Russia suckers US into nuclear checkmate

[Vel]

Both countries have enough nuclear weapons by themselves to likely blow up the world X amount times over. I don't see the point in acting like we are getting rid of all our nuclear weapons when we aren't.

Besides, it's most likely already that Russia has more nukes then the United States. Furthermore, Russia will never blow us off the map for two solid reasons.

1.) Their economy is still highly reliant on ours, to blow us into pieces would send their economy and the world economy into shambles.

Which leads me to #2:

2.) Do you really think the international community would sit by if Russia were to take out the United States? Too many countries are invested in the United States to see their investments to go bye-bye in a mushroom cloud (Saudi Arabia, China, Europe are just a few examples).

Are you being serious in this post or is it meant to be a joke?

 

[txlonghorn]

There wouldn't be a war. We wouldn't have a move to make. Checkmate. They won't fire on us...but they will have control. Maybe not Russia...but who knows who gets in the game when we let our defenses dwindle to meaningless numbers.

They wouldn't have control because they'd end up losing everything if they fired on us. Right now our defenses are #1 in the world but if you're referring to nukes then we're #2 to Russia. All it takes is one nuclear weapon out of our capacity to be used against us by a terrorist organization. Which is why disarming ones we don't need is crucial.

Exactly how many nukes do we need tx? Enough to blow up the world 10x over, 25x over, 100x over, or beyond?

you're kinda making my point for me. All it takes is one...one what? One missile? Or one war head delivered in a different way? I get the part about N Korea not being on the same page with Russia. They're on a different page from EVERYONE it seems. With the exception of Bin Laden and his minions. I don't think we need to be negotiating ANY decrease. My fear is that once the decrease begins, then we continue to draw back until we don't have the superior status that we enjoy today. Maybe I'm paranoid to think that Russia may not be as swift in their reduction. I think "0" wants to make a significant drop in nuclear weapons and thinks everyone will follow suit just because he does. That's just naive to me. I see the numbers are in Russia's favor, which is why I don't agree with the compromise with them. The reason our numbers are so high is because there has been so much lack of trust between the two. My main point in this post was to question the speed with which "0" seems to have worked out some deal. The questions that still remain give me cause for concern. Putin will twist "0" around and defense missiles will be next. Then we have have a degrading security issue to deal with.

 

[Modbert]

you're kinda making my point for me. All it takes is one...one what? One missile? Or one war head delivered in a different way? I get the part about N Korea not being on the same page with Russia. They're on a different page from EVERYONE it seems. With the exception of Bin Laden and his minions. I don't think we need to be negotiating ANY decrease. My fear is that once the decrease begins, then we continue to draw back until we don't have the superior status that we enjoy today. Maybe I'm paranoid to think that Russia may not be as swift in their reduction. I think "0" wants to make a significant drop in nuclear weapons and thinks everyone will follow suit just because he does. That's just naive to me. I see the numbers are in Russia's favor, which is why I don't agree with the compromise with them. The reason our numbers are so high is because there has been so much lack of trust between the two. My main point in this post was to question the speed with which "0" seems to have worked out some deal. The questions that still remain give me cause for concern. Putin will twist "0" around and defense missiles will be next. Then we have have a degrading security issue to deal with.

All it takes is one but you want to make more?

We're not going to bring our weapons down to zero, that would be just plain stupid. Obama isn't wanting to bring our weapons down to zero either. He's making this deal as a sign of trust with Russia. Also, Russia is now allowing us to use their airspace for weapons (I believe) which we couldn't before on our way to Afghanistan.

This deal has been going longer then two weeks, probably a couple months. Deals like this can actually be done since other leaders don't hate ours.

