Of course ballistic missile defense is a chimera, and will remain so until orbiting laser battle stations are perfected – maybe by 2050 – or 2075…

It is long past time for Rhymes-with-Osama to make a deal with Putin: “I’ll allow you a free hand in Belarus, Ukraine, the Caucasus and the ‘Stans – ain’t nuthin’ much I can do to stop you, anyhow. In exchange, I’d like you to provide targeting co-ordinates in Iran & North Korea. The CIA has no fuckin’ idea where all the nuke sites are; but I’ll bet the FSB knows…”

Why not? Considering the above-mentioned nations’ demographics, Obama’d just be euthanizing the terminally ill…

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/17/business/econwatch/entry5683193.shtml

“Then in strode Ronald Reagan, promising that the days of retreat were over. It was morning in America, he said, and twilight in the Soviet Union.

Part of the new president’s hard-line approach was to make the Soviets believe that the US was unafraid of nuclear war. Many of his advisers had long advocated modeling and actively planning for nuclear combat. These were the progeny of Herman Kahn, author of On Thermonuclear War and Thinking About the Unthinkable. They believed that the side with the largest arsenal and an expressed readiness to use it would gain leverage during every crisis.

In his 1981 Senate confirmation hearings, Eugene Rostow, incoming head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, signaled that the US just might be crazy enough to use its weapons, declaring that Japan “not only survived but flourished after the nuclear attack” of 1945. Speaking of a possible US-Soviet exchange, he said, “Some estimates predict that there would be 10 million casualties on one side and 100 million on another. But that is not the whole of the population.”

I remember reading that the movie War Games made Reagan rethink his entire antagonistic hardline approach. Funny to think that that movie might have saved the world from nuclear holocaust at the hands of a senile man child and his handlers.

Germany was taking back what was rightfully there’s in areas where 90% were German and had no affiliation to Poland.
Land given to them under Versailles Treaty.

The creator of the first director of the Cheka (NKVD, KGB) was Polish Dzerjinski.

Who created and ran the Gulags?

Was this the Communism that Europe and US installed in Russia an 84% non-Russian government?

In fact it’s hard to find an actual Russian of predominance where they constituted a majority.

USSR 1917-39.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Andrey.Iv.Diky/Jews.in.Russia.and.in.the.USSR/index#_Toc185714883

The missile shield is an expensive billion dollar phallic object.

@Carlos

Al Qaeda is fake you fool with the financial records traced back to Bosnia where the US has been training Islamic militants for the past decade up to 9/11.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/15/551916/-Sibel-Edmonds-Case:-The-Central-Asia-Islamization-Cocktail:-Mosques,-Madrassas,-HeroinTerrorism

Neocon = Jewish Bolshevik

Holy shit. I think Carlos figures the Cuban Missile Crises was a good move.

As for McCain, I guess the footsoldiers who were killing Vietnamese civilians were more “honorable” than the pilots who were bombing Vietnamese civilians. Ok. That makes total sense. (At least John Kerry had the balls to admit he was a war criminal, even though he was a pussy naval officer.)

And here’s how something can be a threat to regional sovereignty but not national security. Like the U.S., Russia has a sphere of influence and that influence is cultural and economic. Cultural because during the Soviet years Russia basically told its satellite states what history was to be taught and glorified (anything that was Soviet and Russian), forced its language on most of its satellite states, and basically controlled all aspects of social and entertainment life. Economic because Russia was the engine of the communist economies. Generations in those satellite states grew up revering Russia and being dependent on it for economic stability. Those things changed quite a bit after the Berlin Wall fell, but not completely. Don’t underestimate nostalgia. Many in the newly freed countries were happy totalitarianism sponsored by Russia ended, but they still had a soft spot in their hearts for Big Brother. And it certainly didn’t change Russia’s attitude towards the satellites–Russia still expected fealty. Just look at Russian attitudes to the “revolution” in Ukraine. It was supported by the West and criticized by Moscow.

