Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Soviets obsolete

October 13, 2009

Advertisement

To the editor:

Another Saturday, and another ridiculous editorial from Dolph Simons Jr.

Mr. Simons feels the need to do what even most elected Republican officials shied away from: using the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to level yet another attack against our president.

Among Mr. Simons’ many grievances, however, was included this howler: He criticizes President Obama for having “called for a change in the deployment of American missiles in Poland and other countries to defend against Soviet missile attacks.”

Somebody needs to remind Mr. Simons that it’s not 1964 any longer. Europe (and the world) no longer trembles at the thought of a Soviet attack. In fact, there have been no “Soviets” since 1991, which is nearly 20 years ago now.

I know that we must continue to put up with the newspaper of record for the most historically progressive community in Kansas not reflecting the political views of the majority of the residents (consistent endorsement of right-wing candidates in every election, syndicated national columns from the most fringe conservative columnists such as Cal Thomas, and, of course, Mr. Simons’ Saturday editorials), but one would hope that even in that environment, the paper would not give voice to such a laughably out-of-date and factually incorrect point of view.

Comments

Brent Garner 4 years, 6 months ago

Bozo:

Thank you for resorting to the name calling without attempting to research or refute with facts what I posted. You have successfully, once again, demonstrated that the left wing of this country do not care about facts or reality. You, sir, and your fellow travelers are the primary reason freedom and liberty are vanishing planet wide and specifically within the US. Congratulations!

0

Boris 4 years, 6 months ago

JHOK32 has been too much leftist propaganda or actually believes the crap that come out of his Political Science professors at KU. I'll bet you just love NBC/.MSNBC though don't you?

0

JHOK32 4 years, 6 months ago

It is truly comforting to know there are probably thousands of Lawrencians who share your view about Mr. Simon's right-wing mantras to the point that they won't even read his article anymore. I stopped buying this red rag years ago & refuse to hear the weekly rantings of Mr. America, who I'm sure goes to church every Sunday, is taught the teachings of Jesus, then drives right by the homeless shelter in his shiny Cadillac or Beemer & feels these people deserve what meager existence that they have without any assistance from Mr. Simons or his other millionaire golf buddies. One day Mr. Simons will awaken & realize he has sickened the last Lawrencian to death reading his red propaganda to the point that he has no more buyers left who will pay money for his rag! Perhaps then, when Mr. Simons is on the streets staying his nights in the "shelter" he can watch as his former millionaire buddies drive by in their fancy new Beemers & they will give him a pathetic glance as they go by puffing their big cigars..

0

Gareth 4 years, 6 months ago

Boris -- even by the most generous estimations of the range of known Iranian stockpiles, they couldn't reach further than the eastern borders of the Ukraine.

Check this graphic -- http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44818000/gif/_44818735_iran_missile_range226_a.gif

The right wing, of course, like to paint the "what if" scenario of North Korean Taepo Dong missiles being sold to Iran -- despite the fact that it's never happened, is not likely to happen given American patrolling of the Persian Gulf, and the fact that the estimations of the range of the TD series are based on North Korean propaganda, rather than fact.

In short, a nation that has to Photoshop their missile tests (see here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/jul/10/iranianmissiletestsnotwhat ) is not exactly the Military Juggernaut that right-wingers are apparently terrified of....

It must be so sad to live in such fear, even when the facts contradict it.

0

Boris 4 years, 6 months ago

Gsareth, since you are all knowing, tell me what is the shortest trajectory for a missile strike from the middle east into Europe?

0

Gareth 4 years, 6 months ago

Putting missiles in Eastern Europe to defend against Iran is a bit like... well, like invading Iraq to fight against Al Qaeda. It makes no logical sense to anyone with a functioning knowledge of how the world actually works, outside of right-wing fantasies.

The fact that Dolph brought up the "Soviets" means that even he couldn't keep the BS straight. Iran? Soviets? Bad Guys! Yeah -- that's it! It's to defend against the Bad Guys! Typical right-wing G.I.Joe cartoon view of reality.

