Doggy Style.. Foregn Policy

[The T]

Damn.. this is embarrassing.. the leader of the previously free world bent over, doggy style, when it comes to Foreign Policy.
Russia on for seconds with this nuclear arms deal, previously the missile shield. Begging China for more loans to buy an election. Iran policy.. bent over begging for help. North Korea, nothing. Bank bail-outs to foreign countries. Bowing low to Muslims worldwide and blaming America at every opportunity.

Damn .. we sure could do with a cowboy wearing a white hat about now..

Reducing the worlds nuclear stockpile by 1/3 is a win for the entire world.

Yes then we can only destroy the entire globe 60 times over instead of the dangerous 90 times.

[SCENARIO]

You enter negotiations with someone in a room soaked with gasoline. You have an entire book of matches versus their one or two. You enter a stalemate in the negotiations. You both get cross at each other while in that room.

The discussion gets heated...to the point of one or the other threatens using a match to accentuate their point.

Who wins?



[/Scenario]

My apologies if you think you're being picked on. Fact is? You're not.

I took the occasion of your post to illustrate a point.

Ponder.

 

[saveliberty]

Reducing the worlds nuclear stockpile by 1/3 is a win for the entire world.

Yes then we can only destroy the entire globe 60 times over instead of the dangerous 90 times.

[SCENARIO]

You enter negotiations with someone in a room soaked with gasoline. You have an entire book of matches versus their one or two. You enter a stalemate in the negotiations. You both get cross at each other while in that room.

The discussion gets heated...to the point of one or the other threatens using a match to accentuate their point.

Who wins?



[/Scenario]

My apologies if you think you're being picked on. Fact is? You're not.

I took the occasion of your post to illustrate a point.

Ponder.

No, I think you illustrated my point exactly.

 

[The T]

Yes then we can only destroy the entire globe 60 times over instead of the dangerous 90 times.

[SCENARIO]

You enter negotiations with someone in a room soaked with gasoline. You have an entire book of matches versus their one or two. You enter a stalemate in the negotiations. You both get cross at each other while in that room.

The discussion gets heated...to the point of one or the other threatens using a match to accentuate their point.

Who wins?



[/Scenario]

My apologies if you think you're being picked on. Fact is? You're not.

I took the occasion of your post to illustrate a point.

Ponder.

No, I think you illustrated my point exactly.

Cool beans. And [uderstandably]? No one but you has tackled it. The answer is quite simple. A lesson mankind continues to miss put in simple terms.

 

[hyakku]

Damn.. this is embarrassing.. the leader of the previously free world bent over, doggy style, when it comes to Foreign Policy.
Russia on for seconds with this nuclear arms deal, previously the missile shield. Begging China for more loans to buy an election. Iran policy.. bent over begging for help. North Korea, nothing. Bank bail-outs to foreign countries. Bowing low to Muslims worldwide and blaming America at every opportunity.

Damn .. we sure could do with a cowboy wearing a white hat about now..

No, we couldn't. When leaders like Kissinger, a salient and seminal foreign policy expert, along with the likes of Schulz and co advocate for easing of relations with China and russia, and a push for nuclear dearmament, sorry, but you are wrong.

The missile shield is a waste of time and money, a pipe dream by Reagen which only served to threaten the easing of relations Kissinger had started with the soviets. Reagen's relative stupidity in many foreign relations matters were only held in check by his listlessness and salient advisors.

Star wars can not, and will not work in its current inception, physically it is impossible to stop multiple nukes with just one warhead with our technology. The missile shield's primary purpose would best be served for NON nuclear purposes, something which we already have defenses for and do not need to let our relations with Russia erode over.

I won't even start with China, because it's quite obvious that not too many people understand our FP, let alone China's FP or it's historical stance. Suffice to say, our foreign policy with China is progressing quite well, probably even better than Obama would hope. Even a nominal agreement to watered down sanctions will effect solidarity against Iran internationally, and more importantly, it simultaneously weakens Russia's power in Iran's future by providing stronger consensus in our favor.

I wouldn't want a COWBOY dealing with N. Korea, last I recall they let off MULTIPLE MISSILE TESTS on his watch with NOTHING done.

As for those saying advocacy of arms reduction agreements are stupid, please actually learn about foreign policy before opening that mouth and issuing that amount of ignorance again. I mean come on, Henry fucking Kissinger (you know, the devil to some people??) advocates nuclear dearmament, and you're going to tell me that you know better than him and the countless other proponents (realist, neorealists AND liberals) that consistently have proven why nuclear disarmement is better for international security? Please.

