wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:21:36 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:


For Putin it's a "national security" issue. The internal "Russian"
domestic issues were exacerbated by Bush's lame-ass missile defense
plans in that part of the world. Putin doesn't want American missiles
right on his border, and I don't blame him. I don't want Russian
missiles in Mexico or Canada. American missiles in the Czech Republic
today, Georgia tomorrow. Bush refused to listen to Putin's protests
about those missiles, and now is getting spanked.
Simple diplomacy and strategic vision could have avoided this BS. BTW, I
heard Putin talking the other day about the "Georgian Terroists" and
making equivalencies with our invasion of Iraq. Whether you buy that or
not, it was George Bush who gave Putin that card to play.

I wouldn't disagree that it could have been handled better by Bush.
Squeezing Russia isn't smart, but I don't see this as a reaction to
Bush's mishandling of the situation. I see this as Putin making a
statement. Russia was recently a world player, and Putin's statement is
that it is once again a world player that has to be listened to. We take
Putin, and Russia, for granted at our peril.

If you want to talk mishandling, Saakashvili is right at the top of the
list.



Don't you find it interesting that both McCain *and* Obama have indicated
both support and endorsement of Bush's actions so far?

Eisboch

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:30:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by
Carter which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the
seas by members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Eisboch

I think you are probably right. Carter did cut many military programs.
The B1 bomber IIRC, but he was looking for bang for the buck, so to
speak. Reagan, on the other hand, threw money at the military, and
reinstated the B1, which was an expensive dog.

Funny, in the Reagan era, we were talking about a 600 ship Navy, I
believe now we are talking about a 300 ship Navy.

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:21:36 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:


For Putin it's a "national security" issue. The internal "Russian"
domestic issues were exacerbated by Bush's lame-ass missile defense
plans in that part of the world. Putin doesn't want American missiles
right on his border, and I don't blame him. I don't want Russian
missiles in Mexico or Canada. American missiles in the Czech Republic
today, Georgia tomorrow. Bush refused to listen to Putin's protests
about those missiles, and now is getting spanked.
Simple diplomacy and strategic vision could have avoided this BS. BTW, I
heard Putin talking the other day about the "Georgian Terroists" and
making equivalencies with our invasion of Iraq. Whether you buy that or
not, it was George Bush who gave Putin that card to play.

I wouldn't disagree that it could have been handled better by Bush.
Squeezing Russia isn't smart, but I don't see this as a reaction to
Bush's mishandling of the situation. I see this as Putin making a
statement. Russia was recently a world player, and Putin's statement is
that it is once again a world player that has to be listened to. We take
Putin, and Russia, for granted at our peril.

If you want to talk mishandling, Saakashvili is right at the top of the
list.



If we want to "control" the Russkis (and the Venezuelans), then we need
a serious energy policy that results in our lowering our imports of oil
by substantial margins. If oil prices are determined by demand, then we
(meaning the western world) need to lower demand. Lower prices down to
$30 a barrel, and the Russians will have no excess dollars with which to
play military expansionism.

How to start? Mandate auto mileage standards that require 90% of the
fleet to deliver 35 mpg within 10 years, tax incentives for disposing of
gas guzzlers, more and better public transportation, appliances, heating
devices, surcharges on private vehicles that burn more than a certain
amount of fuel, more nuclear power, more public ownership of energy
resources, et cetera.

Since we don't have an energy policy that is based upon using a lot less
oil, the world is at the mercy of any renegade that that has oil or the
money to buy whatever it wants.

Want to control China? STOP buying Chinese goods and stop borrowing
money from China. How to start? A 200% tariff on goods from China.







--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:41:52 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


If you want to talk mishandling, Saakashvili is right at the top of the
list.



Don't you find it interesting that both McCain *and* Obama have
indicated both support and endorsement of Bush's actions so far?