 

[txlonghorn]

you're kinda making my point for me. All it takes is one...one what? One missile? Or one war head delivered in a different way? I get the part about N Korea not being on the same page with Russia. They're on a different page from EVERYONE it seems. With the exception of Bin Laden and his minions. I don't think we need to be negotiating ANY decrease. My fear is that once the decrease begins, then we continue to draw back until we don't have the superior status that we enjoy today. Maybe I'm paranoid to think that Russia may not be as swift in their reduction. I think "0" wants to make a significant drop in nuclear weapons and thinks everyone will follow suit just because he does. That's just naive to me. I see the numbers are in Russia's favor, which is why I don't agree with the compromise with them. The reason our numbers are so high is because there has been so much lack of trust between the two. My main point in this post was to question the speed with which "0" seems to have worked out some deal. The questions that still remain give me cause for concern. Putin will twist "0" around and defense missiles will be next. Then we have have a degrading security issue to deal with.

All it takes is one but you want to make more?

We're not going to bring our weapons down to zero, that would be just plain stupid. Obama isn't wanting to bring our weapons down to zero either. He's making this deal as a sign of trust with Russia. Also, Russia is now allowing us to use their airspace for weapons (I believe) which we couldn't before on our way to Afghanistan.

This deal has been going longer then two weeks, probably a couple months. Deals like this can actually be done since other leaders don't hate ours.

All you have to do is read the first few paragraphs of this and you may need to adjust your opinion of his position on the matter.

Obama says time to rid world of nuclear weapons - CNN.com

 

[txlonghorn]

you're kinda making my point for me. All it takes is one...one what? One missile? Or one war head delivered in a different way? I get the part about N Korea not being on the same page with Russia. They're on a different page from EVERYONE it seems. With the exception of Bin Laden and his minions. I don't think we need to be negotiating ANY decrease. My fear is that once the decrease begins, then we continue to draw back until we don't have the superior status that we enjoy today. Maybe I'm paranoid to think that Russia may not be as swift in their reduction. I think "0" wants to make a significant drop in nuclear weapons and thinks everyone will follow suit just because he does. That's just naive to me. I see the numbers are in Russia's favor, which is why I don't agree with the compromise with them. The reason our numbers are so high is because there has been so much lack of trust between the two. My main point in this post was to question the speed with which "0" seems to have worked out some deal. The questions that still remain give me cause for concern. Putin will twist "0" around and defense missiles will be next. Then we have have a degrading security issue to deal with.

All it takes is one but you want to make more?

We're not going to bring our weapons down to zero, that would be just plain stupid. Obama isn't wanting to bring our weapons down to zero either. He's making this deal as a sign of trust with Russia. Also, Russia is now allowing us to use their airspace for weapons (I believe) which we couldn't before on our way to Afghanistan.

This deal has been going longer then two weeks, probably a couple months. Deals like this can actually be done since other leaders don't hate ours.

Whoa...I never said anything about making more. I said we don't need to reduce our current numbers.

You think these deals are being made because nobody hates us anymore? Com'on!!! What are we running here? A neighborhood gang organization? Like the Crips and the Bloods are getting along now so it's all OK? Please...We've made deals for decades regardless of whether or not we are "liked or not". These kinds of deals are made with each countries best interest at the heart of each side. Russia isn't being nice to us because Bush is gone. They're letting us go into Afghanistan through their territory so THEY don't have to go into Afghanistan. Let us do the dirty (expensive) work. We corral the bad guys and they reap the benefit too. Sounds like a good deal for allowing us to fly over their heads.

 

[Modbert]

All you have to do is read the first few paragraphs of this and you may need to adjust your opinion of his position on the matter.

Obama says time to rid world of nuclear weapons - CNN.com

Alright:

In a fact sheet distributed to reporters, Obama's campaign said he will work to eliminate all nuclear weapons, but will not commit the United States to giving them up while other states retain them.

He's idealistic like certain Republicans were:

In his 1985 inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan said, “We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”

In 2002, Bush signed the Moscow treaty which committed us to reducing our nuclear arsenal by 2012.

I guess they're "weak Liberals" too huh?

