$98 per barrel oil

Jay Honeck wrote in
:

There is no reason to think we would. On the other hand Nikita
Khrushchev said, "We will bury you!"

I'm sure that Wolfgang and Thomas were taught that Khrushchev's famous
line was referring only to being buried "economically"... It is to
weep.



You'd have made a great little porpogandist. You're very fond of putting
words in peoples mouths.

I suppose in the mind of someonewho thinks that siting in a go-kart while
playing a nintendo is flying and who builds some sort of aviation
disneland that's to be expected.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect Western
Europe during the cold war the USSR would probably still not ever
attemped to take over Western Europe?

I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw Pact
countries if the USSR had not been protecting them?

Good grief.

Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an imminent
attack by NATO.



Problem is, none of his points come from anywhere but Wikipedia.

His "viewpoint" is pretty meaningless considering it's viewed through his
rectum.


Phew. I was beginning to worry that your replies were actually sensible, but
it's good to see you're back on track. ;-)

"Snowbird" wrote in
i.fi:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect
Western Europe during the cold war the USSR would probably still
not ever attemped to take over Western Europe?

I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw
Pact countries if the USSR had not been protecting them?

Good grief.

Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV
the Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
imminent attack by NATO.



Problem is, none of his points come from anywhere but Wikipedia.

His "viewpoint" is pretty meaningless considering it's viewed through
his rectum.


Phew. I was beginning to worry that your replies were actually
sensible, but it's good to see you're back on track. ;-)




Hey, I have occasional lapses.

I'm only Bunyip.


Bertie

On Nov 14, 9:50 am, Jay Honeck wrote:

Uh, Matt -- reality check he You're asking a troll who specializes
in lame, one-sentence insults Good luck.

"Your Aviation Destination"

Uh, Jay-- reality check here; we all have to endure all of your
racially and politically charged OT posts, what kind of car you want
to drive, every time your kid takes a flying lesson, advertising your
business on Usnet, etc. You are probably one of the last people who
should be questioning a poster's motivation.
KFB

On Nov 15, 7:38 am, Jay Honeck wrote:

Really, you think so? I love revisionist history.

Apparently German schools are teaching the same type of relativistic
history

Jay, you have some *interesting* views on politics and history. And
more power to ya, but when you sugest that just because Wolf disagres
with you that his education was somehow flawed or corupted, you are
making yourself look petty (And kinda silly). This might come as a
shock to you, but I dont think most of the planet shares your White
American Supremist tude.


Wolfgang is a free man today, and can believe whatever he wants,
precisely BECAUSE of what our parents and grandparents did for him.
Perhaps someday he'll come to understand that...

That Red White and Blue arogance again {G}.
--
Jay Honeck
KFB

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Matt,

I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.


I agree. However, the number of serious historians agreeing with Jay's
view of things is really, really small.


That may well be, but I've not seen anyone here offer a single view on
the topic other than Jay. Many trash his view, but nobody has the
courage to offer their own view.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in news:JG4%i.824$2n4.24552
@news1.epix.net:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Matt,

I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.


I agree. However, the number of serious historians agreeing with Jay's
view of things is really, really small.


That may well be, but I've not seen anyone here offer a single view on
the topic other than Jay. Many trash his view, but nobody has the
courage to offer their own view.


He hasn't got a view, he has prejudices and fears.


There;'s a difference.



Bertie

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote

Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an imminent
attack by NATO.

Whenever I see ANYONE agreeing with a point that was posed by MX, I can only
conclude one thing. That person is MXed in the head.

The one constant in the world, is that MX is always wrong. Not even close
to right. Not even.

So, my friend, to go down the path, any path, with MX has put you in one,
and the only position that is possible.

You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever had has
evaporated.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote

Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV
the Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
imminent attack by NATO.

Whenever I see ANYONE agreeing with a point that was posed by MX, I
can only conclude one thing. That person is MXed in the head.


I thought you were ignoring Anthony.

Bertie

Morgans writes:

You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever had has
evaporated.

An unconditional prejudice against any opinion from a given source that
overrides consideration of the opinion on its own merits is not a strong basis
for credibility.