did not make them into the fanatics they are!

Israel is a Middle East country. Hebrew temples separate men from women. Kosher food rules are pretty much the same as Halal. And Jesus was a Jew. Think about that, Jesus was a Middle Easterner.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

The Russians were a bunch of copy cats, they copied our B29 bomber and they copied our atomic bomb, their scientists weren't allowed the freedom to be innovative, all they could do was steal and copy western technology, because their economy didn't work!

Really! The Manhattan Project was not a project of the United States. It was 3 equal partners: the US, Canada, and UK. Canada was invited not just because we had the largest deposits of Uranium in the world, it was because we had spent years working out how to synthesis bomb grade plutonium. America didn't have a clue, it would have had to start from scratch. We taught the United States how to make bomb grade plutonium. In a sense, that was the world's first and most important case of nuclear proliferation. But the real kicker in your argument was the number of Germans in that project. The Allies did that because Nazi Germany was thought to be working on it. Turned out the British Royal Air Force had bombed the Nazi nuclear research installations into rubble, they didn't make any real progress. But western allies had a number of former Germans, and the whole point was a race against Nazi Germans. So Russia did that too.

The Tu-95 Bomber was named by American's the "Bear". When Russians heard that, they liked the name. After all, bear is the animal symbol of Russia. That bomber used Turbo-prop engines with counter rotating propellers. America never got counter rotating propellers to work. Still to this day hasn't. So where did they copy that from?

During the 1960s, Russia developed a spacecraft with a lifting body. Called "Spiral", the fighter version was called MiG-105.

Does this look familiar? I'll give you a hint...

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Notice how the Russians never export anything nice

You mean like this...

To be fair, I've only see one Russian thing in stores in my city: Vodka. Wish they would export some other consumer good.
717292_product_front.png?itok=SkHmXpSS 9668_product_front_0.png?itok=egEXUrNK

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-28 10:45:34

RobertDyck wrote:

I don't think most Americans are as annoying as you, Tom. I know a number of them. Dated a few American ladies.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Benedict Arnold...
You realize Canada was on the opposite side of the American war of Independence. There were 16 British colonies, American revolutionaries went to all 16 colonies to try to get them to sign the Declaration of Independence. Only 13 signed, 3 said no. Those 3 were Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Upper Canada (now Ontario). They didn't think the French colonies counted. When the 13 colonies did Declare Independence, many citizens considered themselves British citizens; they didn't want any part of a revolution. So they escaped north to the 3 loyal colonies. Upper Canada was flooded with refugees. So was mainland Nova Scotia. In fact, so many refugees from the 13 colonies settled in mainland Nova Scotia that it separated, became a new colony. I became known as New Brunswick. So what is now the Canadian province of New Brunswick was founded by Americans who didn't want to be American.
You talk of Benedict Arnold as a traitor. Was he a hero of Canada? No. He actually betrayed both sides. He wasn't welcome anywhere.

His plan was to capture George Washington and hand him over to the British, probably he wasn't welcome in Canada because he didn't succeed. Had he succeeded, those Tories could have moved back home, under armed guard for protection of course. I have trouble sympathizing with those loyalists. Tell me something, do you know Queen Elizabeth II, is she a friend of yours? Would you sacrifice your home for her and become a refugee? What was King George III to these people? What did they get from him? Has he ever visited the American Colonies, any of them? Why would these people sacrifice everything for a distant figure they have never met? That was the hardest lesson, my history teacher ever had to get across in history class. What the American rebels did made a lot of sense, but people sacrificing all for a distant King? Maybe I could understand freed ex-slaves fighting for him, but no one else I suppose. I wonder how many of those slaves, King George III, freed moved to New Brunswick?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Iraq is a US territory? ... now wish the United States simply conquered, annexed, and ruled Iraq as a US territory.
For one, Saudi Arabia supported and in essence created ISIS. To counter American support for Shia Isam. So a major American ally is spending treasure, political capital, and lives to counter attempts by America to rule that part of the world. Do you still think it's a good idea? Why are you trying to control Iraq as if it's a US territory?
I never knew Shia Islam was an American religion, did the CIA make it up? If the United States government were to invent a religion, do you think they would make one up like Shia Islam? I would think if any one Americans would support the Christians, don't you think? After all, the United States is still a Christian Majority Nation, however much our government wishes to downplay that fact.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Russia spends money on offense and conquest.
Russia's military budget for 2015, according to "International Institute for Strategic Studies": $51.6 billion
according to "Stockholm International Peace Research Institute": $66.4 billion

