On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:59:16 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> Yeah, you're right, but at least the Democrats used to *claim* to be for
> peace. Now they don't even pretend.

McGovern was their last anti-war candidate. After '72 they said 'Let's
never do that again. War sells.'

Relf: Best to not make a deal with the Devil.
China knows that Putin won't stop carpet bombing.

rBowman: [ Britain carpet bombed ]

Yes; it could, so it did.

Ukraine is that 6'5" kid who no longer takes bulshit from his dad.

On 2024-09-03, Relf <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote:
> Relf: Best to not make a deal with the Devil.
> China knows that Putin won't stop carpet bombing.
>
> rBowman: [ Britain carpet bombed ]
>
> Yes; it could, so it did.
>
> Ukraine is that 6'5" kid who no longer takes bulshit from his dad.

If Joe Biden hadn't claimed it was ok if Russia invades Ukraine as long as it's a minor invasion,
we wouldn't be here.
We weren't here when Trump was POTUS either.
Nor were in the middle of a Middle East conflict.
Nor was Xi threatening to invade Taiwan.

Why?
Trump didn't back down and use appeasement instead of peace by strength.

Biden is weak.
His administration, Blinken etc are weak as well.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
Lifetime Member of "The Prescott Parasite Eradication Team"
Ask snit how he pissed on his cat.
All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:59:16 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> Yeah, you're right, but at least the Democrats used to *claim* to be for
>> peace. Now they don't even pretend.
>
> McGovern was their last anti-war candidate. After '72 they said 'Let's
> never do that again. War sells.'

I think that's a U.S. thing, common to both parties, Democrat protestations
notwithstanding.

Not that I think there's a "Uniparty", but some stuff, both good (defense,
infrastructure) and bad (dark money, corporations over people) is treated very
much the same by both parties.

Just my opinion, pray to eschew ripping me a new one.

I! Love a parade!

--
Leadership involves finding a parade and getting in front of it; what
is happening in America is that those parades are getting smaller and
smaller -- and there are many more of them.
-- John Naisbitt, "Megatrends"

On 2024-09-03, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
> On 2024-09-03, Relf <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote:
>> Relf: Best to not make a deal with the Devil.
>> China knows that Putin won't stop carpet bombing.
>>
>> rBowman: [ Britain carpet bombed ]
>>
>> Yes; it could, so it did.
>>
>> Ukraine is that 6'5" kid who no longer takes bulshit from his dad.
>
> If Joe Biden hadn't claimed it was ok if Russia invades Ukraine as long as it's a minor invasion,
> we wouldn't be here.
> We weren't here when Trump was POTUS either.
> Nor were in the middle of a Middle East conflict.
> Nor was Xi threatening to invade Taiwan.

I think you're deluding yourself. Putin has said, over and over again, that
putting NATO in Ukraine is a red line.

Think of it this way. Would the United States allow Russia to build up their
forces (with ballistic missiles pointed at us) in Mexico and not react?
After all, Mexico is a sovereign state and it should be their right, right?

> Why?
> Trump didn't back down and use appeasement instead of peace by strength.

Trump talks about peace in Ukraine. He's not talking about all out war, he's
talking about an agreement with Russia. Something the Biden administration
won't do.

> Biden is weak.
> His administration, Blinken etc are weak as well.

Biden and Blinken being weak is one thing. The other thing is that our
military (and our military supplies) can not match Russia's in Ukraine. Our
corrupt military industrial complex is designed to make money (and spread it
around), it's not designed to be efficient. We can't ratchet up our industry
like Russia has done. (At least not quickly.)

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-09-03, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2024-09-03, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-09-03, Relf <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote:
>>> Relf: Best to not make a deal with the Devil.
>>> China knows that Putin won't stop carpet bombing.
>>>
>>> rBowman: [ Britain carpet bombed ]
>>>
>>> Yes; it could, so it did.
>>>
>>> Ukraine is that 6'5" kid who no longer takes bulshit from his dad.
>>
>> If Joe Biden hadn't claimed it was ok if Russia invades Ukraine as long as it's a minor invasion,
>> we wouldn't be here.
>> We weren't here when Trump was POTUS either.
>> Nor were in the middle of a Middle East conflict.
>> Nor was Xi threatening to invade Taiwan.
>
> I think you're deluding yourself. Putin has said, over and over again, that
> putting NATO in Ukraine is a red line.

