[OT] Can a Christian Vote for Donald Trump?

[Quadibloc]

This column

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2016/07/a-good-man-justifies-a-wicked-deed-grudem-on-trump/

accidentally came up in a search for something quite unrelated, but I thought it
too good not to share.

John Savard

[Lynn McGuire]

Hillary is a murderer and I cannot vote for her because of that one item alone.

Lynn

[TB]

Whom did she kill? What weapon did she use? What courtroom ready evidence do you have?

[TB]

A Christian who is a US citizen and a registered voter can vote for anyone who's on his ballot!

[Titus G]

On 06/08/16 11:42, TB wrote:
> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 4:07:06 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

snip

>> Hillary is a murderer and I cannot vote for her because of that one
>> item alone.
>
> Whom did she kill? What weapon did she use? What courtroom ready
> evidence do you have?

Gadaffi. Mercenaries. Her own words. "We came, we saw, we killed him."

[David Johnston]

Yeah but Trump blew up the city of Rome with antimatter!

[TB]

Hillary is claiming to have participated personally in the mercenary mission that resulted in the death of Gadaffi? If so, is she claiming to have shot him in person?

[David Johnston]

On 8/5/2016 5:44 PM, TB wrote:
> A Christian who is a US citizen and a registered voter can vote for anyone who's on his ballot!
>

Or for that matter isn't. But some choices wouldn't be consistent with
being a "Christian".

[TB]

Why haven't I seen reports of Rome being destroyed with antimatter?

[Lynn McGuire]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/22/frank_luntz_focus_group_rnc_convention_successfully_made_case_against_clinton.html

Lynn

[David Johnston]

<snort> Silly.

[Cryptoengineer]

TB <tsbr...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in
news:5819b7d6-d165-46cd...@googlegroups.com:

Main Stream Media Lies!

pt

[Quadibloc]

That doesn't count.

Muammar Qadafi led a non-democratic government in Libya, it engaged in human
rights violations, and hence he is certainly responsible for the death of at
least one innocent person.

In fact, he is also implicated in the shooting of a British policewoman - by a
shot fired from the Libyan embassy on British soil - and in a terrorist act.

No, usually the accusation that Hillary Clinton is a murderer comes from a
conspiracy theory about the death by suicide of an individual associated with
the Whitewater scandal.

John Savard

[William December Starr]

In article <no366o$r6q$1...@dont-email.me>,

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> said:

> Hillary is a murderer and I cannot vote for her because of that one item alone.

Damn, you're stupid.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <no39hb$361$2...@dont-email.me>,

There's nothing that's inconsistent with being a Christian. Being a
true follower of the precepts of Jesus the Christ, on the other hand...

-- wds

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 10:26:53 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 5:52:44 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
> > On 06/08/16 11:42, TB wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 4:07:06 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > snip
> > >> Hillary is a murderer and I cannot vote for her because of that one
> > >> item alone.

> > > Whom did she kill? What weapon did she use? What courtroom ready
> > > evidence do you have?

> > Gadaffi. Mercenaries. Her own words. "We came, we saw, we killed him."

> That doesn't count.

> Muammar Qadafi led a non-democratic government in Libya, it engaged in human
> rights violations, and hence he is certainly responsible for the death of at
> least one innocent person.

> In fact, he is also implicated in the shooting of a British policewoman - by a
> shot fired from the Libyan embassy on British soil - and in a terrorist act.

... specifically, Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.

> No, usually the accusation that Hillary Clinton is a murderer comes from a
> conspiracy theory about the death by suicide of an individual associated with
> the Whitewater scandal.

... it is Vince Foster of whom I am thinking.

John Savard

[Brenda]

Let us say this is true. Hillary is a criminal of the deepest cunning;
she has committed crimes but evaded overt accusation, prosecution,
conviction and jail terms. For forty years she has done this.

Wow! That's pretty impressive. We could use cunning like that. She is
tons more deft than the Tiny Fingered One, who falls over his mouth into
a new hole every day.

This is what you should look at:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/30/bill-maher-has-some-advice-hillary-clinton

Brenda

[mcdow...@sky.com]

Every so often somebody tries to impress me by demonstrating that they are prepared to lie on my behalf. My reaction is "OK - now I know you're a liar. What I don't know is on whose behalf you will be lying next time round." Similarly, I find the argument above unconvincing (OK - actually I find it repellent, but I don't expect that emotional reaction to be convincing to others). Especially given that the US President is to be the leader of a large organization, I would value virtues such as trustworthiness and consistency, which help people work with others, over cunning and deviousness, which might achieve short-term success when working alone (and yes, this is a point against Trump as well as Hillary). ObSF - the trustworthiness or otherwise of Intelligence chiefs and operatives in Bujold's "Memory."

As regards moral dilemmas such as e.g. Assassinating your head of state when you are a Christian I defer to Bonhoeffer, when I can understand his writings and align them with a secular consequentialism (which is not that often). Going back to my notes I find the following uncharacteristically concise and understandable sentence from his book "Ethics" at the end of "The Acceptance of Guilt" in Section VI

Before other men the man of free responsibility is justified by necessity; before himself he is acquitted by his conscience; but before God he hopes only for mercy.

(Which I interpret as "Face the facts, do what you have to, and then pray for forgiveness anyway, because you probably got something wrong")

[William December Starr]

In article <25212dd4-1843-495f...@googlegroups.com>,

mcdow...@sky.com said:

> Every so often somebody tries to impress me by demonstrating that
> they are prepared to lie on my behalf. My reaction is "OK - now I
> know you're a liar. What I don't know is on whose behalf you will
> be lying next time round." Similarly, I find the argument above
> unconvincing (OK - actually I find it repellent, but I don't
> expect that emotional reaction to be convincing to
> others). Especially given that the US President is to be the
> leader of a large organization, I would value virtues such as
> trustworthiness and consistency, which help people work with
> others, over cunning and deviousness, which might achieve
> short-term success when working alone (and yes, this is a point
> against Trump as well as Hillary).