How do we know we can trust that figure, coming as it does from the Russians? Well assuming its true, then what business does the Russians have in buzzing our destroyers with their fighter aircraft? Don't they know they could be sending those pilots to their deaths? Is that really fair to the families of those Russian pilots? Suppose the pilot makes an error and he crashes into the destroyer and dies, killing a number of US sailors along with him! Now you tell me, what did he die for? Did he die for Mother Russia? Did those destroyers actually every threaten Russia. What do you think would be written on that pilot's tombstone if he died doing this stupid stunt under orders from Putin, is he a circus performer? Do you think the families of the dead American sailors would have appreciated his stunt? Look, Russia is not the enemy, I don't want Russia to be the Enemy, I have family members living in Russia right now! And I don't need this Jerk in the Kremlin ordering Russian Pilots to do stupid stunts in close proximity to American destroyers without their permission! Russians who died fighting off the Nazis in World War II died for something, I don't know what this Russian Pilot would have died for if he died by accident while buzzing a US destroyer, can you tell me? Germans don't do this! I don't think family members of a German Pilot would appreciate Chancellor Angela Merkle ordering German Luftwaffe Pilots to go buzz a US destroyer, do you?

America's military budget for the same year, according to the first source: $597.5 billion
according to the second source: $596.0 billion

What's wrong with the United States spending that amount on our defense, we can afford it, the Russians can't, well neither can Germany either. Russia is part of the same class of Nations as is Germany, Russia should be comparing its Defense Budget with Germany's, not ours, given the size of its economy. For the record, Our latest data shows that Germany spent $48,617,000,000 on their military in 2012 which amounted to 1.4% of the country's GDP that year. http://militarybudget.org/germany/
Russia has in fact spent more on its military than has Germany, and Germany has had a history of invading Russia proper during World War II, while the United States sent it aid. Now if Russia has the same size economy as Germany, and it is in fact spending more money on Defense and Offense than is Germany, isn't that enough. Besides Germany is not now starting wars in Europe the way Putin has been doing. So please tell me, why we can't hold Russia up to the German standard of behavior?

America's military and national security spending for 2015, according to the US Budget Poster: $628 billion
I already gave you a link to the Wikipedia list of American military bases, foreign and domestic. How many hundred foreign military bases does America have? So who is spending money on offence and conquest?

Who has the United States conquered? I'll admit we sent our troops to a number of places to fight terrorism, but there wasn't any terrorism in the Ukraine, nor was their any around that destroyer in the Baltic. Do you think that fighter pilot found any terrorists swimming in the water around that destroyer, is that why he was swooping down so low and coming with in 30 feet of that destroyer, to take a better look? If so, then the Russians haven't told us about any.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
2008 financial system collapse!
We're still here aren't we?
Because of charity from Europe and China. You couldn't survive without hand-outs from others. So you want to pound your chest? After begging?

I don't think any of those investors bought US Treasury bonds out of a sense of charity, come on, who ever gives charity to the US government?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
I say the Middle Easterners were abnormal to start with, they had this character long before we ever got involved with them. We did not make them into the fanatics they are!
Israel is a Middle East country. Hebrew temples separate men from women. Kosher food rules are pretty much the same as Halal. And Jesus was a Jew. Think about that, Jesus was a Middle Easterner.

Most of the Jews have been westernized by their stay in Europe after the expulsion of the Jews by the Romans, they have kept some of their traditions, but living with Europeans for centuries has changed them, they are no longer as fanatical as their ancestors were, when they for instance killed themselves when the Romans took that fortress at Masada.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
The Russians were a bunch of copy cats, they copied our B29 bomber and they copied our atomic bomb, their scientists weren't allowed the freedom to be innovative, all they could do was steal and copy western technology, because their economy didn't work!
Really! The Manhattan Project was not a project of the United States. It was 3 equal partners: the US, Canada, and UK. Canada was invited not just because we had the largest deposits of Uranium in the world, it was because we had spent years working out how to synthesis bomb grade plutonium. America didn't have a clue, it would have had to start from scratch. We taught the United States how to make bomb grade plutonium. In a sense, that was the world's first and most important case of nuclear proliferation. But the real kicker in your argument was the number of Germans in that project. The Allies did that because Nazi Germany was thought to be working on it. Turned out the British Royal Air Force had bombed the Nazi nuclear research installations into rubble, they didn't make any real progress. But western allies had a number of former Germans, and the whole point was a race against Nazi Germans. So Russia did that too.

I didn't say the Russians were only copying from Americans, it was about them, not us, their economy and their society wouldn't allow them to innovate, so they stole stuff from whatever western source they could, even their AK-47 was a copy of a gun produced by the German Nazis at the end of World War II.