Post-Berlin Wall, the U.S. and NATO courted the satellite states, who were eager to join the West and be tied to it economically, militarily, and somewhat culturally. Russia did not and does not care for this. (For what it’s worth, I understand Russia’s point of view.) Now if you believe NATO is going to attack Russia, you’re out of your mind. Even the Russians don’t think that. But if you think Russia feels slighted and marginalized by the shift of its former serfdom to the West, you are right on. And that slight is the loss of its sphere of influence and its former sovereignty. The missile shield can’t do shit against Russian missiles, but the turning of the fromer satellite states to the West does decrease Russia’s influence. Clear enough for you?

I know logic isn’t your strong suit. Or maybe you’re just too busy make loads of cash. (By the way, do you know how big of a douche bag your income claims makes you sound? Way to endear yourself to exiled readers. They really respect the pocket book.) We’ll compare W-2s some other day. By the way, if you make more than me, does that mean you’re the winner of this debate? Or does dropping more F bombs make you the winner? Or braggin about sex? I know you can’t rely on logic to win an argument, so you might as well try to use those metrics.

And I’m talking about your shitty logic in the last paragraph about nukes, Obama, and MAD. First, MAD works contrary to your argument. If terrorists got their hands on a Russian nuke, even with Russian assistance, and used it, we would not bomb Russia because of MAD. Second, the real quarrel with Russia isn’t about their nukes, it’s about their assistance to Iran’s nuke program. The US and Russia can destroy their own nukes until the cows come home, but if Russia assists Iran, who gives a fuck. (For the record, Obama hasn’t signed any nuke treaty with the Russians, at least not yet. But don’t let facts stop you.) I don’t fall into the Iran will bomb Israel camp, but I do fall into the Iran will covertly supply terrorists with a nuke or dirty bomb. Fuck that shit. MAD isn’t going to deter a fucking terrorist. (I’m trying to catch up on the F bomb tally.) But if the Russians stopped helping Iran, it would probably prevent terrorists from acquring a bomb.

“Barack Hussein Obama dealt a major blow to Terrorism.” Umm, no, he hasn’t accomplished shit. Like I said, Obama hasn’t signed a treaty and the missile shield which could have at least been used as leverage, wasn’t used to obtain shit. The Russians have said things about Iran, but they don’t really follow through. And as for your laughable, ignorant claim that the “neocons” didn’t harm terrorist one bit, Al Qaeda is no where near as organized or dangerous as it was on 9/11/2001. Not even close. There’s a lot to be done, and Bush was after some red herrings, but the claim that Obama has done more than Bush is just delusional.

(And again, if you think invoking the name “Obama” is going to help you win an argument on this website, your fucking clueless.)

You are careful with your words, but you cannot read for shit. I hinted at McCain several times: from post #23, I am sorry your birdbrain fails at memory: “Ya know, the difference between fighting in the infantry and getting shot down while bombing civilians?”

Geez, I wonder who was shot down while bombing civilians. Can it McCain? How stupid do you have to be, Carlos, or actually Dickhead would be a more appropriate name for you. Also, military analyst, oooh. And Bush Jr. was in the National Guard. I’m talking about people who do the gruntwork. What’s next, you gonna tell me Cheney fought by dodging the draft five times?

Dickhead, here’s a hint: I make more money then your sorry ass. I’m on this website for shits and giggles. I thought my name, “LOLZORG”, kinda gave that out. But apparently you are such a dumbfuck, that you don’t know what LOLZORG means. I’m not disenfranchised, nor outside the system. I can easily change the system, i.e. move to another country if I wanted to. You don’t know me at all Dickhead, and your name recognition fails as much as, well everything that you Neocons do. The reason I didn’t respond earlier? Cause I was working on project, and made $8,700 in a few days. If I was a community college student, I’d respond much faster, dumbfuck. Damn, this is too easy, I’m drunk and I still make more sense than you.

A threat to the regional sovereignty, but not to national security? Did you make that up, or suck Bill O’Rielly’s dick repeatedly? That is the biggest piece of bullshit in this section so far. How can something threatening regional sovereignty not be a threat to national security?

