Maybe their rhetoric was weird, but that is what I clearly heard.

And before that they were griping about how the media is only covering micheal jackson... But four days later they were still covering him.

I'm not saying they didn't make some good points (puting the deficit in perspective now that the stimulus failed was a wake up call)

Mafoo, what are you talking about? I mentioned Bush because you were the first person to mention him.

That's bizarre and under-informed. The Soviet Union, in 1945, had 11 million people under arms. The Red Army was the largest in history. They had a two-to-one advantage in Eurasia. They had more tanks and guns than every other nation combined. They sat smack dab in the middle of Europe. Their largest and most powerful adversary was one ocean or another away - plus Siberia, if you take into account Allied forces in the Pacific.

The British military concluded that any Anglo-American offensive against the Red Army during this time was "militarily unfeasible." They believed that a conventional war in Europe was unwinnable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

The only way to win a war at that time was through the use of nuclear weapons, which necessarily entails the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more. That was my original point. Now you, sitting in your safe, comfy chair decades later, are sure that the professionals on the ground were wrong. You, of course, who has never fought a war in Europe against or alongside the Soviets, better know the military situation, the Allies' capabilities and those of their enemies. You, Dodece, are so well-versed in warfare, such an incredibly wise and strong warrior, that you can not only dismiss their reasoned conclusion, but proclaim it to have no merit whatsoever.

That's comical. What's more likely is that you're a bloodthirsty armchair general, happy to wage wars in your mind that would be fought by others. What's certain is that you have little to no idea of what you're talking about, and should adjust your rhetoric accordingly.

like I said, if you disrespect me, I will disrespect you right back. There is no need to post explanations of similies and such when you know damn well what I mean, it insults my intelligence that you think I don't know these things.

And I found a dickish thread. http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=73743&page=1

Almost the same exact thing, and yet you keep doing it.

My last few comments have nothing to do with yours, and more to do with the general feeling that democrats and republicans seem to think that there guy has the right answers, and the other guy is somehow 100% wrong.

The problem is both parties candidates are 100% wrong.

@Desroko

True hindsight is a beautiful thing, but many at the time agree with my wholeheartedly from a fellow named Winston Churchill to Patton. Both advocated a hard line against the Soviets. You need to learn the definition of brinkmanship. You deliver an ultimatum in the hope that you do not have to follow it up. The goal is to use threats alone to get what you want.

The truth is the threat probably would have worked on its own. Your assuming that the Soviet leadership would have been intractable. How could you know this. It flies in the face of logic. How can one use massed units against thermonuclear bombs. Furthermore how can you stop those bombs falling without superior aerial assets.

The rational conclusion is that the Soviets would have had to withdraw behind their borders and bide their time until they had a nuclear deterrent of their own, and had sufficient air assets to not only defend their territory, but to also reach out. This assumption that they were idiots is the real idiocy.

Your assuming that an ultimatum is a declaration of total war. When the most logical ultimatum would have been a demanded withdrawal from occupied states. I for one doubt that the Soviets would have pushed the point. Do you stare down a man with a machine gun while all you have is a club. No you back away and go get a machine gun of your own. Which is what the Soviet Union did. The West just let them snatch up nations unopposed.

No it was stupid a lot of people knew the Cold War was coming, and that was the first face off. The West blinked and that only emboldened the Soviets from that point forward. Hey I must be blood thirsty. I mean what taking the stand then while it could have saved so many nations and lives. Rather then wait five years before both sides stared each other down for four decades. Hey why don't you go tell a poor Afghan that got their hand blown off by a fake toy how very important it was to not take a stand. Seeing as your so tolerant of letting others suffer on your behalf.

The west should have taken a stand then. While it had the club to force its will. Rather then dick around for half a decade letting the Soviets gear up.

To add to this whole war stuff. We used to follow at least a little of the Constitution, and it states that we can only go to war if we are threatened. Japan Attacked us, and Germany then declared was on us. That's why we were in WWII. Once it was over, we had no Constitutional right to attack Russia.

Just like we had no Constitutional right to invade Iraq, but now days no one gives a shit about what our Constitution says, so we do whatever we want.

Actually, since she's already had 2 years experience in elected office, all she needs now is to do a little "community organizing" and she'll be as qualified as our current Commander-in-Chief!

At least Sarah Palin actually accomplished some things while in office... all Obama did was vote "present" for his first 2 years in the Senate and then spent the next 2 years campaigning for president!

In all seriousness though I don't think she'll be running in 2012... what she will be doing is raising some serious cash for whoever the eventual nominee is, because she still attracts crowds as big as the President himself when she speaks.

Look like she has now been interviewed and explained her reasons for leaving. Basically she has been hounded so much after the VP thing, that she spends all her time fighting off lawsuits and working with a state congress that's been directed at a national level not to work with her, that she resigned for the betterment of the state.

Alaska, like all states, needs a Governor, and with all the BS she had to deal with, she had no time to do her job. Better for Alaska to just walk away and let someone who will be left alone take care of the state.

Also, she is not allowed to use state fund to fight off all the lawsuits, and so far it has cost her 500,000, and more money to come down the road.

At some point you got to just get tired of all the bullshit. Remember, she is just a person. Eight months of badgering will get to anything. I would have quit a long time ago.