Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
no evidence to suggest that Iran has long-range abilities anywhere in there future - like building an air conditioner in antarctica "just in case" - it was a foolish waste of money and Bush alienated most of the world by bull-headedly hammering it through.
Good riddance - yet another good call from Obama
BTW OZZ - you come up with that section of the constitution pertaining to defense of foriegn lands yet ????
sigh.... alienating most of the world geesh if you mean the countries that were steeped in corruption of the food for oil scam yes I am glad he alienated those countries, why were they so angry about Iraq? because they were no longer getting the bids from the UN on 5$ to 10$ barrels of oil...all on the backs of the US soldiers there during operation southern and northern watch.
and if you change policy and get nothing in return it is a failure. russia does not want a missile defence in poland or czech but those countries do. but Russia will continue to do what it wants and now and now they have more sway in erupe because they are monopolizing energy. to withdraw from that area is foolish on the assumption if we do this you will not sell weapons to Iran or supply them oil/gas. Obama is backing us into a corner with no barganing chips. are you all blind to this, meanwhile we bicker over health care reform and money for tit and tat. big deals are in play that can and will affect us in the future.
That doesn't answer my question at all, but I'll greatly expand it. What price did the Poles pay and what fences needed mending with respect to anything the USA has done to either nation and that has not already been reciprocated?How did the Poles pay a price? What fences needed mending with respect to this shield?The tanks rolled into Georgia because of a series of events that were spurred by this foolish proposal and the rejection of the Russians offer to participate. Bush was rattling their cage cold war style and courting Poland for NATO membership - sort of like Russia courting Mexico for the Warsaw Pact.
The Polish folks paid the price for Bush's idiocy - Obama is doing what he does - mending fences and finding common ground
The Poles paid a price with thousands of victims and tens of thousands of regugees.
The fences that need mending are the relations between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. and Poland, and between the Poles and the Russians.
no evidence to suggest that Iran has long-range abilities anywhere in there future - like building an air conditioner in antarctica "just in case" - it was a foolish waste of money and Bush alienated most of the world by bull-headedly hammering it through.
Good riddance - yet another good call from Obama
BTW OZZ - you come up with that section of the constitution pertaining to defense of foriegn lands yet ????
sigh.... alienating most of the world geesh if you mean the countries that were steeped in corruption of the food for oil scam yes I am glad he alienated those countries, why were they so angry about Iraq? because they were no longer getting the bids from the UN on 5$ to 10$ barrels of oil...all on the backs of the US soldiers there during operation southern and northern watch.
and if you change policy and get nothing in return it is a failure. russia does not want a missile defence in poland or czech but those countries do. but Russia will continue to do what it wants and now and now they have more sway in erupe because they are monopolizing energy. to withdraw from that area is foolish on the assumption if we do this you will not sell weapons to Iran or supply them oil/gas. Obama is backing us into a corner with no barganing chips. are you all blind to this, meanwhile we bicker over health care reform and money for tit and tat. big deals are in play that can and will affect us in the future.
Are you saying that trying to ensure adequate healthcare for all of our OWN citizens is not a big deal????
Boy, do you have that backwards. The Russians refused our offer of open inspections and participation in this particular system.Not accepting the russian offer to participate in the missle defense shieldf was pure stupidity.
As those were offensive weapons to us and as this is a defensive shield having nothing to do with Russia, I see little use to your analogy..... Reagan's ambassador to Soviet Union/Russia said Reagan would have accepted Putin's offer.
What happened when the Soviets tried to put missiles in Cuba? ....
It is indeed a puzzle why the Russians are uptight about missiles that are not at all intended for them and not even capable of striking much of anything they launch toward the USA..... How do you really expect Russia to respond to U.S. missiles in Poland and Polish membership in NATO?
sigh.... alienating most of the world geesh if you mean the countries that were steeped in corruption of the food for oil scam yes I am glad he alienated those countries, why were they so angry about Iraq? because they were no longer getting the bids from the UN on 5$ to 10$ barrels of oil...all on the backs of the US soldiers there during operation southern and northern watch.
and if you change policy and get nothing in return it is a failure. russia does not want a missile defence in poland or czech but those countries do. but Russia will continue to do what it wants and now and now they have more sway in erupe because they are monopolizing energy. to withdraw from that area is foolish on the assumption if we do this you will not sell weapons to Iran or supply them oil/gas. Obama is backing us into a corner with no barganing chips. are you all blind to this, meanwhile we bicker over health care reform and money for tit and tat. big deals are in play that can and will affect us in the future.