I'd say that it's about ninety-five million points against Trump to
one point against for Clinton.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <no7qci$lp9$1...@panix3.panix.com>,

Aargh, that 'for' was supposed to have been edited out.

-- wds

[Kevrob]

Trump may have racked up more penalty minutes,
but I'd give both of them Game Misconducts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_misconduct#Game_misconduct_penalty

Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:50:01 PM UTC-6, bre...@sff.net wrote:

> Let us say this is true. Hillary is a criminal of the deepest cunning;
> she has committed crimes but evaded overt accusation, prosecution,
> conviction and jail terms. For forty years she has done this.

> Wow! That's pretty impressive. We could use cunning like that. She is
> tons more deft than the Tiny Fingered One, who falls over his mouth into
> a new hole every day.

Fortunately, it isn't true, because it's not a valid argument for Hillary. Just
because she has cleverness doesn't imply it will be employed in the interests
of the American people.

Hillary Clinton appears to be nothing worse than a run-of-the-mill politician;
Donald Trump is so far off the scale that I am amazed that any sane person
could remotely view with equanimity the prospect of his becoming President.

And then there's this news story:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-general-election-rigged-potential-challenge

Given that if you count *both* Hispanics (who are 'white', Spain being in
Europe, but they're poor) and Asians (who are non-white, but largely successful
and middle-class) as non-white, the United States has a majority of non-white
voters,

and given Trump's campaign,

it seems to _me_, based on what I've read from sources that appear credible,
that the only sense in which the November 8th election could be "rigged" so
that Trump doesn't win...

is if "rigged" means

that despite the best efforts of legislators, enough non-whites make it to the
polling booths to cast their votes...

and despite the best efforts of the makers of electronic voting machines, their
votes, and those of others voting against Trump, actually get counted.

It is true that historically the Democrats have been associated with more
crooked voting practices than the Republicans, but that is largely history now.

John Savard

[David DeLaney]

For the last, he doesn't; he's just repeating what he's been told. Which traces
back originally to folks who were trying to pin something, ANYTHING, on Hillary
because they hated her so much; this sort of accusation-without-actual-support,
flinging as much mud as possible in hopes that something will stick, has been
dogging her for decades now. See also: Ronald Reagan, the Teflon President,
who critics disliked because things he did that were obviously wrong or
offensive just slid off him; scandal and charges wouldn't stick.

tl;dr: TB has valid and good questions, Lynn. Post proof or retract.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 8/5/16 7:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 12:44 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> This column
>>
>> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2016/07/a-good-man-justifies-a-wicked-deed-grudem-on-trump/
>>
>>
>> accidentally came up in a search for something quite unrelated, but I
>> thought it
>> too good not to share.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Hillary is a murderer

Given that she's still a free person, that amounts to libel.

Exactly who are you claiming she murdered?




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:no8kg2$gfc$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 8/5/16 7:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 8/5/2016 12:44 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> This column
>>>
>>> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2016/07/a-good-man-justifies
>>> -a-wicked-deed-grudem-on-trump/
>>>
>>>
>>> accidentally came up in a search for something quite
>>> unrelated, but I thought it
>>> too good not to share.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> Hillary is a murderer
>
> Given that she's still a free person, that amounts to
> libel.

Only if it damages her reputation, which seems unlikely, because

a) some random idiot on the internet isn't credible,, and

b) Hillary could sodomize babies on live television and it wouldn't
afffect her reputation with either her fans or her detractors.

>
> Exactly who are you claiming she murdered?
>

I'll bet you a steak dinner that whoever - if anyone - he names, it
*clearly* doesn't even begin to be criminal under an actual, you
know, law.

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 7:24:46 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
> news:no8kg2$gfc$1...@dont-email.me:

> > Exactly who are you claiming she murdered?

> I'll bet you a steak dinner that whoever - if anyone - he names, it
> *clearly* doesn't even begin to be criminal under an actual, you
> know, law.

Somebody else claimed it was Qaddafi, which indeed wouldn't be criminal.

But my guess - since most of the accusations that the Clintons are murderers
are about this - is that it is Vince Foster he's thinking of. And, indeed, if
they did fake his suicide, as they're accused of, it certainly would be
criminal.

But the accusations don't hold water.

John Savard

[mcdow...@sky.com]

If you really aren't aware of these theories, it might be worth looking for them as story fodder. A web search for "Killary" took longer than expected but eventually by plugging in names I already knew I came up with http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php. This at least establishes that you can give your reader any number of pointers as to the identity of the villain without it becoming implausible that they are still free.

In other countries, even the body count becomes plausible. I knew somebody who worked in Malawi when Dr Hasting Banda was President. They commented that a remarkable number of his political opponents had died in car crashes. After Banda was safely dead and the truth started to come out a lot of people who had previously been more closely connected to him said things like "When he talked about feeding his opponents to the crocodiles, we thought he was joking".

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 12:40:07 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> it seems to _me_, based on what I've read from sources that appear credible,
> that the only sense in which the November 8th election could be "rigged" so
> that Trump doesn't win...
>
> is if "rigged" means
>
> that despite the best efforts of legislators, enough non-whites make it to the
> polling booths to cast their votes...
>
> and despite the best efforts of the makers of electronic voting machines, their
> votes, and those of others voting against Trump, actually get counted.
>
> It is true that historically the Democrats have been associated with more
> crooked voting practices than the Republicans, but that is largely history now.

It should be noted that while the non-white majority is an undeniable fact, and
the voter suppression efforts of some states are a matter of historical record,
the allegations of rigged voting machines - while they sound plausible - could
be just paranoid fantasies, as _they_ come from fairly left-wing sources.

But even if that is not one of the problems we face, it remains the case that
the chance of an honest Trump victory is remote.

And, of course, it's too late to write a science-fiction story now about how a
seemingly racist candidate manages to get elected despite a largely non-white
electorate, resulting in riots as the results are not believed, and those riots
are used as the excuse of that new President to impose a state of emergency...