The Tu-95 Bomber was named by American's the "Bear". When Russians heard that, they liked the name. After all, bear is the animal symbol of Russia. That bomber used Turbo-prop engines with counter rotating propellers. America never got counter rotating propellers to work. Still to this day hasn't. So where did they copy that from?
During the 1960s, Russia developed a spacecraft with a lifting body. Called "Spiral", the fighter version was called MiG-105.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/s … rbit_1.jpg
Does this look familiar? I'll give you a hint...
http://airportjournals.com/wp-content/u … 7027_1.jpg
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Notice how the Russians never export anything nice
You mean like this...
http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/up … vering.jpg
To be fair, I've only see one Russian thing in stores in my city: Vodka. Wish they would export some other consumer good.
http://www.liquormarts.ca/sites/mlcc_pu … k=SkHmXpSS http://www.liquormarts.ca/sites/mlcc_pu … k=egEXUrNK

RobertDyck · 2016-04-28 11:16:56

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

America's military budget for the same year, according to the first source: $597.5 billion
according to the second source: $596.0 billion
What's wrong with the United States spending that amount on our defense, we can afford it

Can you?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-28 11:44:23

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
America's military budget for the same year, according to the first source: $597.5 billion
according to the second source: $596.0 billion
What's wrong with the United States spending that amount on our defense, we can afford it
Can you?
http://thecount.com/wp-content/uploads/ … -CLOCK.gif

That's Obama's doing, he ran up more debt than all previous presidents combined from George Washington to George W. Bush, and it wasn't on Defense Spending that he was running up the debt! Defense Spending hasn't ballooned, it as stayed fairly consistent and even when down during the Obama Administration. so you hear me, Obama was spending less on Defense, yet the debt still went up! It is not because of Defense Spending that the Debt is so high! It is social programs that are doing it! So I don't know why your solution is to get rid of the Defense Department when it isn't the cause of the problem. Anyway its better to stiff the Treasury bond holders and keep on spending on Defense if it comes to that. Our revenues as they are exceed defense spending anyway, the only time that wasn't the case was during World War II.

RobertDyck · 2016-04-29 02:59:25

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

That's Obama's doing

Bullshit! The budget was balanced in year 2000, the last year under Bill Clinton. I have a lot of criticisms of Bill, but George W. was worse.

However, Obama has been a major disappointment. He promised to close the prison at Guantanamo, end the war in Iraq in the first 100 days of his presidency, and end the war in Iraq by the mid-term Congressional election of 2010. He failed on all counts. And he ran up the debt! George W. started the massive deficits, but Obama made it worse. Much worse.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Obama was spending less on Defense

No, actually not. In year 2000, military spending was $288 billion. In year 2008 it was $700 billion! In 2009, approved in late 2008 by Bush, it was $799 billion. But in year 2010, the first budget approved by Obama, it was $901 billion! WTF!?!

Look! I said to balance the budget you need to cut the military budget by $227 billion. I gave long-winded explanation why. Cutting military spending to equal year 2000 does not constitute getting rid of the Defence Department. However, to balance the budget you also need to cut domestic spending by $200 billion. The deficit for this year is $427 billion. That's balanced.

Look, military and national security spending for this year is $625 billion. According to International Institute for Strategic Studies, the military budget for China is $145.8 billion US dollars, and Russia is $51.6 billion US dollars. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the military budget for China is $215.0 billion US dollars, and Russia is $66.4 billion US dollars. So reducing America's military budget to $398 billion is a small cut. You could easily claim America's military and national security budget should be cut to equal China plus Russia plus North Korean combined. That would still be far more than enough. But I didn't ask for that, just cut it to equal what the US military and national security budget was the last year that the US federal government had a balanced budget.

Let's look at this another way: according to International Institute for Strategic Studies, total world military spending for 2015 was $1,563 billion US dollars. They list America's military spending for that year as $597.5 billion, or 38.2% of all world military spending. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, total world military spending for 2015 was $1,676 billion US dollars. They list America's military spending for that year as $596.0 billion, or 35.56% of all world military spending.

America's population as of April of this year is 323,352,000 including all 50 states plus District of Columbia. World population is 7.4 billion. That means America has 4.37% of the world's population. So why does America have 38% of the world's military budget? Who are you trying to repress?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-29 11:57:45

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
That's Obama's doing
Bullshit! The budget was balanced in year 2000, the last year under Bill Clinton. I have a lot of criticisms of Bill, but George W. was worse.

Yes, reacting to the 9/11 attack the way he did! How dare he do something, he should have kept reading that children's book!