Are you saying that trying to ensure adequate healthcare for all of our OWN citizens is not a big deal????
the 2 topics are completely different if you are consumed by one they will blind side you with another. since when is ramming a policy down everyones throats a good thing without it being completely vetted out? and are you sure it is just for our citizens, I know the wilson liar call was uncalled for but the issue of illegals is not defined by the current bill so yes debate it and pass the best one but vet it out and get special interest groups out of the mix, I would rather have them do nothing with health care then pass the crap bills they have already passed in this administration.
As for illegal aliens, the chairman's provision prevents access to the state exchanges obtaining federal health care tax credits and requires citizens to be verified with the Social Security Administration their name, Social Security number and date of birth, and for legal residents to be verified through Department of Homeland Security data.
FACT: HR 3200 explicitly prohibits illegal aliens from receiving any Federal dollars to subsidize health insurance. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States, is the direct quote found in Section 246. Section 242 also explicitly limits eligibility for subsidies to individuals who are lawfully present in the US.
no evidence to suggest that Iran has long-range abilities anywhere in there future - like building an air conditioner in antarctica "just in case" - it was a foolish waste of money and Bush alienated most of the world by bull-headedly hammering it through.
Good riddance - yet another good call from Obama
BTW OZZ - you come up with that section of the constitution pertaining to defense of foriegn lands yet ????
sigh.... alienating most of the world geesh if you mean the countries that were steeped in corruption of the food for oil scam yes I am glad he alienated those countries, why were they so angry about Iraq? because they were no longer getting the bids from the UN on 5$ to 10$ barrels of oil...all on the backs of the US soldiers there during operation southern and northern watch.
and if you change policy and get nothing in return it is a failure. russia does not want a missile defence in poland or czech but those countries do. but Russia will continue to do what it wants and now and now they have more sway in erupe because they are monopolizing energy. to withdraw from that area is foolish on the assumption if we do this you will not sell weapons to Iran or supply them oil/gas. Obama is backing us into a corner with no barganing chips. are you all blind to this, meanwhile we bicker over health care reform and money for tit and tat. big deals are in play that can and will affect us in the future.
No BUSH backed us into a no-win situation by alienating Russia and courting Poland for NATO.
Yet another extremely dangerous example of Bush's saber-rattling diplomacy that nearly drug us into the Poland/Russia conflict. At that point there was no way out except to back off - Unless you want to fight in Iraq, in Afghanistan, AND in Russia all at once.
I don't think that. Is your problem a reading one or a comprehension one?
My problem is expecting a reasonable answer from people incapable of providing it.
If you dont think that then why did you ask that asinine question?
OK...so it IS a comprehension problem. Please refer to my post #69.
So I see I am dealing with someone without a clue. The British attacked the US and burned the White House in the War of 1812. Maybe we need to be concerned with that because it actually happened.Because the threat from domestic aircraft happened and we KNOW it is REAL. The threat you are concerned about MIGHT happen SOME DAY. Why are we investing in defense systems that could help us out with a possible attack, yet we have no real defense mechanism in place to defend against REAL attacks?
My problem is expecting a reasonable answer from people incapable of providing it.
If you dont think that then why did you ask that asinine question?
OK...so it IS a comprehension problem. Please refer to my post #69.
Which said:
So I see I am dealing with someone without a clue. The British attacked the US and burned the White House in the War of 1812. Maybe we need to be concerned with that because it actually happened.Because the threat from domestic aircraft happened and we KNOW it is REAL. The threat you are concerned about MIGHT happen SOME DAY. Why are we investing in defense systems that could help us out with a possible attack, yet we have no real defense mechanism in place to defend against REAL attacks?
But from your post it is clear that you do believe that the next threat will come from terrorists. Is your problem an inability to articulate what you think or a lack of understanding of the world?
Are you saying that trying to ensure adequate healthcare for all of our OWN citizens is not a big deal????
the 2 topics are completely different if you are consumed by one they will blind side you with another. since when is ramming a policy down everyones throats a good thing without it being completely vetted out? and are you sure it is just for our citizens, I know the wilson liar call was uncalled for but the issue of illegals is not defined by the current bill so yes debate it and pass the best one but vet it out and get special interest groups out of the mix, I would rather have them do nothing with health care then pass the crap bills they have already passed in this administration.
Which bill are YOU referring to?
From the new bill presented by Baucus:
As for illegal aliens, the chairman's provision prevents access to the state exchanges obtaining federal health care tax credits and requires citizens to be verified with the Social Security Administration their name, Social Security number and date of birth, and for legal residents to be verified through Department of Homeland Security data.
Concerning HR3200:
FACT: HR 3200 explicitly prohibits illegal aliens from receiving any Federal dollars to subsidize health insurance. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States, is the direct quote found in Section 246. Section 242 also explicitly limits eligibility for subsidies to individuals who are lawfully present in the US.
