I don't know as much as you about weapons, but at the time JFK appeased Khrushchev. And there's nothing bad with that. He avoided WW3.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
because theyre were much better, fast, longer range missles. You would be able to cover more distance to target with less time.sergeriver wrote:
I watched that movie. But again how do you know the US didn't plan to replace the missiles in Turkey?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
no, im not pmaking assumptions. read my several posts regarding the fact just above yours. better yet, watch the movie 13 days. movies are terrible for examples but youll learn something from this one.
Dude, this stuff is in the history books. There is no "I think" or "I have a feeling" whatever. This is general accepted knowledge in military doctrine within the last 60 years. Weapons get better, requiring less support.
well I whole heartedly disagree with your conclusion. That is all I have to say in this thread without saying what I really feel.sergeriver wrote:
I don't know as much as you about weapons, but at the time JFK appeased Khrushchev. And there's nothing bad with that. He avoided WW3.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
because theyre were much better, fast, longer range missles. You would be able to cover more distance to target with less time.sergeriver wrote:
I watched that movie. But again how do you know the US didn't plan to replace the missiles in Turkey?
Dude, this stuff is in the history books. There is no "I think" or "I have a feeling" whatever. This is general accepted knowledge in military doctrine within the last 60 years. Weapons get better, requiring less support.
The general use of the term 'appeasement' has taken on that negative meaning because of Chamberlain and it looks like this thread used appeasement to be controversial instead of making some profound point.sergeriver wrote:
That's the whole point of this thread, most people think appeasement = Chamberlain. And appeasement means several things. The thing is most members here use it with a negative connotation because of what you mentioned.usmarine2005 wrote:
One can say appeasement caused WWII. So if there was no appeasement back then, the whole mess after that may not have happened.
I wonder what you really feel, mmm...share your feelings with us.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
well I whole heartedly disagree with your conclusion. That is all I have to say in this thread without saying what I really feel.sergeriver wrote:
I don't know as much as you about weapons, but at the time JFK appeased Khrushchev. And there's nothing bad with that. He avoided WW3.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
because theyre were much better, fast, longer range missles. You would be able to cover more distance to target with less time.
Dude, this stuff is in the history books. There is no "I think" or "I have a feeling" whatever. This is general accepted knowledge in military doctrine within the last 60 years. Weapons get better, requiring less support.
read my sig
Not at all. The problem is most people only know the negative connotation, and if you read the OP I say WW3 was avoided because of that. There's nothing negative about saving the lives of millions. JFK did the right thing.SenorToenails wrote:
The general use of the term 'appeasement' has taken on that negative meaning because of Chamberlain and it looks like this thread used appeasement to be controversial instead of making some profound point.sergeriver wrote:
That's the whole point of this thread, most people think appeasement = Chamberlain. And appeasement means several things. The thing is most members here use it with a negative connotation because of what you mentioned.usmarine2005 wrote:
One can say appeasement caused WWII. So if there was no appeasement back then, the whole mess after that may not have happened.
The US is not in the business of giving up strategic positioning ...ever (Obsolete Missles or not). Even today we catch a lot of grief for attempting to install missile defense systems.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ok, maybe I'm a moron. The other day I apologized to you, I sent you a pm and made a thread, and got no answer. So, yes I'm a moron. Np with that. Thx.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
read my sig
lulzGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
read my sig
I prefer his sig than yours.usmarine2005 wrote:
lulzGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
read my sig
I have sigs turned off, so I do not care.sergeriver wrote:
I prefer his sig than yours.usmarine2005 wrote:
lulzGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
read my sig
totally disagree.Kmarion wrote:
The US is not in the business of giving up strategic positioning ...ever (Obsolete Missles or not). Even today we catch a lot of grief for attempting to install missile defense systems.
That is why I said "general use", and apparently you agree (see bolded text above).sergeriver wrote:
Not at all. The problem is most people only know the negative connotation, and if you read the OP I say WW3 was avoided because of that. There's nothing negative about saving the lives of millions. JFK did the right thing.
You made no great point of showing your particular definition of appeasement and how it differs from the mainstream. I said nothing of JFK's actions, so don't imply that I did.
usmarine2005 wrote:
I have sigs turned off, so I do not care.
usmarine's sig wrote:
"Islam is a disease that can only be cured by bullets and depleted uranium"
Even today we fight for missile positioning. During the hieght of the Cold war... you'd better believe it.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
totally disagree.Kmarion wrote:
The US is not in the business of giving up strategic positioning ...ever (Obsolete Missles or not). Even today we catch a lot of grief for attempting to install missile defense systems.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
@GS It's a bit hypocritical of you to have such a sig, when the other day you asked me to remove mine in order to avoid further fights with marine.