 

[Hugidwyn]

Now imagine a situation where the United States will rise to the question, to attack a country (North Korea, Iran, China, for example), but the United States will receive for himself the damage. After all, it could for many years or decades to move the U.S. from the main goal - hegemony in the world. But I think that from unacceptable damage (for example, completely destroyed the atomic bombing of two cities, as once the U.S. led in Japan) they may never recover. The mentality of the Americans was formed in the conditions in which the enemy never trod their territory and destroying their city. Simply put, even on a limited scale - it can lead to such psychological trauma of Americans, that the result will be the disintegration of the country into separate states. In this case Russia will be in a position which has recently occupied the United States.

That is why Americans will never enter into a military conflict with countries that could cause unacceptable damage to them.

With regard to Russia that Americans can go to an unacceptable damage to themselves subject to the complete suppression of Russia. To create the conditions for such a measure about the balance of forces and the U.S. are trying to deploy its global ABM system, hoping the first surprise attack to destroy a large part of Russian nuclear weapons reprisal, and the remaining responses to intercept its missile launches.

When the powerful computers at the Pentagon will give the result favorable to the beginning of such a scenario, there is no doubt that it can be implemented in practice.

That is why Russia can feel safe only when the threat of complete mutual destruction, that is, when they will reach zero result.

 

[rr1]

If Russia financed Lincoln's war to prevent the destruction of the American Republic who's to say what would happen in a similar scenario? The primary cause of Lincoln's death was because he paid back the debt. The world's nations suffer from memory loss or ignorance. Who the hell knows which?

 

[rightwinger]

Damn.. this is embarrassing.. the leader of the previously free world bent over, doggy style, when it comes to Foreign Policy.
Russia on for seconds with this nuclear arms deal, previously the missile shield. Begging China for more loans to buy an election. Iran policy.. bent over begging for help. North Korea, nothing. Bank bail-outs to foreign countries. Bowing low to Muslims worldwide and blaming America at every opportunity.

Damn .. we sure could do with a cowboy wearing a white hat about now..

Reducing the worlds nuclear stockpile by 1/3 is a win for the entire world.

And that is so because?

Actually it is a lose for the entire world. We have not had a global war since WW2 precisely because the threat of total nuclear annihilation made such wars unacceptable.
With total annhilation off the table, the likelihood of a major war increases dramatically. How that would be good is anyone's guess.
But here is Obama naively going about like it's 1974 and he's negotiation with the Soviet Union. He really is Carter II.

Another freak who does not realize the Cold War is over.

1500 nukes can still do a lot of damage. I wouldn't be more likely to mess with someone with 1500 nukes than someone with 2500

 

[Samson]

If Russia financed Lincoln's war to prevent the destruction of the American Republic who's to say what would happen in a similar scenario? The primary cause of Lincoln's death was because he paid back the debt. The world's nations suffer from memory loss or ignorance. Who the hell knows which?

Let me just say this: that the Lincoln Presidency and the Obama Administration have many interesting parallels about which all Americans, white and black, should be thankful. As they did in Lincoln's day......and lets's be clear on this...Americans have the right to be represented by elected representatives that will implement their mandate for change.

Did I answer your question?

 

[Charles Stucker]

Yes then we can only destroy the entire globe 60 times over instead of the dangerous 90 times.

This is one of the enduring myths of nuclear weapons, that they would wipe out the world. The vast majority (over 90%) of the globes nuclear munitions are in the kiloton, not megaton, range. Expected casualties from their use would range ~ 10-30,000 in densely populated urban areas.
Fallout may be a problem, but life goes on in the most irradiated regions around Chernobyl, and human life could be supported there [shortened life expectancy, but long enough to reproduce] if that was the only terrain to be found.
Nuclear winter might be problematic, but even that would have a modest time-frame and it is nearly certain that enough population could survive to repopulate the globe over the course of centuries.

The US needs enough weapons to deter Islamic terrorists with the threat of MASSIVE retaliation against Islamic population centers. The Assured Destruction doctrine kept the peace between the USA and USSR, so it is a good place to begin with the Islamic radicals.

 

[saveliberty]

A nuclear energy plant versus a couple 100 bombs. Not the same thing.

 

[Samson]

The US needs enough weapons to deter Islamic terrorists with the threat of MASSIVE retaliation against Islamic population centers. The Assured Destruction doctrine kept the peace between the USA and USSR, so it is a good place to begin with the Islamic radicals.

So, a guy that considers flying a plane into the White House is supposed to think: "Shoot, this would have been a GREAT IDEA if the USA did not have nuclear weapons?"

 

[Charles Stucker]

A nuclear energy plant versus a couple 100 bombs. Not the same thing.

Radiation, not blast. there are FAR too few bombs to bast the globe to bits. Chernobyl produced an impressive amount of radiation.

Perhaps you're unaware of how habitable Hiroshima and Nagasaki are?

 

[Gunny]

Damn.. this is embarrassing.. the leader of the previously free world bent over, doggy style, when it comes to Foreign Policy.
Russia on for seconds with this nuclear arms deal, previously the missile shield. Begging China for more loans to buy an election. Iran policy.. bent over begging for help. North Korea, nothing. Bank bail-outs to foreign countries. Bowing low to Muslims worldwide and blaming America at every opportunity.