He did but the fact is Putin did nothing during the Trump administration and recently stated that
Biden would be a better POTUS because he was predictable unlike Trump.

> Think of it this way. Would the United States allow Russia to build up their
> forces (with ballistic missiles pointed at us) in Mexico and not react?
> After all, Mexico is a sovereign state and it should be their right, right?

If Biden was in charge, yea we would.
Something along the lines of "Mr. Putin you can put those missiles in Mexico as long as you promise
not to shoot them at the USA."

>> Why?
>> Trump didn't back down and use appeasement instead of peace by strength.
>
> Trump talks about peace in Ukraine. He's not talking about all out war, he's
> talking about an agreement with Russia. Something the Biden administration
> won't do.

Everyone wants peace.
Trump believes in peace through strength.
Biden believes in peace through appeasement.
Guess which method actually works.

>> Biden is weak.
>> His administration, Blinken etc are weak as well.
>
> Biden and Blinken being weak is one thing. The other thing is that our
> military (and our military supplies) can not match Russia's in Ukraine. Our
> corrupt military industrial complex is designed to make money (and spread it
> around), it's not designed to be efficient. We can't ratchet up our industry
> like Russia has done. (At least not quickly.)

This is true.

We are in effect fighting 2 wars on 2 fronts and have little resources left to defend ourselves.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
Lifetime Member of "The Prescott Parasite Eradication Team"
Ask snit how he pissed on his cat.
All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html

On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:03:59 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:

> If Biden was in charge, yea we would.
> Something along the lines of "Mr. Putin you can put those missiles in
> Mexico as long as you promise not to shoot them at the USA."

https://www.rferl.org/a/
Clinton_Visits_Poland_For_Talks_On_Missiles_Democracy/2089902.html

"This is purely a defensive system," Clinton said. "It is not directed at
Russia. It does not threaten Russia. It is a defensive system to protect
our friends and allies, and our deployed forces."

Those missiles in Poland are in case Iran decides to attack Warsaw; they
aren't aimed at you. Honest injun. Obama backed down, deciding the
screwing around with Ukrainian elections would be more fun. Medvedev
learned what dealing with the US brings you and has turned into a hawk.

rBowman: missiles in Poland are in case Iran decides to attack Warsaw

You meant to say "Russia", not "Iran", I presume.

Mexico is no Warsaw; no one is about to carpet bomb them, RonB.

On Tue, 03 Sep 2024 17:53:52 -0700 (Seattle), Relf wrote:

> rBowman: missiles in Poland are in case Iran decides to attack Warsaw
>
> You meant to say "Russia", not "Iran", I presume.

No, I meant exactly what I said.

https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/intl_cooperation/poland/

"In 1999, Poland joined NATO to enhance its strategic defense against
external threats.[i] From 2002-2009, Poland engaged in talks with the
United States and European countries to build a US missile defense complex
in Poland. The missile defense complex in Poland, known as the European
Interceptor Site, would have been a part of the Ground-Based Midcourse
Defense system that intercepted long-range missiles from Iran."

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-10/features/european-missile-defense-
view-pentagon

"Now, the United States is proposing to deploy long-range missile defenses
in Europe to defend against a regime in Iran that is aggressively pursuing
ballistic missiles capable of striking European capitals and the United
States. Given the evidence of the emerging ballistic missile threat from
Iran and given the lead times required to deploy even a basic defense
against a limited threat, I would argue that there is no time like the
present to prepare for an evolving Iranian threat. Failure to step up
today could leave the United States and our allies in an intolerably
vulnerable situation tomorrow."

As I mentioned, the plan was abandoned by Obama after push back from
Russia in 2009.

