tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post4600687336602793349..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: It's always 1980 for RepublicansUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78671330196307282502012-10-17T08:59:11.025-07:002012-10-17T08:59:11.025-07:00To David Davenport:
I don't know what your po...To David Davenport:<br /><br />I don't know what your points even are here. S.K. today is totally different from 1950. It has twice the population of the starving north and a GDP forty times bigger. It can look after itself. In any case S.K.'s defense should be ITS PROBLEM, not America's. America sustained about 140,000 casualties defending not very important South Korea. I'd say we have more then discharged our non-existent "duties" to this country.<br /><br />Your plans to casually drop bombs and cruise missiles on Iran and N.K. are almost too assinine to deserve a reply comment. You think America should just be attacking countries on a whim? You think these countries won't mind if we attack them? Again neither Iran or N.K. are vital concerns for America (if left unburdened by its ethnic lobby groups). We should withdraw our troops from S.K., Afghanistan and Iraq. Then N.K. and Iran will be as "important" to us, as they are to Mexico.<br /><br />America gets very little of its oil from the mideast, and has no need to fight a war with Iran which is no threat at all to us.<br /><br />AND WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL?<br /><br />WHAT ABOUT IT? Since I am neither Jewish, nor a neo-con, I am not concerned with a foreign country 5,000 miles away that has zero strategic value to my country. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-27624653280041520012012-10-16T15:27:40.719-07:002012-10-16T15:27:40.719-07:00Wrong. The oil market is a world market. If the Pe...<i>Wrong. The oil market is a world market. If the Persian Gulf were cut off, that would drive up the price of oil extracted elsewhere.</i><br /><br />And what about Israel?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-27501008696928119072012-10-16T08:19:03.035-07:002012-10-16T08:19:03.035-07:00(IF the USA REALLY, REALLY wanted too, it could un...<i>(IF the USA REALLY, REALLY wanted too, it could undoubtedly launch an all-out devasating first-strike nuclear assault on N.K. But what would be the point?) Numerous economic options are still available. All a nuclear bomb would do for Iran is raise the cost of it being attacked to an unacceptable level. Do you think America would have invaded Iraq if it had REALLY had WMD? Or dropped bombs on Serbia for 78 days if it had possessed nukes? It is thus essentially a defensive measure, since even the maddest of the mullahs would never be crazy enough to think of INITIATING a nuclear war, which would be Assured Destruction for Iran not even Mutually Assured Destruction.</i><br /><br /><br />The USA has options other than all-out nuclear attack to stop an Iranian or North Korean nuclear program. These options are a conventional bombing and cruise missile campaign, and/or the use of small tactical nukes to destroy hardened targets. A few small nuclear weapons would not kill everyone in Iran or NK. "Massive retaliation" is old school.<br /><br /><i> Btw, the Persian Gulf is not as "strategic" as you seem to think. America actually gets very little of its oil from the mideast. It is a big canard that America depends on Persian Gulf oil for its energy needs.</i><br /><br />Wrong. The oil market is a world market. If the Persian Gulf were cut off, that would drive up the price of oil extracted elsewhere.David Davenportnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26614808040592657062012-10-16T08:10:07.031-07:002012-10-16T08:10:07.031-07:00I wasn't being obtuse. I was pointing out the ...<i>I wasn't being obtuse. I was pointing out the futility and costliness of American involvement in distant places like the Korean peninsula where we have no real strategic interests.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.historycentral.com/korea/causes.html" rel="nofollow"> cuases of Krean War</a><br /><br /><i>As the United States drew down its military in the post war period, the American garrison [ in Korea ] of 40,000 quickly withered to a force of 472 officers and men who made up the Korean Military Advisory Group (KMAG). The Korean army, known as ROK, was given only light weapons. The North Korean Army, on the other hand, was heavily equipped with tanks and other armored vehicles. The communist victory in China, combined with the first Soviet nuclear tests in 1949, <b>resulted in a new US policy of containment in Asia. The policy, called NSC 48/2, called for the containment to be primarily non-military, with economic and military aid given to non-communist regimes in Asia.