So we are back to the Cold War again?

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

"yourdictionary" is certainly a source nearly as good as any official manual

"The college edition is the official desk dictionary of the Associated Press,[3][4] The New York Times,[5] The Wall Street Journal,[6] The Washington Post,[7] and United Press International.[8]"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster's_New_World_Dictionary

Seems reputable enough.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Then I don't understand your above responses.

I was pointing out the fact that you were not our battleground, but rather that we were your battleground. We were risking nuclear annihilation just to protect you from being conquered by the Soviets.

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Not at all desperate but exactly trying to get better facts than I know only from the 70's and 80's by personal experience and from later just by reading.

The facts are that we were risking our necks to save yours, not the other way around.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

You take my breath away, I have never ever encountered anyone so alarmingly oblivious.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The facts are that we were risking our necks to save yours, not the other way around.

I don't think I wrote anything about that - in my understanding my comments and questions were different. (However, thanks for your service with USAREUR!)
But since I am not a native English speaker I certainly might have misspoken ...

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
"yourdictionary" is certainly a source nearly as good as any official manual
"The college edition is the official desk dictionary of the Associated Press,[3][4] The New York Times,[5] The Wall Street Journal,[6] The Washington Post,[7] and United Press International.[8]"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster's_New_World_Dictionary

Seems reputable enough.

Oh Sure, thats what the Joint Chiefs use as the penultimate guide.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

You take my breath away, I have never ever encountered anyone so alarmingly oblivious.

Are you claiming that we didn't defend western Europe from Soviet conquest?

Or are you objecting to my suggestion that we should resume production of 455 kiloton MIRV warheads? What could possibly be wrong with having more powerful warheads?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The facts are that we were risking our necks to save yours, not the other way around.

when and where did you serve in Europe?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

we were your battleground. We were risking nuclear annihilation just to protect you from being conquered by the Soviets.

really?

what US battlefield are you talking about?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

what US battlefield are you talking about?

North America.

The SS-18s and SS-19s alone had 5000 half-megaton warheads.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Then I don't understand your above responses.
I was pointing out the fact that you were not our battleground, but rather that we were your battleground. We were risking nuclear annihilation just to protect you from being conquered by the Soviets.

I have been trying to sort out world history from the perspective that colonialism never ended; it just went from being direct political rule to happening through global trade and commerce.

In that context, the world wars (and maybe even the US Civil War) can be seen as migration-pushes that motivated large numbers of people to move to the US and other colonial economies, where economic growth could be exploited to remit money to Europe and/or where European investors could make money to pay taxes for expensive welfare states in Europe.

In short, Europe just never figured out a way to achieve economic independence from global trade, so they keep fighting each other and the US as well as the USSR (the cold war as a whole thus) were really just another way(s) to manage the global economy for those whose privilege it is to benefit from it.

It's strange that scholars only started talking about 'globalization' in recent decades when really colonialism was globalization that's been going on since long before Europeans 'discovered' the Americas.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Then I don't understand your above responses.
I was pointing out the fact that you were not our battleground, but rather that we were your battleground. We were risking nuclear annihilation just to protect you from being conquered by the Soviets.

AGGGGGGGG, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, you are so wrong wrong wrong wongity wrong. You don’t get to make up your own special terminology, every branch of the US Armed forces use the same terminology so that stupid mistakes aren’t made......all the civilian workforce dedicated to supporting our
military use the same terminology (WANT to Guess why????). It’s crucial, hospitals don’t rename medical procedures to look creative, there is zero utility in everyone coming up with their own lingo.

Now I am so flaming pissed with myself, I have wasted precious time trying to explain the most basic elements of accepted terminology to someone who might be a bonafide nitwit. I keep swearing off, and then someone writes something that’s so boneheaded i

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

AGGGGGGGG, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, you are so wrong wrong wrong wongity wrong. You don’t get to make up your own special terminology, every branch of the US Armed forces use the same terminology so that stupid mistakes aren’t made......all the civilian workforce dedicated to supporting our
military use the same terminology (WANT to Guess why????). It’s crucial, hospitals don’t rename medical procedures to look creative, there is zero utility in everyone coming up with their own lingo.

Now I am so flaming pissed with myself, I have wasted precious time trying to explain the most basic elements of accepted terminology to someone who might be a bonafide nitwit. I keep swearing off, and then someone writes something that’s so boneheaded i

Speaking of boneheaded….

