|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 2, 2014 17:47:18 GMT -5
So you're a gun totin' Putin fan? Or just picking a foreign country's leader over our president because of partisan tendencies? How about, because Obama has lost, decisively, every contention they've had? What will happen when the dust clears and you repubs realize that no one thinks like you, and doesn't see Obama as the 100% loser you repubs paint him as? Of course the gimmes don't see him as a loser. They're ecstatic about his Robin Hood complex cause it benefits them. But let's be honest: too many of those people aren't smart enough or educated enough to understand the implications of Obama's policies. Maybe instead of counting on your negativity campaign to discredit Obama as your only reason to vote republican, you guys can become part if out country again and actually start coming up with positives to further the idea America will move forward. Well, that's certainly true. If the Pubs put up some nuts and people who can't reach across they aisle, or don't even care to (Mitt Romney) they may be both surprised and disappointed by 2014. It cannot be exclusively about why the other guy isn't any good. Although that got Obama elected in '08 - surely you don't think he got elected on his vast experience as a community organizer, do you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 17:52:54 GMT -5
The Russian Mob is back....
As someone who lived thru those days Reagan was welcomed
Not in my world. And many others. Reagan used the L word all the time. I found it strange the leader of my country wanted to disparage me because I thought different than him. Didn't seem American. I think it's no coincidence Rush Limbaugh and his ilk started becoming big at that time. Not a coincidence. You're referring to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed in 1987. Essentially what that measure did was give people an alternative to the major media outlets, which never missed a chance to bash Reagan during his Presidency. (It's oftentimes been said that the media hate Hitler, Stalin and Reagan, but not necessarily in that order.) Congress was vehemently opposed, but I guess free choice scares some people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 17:54:22 GMT -5
Some of us really do not like government acting in the nanny fashion.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Mar 2, 2014 18:03:41 GMT -5
In 2008, Sarah Palin, of all people, forecast the invasion of the Ukraine as a likely scenario of President Obama's indecisiveness and lack of experience in dealing with the world. I voted for McCain-Palin not out of a sense that they were actually capable, but because I just could not vote for the current team of clowns. How they must feel to know that Palin was smarter than both of them...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 18:12:15 GMT -5
If Putin is worried about his Naval access to the Black Sea, why can't he do what the US does. WE lease naval bases all over the world.
linky Yes, but of course, he could lease one in Cuba couldn't he? As long as Putin doesn't store any intermediate range nuclear missiles there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 18:25:30 GMT -5
Yes, but of course, he could lease one in Cuba couldn't he? As long as Putin doesn't store any intermediate range nuclear missiles there. And will Obama remove all of his intermediate range nuclear missile from that long list of foreign bases that you linked to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 18:32:14 GMT -5
He will sell them on eBay.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Mar 2, 2014 18:36:18 GMT -5
As long as Putin doesn't store any intermediate range nuclear missiles there. And will Obama remove all of his intermediate range nuclear missile from that long list of foreign bases that you linked to? He already has removed them from the eastern European nations. You guys really should study up on recent world history before you make some of these "statements" of facts of yours. Under the current president of the ex-superpower known as the US the nation has lost all credibility and influence on world events. But you do have to hand it to him on one promise he made good on to "fundamentally change the US".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 18:42:08 GMT -5
And will Obama remove all of his intermediate range nuclear missile from that long list of foreign bases that you linked to? He already has removed them from the eastern European nations. You guys really should study up on recent world history before you make some of these "statements" of facts of yours. Under the current president of the ex-superpower known as the US the nation has lost all credibility and influence on world events. But you do have to hand it to him on one promise he made good on to "fundamentally change the US". If you believe that US warships in the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea do not carry nuclear warheads then I have a bridge you may want to buy...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 18:52:15 GMT -5
He already has removed them from the eastern European nations. You guys really should study up on recent world history before you make some of these "statements" of facts of yours. Under the current president of the ex-superpower known as the US the nation has lost all credibility and influence on world events. But you do have to hand it to him on one promise he made good on to "fundamentally change the US". If you believe that US warships in the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea do not carry nuclear warheads then I have a bridge you may want to buy... Not to mention a submarine or two...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 18:56:03 GMT -5
