Wilber Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [/indent] like, what's the U.S. problem?... it's supposed to be a system intended to address a... potential... threat from Iran. Right, hey? what's the beef? If the U.S. openly states the "shield" is intended to thwart a... potential... threat from Iran, why would it object to Russia's expressed concerns? Why would the U.S. object to formally guaranteeing the "shield" won't be used against Russia? Hey now, what was that lil' ole Cuba thingee that the U.S. so objected to, hey? No "tit for tat" in the PorchDog house? One slight difference between this and Cuba. The Cuban missiles were nuclear ballistic missiles for use against targets in the US. The shield is designed to intercept incoming missiles. But you're right, no harm in the US guaranteeing it won't be used against Russia, because if Russia did ever launch a missile against the West, all guarantees would be worthless anyway. Edited May 4, 2012 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
DogOnPorch Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 And how does an F-35 compare to that? How does an Su-35 compare to an MX missile? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 What was the name of the last French General that disputed NATO interoperability, and after said dispute saw the French retract from NATO? Had a big nose and was shaped like a pear… I think it was the same guy who told the Americans to remove all their soldiers from France, to which Dean Rusk responded, "Does that include the dead Americans in military cemeteries as well?" Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 How does an Su-35 compare to an MX missile? Not very well....advantage MX....if it was still operational. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) why... that was Putin's response to the U.S. Bush admin's eastern European "missile defence shield"... the Pentagon's plans to site missile interceptors and radar shields in Poland/Czech Republic. U.S. aggression, apparently, has repercussions, hey? lol...that's certainly the media's claim. But, the Yar is the next gen of Russian MIRV equipped ICBMs that are post 'Cold War'. That is...Russian...not Soviet. But, that's not the real point. Russia just threatened a first strike and, typically, you and your ilk just brush it off as a non-issue. Russia has changed, you claim. I say not enough, apparently. Edited May 4, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 Not very well....advantage MX....if it was still operational. True enough. But GH's stupid point is that F-35s are somehow responsible for missile defence. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 How does an Su-35 compare to an MX missile? So we should be buying missiles and not planes? Quote
GostHacked Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 True enough. But GH's stupid point is that F-35s are somehow responsible for missile defence. My point was only as stupid as the post I replied to ..... Quote
DogOnPorch Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 So we should be buying missiles and not planes? Sure thing, Professor. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 Sure thing, Professor. Don't insult the great Shady by calling me Professor. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 My point was only as stupid as the post I replied to ..... So Russia's threat of a first strike in Europe is a non-issue. I get it. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 Don't insult the great Shady by calling me Professor. You're his liberal counterpart. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 True enough. But GH's stupid point is that F-35s are somehow responsible for missile defence. It's all the same to them....big bad "military industrial complex" complete with Ike warnings while he led the biggest US post-WW2 militarization in history. Now they are strike fighter experts because of Google and American alphabet soup. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 It's all the same to them....big bad "military industrial complex" complete with Ike warnings while he led the biggest US post-WW2 militarization in history. Now they are strike fighter experts because of Google and American alphabet soup. And not a peep why this new and improved Russia 3.0 is really any different than Russia 2.0 The women have access to make-up? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bleeding heart Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 I’m a "leftie"? First time for everything I suppose…… To our friend Fletch, everyone to the left of Pinochet is a leftie. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 Sorry, Was directed elswhere... I can see by your spelling and grammar you are not a leftie.. Because lefties don't understand that "Was" is always capitalized. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
