He can't run again. Well, unless he plans on changing the law, but he claims he's not going to. Not sure if I believe him, but that's another matter.TrollmeaT wrote:
Looks like he's simply positioning himself to win the next election, if they pull out of the treaty we should stop all foreign aid to them. I bet things will calm down after the election, I hope.
Quite. He was toying with changing the constutution so he could run for another term but it looks like he's changed his mind.ghettoperson wrote:
He can't run again. Well, unless he plans on changing the law, but he claims he's not going to. Not sure if I believe him, but that's another matter.TrollmeaT wrote:
Looks like he's simply positioning himself to win the next election, if they pull out of the treaty we should stop all foreign aid to them. I bet things will calm down after the election, I hope.
No, but pulling out of an arms treaty in protest is a little drastic and one could argue it signals Russia going back to the days of a cold war arms race. Again, not where I find humour.Bubbalo wrote:
So, objecting to US military installations on their border is a sign that they're going backwards? Are you kidding?
Last edited by RicardoBlanco (2007-04-27 03:32:49)
Right........so pulling out a treaty restricting your use of armaments when threatened is drastic? Do you not understand the concept of appropriate action? They pose a military threat, we alter military situation.RicardoBlanco wrote:
No, but pulling out of an arms treaty in protest is a little drastic
The US is the one dumping weapons in Europe, a characteristic action of the Cold War. If anyone's driving toward a Cold War it's the US.RicardoBlanco wrote:
and one could argue it signals Russia going back to the days of a cold war arms race.
RicardoBlanco wrote:
Furthermore, and in case you hadn't noticed, it was a European arms treaty they're threatening to pull out of.
Can you maybe see where they find the link? I placed a slight emphasis on it.Your source wrote:
It places limits on the number of conventional weapons and foreign forces that can be deployed among member nations.
That's the idea.Your source wrote:
Clever Russians. This is going to make the idea of a US missile defence system on European soild that bit harder to swallow for us.
Why don't you put that all together in a concise format and I'll reply. I don't see your point in any of that quote fest. Run along.Bubbalo wrote:
Right........so pulling out a treaty restricting your use of armaments when threatened is drastic? Do you not understand the concept of appropriate action? They pose a military threat, we alter military situation.RicardoBlanco wrote:
No, but pulling out of an arms treaty in protest is a little drasticThe US is the one dumping weapons in Europe, a characteristic action of the Cold War. If anyone's driving toward a Cold War it's the US.RicardoBlanco wrote:
and one could argue it signals Russia going back to the days of a cold war arms race.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Furthermore, and in case you hadn't noticed, it was a European arms treaty they're threatening to pull out of.Can you maybe see where they find the link? I placed a slight emphasis on it.Your source wrote:
It places limits on the number of conventional weapons and foreign forces that can be deployed among member nations.That's the idea.Your source wrote:
Clever Russians. This is going to make the idea of a US missile defence system on European soild that bit harder to swallow for us.
And after that shall I shine yer boots, guv'nor?RicardoBlanco wrote:
Why don't you put that all together in a concise format and I'll reply. I don't see your point in any of that quote fest. Run along.
It was the horse, I knew it.Bubbalo wrote:
And after that shall I shine yer boots, guv'nor?RicardoBlanco wrote:
Why don't you put that all together in a concise format and I'll reply. I don't see your point in any of that quote fest. Run along.
Get off you high horse, it just makes you look like an idiot.
Last edited by EVieira (2007-04-27 09:52:33)
You can shine my boots whenever you like BubsBubbalo wrote:
And after that shall I shine yer boots, guv'nor?RicardoBlanco wrote:
Why don't you put that all together in a concise format and I'll reply. I don't see your point in any of that quote fest. Run along.
Get off you high horse, it just makes you look like an idiot.
Any defensive move is inherently offensive as well. By limiting your opponents ability to hit at you, you increase your ability to hit at him.Kmarion wrote:
We didn't tolerate them putting missles in Cuba. However the situation was a little different considering the missiles in Cuba were an offensive move (Given the types of missiles).
You're obviously concerned enough to bring it up so I'd say yes. *pitter patter*Bubbalo wrote:
Do I sound concerned? Honestly, do I?
I was just pointing out that I don't leap to the command of asses.
Run along.
So what about the US that actually wants to install these missiles right up Russia's butt? Isn't that a bit Cold-War like?RicardoBlanco wrote:
No, but pulling out of an arms treaty in protest is a little drastic and one could argue it signals Russia going back to the days of a cold war arms race. Again, not where I find humour.Bubbalo wrote:
So, objecting to US military installations on their border is a sign that they're going backwards? Are you kidding?
Furthermore, and in case you hadn't noticed, it was a European arms treaty they're threatening to pull out of. Clever Russians. This is going to make the idea of a US missile defence system on European soild that bit harder to swallow for us.
To some degree yes. But I see "10 unarmed missile interceptors in Poland and a linked radar in the Czech Republic" and R-12's/R-14's as incredibly different motives.Bubbalo wrote:
Any defensive move is inherently offensive as well. By limiting your opponents ability to hit at you, you increase your ability to hit at him.Kmarion wrote:
We didn't tolerate them putting missles in Cuba. However the situation was a little different considering the missiles in Cuba were an offensive move (Given the types of missiles).
If he does then we're all in a world of hurt. I just hope the next guy isn't as bad.ghettoperson wrote:
He can't run again. Well, unless he plans on changing the law, but he claims he's not going to. Not sure if I believe him, but that's another matter.TrollmeaT wrote:
Looks like he's simply positioning himself to win the next election, if they pull out of the treaty we should stop all foreign aid to them. I bet things will calm down after the election, I hope.
Could you please quote a source? Not questioning it's accuracy (irrelevant to my argument) just curious, I don't know anywhere near as much about the Cuban missile crisis as I probably should.Kmarion wrote:
To some degree yes. But I see "10 unarmed missile interceptors in Poland and a linked radar in the Czech Republic" and R-12's/R-14's as incredibly different motives.
In fact the US was told ahead of time: On 4 September, Robert Kennedy met with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. During the meeting Kennedy stated the U.S.'s concerns about weapons that were in Cuba. The Ambassador assured Kennedy that they were strictly defensive and that the military build-up was of absolutely no significance..
That same day, a personal communiqué was received from Khrushchev to President Kennedy stating that there would be no offensive weapons placed in Cuba
To which we (the US) did not have a problem with.
Last edited by Fen321 (2007-04-27 19:41:16)