If you believe that US warships in the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea do not carry nuclear warheads then I have a bridge you may want to buy... Not to mention a submarine or two... Not being a navy type, I was lumping those in as 'US warships'... I know that was wrong of me, I do not wish to offend any submariners here.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Mar 2, 2014 19:11:54 GMT -5
He already has removed them from the eastern European nations. You guys really should study up on recent world history before you make some of these "statements" of facts of yours. Under the current president of the ex-superpower known as the US the nation has lost all credibility and influence on world events. But you do have to hand it to him on one promise he made good on to "fundamentally change the US". If you believe that US warships in the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea do not carry nuclear warheads then I have a bridge you may want to buy... Would you be so naïve to think that since the Ukraine is the home of western Russia's main navel fleet and it's only access to a warm water port that these waters would be heavily defended? Also it would seem oblivious that the presents of US navel forces, one that can still put to sea at least, as provocative and serve only to escalate an already tense situation? One would think the idea would be to deescalate the situation not to take a few ships into an area of strength for you opponent where you most certainly have losses if a confrontation occurs. Also add the fact that you have almost no allies in the region due to the president of the ex-superpower known as the US recent foreign blunders you solution seems to be a recipe for certain disaster, unless of course you objective is continue putting the ex-superpower known as the US in to in the view of the current ruling party "it's rightful place" then it's a great plan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 19:24:26 GMT -5
If you believe that US warships in the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea do not carry nuclear warheads then I have a bridge you may want to buy... Would you be so naïve to think that since the Ukraine is the home of western Russia's main navel fleet and it's only access to a warm water port that these waters would be heavily defended? Also it would seem oblivious that the presents of US navel forces, one that can still put to sea at least, as provocative and serve only to escalate an already tense situation? One would think the idea would be to deescalate the situation not to take a few ships into an area of strength for you opponent where you most certainly have losses if a confrontation occurs. Also add the fact that you have almost no allies in the region due to the president of the ex-superpower known as the US recent foreign blunders you solution seems to be a recipe for certain disaster, unless of course you objective is continue putting the ex-superpower known as the US in to in the view of the current ruling party "it's rightful place" then it's a great plan. I do believe that I am not being naive, however, I am sorry that your post appears a little garbled to me and also does not address my points.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Mar 2, 2014 19:29:45 GMT -5
If you believe that US warships in the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea do not carry nuclear warheads then I have a bridge you may want to buy... Not to mention a submarine or two... I suppose it would be pointless to point out that they submarines as well? Along with a much shorter logistical train including ports, airbases and resupply points not to mention an overwhelming advantage in numbers? Also it would take time to deploy these assets which would, again using the logistical addvantage they have, to counter any build ups that the ex-superpower known as the US could muster. We don't have much of a fleet left as it is and with the current regime that is in control of the ex-superpower known as the US does it make sense to waste what little force you have left on such a foolish adventure? Fun Fact: Did you know that the Russians have almost 200,000 troops deployed in that part of the world right now on high alert? That's almost half the strength of the entire US Army and it will be well over half after the current regime of the ex-superpower known as the US cuts forces to it's planned levels so it can spend the money (or should that be borrow the money from China?) to spend on failed social welfare programs in order to buy the next election.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Mar 2, 2014 19:45:31 GMT -5
Would you be so naïve to think that since the Ukraine is the home of western Russia's main navel fleet and it's only access to a warm water port that these waters would be heavily defended? Also it would seem oblivious that the presents of US navel forces, one that can still put to sea at least, as provocative and serve only to escalate an already tense situation? One would think the idea would be to deescalate the situation not to take a few ships into an area of strength for you opponent where you most certainly have losses if a confrontation occurs. Also add the fact that you have almost no allies in the region due to the president of the ex-superpower known as the US recent foreign blunders you solution seems to be a recipe for certain disaster, unless of course you objective is continue putting the ex-superpower known as the US in to in the view of the current ruling party "it's rightful place" then it's a great plan. I do believe that I am not being naive, however, I am sorry that your post appears a little garbled to me and also does not address my points. I am sorry you don't understand the realities of real world conflict see if this helps. A bully takes your ball and you live ten blocks away where your whimpy friend is so you run home to get him to help you get your ball back. As you leave your Mom tells you not to get dirty or you be in trouble. You get back to the bully's house and you find that he has 5 bigger brothers who all happen to have their friends over as well. They don't like you but that still doesn't stop you from asking for your ball back. You say give my ball back or we will take it back. Now you are tried from running 20 blocks and as you turn to your friend for help you discover he was all talk and has run off. The bully proceeds to kick your butt, keep your ball and to add insult to injury tosses you into a mud puddle causing you to get it from Mom. You just learned a valuable lesson in logistics along with a two week grounding from Mom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 20:46:45 GMT -5