However, Obama has been a major disappointment. He promised to close the prison at Guantanamo,

Why do you care? Are you in it? We need someplace to hold all those terrorists until the War on Terrorism has been won!

end the war in Iraq in the first 100 days of his presidency,

So tell me, how do you win the war on terrorism in 100 days? Do you care about collateral damage in Iraq?
The only way to end the war on terrorism is to kill all the terrorists.
Do you know another way?
Are you going to surrender and convert to Islam for instance? Lets do away with women's rights too, the terrorists hate those. We'll put all our women in veils and burkas, and dress them all up in the latest Middle East Fashion, will import a bunch of camels and sand! Make us look and act just like them so they'll leave us alone! You have any other ways to end the war on terrorism? Haven't heard any proposals from you. Maybe you just don't want to deal with the problem, just criticize those that do. Well George Bush was attempting to deal with that problem and it cost money. Do you have some genius in the closet that knows a much cheaper and easier way without us surrendering or using nuclear weapons to get rid of them all? Well lets hear it!

and end the war in Iraq by the mid-term Congressional election of 2010.

Do you ever know of a war that ended on schedule, was the enemy consulted? How come FDR didn't end World War II in a year?

He failed on all counts. And he ran up the debt! George W. started the massive deficits, but Obama made it worse. Much worse.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Obama was spending less on Defense
No, actually not. In year 2000, military spending was $288 billion. In year 2008 it was $700 billion! In 2009, approved in late 2008 by Bush, it was $799 billion. But in year 2010, the first budget approved by Obama, it was $901 billion! WTF!?!

What year is it? is it 2010? Obama was only in office for 1 year, right now we don't have enough F22s!

Look! I said to balance the budget you need to cut the military budget by $227 billion.

And to cut the budget you need to destroy the enemy so there is no war!

I gave long-winded explanation why. Cutting military spending to equal year 2000 does not constitute getting rid of the Defence Department.

Of what use is a Defense Department if it can't defend us? Why should we spend a little bit of change to issue our "toy soldiers" their "pop guns" so they can march in a parade with their obsolete and ineffective equipment? Are human lives cheaper than equipment, should we draft everybody and give them the cheapest equipment we can and send them enmasse against the enemy so the enemy would run out of bullets and bombs before they could kill them all! Is that your strategy? If that is the case, then "liberals first!"

However, to balance the budget you also need to cut domestic spending by $200 billion. The deficit for this year is $427 billion. That's balanced.
Look, military and national security spending for this year is $625 billion. According to International Institute for Strategic Studies, the military budget for China is $145.8 billion US dollars,

What is the military budget of the terrorists?

and Russia is $51.6 billion US dollars.

I'm not interested in liquidating all the Russians, its the terrorists I'm worried about. We could always make some extra space on this planet for the Chinese and the Muslims by getting in a nuclear war with Russia, but I fail to see how that is in our best interests or Russia's!

According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the military budget for China is $215.0 billion US dollars, and Russia is $66.4 billion US dollars. So reducing America's military budget to $398 billion is a small cut. You could easily claim America's military and national security budget should be cut to equal China plus Russia plus North Korean combined. That would still be far more than enough. But I didn't ask for that, just cut it to equal what the US military and national security budget was the last year that the US federal government had a balanced budget.

How about we make the peace first, then we cut the military budget if it is no longer needed? If we have a merger with Russia, that would eliminate Russia as a potential adversary ad we'd have more resources for fighting the terrorist.

Let's look at this another way: according to International Institute for Strategic Studies, total world military spending for 2015 was $1,563 billion US dollars. They list America's military spending for that year as $597.5 billion, or 38.2% of all world military spending. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, total world military spending for 2015 was $1,676 billion US dollars. They list America's military spending for that year as $596.0 billion, or 35.56% of all world military spending.
America's population as of April of this year is 323,352,000 including all 50 states plus District of Columbia. World population is 7.4 billion. That means America has 4.37% of the world's population. So why does America have 38% of the world's military budget? Who are you trying to repress?

The enemy! Defense spending is not a function of our population, it is a function of the threats out their. Also less defense spending does not equal peace!

RobertDyck · 2016-04-29 16:53:37

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

So tell me, how do you win the war on terrorism in 100 days?

Oh God! Not this again! We've been over this! You can't "win" a war on a concept. "Terrorism" is not an enemy, it isn't a rival organization, it's a concept. And actually it isn't terrorism, it's irregular warfare. The Middle East invented irregular warfare. It's a tactic that allows a small, weak, poorly equipped force to be effective against a much larger, stronger, well equipped opponent. It's a tactic taught to US soldiers, you can't fight a war against a tactic. Furthermore, the Middle East was doing this for a thousand years when Jesus was borne. Do you seriously think you can succeed where Jesus failed? Seriously?

