jdonn Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I agree that FOX is biased to the right, however to say CNN and NPR is not slanted towards the left is not true. Could you please elaborate, other than to say it is so? Is this based on public opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Actually my main quarrel with the style of what is currently coming from Obama and company is the constant comparison they feel that they have to make with policies of the past. The election is over, they won, they will be judged by what they accomplish, not by how different it is from the past. I wish them, and us, the very best. True, the Obama administration will be judged on its accomplishments. But I think it fair to bring up the past whenever the alternatives offered by the loyal opposition have failed spectacularly in the past. Fair maybe. I see it as lacking in class. Such things can come back to haunt him. Secretary Clinton tells us how happy the Russians are with the new administration. well they should be, although you'd have expected a more positive reaction to obama's plan to halt part of the missile defense system in exchange for their (!!) help with iran... russia nixed that idea, i think probably a wingnut site, per josh, since it has ads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 probably a wingnut site, per josh, since it has ads Not that many. Btw I appreciate the humility after I already admitted it didn't mean what I thought it meant. No one knows sarcasm better than I do. Interestingly, I should add, it seems the claim made in the article you link to as well as in your post is denied by both Obama and Russia. At least that is the fair and balanced viewpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 probably a wingnut site, per josh, since it has ads Not that many. Btw I appreciate the humility after I already admitted it didn't mean what I thought it meant. No one knows sarcasm better than I do. Interestingly, I should add, it seems the claim made in the article you link to as well as in your post is denied by both Obama and Russia. At least that is the fair and balanced viewpoint. well you can understand the post's, and my, confusion over all of this when his own people seem to have been equally as confused... from your link "Senior U.S. administration officials previously suggested there was a trade-off in the letter, which they said hinted that plans for the defense shield could be unnecessary if Russian President Dmitry Medvedev helped in blocking Iran's progress toward building long-range missiles." now obama seems to be saying that the missile system, in the czech republic and poland, was always for iran, not russia... that would explain russia's anger over it, i suppose... anyway, i'm sure it'll all work out now that he and hillary have hit the reset button Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Some Obama officials anonymously made a claim about Obama and Russia. Obama and Russia both denied the claim when they found out about it. You happened to provide a link that was likely written in between the claim being made and the denial being made. If you find that sequence of events confusing then I think you need a type of help that I am not qualified to offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 josh, "senior administration officials" usually means someone fairly high in the administration... in any event, you (and everyone else) can read what the post published and read obama's response and make up your own minds... personally it makes perfect sense to me that the missile defense shield was never meant for russia but for iran... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 personally it makes perfect sense to me that the missile defense shield was never meant for russia but for iran... Me too. I didn't realize that was a point of disagreement. I thought this discussion was about whether Obama had essentially offered Russia a quid pro quo: Russia helps us with Iran, we don't put up missile defense system. I understand that Obama has claimed all along the system was because of Iran, not Russia (perhaps that's different from what Bush claimed. I'm not sure.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 well i did find this post from an old bbc article "But Moscow insists that the installation of US missiles in countries close to its western border would change the strategic balance in Europe. Lt Gen Vladimir Popovkin, commander of Russia's space forces, said Moscow would interpret the move as a military threat. "Our analysis shows that the deployment of a radar station in the Czech Republic and a counter-missile position in Poland are an obvious threat to us. "It is very doubtful that elements of the national US missile defence system in eastern Europe were aimed at Iranian missiles, as has been stated," he said. Moscow has warned of "negative consequences" if Prague agrees to host the missile system." this was about the proposed sites in poland and the czech republic here's another one from last summer where russia threatened a military response if we went ahead as planned... i don't know why they'd be upset that we'd want to protect our allies from iran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 As Nato moves into eastern europe or in Asia closer to China(nato/afghanistan) it is only fair that Russia and China be allowed to move bases/nukes/bombers/rockets into Cuba and Mexico. As for Iran and nukes, still fail to see why Iran cannot have Nukes and sell them to whoever they wish. They need to eat also. If the Taliban can be less than 100 miles from the capital of Pakistan, who have nukes, why not Iran? If we really want to stop making people angry at the very least we can withdraw and bring our troops and Navy home from Asia and Europe and the Pacific Ocean and spend the savings on that tent city in Sacramento Calif. As for the biased media.....see Thomas Paine and his ilk..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 As Nato moves into eastern europe or in Asia closer to China(nato/afghanistan) it is only fair that Russia and China be allowed to move bases/nukes/bombers/rockets into Cuba and Mexico. i agree... with the world as it is now, fairness should be the goal... nat'l interests are so passe` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 personally it makes perfect sense to me that the missile defense shield was never meant for russia but for iran... To protect us (Western and Central Europe) against the Middle East, we would have to put up a missile shield in Greece and Bulgaria/Turkey (Cyprus would need their own shield then). A shield in Poland/Czech Republic must be intended to defend us against Russia or Belarus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 personally it makes perfect sense to me that the missile defense shield was never meant for russia but for iran... To protect us (Western and Central Europe) against the Middle East, we would have to put up a missile shield in Greece and Bulgaria/Turkey (Cyprus would need their own shield then). A shield in Poland/Czech Republic must be intended to defend us against Russia or Belarus. ok and your point is? too be honest this all seems to be a matter of seconds but ok.......your point is? If the USA should stop spending billions in \\Europe and more in Sacramento...ok.....we should just let Europe do what they think best............. btw note in 1990's that meant barb wire and concentration camps in the worst sense of the word but ok......rape of boys...girls...etc ok...... in 2000-2009 pls define eastern euro and western asia........ IN any case....europe protects you...usa goes home..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 personally it makes perfect sense to me that the missile defense shield was never meant for russia but for iran... To protect us (Western and Central Europe) against the Middle East, we would have to put up a missile shield in Greece and Bulgaria/Turkey (Cyprus would need their own shield then). A shield in Poland/Czech Republic must be intended to defend us against Russia or Belarus. I just took a map and checked the line from Tehran to Copenhagen, Berlin and Stockholm and therefore I disagree with your geographic reasoning. I also disagree with your implied physics.The flight path of ballistic missiles depends on their speed, so it is impossible to catch up with them. The missile you start to destruct another missile should fly towards the attacking missile, the best moment to hit the target is when the rocket fuel of the attacking missile is used up and the flight path is entirely based on ballistics. The launching point is therefore close to the target and not close to the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 The missile shield is a waste of time anyway, but because Bush made such pressure, I think it was very useful that Obama could get something from Russia for stopping the project that didn't make sense in the first place. Like there's only one way missiles can fly. The world is round, you see... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 In the imperialist chess match, the board is the planet and all of the pieces can be moved whenever and wherever and however the chessmasters deem reasonable. The fact that some pieces are invisible and others are time-delayed only makes it more interesting. Can't play the game if you don't know the rules... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 personally it makes perfect sense to me that the missile defense shield was never meant for russia but for iran... To protect us (Western and Central Europe) against the Middle East, we would have to put up a missile shield in Greece and Bulgaria/Turkey (Cyprus would need their own shield then). A shield in Poland/Czech Republic must be intended to defend us against Russia or Belarus. i know there are some who share that view, but we all know we have nothing to fear from russia... sure, some russian generals might not want us protecting you (and ourselves) from technologically advanced iran, even willing to fight us to keep you (and us) more vulnerable, but they *must* be a minority... obama's simply saying "why have a shield to protect our allies from iran when our friends the russians can simply tell iran to cease and desist"... since the shield was never meant as a deterrant to russia, that makes perfect sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.