So...sorry but why exatly did we unilaterally appease Putin...aGAIN??

[John F. Kerry]

ok didnt people just get thru saying how Bush was a retard for saying he "saw into putins soul" and thought he was a good guy- thus giving up all US leverage against Russia in exchange for some "feel good" time with puutty put....

then Putin proceeded to block resolutions against iran for 8 years and try to get old warsaw countries back into their sphere of soviet influence....


so now obama comes to the stage and what does he do?


friggen uniltarally withdraw the plan that pissed the russians off more than anything else we did and really forced our leverage against them?


so obama just says ok well give up that plan , im not saying im against that, but how can it be wise to UNILATERALLY ANNOUNCE that your giving up the biggest irritant to a competitor country that has been BLOCKING your serious efforts for 8 years... in the "HOPE" (obama oh man it sounds so silly at this point) that Putty putt will be nicer and help us out this time.


why didnt we make a treaty and each agree to do something good for the other- rather than just give up all our leverage and hope russia will abandon 200 years of history and start to be alltruisic and not follow its own national interests....



....if and when we realize that we didnt get shit for doing this and russia just played obama the same way it played bush, i think obama should definately take a serious amount of blame for this seemingly foolish move. how did hillary clintons state department let this happen - i mean i had assumed she was reasonably competant and experienced in such matters even if Big O isnt.

[Canuck Wisdom]

I didn't really follow sorry. Why is not doing the missile defense shield in eastern europe a bad thing?

[John F. Kerry]

what part dont u understand about how unilaterally giving up things in the hope they other side will do the same is not that smart?

[Prophet Saddam]

Russia says it won't deploy missiles near Poland - Yahoo! News

nothing much going on here...

[Canuck Wisdom]

Im not being sarcastic. I donno.

What are they giving up? The way I see it, the Bush admin wanted to put missiles in a foreign country which is near Russia. Russia was pissed about this. Obama decided to back off a little (I don't think 'shelving' the plan means its totally gone, just not currently being pursued) and so of course russia is happy about this.

In my understanding, the US is not giving anything but, but rather holding back from trying to establish global military supremacy. Its a rather aggressive plan, putting the missiles in there.

[John F. Kerry]

saddam im really interested not only to know why u dont care that we gave up our bargaining chip in exchange for empty promises,

but also why u feel it necessary to defend obama as a knee jerk reaction- id be much more inclined to give it a chance to work if i knew his supporters viewed it with the same high level of skepticism that i do and are watching him closely.

[Prophet Saddam]

saddam im really interested not only to know why u dont care that we gave up our bargaining chip in exchange for empty promises,

but also why u feel it necessary to defend obama as a knee jerk reaction- id be much more inclined to give it a chance to work if i knew his supporters viewed it with the same high level of skepticism that i do and are watching him closely.

i haven't said i don't care, i haven't defended obama, but i do view him with a high level of skepticism and watch him closely.

i don't trust black people either.

/still beating your wife?

[stoneric]

A bargaining chip to j-wonder means we had our foot on their throat and now we don't. It means encircling russia by making former soviet satelites members of nato, an organization that should have folded along with the soviet empire, and thinking russia shouldn't have a problem with that. Something like we wouldn't have had a problem with the soviets including a central american country as part of the warsaw pact if our empire had folded first. And of course russia blocking sanctions against a country that has adhered to the NPT(Iran) as compared to our continuous blind eye to the terrorist state of israel that wants nothing to do with the NPT and violates more un resolutions than that rouge state of Iran makes no difference to him.

And hillary is a war mongering bich. The only difference between her and cunti is skin color.

[Makros_01]

From outside the bubble that is the US, it is widely viewsed as a good thing. Ratcheting up tension between heavily 'nuclified' (?) nations is just irresponsible. The concept of maintaining some sort of irritance (what, like a mosquitto) is "just not smart"

Dispite the empty fact that the misile system was deamed a response to iranian potential terror on usrael and southern europe.
I'm catching that youre FOR warring with nations no end jfk?
besides, it's all a complicite mess.
russia fights afganistan so the us supports the afgans
iran and iraq go at it after a revolution in iran (very suspicious)
russia helps iran - the us helps iraq..
woops! now iraq is outa control..
woops! iranians like the taste of coca cola
and now they dance around their own problem.
funny

[Makros_01]

and then
BOOOYA!


[url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/18/2690654.htmurl]

COMMON SENSE PREVAILS!

[John F. Kerry]

A bargaining chip to j-wonder means we had our foot on their throat and now we don't. It means encircling russia by making former soviet satelites members of nato, an organization that should have folded along with the soviet empire, and thinking russia shouldn't have a problem with that. Something like we wouldn't have had a problem with the soviets including a central american country as part of the warsaw pact if our empire had folded first. And of course russia blocking sanctions against a country that has adhered to the NPT(Iran) as compared to our continuous blind eye to the terrorist state of israel that wants nothing to do with the NPT and violates more un resolutions than that rouge state of Iran makes no difference to him.