I didn't say "win". I said "end". That means get the hell out. Don't try to "win", don't try to control, don't try to be Stalin or Hitler, don't dictate to those people what they do within their own country. It's not up to you. Just get the hell out!

Some people in the US appear to get it. They decided to stop sending billions of US dollars to Middle East countries, money that is just used to buy weapons. Stop buying Middle East oil. America used to be a major exporter of oil, but easy to find deposits were depleted. Now someone came up with the bright idea to harvest shale oil. It means American jobs, helping rebuild the economy, and most importantly stop buying Middle East oil. Just get the hell out!

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-30 20:36:41

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
So tell me, how do you win the war on terrorism in 100 days?
Oh God! Not this again! We've been over this! You can't "win" a war on a concept. "Terrorism" is not an enemy, it isn't a rival organization, it's a concept.

There was a time when terrorism wasn't as big a problem as it is today, so the concept is simply to reproduce those circumstances which created the times where terrorism wasn't a problem. I guess what your trying to do is get us to collectively shrug our shoulders everytime terrorists kill a bunch of us, and get us to accept our worse lot in life without us complaining or trying to do something about it. Is that it? You want an attitude where American is in decline and Americans don't care, they just eat, drink and be as happy as they can and accept that their children won't get as good a life as they had? I have a serious problem with this sort of thinking. I think if some people think this way, they should elect to move to a miserable country that is on the decline besides America! Real Americans do not accept decline! I know you don't like this, but other people who enjoy their society's decline and fall so they can write a 10 volume series of books about it are welcome to go move to another country! I am not ready to talk about my country in the past tense, and never will be! Sorry to disappoint you!

And actually it isn't terrorism, it's irregular warfare. The Middle East invented irregular warfare.

Actually the American Indians did too, and we made them suffer until the stopped! I think there is a lesson from history to be learned here! Perhaps the Middle Eastern societies that originate terrorism will learn to stop before they have to suffer too much at the hands of the people trying to stop them.

You see we are too politically correct now to stop them, if we are to actually succeed in stopping them, we have to lose some of that political correctness, we have to discriminate unfortunately to some degree, in order to win this war, it is just taking our politicians a while to figure this out.

In the 1860s the South tried some irregular warfare against Union Troops, and General William T. Sherman and Grant made the southern communities suffer until it stopped, and it worked! The South complained about Sherman burning Atlanta, and the South quickly figured they'd better surrender before it got much worse. The thing was Sherman didn't enjoy doing these things, but he felt a long war was a greater evil that what he was doing to the South to end it quickly, and also to spare his troops and get them back home to their families as soon as possible, and if Northern Troops had to loot and burn to get to see their families quicker, then that is what they did. Modern US soldiers won't do these things, so we are suffering the evil of a long war that Sherman mentioned.

It's a tactic that allows a small, weak, poorly equipped force to be effective against a much larger, stronger, well equipped opponent.

Unless that opponent is someone like William T. Sherman.

It's a tactic taught to US soldiers, you can't fight a war against a tactic.

Sorry, not winning a war means losing a war, that means losing your country, your democracy, and your freedom! We are not willing to give that up, so we are willing at some point to commit moral outrages in order to save our country, just like William T. Sherman did! Can you really blame him? Perhaps you wish the United States simply did not exist, that the South won and that what remained of the North got broken up into a bunch of tiny little countries as a result. Sherman and Grant saved the Union, and they did this by committing moral outrages against the South!

Furthermore, the Middle East was doing this for a thousand years when Jesus was borne. Do you seriously think you can succeed where Jesus failed? Seriously?

Did Jesus fail? You know the richest and most powerful countries in the World today are Christian. Christian Europe colonized the New World, Christianity has well over a billion adherents, while the non-Christian countries, the Muslims, the Hindus, and everyone else tend to be poor and Third World, although they do have lots of children. Do you measure success by how many children they have or how economically successful they are? There are some rich middle eastern countries mostly because of the oil underground, not because of the people who live there, and you know why they are rich? Because of the mostly Christian countries that buy their oil and make them rich!

The rest of the World is still catching up with the Christian West, and I'm not going to argue with success or say that Christ was a failure merely because he was crucified by the Romans.

I didn't say "win". I said "end". That means get the hell out.

Thought experiment time, lets say we simply "Got out of World War II" that would mean pulling all our troops out of Hawaii and letting the Japanese have it, would that make the Japanese disappear?

If we turned our backs on Europe in its dire need, would that make the Nazis disappear into thin air, so they would no longer be a threat to us?