The Poles and Czechs? Have you seen the polls in the Czech Republic? The Czechs despise the missile shield. As for the Poles, what’s their war record? 1-100? Only a Neocon dumbfuck would pick the Poles as allies over Russians. I am finally getting the Neocon logic of the Coalition of the Willing’s inclusion of the Republic of Palau. They just love what looks good on paper, and have no sense of the Real World.

Also, Obama isn’t my lover. Unlike Neocons, normal people don’t need male escorts and high prices hookers in other countries to get laid. Stop it with the sexual obsession, we get it, you can never get laid without money. That’s ok. Go fuck yourself.

Pakistan is a shithole, and an ally that Neocons chose. Good choice, cookie? Ames likes people who have balls and do what’s best for America; not those who dodge the draft five times, or have daddy sign them up for the National Guard, and start wars to make money, wars that fuck over America. This is just about balls. Maybe if you had sex occasionally, without the use of male escorts, you’d understand.

I’m sorry that it’s too complicated for your little brain to understand, Dickhead, but try to understand this: Obama signed two treaties with Russia, about cutting down the number of nukes. That means less nukes. That means nukes are better protected. That means that if terrorists get nukes, the US will know in a matter of hours, who gave them the nuke, and whoever did it, will be fucked. Everyone understands that. Therefore, via MAD, no one will give the terrorists nukes, thanks to Obama’s thinking. So, while you, and the rest of the Neocon gang whine about how Obama’s a big softie, via negotiating and multi-lateral relations, instead of the “I said so, and so it must be, fuck the World” Neocon logic, Barack Hussein Obama dealt a major blow to Terrorism. More than all the Neocon efforts combined and in just two phone calls. And Obama’s getting laid tonight by Michelle, so be jealous, Dickhead, Neocon failure that you are.

I’m under no misconception that Blackwater is part of the U.S. armed forces, yet they still fought in Iraq. And they can still be described as neocons (whatever that term means).

Also, it is beyond simplistic, I would say retarded, to say the neocons don’t fight, never fight. Every fucking ex-military analyst on Fox News is a neocon and fought in one war or another. I’m sure you would call McCain a neocon and he was a prisoner of war. Oh, and I never wrote that you would call them heroes. I know tools like you aren’t discerning and leap to conclusions based on what you assume someone is saying, but I’m careful with my words. You, on the other hand, apparently think calling someone gay and criticizing pizza toppings is a rebuttal (are certain pizza toppings neocon?. Good job. You are this generation’s Michael Kinsley.

And “disenfranchised” has a broader meaning than “without a vote” dumbshit. It’s used to describe morons like you who feel outside the system (although you clearly wanna fuck Obama, the ultimate part of the system being the President and all–and by the way, if you think this site is pro-Obama, you’re in for a surprise). I know delivering pizzas distracts you from your community college homework, but it really doesn’t take much time to look up a word online. Try it some time.

As for the wisdom of backing out of the missile shield deal, well fuck Obama. The shield never, ever could stop the Russian missile arsenal. Russia whined about it because they felt it was a threat to their regional sovereignty, not a threat to their national security. Well fuck Russia. If the US wants to help out its allies, its the US’s perogative. The Polish and Czech governments stuck their necks out for us to base the system their, and then Obama shit all over them. What an ally. He got nothing from the Russians in return (pressure on Iran). In fact, milquetoast Obama hasn’t accomplished shit in foreign policy. He thought the velvet glove, nuance, and a willingness to talk would persuade Iran to stop its nuke program. Not so fast Pollyanna. The deadline Obama set (mid-Sept) for Iran to sit down with the U.S. and talk has come and gone with no pressure on Iran. Obama didn’t even support the real democrats in Iran who protested the rigged election and got beaten and shot in the streets. Obama can’t even get the Israelis to stop building antogonizing settlements. Bibi is basically daring pussyfoot Obama to do something, but because your boy has no balls, nothing will be done. Don’t even get me started on his Cairo apology to the Muslims. It had the effect of ending terrorism. Ooops. Nope. Al Qaeda still hates us, the Taliban is still firing shots at US military, and Pakistan could give two fucks about harboring Osama. Well played, Mr. President, you ball-less pussy.