Hmm. It's fortunate that several months intervene between Election Day and
Inauguration Day, isn't it?

John Savard

[Richard Hershberger]

Silly? A Republican operative found someone who watched Donald Trump give a speech and concluded afterward that Clinton is a murderer. What further proof could you possibly want? What are you, a nutjob?

Richard R. Hershberger

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 7:28:19 AM UTC-6, Richard Hershberger wrote:

> Silly? A Republican operative found someone who watched Donald Trump give a
> speech and concluded afterward that Clinton is a murderer. What further proof
> could you possibly want? What are you, a nutjob?

Hey, but they're right, she is "damaged goods".

We have proof of that, if her being married to Bill Clinton isn't enough -
Chelsea! :)

Of course, on _that_ scale of values, at her age, that would not be her primary
problem.

And, given that she is far more competent and qualified to be the next
President of the United States than Donald Trump, this also is proof that women
actually _are_ good for more than one thing! Unfortunately, we still do have
lots of men around who still need to learn that, some of whom belong to ISIS.

John Savard

[Lynn McGuire]

Cool ! Something we can agree on.

Lynn

[Tom Kratman]

Terry the Timid,
Among all pussies, the least,
Longs for his schlong-snack.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

--
Terry Austin

Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 8/7/16 9:24 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
> news:no8kg2$gfc$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 8/5/16 7:07 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 8/5/2016 12:44 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> This column
>>>>
>>>> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2016/07/a-good-man-justifies
>>>> -a-wicked-deed-grudem-on-trump/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> accidentally came up in a search for something quite
>>>> unrelated, but I thought it
>>>> too good not to share.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>>
>>> Hillary is a murderer
>>
>> Given that she's still a free person, that amounts to
>> libel.
> Only if it damages her reputation, which seems unlikely, because
>
> a) some random idiot on the internet isn't credible,, and
>
> b) Hillary could sodomize babies on live television and it wouldn't
> afffect her reputation with either her fans or her detractors.
>>
>> Exactly who are you claiming she murdered?
>>
> I'll bet you a steak dinner that whoever - if anyone - he names, it
> *clearly* doesn't even begin to be criminal under an actual, you
> know, law.
>

You think I'm stupid enough to take ANOTHER of your sucker bets? I can
learn, albeit slowly.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 8/5/2016 6:42 PM, TB wrote:

> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 4:07:06 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 8/5/2016 12:44 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> This column
>>>
>>> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2016/07/a-good-man-justifies-a-wicked-deed-grudem-on-trump/
>>>
>>> accidentally came up in a search for something quite unrelated, but I thought it
>>> too good not to share.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>

>> Hillary is a murderer and I cannot vote for her because of that one item alone.
>
> Whom did she kill? What weapon did she use? What courtroom ready evidence do you have?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/two-benghazi-parents-sue-hillary-clinton-wrongful-death-defamation-n625861

I do suspect that Sovereign Immunity will come into play fairly quickly.
Or not as the plaintiffs are claiming defamation also.

Lynn

[David Johnston]

Throwing stuff against the wall to see if anything can stick.

[Tom Kratman]

If Carl Sandburg had written about Terry Austin:

Horse's ass wannabe,
Nazi-in-drag, hypocrite.
Liar extraordinaire, integrity-challenged.
Foaming, furious, apoplectic, impotent.
They tell me that you have penis envy of normal men and I believe them
For I have seen your amusing posts on RASFW and laughed and invited
you to do some more.

[leif...@dimnakorr.com]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/two-benghazi-parents-sue-hillary-clinton-wrongful-death-defamation-n625861
>
> I do suspect that Sovereign Immunity will come into play fairly quickly.
> Or not as the plaintiffs are claiming defamation also.

You might want to look into the lawyer representing the plaintiffs
in this case and his history of litigation first.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[leif...@dimnakorr.com]

Tom Kratman <tomkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If Carl Sandburg had written about Terry Austin:
>
> Horse's ass wannabe,
> Nazi-in-drag, hypocrite.
> Liar extraordinaire, integrity-challenged.
> Foaming, furious, apoplectic, impotent.
> They tell me that you have penis envy of normal men and I believe them
> For I have seen your amusing posts on RASFW and laughed and invited
> you to do some more.

How on earth are you a published author? Even your _doggerel_ is
actively poor. That's like being a professional chef and make boiled
rice that's not merely flavourless but actually taste rancid.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[Tom Kratman]

The usual way, fuckface; I write books enough people want to read to justify the effort.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in

news:nobcp7$pai$1...@dont-email.me:

You're no fun at all.

--
Terry Austin

Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

[Alan Baker]

Do you think there is any chance at all that this lawsuit wasn't at the
urging of the Republicans?

[Butch Malahide]

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 12:44:38 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> This column
>
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2016/07/a-good-man-justifies-a-wicked-deed-grudem-on-trump/
>
> accidentally came up in a search for something quite unrelated, but I thought it
> too good not to share.
>
> John Savard

One of the more puzzling points in that rant you linked to is this one:

"It is not a lack of nuance that is the problem when you suggest we will abandon Estonia to Putin. It is ignorance combined with pride that does not care about the ignorance."

Is he saying that one of the reasons Trump can't be trusted with the
nuclear codes is that he might NOT go to war with Russia in defense of
Estonia? I'll have think about that one.

Maybe Trump can make a "deal" with Putin, where we swap the Baltic
Republics for Cuba?

[William December Starr]

In article <2uqdnXqoVZ92KTTK...@giganews.com>,

Can we have an executive summary for the lazy, by whom I mean me?

-- wds

[Alan Baker]

You had only to read:

'The parents were represented by Washington, D.C., lawyer Larry Klayman,
a frequent critic of the Clintons.

...

And one campaign official noted that Klayman is the founder or "Freedom
Watch," a conservative group that "has been unsuccessfully attacking the
Clintons for decades."'

