Biden was right, Obama will be tested: Russia deploys missiles

2»

Comments

  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    stickfig13 wrote:
    Bipolar meaning two sources of power (Ex. USA vs USSR)

    i understand that. but having two powers push and pull and jostle for supremacy isnt as clear as you seem to think. i dont want to be some idiots play thing. i dont want to have to declare my allegiance to one over the other. i remember the last cold war and how warm it really was.

    youre either with us or against us? fuck that bullshit.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    stickfig13 wrote:
    A world full of states with no allegiance.
    I think US chickenhawks would agree with you...having the world on the brink of nuclear a holocaust is a perfect excuse to get involved in any corner of the world. They sold Panama as a threat to the national security of the US during the cold war and the people bought it, that's how deep the fear goes. with that cloud of fear hanging over everyone its easy to get involved anywhere in the world, in the name of national security.


    first it was communism, it was drugs for a while, now its terrorism. maybe they'll go back through the list again.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    Commy wrote:
    ...
    first it was communism, it was drugs for a while, now its terrorism. maybe they'll go back through the list again.



    1... 2... 3... 4... i declare a thumb war. :D:D


    i think whats really needed is a war on idiocy.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • stickfig13
    stickfig13 Posts: 1,532
    Commy wrote:
    I think US chickenhawks would agree with you...having the world on the brink of nuclear a holocaust is a perfect excuse to get involved in any corner of the world. They sold Panama as a threat to the national security of the US during the cold war and the people bought it, that's how deep the fear goes. with that cloud of fear hanging over everyone its easy to get involved anywhere in the world, in the name of national security.


    first it was communism, it was drugs for a while, now its terrorism. maybe they'll go back through the list again.


    I guess my point is that I would rather be on the point of nuclear holocaust with a country like Russia than trying to battle every country that says they have nuclear ambitions or terror ties.

    I guess I assume Russia to be slightly more rational....
    Sacramento 10-30-00, Bridge School 10-20 and 10-21-01, Bridge School 10-25 and 10-26-01, Irvine 06-02-03, Irvine 06-03-03, San Diego 06-05-03, San Diego 07-07-06, Los Angeles 07-09-06, Santa Barbara 07-13-06, London UK 06-18-07, San Diego 10-9-09, San Diego 2013, LA 1 2013
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    stickfig13 wrote:
    I guess my point is that I would rather be on the point of nuclear holocaust with a country like Russia than trying to battle every country that says they have nuclear ambitions or terror ties.

    I guess I assume Russia to be slightly more rational....

    how rational does one have to be to NOT drop nuclear bombs on people?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    catefrances wrote:
    how rational does one have to be to NOT drop nuclear bombs on people?
    good point.
  • gabers
    gabers Posts: 2,787
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    This is the Cuban Missile Crisis... in reverse. instead of Russin putting their missiles in our backyard... the U.S. is putting our missiles in their backyard. We didn't like it when they did that to us in 1960... why is it okay for us to do it to them in 2008?

    But there is a difference between missile for defense and tactical nuclear missiles.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    gabers wrote:
    But there is a difference between missile for defense and tactical nuclear missiles.


    two batteries of armed deadly end game weapons pointed at each other. whats the difference??
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • gabers
    gabers Posts: 2,787
    catefrances wrote:
    two batteries of armed deadly end game weapons pointed at each other. whats the difference??

    Okay, maybe I'm confused, but aren't the missiles in Poland non-nuclear? I thought they were only ballistic missiles designed for the sole intent of destroying ICBMs.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    gabers wrote:
    Okay, maybe I'm confused, but aren't the missiles in Poland non-nuclear? I thought they were only ballistic missiles designed for the sole intent of destroying ICBMs.

    nope youre not confused. i was just being alarmist as i tend to be in these situations cause i can see how escalating such posturing can be.

    and for soemone the firing of these missiles will bring death. thats the nature of the beast.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • beachdweller
    beachdweller Posts: 1,532
    pjalive21 wrote:
    in the article Medvedev directly refers to Obama...Bush is a lame duck president right now

    so basically you are saying if we are attacked, our lame duck has to wait around and do nothing while he waits for the new President?

    Bush created this problem that Russia is reacting to. They are using this opportunity to react. Russia is weak, the military may be big, but their equipment is still a mess, because they haven't adopted the notion of preventive maintenance. Though the U S military's equipment is a mess at the moment due to lack of funding to do any preventive maintenance or replace/fix things broken or missing. Well at least the Army.
    "Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)

    Stop by:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
  • scw156
    scw156 Posts: 442
    anotherclone wrote:
    I'm lost. Isn't GWB still president for another 70-some-odd days? I realize Obama is going to inherit this mess, but how is this currently a test for Obama when it's still a Bush administration? The article doesn't even say when the missiles are being deployed.



    exactly
    The Sentence Below Is True
    The Sentence Above Is False
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    gabers wrote:
    But there is a difference between missile for defense and tactical nuclear missiles.
    ...
    So? If you deploy a missile defense system at their borders, they deploy tactical missiles in firing positions at your borders, too close for your defensive missile to track them.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Smellyman2
    Smellyman2 Posts: 689
    Evil Russian commies.

    their missiles bad, US missiles good.

    US Good guys, Russia bad guys.
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    Biden never even once said that Obama would be tested due to his inexperience. I am quite certain he meant because he is a new president, which would be to say that either of them would have been tested. W was tested. For the conservative right to keep twisting that around was really annoying and I wanted to set the record straight.

    The implication that only President Obama would be tested is a pant load of shit.

    That said, remember that President Bush is still our president. So I am not sure this counts as a test on President-Elect Obama's administration.

Categories