Then all Nations are correct in pursueing the development of
nuclear weapons for defense since it is to be shown that even peace
loving nations would consider its use to protect its own interests.
All oil producing countries are aware that the U.S. contemplated
the occupation of some Mid East countries during the last oil crises
and have large stockpiles of weapons in Israel for that event. And is the
reason that
the U.S. has supplied bunker busting smart bombs to Israel which is
certainly
overkill for dirt trenches. These displayed intentions by those with nuclear
capability
demand pre emptive strikes by even the smallest nations to halt perceived
intentions.
If an A Bomb had been dropped on the Chinese in Korea would we now be
without fear
of retaliation at China's choosing? If Syria had a A bomb would America have
told Israel
to wipe out their nuclear power station? When America tells Israel to drop
the bunker
buster bombs on Iran can we be sure that Pakistan or other countries will
not come to the defense of Islam.
We in the U.S. have to start thinking of consequences before we follow movie
teachings that we can
take on the World at any time and at any place and for any reason. We are
not strong enough
to do that without allies if we are to preserve some land for the populace
to live on.
Art


"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin wrote:
"And how would we have done that? Surely not the Goldwater method!"

H wrote: Pyongyang is problematic and our fault. Should have finished it
in `53."

I agree with H. McArthur should have had support from an A-bomb on
Pyongyang, followed by similar strikes in China and Russia. We had a
nuclear monopoly at that time. The Cold War would have been nipped in
the bud.

We would have had to be extremely vigilant to find and destroy any
nuclear threat, and keep the U.S. monopoly.

We just could not accept killing so many innocent people to control a
hostile world. Good deeds are always punished?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:21:05 GMT, "
wrote:

|
| Reg
| There are enough reasonable people in Iran and China that they can
| come along on their own if enough are smart and all are lucky.
| I've had students from both countries and they were quite bright and
| rational.
| Pyongyang is problematic and our own fault. Should have finished it in
|'53.
| 73
| H.
|
|
|
|
|And how would we have done that?
|Surely not the Goldwater method !

I believe at the time it would have been called the "MacArthur
method." Had Truman listened to him, P5 would have an IOTA number and
the world would be a better place.

And if Barry had been elected in '64, the world would be an even
better place.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:36:17 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote:
And if Barry had been elected in '64, the world would be an even
better place.

Amen.

And free of the liberal Fascist trash that call themselves Neo-Cons.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I can hardly see how the United States of Mexico will be a better place but
that is for my
grandchildren to decide.
Unless we determine at that time that democracy does not mean that all have
a vote when
Mexicans are a majority because of their accelerating birth rate
Art

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:21:05 GMT, "
wrote:

|
| Reg
| There are enough reasonable people in Iran and China that they can
| come along on their own if enough are smart and all are lucky.
| I've had students from both countries and they were quite bright and
| rational.
| Pyongyang is problematic and our own fault. Should have finished it in
|'53.
| 73
| H.
|
|
|
|
|And how would we have done that?
|Surely not the Goldwater method !

I believe at the time it would have been called the "MacArthur
method." Had Truman listened to him, P5 would have an IOTA number and
the world would be a better place.

And if Barry had been elected in '64, the world would be an even
better place.

"Reg Edwards" wrote


Tongue-in-cheek, Jack,

There's no need to tell ME what the British are like.

After 79 years I know!

It's just that YOU are better at it than we EVER were.

But, 8 years too late, WE are now taking care of puppy-dog Tony.

Just make sure YOU do likewise with George.

And we will BOTH get on fine with each other.

Only three more to sort out - Teheran, Pyongyang and finally Beijing.

Your Coalition and Tea Party Colleague -
----
Reg.


Hi Reg, I suppose I understand what you meant, although I do not agree that
the United States is or was imperialistic the way England was, and we were
never as vile to each other, even in our own short Civil War. The most land
we ask for from our conqured or liberated is enough to bury our dead on.
That is certainly not Britain's history. And I am absolutely sure that
neither you nor any Brit has any idea how you could be so absolutely vile to
each other in your own country, Christian against Christian (yeh right!).
Only the Africans behave as badly to each other as the Irish Protestants and
Catholics do.

