September 18, 200917 yr You left out the Germans . I did because they did not invade Poland on September 17th. They invaded Poland on September 1st. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/media_nm.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005070&MediaId=431
September 18, 200917 yr "Its gotta work better than the truth." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03prexy.html?_r=1
September 18, 200917 yr If you would have watched more about this they don't want the permanant missle shields, but want to place more mobile shields. They still want to keep them but use a different kind. I saw it this morning on one of the news channels. As far as worst president that honor was already taken from Carter by Lil George Bush. That's the way I read it. Pretty much everyone except a BGPer or two believes this to be a positive development.
September 18, 200917 yr Now why let facts get in the way of a good Obama bashing? :lol: Exactly. This one happens to be on the positive side of the ledger.
September 18, 200917 yr "Its gotta work better than the truth." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03prexy.html?_r=1 Could you explain to me what is wrong with that use of diplomacy? Obama sends a letter under the table to tell the Russians, "If we put in a different defense system would that make you happy? And if you are fine with it, now help us reign in Iran from long range nukes." Is it not Cowboy enough? The truth is that no missile defense system is really going to keep long range Nukes from being used or having some impact. But a short range missile is much more easy to employ some defense system against. Right now the school of thought is that Iran can will develop short and medium range capability in the next few years. They are, however, going to take a lot longer to develop the long range one that can have effect on the US mainland and so the defense system was trimmed down under unanimous recommendation from the Joint Chiefs. Anyone who is genuinely upset with this move is, IMO, going to be upset with anything (right or wrong) that this administration does. The hyperbole only reveals that.
September 18, 200917 yr Could you explain to me what is wrong with that use of diplomacy? Obama sends a letter under the table to tell the Russians, "If we put in a different defense system would that make you happy? And if you are fine with it, now help us reign in Iran from long range nukes." Is it not Cowboy enough? The truth is that no missile defense system is really going to keep long range Nukes from being used or having some impact. But a short range missile is much more easy to employ some defense system against. Right now the school of thought is that Iran can will develop short and medium range capability in the next few years. They are, however, going to take a lot longer to develop the long range one that can have effect on the US mainland and so the defense system was trimmed down under unanimous recommendation from the Joint Chiefs. Anyone who is genuinely upset with this move is, IMO, going to be upset with anything (right or wrong) that this administration does. The hyperbole only reveals that. :thumb:
September 18, 200917 yr I did because they did not invade Poland on September 17th. They invaded Poland on September 1st. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/media_nm.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005070&MediaId=431 Stalin was getting in on the kill .
September 18, 200917 yr Could you explain to me what is wrong with that use of diplomacy? Obama sends a letter under the table to tell the Russians, "If we put in a different defense system would that make you happy? And if you are fine with it, now help us reign in Iran from long range nukes." Is it not Cowboy enough? The truth is that no missile defense system is really going to keep long range Nukes from being used or having some impact. But a short range missile is much more easy to employ some defense system against. Right now the school of thought is that Iran can will develop short and medium range capability in the next few years. They are, however, going to take a lot longer to develop the long range one that can have effect on the US mainland and so the defense system was trimmed down under unanimous recommendation from the Joint Chiefs. Anyone who is genuinely upset with this move is, IMO, going to be upset with anything (right or wrong) that this administration does. The hyperbole only reveals that. :thumb:
September 18, 200917 yr Could you explain to me what is wrong with that use of diplomacy? Obama sends a letter under the table to tell the Russians, "If we put in a different defense system would that make you happy? And if you are fine with it, now help us reign in Iran from long range nukes." Is it not Cowboy enough? The truth is that no missile defense system is really going to keep long range Nukes from being used or having some impact. But a short range missile is much more easy to employ some defense system against. Right now the school of thought is that Iran can will develop short and medium range capability in the next few years. They are, however, going to take a lot longer to develop the long range one that can have effect on the US mainland and so the defense system was trimmed down under unanimous recommendation from the Joint Chiefs. Anyone who is genuinely upset with this move is, IMO, going to be upset with anything (right or wrong) that this administration does. The hyperbole only reveals that. I agree, however there is nothing new here. This has been going on for a long time and I sure don't see it changing in the foreseeable future. In fact I remember saying after the election that people were going to have some fun being on the other side of the fence after playing defense for so long.
September 18, 200917 yr I agree, however there is nothing new here. This has been going on for a long time and I sure don't see it changing in the foreseeable future. In fact I remember saying after the election that people were going to have some fun being on the other side of the fence after playing defense for so long. I think you are right on and correct. :thumb:
September 20, 200917 yr Bill OReilly replayed his interview with Obama during the campaign where O went on record as absolutely he would keep the missile shield. And before someone begins to rip on OReilly, he admitted that he doesn't know enough about the situation to know if it is a good move or not.
September 21, 200917 yr Bill OReilly replayed his interview with Obama during the campaign where O went on record as absolutely he would keep the missile shield. And before someone begins to rip on OReilly, he admitted that he doesn't know enough about the situation to know if it is a good move or not. Lets try to be somewhat fair here. I'm going to assume that Candidate Obama would not have had the same access to information as President Obama. I doubt if Sec Gates was giving him information.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.