And then there's this...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman>

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:02:53 PM UTC-6, Butch Malahide wrote:

> Is he saying that one of the reasons Trump can't be trusted with the
> nuclear codes is that he might NOT go to war with Russia in defense of
> Estonia? I'll have think about that one.

You're right, that is _not_ one of the reasons he can't be trusted with the
nuclear codes.

However, that _is_ one of the reasons why he can't be trusted with the *other*
responsibilities associated with the Presidency of the United States.

Estonia is a full member of NATO. If Russia were to feel it could annex Estonia
with impunity, Germany and France would be pretty darn close to next on the
list. Poland, of course, would probably precede them.

John Savard

[leif...@dimnakorr.com]

Tom Kratman <tomkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The usual way, fuckface; I write books enough people want to read to
> justify the effort.

Well, if that's the case, kudos to your editor.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred
A toast: to red ink alchemists everywhere.

[Tom Kratman]

Most of NATO's never pulled it's weight. Yes, there were sound reasons for letting them slide, or, rather, subsidizing their slide, into social democracy during the Cold War, but the Cold War's over. If Germany cannot deal with Russia either on its own or in conjunction with the Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks, and Putin wants them, let him have them. "Nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests," and our paramount interest is or at least should be in tending to our own fig tree and recovering from seventy years of subsidizing the unworthy and the unfit.

Canada? Did someone say Canada? Canada gets defended because it remains in our interest to keep a physical threat away from our northern border. However, should the threat become reality, Canada, unfit or unwilling to defend itself, is not going to like how we defend ourselves on its territory. (By the way, did Justin Trudeau actually say something to the effect that "When you kill your enemy, he wins"? I find it almost incredible but then the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make a certain sense.)

[Tom Kratman]

I assume from the name you're not American. Thus, I suppose it would not be entirely your fault not to be familiar with Carl Sandburg, less still his poem, _Chicago_. Thus, you may be forgiven for missing that my little parody of it, on Terry's "behalf," is rather close to the original in method.

But you're still an idiot.

[Mart van de Wege]

Tom Kratman <tomkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:31:25 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:02:53 PM UTC-6, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>
>> > Is he saying that one of the reasons Trump can't be trusted with the
>> > nuclear codes is that he might NOT go to war with Russia in defense of
>> > Estonia? I'll have think about that one.
>>
>> You're right, that is _not_ one of the reasons he can't be trusted with the
>> nuclear codes.
>>
>> However, that _is_ one of the reasons why he can't be trusted with the *other*
>> responsibilities associated with the Presidency of the United States.
>>
>> Estonia is a full member of NATO. If Russia were to feel it could annex Estonia
>> with impunity, Germany and France would be pretty darn close to next on the
>> list. Poland, of course, would probably precede them.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Most of NATO's never pulled it's weight. Yes, there were sound
> reasons for letting them slide, or, rather, subsidizing their slide,
> into social democracy during the Cold War, but the Cold War's over.
> If Germany cannot deal with Russia either on its own or in conjunction
> with the Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks, and Putin wants them, let him
> have them.

Yeah, and this is the level of stupid that proves that your whining
about leaving the 'PC' Army is sour grapes. They wanted you out and gave
you an honourable exit, because I *know* the US Army has higher
standards for their officers' intelligence.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:46:28 PM UTC-6, Tom Kratman wrote:
> but the Cold War's over.

Yes, Communism no longer reigns in Russia. However, a new situation, equivalent to the Cold War, began in 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia.

> If Germany cannot deal with Russia either on its own or in conjunction with the
> Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks, and Putin wants them, let him have them.

How could Germany possibly deal with Russia even with the Poles, Czechs, and
Slovaks?

Only Britain and France, within Europe, have any hope of dealing with Russia at
all, since only Britain and France have nuclear weapons.

> Canada? Did someone say Canada? Canada gets defended because it remains in
> our interest to keep a physical threat away from our northern border.
> However, should the threat become reality, Canada, unfit or unwilling to
> defend itself, is not going to like how we defend ourselves on its territory.

If you would prefer that we become able to defend ourselves, fine. However, the
United States was one of the countries that encouraged other nations to sign
the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

> (By the way, did Justin Trudeau actually say something to the effect that
> "When you kill your enemy, he wins"? I find it almost incredible but then
> the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make a
> certain sense.)

I missed that particular news item.

I have heard that sentiment before, though. It does make sense *under certain
circumstances*. If the forces of evil succeed in turning their victims, once
innocent, to acting out of hate, then to some extent evil has spread.

You are, though, quite right that such sentiments, however beautiful and
idealistic they may be, are out of place in a real world in which we accept
that we need to have _police officers_ around... never mind military forces as
well!

The damage his father did to Canada is well-known. Canada, sadly, had limited
choices in the last election - the otherwise estimable government of Stephen
Harper made the mistake of interfering in Canadian climate science. Hopefully,
the Conservatives can correct themselves, and win the next election - but given
the weight that Quebec has in our politics, that is never an easy job for them.
Historically, the Conservatives mostly win when the Liberals, out of fairness,
alternate to a non-Francophone leader.

John Savard

[Tom Kratman]

Are you claiming much of NATO _did_ pull its weight, Marty? If so, why didn't the doctors euthanize you as an obvious mental defective in the delivery room?

Europe's useless to us; indeed worse than useless, you're an albatross hung about our necks. Militarily, you - singly or collectively - can't do a goddamned thing of any significance without sucking at the US logistic tit. Even the ones who will fight bravely and ably (Danes, Brits, and, yes, other commonwealth sorts) still bring with them a set of treaty obligations - think Add. Prot I to GC IV, especially, but also the Rome Statute - that tie our hands more than your contributions are worth. We're better off without you.