Just so you know, conservatives have already sent President Bush a strong
message, and he is aware that a large majority of his supporters expect
*major* changes in his policies, *after* he is re-elected. In my opinion,
nothing that Kerry said sounded convincing with regard to the nuclear
proliferation problem. Of course the United States is strong enough to fight
and win two major wars on separate continents at the same time. We could
fight and win three in fact. Just don't expect the kind of compassion in
avoiding civilian casualties or surgical strikes that target structural
rather than human assets in that event. No sane people in the world want to
see things come to that, especially the Chinese. There are however several
insane people in the world, namely the leader of North Korea, and the entire
nation of islam. "Friends" like France would still be useful enough, if for
just one time, they could protect their *own* land in a world war, and not
require more help at that from the US and Great Britain.

;-) Jack

We can "win" many more wars than just three at the same time
by landing on a flight deck and declaring 'mission accomplished.'
Why haven't the troops come home if we have 'won' the war.?
Or is it that from now on frontal engagements will not be fought anymore and
where we build a defensive position down town and only venture out in
daylight when CNN passes by.
Art

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:0fi7d.6539$%t3.712@lakeread01...

"Reg Edwards" wrote


Tongue-in-cheek, Jack,

There's no need to tell ME what the British are like.

After 79 years I know!

It's just that YOU are better at it than we EVER were.

But, 8 years too late, WE are now taking care of puppy-dog Tony.

Just make sure YOU do likewise with George.

And we will BOTH get on fine with each other.

Only three more to sort out - Teheran, Pyongyang and finally Beijing.

Your Coalition and Tea Party Colleague -
----
Reg.


Hi Reg, I suppose I understand what you meant, although I do not agree
that
the United States is or was imperialistic the way England was, and we were
never as vile to each other, even in our own short Civil War. The most
land
we ask for from our conqured or liberated is enough to bury our dead on.
That is certainly not Britain's history. And I am absolutely sure that
neither you nor any Brit has any idea how you could be so absolutely vile
to
each other in your own country, Christian against Christian (yeh right!).
Only the Africans behave as badly to each other as the Irish Protestants
and
Catholics do.

Just so you know, conservatives have already sent President Bush a strong
message, and he is aware that a large majority of his supporters expect
*major* changes in his policies, *after* he is re-elected. In my opinion,
nothing that Kerry said sounded convincing with regard to the nuclear
proliferation problem. Of course the United States is strong enough to
fight
and win two major wars on separate continents at the same time. We could
fight and win three in fact. Just don't expect the kind of compassion in
avoiding civilian casualties or surgical strikes that target structural
rather than human assets in that event. No sane people in the world want
to
see things come to that, especially the Chinese. There are however several
insane people in the world, namely the leader of North Korea, and the
entire
nation of islam. "Friends" like France would still be useful enough, if
for
just one time, they could protect their *own* land in a world war, and not
require more help at that from the US and Great Britain.

;-) Jack

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin wrote:
"And how would we have done that? Surely not the Goldwater method!"

H wrote: Pyongyang is problematic and our fault. Should have finished it
in `53."

I agree with H. McArthur should have had support from an A-bomb on
Pyongyang, followed by similar strikes in China and Russia. We had a
nuclear monopoly at that time. The Cold War would have been nipped in
the bud.

We would have had to be extremely vigilant to find and destroy any
nuclear threat, and keep the U.S. monopoly.

We just could not accept killing so many innocent people to control a
hostile world. Good deeds are always punished?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


I have a slight inside track: My father fought in Korea for 16 months.
Artillery. Directed fire at the Punch Bowl.
Had 'em on the run and told to stop.
That was dumb.
BTW They had nukes in theater.
73
H.


OB Antenna
I'm very happy with the SteppIR vertical on the aluminum roof with the Orion
and Alpha 87A.
This is the first rig I've had rig that beats my S-Line, outside the digital
bells and whistles.
Now if I can just put up the tower and the 4 element SteppIR beam.