Why the country cannot risk four more years of this guy

duh i guess we are all so stoopid.....we all (like our marxist prez) better listen to Medvedev telling us what we should do.....
261-DhPIu.Em.55.jpg




gosh now....we wouldn't want that would we.......?

Medvedev is not telling us what to do. He's stating his country's concerns, which happen to perfectly valid. And no, we don't really have an incentive to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. Having that ability is only important if you seriously think Russia is going to launch a first strike, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Since it is extremely unlikely that the United States would launch a first strike against the Russians, there is no reason for the Russians to be concerned that a missile defense would be a problem for them. I imagine that you would agree that the United States can also have valid concerns about missiles from Iran, and the number of interceptors necessary for that defense would have little impact on a Russian nuclear deterrent.

We absolutely have valid concerns about Iran's weapons development. Those concerns don't require placing missiles in Poland. Your point is valid that Russia doesn't need to fear a first strike from our end, but that's like me shaking a loaded gun in your face while promising to not shoot. It doesn't matter that I've promised not to, the big loaded gun is scared nonetheless.
 
We absolutely have valid concerns about Iran's weapons development. Those concerns don't require placing missiles in Poland. Your point is valid that Russia doesn't need to fear a first strike from our end, but that's like me shaking a loaded gun in your face while promising to not shoot. It doesn't matter that I've promised not to, the big loaded gun is scared nonetheless.

No, it would be like you wearing a bulletproof vest. A defensive move.

One wonders why Obama, and you, object to that - unless your desire is for foul play....
 
It's "purely defensive" in the same sense as wearing a suit of body armor covered in spikes is.
 
It's "purely defensive" in the same sense as wearing a suit of body armor covered in spikes is.

:confused:

ABM's serve the same function as a bulletproof vest, they stop incoming ballistics.

They are 100% defensive and can be used for no other purpose.

Obama is demanding that our allies cannot defend themselves - simple as that.

Has he made a "Hitler-Stalin" pact with Putin? Very possibly, based on his "Hot Mike" faux pas. But he needs space until after the election to pull the trigger on it.
 
How would you feel if someone had a loaded gun in your face?

Do you think the United States should unilaterally disarm in phases, or all at once?

No one is saying the United States should unilaterally disarm. What is being said is that placing a missile shield in Poland is needlessly antagonistic and does nothing to enhance American security.

It sure as hell makes Poland feel a bit more secure when Iran get nukes and threatens all of Europe. OOPS! Obama already screwed Poland.
 
I hear what i thought was the word flexibility by Obama but could glean no context from the conversation.

It ain't that tough;

________________
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
 

Forum List

Back
Top