If you noticed that came after your comment regarding America is always at fault. I posted it above for clarification.

_________________

I'm confused. Were you just making that up then and you actually knew that I had negative remarks about American foreign policy even though you mentioned it multiple times?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

You were wrong about the first amendment being about Religious freedom. That's an odd mistake, not just for someone with a history doctorate, but someone who calls himself "a student of history"

People disagreeing with you is not a testament to what you are saying.



Bias exists all over. It serves no purpose to make so many conversations about the bias.


And no Im not ok'ing attacks. Im explaining that its not unique to you.

Why do you think it's you? What about the previous 44 people called anti semite?

I'm not sure if it's a victim complex or if you are just so self involved you dont see this happening all over the site to all different people.


You're not a victim. You're a guy posting on the board, like the rest of us. You get no points for a history doctorate or anything else, you are judged on your posts, like everyone else here is.

Ok and I understand that but when it comes to the "personal attack racket it isn't even close. I'm not a victim nor do I proclaim to be. I'm just wondering why you fail to note it when it isn't me that happens to be levying them?

This is a place where individuals and not their thoughts are routinely disagreed with. You are being rather hypocritical to continuously proclaim it as if I'm the only person that partakes in it also.

When you suggest that I'm the MJ of it that is a lie also (I know you will say that it is an opinion)There are people here that wage a personal battle each and every time that they post. At some point someone will be an idiot or a damn fool. Usually when I refer to someone as that it is in response to what they have said that is personal.

It is interesting that you continuously proclaim no big deal when I point out instances against me yet you feel the need to call me out when I'm committing it against someone else. It's hypocritical to say the least.

_________________

Now you're psychoanalyzing a guy you only know through a damn message board. I never said that I did and to be honest I referenced it one time while drinking. Doesn't excuse it and I wish on some level it'd been taken back. each and every other time it's been the self proclaimed board intelligentsia that has mentioned it.

If you are going to ask me to be ashamed of it I'm not. If you are going to expect me to not demonstrate that I may know things i'm not either. It seems far more important to you than it does to me quite frankly. Im not the one using it in order to seem like an authority. For some reason people can't seem to disagree without asking about it.

As far as all other people that is a generalization which means it's a lie. There are a number of people that I have never disagreed with. There a number of people that I've disagreed with and it has never become personal.


For what it is worth who in the hell anointed you arbiter of all things message board? You're posting a bunch of crap that isn't really relevant to anything and at no time have I addressed you specifically? You're hypocritically levying attacks against me while conversely stating that I'm the MJ of such things. You don't have some high ground to stand on either dude.

If I'd taken a personal shot at you then fine have at it. You're in no position to proclaim things when you're the one consistently engaging in things you denounce.

_________________

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

For the record the 1st Amendment is about religious freedom. You can debate whether that means tolerant or not. I won't.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A ... nstitution



Also I don't nor have ever said that I have a doctorate in History. Another misrepresentation.

_________________

I'd never known you to comment negatively about American foreign policy. You struck me as another person that sought to disentangle the evilness of Islam from the American bombs and policy.

_________________

Didn't see this earlier as I was dealing with the herd. Don't know how "revisionist" it is but most historians point to this as the start of the Cold War.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... -announced

_________________

I would say "survived" more than "fended off". The best I could manage out of you was "not a Nazi, but [this thing apparently close to it]".

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

LTG, there's no such thing as "defensive strategic weapons", outside of maybe a cruel joke by an arms contractor. They are a first-strike weapon by design, and the only "defensive" nature about them is their destructive capabilities if someone else's first strike with strategic arms does not get enough of them.

Never said the weapons were defensive. The placement of missiles was retaliatory.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... is/309190/


Posture of the Soviet Union was defensive. U.S. had missiles pointed at the Soviets long before Cuba.

_________________

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Defensive. Posture. With. Strategic. Arms.

Still provides proof that the placement of weapons were a retaliation for the placement of weapons in Turkey. The Soviets were never going to attack the U.S. that is not to say they wouldn't have responded if they were attacked. It seems to me that MANY have a problem with any country that defends itself against the United States.

American exceptionalism you say?

