Kremlin Signals a Harder Line on Relations With the U.S.

[Shogun]

Let's check your theory. Because there is a possibility that the US could be lying to everyone and installing nukes instead of antimissile systems, let's assume that's what they're actually doing

That's probably why we offered to allow Russian the ability to inspect all the sites right? I'm sure we would bury the actual nukes with the Russians came and then put them back on the launchers when they left. How's your tinfoil hat fitting today? Got your binos trained on Area 51 today too?

Like the Russians don't have satellites. Please. Can you make weaker arguments?

Since you've clearly missed it, the POINT OF THE EXERCISE WAS TO GET RUSSIA TO REACT!!!!!!!! Damn you're thick!

INSPECTIONS really are convincing, eh dude? I mean hell... it is FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE to switch out hardware after inspectors leave! Isn't THAT exactly what we say regarding IRAN?





hey dude... maybe you should rely more on evidence like I am rather than 20 year old tired fucking rhetoric that died with Reagan, eh?


But, please... why don't you NOW insist that the sole purpose was "POINT OF THE EXERCISE WAS TO GET RUSSIA TO REACT" after all this feigned outrage at their predictable reaction! Indeed, one of is THICK alright!





read any good TIME articles lately?

What did I tell you about simplistic answers. Sole purpose? As if anything in foreign policy has a "sole purpose."

Yes, your youth makes you wise.

Hey strawman builder -- when was I outraged?

hey, talk shit if thats all you got left but... so far.. only one of us has been pimp slapping the other with evidence beyond the rhetoric... I mean.. I have NO problem with talking shit if thats where you want to run screaming into but...

 

[Tech_Esq]

I see exactly how it works. And when YOU react in the exact same fashion to Cuban Missiles as Russia does with Polish missiles then be sure to make your little speech about the personal exclusivity of righteousness during our next instance of mutually assured destruction.


another reagan era piece of political jargon to hit our lexicon, no less.

I see how it works with you missile = nuke. Gun = Assault weapon.

Luckily big boys and girls don't think like that. They can actually distinguish one thing from another.

When was the first instance of mutually assured destruction? For that matter can you explain the following terms:
MIRV, throw weight, decapitation strike, triad, the effect of anti-ballistic missile systems on the balance of power, multi-polarity, bi-multi-polarity and penetrated processes of foreign polities?

I'll keep this short and sweet because we both know that you sound kind of silly after the TIME article I posted....





please, your tryst in jargon land may give jesse helms a boner but....

Actually it's you that sounds silly cuz you can't tell the difference between a bomb and a missile.

 

[Tech_Esq]

INSPECTIONS really are convincing, eh dude? I mean hell... it is FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE to switch out hardware after inspectors leave! Isn't THAT exactly what we say regarding IRAN?





hey dude... maybe you should rely more on evidence like I am rather than 20 year old tired fucking rhetoric that died with Reagan, eh?


But, please... why don't you NOW insist that the sole purpose was "POINT OF THE EXERCISE WAS TO GET RUSSIA TO REACT" after all this feigned outrage at their predictable reaction! Indeed, one of is THICK alright!





read any good TIME articles lately?

What did I tell you about simplistic answers. Sole purpose? As if anything in foreign policy has a "sole purpose."

Yes, your youth makes you wise.

Hey strawman builder -- when was I outraged?

hey, talk shit if thats all you got left but... so far.. only one of us has been pimp slapping the other with evidence beyond the rhetoric... I mean.. I have NO problem with talking shit if thats where you want to run screaming into but...

The only "evidence" you have shown up with is jack shit that related to what this thread is about. First, you make all kinds of assumptions about what's "REALLY" going to be there and now you post some link to a Time article about nuclear BOMBS in Europe having nothing to do with a ABM base or missiles and you have the unmitigated gall to call that evidence of something.

Is that the school bell I heard, isn't it time for you to go to class?