Replies

You are a NWO conspiracist

And you whine about "ad hominem" attacks?

I sent Nyquist a polite email pointing out a significant flaw in his scenario. The flaw was that in order for the Russian to succeed, the US military would have to disregard its extant doctrine and procedures without any discernable reason for doing so. This was in an area of operations that would not be influenced by the national command authority--the events in question would be over, one way or the other, before the NCA was even aware of what was going on. I quoted relevant portions of US military doctrine and also gave references to Congressional testimony and scholarly works on the topic.

I cannot reprint Mr. Nyquist's response in a family forum.

and your agenda was EXPOSED by nyquist through email correspondence.

My agenda has been, and will remain, to provide my honest opinion, backed by fact. Nyquist didn't like the facts that I raised.

Somehow you think your creative game has merit over someone who has lived through communism?

Communist governments lied to their citizens--and to themselves--as a matter of course. I'm supposed to suddenly accept what one government told its citizenry as gospel truth?

Suggesting you are a NWO conspiracist isn't ad hominem-- especially in light of the fact that you are.

Second, you present an argument that would indicate that you are lying. You are telling me that your written theory above was responded to by Nyquist in such a way that it was too vulger to post in this forum? Not likely.

Third, your so-called flaw doesn't make any sense. For Russia to suceed the US military would have to disregard its doctrine? How about defeat? Don't you THINK that maybe Russia has a mind to defeat the US military in the scenario? If you think Perestroika did not affect our military doctrine as well as our focus on human and signal intelligence you are sadly mistaken... as a former Marine yourself you must know the shift that took place between 1979 and 1993.

Let me clarify on the NWO conspiracist... if you thought I was suggesting you are part of the conspiracy, then it could be considered ad hominem... BUT instead, I'm suggesting that you believe in the skull-n-bones conspiracy and this is largely what your problem with nyquist is who does not believe in such nonsense...