_________________

Truth be told I do not blame the Russians for wanting some space between themselves and the Germans. After what they did to them in two wars I would want buffers as well. The bad thing was 1) they made promises to hold elections,they never held honest elections. If they allowed them at all. 2) they did a lot of mass liquidation of people they did not like ,not only their own people but in other countries as well. America may not be the most honest or cleanest of countries but we are a hell of a lot better to deal with than other nation states that have been in our spot. I agree with you LTG,we need to basically get out of the Middle East,let the psycho bastards fight it out. We can not now for one major reason,the J E Ws got nukes and you know if it the choice between another Holocaust or dropping a few on some enemy capitals you know what will happen. Plus,we unfortunately budded up with the biggest scumbags in the area,Pakistan. The other problem is the people who do need the oil from the area we really do not want to move in there militarily,China,Japan and India.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

First Russian ICBM 1957
american 1958

SRBM
Russian 1947
american 1950

SLBM
Russian 1961
American 1965

So tell me who was deploying these in a Defensive manner?

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

So it was not out of context.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

You made comments about me. Omitted or ignored were in relation to that. Now you are out of context. I reposted the comments.

_________________

Not to mention the Asian aspect.

_________________

The U.S. had weapons stationed in Turkey. These weapons were pointed directly at the Soviet Union. These weapons were placed in Turkey prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The weapons placed in Cuba were a response to that. If the U.S. had struck the Soviet Union the weapons in Cuba were to be used. The defensive position that I referenced relates to that. In fact it's the essence of a "defensive position". Kennedy was well aware of what it meant that's why he felt compelled to lie to the American public.

_________________

So, no response to what chas posted?

_________________

When is anyone going to respond to anything that I post? I stated defensive position originally. Somehow it got transformed into a conversation on weapons creations. So now the Soviets didn't have a right to create weapons? For the record I did address what he posted. All you have to do is read.

_________________

Now can you respond to what I posted?

_________________

I have responded to most of what you have posted here. And again here, once questioned, you change your original premise.

People do get herded on here. Your thoughts are shown to be historically or factually inaccurate, and then you pivot to "that's not what I really meant."

But if you think that Communism was ever a defensive ideology, then may I suggest that you re-read Marx and history after him.

_________________

No you haven't. Now Communism was a defensive ideology. I never said that. At each interval you are distorting facts and what I originally stated. Its how "Never the threat" magically becomes "Never A threat".

You referenced Missile Crisis and I provided evidence which supported what I said. Now you're talking about Karl Marx.

I wonder if anyone will come along to correct you?

In the beginning I stated that their "position was always defensive". I could bump it but what would be the point because when challenged you and a few others simply resort to the more fashionable referendum on me. Thats a real safe space apparently.

_________________

Ok, LTG.

Happy posting.

It's good. To quote Nas's favorite Civil Rights Leader "We can disagree without being disagreeable"

_________________

I posted to what you said,yet you changed what i said. The missiles we had in Turkey. Jupiter's if I remember where obsolete at the time of the Cuba Crisis. It was why JFK had no problem in letting them go. up until around he mid 60s the USA was not really that into missiles they believed in the bomber theory. That is why you had the Navy build those huge carriers ,so they could get in on the ability to carry out strikes into the Russian heartland.
The issue with the ones the Soviets set up in Cuba was the amount of time it would take for them to hit targets and we would have to spend a crap load of money building a new line of radar to detect them ala the DEW line up North.
The Russians started the Cold war before WW2 even ended. Look at what went down at Postam,how they maneuvered and stole everything they could. I can point out the Kaytn massacre in 1940 of over 20000 officers by the NKVD. You want more I can keep on giving you examples of things the Russians did during and immediately after WW2. They where pissed at us because we came in when we did,far be it from them that they where buddy buddy with the Nazis until Hitler wanted his living space.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

No I didn't. I just thought/think some of your arguments are/were odd. Almost like you were debating yourself or trying to prove to the masses that you aren't like "those" blacks who blame whites for everything. What did that get you? You have still been called a racist and an antisemite and now you're having your credentials questioned. Your Cosbyesque counter to your own argument has really worked out for you.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!