[Peter Trei]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:30:51 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:46:28 PM UTC-6, Tom Kratman wrote:
> > but the Cold War's over.
>
> Yes, Communism no longer reigns in Russia. However, a new situation, equivalent to the Cold War, began in 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia.
>
> > If Germany cannot deal with Russia either on its own or in conjunction with the
> > Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks, and Putin wants them, let him have them.
>
> How could Germany possibly deal with Russia even with the Poles, Czechs, and
> Slovaks?
>
> Only Britain and France, within Europe, have any hope of dealing with Russia at
> all, since only Britain and France have nuclear weapons.
>
> > Canada? Did someone say Canada? Canada gets defended because it remains in
> > our interest to keep a physical threat away from our northern border.
> > However, should the threat become reality, Canada, unfit or unwilling to
> > defend itself, is not going to like how we defend ourselves on its territory.
>
> If you would prefer that we become able to defend ourselves, fine. However, the
> United States was one of the countries that encouraged other nations to sign
> the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I realize the referenced article uses Estonia as a convenient example, but
I'd like to point out that Estonia is one of only five members which meet
NATO's target of spending 2% or more of GNP on defense: the others
are the US, Greece, Britain, and Poland:

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/nato-members-defense-spending-two-charts/116008/

So when talking of European countries 'not pulling their weight', leave
Estonia out of it.

pt

[Tom Kratman]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:30:51 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Georgia? What difference does it make to us _what_ happens to Georgia? Russia's seeing to their near abroad; I cannot blame them for that.

I should think it's not hard to imagine how Germany could defend itself with or without the others; while it and the others have perhaps 75% of Russia's population and 3 times its GDP. If they can't marshal that into an adequate defense - or simply lack the will to - then to hell with them. Nukes? Russia's not going to use nukes but, if the Huns are especially afraid of them and insist on Green ideological purity then they can retain their alliance with France and / or the UK. Mox Nix to us.

Canada? It hardly matters what we prefer, one doubts Canada would anymore be willing to pay the price if _we_ were threatening to invade, never mind someone who would have to cross oceans. Sad, too, really, since the Canucks fought well above their weight in two world wars.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 7:56:25 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:

> So when talking of European countries 'not pulling their weight', leave
> Estonia out of it.

Unlike the United States (or Canada), the countries of Europe have peacetime
compulsory military service. So they certainly contribute something.

In the final analysis, though, the only thing that enables a country to resist
the will of another country with nuclear weapons - is nuclear weapons of its
own. Given that, it's somewhat absurd to accuse other countries of not pulling
their weight, since the situation is one the United States sought to bring
about.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 7:58:36 AM UTC-6, Tom Kratman wrote:

> Georgia? What difference does it make to us _what_ happens to Georgia?
> Russia's seeing to their near abroad; I cannot blame them for that.

Russia has documented human-rights issues, therefore it should be blamed for
*any* interference outside its own borders.

If Russia wants the countries on its borders to be friendly with it, it could
try *being* friendly, not trying to impose undemocratic, unjust, and illiberal
regimes on them. For it to feel threatened by having NATO on its doorstep means
that it is continuing in the abysmal error of its Cold War days, of attempting
to oppose itself to the United States, instead of being a peaceful, responsible
democratic power like Canada, Australia, or Germany.

It still hasn't reimbursed the U.S. taxpayer for the cost of the Cold War, in any event.

As to Georgia - the one in the Caucasus - it is inhabited by human beings. That
is why what happens there makes a difference. Ultimately, the goal is a world
without war, without tyranny, without injustice.

One can, of course, rightly object to setting impractical goals without regard
for the price that would have to be paid to achieve them.

But what Russia's current actions are proving is that the fundamental situation
of the Cold War still exists. Just because Putin seems to be following in
Hitler's footsteps instead of Stalin's does not make him less of a menace. And
his goal appears to be to use Trump to turn the United States into another
Poland.

John Savard

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 12:20:01 AM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 7:58:36 AM UTC-6, Tom Kratman wrote:
>
> > Georgia? What difference does it make to us _what_ happens to Georgia?
> > Russia's seeing to their near abroad; I cannot blame them for that.
>
> Russia has documented human-rights issues, therefore it should be blamed for
> *any* interference outside its own borders.

That gives Kratman a hardon...

[David Johnston]

Yeah but Trump has said he's in favour of nuclear proliferation.

[Tom Kratman]

And, again, so what? Why should we expend our blood and treasure on Europe. BTDT and fuck the ungrateful bastards. Moreover, if Russia feels threatened by NATO on its borders, what would NATO be without us? A debating society that couldn't field a light division a hundred miles outside of Europe? (Actually, the French could do that, so let the French lead.) In any case, no us, no US, no threat and Russia will surely be just a lamb, just the same kind of harmless little fluffy lamb Eurolefties always insisted the USSR was. Perhaps it will be even softer and more cuddly.

Yes, a world without war, tyranny, or injustice is indeed an impractical goal, so let's let the US just keep it's money and young men's lives and let those who want to waste their effort on the impractical do so.

Minor aside; in law school there was a bulletin board in which things were debated in writing. One such item for debate was, "When should the United States commit military force overseas." My answer was the second one posted: "As a minimum necessary condition, when such action has the overwhelming support of the American people. Such support is best gauged by the number of male college students willing to volunteer for and train as infantry, and then go overseas to suffer, fight, and die for about 12k a year and found." There were, of course, no other answers after that one. Thus I would encourage every American - oh, and Canadian, too, of course - who cares deeply enough about Europe and human rights and niceness - and remember, as Mammy Yokum says, "Good is better than evil because it's _nicer_" - to, by all means, go over there and do his or her bit, if they care that much, on their own ticket.

[Tom Kratman]

Almost none of them in the west conscript anymore. Even where they do, in Switzerland, for example, it is often a much less thorough and much less capable version of what used to be. Some have it in theory, for emergencies, but not in practice.

[Tom Kratman]

Nope, just indifferent to it. My concerns are with the United States and, with regard to other states and peoples, only insofar as they may affect the United States.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:00:23 AM UTC-6, Tom Kratman wrote:

> Yes, a world without war, tyranny, or injustice is indeed an impractical goal,
> so let's let the US just keep it's money and young men's lives and let those
> who want to waste their effort on the impractical do so.