Damn .. we sure could do with a cowboy wearing a white hat about now..

Reducing the worlds nuclear stockpile by 1/3 is a win for the entire world.

By reducing our stockpile unilaterally? Nice.

Go pound sand, leftwingnut.

 

[Gunny]

Thank you jillian.., my little furry neg egg,

I may have deserved it this time...true but alas... too blunt...

Fixed that for you.

 

[Hugidwyn]

Islamic terrorists will not stop the threat of nuclear or conventional attack, as the U.S. may strike only after the terrorist attacks, and they are willing to sacrifice their own people.

And what worked between the U.S. and the USSR against Islamic fanatics will not work.

Rest assured, if it gets to a nuclear weapon and the ability to deliver it in the U.S. they will use it.

 

[Gunny]

Damn.. this is embarrassing.. the leader of the previously free world bent over, doggy style, when it comes to Foreign Policy.
Russia on for seconds with this nuclear arms deal, previously the missile shield. Begging China for more loans to buy an election. Iran policy.. bent over begging for help. North Korea, nothing. Bank bail-outs to foreign countries. Bowing low to Muslims worldwide and blaming America at every opportunity.

Damn .. we sure could do with a cowboy wearing a white hat about now..

Reducing the worlds nuclear stockpile by 1/3 is a win for the entire world.

i think many of us have forgotten what its like to worry about nuclear war...to have nuclear war drills, movies like red dawn....

its the oddity of russian/usa nuclear arms race. instead of resulting in all out war, it was actually the arms and fear of real nuclear war that resulted in relative safety during the entire cold war. who is to say what happens when a rogue nation or group gets their hands on a nuke or nukes...

Now, now ... the Obama lama knows what's best for you.

 

[saveliberty]

A nuclear energy plant versus a couple 100 bombs. Not the same thing.

Radiation, not blast. there are FAR too few bombs to bast the globe to bits. Chernobyl produced an impressive amount of radiation.

Perhaps you're unaware of how habitable Hiroshima and Nagasaki are?

Might want to read up on global nuclear winter.

 

[Gunny]

Damn.. this is embarrassing.. the leader of the previously free world bent over, doggy style, when it comes to Foreign Policy.
Russia on for seconds with this nuclear arms deal, previously the missile shield. Begging China for more loans to buy an election. Iran policy.. bent over begging for help. North Korea, nothing. Bank bail-outs to foreign countries. Bowing low to Muslims worldwide and blaming America at every opportunity.

Damn .. we sure could do with a cowboy wearing a white hat about now..

Reducing the worlds nuclear stockpile by 1/3 is a win for the entire world.

Well. you kind missed the point.. what's in it for us.. what's the deal..

I do suppose Obama's going for the Nobel Peace Prize again...

we know he won't win an Oscar for acting like a US President.

 

[rightwinger]

Damn.. this is embarrassing.. the leader of the previously free world bent over, doggy style, when it comes to Foreign Policy.
Russia on for seconds with this nuclear arms deal, previously the missile shield. Begging China for more loans to buy an election. Iran policy.. bent over begging for help. North Korea, nothing. Bank bail-outs to foreign countries. Bowing low to Muslims worldwide and blaming America at every opportunity.

Damn .. we sure could do with a cowboy wearing a white hat about now..

Reducing the worlds nuclear stockpile by 1/3 is a win for the entire world.

By reducing our stockpile unilaterally? Nice.

Go pound sand, leftwingnut.

Who ever said anything about "unilaterally"?

Don't you understand the concept of a treaty?

 

[hyakku]

Haha, I love the alarmist who think that we're:

A. Getting rid of our nukes unilaterally
B. Have no idea about nuclear bombs whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is, we still have the best and most capable delivery systems, as well as having a comprehensive, three point system. This means we have delivery systems on land, air and sea, so that we can withstand first strike capabilities.

In short, any hypothesis that the US wanted to take the world over through nuclear holocaust is absurd. WE could have done so with our technology decades ago, and could still do so now. There are only three nations with nukes powerful enough, already armed and ready to be delivered that could possibly survive a U.S. first strike well enough to respond. At least one of those is our ally, I'm not sure if China or France has better delivery systems, and if we were to get into a nuclear war with Russia this conversation would be void.

As for threatening RADICALS with rational, conventional logic and weaponry. Good luck with that. I mean, we destroyed two countries for ten years and they've gotten more empowered, I don't really think a nuke is required.

As someone accurately pointed out, must nuke aren't as destructive as everything you see on tv. For this purpose, if we wanted to kill civilians, we would keep the course we currently are. Conventional carpet bombing and other traditional tactics can cause just as much wanton destruction as a nuclear bomb.