And hillary is a war mongering bich. The only difference between her and cunti is skin color.

wow a topic stoneric feels passionate enough about to write more than a sentence. im impressed seriously.

[John F. Kerry]

makros u seem cool but what in sam hill are u talking about?

[Ego Tripping]

wow a topic stoneric feels passionate enough about to write more than a sentence. im impressed seriously.

Uh yeah, thanks for the response to a well thought out post. Just curious, what's will be your alt's name? Let us know ahead of time, if you can.

[Makros_01]

the abc article was about how russia did on good faith what was required..

[Grieves]

Uh yeah, thanks for the response to a well thought out post. Just curious, what's will be your alt's name? Let us know ahead of time, if you can.

IM mad becuase its possible that insurance will be mandatory and being without it could result in a fine or other problems. bear in mind i dont possess insurance dont ever really want to there are always charities i go too when i need medical help and being required to have insurance or else is COMPLETELY LAME

from the obama health care thread....Has all the trademarks of j..

[John F. Kerry]

[Peace seeker]

Bush's nuclear missile defence program, was more than a really bad joke.

Who the fuck does Bush think he is, putting nuclear missiles on European ground huh?

he can take his missiles and shuv em up his texan ass

Obama was right for putting the plan down.

[John F. Kerry]

dont any of u see the difference between a strong defense and appeasment?


like do u think the world we live in today is so perfect that we shouldnt worry about agression anymore? i certainly wish it was so, but the realization that we are where we are today on the cusp of this utopian world in large part because the US and its allies finally defeated most of the evil in the world and even brought the evil empire of the USSR into our family of nations now....

is the general consensus among u guys that america shouldnt and ought not have to have overwhelming strength so as to promote peace and a pax americana anymore?

peace is wonderful and its certainly the desire of many.


but peace can also lead to appeasement and to violence - 50 years of peace from the end of the us civil war to the start of ww1 was replaced by the worst half century of war in all of humanity - and the fact that during the heady times of peace people didnt care that countries were developing strong weapons and militant ideologies because it was easier to just love the peace that reigned at the time and not want to look at the real picture developing.

i hate that my ideas get so many people angry, because at the end of the day i want the same thing u do - and i think that the way you are going about thinking it will come about is simply wrong.

whos gonna stand up to china- not to fight china- but to show china that despite their 1.5 billion people we are still strong enough to maintain the balance of power in the world and shouldnt be thought of as a potential target-


that would be better for china (as they woudlnt get any ideas of starting huge wars) and it would be better for Us (as we would be able to protect ourselves with ACTIONs and not simply words)

"who the fuck does bush think he is putting missles on european ground"

like anybody who knows even a small amount of modern history knows that american missles were in europe for decades guarding against soviet agression - so who does bush think he is? how about one more president in a long line of us presidents that continued a policy designed to protect the world from soviet agression.

the same point i made about being powerful to check china applies to russia as well- russia will appreciate a desire for peace but only from a POSITION OF STRENGTH- if we are weak , then we will be taken advantage of -its as simple as that.

so does peace mean let your guard down for a prolonged enough period to give the people against u enough time to develop capabilities to ultimately destroy you?

in the pax americana we are allowed to debate these issues freely , imagine comunist china was on the top of the heap - do u think they would allow us to freely debate their actions the same way the Us does? rofl. u people who want to change things so much i think dont recognize how good things are and how the potential is there in the framework of freedom and democracy to make it even better- if not perfect, as long as we always keep in mind that freedom comes from STRENGTH!

[Makros_01]

Yes freedom is a wonderful thing. And no, of course people do not want a dictatorial style of authoratarianism. But as you've said in another post about world stability, thats all history. And not just any history. The way the world engages in combat has changed. Currently its small flare-spots and diplomatic dancing that keeps the world from polarising about an ideology, in my humble opinion.

I do NOT want a pax Americana. Dispite what some people think, Australia doesn't need the 'shield' of a U.S. alliance. Im not against it. It serves well sometimes trade wise. However if Australia ran like america did, China wouldnt have to conquor us, theyd just buy us.

We as a race, as a species, will fight evermore until we figure out how to get everyone the same lavish lifestyle: without the restrictions of laws to inhibit their preferences, and without the monetry unit so people who want power over others can wage their game.

Pax America doesnt want to give up the monety unit. Because to even think it is socialist.. And socialism is automatically bad becuase, as you have said.
america and its allies defeated most of the evil. Socialism=Evil
Welcome my friend to being brainwashed by a very large timeless organization called the US Government. (that last bit was, of course only in jest)

[John F. Kerry]

^ interesting perspective thanks for adding it.