<br /><br />On January 5, 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, speaking at the National Press Club, articulated the American policy. He spoke of those countries that the US would defend with force: Japan, the Rykus islands and the Philippine Islands. Korea was left out. The withdrawal of the last American forces from Korea, as well as North Korean Kim's conviction that the US would not intervene, convinced the North Koreans to attempt to unify the country by force. The Soviets, led by Stalin, and the Chinese, led by Mao, concurred with both Kim's judgement about the United States and his plans to unify the country by force. In June, he struck.</b></i>David Davenportnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-55303009177323805022012-10-15T12:43:18.888-07:002012-10-15T12:43:18.888-07:00I wasn't being obtuse. I was pointing out the ...I wasn't being obtuse. I was pointing out the futility and costliness of American involvement in distant places like the Korean peninsula where we have no real strategic interests. I think what you mean by "no possible response" is no EASY or CHEAP military response. (IF the USA REALLY, REALLY wanted too, it could undoubtedly launch an all-out devasating first-strike nuclear assault on N.K. But what would be the point?) Numerous economic options are still available. All a nuclear bomb would do for Iran is raise the cost of it being attacked to an unacceptable level. Do you think America would have invaded Iraq if it had REALLY had WMD? Or dropped bombs on Serbia for 78 days if it had possessed nukes? It is thus essentially a defensive measure, since even the maddest of the mullahs would never be crazy enough to think of INITIATING a nuclear war, which would be Assured Destruction for Iran not even Mutually Assured Destruction. Btw, the Persian Gulf is not as "strategic" as you seem to think. America actually gets very little of its oil from the mideast. It is a big canard that America depends on Persian Gulf oil for its energy needs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75934300683427435902012-10-15T07:33:54.965-07:002012-10-15T07:33:54.965-07:00"Reagan was a complete and utter arse. A man ..."Reagan was a complete and utter arse. A man of his severely limited intellectual powers...<br />Carter was a muh better and more intelligent man"<br /><br />Hey Steve! Jimmy Carter not only reads your blog but comments on it, though oddly while masquerading as some agitated Limey. <br /><br />I would agree though that Reagan was less than perfect. For example he continued to show commitment to the useless and arrogant Brits. Obama, for all his many flaws, has realized how little they have to offer us (or the world). Otis McWrongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82927083876197527542012-10-14T22:15:14.300-07:002012-10-14T22:15:14.300-07:00Carter cut the B-1 because he knew the F-117 and B...<i>Carter cut the B-1 because he knew the F-117 and B-2 were in the pipeline and couldnt justify the expense. Reagan and amateur cold warriors outside the DoD wouldnt have known about that stuff.</i><br /><br />Carter was a fool. As it turns out both the F-117 and B-2 programs were disastrous, the former because the damn thing just doesn't fly very well and the later because of cost overruns and the incorporation of too much unobtanium. You realize the B-2 has to be kept in temperature and humidity controlled hangars, right? And the aircraft skin has to be resurfaced after every flight? It's a hangar queen.<br /><br />If we actually go to war with a competent adversary, meaning a country like China, Russia, or one of the old European powers, the B-1 will be the heavy bomber we rely on most heavily for a variety of reasons.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-17688142708296103012012-10-14T21:42:36.531-07:002012-10-14T21:42:36.531-07:00Way to be completely obtuse and miss the point. Th...Way to be completely obtuse and miss the point. The point wasn't that it should be our problem. The point is that there is no possible response from anyone because North Korea has nuclear weapons. Now imagine Iran sitting atop the world's most strategic body of water. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71406922418105670112012-10-14T21:05:24.490-07:002012-10-14T21:05:24.490-07:00The 1986 immigration amnesty was introduced into t...