You have to get out of this Vietnam War paradigm, not every war is the Vietnam war, and the difference is, the terrorists are attacking us! The North Vietnamese only wanted Vietnam, the terrorists want to conquer the World, and that means us, every time we show weakness by withdrawing, they press their attack against us! We can't walk away and get out, not unless we leave the planet altogether, and I think even you realize the United States isn't going to leave the planet Earth. So the other option is to defeat Terrorism, whatever it takes, and the results won't be pleasant for either the terrorists or those living near them! The only other option is to lose, do you know what losing to terrorism would mean? The total destruction of the United States and everything it stands for, including your precious liberalism!

Don't try to "win", don't try to control, don't try to be Stalin or Hitler, don't dictate to those people what they do within their own country. It's not up to you. Just get the hell out!

Problem is, they think our country is their country, and they think Israel is their country too. Some people in my country seem willing to sacrifice Israel, but are they willing to sacrifice America?

The terrorists aren't giving us a choice if we want to survive, we may eventually have no choice but to act as Stalin or Hitler to get rid of them, perhaps if we do this sooner, we need only act like Sherman. Sherman didn't kill millions, he destroyed mostly property, that was enough back then to get the South to give up the fight. I don't want to wait and let the war drag on until we literally have to exterminate the enemy in order to end the war! 15 years is too long a war, we should have ended it after four, and I don't mean by surrendering to them!

Some people in the US appear to get it. They decided to stop sending billions of US dollars to Middle East countries, money that is just used to buy weapons. Stop buying Middle East oil. America used to be a major exporter of oil, but easy to find deposits were depleted. Now someone came up with the bright idea to harvest shale oil. It means American jobs, helping rebuild the economy, and most importantly stop buying Middle East oil. Just get the hell out!

We can stop buying Middle east oil, but we can also destroy the terrorists, or get the locals to destroy terrorists for us, so we don't have to do it ourselves and cause them needless destruction in the process. If the Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians and others collectively stamp out terrorism, then we don't need to do what I mentioned, to get rid of the terrorists. Its a win win for both them and us.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-04-30 20:47:52)

RobertDyck · 2016-04-30 22:51:56

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Real Americans do not accept decline!

So why do you cause it? You realize decline started when America tried to be an empire, ruling the world. When America focused on domestic economy, it grew and prospered.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

terrorism...irregular warfare
Actually the American Indians did too, and we made them suffer!

You brag about this?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Furthermore, the Middle East was doing this for a thousand years when Jesus was borne. Do you seriously think you can succeed where Jesus failed? Seriously?
Did Jesus fail? You know the richest and most powerful countries in the World today are Christian.

I don't think you know what "Christian" means. Quoting the King James Bible: Matthew 5:43-48

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Antius · 2016-05-01 05:15:40

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Real Americans do not accept decline!
So why do you cause it? You realize decline started when America tried to be an empire, ruling the world. When America focused on domestic economy, it grew and prospered.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
terrorism...irregular warfare
Actually the American Indians did too, and we made them suffer!
You brag about this?
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Furthermore, the Middle East was doing this for a thousand years when Jesus was borne. Do you seriously think you can succeed where Jesus failed? Seriously?
Did Jesus fail? You know the richest and most powerful countries in the World today are Christian.
I don't think you know what "Christian" means. Quoting the King James Bible: Matthew 5:43-48
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Most Christians don't realise that when Jesus said 'love thy neighbour' he was talking about other Jews. His was a racial nationalist movement intended to expel foreign influences (specifically Roman-Greek in his day) from Judea. The luvvy-duvvy multiculturalism of modern Christianity started with Paul, a Romanised Jew who had never met Jesus and was at odds with his brother and surviving family in the Jerusalem church. After the destruction of Jerusalem, there was no opposition to Pauls gentile Jesus cult and it provided a useful tool that could be developed into the binding ethos uniting the otherwise dissimilar peoples of the Roman empire. What emerged from the council of Nicia had very little to do with the original Jesus, but it is easy to see why the Romans would have found it useful and why it ultimately went so far in what remained of the Roman provinces.

If you want to be a good Christian read the bible. If you want to be close to Jesus, join a racial nationalist political party and fight against immigration. The Christian religion as it stands today radiates weakness and submission and surrender in the face of invasion. No doubt that served Roman interests 1800 years ago, but Im inclined to think it doesnt serve us well today and it isnt anything that the historical Jesus would have identified with. His was a simpe philosophy: love your own people, treat them as family, stand united. When it came to foreigners Jesus followed Mosaic law and Talmudic tradition and these sources really couldnt be clearer: Make no covenant with them, make no quarter for them, drive them out of your land.

Last edited by Antius (2016-05-01 05:29:21)

RobertDyck · 2016-05-01 07:15:29

Arabia isn't American land. Who is driving out the foreigner?