 

[bk1983]

All you have to do is read the first few paragraphs of this and you may need to adjust your opinion of his position on the matter.

Obama says time to rid world of nuclear weapons - CNN.com

Alright:

In a fact sheet distributed to reporters, Obama's campaign said he will work to eliminate all nuclear weapons, but will not commit the United States to giving them up while other states retain them.

He's idealistic like certain Republicans were:

In his 1985 inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan said, “We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”

In 2002, Bush signed the Moscow treaty which committed us to reducing our nuclear arsenal by 2012.

I guess they're "weak Liberals" too huh?

Your missing the fact that it doesn't matter what his predecessors did, when Obama does it its wrong.

 

[txlonghorn]

All you have to do is read the first few paragraphs of this and you may need to adjust your opinion of his position on the matter.

Obama says time to rid world of nuclear weapons - CNN.com

Alright:

In a fact sheet distributed to reporters, Obama's campaign said he will work to eliminate all nuclear weapons, but will not commit the United States to giving them up while other states retain them.

He's idealistic like certain Republicans was.

In his 1985 inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan said, “We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”

In 2002, Bush signed the Moscow treaty which committed us to reducing the UNITED STATES nuclear arsenal by 2012.

I guess they're "weak Liberals" too huh?

So why are we signing another one??? And how did Bush get them to sign on that deal if they hated us so much.

Obama is idealistic??? That's your cover? I don't buy it. I think he's naive and dangerous. He doesn't know the first thing about international diplomacy and relies on his thinkers to tell him what he needs to know. All he's interested in is the headline. Obama moves to nuclear peace with Russia...pardon me while I puke.

You pointed out that the article said that he not commit the United States to giving them up while other states retain them. But did he or did he not do that today? Before you jump on the idea that I am saying he's going to dump them all tomorrow, I never said he would. I said it was the beginning of a process that will lead to a weaker position of a country that needs all the "backup" it can get right now.

 

[Modbert]

So why are we signing another one??? And how did Bush get them to sign on that deal if they hated us so much.

Obama is idealistic??? That's your cover? I don't buy it. I think he's naive and dangerous. He doesn't know the first thing about international diplomacy and relies on his thinkers to tell him what he needs to know. All he's interested in is the headline. Obama moves to nuclear peace with Russia...pardon me while I puke.

You pointed out that the article said that he not commit the United States to giving them up while other states retain them. But did he or did he not do that today? Before you jump on the idea that I am saying he's going to dump them all tomorrow, I never said he would. I said it was the beginning of a process that will lead to a weaker position of a country that needs all the "backup" it can get right now.

This was back in 2002, before Bush fucked up our relations with other countries. Just about every President since Kennedy has been idealistic about a world of no nuclear weapons (whether they truly believed it or not). If you think Obama's naive and dangerous then so is Reagan, Bush, and all of them.

Do you even have any idea how many weapons we have right now and how many we're getting rid of? Or how many we need? How many nuclear weapons do you believe we actually need to protect ourselves Tx?

 

[txlonghorn]

All you have to do is read the first few paragraphs of this and you may need to adjust your opinion of his position on the matter.

Obama says time to rid world of nuclear weapons - CNN.com

Alright:

In a fact sheet distributed to reporters, Obama's campaign said he will work to eliminate all nuclear weapons, but will not commit the United States to giving them up while other states retain them.

He's idealistic like certain Republicans were:

In his 1985 inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan said, “We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”

In 2002, Bush signed the Moscow treaty which committed us to reducing our nuclear arsenal by 2012.

I guess they're "weak Liberals" too huh?

Your missing the fact that it doesn't matter what his predecessors did, when Obama does it its wrong.

it matters a hell of a lot...especially since it contradicts the previous point that these deals couldn't be made with the US during the Bush Admin because we were so hated. The difference is that Obama does it for the wrong reasons. He's living in this "idealistic" world of "if I put my gun down, then you put your gun down and we can be friends". HELLOO!!! Naive and Dangerous. By the way, I didn't use the term weak liberal...Robert got that one all by himself. This man is far from weak...that's the scary part.