<i>The 1986 immigration amnesty was introduced into the US Senate by Alan Simpson, a Republican senator from Wyoming. It was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, a Republican president. Yet it did not lead to any lasting benefit for Republicans among Hispanics.</i> <br /><br /><br />Not only did the GOP not gain any benefit, it actually hurt the party among Hispanics. The GOP share of the Hispanic vote was lower in 1988 than in 1984.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-79495652451851838402012-10-14T19:38:38.495-07:002012-10-14T19:38:38.495-07:00"The only way for Republicans to do better wi..."The only way for Republicans to do better with Hispanics is to hold down their numbers, and that means removing the illegal aliens and reducing amounts of legal immigration."<br /><br />Oh I agree. The GOP's capacity for obtuseness is sickening.Macnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34820473322637579762012-10-14T19:28:50.475-07:002012-10-14T19:28:50.475-07:00...North Korea sunk a South Korean warship and not......North Korea sunk a South Korean warship and nothing happened.<br /><br /><br />WELL, that is, OR SHOULD BE, South Korea's PROBLEM, not America's.<br /><br />Or it would be if America, like Canada and Mexico, didn't keep troops there babysitting a country well capable of looking after itself.<br /><br />U.S. troops have been in Korea for over 62 years. How much longer do you want them to stay there?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-84850779094903887122012-10-14T19:19:21.151-07:002012-10-14T19:19:21.151-07:00Carter cut the B-1 because he knew the F-117 and B...<i>Carter cut the B-1 because he knew the F-117 and B-2 were in the pipeline and couldnt justify the expense. Reagan and amateur cold warriors outside the DoD wouldnt have known about that stuff</i><br /><br />Compare to:<br /><br /><i>Rockwell B-1 Lancer<br />From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br />B-1 Lancer<br /><br />...<br /><br /><br />Designed by Rockwell International, the bomber's development was delayed multiple times over its history, as the theory of strategic balance changed from flexible response to massive retaliation and back again. This change in stance repeatedly demanded then ignored the need for manned bombers. The initial B-1A version was developed in the early 1970s, but its production was canceled, and only four prototypes were built. The need for a new platform once again surfaced in the early 1980s, and the aircraft resurfaced as the B-1B version with the focus on low-level penetration bombing. <b>However by this point development of stealth technology was promising an aircraft of dramatically improved capability. Production went ahead as this version would be operational before the "Advanced Technology Bomber", during a period when the B-52 would be increasingly vulnerable. ( "Advanced Technology Bomber" = B-2 flying wing. ) The B-1B entered service in 1986 with the USAF Strategic Air Command as a nuclear bomber.</b><br /><br />In the 1990s, the B-1B was converted to conventional bombing use. ...<br /><br /><b>During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan campaigned heavily on the platform that Carter was weak on defense, using the cancellation of the B-1 program as a prime example, a theme he continued using into the 1980s.[54] During this time Carter's defense secretary, Harold Brown, announced the stealth bomber project, apparently implying that this was the reason for the B-1 cancellation.[55]<br /><br /><br />On taking office, Reagan was faced with the same decision as Carter before: whether to continue with the B-1 for the short term, or to wait for the development of the ATB, a much more advanced aircraft.... (ATB = B2 )<br /><br />In 1981, it was believed the B-1 could be in operation before the ATB,* covering the transitionary period between the B-52's increasing vulnerability and the ATB's introduction. Reagan decided the best solution was to procure both the B-1 and ATB, and on 2 October 1981 Reagan announced that 100 B-1s were to be ordered to fill the LRCA role.[35][58]</b><br />...</i><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer" rel="nofollow">Rockwell B-1 Lancer</a><br /><br />*In fact only twenty-one B-2's were built. The small B-2 fleet was not operational until the 1990's.<br /><br />I can also point out that the F-117 was a shorter range, tactical aircraft which was not fungible with the much large and longer range B-1.David Davenportnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21820530659349537982012-10-14T17:18:31.879-07:002012-10-14T17:18:31.879-07:00"Not because defense spending is low, but bec..."Not because defense spending is low, but because overall spending has skyrocketed, especially as a result of welfare."<br /><br />Welfare is .7% of GDP.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69350616517966721162012-10-14T15:19:51.472-07:002012-10-14T15:19:51.472-07:00everything is up in the air