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
serge, youre calling for a "truce" but youre gonna keep your sig like that?
those are two different ponies right there. Modern technology means that you dont need a fleet of b-29's to drop little boys on moscow. technology changed at the time which means we did more with less. its still like that. Thats why the size of the armed forces has steadily shrunk within the last few decades.Kmarion wrote:
Even today we fight for missile positioning. During the hieght of the Cold war... you'd better believe it.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
totally disagree.Kmarion wrote:
The US is not in the business of giving up strategic positioning ...ever (Obsolete Missles or not). Even today we catch a lot of grief for attempting to install missile defense systems.
With your argument, the base closures and the unit deactivations should not have happened. during the 60's, 70's and 80's. but they did.
sergeriver wrote:
Let me see this. Khrushchev didn't want the US missiles on Turkey, so he places missiles on Cuba. Then, Kennedy agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey if the Soviet Union removed the missiles from Cuba. That's pretty much appeasement.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Compromise != Appeasement
Kmarion wrote:
That was compromise. Both sides lost and gained in that deal. (appeasement is generally one sided.)
world doesnt revolve around you serge.sergeriver wrote:
@GS It's a bit hypocritical of you to have such a sig, when the other day you asked me to remove mine in order to avoid further fights with marine.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
serge, youre calling for a "truce" but youre gonna keep your sig like that?
did you ever consider that I do not take these forums at a fraction of the seriousness you do. I didnt respond to you apology because I didnt ask for one and I wasnt offended. Keep it via PM. if I dont respond, get the hint.
Truth is Serge, you lost me when you said you have more value for animal life than human life. I cant take serious any opinion that comes from a man that believes that. Thats just me, maybe Im weird.
The larger point I am making is that irregardless of what was going to happen it was part of the negotiations.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK+Library+a … Height.htm
Perception was more important than reality in that circumstance.Prime Minister: "There is just a third point that occurred to us. If we want to help the Russians to save face, would it be worthwhile our undertaking to immobilize our Thor missiles which are here in England during the same period - during the conference."
President Kennedy: "Well, let me put that into the machinery and then I’ll be in touch with you on that."
Prime Minister: "I think it is just an idea that it might help the Russians to accept."
President Kennedy: "Good, Prime Minister, let me send that over to the Department. I think we don’t want to have too many dismantlings but it is possible that that proposal might help; they might also insist on Greece -- on Turkey and Italy but I will keep in mind your suggestion here so that if it gets into that, that may be advantageous."
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK+Library+a … Height.htm
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I see your point. Well taken. Im more on the reality of the facts side then what was perceived. But I understand that what was perceived is a reality for manyKmarion wrote:
The larger point I am making is that irregardless of what was going to happen it was part of the negotiations.Perception was more important than reality in this circumstance.Prime Minister: "There is just a third point that occurred to us. If we want to help the Russians to save face, would it be worthwhile our undertaking to immobilize our Thor missiles which are here in England during the same period - during the conference."
President Kennedy: "Well, let me put that into the machinery and then I’ll be in touch with you on that."
Prime Minister: "I think it is just an idea that it might help the Russians to accept."
President Kennedy: "Good, Prime Minister, let me send that over to the Department. I think we don’t want to have too many dismantlings but it is possible that that proposal might help; they might also insist on Greece -- on Turkey and Italy but I will keep in mind your suggestion here so that if it gets into that, that may be advantageous."
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK+Library+a … Height.htm
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-01-20 12:05:42)
I believe animals have rights like us, I never said more rights than us. Even when this is a forum, I find it a bit rude of you not returning a pm with an apology. That's just me, maybe I'm weird.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
world doesnt revolve around you serge.sergeriver wrote:
@GS It's a bit hypocritical of you to have such a sig, when the other day you asked me to remove mine in order to avoid further fights with marine.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
serge, youre calling for a "truce" but youre gonna keep your sig like that?
did you ever consider that I do not take these forums at a fraction of the seriousness you do. I didnt respond to you apology because I didnt ask for one and I wasnt offended. Keep it via PM. if I dont respond, get the hint.
Truth is Serge, you lost me when you said you have more value for animal life than human life. I cant take serious any opinion that comes from a man that believes that. Thats just me, maybe Im weird.
So what? Ignore it then.adam1503 wrote:
usmarine2005 wrote:
I have sigs turned off, so I do not care.usmarine's sig wrote:
"Islam is a disease that can only be cured by bullets and depleted uranium"
QFTsergeriver wrote:
I'm weird.
This was compromise, not appeasement. And 90% of this thread consist of bullshit imo.
inane little opines