Really, the only proof you need of the absolute bankruptcy of the right-wing mindset is the comment from TheGreatSantini, above, who says that Europe is "overly civilized" -- and seems to think that's a bad thing.

Case closed, don'tcha think?

0

Jimo 4 years, 6 months ago

Uhhhhh.........the Bush Administration's whole argument was that the missile system was necessary to defend against Iranian missiles and was not at all aimed at Russia. It was Russia who kept insisting that the "real" purpose was an aggressive move against them.

You wackos need to keep your propaganda straight.

0

Boris 4 years, 6 months ago

Ok, for one thing, who hyphenated your first name? Secondly, the missile shield was not from the Russians, it was from the damned Iranians and others in the middle east. The Russians still pose a threat to their former republics. It never set well with them that they left the collective so to speak.

0

kansastruthteller 4 years, 6 months ago

It is very arrogant and foolish to view the world only through your culture. Americans have been criticized as being rude and arrogant because we expect everyone else in the world to think and act as we do - hence, the "ugly American" moniker.

Besides being rude, it is also foolish and dangerous. You can't just base global decisions on the "progressive" actions of Lawrence, Kansas. You must fully understand the nature and culture of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

These are countries that are willing to overtake and enslave another nation. These are countries that respect strength and despise weakness. These are countries that view holding out an olive branch as weakness and the go ahead to push their agenda of world domination.

Diplomacy alone will not create a safe world. Diplomacy backed by a strong military and a strong resolve to use it if necessary will ensure a safe world.

You might pity the poor rabid dog, but don't make the mistake that through kindess you can cure it. That thinking will get you bit and bit good.

0

TheGreatSantini 4 years, 6 months ago

Western Europe would be easy to conquer without American protection, the EU is a joke and they have lost the will and ability to fight. They are overly civilized and weak. Russia could invade with a few thousand troops and take the whole continent.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

That was impressive, bk. I've never seen so much pointless wingnut posturing condensed into one little paragraph (well, not that little, and maybe I'm impressed just because Tom didn't write it. Or did he?)

0

Brent Garner 4 years, 6 months ago

Yes, the "Soviets" are gone. That is a fact. But, the Russians are still there and they still see Ukraine, Belrus, the Baltic republics, and Eastern Europe as their sphere to control and dictate to. The missle sites and radar sites that Dear Leader so casually gave away were situated so that they posed no threat to Russia and the Russians knew it. The radars didn't even look inside Russia and the interceptors--what 12 of them??--pose not deterrent threat to the Russian ICBM force of over 2000 warheads. No, the Russians, like the Soviets, were ticked off that American was doing ANYTHING in what they considered their backyard. The Russian viewpoint, of course, ignoring the vehement desire of those places to NOT be controlled by Moscow. Yet, Dear Leader casually gives away the missile sites and radar sites and gets nothing from Russia. Nothing at all!!! He does send a signal to places like Poland and the Czech Republic that this administration is perfectly comfortable with the Russians dictating to those nations as well as nations a little further east. And for this Dear Leader gets a Nobel Prize? Hmmm. Maybe Chamberlain and Quisling should have gotten Nobel Prizes also.

0

puddleglum 4 years, 6 months ago

speaking of pinheads, just look at Tom's CRAZY posts!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out there.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 6 months ago

Just don't read LJW Gareth and don't be a pinhead.

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 6 months ago

"I know that we must continue to put up with the newspaper of record for the most historically progressive community in Kansas..."


There's that euphemism again. Hey, Gareth-Michael, be accurate. You mean "socialist."

0

BigPrune 4 years, 6 months ago

Another ridiculous Letter To The Editor.

Perhaps they are no longer called the Soviet Union, but the very same missiles that were aimed at us then are still aimed at us now - just as they are aimed at our allies.

Semantics aside, Obama didn't deserve to win the Nobel Prize because he hasn't done anything, and incidentally, the economy sucks and it isn't getting any better.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.