I give up.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 2, 2014 21:31:43 GMT -5
Russia will not give up Crimea... I don't think the people of Crimea will vote to reunite fully with Ukraine either... look at a map and do a little study... it ain't gonna happen... and Obama is doing not only all he can do... he's doing the only thing he can do... a referendum is coming up...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 2, 2014 23:08:47 GMT -5
I beg to differ. Reagan took the oath of office on 20 January 1981 and within minutes, the hostages were released by Iran. Reagan would never permit our Nation to be in the same circumstances as the the feckless, cowardly and velvet fist in the iron glove foreign policy that has been the hallmark of the Obama years has placed us now. Our enemies probe with the bayonet - when they find soft flesh, they proceed and when they find iron, they withdraw. Obama was all but sodomized in the Syria mess and he's set himself up for a repeat embarrassment in the Ukraine. Reagan was an actor and a goof. He wasn't some big brave warrior like some want to remember. And now big bad Russia is at it again. What is it, only 25 years since the wall went down and we declared victory in the Cold War? Some victory.. Well, people put our own version of Chamberlain in the WH. Except that ours can't even tie his own shoes without a security detail to show him how. He has thrown away, in 5 years, what it took decades for us to build. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 2, 2014 23:12:00 GMT -5
So you're a gun totin' Putin fan? Or just picking a foreign country's leader over our president because of partisan tendencies? What will happen when the dust clears and you repubs realize that no one thinks like you, and doesn't see Obama as the 100% loser you repubs paint him as? Maybe instead of counting on your negativity campaign to discredit Obama as your only reason to vote republican, you guys can become part if out country again and actually start coming up with positives to further the idea America will move forward. Well, the first positive is to impeach The Puppet, Plugs, Dingy Harry, The Wicked Witch of the West, and all the rest of the Democrats. Then try them for sedition. Second is to repeal Puppettax. Third is to put a Paul, a Lee, or a Cruz in the WH to clean house, and get us back to a real Republic again.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Mar 2, 2014 23:13:42 GMT -5
Thank God we had Reagan who was the greatest Leader in our modern lifetime, he set Russia straight and kept the peace for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 2, 2014 23:16:30 GMT -5
The Russian Mob is back....
As someone who lived thru those days Reagan was welcomed
Not in my world. And many others. Reagan used the L word all the time. I found it strange the leader of my country wanted to disparage me because I thought different than him. Didn't seem American. I think it's no coincidence Rush Limbaugh and his ilk started becoming big at that time. Not a coincidence. Limbaugh and the rest "became big" because Reagan got rid of the "Fairness Doctrine", which had made sure for decades that only Leftists had any voice in the media. Which is why you and the rest of the Left revile Reagan so much. You no longer have a monopoly on information.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Mar 2, 2014 23:21:19 GMT -5
If Putin is worried about his Naval access to the Black Sea, why can't he do what the US does. WE lease naval bases all over the world.
linky He doesn't have to?
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Mar 2, 2014 23:30:09 GMT -5
I give up. It' ok some folks just never have been able to wrap their heads around this kind of stuff but seriously it's ok. You are good at a lot of other things. So chin up eh!
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Mar 2, 2014 23:31:46 GMT -5
Thank God we had Reagan who was the greatest Leader in our modern lifetime, he set Russia straight and kept the peace for a long time. Amen brother!
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Mar 3, 2014 5:01:30 GMT -5
He already has removed them from the eastern European nations. You guys really should study up on recent world history before you make some of these "statements" of facts of yours. Under the current president of the ex-superpower known as the US the nation has lost all credibility and influence on world events. But you do have to hand it to him on one promise he made good on to "fundamentally change the US". If you believe that US warships in the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea do not carry nuclear warheads then I have a bridge you may want to buy... eagle, if you think there are normally nuclear weapons aboard surface vessels in these areas, you don't understand things as well as you think you do. The US Navy is not going to bring a nuclear device into the Black Sea, where it would be a political incident, nor into the Persian Gulf, where some whack job with a couple of mines could get lucky. When your mechanism for delivering such a weapon is several hundred miles long, the need to bring such a device in close is minimized.
|
|