waldo Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 like, what's the U.S. problem?... it's supposed to be a system intended to address a... potential... threat from Iran. Right, hey? what's the beef? If the U.S. openly states the "shield" is intended to thwart a... potential... threat from Iran, why would it object to Russia's expressed concerns? Why would the U.S. object to formally guaranteeing the "shield" won't be used against Russia? What's an RS24 Yar? why... that was Putin's response to the U.S. Bush admin's eastern European "missile defence shield"... the Pentagon's plans to site missile interceptors and radar shields in Poland/Czech Republic. U.S. aggression, apparently, has repercussions, hey? lol...that's certainly the media's claim. But, the Yar is the next gen of Russian MIRV equipped ICBMs that are post 'Cold War'. That is...Russian...not Soviet. But, that's not the real point. Russia just threatened a first strike and, typically, you and your ilk just brush it off as a non-issue. Russia has changed, you claim. I say not enough, apparently. oh snap! It's finally become clear why you're so hyped on the F-35 going up against the Russian ICBMs! Nice distraction... an admirable effort on your part to fuel the starved cold-war flames, hey? in any case, it truly boggles to read you classify the Russian RS-24 as "first strike"... in the face of the U.S. openly pushing for the "defense shield", just steps away from Russia. But again, you refuse to answer the simple basic question: if the "defense shield" isn't intended to target the Russians, why won't the U.S. formally state/sign that it won't aim the missiles toward Russia? By the by, what's the U.S. been up to in modernizing it's "Peacemakers" (/snarc). Quote
Smallc Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 Does wasting bandwidth with excessive quote upon quote make you feel smart, or something? Quote
bleeding heart Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) Does wasting bandwidth with excessive quote upon quote make you feel smart, or something? By most appearances, it would seem that Waldo is smart. The quote-upon-quote method is not my preferred style, but I'm aware that it's premised on the idea that these are ongoing conversations which--for the sake of honest discussion--demand a contextual understanding of what has been said, responded to, and then rejoinded yet again. They take effort to read...but then, that's not exactly demanding too much, I hope?...and if they are carefully read, they actually tend to offer clarity, rather than it's opposite. It's far preferable to the usual out-of-context quoting in which a few folks here have declared me a "terrorist supporter," a "communist," and other nonsensical pap, which is intentionally obfuscatory and dishonest. I daresay you've been disingenuously targeted in some ways yourself. Edited May 4, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
DogOnPorch Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) oh snap! It's finally become clear why you're so hyped on the F-35 going up against the Russian ICBMs! Nice distraction... an admirable effort on your part to fuel the starved cold-war flames, hey? in any case, it truly boggles to read you classify the Russian RS-24 as "first strike"... in the face of the U.S. openly pushing for the "defense shield", just steps away from Russia. But again, you refuse to answer the simple basic question: if the "defense shield" isn't intended to target the Russians, why won't the U.S. formally state/sign that it won't aim the missiles toward Russia? By the by, what's the U.S. been up to in modernizing it's "Peacemakers" (/snarc). Of course it is intended to counter Russia. Plus, it was Russia, not the US that made the threat. Or has your waldo brain dumped that useful tidbit of info as a non-issue? Edited May 4, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 The quote-upon-quote method is not my preferred style, but I'm aware that it's premised on the idea that these are ongoing conversations which--for the sake of honest discussion--demand a contextual understanding of what has been said, responded to, and then rejoinded yet again. Hence the arrow at the top of every quote, which allows you to follow them back to their source (when it works). Quote
DogOnPorch Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 I was sent to the cooler for 30 days for excessive quoting. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 Does wasting bandwidth with excessive quote upon quote make you feel smart, or something? it was only 3 deep... are you the bandwidth monitor? As the astute MLW member 'bleeding heart' highlighted, context is everything. In the particular example that has you so charged, I repeated the two statements/questions MLW member 'DogOnPorch' refused to answer in his rush to distract with his Red Menace fetish. Quote
waldo Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 Of course it is intended to counter Russia. Plus, it was Russia, not the US that made the threat. Or has your waldo brain dumped that useful tidbit of info as a non-issue? make up your mind. Either it's intended to counter Iran or it's intended to target Russia... oh, wait... you're actually acknowledging the U.S. "defense shield" initiative is intended to target Russia. And you wonder why the Russians might be a bit perturbed about having newly installed missiles pointed towards them, hey? but let's bring this thread back on track. How about you draw the relationship/ties between the F-35 and your fears of Russian ICBMs! Quote
Smallc Posted May 4, 2012 Report Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) it was only 3 deep... are you the bandwidth monitor? Generally, a quote should not be larger than a reply. But I took the topic...off topic. I apologize. You can all go back to your links full of out of context quotes. Edited May 4, 2012 by Smallc Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.