So...sorry but why exatly did we unilaterally appease Putin...aGAIN?? - Page 2

Prophet Saddam · 09-21-2009, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 ME] - not to fight china- but to show china that despite their 1.5 billion people we [YaHooka?] 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!

does it even matter if we keep having the invasion from the South?

verklingen · 09-21-2009, 07:58 AM

i fail to see how this is appeasement of any kind. that seems to be the go-to buzzword for anything one's political opponents do regarding other countries/parties that one would not have had done himself. calling this appeasement is a failure of great magnitude on many fronts, exposing the OP's flippant derisiveness or woeful ignorance, at best. . .

stoneric · 09-21-2009, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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!

I thought this post was about our "defense" system on russia's borders being scrapped, not some condescending jingoistic rant. Tell me how encircling russia and "pissing" her off adds to our national security. Or how we are protecting Europe form the persian menance that spends 1% of what we do on national defense. I don't need to hear the neocon version of why our benevolent terrorism should be appreciated.

John F. Kerry · 09-21-2009, 09:43 AM

i guess at times like these im just glad that there are enough people like me to offset the people like u guys.

if u guys want a lesson in how to make a coherent and respectable post that disagrees with me extremely sharply - see makros post on the proceeding page, and try to learn from it.

Prophet Saddam · 09-21-2009, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John F. Kerry

i guess at times like these im just glad that there are enough people like me to offset the people like u guys.

You're never going to fight either, so yours are empty words.

Quote:

if u guys want a lesson in how to make a coherent and respectable post that disagrees with me extremely sharply - see makros post on the proceeding page, and try to learn from it.

The proceeding page? I don't have time to wait for a reply.

verklingen · 09-21-2009, 10:03 AM

makros simply hasn't dealt with you enough. all you did was thank him for his opinion without opening any discussion about it, and that's about as much as can be expected.

the fact remains that calling what amounts to deciding not to piss a sovereign nation off as much appeasement is a ridiculous spin tactic. yes, there's that spin word again and yes you sure do it a lot.

John F. Kerry · 09-21-2009, 10:13 AM

"all you did was thank him for his opinion without opening any discussion about it, and that's about as much as can be expected."

lol. thats exactly what SHOULD happen - not people angrily call one another out because their views differ.

Prophet Saddam · 09-21-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John F. Kerry

"all you did was thank him for his opinion without opening any discussion about it, and that's about as much as can be expected."

lol. thats exactly what SHOULD happen - not people angrily call one another out because their views differ.

who's angry? you're the one who wants to bomb the world.

John F. Kerry · 09-21-2009, 10:18 AM

even if i tried to make sense of what some of u say i really cant- im not going to fight (because u know me)- so for me to have the opinion that war is bad but defense is neccesary is simply not allowed?

ok j, try to understand the logic behind such replys (my brain says to itself). hmmm.... i guess it means that i should either be a infantry soldier or that i cant support a strong defense... and the fact that my keyboard mispelled a word because the battery is low, that also really makes me reexamine my logic...

dont u guys even give me credit for still wanting to talk this shit out with u ? makros gave me an intersting perspective - many others do too- i dont wana just be shouted out of here from stupid shit like mispellings and the utterly ridiculous logic i heard in hte last few posts.... why is that all u seem to want to do?

John F. Kerry · 09-21-2009, 10:20 AM

then the mods come in and seem to think theres fighting going on - i dont care what people say - talk all the shit u want, just offer a handful of intersting observations as well and it will be worth sifting thru to find them

Prophet Saddam · 09-21-2009, 11:40 AM

you don't have to be infantry, but do something so your talk isn't so cheap.

and speaking of $$$, i'm sure obama's reconsideration will save us some.

John F. Kerry · 09-21-2009, 12:26 PM

stoernic u make it sound like it was agressive to russia in the first place-

not only was it totally legal , and totally defensive, but it was only 10 missle interceptors which would supposedly "neutralize" russias thousands of icbms..

the russians knew it couldnt possible be effective against them and was only designed to be used against Iran, and the principality of the whole situation makes it surprising to me that Obama would just seemingly up and do this without trying to win some substantive things in response-

i guess you dont have any particular moral desire to care about the Czech republic or Poland - because those countries are trying to move into a new era and yet they get their gas supplies cut off in mid winter and all sorts of other thuggish tactics from russia.

poland and the czechs - lets screw them, and not even consult them, and not explain to them why we are abandoning what seemed to be a strategic and moral partnership with countries in eastern europe that wanted more freedom and to be allies of the US- in exchange - not for some REAL CONCRETE movement on ISSUES OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE- but rather to "make the russias feel good and if they are less paranoid AND WANT TO HELP US OUT - its a bonus" - says Mr. O.

