Who'll be the better president?

[Rammsteiner]

The fact they are about the only competitive force in regards to aircraft and missile design. They also have an enormous stockpile of WMDs that they are keen on selling. Remember, we're paying Russia to dismantle their nuclear weapons.

So what? What does USA give the right to 'keep an eye' on Russia because of their fire power? How about USA's "state of the art" army, that seems to be allowed.

Also, fine to know you're paying Russia to dismantle their nuclear weapons, then again USA does still have them. Also, another point where your tax goes, to this sort of stuff.

There's nothing wrong with defense systems. How is it wrong to protect yourself?

It's a bit ignorant, to say the least, to put it in like Russia's backyard. It shows a lot of distrust and it certainly doesnt make Russia feel any safer. Besides that, it makes Europe also more vulnerable for attacks, whether it's aimed at the defense system or based on supporting USA.

It's plain stupid. If USA government wants to feel like Rambo, well, I prefer not but ok. But also be ready for the consequences instead of hiding in someone else's basement.

Cite a source. I certainly can't find one.

You seem to be unable to find anything, I cant be arsed anymore to put any effort in that tbh.

Just because Georgia was trash talking Russia doesn't give Russia the right to intervene. Chavez trash talks USA all the time and we haven't attacked him in force yet.

You're kidding right? Georgie was the one who shot first FYI, this gives Russia all the right in the world to go in there. Whether Russia provoked or not, they shouldnt have fired a shot there.

 

[mdm-adph]

Yeah, we only wish that were true.

Here's a take on an early attempt at socialism in the US...
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/10/28/will-thanksgiving-2008-be-the-last/#more-11535

Of course it had nothing to do with being in an unknown land, with unknown plants, unknown animals, and unknown dangers.

No, no -- it was the socialism that caused everyone to starve. :shadedshu

You're beyond being just a mere broken record now.

And yeah, here's an early attempt at capitalism in the US: http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar02p1.htm

Aye, it was a capitalist paradise: per capita income (in today's dollars) of $4300, 1.7 million children (ages 10 to 15) in factories, chances of dying on the job extremely high, with no recourse if you were injured.

Why, it was wonderful.

 

[das müffin mann]

I can't believe this thread is still going on - seriously... why?

im not sure, maybe people haven't realized yet that they are not going to change anyone's views, also for some reason they feel the need to keep bringing up the same damn arguments over and over and over...

gota love the 2 party system...

 

[newconroer]

Sadly enough, no matter who gets elected, Americans might be just wishing they still had Bush Jr. in office.

Yikes.

 

[WhiteLotus]

There's nothing wrong with defense systems. How is it wrong to protect yourself?

There is EVERYTHING wrong with the "defense" missile systems - it's the biggest load of bullshit i have ever heard. If there is another cold war with Russia it will be because of the USA involvement in the affairs of a country that just wants to be left alone and to get on with things.

It's about bloody time you think of Russia as an upcoming market for trade - not some war mongering state that is hell bent on killing everything american

Seriously opinions need to be changed there.

 

[das müffin mann]

There is EVERYTHING wrong with the "defense" missile systems - it's the biggest load of bullshit i have ever heard. If there is another cold war with Russia it will be because of the USA involvement in the affairs of a country that just wants to be left alone and to get on with things.

It's about bloody time you think of Russia as an upcoming market for trade - not some war mongering state that is hell bent on killing everything american

Seriously opinions need to be changed there.

i agree we have NO right to be putting "defense" installations up around Russia, seriously are we trying to provoke them
we are more than capable of defending ourselves from the "rouge" countries with out them
first the Cuban missile crisis, next the polish missile crisis
(yes i know there are more installations then the one in Poland)

 

[WhiteLotus]

i agree we have NO right to be putting "defense" installations up around Russia, seriously are we trying to provoke them
we are more than capable of defending ourselves from the "rouge" countries with out them
first the Cuban missile crisis, next the polish missile crisis
(yes i know there are more installations then the one in Poland)

I agree with you, i was deeply saddened that Poland agreed to let them build a missle system on their soil. Its just a joke, a pathetic excuse for the big wigs in the senate/government to justify spending this amount of money on "defence"

 

[WarEagleAU]

These last few pages have been pretty laughable. I can see ignorance pouring out of alot of folks and I can also see alot of intelligence as well.