Which brings me to my original point–if Ames loves the old school Euros for their balls even if their balls fucked a whole continent for generations, why no love for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld who had the balls to go after two countries at once no matter how ill-fated the wars were? Hell, Ames even called out the Dems for lacking the testicular fortitude to shout down Bush, but praising a neocon racist for shouting down your lover Obama. I just questioned the inconsistency.

I disagree with many. But I only like to beat up Neocons, because it’s so easy. It’s like taking a candy from a baby. That’s why they’re so scared of actual debates.

Blackwater isn’t part of the US Armed Forces, ya moron. Duh! They’re guns for hire. Back when people had honor, they were called “Assasins” or “Enforcers”. Today they’re called “Liberators”. The World changes. But Enforces aren’t Neocons, they work for the highest bidder, which, one day, might not be you. But you can always find a job as a clown.

Disenfranchised? That means I don’t vote. How the fuck is voting related to making money? Wow, you are an idiot beyond belief. Also interesting choice: sausage is what guys who like to suck cock choose, and mushrooms is a choice by wanna-be hippies. Really sad choices, but thanks, they make me laugh, clown.

The points that Ames made are pretty self-explanatory: Iraq made sure that America didn’t stay a superpower. The Lebanon War was the first time the IDF lost. And damn, did Saakashvili get an ass whooping! Damn French interfeared, otherwise Putin would’ve invented a new sport: “hanging Neocons by the balls, whoever can find them, wins!”

The movie, Inglorious Bastards, portrayed the Nazis, who actually fought. Even Hitler fought in WWI. Neocons on the other hand are cowardly peices of shit, that won’t fight, but that will whine. Poster #25 pointed out that Neocons are those that won’t fight in a real war, as infantry, but prefer to fly high in the skies, and still managed to get shot down.

You rebutted by saying that I would actually call heroes, who have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq as infantry, Neocons. So let me simplify it for your Amoeba brain:

Me: Neocons are chickenshits who won’t fight
You: I bet you’d call those who fought Neocons.

Do you see it yet?

Just to show you that I’m not a pizza guy, and cause I feel like it, I’ll explain something to your little brain: the reason for this deal, is because it prevents a missile race between US and Russia. Coupled with START, US and Russia have brought the odds that Al Qaeda will capture a nuke to, virtually nil. In addition, they hurt the military industrial complex, in both countries; the one in the US also funds the Neocon movement, cause they’re good at starting wars.

So Obama came up with something that hurts both Al Qaeda, and the Neocons, with no cost to the US; Or do you seriously think that Poland can actually help the US more than Russia can hurt it? The Czechs are against the radar, so no real hurt there. Just like the Sotomayor nomination, I love Obama. I voted for Obama to flick off McPalin, but today I’d vote for Obama over most other candidates.

Ames – wonderful piece, except the Russians didn’t oppose Americans in Afghanistan. Other then that, beautifully written! And if you look closely, Gazoo looks like Cheney on crack

i have a large sausage and mushroom for ya, you dumb closet case neocon…could you have chosen a better combo of toppings?…wow.

On one hand, we have what appears to be a blatant concession to the dirty Russians–there was a Mexican Standoff and Obama blinked. One would think that this is not proper conduct for a global hegemon.

On the other hand we have military intelligence which states that the Iranians are nowhere near the capacity to launch ICBM’s and hit a desired target. Allegedly based on this intelligence Obama wants to move the originally proposed ground-based sites to Southern European waters to defend against short-range Iranian missiles which are a currently a legitimate threat.

The problem I have is that Obama seems to think that the two are mutually exclusive. But he of all people knows the originally proposed missile shield was designed to put pressure on the Russians. Why not do both right away, instead of delaying the ground based interceptors until near 2020? If we had adopted this we could have saved face in the international community by resisting Russia, ensured our relationship with Poland and the Czech’s, and defend Europe against the current Iranian threat.

Your point escapes me. Are you implying my rebuttal of LOLZORG’s comment missed his point (whatever it was)? Or are you implying that LOLZORG is an idiot because Inglorious Basterds is a movie and no one actually fought?