Going off on military adventures is not what I seek.

Instead, what is clearly essential for the survival of liberty on this
planet... is for the United States to develop and deploy weaponry of a
sufficiently advanced nature... so that it can obtain the unconditional
surrender of Russia and/or the People's Republic of China

without the risk of a single American casualty,

and without even any enemy civilian casualties,

or any casualties anywhere else.

Then there will be freedom over all the Earth as there is today only in the
fortunate industrialized democracies, and no one will be able to take it away.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:15:48 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> Going off on military adventures is not what I seek.

> Instead, what is clearly essential for the survival of liberty on this
> planet... is for the United States to develop and deploy weaponry of a
> sufficiently advanced nature...

But to return to the topic of what we should do in the *real world* and the
*present day*...

surely you, and others, have not forgotten that the best way - the only way -
to minimize the times when American boys are called upon to fight overseas (or
not) is to consistently act so as to ensure that the world's would-be
conquerors, the various tyrants and madmen that we must contend with, _never_,
for a moment, are permitted to entertain the slightest doubts about the resolve
of America - or, for that matter, the rest of the Free World.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 8/10/2016 9:15 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:00:23 AM UTC-6, Tom Kratman wrote:
>
>> Yes, a world without war, tyranny, or injustice is indeed an impractical goal,
>> so let's let the US just keep it's money and young men's lives and let those
>> who want to waste their effort on the impractical do so.
>
> Going off on military adventures is not what I seek.
>
> Instead, what is clearly essential for the survival of liberty on this
> planet... is for the United States to develop and deploy weaponry of a
> sufficiently advanced nature... so that it can obtain the unconditional
> surrender of Russia and/or the People's Republic of China
>
> without the risk of a single American casualty,
>
> and without even any enemy civilian casualties,
>
> or any casualties anywhere else.

<snicker> So clearly liberty ain't gonna survive because that ain't
gonna happen.

[Tom Kratman]

Not at all clear. We needed to get into WW II, but if we'd minded our own business in the Great War then WW II might not have been necessary at all. Indeed, if we'd minded our own damned business the world would have likely been a much better place in general.

The free world showed little resolve. We had resolve and squandered it and our will. It's largely gone now and what little we have left we need to husband most carefully.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

leif...@dimnakorr.com wrote in
news:_OmdnQ4dtNLgIjfK...@giganews.com:

> Tom Kratman <tomkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The usual way, fuckface; I write books enough people want to
>> read to justify the effort.
>
> Well, if that's the case, kudos to your editor.
>

And Baen's marketing.

Must be the masterpiece covers.

--
Terry Austin

Tom "The Crap Man" Kratman is my bitch.

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:30:06 AM UTC-6, Tom Kratman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:24:14 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> > But to return to the topic of what we should do in the *real world* and the
> > *present day*...
> >
> > surely you, and others, have not forgotten that the best way - the only way -
> > to minimize the times when American boys are called upon to fight overseas (or
> > not) is to consistently act so as to ensure that the world's would-be
> > conquerors, the various tyrants and madmen that we must contend with, _never_,
> > for a moment, are permitted to entertain the slightest doubts about the resolve
> > of America - or, for that matter, the rest of the Free World.

> Not at all clear. We needed to get into WW II, but if we'd minded our own
> business in the Great War then WW II might not have been necessary at all.

There _was_ the little matter of the Zimmermann telegram, even if it did not
involve immediate American casualties the way that Pearl Harbor did.

And I suppose it is true that given Serbia's current behavior, being concerned
about its independence from Austria could be considered a mistake.

To me, the lessons of history are clear.

World War II involved such a large loss of life because Hitler's invasion of
the Sudetenland didn't trigger a massive Allied attack on Germany. Had France,
Britain, *and the United States* descended on Germany at that point, there
wouldn't have *been* a World War II.

The Cold War, on the other hand, was won because resolve was maintained until
the end. This was partly because the lessons of World War II had been learned -
and partly because a struggle against Communism was more suited to the
mentality of powerful elites in the United States than one against facism.
Hence, McCarthyism, and its legacy of division.

Were I speaking to a predominantly Canadian audience, I would address the need
for Canada to pull its weight - but in this forum, that would just be a
distraction.

Also, it amuses me to see the right wing call the Clintons murderers. There is
indeed *one* way in which one _could_ call Bill Clinton, at least, a mass
murderer without twisting the facts too much.

International treaties on patent law not only allowed the poorest countries,
such as many in Africa, to make their own pharmaceuticals without paying
royalties beyond their means... but to have them made for them in third
countries. And many African countries did not have the technical capability to
make their own drugs to treat AIDS.

But Bill Clinton threatened Brazil and other countries with trade sanctions if
they made AIDS drugs for Africa on this basis.

This was instigated, though, by Congressional Republicans, I would think... but
Clinton didn't show any signs of having problems with it at the time.

Thus, Bill Clinton's failure to carry out a pre-emptive nuclear strike against
Red China while it still *didn't* have a second-strike capability (it has one
now) so that with the Chinese menace gone, he could have negotiated with
Yeltsin to have Russia denuclearize - and perhaps also gotten India and
Pakistan to give up nuclear weapons as well, since India needed them because of
China, and then Pakistan thought it needed them because of India... is
something I can't really put down to _ethical_ reasons.

We so narrowly missed the opportunity to consolidate Ronald Reagan's gains, and
usher in a true era of world peace.

John Savard

[Tom Kratman]

Which preceded which, our saber rattling over Germany's kinetic objections to our smuggling ammunition to the allies or the Zimmerman Telegram? Obviously it was our threatening war with Germany over their perfectly legitimate response to allied, and especially British, violations of the law of war at sea. The Zimmerman telegram was unwise, strategic imbecility, even, but the fault was in us and our failure to mind our own business.

Were you addressing a Canadian audience I am sure they would nod and applaud politely and then ignore it.

