Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (3650)	10/28/2003 11:21:33 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

The German's were working on a multi-stage rocket modeled on the V-2 that they hoped would reach the US. I don't think they ever got past the drawing board though. I think it's just common sense that we have to admit they wanted a bomber that could reach the US. But never got off the drawing board either. They were more advanced than us in rocketry. We had them beat in aircraft after we got cranked up. They could design new aircraft but were limited in production. Hitler shelved jet propulsion before the war in favor of designs based on piston engines they could make right away. Pulled jet propulsion back off the shelf too late.

To: LPS5 who wrote (3650)	10/29/2003 3:24:22 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

The response would likely have come in two forms: first, providing military escorts for American cargo ships and second, bombing the German Navy (in port or at sea) into utter scrap metal. How? German warfare at sea was largely submarine warfare. They were difficult to find. Even with H2S radar, they were a problem. And the US had no planes that could patrol the Atlantic effectively. That was why Britain was so important. It was an "unsinkable aircraft carrier". Bases on it allowed the US to attack the German Navy in port. That could not be done from the US. Even if that is true, I think the proper response would be an effort to create a comparable military force and an early warning system, not necessarily a preemptive strike. That's fine as long as the Germans agree to stand still. But as the later post on intercontinental rockets showed, they were hardly so accommodating. And with the US bombing the piss out of them and US troops advancing on them and depleting their manpower, they would have been in even better shape to develop their weapons. The stupidity of Hitler, of course, was a great aid. Stopping jet and nuclear devlopment early in the war was a great aid, as was attacking Russia while Britain was still viable. Hitler was the best general the Allies had. LOL. Give me a break. You got your break. The Germans were in fact developing a rocket which they planned to use un the US. Given enough time- -and sitting back and letting them come to you as you advocate wouldn't have given them that time- -they eventually would have straightened out their nuclear screw-ups and got The Bomb. Remember, at the start of the war the best nuclear scientists were German. Back later.

To: LPS5 who wrote (3650)	11/1/2003 4:13:18 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 20039

Do I intend to be attacked before attacking? For the most part - overwhelmingly - yes. So I take you are a fan of Mr. Chamberlain. In the first instance, we don't win because we can't afford - financially - to run the size and volume of campaign that the hypocrites or the socialists do. Even if we had those monetary resources, how well do you think a group seeking to shrink the government, cut back on personal and corporate welfare, and replace paternalism with responsibility might be received? TO put that in different terms, your programs are such that nobody wants them. Yes, you have a problem. Your problem is that this a democracy.