On 2024-09-03, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
> On 2024-09-03, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-09-03, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-03, Relf <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote:
>>>> Relf: Best to not make a deal with the Devil.
>>>> China knows that Putin won't stop carpet bombing.
>>>>
>>>> rBowman: [ Britain carpet bombed ]
>>>>
>>>> Yes; it could, so it did.
>>>>
>>>> Ukraine is that 6'5" kid who no longer takes bulshit from his dad.
>>>
>>> If Joe Biden hadn't claimed it was ok if Russia invades Ukraine as long as it's a minor invasion,
>>> we wouldn't be here.
>>> We weren't here when Trump was POTUS either.
>>> Nor were in the middle of a Middle East conflict.
>>> Nor was Xi threatening to invade Taiwan.
>>
>> I think you're deluding yourself. Putin has said, over and over again, that
>> putting NATO in Ukraine is a red line.
>
> He did but the fact is Putin did nothing during the Trump administration and recently stated that
> Biden would be a better POTUS because he was predictable unlike Trump.

Ukraine was about to make a big offensive move in the East. That wasn't the
case when Trump was president.

>> Think of it this way. Would the United States allow Russia to build up their
>> forces (with ballistic missiles pointed at us) in Mexico and not react?
>> After all, Mexico is a sovereign state and it should be their right, right?
>
> If Biden was in charge, yea we would.
> Something along the lines of "Mr. Putin you can put those missiles in Mexico as long as you promise
> not to shoot them at the USA."

I doubt it. Biden's puppet masters don't like Putin and Russia. Putin took
back Russia's natural resources from the Deep State and helped his own
people. For that the puppet masters in the U.S. can never forgive him.

>>> Why?
>>> Trump didn't back down and use appeasement instead of peace by strength.
>>
>> Trump talks about peace in Ukraine. He's not talking about all out war, he's
>> talking about an agreement with Russia. Something the Biden administration
>> won't do.
>
> Everyone wants peace.
> Trump believes in peace through strength.
> Biden believes in peace through appeasement.
> Guess which method actually works.

Trump wants to make an agreement with Putin. He doesn't want to escalate the
war because he doesn't feel like it's our business. If Trump becomes
president and he negotiates honestly with Putin, the war will end, but
Ukraine will not be getting Crimea or the Eastern section of Ukraine back.
And Europe might be able to recover under such an agreement.

You may want to call that "appeasement." I call it common sense and the
reality of the situation.

>>> Biden is weak.
>>> His administration, Blinken etc are weak as well.
>>
>> Biden and Blinken being weak is one thing. The other thing is that our
>> military (and our military supplies) can not match Russia's in Ukraine. Our
>> corrupt military industrial complex is designed to make money (and spread it
>> around), it's not designed to be efficient. We can't ratchet up our industry
>> like Russia has done. (At least not quickly.)
>
> This is true.
>
> We are in effect fighting 2 wars on 2 fronts and have little resources left to defend ourselves.

That's why Trump would be smart enough not to press the situation. At least
I hope he would be. (Probably depends on the pressure put on him by the Deep
State.)

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-09-04, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:03:59 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
>
>> If Biden was in charge, yea we would.
>> Something along the lines of "Mr. Putin you can put those missiles in
>> Mexico as long as you promise not to shoot them at the USA."
>
> https://www.rferl.org/a/
> Clinton_Visits_Poland_For_Talks_On_Missiles_Democracy/2089902.html
>
> "This is purely a defensive system," Clinton said. "It is not directed at
> Russia. It does not threaten Russia. It is a defensive system to protect
> our friends and allies, and our deployed forces."
>
>
> Those missiles in Poland are in case Iran decides to attack Warsaw; they
> aren't aimed at you. Honest injun. Obama backed down, deciding the
> screwing around with Ukrainian elections would be more fun. Medvedev
> learned what dealing with the US brings you and has turned into a hawk.

At least Medvedev talks like a hawk. I don't know if he really feels that
way or if he's just pandering to the majority of the Russian people.

What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that, if the majority of
Russians had their way, this war would have escalated a couple years ago.
Putin doesn't want an escalation. He doesn't want to see the world destroyed
with nuclear bombs.