But it wouldn't b...<i>everything is up in the air</i><br /><br />But it wouldn't be with immigration control. cut 'em offnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-73500258878002536912012-10-14T14:17:32.724-07:002012-10-14T14:17:32.724-07:00Carter did cut the B-1, which Reagan brought back,...<i>Carter did cut the B-1, which Reagan brought back, but whose to say the B-1 wasn't critical in demonstrating superiority over the Soviets and thus winning the Cold War?</i><br /><br />Carter cut the B-1 because he knew the F-117 and B-2 were in the pipeline and couldnt justify the expense. Reagan and amateur cold warriors outside the DoD wouldnt have known about that stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71060838662335408422012-10-14T11:15:33.360-07:002012-10-14T11:15:33.360-07:00And the funny thing is, lots of Chinese are coming...<i>And the funny thing is, lots of Chinese are coming in via the southern border as well. They don't need no subs or slow surface ships.</i><br /><br />I knew it, from reading Illuminatus. Illegal Mexican workers are disguised Chinese commie spies!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39156345772424624912012-10-14T08:39:27.012-07:002012-10-14T08:39:27.012-07:00One of the big reasons rich liberals, SWPLs, and s...One of the big reasons rich liberals, SWPLs, and so many other Americans don't care too much about the costs of illegal/mass immigration is because they don't have to pay the price for it.<br /><br />The federal budget deficit reflects not only the cost of federal programs, but of subsidies to state and local programs (like schools) which are especially hard-hit by immigration. If the budget were balanced and tax rates reflected the true costs of these policies, and if the feds stopped subsidizing the states, more SWPLs would conveniently discover their inner conservatives. <br /><br />Republicans should take up Democrats on their demands to raise taxes (in exchange for budget cuts). Tax increases would drive home the point to Americans that all of these policies have costs, and budget cuts reducing the welfare state would reduce subsidies for poor immigrants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-77272477060183393912012-10-14T08:26:08.151-07:002012-10-14T08:26:08.151-07:00"Hispanics lean Democrat, so to get more vote...<b>"Hispanics lean Democrat, so to get more votes we must import more Hispanics!"</b><br /><br />The latest polls show Romney losing Arizona Hispanics 77-10, and Flake losing them 75-12. The latest polls show Obama ahead there 44-42, though ultimatewly I'm sure Romney will win. Nevertheless, no poll should show a race that close in Arizona in an economy like this. So far as I can tell, Arizona has 7 Hispanics in its 60 member House, 6 of whom are Democrats; 5 Hispanics in the Senate, all of whom are Democrats.<br /><br />The 1986 immigration amnesty was introduced into the US Senate by Alan Simpson, a <i>Republican</i> senator from Wyoming. It was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, a <i>Republican</i> president. Yet it did not lead to any lasting benefit for Republicans among Hispanics.<br /><br />You could dig up those stats for every state and for the US Congress as well, and they would all look pretty much the same. The only way for Republicans to do better with Hispanics is to hold down their numbers, and that means removing the illegal aliens and reducing amounts of legal immigration.Matthewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54727884721068319552012-10-14T06:56:38.573-07:002012-10-14T06:56:38.573-07:00"Flake, of course, is an open borders liberta..."Flake, of course, is an open borders libertarian, so there's something delightfully right about the nitwit losing to a Hispanic lefty."<br /><br />I've detested Flake ever since I read he supported a guest worker program a few years back.<br /><br />"Hispanics lean Democrat, so to get more votes we must import more Hispanics!"