[Peter Trei]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:24:34 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

[...]

> Thus, Bill Clinton's failure to carry out a pre-emptive nuclear strike against
> Red China while it still *didn't* have a second-strike capability (it has one
> now) so that with the Chinese menace gone, he could have negotiated with
> Yeltsin to have Russia denuclearize - and perhaps also gotten India and
> Pakistan to give up nuclear weapons as well, since India needed them because of
> China, and then Pakistan thought it needed them because of India... is
> something I can't really put down to _ethical_ reasons.
>
> We so narrowly missed the opportunity to consolidate Ronald Reagan's gains, and
> usher in a true era of world peace.

Tens of millions dead. China, at very least, a nuclear wasteland. Even if (and
its a very big if) Russia decided to sit it out and not attack the US in
defense of their ally, AND (another big if) the Chinese had not been able
to get a single missile launched, the nuclear-use red line has been crossed.

This is definition of 'True Era of World Peace' with which I was previously
unfamiliar.

You are advocating megadeaths.

pt

[David Johnston]

No he couldn't have. Yeltsin would have reacted with a frantic effort
to expand his own nuclear second strike capability lest he be next,
while at the same offering alliance to the Western European nations
after they dissolved NATO, and Japan.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 07:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
in<news:5a6166cb-73f2-4558...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 7:56:25 AM UTC-6, Peter
> Trei wrote:

>> So when talking of European countries 'not pulling their
>> weight', leave Estonia out of it.

> Unlike the United States (or Canada), the countries of
> Europe have peacetime compulsory military service. So
> they certainly contribute something.

Germany did away with compulsory military service effective
five years ago.

[...]

[Mart van de Wege]

Irrelevant. It is not in the US' self-interest to give up Europe to the
Russians. That was the whole point of the Marshall Plan and NATO.

Then again, do go on proving that you know nothing of strategy beyond
the level of a firefight. It's funny, and it explains your failure as an
officer very well indeed.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 09:45:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:a95e4f5b-b075-45d6...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

I can’t decide whether he’s getting loonier, or just more
open.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[mcdow...@sky.com]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 6:46:28 AM UTC+1, Tom Kratman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:31:25 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:02:53 PM UTC-6, Butch Malahide wrote:
> >
> > > Is he saying that one of the reasons Trump can't be trusted with the
> > > nuclear codes is that he might NOT go to war with Russia in defense of
> > > Estonia? I'll have think about that one.
> >
> > You're right, that is _not_ one of the reasons he can't be trusted with the
> > nuclear codes.
> >
> > However, that _is_ one of the reasons why he can't be trusted with the *other*
> > responsibilities associated with the Presidency of the United States.
> >
> > Estonia is a full member of NATO. If Russia were to feel it could annex Estonia
> > with impunity, Germany and France would be pretty darn close to next on the
> > list. Poland, of course, would probably precede them.
> >
> > John Savard
>

> Most of NATO's never pulled it's weight. Yes, there were sound reasons for letting them slide, or, rather, subsidizing their slide, into social democracy during the Cold War, but the Cold War's over. If Germany cannot deal with Russia either on its own or in conjunction with the Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks, and Putin wants them, let him have them. "Nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests," and our paramount interest is or at least should be in tending to our own fig tree and recovering from seventy years of subsidizing the unworthy and the unfit.
>
> Canada? Did someone say Canada? Canada gets defended because it remains in our interest to keep a physical threat away from our northern border. However, should the threat become reality, Canada, unfit or unwilling to defend itself, is not going to like how we defend ourselves on its territory. (By the way, did Justin Trudeau actually say something to the effect that "When you kill your enemy, he wins"? I find it almost incredible but then the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make a certain sense.)

I note (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#1764.E2.80.931766:_Taxes_imposed_and_withdrawn) that the American revolution originated with British taxes justified as paying for expenses incurred in colonial defense (French and Indian wars). In fact charges from an Empire for the common defense have been a recurring trouble spot throughout history. This would appear to be a special case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_theory#Group_size - the "exploitation of the great by the small." where the common good is a defense alliance.

This is not so much to excuse the penny-pinching of the nations that America is currently protecting, as to identify the problem as a known hard one as a warning that simple solutions to it are likely to have disadvantages that explain why the underlying hard problem is not yet regarded as solved.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 09:45:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei

<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:24:34 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>[...]
>> Thus, Bill Clinton's failure to carry out a pre-emptive nuclear strike against
>> Red China while it still *didn't* have a second-strike capability (it has one
>> now) so that with the Chinese menace gone, he could have negotiated with
>> Yeltsin to have Russia denuclearize - and perhaps also gotten India and
>> Pakistan to give up nuclear weapons as well, since India needed them because of
>> China, and then Pakistan thought it needed them because of India... is
>> something I can't really put down to _ethical_ reasons.
>>
>> We so narrowly missed the opportunity to consolidate Ronald Reagan's gains, and
>> usher in a true era of world peace.
>

>You are advocating megadeaths.

Please don't tell me you're surprised.



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Tom Kratman]

You should at least pretend to have read and thought about the things you comment on, Marty. I know it's hard for you, but you ought to have noticed that I did say subsidizing Europe's slide to social democracy was in our interest at the time. That, however, has nothing to do with the dead albatross of Europe _now_. Idiot.

[Tom Kratman]

Not exactly. As Franklin pointed out in the run up to rebellion, during the war, whatever was asked of the colonies - money or troops - we gave and generally exceeded. The problem came in after the war, when we no longer saw the need and did see what seemed a bloated British military establishment being supported at our cost. Some of that was mere propaganda, of course.