 

[Modbert]

it matters a hell of a lot...especially since it contradicts the previous point that these deals couldn't be made with the US during the Bush Admin because we were so hated. The difference is that Obama does it for the wrong reasons. He's living in this "idealistic" world of "if I put my gun down, then you put your gun down and we can be friends". HELLOO!!! Naive and Dangerous. By the way, I didn't use the term weak liberal...Robert got that one all by himself. This man is far from weak...that's the scary part.

You hold the view that he is a mentally weak Liberal who is going to simply toss away all our nukes because Russia said they would lower theirs. Least that's what you seem to be proclaiming.

I once again ask you, how many nukes do we need to protect ourselves?

 

[Modbert]

Your missing the fact that it doesn't matter what his predecessors did, when Obama does it its wrong.

It matters that Republicans bitch NOW about these things but not when Reagan called for it or Bush did it.

It's called hypocrisy.

 

[txlonghorn]

So why are we signing another one??? And how did Bush get them to sign on that deal if they hated us so much.

Obama is idealistic??? That's your cover? I don't buy it. I think he's naive and dangerous. He doesn't know the first thing about international diplomacy and relies on his thinkers to tell him what he needs to know. All he's interested in is the headline. Obama moves to nuclear peace with Russia...pardon me while I puke.

You pointed out that the article said that he not commit the United States to giving them up while other states retain them. But did he or did he not do that today? Before you jump on the idea that I am saying he's going to dump them all tomorrow, I never said he would. I said it was the beginning of a process that will lead to a weaker position of a country that needs all the "backup" it can get right now.

This was back in 2002, before Bush fucked up our relations with other countries. Just about every President since Kennedy has been idealistic about a world of no nuclear weapons (whether they truly believed it or not). If you think Obama's naive and dangerous then so is Reagan, Bush, and all of them.

Do you even have any idea how many weapons we have right now and how many we're getting rid of? Or how many we need? How many nuclear weapons do you believe we actually need to protect ourselves Tx?

U.S. is now thought to have about 2,200 deployed strategic warheads and Russia more than 2,700. That's the factual part...I guess the answer to part b of your question would be enough to melt down whoever fired at us first. I don't know! How the hell do you answer the question.

Yeah yeah...bush f'd it up for the whole world....we were all holding hands and singing campfire songs prior to that.

 

[Modbert]

U.S. is now thought to have about 2,200 deployed strategic warheads and Russia more than 2,700. That's the factual part...I guess the answer to part b of your question would be enough to melt down whoever fired at us first. I don't know! How the hell do you answer the question.

Yeah yeah...bush f'd it up for the whole world....we were all holding hands and singing campfire songs prior to that.

How the hell do you answer the question? Simple, how many nukes do you need to defend yourself in case the entire world sided against you. Probably not 2,200.

Well lets put it this way, before Bush we weren't in Iraq and didn't have 4,321 dead troops. Never mind the other thousands injured.

We weren't singing songs around the campfire with some countries by any means, but we weren't the laughing stock of the world either.

 

[txlonghorn]

Apparently we weren't too popular during the Clinton years either...I remember a little bombing attack on the trade center in 93...and the USS Cole attack...Khobar Towers...Embassies in Africa...Attacks on US Military in Somalia. Yeah buddy...we were just loved to pieces in the 90's!!!

 

[txlonghorn]

U.S. is now thought to have about 2,200 deployed strategic warheads and Russia more than 2,700. That's the factual part...I guess the answer to part b of your question would be enough to melt down whoever fired at us first. I don't know! How the hell do you answer the question.

Yeah yeah...bush f'd it up for the whole world....we were all holding hands and singing campfire songs prior to that.

How the hell do you answer the question? Simple, how many nukes do you need to defend yourself in case the entire world sided against you. Probably not 2,200.