When is the Apology Tour going to end?

Prophet Saddam · 09-21-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John F. Kerry

stoernic u make it sound like it was agressive to russia in the first place-

not only was it totally legal , and totally defensive, but it was only 10 missle interceptors which would supposedly "neutralize" russias thousands of icbms..

the russians knew it couldnt possible be effective against them and was only designed to be used against Iran, and the principality of the whole situation makes it surprising to me that Obama would just seemingly up and do this without trying to win some substantive things in response-

i guess you dont have any particular moral desire to care about the Czech republic or Poland - because those countries are trying to move into a new era and yet they get their gas supplies cut off in mid winter and all sorts of other thuggish tactics from russia.

poland and the czechs - lets screw them, and not even consult them, and not explain to them why we are abandoning what seemed to be a strategic and moral partnership with countries in eastern europe that wanted more freedom and to be allies of the US- in exchange - not for some REAL CONCRETE movement on ISSUES OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE- but rather to "make the russias feel good and if they are less paranoid AND WANT TO HELP US OUT - its a bonus" - says Mr. O.

When is the Apology Tour going to end?

maybe you could go help them get their gas reconnected if its such a travesty. otherwise, i'm not sure what you're getting so worked up over.

the secret muslim in the oval office?

stoneric · 09-21-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John F. Kerry

stoernic u make it sound like it was agressive to russia in the first place-

not only was it totally legal , and totally defensive, but it was only 10 missle interceptors which would supposedly "neutralize" russias thousands of icbms..

the russians knew it couldnt possible be effective against them and was only designed to be used against Iran, and the principality of the whole situation makes it surprising to me that Obama would just seemingly up and do this without trying to win some substantive things in response-

i guess you dont have any particular moral desire to care about the Czech republic or Poland - because those countries are trying to move into a new era and yet they get their gas supplies cut off in mid winter and all sorts of other thuggish tactics from russia.

poland and the czechs - lets screw them, and not even consult them, and not explain to them why we are abandoning what seemed to be a strategic and moral partnership with countries in eastern europe that wanted more freedom and to be allies of the US- in exchange - not for some REAL CONCRETE movement on ISSUES OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE- but rather to "make the russias feel good and if they are less paranoid AND WANT TO HELP US OUT - its a bonus" - says Mr. O.

When is the Apology Tour going to end?

A defensive system can be an offensive system in a big hurry. Any problem with russia have only 10 "defensive" missles nearby?

The system was doubtful to work.

Iran is not a threat to Europe, the US or anyone for that matter including mother israel.

The overwhelming majority of the people of the Czech republic and Poland don't want the system deployed.

We are not concerned about any eastern european peoples freedom, we are only concered about our own interests.

B. · 09-21-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?!

Just wanted to mention that I also see the difference between strong defence and a threatening posture.

I don't think anyone here views the world as perfect, we just have different views on who the aggressors are.

I don't see Russia or China attempting to surround America with missile shields.

John F. Kerry · 09-22-2009, 12:15 AM

actually russia was the first country to build anti missle missles back in the 70s, before america built missles with multiple independantly guided warheads like 10 on each missle making missle defense between the superpowers impossible and insanely expensive...

the only missle defense that would be effective in the modern world (maybe some day far off in the future this will change) is against a rogue state like iran or n korea or pakistan that has only a few nukes and it would only have to hit a few, probably not state of the art, nukes to be effective.

John F. Kerry · 09-22-2009, 12:20 AM

honestly effective missle defense is an essential I Repeat ESSENTIAL element of a future world free of nuclear weapons -

this isnt about america and russia- its about every country wanting to get their hands on some kind of nuke or nuclear power to feel powerful... if we have a system that can make if far far more dificult for these rogue third world countries to build a sophisticated enough weapon to evade missle defence systems AND go long distances And explode right and everything else- and get enough radioactive material as well- then it would make it much easier for the big countries to contemplate giving up most or all of their nukes- if they knew that iran or pakistan could end up building a nuclear icbm and blackmailing others with it- because a sophisticated missle shield will protect against it- whats the better idea- to hope everyone will just be good and not follow the rules of self interst that govern nations and try to outdo the others unless the can be STOPPED with a DEFENSE that can protect and do nothing else. the russians liked their ABMs to an umbrella- what could be wrong with an umbrella? when it rains u simlpy open it up .

it doenst work in the cold war MAD world- but today or at least in the near to mid future, it is a brilliant idea and we should be devoting huge amounts of money and hiring milliosn of people to work on it- its MOONSHOT time.

i guess obama says hes still for missle defesne so we'll have to see- but as to the questtion of giving up something for nothing- i still think it was pretty amatureish . Os still got some learnin to do.