The strategic significance of the decision is fourfold: (1) Appeasement in the wake of Russian threats against Poland; (2) appeasement in the wake of Russia’s bullying of Ukraine (by Moscow’s withdrawal of its ambassador to Kiev); (3) appeasement less than 14 months after Russia’s invasion of Georgia; (4) appeasement as an expression of NATO policy, adopted by the new leadership in Washington.

If you want to understand the impact of the president’s policy, Americans should consult their brothers in Ukraine and Poland. Ask them why Russian bullying should not be rewarded. It is realistic to say that roughly half the Ukrainian population was exterminated by the Russian communists between 1917 and 1950. When the Soviet armies invaded eastern Poland on 17 September 1939, a series of massacres took place that included the “liquidation” of at least 21,000 Polish army officers and the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Polish citizens to Soviet concentration camps. If anyone understands what these figures signify to millions of Poles and Ukrainians, then think of the six million Jewish victims of Hitler; only you’ll have to triple the number of victims. (Here we are only discussing Moscow’s Polish and Ukrainian victims, forgetting for the moment that Moscow probably butchered 60 million human beings, according to Prof. R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii. See Rummel’s chart, figure 1.1

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

These innocent millions, cut down by Russia’s security services, are matched by millions more enslaved and forced to work for starvation wages in Stalin’s gulag. Their suffering testifies to a legacy unlike any the world has ever seen (with the exception of its imitators in Red China and Red Cambodia). From the Kremlin’s point of view, these lives were necessary sacrifices in the construction of an unprecedented war machine, far larger than Hitler’s. It was Stalin’s objective to build tens of thousands of tanks and guns and war planes in order to overwhelm Europe. There was no profit in this project, only the promise of war and conquest. As Viktor Suvorov explains in his book on Stalin, titled The Chief Culprit, Poland was sacrificed because, according to Stalin, “History says that when any country wants to fight against another country, even one that it does not neighbor, it begins to seek out borders, through which it could reach the borders of the country it wants to attack.” In other words, Stalin wanted an open path to the heart of Europe. And that is why Moscow forbids Poland and the Czech Republic from building a European missile defense today. By breaking up this joint defensive project with America, the Russians drive a wedge between Poland and the United States.

Under Vladimir Putin the Russian state is following Stalin’s old program. The regime in Moscow makes its subjects afraid and prepares to extend this fear to all of Europe. Who dares to act or think or speak independently? People in Russia are careful not to upset the Kremlin bosses; and so is the American president. Perhaps someone should remind the White House of a boast published by Pravda before the Second World War: “Our country is great. The globe itself needs to rotate nine hours in order for our huge Soviet country to enter the new year of its victories. There will be a time when it will need for this not nine hours, but a whole twenty-four….”

Sentiments of this kind are brewing behind the high Kremlin walls even now. Russia’s agents are busy undermining the sovereignty of Georgia, Ukraine, the Baltic States and Poland. Russia’s agents have penetrated to the core of every important country. They have assassinated journalists and critics at home and abroad, using a variety of instruments. Last year an attempt was made to poison the offices of the chairman of the Ukrainian State Property Fund (FGI), Valentina Semenyuk, with mercury. This occurred after Semenyuk successfully stopped an attempt by Moscow’s front men to take control of one of Ukraine’s most important strategic assets (Odessa’s port plant). Readers should be reminded that Ukraine’s President, Victor Yushchenko, was poisoned during the 2004 election campaign by security personnel who are now on Russian territory, shielded and protected. In a recent interview with Spiegel Online President Yushchenko explained that the investigation had been completed, that state prosecutors had interviewed over a thousand witnesses. “People who directly organized my poisoning have been in Moscow for the past four years,” said the Ukrainian president. “I have appealed to the Russian president three times, and asked him to have them questioned by Ukrainian investigators at our embassy in Moscow.”

Consider the message President Obama is sending when he appeases Russia on the anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland. Imagine what the Poles and Ukrainians must be thinking. Can we trust Washington? Will the Americans betray us to the Russians?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,647401,00.html