<br /><br />Republicans never learn....Macnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82511006045892153752012-10-13T23:07:11.446-07:002012-10-13T23:07:11.446-07:00"If the US does not control the Pacific, the ..."If the US does not control the Pacific, the Chinese will, to our detriment since we import lots of things from the Pacific".<br /><br />The trouble with that theory is the Chinese could cut off those imports without actually leaving China. <br /><br />Speaking of 1980, go see Ben Affleck's Iranian hostage movie Argo. Great flick.beowulfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14987548132065830204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23128484031434236952012-10-13T22:43:07.491-07:002012-10-13T22:43:07.491-07:00The US has a highway right straight direct to its ...<b>The US has a highway right straight direct to its landmass. Its called the Oceans. </b><br /><br />Only a military genius like Whiskey would see our large coastlines as liabilities. Even Bismarck once said that the Americans were lucky to be surrounded by fish and weaklings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1280716976082659212012-10-13T21:57:04.283-07:002012-10-13T21:57:04.283-07:00Of course there is an invasion taking place this v...<b><br />Of course there is an invasion taking place this very minute, and it is happening across our southern border, and just about anyone with any real power is 100% in favor of it. Our newborns have gone from being over 85% white to less than 50% white in the space of two lousy generations.<br /></b><br /><br />And the funny thing is, lots of Chinese are coming in via the southern border as well. They don't need no subs or slow surface ships.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33861265594503688722012-10-13T20:42:47.708-07:002012-10-13T20:42:47.708-07:00Supporting the B-1 was an irrational act of faith ...<i>Supporting the B-1 was an irrational act of faith back then, sort of like believing in the divine conception.</i><br /><br />Or the Religious Right. Come to think of it, wan't the RR one of the biggest backers of the B-1 bomber?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3192342861557551932012-10-13T19:59:52.970-07:002012-10-13T19:59:52.970-07:00What the fuck is Whiskey talking about vis-a-vis t...What the fuck is Whiskey talking about vis-a-vis the Chinese Navy? Is their invading army going to arrive in subs? Because slow-moving surface ships carrying hundreds of thousands of soldiers make nice, fat targets for fast-moving cruise missiles and F-18s.<br /><br />Of course there is an invasion taking place this very minute, and it is happening across our southern border, and just about anyone with any real power is 100% in favor of it. Our newborns have gone from being over 85% white to less than 50% white in the space of two lousy generations.<br /><br />Today's invaders know our weaknesses, and they know that to win they don't need to invest a goddamned dime in carriers or tanks. Mitt Romney talks about taking on China eocnomically while throwing open the door even wider to Chinese immigration, promising unlimited visas to foreign STEM grads.Matthewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-63311966299937567842012-10-13T19:53:06.742-07:002012-10-13T19:53:06.742-07:00"Actually what the military hated about Carte...<b>"Actually what the military hated about Carter was he imposed rational weapons systems like the A-10 on them."</b><br /><br />The more I read about Carter the less ridiculous he seems on defense, but the A-10, F-16 and F-18 were all Nixon/Ford-era programs, all of them being approved ca. 1974-76. Carter did cut the B-1, which Reagan brought back, but whose to say the B-1 wasn't critical in demonstrating superiority over the Soviets and thus winning the Cold War?<br /><br />Additionally, stealth research was already under way during the Carter Administration. He merely continued that research, he didn't initiate it.<br /><br /><b>"We are near historic lows in terms of defense spending as a % of the overall federal budget."</b><br /><br />Not because defense spending is low, but because overall spending has skyrocketed, especially as a result of welfare.<br /><br /><b>"Flake, of course, is an open borders libertarian, so there's something delightfully right about the nitwit losing to a Hispanic lefty."</b><br /><br />Flake has suspended his support for open borders for the time being. If he wins - and ultimately I think he will - it's an open question whether he will be serious about enforcement, since Latinos so staunchly opposed him, or will engage in 6 years of deadly, pointless Hispandering.Matthewnoreply@blogger.com