Well lets put it this way, before Bush we weren't in Iraq and didn't have 4,321 dead troops. Never mind the other thousands injured.

We weren't singing songs around the campfire with some countries by any means, but we weren't the laughing stock of the world either.

That laughing stock freed Iraq you ASSHOLE!!! That laughing stock was the center of terrorists celebration on 9/11 when over 3000 men women and children were killed because Clinton didn't take out Bin Laden when he had the chance. Talk about a weak liberal!?!?!? He was too busy getting his dick sucked to give a shit!

Before Bush, we didn't WANT to be in Iraq. Or anywhere else that we might get our fingernails dirty. Why do you think they started planning those attacks on 9/11 a year and 1/2 in advance??? They knew Clinton didn't have us ready for anything! We were an unsuspecting target. But it's all good...keep blaming Bush. But you might want to thank him just once for keeping us from getting hit again during his 8 years of leadership.

 

[Modbert]

Apparently we weren't too popular during the Clinton years either...I remember a little bombing attack on the trade center in 93...and the USS Cole attack...Khobar Towers...Embassies in Africa...Attacks on US Military in Somalia. Yeah buddy...we were just loved to pieces in the 90's!!!

We were attacked in 93 at WTC because of our support for Israel and Yousef tried to pose as a member of "Israel's Army".

USS Cole = Osama but with the support of the Sudanese Government.

Khobar Towers = Terrorist Group

Embassies in Africa = Osama

Somalia = Obvious who was behind it.

Notice a pattern here? It was done by Osama who hated the U.S because Dubya's father thought it was a good idea to put U.S troops (including women) on Saudi Arabia soil which is the holy land to Arabs.

Another group who hated our support of Israel and Somalia if you recalled history class.

Then again, this is not the entire world laughing at us because of our piss-poor excuse for a leader, so insert another quarter into the machine and try again.

 

[Modbert]

That laughing stock freed Iraq you ASSHOLE!!! That laughing stock was the center of terrorists celebration on 9/11 when over 3000 men women and children were killed because Clinton didn't take out Bin Laden when he had the chance. Talk about a weak liberal!?!?!? He was too busy getting his dick sucked to give a shit!

Before Bush, we didn't WANT to be in Iraq. Or anywhere else that we might get our fingernails dirty. Why do you think they started planning those attacks on 9/11 a year and 1/2 in advance??? They knew Clinton didn't have us ready for anything! We were an unsuspecting target. But it's all good...keep blaming Bush. But you might want to thank him just once for keeping us from getting hit again during his 8 years of leadership.

He freed Iraq huh? From a dictator to a bunch of warlords they're going to have in their civil war the minute we leave.

I'll let Dick Cheney (1993) explain why it's not a good idea to invade Iraq in the first place.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MePwb6TEk]YouTube - Dick Cheney: Iraq Would Be a "Quagmire"[/ame]

If you honestly believed that killing Osama Bin Laden alone would of stopped the 9/11 attacks then that is IGNORANCE on your part.

Before Bush, we weren't going to be in Iraq for no reason. The people of Iraq don't want us there now, shows how grateful they are huh?

There were no WMDs, there was no Osama/Saddam connection, and therefore the reasons we went there were LIES. If Clinton didn't have us ready for anything then how come we didn't get attacked between 1994-2000 by Osama? How come Bush got a Memo in August of 2000 that said something along the lines that Bin Laden planned to attack the U.S but ignored it while in Crawford?

Thank him for what? Getting thousands of our troops killed in a unnecessary war? Billions thrown into a pit of sand that probably did not go to the people of Iraq, trillions added to the national debt, hatred around the world and lost of respect for the U.S? Lets see, loss of civil liberties, No Child Left Behind which is one of the biggest fuck ups for Education yet, sitting there for minutes staring into space after being informed of the second attack on 9/11?