@TRT that whole David Letterman/Jay Leno thing is a fraud. Check out Snopes.com for information on that. I got 3 emails with that one with dave one with jay and I forgot the third (maybe it was another Jay leno one).

Personally, the way Russia has been going against us in years past (after 9/11,etc) I dont trust them. Also, I dont see anything wrong with a missile defense shield, but you should ask your allies (all of them, not just a select few). I had more points, but the more shit I read here, the more I Forgot about them.

 

[das müffin mann]

i see something wrong with it when it imposes on other countries boarders, im not sure if we are trying to get into another cold war which very well could escalate, because when you think about it, how is it any different from when Russia put missiles in cuba? sure when they were in cuba they were intended as a first strike capability, but why should russia perceive our attempts to install "defense" installations as any different, especially when they are so close to their boarders
so because we're America and we know whats best they should just shut up and let us put our missiles where we want? face it, were doing what russia did, just on a larger scale, except ours have a "different" purpose

 

[trt740]

These last few pages have been pretty laughable. I can see ignorance pouring out of alot of folks and I can also see alot of intelligence as well.

@TRT that whole David Letterman/Jay Leno thing is a fraud. Check out Snopes.com for information on that. I got 3 emails with that one with dave one with jay and I forgot the third (maybe it was another Jay leno one).

Personally, the way Russia has been going against us in years past (after 9/11,etc) I dont trust them. Also, I dont see anything wrong with a missile defense shield, but you should ask your allies (all of them, not just a select few). I had more points, but the more shit I read here, the more I Forgot about them.

thats why if you read my post I questioned the authenticity at the bottom of the posting in bold print.

It is still a good read and well written.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Russia is still a scary place. Same with China. I have had friends that lived in China and some that lived for a few years in Russia. People still disappear in the night in China. China has no problem with killing millions(and has done so on occasion) of its own people just to prove a point. Same with Russia if it felt the need.

I am not saying missle defense systems would change anything though. China is an economic threat and Russia is a political threat. The extremists in Russia make our NeoNazi's look like Ivy League Alumni. The US is not a bad country, we just need better management.

 

[Apocolypse007]

The US is not a bad country, we just need better management.

Hence, the topic of this thread.....

 

[magibeg]

http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

Everyone here should watch this video(no its not about liberals or republicans, its about propaganda in general).

"In this presentation, experts in the field of communication, politics and media discuss the ways in which George Orwell's writings on propaganda and language remain hauntingly relevant in today's political climate."

 

[FordGT90Concept]

So what? What does USA give the right to 'keep an eye' on Russia because of their fire power? How about USA's "state of the art" army, that seems to be allowed.

To "keep an eye" on something is to say you do not believe the status quo will remain. We do not trust the Russians to protect with their own weapons. That should tell you a lot.

Also, fine to know you're paying Russia to dismantle their nuclear weapons, then again USA does still have them. Also, another point where your tax goes, to this sort of stuff.

Your point? Everything about the USA/Russia relations is anchored to WWII and the Cold War. It is going to be at least a generation before relations stabilize.

It's a bit ignorant, to say the least, to put it in like Russia's backyard. It shows a lot of distrust and it certainly doesnt make Russia feel any safer. Besides that, it makes Europe also more vulnerable for attacks, whether it's aimed at the defense system or based on supporting USA.

It's not meant to make Russia feel safer. And how does it make Europe more vulnerable? It's there to shoot down any long range missiles targeted at Europe. Yes, the site would be a high priority target for them but if they fail to destroy it, it should keep Europe relatively safe. You ought to be thanking us for that present. It could save your life one of these days...

It's plain stupid. If USA government wants to feel like Rambo, well, I prefer not but ok. But also be ready for the consequences instead of hiding in someone else's basement.