That doesn't answer my question at all, but I'll greatly expand it. What price did the Poles pay and what fences needed mending with respect to anything the USA has done to either nation and that has not already been reciprocated?How did the Poles pay a price? What fences needed mending with respect to this shield?
The Poles paid a price with thousands of victims and tens of thousands of regugees.
The fences that need mending are the relations between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. and Poland, and between the Poles and the Russians.
There may, or even likely, will be. However, that does not diminish the threat of nuclear weapons. Hell, if they weren't effective threats, no one would go to the trouble of developing them. Personally, I am no fan of being reactionary once a threat develops, rather I like being proactive.OK...so it IS a comprehension problem. Please refer to my post #69.
Which said:
So I see I am dealing with someone without a clue. The British attacked the US and burned the White House in the War of 1812. Maybe we need to be concerned with that because it actually happened.Because the threat from domestic aircraft happened and we KNOW it is REAL. The threat you are concerned about MIGHT happen SOME DAY. Why are we investing in defense systems that could help us out with a possible attack, yet we have no real defense mechanism in place to defend against REAL attacks?
But from your post it is clear that you do believe that the next threat will come from terrorists. Is your problem an inability to articulate what you think or a lack of understanding of the world?
Personally, I believe there is a better chance of being attacked by the British again than by some rogue nation with a nuclear weapon fired from their shores. The capability simply does not exist. Please reference N. Korea's multiple attempts at missile testing..
There may, or even likely, will be. However, that does not diminish the threat of nuclear weapons. Hell, if they weren't effective threats, no one would go to the trouble of developing them. Personally, I am no fan of being reactionary once a threat develops, rather I like being proactive.Which said:
So I see I am dealing with someone without a clue. The British attacked the US and burned the White House in the War of 1812. Maybe we need to be concerned with that because it actually happened.
But from your post it is clear that you do believe that the next threat will come from terrorists. Is your problem an inability to articulate what you think or a lack of understanding of the world?
Personally, I believe there is a better chance of being attacked by the British again than by some rogue nation with a nuclear weapon fired from their shores. The capability simply does not exist. Please reference N. Korea's multiple attempts at missile testing..
And, there is a deterrent angle to this shield. Not as significant as the defensive angle, but still a consideration.
MAD is so last century.There may, or even likely, will be. However, that does not diminish the threat of nuclear weapons. Hell, if they weren't effective threats, no one would go to the trouble of developing them. Personally, I am no fan of being reactionary once a threat develops, rather I like being proactive.Personally, I believe there is a better chance of being attacked by the British again than by some rogue nation with a nuclear weapon fired from their shores. The capability simply does not exist. Please reference N. Korea's multiple attempts at missile testing..
And, there is a deterrent angle to this shield. Not as significant as the defensive angle, but still a consideration.
Nuclear weapons are no longer a threat. They are a deterrent. Everyone knows that if a nuclear weapon is launched, the opposing side will simply lanch a sounterstrike and our world will come to an end.
When we have systems available to prevent that rather barbaric deterrent, I am all for continuing development to bring them up to speed with others defenses.
You did? How did the USA cause thousands, millions, whatever of Poles to be refugees? And, what specifically are the fences that the USA needs to mend with Russia? Your just saying that there are fences of policy is not an answer. What policy of the USA was so offensive to the Russians (other than ones that were already reciprocated by them)?That doesn't answer my question at all, but I'll greatly expand it. What price did the Poles pay and what fences needed mending with respect to anything the USA has done to either nation and that has not already been reciprocated?The Poles paid a price with thousands of victims and tens of thousands of regugees.
The fences that need mending are the relations between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. and Poland, and between the Poles and the Russians.
I answered the question EXACTLY as you worded it. Your "expanded" question is also answered by my previous post.
Personally, I believe there is a better chance of being attacked by the British again than by some rogue nation with a nuclear weapon fired from their shores. The capability simply does not exist. Please reference N. Korea's multiple attempts at missile testing..
You did? How did the USA cause thousands, millions, whatever of Poles to be refugees? And, what specifically are the fences that the USA needs to mend with Russia? Your just saying that there are fences of policy is not an answer. What policy of the USA was so offensive to the Russians (other than ones that were already reciprocated by them)?That doesn't answer my question at all, but I'll greatly expand it. What price did the Poles pay and what fences needed mending with respect to anything the USA has done to either nation and that has not already been reciprocated?
I answered the question EXACTLY as you worded it. Your "expanded" question is also answered by my previous post.
You have been non-responsive.