[Robert Woodward]

In article <b85920f7-a8a7-4675...@googlegroups.com>,

Tom Kratman <tomkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:24:14 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:15:48 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> > > Going off on military adventures is not what I seek.
> >
> > > Instead, what is clearly essential for the survival of liberty on this
> > > planet... is for the United States to develop and deploy weaponry of a
> > > sufficiently advanced nature...
> >
> > But to return to the topic of what we should do in the *real world* and the
> > *present day*...
> >
> > surely you, and others, have not forgotten that the best way - the only way
> > -
> > to minimize the times when American boys are called upon to fight overseas
> > (or
> > not) is to consistently act so as to ensure that the world's would-be
> > conquerors, the various tyrants and madmen that we must contend with,
> > _never_,
> > for a moment, are permitted to entertain the slightest doubts about the
> > resolve
> > of America - or, for that matter, the rest of the Free World.
> >
> > John Savard
>
> Not at all clear. We needed to get into WW II, but if we'd minded our own
> business in the Great War then WW II might not have been necessary at all.
> Indeed, if we'd minded our own damned business the world would have likely
> been a much better place in general.

I would think that defending our OWN merchant marine from attack was our
business.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:f15f0633-8e3e-4489...@googlegroups.com:

> Thus, Bill Clinton's failure to carry out a pre-emptive nuclear
> strike against Red China while it still *didn't* have a
> second-strike capability (it has one now) so that with the
> Chinese menace gone, he could have negotiated with Yeltsin to
> have Russia denuclearize - and perhaps also gotten India and
> Pakistan to give up nuclear weapons as well, since India needed
> them because of China, and then Pakistan thought it needed them
> because of India... is something I can't really put down to
> _ethical_ reasons.
>

Becase clearly, in your diseased mind, killing a billion people who
aren't white isn't an ethical issue. As long as they're not white.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:20:59 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> Becase clearly, in your diseased mind, killing a billion people who
> aren't white isn't an ethical issue. As long as they're not white.

Pre-emptive nuclear strikes are counterforce attacks, not countervalue ones. HTH.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

So...how do you follow up on your act of aggression?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:f91c827a-6630-44ad...@googlegroups.com:

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:noftcu$rtf$1...@dont-email.me:

By nuking more people who aren't white, of course.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:56:33 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> So...how do you follow up on your act of aggression?

That depends on whether they welcome us as liberators, of course.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

You just nuked them with no provocation. Of course they won't welcome
you.

[Tom Kratman]

Not when our merchant marine was shipping, say, 75mm "sporting cartridges" to the allies. At that point our interest was in maintaining neutrality and _not_ becoming a de facto party to the war. Conversely, to the extent that the allies were hiding under our flag, violating the law of war at sea, or using our civilians as cover for their transport of war materials, we may have had an interest in declaring war on them.

[Tom Kratman]

Though he occasional pretends to erudition, Terry's far to ignorant to understand that.

However, I rather took it that you were being facetious.

[Tom Kratman]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 2:54:45 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Fucking typos.

Though he occasionally pretends to erudition, Terry's far too ignorant to understand that.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-08-10, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> In the final analysis, though, the only thing that enables a country to
> resist
> the will of another country with nuclear weapons - is nuclear weapons of its
> own.

... so terrorism, reforming from within, and tempting with a clearly superior
system from without to get the younger generation hooked all have zero (0)
chance of working? And Brazil has no chance to resist the will of the USA in
the final analysis, for example? Huh.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-08-10, Tom Kratman <tomkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Georgia? What difference does it make to us _what_ happens to Georgia?

... okaythen.

Dave, apparently it's not a small world, after all

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:35a5aab1-333d-4631...@googlegroups.com:

We're going to kill everyone you have ever known, and you had
*better* thank us for it.

Pyschopath.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-08-10, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> Instead, what is clearly essential for the survival of liberty on this
> planet... is for the United States to develop and deploy weaponry of a

> sufficiently advanced nature... so that it can obtain the unconditional
> surrender of Russia and/or the People's Republic of China

Okay, so Death Star level tech. Got it.

Dave, John may want to read Daniel Keys Moran's Continuing Time series, where
the Unification of Earth happens ... headed by _France_. The USA becomes a
hotbed of resistance and rebellion, but has to surrender (and is involved in
its own internal troubles, due to the nuking of the Castanaveras telepath
compound). Emerald Eyes, The Long Run, The Last Dancer

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Tom Kratman <tomkr...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3ed59ac7-aee8-40f6...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 2:54:45 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:20:59 PM UTC-6, Gutless
>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>
>> > Becase clearly, in your diseased mind, killing a billion
>> > people who aren't white isn't an ethical issue. As long as
>> > they're not white.
>>
>> Pre-emptive nuclear strikes are counterforce attacks, not
>> countervalue ones. HTH.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Though he occasional pretends to erudition, Terry's far to
> ignorant to understand that.

A professional writer should know the difference between "to,"
"too," and "two."

Are your books written that badly, too?

>
> However, I rather took it that you were being facetious.
>

He wasn't. Quaddie is a racist psychopath.

He bears a remarkable resemblance to you, sometimes. It must be
remarkable, I have, in fact, remarked upon it.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Tom Kratman <tomkr...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:2bb8ed17-aa49-4fd2...@googlegroups.com:

Idiot.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-08-10, Tom Kratman <tomkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:58:50 PM UTC-4, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>> Then again, do go on proving that you know nothing of strategy beyond
>> the level of a firefight. It's funny, and it explains your failure as an
>> officer very well indeed.
>

> You should at least pretend to have read and thought about the things you
> comment on, Marty.

You mean, he should check his nonsense before posting it?

Dave, sauce for the goose is sauce for the isolationist hawk also

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:B9OdnfhIVtNyFDbK...@earthlink.com:

> On 2016-08-10, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> In the final analysis, though, the only thing that enables a
>> country to resist
>> the will of another country with nuclear weapons - is nuclear
>> weapons of its own.
>
> ... so terrorism, reforming from within, and tempting with a
> clearly superior system from without to get the younger
> generation hooked all have zero (0) chance of working? And
> Brazil has no chance to resist the will of the USA in the final
> analysis, for example? Huh.

In Quaddieworld, yes, that is correct. Because all of those things
will provoke an *immediate* nuclear response, especially against
people who aren't white.