Rambo was consistently offensive. This is a defensive weapon. It's like a machine gun or anti-tank nest for the sky. It is only dangerous if you are the enemy and you are in airspace you are not permitted to be in.

You seem to be unable to find anything, I cant be arsed anymore to put any effort in that tbh.

Then I expect you to close that BS tap.

You're kidding right? Georgie was the one who shot first FYI, this gives Russia all the right in the world to go in there. Whether Russia provoked or not, they shouldnt have fired a shot there.

Georgia was basically waging a civil war to retake control of the territory. Russia was trying to annex the territory. Russia shouldn't have got involved. The best way to cause unrest is to have a third party get involved in a two-party civil war.

i agree we have NO right to be putting "defense" installations up around Russia, seriously are we trying to provoke them
we are more than capable of defending ourselves from the "rouge" countries with out them
first the Cuban missile crisis, next the polish missile crisis
(yes i know there are more installations then the one in Poland)

Poland has them because Poland wants them. We are in the progress of installing anti-missile defense structures in Japan too because of the threat from North Korea. As they say, better safe than sorry.

i see something wrong with it when it imposes on other countries boarders, im not sure if we are trying to get into another cold war which very well could escalate, because when you think about it, how is it any different from when Russia put missiles in cuba? sure when they were in cuba they were intended as a first strike capability, but why should russia perceive our attempts to install "defense" installations as any different, especially when they are so close to their boarders
so because we're America and we know whats best they should just shut up and let us put our missiles where we want? face it, were doing what russia did, just on a larger scale, except ours have a "different" purpose

The nuclear missiles we opposed in Cuba were offensive, medium-range weapons capable of delivering a nuclear weapon to Washington, D.C. Cuba had S-75 Dvina sites (air space denial weapons) all over the place during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We haven't and don't protest those because they are defensive structures. It is weapons that project offensive capability into our territory that poses a serious threat.

If we were building a thermonuclear silo in Poland then that would obviously pose problems; however, it is not. Patriot and THAAD systems are incapable of attacking ground targets.

Seriously, an airspace denial weapon is only a "problem" if you intend to attack or invade that airspace. Stay out of it and there isn't any problems.

 

[das müffin mann]

ok a few things
Moscow suggested that the US could use a Russian-rented radar site in Azerbaijan, which shares a border with Iran.
Former President Putin also offered use of a radar site in southern Russia and proposed working with the US and other European countries on a joint defense system.
But the US showed little interest in either idea.

if you think Iran and N. Korea are the only reasons why it is there then you would be wrong
The Iranian military says its Shahab-3 missiles have a range of 2,000km (1,240 miles).

This means that they could reach south-eastern Europe, hitting targets in Nato members Greece, Bulgaria or Romania.

the US is not in danger from Iran atm
and when they do have something that can get to us, they wont use it, they know they can not compete with us when it comes to long range/ air power, we could wipe them off the map easily
the only way they would dare to attack us openly is if a much more power nation launched an attack first *cough*china*cough*

A threat from North Korea could be countered with the US and sea-based systems.

Part of the Russian unhappiness about the Europe sector of the anti-missile system is that it results from the US withdrawal from the ABM (anti ballistic missile) treaty (This treaty limited US and Soviet anti-missile defenses to one site each. The Russians still operate theirs, around Moscow) and Russia is worried about where it might go next.

they are not to happy about the radar we are setting up Czech Republic




can i ask you one thing

can you at least see why Russia would be pissed about our little plan?
face it we would be raising all sorts of hell if they tried to pull that crap in cuba or another neighboring country, and don't call bs on this statement because you know it would be true
because right now they are the only long range threat where these sites would be needed (besides china)


also just a little info
NUCLEAR WARHEADS
Russia
Land-launched: 2,146
Sea-launched: 1,392
Air-launched: 624

US
Land-launched: 1,600
Sea-launched: 3,168
Air-launched: 1,098

another note
thanks to this deal Poland's armed forces are getting a complete overhaul, good for them

another thing
georgia was in fact protecting their citizens in s. osentia (or how ever you spell it)
im not going into a debate on this in this thread, mainly because it doesn't belong here

also if you guys care
Russia is developing a rocket that supposedly bypass the SAM sites
it is called the RS-24
here is some info on that nifty little weapon
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/rs-24.htm

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Hence, the topic of this thread.....