Prophet Saddam · 09-22-2009, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John F. Kerry

honestly effective missle defense is an essential I Repeat ESSENTIAL element of a future world free of nuclear weapons -

this isnt about america and russia- its about every country wanting to get their hands on some kind of nuke or nuclear power to feel powerful... if we have a system that can make if far far more dificult for these rogue third world countries to build a sophisticated enough weapon to evade missle defence systems AND go long distances And explode right and everything else- and get enough radioactive material as well- then it would make it much easier for the big countries to contemplate giving up most or all of their nukes- if they knew that iran or pakistan could end up building a nuclear icbm and blackmailing others with it- because a sophisticated missle shield will protect against it- whats the better idea- to hope everyone will just be good and not follow the rules of self interst that govern nations and try to outdo the others unless the can be STOPPED with a DEFENSE that can protect and do nothing else. the russians liked their ABMs to an umbrella- what could be wrong with an umbrella? when it rains u simlpy open it up .

it doenst work in the cold war MAD world- but today or at least in the near to mid future, it is a brilliant idea and we should be devoting huge amounts of money and hiring milliosn of people to work on it- its MOONSHOT time.

i guess obama says hes still for missle defesne so we'll have to see- but as to the questtion of giving up something for nothing- i still think it was pretty amatureish . Os still got some learnin to do.

o, dear...you and your frat-boy dick waving.

obama's move will save us plenty of money, and appears to be a pretty good diplomatic move.

from the article I posted previously in this thread:

Quote:

The new U.S. missile-defense plan would rely on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air as a bulwark against Iranian short- and medium-range missiles.

If we're not even worried about Russia, how is it appeasement? If we're going to be concerned about rogue nations sending out bombs, maybe we should work with countries like Russia and China to build a better defense against such attacks.

In the meantime, keep thinking that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is out to destroy our country.

verklingen · 09-22-2009, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John F. Kerry

its about every country wanting to get their hands on some kind of nuke or nuclear power to feel powerful

gee i wonder what ever gave them that idea?????

Makros_01 · 09-22-2009, 08:49 AM

^^
what he said

09-21-2009, 07:58 AM	#22 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,031 Thanks: 795 Thanked 1,470 Times in 940 Posts	i fail to see how this is appeasement of any kind. that seems to be the go-to buzzword for anything one's political opponents do regarding other countries/parties that one would not have had done himself. calling this appeasement is a failure of great magnitude on many fronts, exposing the OP's flippant derisiveness or woeful ignorance, at best. . . __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

09-21-2009, 10:03 AM	#26 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,031 Thanks: 795 Thanked 1,470 Times in 940 Posts	makros simply hasn't dealt with you enough. all you did was thank him for his opinion without opening any discussion about it, and that's about as much as can be expected. the fact remains that calling what amounts to deciding not to piss a sovereign nation off as much appeasement is a ridiculous spin tactic. yes, there's that spin word again and yes you sure do it a lot. __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

09-21-2009, 11:40 AM	#31 (permalink)
Prophet Saddam YaHookan 2011 Winner Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: CA, fuck yeah Posts: 16,340 Blog Entries: 11 Thanks: 3,690 Thanked 713 Times in 479 Posts	you don't have to be infantry, but do something so your talk isn't so cheap. and speaking of $$$, i'm sure obama's reconsideration will save us some. __________________ SUPPORT THE TROOPS --------------------- BRING THEM HOME & FUCK THE WAR

09-22-2009, 08:49 AM	#40 (permalink)
Makros_01 Old School Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 639 Thanks: 17 Thanked 16 Times in 15 Posts	^^ what he said __________________ sometimes i'm drunk.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

09-21-2009, 09:43 AM	#24 (permalink)
John F. Kerry Weiner-stache Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,643 Thanks: 1,772 Thanked 454 Times in 328 Posts	i guess at times like these im just glad that there are enough people like me to offset the people like u guys. if u guys want a lesson in how to make a coherent and respectable post that disagrees with me extremely sharply - see makros post on the proceeding page, and try to learn from it.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)