Mary Harts Legs? More like “Fast Moving Chickenshit Troll’s Legs”.
She starts these threads with sweeping generalizations, then runs for cover when they blow up in her (his? It’s?) face.
I think MHL is looking for a kindred spirit in all the wrong places.
HEY!! MHL!! The Straight Dope is a place for the pursuit of Truth; not for the dissemination of political polemic, neither is it a mutual back-patting society for people who buy into that polemic.
As I have remarked before, the Internet is an American invention. Why is a good little Marxist like you using the capitaliski exploitational media that exists only to exploit the proletarian masses? JJJuuuuust asking!
PS— Mary Harts Legs-- you are a pismire, a septisquidalian monotreme, and a fine example of what happens when cousins marry–marry ring-tailed lemures , that is.
Piss off.
You should tell the truth, expose the lies and live in the moment."-Bill Hicks
“You should tell the lies, live the truth and expose yourself.” - Bill Clinton
That’s right knothead, when nothing else intelligent comes to mind then attack the username. What a brainiac. And you wouldn’t know global significance if it bit you on your dumbass. The difference between you and I in regards to the cuban missle crisis is that I was there at the time serving my country and you were probably home still wetting your bed.
originally he made a program called “enquire”, that program made documents and could make links to other documents.
Enquire ran on norsk data computers who used SINTRAN-III operating system.
this was in the year 1980 or so.
in 1990 (oct - nov.) Tim Berners-Lee makes the program WorldWideWeb for NeXT-computers. it was both a browser and a write program. it supported a graphical interface and could link to other documents.
Tim Berners-Lee did not create the internet…thats been around since what…1967 or so.
TomH: It’s an interesting question (the entire “what would have happened if the Soviet missles had stayed in Cuba?”). Certainly, the perception at the time was that it would encourage the Soviet Union to start a nuclear war. You’re right in that the Jupiter missles in Turkey were probably closer to Moscow than Cuba was to Washington D.C.; however, the Jupiter missles were obsolete and Kennedy had planned to have the removed to save costs and reduce tensions (which led to some very ironic situations that would be far too long and tangential for this post).
In addition, certainly the perception at the time was that the Soviets had a serious missle lead over us, both in technology and in number. One of the major issues in the '60 campaign had been Kennedy’s pledge to close the missle gap with the Soviets; and even though the U.S. space program was about even with the Russian program, the U.S. had not made any major public breakthrough in the race for the moon. Therefore, the missles in Cuba were assumed to be more accurate and faster than any missles we had in the same general range. End result- the assumption of the time was that- with missles in Cuba- the Soviets could launch a first strike and have a reasonable chance of knocking out most of our systems before we could retaliate. Combine that with an assault in Europe- a battle we obviously and publicly relied upon our nuclear weapons to win for us- and you can see that the perception might be that a nuclear war would actually be winable.
In recent times, we’ve found that many of those assumptions were innaccurate. The Soviet space lead was non-existant at that point (Krushchev had squandered much of the Soviet space program in propaganda efforts rather than pushing for a race to the moon) and the missle gap was actually the reverse- the Soviets were pushing as hard as they could to catch up with us. But, I’m not sure what assumptions the Soviets were working under, and it’s quite possible they believed the same things that the U.S. did.
I wouldn’t go so far as aha did and call it a guarantee; but I’d say it’s a distinct possibility. And to the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of anti-Americanisms…
Karma- So it was absolutely horrible for the Americans to kill ‘civilians’ during the war. Can I ask why sending 18-year-old boys into the meat grinder that was the Pacific campaign is a perfectly acceptable idea, but killing 24-year-old women and 50-year-old men is horrifying beyond belief? To the point where it’s okay to have 500,000 casualties of those 18-year-old boys (the expected casualties of an invasion of the Japanese mainland) but having 30,000 casualties of women the same age is unacceptable? Please include in your answer a reference to the hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese during the Rape of Nanking, an event that Japan is only recently willing to admit may have occurred, while every year excorciating the U.S. for daring to drop atomic bombs upon them.
Mary Hart’s Legs: I suggest you change your screen name to “That Which Dribbled Down Mary Hart’s Legs.” It’s much more appropriate.
Thanks, John. In my view the Cuban Missile Crisis was an extremely dangerous exercise in brinkmanship (on both sides) which probably brought the world closer to all-out nuclear war than it has ever been and, with luck, than it ever will be.
Within a few years of the Cuban Missile Crisis, each side had the capability to attack the other with submarine-launched missiles. Likewise, the Warsaw Pact had missile bases sitting just over the border from Western Europe for almost all of the Cold War.
With hindsight, it’s pretty difficult to see how the siting of Soviet missiles in Cuba would have made a huge difference. It seems that there was never any first strike policy on the part of the Soviet Union.
I realise that this was not the view at the time, and Kennedy’s actions have to be judged in the light of the information that was available to him then. I think that the most generous assessment we can reasonably offer is that he took what seemed to be the best course of action at the time. To say that he saved the US and Canada from a certain nuclear inferno is hyperbole.
Didn’t Kruschev mean this in an econmic context and not a military context?
Just a personal theory on the OP, but I always speculated that the sample US Citizens who travel abroad tend to represent a more affluent demographic. Further, since the Enlish Pound is actually one of the few currencies in the world that is more expensive than the US Dollar, it could be argued that England is attracting the richest of US travelers. My thought is that these RICH Americans may also be relatively more obnoxious, self righteous, snobbish, than the rest of us. So the Brits make these charges based on what we send them. Of course now I’m making sweeping generalizations about rich people, but I figure if you can’t pick on the rich who can you pick on.
Didn’t Kruschev mean this in an econmic context and not a military context?
Just a personal theory on the OP, but I always speculated that the sample US Citizens who travel abroad tend to represent a more affluent demographic. Further, since the Enlish Pound is actually one of the few currencies in the world that is more expensive than the US Dollar, it could be argued that England is attracting the richest of US travelers. My thought is that these RICH Americans may also be relatively more obnoxious, self righteous, snobbish, than the rest of us. So the Brits make these charges based on what we send them. Of course now I’m making sweeping generalizations about rich people, but I figure if you can’t pick on the rich who can you pick on.
When he said, “we will bury you” I think he meant something like, “we will overtake or surpass you”, not “we will destroy you”.
My theory on the OP is that the poster is not British at all, but an anti-British troll trying to provoke the kind of outbursts we have seen from some of the less temperate and well-informed posters in this thread.
All the genuine anti-Americans seem to post consistently under the same name (MHL, bj0rn, et al).
Thinks: wasn’t a conspicuously anti-British troll banned / warned by the Mods but a few days before the OP?