I believe Oralloy, in the post to which you responded, was simply referring to the fact that we used nuclear deterrence (to which we, more than Western Europe, were the primary retaliatory target, as the ultimate deterrent . The real situation also involves serious threats to Western Europe, mostly that of Soviet invasion, but probably equally destructive.

Exaggerated condescension, devoid of facts or logic, is usually ineffective.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I disagree with fascism. It seems a poor way to run society.

The Democratic Party should be banned because they are a scourge against innocent people.

I referred to you as a crypto-fascist, because I don't know that you favor a broad fascist agenda (I also don't know that you don't). Banning all opposition parties (and there are, realistically, only two parties in the United States) is a classic fascist tactic, and the first significant move of any fascist state--as was the case in the 1930s in Europe in Spain, Italy, Germany and Hungary, and as was the case in Japan in the late 1920s.

Your absurd, in fact idiotic claim about the Democratic party is, as are about nine-tenths of all your claims, completely unsubstantiated.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Sorry George, I didn’t realize you revere oral’s military genius. And who would imagine the single finger salute was something that existed outside of the US. How about them apples?

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

I was merely responding to what was written in his and your posts. I'm no one's genius but my own.

The fact is the "single finger salute" as you call it is not given the same meaning everywhere, even in Europe. However, its meaning to us is indeed more widespread than I knew at the time. Anyway it was for me a memorable event (not to mention the fact hat the SOB in the Bear tried to fly us into the water)

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

The Syrians were flying obsolete Vietnam-era MiGs (and configured for ground attack). And the Syrian pilots had no dogfighting skills.

Yeah, and the dog ate their homework. Excuses excuses. Fact is, the Syrians had Russian built planes and were trained by Russians, and 100 Russian supplied Syrian fighter jets got shot down by American fighter jets while no Syrian fighter jet successfully shot down an American fighter jet

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

That's not how things turned out when American pilots in the Vietnam and Korean wars went up against then-modern air-superiority fighters flown by highly skilled Soviet pilots.

Again, you've got to lay off reading those right wing websites. I keep tellin' ya, they get their info from the Russkies and just repost it, thereby saving money on actual reporters.

In the Korean War, American fighters had a "kill ratio" of 10:1, (ten enemy fighters shot down for each American fighter lost).

For the US Air Force in Vietnam, it was5.5:1 for the early years of the war and 15:1 for the later years. For the US Navy in Vietnam it was 6.4:1 for the early years then 8.5:1. This is for fighter jets shooting at other fighter jets, not fighter jets shooting at cargo planes or bombers. The fighter-on-fighter stats are called "MiGCAP" stats.

Your conclusion that the huge advantage in military spending for the US over any other country does not pay off in superior weapons is proven wrong. Our warplanes have always been better than anything the Russians can make. Partly because of our experience, partly because of how much more we spend. The Russians are way behind us, as they are way behind us now with our new F-35s.

Trying to accuse the Democrats of ignoring natonal defense is nonsense, especially considering the submissive pose Trump takes toward Putin. It really is nauseating to see an American president humiliated the way Putin humiliates Trump.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I was merely responding to what was written in his and your posts. I'm no one's genius but my own.

The fact is the "single finger salute" as you call it is not given the same meaning everywhere, even in Europe. However, its meaning to us is indeed more widespread than I knew at the time. Anyway it was for me a memorable event (not to mention the fact hat the SOB in the Bear tried to fly us into the water)

So, I'm merely asking merely what were you merely flying? While they merely sent you up in merely something less nimble than a big propeller bomber/recon ...come on george, that story changes every time you tell it. Now, someone is waving a copy of Playboy????? And the "single finger salute" as you cleverly note 'I called it'.........why is that a surprise to you???? Let me guess, you think that some places in Europe or Asia it means ":we're number one". Puleeeze You should be embarrassed to offer such a ..........sighhhhhhhhh....lame excuse. I suppose your craft was the only aircraft protecting the carrier.....and your radio didn't work so you couldn't alert anyone else. Sure, that might have happened.

0 Replies

Another return to old Soviet Cold War era practices: a square near the Russian spy agency HQ (in the Yasenevo district in southwest Moscow) got the name of a MI6 officer who defected to Russia in 1963: "Kim Philby Square".

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

AGGGGGGGG, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, you are so wrong wrong wrong wongity wrong.

Nope. As usual I am completely correct.

The US did risk nuclear annihilation just to protect western Europe from being conquered by the Soviets.

And Trump should resume production of the 455 kiloton MIRVs that got cut short by the end of the Cold War.

0 Replies

So we are back to the Cold War again?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know