Only thing he did was ruin this country for my generation and future ones. I'm heading to bed as it's 3 but I'm sure we'll continue this tomorrow.

 

[txlonghorn]

That laughing stock freed Iraq you ASSHOLE!!! That laughing stock was the center of terrorists celebration on 9/11 when over 3000 men women and children were killed because Clinton didn't take out Bin Laden when he had the chance. Talk about a weak liberal!?!?!? He was too busy getting his dick sucked to give a shit!

Before Bush, we didn't WANT to be in Iraq. Or anywhere else that we might get our fingernails dirty. Why do you think they started planning those attacks on 9/11 a year and 1/2 in advance??? They knew Clinton didn't have us ready for anything! We were an unsuspecting target. But it's all good...keep blaming Bush. But you might want to thank him just once for keeping us from getting hit again during his 8 years of leadership.

He freed Iraq huh? From a dictator to a bunch of warlords they're going to have in their civil war the minute we leave.

I'll let Dick Cheney (1993) explain why it's not a good idea to invade Iraq in the first place.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MePwb6TEk]YouTube - Dick Cheney: Iraq Would Be a "Quagmire"[/ame]

If you honestly believed that killing Osama Bin Laden alone would of stopped the 9/11 attacks is IGNORANCE on your part.

Before Bush, we weren't going to be in Iraq for no reason. The people of Iraq don't want us there now, shows how grateful they are huh?

There were no WMDs, there was no Osama/Saddam connection, and therefore the reasons we went there were LIES. If Clinton didn't have us ready for anything then how come we didn't get attacked between 1994-2000 by Osama? How come Bush got a Memo in August of 2000 that said something along the lines that Bin Laden planned to attack the U.S but ignored it while in Crawford?

Thank him for what? Getting thousands of our troops killed in a unnecessary war? Billions thrown into a pit of sand that probably did not go to the people of Iraq, trillions added to the national debt, hatred around the world and lost of respect for the U.S? Lets see, loss of civil liberties, No Child Left Behind which is one of the biggest fuck ups for Education yet, sitting there for minutes staring into space after being informed of the second attack on 9/11?

Only thing he did was ruin this country for my generation and future ones. I'm heading to bed as it's 3 but I'm sure we'll continue this tomorrow.

doubt it...you're koolaid tastes like shit...but I see you enjoy every glass you get your hands on.

I find it fucking hilarious that you would bring up trillions added to the national debt and that he ruined this country for future generations. Seems that has been happening in 3 X speed for the past 4 months. Let's see....when Bush left washington, we had Chrysler and GM just as they had been forever. We had gas at 1.40 a gallon, an unemployment rate that's 1/2 what is today and Michael Jackson was still alive! THE BIG 0 KILLED MJ!

Sleep well. I give up. early on we were having a good discussion, but the koolaid mix got thicker and thicker and I just can't talk to somebody who is overdosing on the koolaid.

 

[Lycurgus]

AP story tells of the agreement between Obama and Medvedev to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

Hmmmm...according to our nice boy president, Russia is no longer suspicious of the US. All because Bush is no longer in power. Let's see....did Russia only begin to be suspicious of America since Bush was elected? Hardly. And we are supposed to believe that Obama went over there and in just a few hours convinced Russia to NOT be suspicious of the US?

Wait...forgive me....I'm laughing too hard to type. So the big "0" will come home and actually kill a major portion of our nuclear program thinking that Russia is doing the same. But I'm sure that they will NOT reduce their numbers. As a matter of fact, they are probably laughing about it right now.

I can't wait for "0" to go over to China and say "Hey...Me and Russia are working together. Why don't you jump on board and right the happy train with us? Com'on. It'll be fun!"

Obama continues to prove that he is not qualified, nor capable of leading this nation!

Hope & Change, they voted for him on empty words which his record did not support. Until entering the Oval Office the man never had to make an executive decision.

He needs to be impeached now, before he brings this nation to it's knees.