Eisboch

Well, thankfully, he hasn't really done much since the invasion. Giving
ultimatums would have been a serious mistake. I agree with Vic, pushing
for Georgia's inclusion into NATO was a mistake. If I were Putin, I
would feel encircled, and threatened, especially since, up until
recently, Russia has been playing relatively nice.

I may be wrong, but I don't see this as a major crisis, more as a temper
tantrum from an ignored child. What will be interesting to see, will we
continue to push for Georgia and Ukraine's inclusion into NATO?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:38:46 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...

One of the Reagan Admin's goals was to so overspend on the military and so
encumber the country with debt, necessary social programs would have to be
cut.

That was a *goal*?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Here is what I want to know - where is Code Pink? "Peace Mother"
Sheehan? I’m pretty sure there hasn't been any picketing of embassies
this week or sending human shields, or at least interrupting Duma
sessions with outraged shouting, pink costumes and peace symbols.

Come on - we're talking One World here - where are the protests? We
can't but they can?

Harry's thinking is exactly similar to Robert Scheer's - it's all a
neocon plot to elect McCain.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...EDCD129NI4.DTL

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:30:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
et...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.

Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by Carter
which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the seas by
members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Honest - I have not read Harry's reply yet.

I guarentee you he will say something along the lines of waste of
money, social issues and can't we all get along.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:36:31 -0400, hk wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.
Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by Carter
which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the seas by
members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Indeed, a colossal waste of taxpayer money...a 600-ship Navy. Boys and
their toys.

I hate being right all the time. :)

"hk" wrote in message
. ..

Indeed, a colossal waste of taxpayer money...a 600-ship Navy. Boys and
their toys.



That's an interesting statement, coming from you.

How about all the union civilian yardbird jobs lost due to a major reduction
in military spending?
Ship building, maintenance, repairs, upgrades.

How about the union jobs lost at Pratt and Whitney and GE because a
reduction by 75% of aircraft carriers results in far fewer aircraft and
their associated repairs and engine replacements?

How about the union jobs lost in avionics, navigation, weapons systems? I
know from my working experience that almost all of these programs have
multi-tiered participants in industry. Companies like Raytheon may be the
prime, but they issue millions, if not billions of subcontracts to smaller
companies (like the one I had) to supply services, equipment, etc. to
support their programs.

I also recall a serious concern about major military contractors like
Raytheon losing their technical and structured manufacturing capabilities
due to reductions in military spending on new systems. It came down to a
handful of major contractors who, if they were forced to lay off people
commensurate with Carter's reduction in military spending, becoming unable
to respond technically and manufacturing wise to future threats due to lost
talent and scrapped projects.

Reagan's policies helped prevent all the above.

Eisboch

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:47:18 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:30:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by
Carter which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the
seas by members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

I think you are probably right. Carter did cut many military programs.
The B1 bomber IIRC, but he was looking for bang for the buck, so to
speak. Reagan, on the other hand, threw money at the military, and
reinstated the B1, which was an expensive dog.

Funny, in the Reagan era, we were talking about a 600 ship Navy, I
believe now we are talking about a 300 ship Navy.

Yep - thank you Donald Rumsfield.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:38:46 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
One of the Reagan Admin's goals was to so overspend on the military and so
encumber the country with debt, necessary social programs would have to be
cut.
That was a *goal*?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Here is what I want to know - where is Code Pink? "Peace Mother"
Sheehan? I’m pretty sure there hasn't been any picketing of embassies
this week or sending human shields, or at least interrupting Duma
sessions with outraged shouting, pink costumes and peace symbols.

Come on - we're talking One World here - where are the protests? We
can't but they can?

Harry's thinking is exactly similar to Robert Scheer's - it's all a
neocon plot to elect McCain.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...EDCD129NI4.DTL



You mean the neocons who run McCain's campaign, or a different
collection of neocons?

McCain isn't going to be elected. Almost everytime he speaks, he reveals
how disconnected he is from reality. After the conventions, the Dems are
going to go for his throat and rip it right out of his body. He really
truly is nothing more than an extension of Bush.



--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?