RE: Obama's first International Test (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


caitlyn -> RE: Obama's first International Test (11/6/2008 6:54:09 PM)

You tend to be mixing things that are not related here Hunter ... as has been pointed out, this is a missile defense system, and really isn't pointed at anyone, except missiles fired in their general direction. Only those firing offensive missiles at their neighbors, have anything to fear from a missile defense system.
 
That said, I'm with Popeye on this one ... we should not be putting any missiles on anyone else's soil. Nothing good can come of it.




HunterS -> RE: Obama's first International Test (11/6/2008 7:25:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

You tend to be mixing things that are not related here Hunter ... as has been pointed out, this is a missile defense system, and really isn't pointed at anyone, except missiles fired in their general direction. Only those firing offensive missiles at their neighbors, have anything to fear from a missile defense system.
 
That said, I'm with Popeye on this one ... we should not be putting any missiles on anyone else's soil. Nothing good can come of it.


I am not mixing anything up.  I asked if it would be OK if Russia were to put the same sort of ABM system in Cuba,Mexico or Venezuela.
 
I am with you and Popeye...we should not be doing this.
 
H.




celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama's first International Test (11/6/2008 8:00:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

I do believe the missiles used in a missile defense system do not have any offensive value--they cannot be used to target cities, military installations, or other ground targets.


So you would be ok with Russia putting a similar system in Cuba,Mexico or Venezuela?

A missile defense system?  Sure.  No problem at all.

Theater-class quasiballistic missiles such as the Iskander-M?  Big problem with that.

Russia's brinksmanship rhetoric amounts to responding to a reasonable missile defense deployment by making damn sure there's something to defend against.

It's worth noting that the Iskander was designed to target, among other things, anti-missile defense systems.

Russia wants Europe defenseless against attack from the East.  Now why do you suppose that might be?




meatcleaver -> RE: Obama's first International Test (11/7/2008 1:06:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

What would one expect Medvedev to do when we place missiles on his doorstep? What would you do if your next door neighbor mounted twin .50's on his fence facing you?

I do believe the missiles used in a missile defense system do not have any offensive value--they cannot be used to target cities, military installations, or other ground targets.



You do know that this is total BS. It is like playing football and saying my extra man is defender doesn't make a difference to my attack and is therefore irrelevent. However, since such defensive weapons don't make a difference, the Russian response won't make a difference either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Unless I am mistaken in this, the analogy to twin .50 caliber machine guns is incorrect.  Better question would be what would I do if my next door neighbor raised a 20' wall against my twin .50's?



No that isn't the analogy because you still have the ability to shoot through the wall.

Though probably the main reason for Russian irateness is the stationing of US troops on their border plus the west breaking its word that it wouldn't extend NATO to its borders.

I can't say I blame them in the circumstances. Western hawks conveniently forget the promises mainly the hawks themselves gave to Russia ten years ago.




meatcleaver -> RE: Obama's first International Test (11/7/2008 1:22:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Russia is making a rational response to American aggression.

Just imagine the US's response if Russia was siting missiles on the US border.

Yea, you're right. I mean after we drove our tanks into Canada and Mexico years ago in our now infamous and brutal colonial imperialism, I'd be scared too. I mean it who'd want missiles in their country like say Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia after these Russians so courteously invited them into the Soviet sphere. I mean after all, when these countries invited the Russians in we knew it was of a benevolent desire. Whereas we just went into Canada and Mexico with guns ablazing like Afganistan shot up their leaders, staff and even their whores (no eyewitnesses) because like the Russians would tell thew world...they wanted us to.


You're rambling

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Ah yes, Afganistan...now there was the prize. The whole world just new when we drove our tanks into that country it was because we were invited. But wait, it WAS the Russians who took everybody out when they drove their tanks in and told the world...to 'help' reassert control over the govt. What WE did was to give the Afgans $billion, the stinger missile and helped them KICK the Rusians out. And as a perfect example of American imperialist colonialism...were told not only was that just the beginning but we would remain there. Then when unlike those imperialist colonialist America is...we left.


America was involved in Afghanistan in a cold war kneee jerk reaction to the Soviets being there. The USSR and the USA deserved each other, the USA had no concern for Afghanistan. Once the Soviets had been kicked out Afghanistan disappeared of the US radar until 9/11.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
THEN when America left, America is blamed for the political vacuum and their war damages. So we are the evil imperialist colonialist or are we fuck'em (give them $billion and leave) and forget'em. America is now what... damned if we do and damned if we don't ?



America was only interfering in Afghanistan to thwart the Soviets, beyond that it had no concern for the place. Afghanistan was just another space on the chess board.

Russia spent billions on its empire too, that was the fucked up thinking of the ideological cold war. It is still the fucked up thinking today. The US could do no worse than dumping its ideology and become pragmatic. It is what Russia tried to do before its collapse (which largely occurred through advice and promised help that didn't arrive from the west). The economic collapse in Russia allowed someone like Putin to come to power and if you are Russian, he had done a good job because you can now go to a shop and buy stuff.


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I still can't believe the historical bullshit I read here. Maybe you all need to go back afew hundred years and look at not the formation of America but look at the formation of ALL of history's empire and take a good look at what was done...what the real definition of colonialist imperialism is then come back and compare that to Americas history of so-called 'imperialist colonialism.'



Let's go back to the formation of the USA if you desire. The main reason for the war of independence was not tax since almost no colonist paid tax, the main tension between Britain and the colonists was expanding the colony yet further into Indian territory. The Brits wanted to stop the expansion, the land hungry settlers wanted expansion. All the other reasons was propaganda and bullshit of which the founding fathers were sublime. I can't remember which American it was but the quote is American 'The founding fathers wrote like angels and schemed like devilsd.' Actually, the colonies had matured into a nation proper which was probably the main reason for their wanting their independence but they were a mirror image of Europe. I have never said the US is worse than Europe, I said the US has taken up the same mantel that Britain had, the imposing of 'free trade' which benefits the US more than the other country. However, this era in history is fast coming to a close as American and European economies make up less and less of the world economy.




Politesub53 -> RE: Obama's first International Test (11/7/2008 1:22:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Russia's brinksmanship rhetoric amounts to responding to a reasonable missile defense deployment by making damn sure there's something to defend against.

It's worth noting that the Iskander was designed to target, among other things, anti-missile defense systems.

Russia wants Europe defenseless against attack from the East.  Now why do you suppose that might be?



So why didnt America accept Russias offer to house the missile system there ? There isnt a big concern in Europe about Russia attacking us, despite the sabre rattling from Putin. Russia needs to trade with the EU and Putin knows it.




meatcleaver -> RE: Obama's first International Test (11/7/2008 1:25:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

I instinctively do NOT trust Putin....you are of course correct in the other facts....but Putin for whatever reason,
there is something about him....I truly hope I am incorrect and that you are 100% correct Cleaver....

Putin was/is a KGB officer and communist apparatchik and pines for the old days and who can understand why. He has his new 24 yr old ballerina and $40 Billion so if he ever got mean...we could cut him off personally and we might have to.

Just another power hungry facists now running a kleptocracy, similar to the mexican oligarchs with the exception that in Mexico it's family and in Russia you must kowtow to Putin.



Sort of like Bush and Cheney having policies that look after their friends. The difference between the US and Russia is not as big as you might like and where many US citizens would wrap themselves in their flag and accuse any fellow citizen who criticized the US as being unAmerican, so it is with Russians.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
1.464844E-02