RobertDyck · 2016-05-01 08:37:49

IanM · 2016-05-01 12:38:08

Antius wrote:

Most Christians don't realise that when Jesus said 'love thy neighbour' he was talking about other Jews. His was a racial nationalist movement intended to expel foreign influences (specifically Roman-Greek in his day) from Judea.

Which makes the fact that Christianity has been the source of much antisemitism all the more sardonically ironic. I've heard it said that modern Pauline Christianity has as much to do with the historical Jesus as the movie Cars has to do with cars.

Back to the main point, I agree with GW that the Apollo Program, to the extent that it was simply going to and from the Moon was a dead-end route, but I think a certain shift in direction to a more settlement-based plan would have done much good. However, I don't think Hubert Humphrey would have been as pro-space as Johnson, and even then he was clobbered in the electoral college by Nixon in 1968.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-01 13:21:43

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Real Americans do not accept decline!
So why do you cause it? You realize decline started when America tried to be an empire, ruling the world. When America focused on domestic economy, it grew and prospered.

So you want to talk about alternate history? Okay, the American Empire began in 1945 with the conquest of the Soviet Union, since the United States had a monopoly on the atomic bomb we just nuked Soviet Troop concentrations and with the destruction of Moscow, the Soviet Union fell. Stalin was arrested, tried and hanged, and then we went on to conquer Europe, Japan and China, and all who opposed us got nuked!
Of course that didn't happen, but if it did, that is how it would have.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
terrorism...irregular warfare
Actually the American Indians did too, and we made them suffer!
You brag about this?
You know the war with the Indians lasted for centuries, it was a greater quagmire than Vietnam. During that time, we made peace with some tribes while others continued to wage war on us! And it just went on and one, with no safety for the colonists. The Indians did not distinguish between civilian and military, they murdered whole families, enslaved women and the whole nine yards. The US military ended it, brought peace to the West, sometimes by brutal means, but peace was brought, and now you can raise your family out there without worrying about getting your throat cut by Indians. Sherman would argue that the greater good was ending the war, rather than continuing to fight it endlessly in an honorable way, while the Indians did not.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Furthermore, the Middle East was doing this for a thousand years when Jesus was borne. Do you seriously think you can succeed where Jesus failed? Seriously?
Did Jesus fail? You know the richest and most powerful countries in the World today are Christian.
I don't think you know what "Christian" means. Quoting the King James Bible: Matthew 5:43-48
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Well the Europeans weren't perfect Christians, they continued to fight their enemies, and those that did not were killed by them. The Europeans continued to be themselves, and the Romans wanted their soldiers to keep on fighting for the Empire, so they adopted a version of Christianity which allowed them to do so, rather than turning the other cheek and allowing the enemy to conquer them. It is the official Roman version of Christianity I speak of, and when the Roman Empire Fell its Church continued, this allowed the Europeans to colonize a huge swath of the planet and this was a largely Christian culture. The Muslims during this time stayed in the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, they fought among themselves and their factions.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-01 13:45:01

Antius wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Real Americans do not accept decline!
So why do you cause it? You realize decline started when America tried to be an empire, ruling the world. When America focused on domestic economy, it grew and prospered.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Actually the American Indians did too, and we made them suffer!
You brag about this?
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Did Jesus fail? You know the richest and most powerful countries in the World today are Christian.
I don't think you know what "Christian" means. Quoting the King James Bible: Matthew 5:43-48
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Most Christians don't realise that when Jesus said 'love thy neighbour' he was talking about other Jews.

And you do? If most Christians don't realize this, and Jesus didn't explain himself well, doesn't make a difference what he taught if most of the Christians got it wrong? Would you rather we did all become racial nationalists according to what you say is his teachings, or would you prefer that Christianity remain as it is, largely about Universal Brotherhood and peace?

His was a racial nationalist movement intended to expel foreign influences (specifically Roman-Greek in his day) from Judea.

And I thought that was Barabas. I have just this to ask, what makes you an authority on what Jesus really meant, if most of the Christians got it wrong? Are you two thousand years old? Did you know Jesus personally? So what if most Christians got it wrong, by now it doesn't make any difference any more, what Christianity has ended up as turned out to be tremendously successful, we colonized the New World when no one else did!. There are no Muslim countries in the Americas, this is a singular sign of Christianity's success, regardless of whether Jesus intended for it to be this way or not!