For those wishing that Putin be removed from office, be careful what you
wish for. You might not like what happens if your wish comes true.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-09-04, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Sep 2024 17:53:52 -0700 (Seattle), Relf wrote:
>
>> rBowman: missiles in Poland are in case Iran decides to attack Warsaw
>>
>> You meant to say "Russia", not "Iran", I presume.
>
> No, I meant exactly what I said.
>
> https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/intl_cooperation/poland/
>
> "In 1999, Poland joined NATO to enhance its strategic defense against
> external threats.[i] From 2002-2009, Poland engaged in talks with the
> United States and European countries to build a US missile defense complex
> in Poland. The missile defense complex in Poland, known as the European
> Interceptor Site, would have been a part of the Ground-Based Midcourse
> Defense system that intercepted long-range missiles from Iran."
>
>
> https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007-10/features/european-missile-defense-
> view-pentagon
>
> "Now, the United States is proposing to deploy long-range missile defenses
> in Europe to defend against a regime in Iran that is aggressively pursuing
> ballistic missiles capable of striking European capitals and the United
> States. Given the evidence of the emerging ballistic missile threat from
> Iran and given the lead times required to deploy even a basic defense
> against a limited threat, I would argue that there is no time like the
> present to prepare for an evolving Iranian threat. Failure to step up
> today could leave the United States and our allies in an intolerably
> vulnerable situation tomorrow."
>
>
> As I mentioned, the plan was abandoned by Obama after push back from
> Russia in 2009.

To Relf. Everyone knew it was total BS, but that's exactly what they were
saying. They needed missiles in Poland to "defend against attacks from
Iran."

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 9/1/24 18:07, rbowman wrote:
> Dream on. Until the 'hostage crisis' we didn't give a flying fuck about
> Iran or its students.

You still don't but that wasn't my point.

People back then in early 1960s (including yourself) hadn't seen anyone
lying on his back on the stairs in front of the UN building being pulled
down by the police pulling on their legs to move them away from the
building. You first saw that on tv news, and yeah you didn't know who
they were, THAT I believe, but you found out it could be done to make a
point. They taught you something from outside of your little world. You
had your Daddies, Church, and Washington. You didn't know shit in this
world. You were cult shit.

Find me one occurrence of what I described as protest which took place
in this country before, say, 1962. You're good with giving links. Well,
find me one.

On 9/2/24 23:07, rbowman wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Harris
>
> "The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive ... should be unambiguously
> stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German
> workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany ... the
> destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation
> of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of
> morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and
> intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy.
> They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories"
>
> Whatever karma brings to Britain, it is richly deserved.

His ideas worked only because they only work on cro-magnons.

On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:42:13 -0500, Physfitfreak wrote:

> Find me one occurrence of what I described as protest which took place
> in this country before, say, 1962. You're good with giving links. Well,
> find me one.

Do you want to start with the Boston Tea Party? Shay's Rebellion? The
Whiskey Rebellion? You are an ignorant fuck, aren't you?

On 9/4/2024 1:58 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 9/2/24 23:07, rbowman wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Harris
>>
>> "The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive ... should be unambiguously
>> stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German
>> workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany ... the
>> destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the
>> creation
>> of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of
>> morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and
>> intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing
>> policy.
>> They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories"
>>
>> Whatever karma brings to Britain, it is richly deserved.
>
>
> His ideas worked only because they only work on cro-magnons.

Why haven't you sold your single-wide trailer and moved back to the
shithole of Iran, where you belong?

1. No one is about to carpet bomb Mexico.

2. Putin is fucking his Ukrainian step kids.

RonB: For those wishing that Putin be removed from office,
be careful what you wish for.

In other words: Putin is diddling his Ukrainian step kids
but we shouldn't won't do anything about it because he's "the devil we know".

On 9/4/24 01:43, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:42:13 -0500, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>> Find me one occurrence of what I described as protest which took place
>> in this country before, say, 1962. You're good with giving links. Well,
>> find me one.
>
> Do you want to start with the Boston Tea Party? Shay's Rebellion? The
> Whiskey Rebellion? You are an ignorant fuck, aren't you?

No, you're losing your wit. I say something, you understand something else.

Did your Boston Fuck Party use TV? Take half a caffeine pill with your
coffee. You're not clear enough in your mind.

