|
> Germany was also not as great a military power as they seemed
> even in the 1940's. They could not even take out Russia, and
> Russia was not exactly a superpower then. (And they weren't
> really later either.) We need to stay strong and keep an eye
> on them, but we can easily take them out if we need to.
Oh, the US could even do better than that, my pointy-headed
friend. They could stay friends and even take part in the
amalgamtion, for instance, to build up a real and palpable
_international_ military force with enough clout to make any of
the threats You've been harping about so hysterically tread very
warily. Of course, it could not be under the jurisdiction of the
US (cue outraged screams of the
black-helicopter-NWO-conspiracy-orbiting-mind-control-laser-tinfo
il-lined-beanie brigade).
Little one, Your above little objurgation is the usual puerile
power fantasy that we all have come to expect and loathe. Your
stridency and hysteria is making You appear even more stupid
than You are.
> Building SDI is still a good idea.
Your pleasure. Your money. Snookums, apart from France and the
UK, nobody in the EU has either nuclear weapons nor delivery
systems. Apart from China and Russia, nobody else has. And as it
has been pointed out even in the US, even the most sophisticated
SDI system is quite irrelevant in case of a nuclear terrorist
sneak attack or a depressed launch attack. Of course, the US
will have to tear up yet another few international treaties to
do so, but they've been getting some practise by now. So by all
means, if You need to pour down money into that rathole in the
sky, it's Your privilege. Me, I think I could have more fun
tearing up the banknotes under a cold shower and sprinkling
myself with the resultant confetti.
> Keeping troops stationed
> there is also probably not a bad idea.
Oh, but You see, You must stay good friends and allies for that,
You know? The US presence here is based on the NATO-treaty. That
is fine and well, and I would not change it. Provided, of
course, that the NATO still exists in its present form.
> My thinking has very much
> changed on this.
Translated: You have encountered heavy criticism about what You
so laughably call Your ideas and are now in deep funk and petty
sulk, heavily laced with hysteria and bewilderment. You did
expect that Your pseudo-elder-statesman like blather would be
received with adulation and respect, didn't You?
Ho hum, so what else is new on USENET? Has it occurred to You
that it might be Your ideas that are at fault, or the way You
deliver them, and not the criticism? Naaah, I didn't think so.
You are a hypocritical fool, little one, and a transparent one
at that.
As transparent, by the way, as Your pathetic attempts of
enlisting support from the readership. "Hellllp! They are
ganging up on meee! They are picking on meee! I didn't do
anything, Mom!". But You did, my dear fool, You did. You jammed
Your foot down Your gullet, leaving just enough room in there to
shoot Yourself into it, standing in that ridiculous
flamingo-pose in the way of the creampies that You deserved for
Your ridiculous performance.
> It is very true that as one gets older one realizes that
> the more things change, the more they really do just stay the
> same.
Yes, indeed. Reactionaries and bigots and fools stay the same
everywhere.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4
iQA/AwUBPX27UTDMWmGNkofSEQKJAgCfZUII2DJf7G4EAEeZQRU5/jjGrisAniwL
pBaTyGyKtWo4kXdQ5ZNFXPMG
=hEgS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Till Poser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|