Some people don't get it. Electing McCain is just electing GW Bush's "yes man". Basically the same candidate with more of a chance of dying while in office and a worse VP.


He is smarter than GW Bush(who isn't), but with less of a backbone when it comes to making decisions.

As far as VP's are concerned the creepy old man is better than the mildly attractive(for her age) unprepared hockey mom from Alaska. Her experience as governor is minor and has no foreign relations experience at all. She cannot give a straight answer to any question I have seen without it being a "rhetorical softball" question.

Cheney's decisions/actions were bad but he definately was more in touch with understanding war and the basics of foreign policy(even if it was close to imperialism).

 

[FordGT90Concept]

can you at least see why Russia would be pissed about our little plan?

Nope. They are defensive structures. Russian sites aren't capable of intercepting short, medium, and long range weapons. Hell, they aren't capable of intercepting anything except aircraft. Those systems also require AGEIS RADAR systems, not the traditional rotary RADARs the Russians use.

Yes, their offer is generous but it doesn't meet our needs so we turned it down.

face it we would be raising all sorts of hell if they tried to pull that crap in cuba or another neighboring country, and don't call bs on this statement because you know it would be true
because right now they are the only long range threat where these sites would be needed (besides china)

Last time I checked, Cuba still has S-75 sites and we aren't "raising all sorts of hell" over it.

also if you guys care
Russia is developing a rocket that supposedly bypass the SAM sites
it is called the RS-24
here is some info on that nifty little weapon
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/rs-24.htm

We'll have something to counter it by the time it is deployed (2050), assuming we don't already.

 

[WarEagleAU]

HIS yes man...

Ill take hockey mom over old senile cranky Biden any day.

 

[SK-1]

WoooT! Go Obama


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah9W24oMIRc

 

[SK-1]

I agree with you, i was deeply saddened that Poland agreed to let them build a missle system on their soil. Its just a joke, a pathetic excuse for the big wigs in the senate/government to justify spending this amount of money on "defence"

Hmmmm,...Read the FINE print AND look at the percentage of gross national product used. It is not that far off. A country will buy as much protection as it can afford. Proven in the 80's
and here at your link.

http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4


http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4

 

[Bigjohn]

Yeha... after last nights 30 minute cool-aide dip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghlzS23q3s8

 

[Bigjohn]

Hey SK-1. thanks for that milex data site.

Bahrain (rich oil country) uses 4-5% of its GDP on defense.

USA uses 4-5% on defense

Canada uses 1-2%... why? because of the great relationship with the HUGE country to their south .....

 

[WhiteLotus]

Hey SK-1. thanks for that milex data site.

Bahrain (rich oil country) uses 4-5% of its GDP on defense.

USA uses 4-5% on defense

Canada uses 1-2%... why? because of the great relationship with the HUGE country to their south .....

the figures are based on actual spending in $ not % of GDP, figures can be used in many ways. - i found that in 2 minutes and didn't have the time to read thoroughly - my mistake.


Also Canada (9,984,670 sq km) is bigger than the USA (9,826,630 sq km)

Yes, their offer is generous but it doesn't meet our needs so we turned it down.

What needs? no, seriously what needs are these?

 

[btarunr]

Canada's area is somewhat variable. In summer, some of its 'land' melts away. But still records point to it being larger. The US is still huge.

 

[Bigjohn]

the figures are based on actual spending in $ not % of GDP, figures can be used in many ways.


Also Canada (9,984,670 sq km) is bigger than the USA (9,826,630 sq km)

FAIL. you didn't explore the link and read everything, did you...typical of a liberal... can't digest the facts because they get in the way of the feelings...

did you read the whole thing?
As percentage of gross domestic product is the third table...

But canada's population in total is
about 10% of the US.
http://www.swivel.com/graphs/spread...ange]=canad&graph[time_range]=canada&commit=>