On 9/4/24 1:25 AM, RonB wrote:
> On 2024-09-03, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-09-03, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-03, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-03, Relf <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote:
>>>>> Relf: Best to not make a deal with the Devil.
>>>>> China knows that Putin won't stop carpet bombing.
>>>>>
>>>>> rBowman: [ Britain carpet bombed ]
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes; it could, so it did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ukraine is that 6'5" kid who no longer takes bulshit from his dad.
>>>>
>>>> If Joe Biden hadn't claimed it was ok if Russia invades Ukraine as long as it's a minor invasion,
>>>> we wouldn't be here.
>>>> We weren't here when Trump was POTUS either.
>>>> Nor were in the middle of a Middle East conflict.
>>>> Nor was Xi threatening to invade Taiwan.
>>>
>>> I think you're deluding yourself. Putin has said, over and over again, that
>>> putting NATO in Ukraine is a red line.
>>
>> He did but the fact is Putin did nothing during the Trump administration and recently stated that
>> Biden would be a better POTUS because he was predictable unlike Trump.
>
> Ukraine was about to make a big offensive move in the East. That wasn't the
> case when Trump was president.

Ukraine was going to do .. what?

How about some substantiation here, RonB.

>>> Think of it this way. Would the United States allow Russia to build up their
>>> forces (with ballistic missiles pointed at us) in Mexico and not react?
>>> After all, Mexico is a sovereign state and it should be their right, right?
>>
>> If Biden was in charge, yea we would.
>> Something along the lines of "Mr. Putin you can put those missiles in Mexico as long as you promise
>> not to shoot them at the USA."
>
> I doubt it. Biden's puppet masters don't like Putin and Russia. Putin took
> back Russia's natural resources from the Deep State and helped his own
> people. For that the puppet masters in the U.S. can never forgive him.

Why would Biden be a Putin Puppet when it is Trump who's taken the big
cash "loans" from him?

>>>> Why?
>>>> Trump didn't back down and use appeasement instead of peace by strength.
>>>
>>> Trump talks about peace in Ukraine. He's not talking about all out war, he's
>>> talking about an agreement with Russia. Something the Biden administration
>>> won't do.
>>
>> Everyone wants peace.
>> Trump believes in peace through strength.
>> Biden believes in peace through appeasement.
>> Guess which method actually works.
>
> Trump wants to make an agreement with Putin. He doesn't want to escalate the
> war because he doesn't feel like it's our business. If Trump becomes
> president and he negotiates honestly with Putin, the war will end, but
> Ukraine will not be getting Crimea or the Eastern section of Ukraine back.
> And Europe might be able to recover under such an agreement.
>
> You may want to call that "appeasement." I call it common sense and the
> reality of the situation.

I don't call it "Appeasement": I call it "Kickback/Bribe".
Just like what we know Kushner has gotten from the Saudis.

>>>> Biden is weak.
>>>> His administration, Blinken etc are weak as well.
>>>
>>> Biden and Blinken being weak is one thing. The other thing is that our
>>> military (and our military supplies) can not match Russia's in Ukraine. Our
>>> corrupt military industrial complex is designed to make money (and spread it
>>> around), it's not designed to be efficient. We can't ratchet up our industry
>>> like Russia has done. (At least not quickly.)
>>
>> This is true.
>>
>> We are in effect fighting 2 wars on 2 fronts and have little resources left to defend ourselves.

Where "little resources left" is what? The ~96% of the DoD's budget
that's not being spent on Ukraine? Or the 2/3rds of the other 4% that's
buying new stock to replace the old stock that's being sent to Ukraine?

FYI, this has included sending stuff that from a policy standpoint, the
US has said that we won't use ourselves, such as the cluster munitions
that we've had in storage, awaiting funding to demil it:

<https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/08/why-biden-was-justified-to-send-cluster-munitions-to.html>

TL;DR: its typically cheaper for the USA to export this material to
Ukraine than to pay for its disposal here, saving taxpayer money.

> That's why Trump would be smart enough not to press the situation. At least
> I hope he would be. (Probably depends on the pressure put on him by the Deep
> State.)
>

Nah. To keep himself out of jail, Donald would be willing to push Ivana
down a staircase (days before her NDA expired) & sell his own children.

-hh