The luvvy-duvvy multiculturalism of modern Christianity started with Paul, a Romanised Jew who had never met Jesus and was at odds with his brother and surviving family in the Jerusalem church. After the destruction of Jerusalem, there was no opposition to Pauls gentile Jesus cult and it provided a useful tool that could be developed into the binding ethos uniting the otherwise dissimilar peoples of the Roman empire. What emerged from the council of Nicia had very little to do with the original Jesus, but it is easy to see why the Romans would have found it useful and why it ultimately went so far in what remained of the Roman provinces.

So are you going to argue with success? How come it was the Europeans colonizing the New World and not the Chinese and not the Muslims? And why for instance weren't the Indians from the New World colonizing Europe. We must have been doing something right to get to this point!

If you want to be a good Christian read the bible. If you want to be close to Jesus, join a racial nationalist political party and fight against immigration.

No one has access to the original Jesus, not you, not anybody, maybe the Klu Klux Klan thinks Jesus is that way, but they are no more authoritative than the Peaceful mainstream Christians are. The racist Jesus, if he ever exists, has long been buried and forgotten, to be replaced by whatever mainstream Christians think he was all about.

The Christian religion as it stands today radiates weakness and submission and surrender in the face of invasion.

That would be guilty white liberals. The Christian Religion is strong and flexible, the only thing slowing them down are the atheists and doubters who want to boost nonwestern culture at the expense of modern western values. Most Westerners are lousy Christians, they fight why the more devote among them surrender and submit, and their enemies kill them off, while the ones that are left are the ones who fight to defend themselves. Loving your enemy never made much sense to me.

No doubt that served Roman interests 1800 years ago, but Im inclined to think it doesnt serve us well today and it isnt anything that the historical Jesus would have identified with.

What was wrong with the Romans, they practiced tolerance and had many religions thriving in their Empire, all they cared about was whether they paid taxes. Why do you think they were so accommodating of the Pharisees? When the Pharisees pressured Pilate to kill Jesus, why did he listen to him? Pagan law says nothing about Jesus claiming to be a demigod. Roman religion had a lot of stories about Demigods, children where one parent was a god and the other was human, so Jesus, as he claimed was just one more as far as the Romans were concerned. So why would Pilate be concerned about what the Pharasees were concerned about, Pilate wasn't a Jew! He didn't believe in one God!

His was a simpe philosophy: love your own people, treat them as family, stand united. When it came to foreigners Jesus followed Mosaic law and Talmudic tradition and these sources really couldnt be clearer: Make no covenant with them, make no quarter for them, drive them out of your land.

Then why did he tell the tale of the Good Samaritan? The Samaritan was an outsider, why did he heal the ear of the Roman Soldier?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-01 13:50:30

IanM wrote:

Antius wrote:
Most Christians don't realise that when Jesus said 'love thy neighbour' he was talking about other Jews. His was a racial nationalist movement intended to expel foreign influences (specifically Roman-Greek in his day) from Judea.
Which makes the fact that Christianity has been the source of much antisemitism all the more sardonically ironic. I've heard it said that modern Pauline Christianity has as much to do with the historical Jesus as the movie Cars has to do with cars.
Back to the main point, I agree with GW that the Apollo Program, to the extent that it was simply going to and from the Moon was a dead-end route, but I think a certain shift in direction to a more settlement-based plan would have done much good. However, I don't think Hubert Humphrey would have been as pro-space as Johnson, and even then he was clobbered in the electoral college by Nixon in 1968.

Should have been Reagan, not Nixon! As far as Antisemitism, that's easy to explain. The Jews kept to themselves when they migrated to Europe, they established ghettos where they could wall off the Christian community and live in their own Jewish society, needless to say most were put off by this. and of course the Muslims were upset when the Jews would not accept Muhammad as their prophet.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-04-25 01:33:17

What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#2 2016-04-25 18:30:41

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#3 2016-04-26 00:24:07

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#4 2016-04-26 13:14:13

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#5 2016-04-26 14:18:16

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#6 2016-04-26 15:41:01

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#7 2016-04-26 20:24:11

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#8 2016-04-27 11:30:02

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#9 2016-04-27 21:47:57

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#10 2016-04-27 23:21:53

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#11 2016-04-28 10:45:34

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#12 2016-04-28 11:16:56

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#13 2016-04-28 11:44:23

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#14 2016-04-29 02:59:25

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#15 2016-04-29 11:57:45

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#16 2016-04-29 16:53:37

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#17 2016-04-30 20:36:41

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#18 2016-04-30 22:51:56

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#19 2016-05-01 05:15:40

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#20 2016-05-01 07:15:29

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#21 2016-05-01 08:37:49

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#22 2016-05-01 12:38:08

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#23 2016-05-01 13:21:43

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#24 2016-05-01 13:45:01

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

#25 2016-05-01 13:50:30

Re: What if NASA continued its Apollo Program?

Board footer