#2
I saw this on NPR earlier, but politics bore me

Also:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has welcomed the US decision, calling it a "responsible move".


I don't trust him.
I will stand by all this drinking if it helps me through these days,
It takes a long time just to get this all straight.
#4
Pussies.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#5
Russia is highly paranoid though- it's saying the missile base could be used for attacks on them, without a scrap of evidence to support this claim
#8
Well true country power comes from it's military and weapons. No one except MAYBE the U.S. could afford a war with Russia. No one except MAYBE Russia could afford a real war with the U.S. But that will change if Obama takes away our big scary weapons. Same goes with Russia. No one is stupid enough to attack the U.S. or Russia with nukes (except maybe North Korea). Once big bombs are gone, So is power.
#9
Quote by The article
However, there has been criticism of the decision in conservative circles in the US.

I haven't finished reading, but this just fucking shocks me. A decision by Obama? Criticized by conservatives?! Never.
#10
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
Russia is highly paranoid though- it's saying the missile base could be used for attacks on them, without a scrap of evidence to support this claim


Well, the fact that the proposed system would have been situated near enough on their doorstep is probably good enough evidence for them..
#12
Quote by pak1351
dumbass

Why? Or did you not complete that thought?

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#13
Quote by PeZ546
Well, the fact that the proposed system would have been situated near enough on their doorstep is probably good enough evidence for them..



Proving nothing. The US finished its feuding with Russia a long time ago.
#14
Quote by SteveHouse
Why? Or did you not complete that thought?

Instead of having the defense up by 2012, it's going to be pushed three years back, and I'm sure the Russians will oppose whatever new plan we come up with
#15
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
Proving nothing. The US finished its feuding with Russia a long time ago.


Maybe so, however I'd say that both sides still harbour mutual feelings of distrust towards one another. Besides I don't see why a system designed to protect against Iranian missiles would be best situated in Eastern Europe. Especially since that Iran would most likely be flinging nukes at Israel before anyone else.


Regardless of all that. The fact that this has been scrapped is a good thing. The world needs less missiles, not more.
#16
Quote by pak1351
Instead of having the defense up by 2012, it's going to be pushed three years back, and I'm sure the Russians will oppose whatever new plan we come up with

Which is "dumbass" why? It's not like they ever approved of this one. And unless you can convince me we need missiles in Eastern Europe, demilitarization is a good move toward peace and diplomacy, particularly with Russia, because:
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
The US finished its feuding with Russia a long time ago.

Pro Tip, guys: The Cold War is over. Anything that shows that we're suspicious of the Ruskis makes the relationship between our two countries weaker. That, in case you aren't sure, means national security can be threatened.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#17
I think its cool. The more defense we have, the more people feel threatened. Living life through fear didn't work well for America.
I want to work in revelations, not just spin silly tales for money.I want to fish as deep down as possible into my own subconscious in the belief that once that far down, everyone will understand because they are the same that far down.
#18
I won't really call it demilitarization, just switching from one missile defense system to another.
Quote by Waffleexplosion
Only in a vodka ad could Mexico win a war.
#19
*Fewer enemies.

Good. I don't like having Yankee missiles scattered throughout Europe.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#20
Quote by SteveHouse
Which is "dumbass" why? It's not like they ever approved of this one. And unless you can convince me we need missiles in Eastern Europe, demilitarization is a good move toward peace and diplomacy, particularly with Russia, because:


Obama is the dumbass, and he's planning on sending ships to the area and putting missiles in the czech republic and poland, they just moved the time-table back three years.

Gates said that the initial stage of Obama's alternate plan would deploy Aegis ships armed with interceptors, giving the military the ability to move the system around.
Another key to the near-term network would be new, more mobile radar used to detect and track short- and medium-range missiles if they were launched from Iran.
In a press conference that followed Obama's remarks, Gates said that a second phase of the plan would add a modified version of a land-based missile that is still being developed. Gates said the U.S. told the Czech Republic and Poland that they would be part of that stage of the system, which won't take place until 2015.

source: http://news.aol.com/article/us-scraps-plan-for-missile-shield-for/673866
#21
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
Proving nothing. The US finished its feuding with Russia a long time ago.


Lmao, no.
#22
Quote by pak1351
Obama is the dumbass, and he's planning on sending ships to the area and putting missiles in the czech republic and poland, they just moved the time-table back three years.


source: http://news.aol.com/article/us-scraps-plan-for-missile-shield-for/673866

I don't see what bit of that source is dumbassery, to be completely honest with you.

+The immediate plans for a missile shield have been scrapped. Even the Pentagon said it was ill-suited to defending Iran.
+Ships in the Aegean sea would be more capable of stopping Iranian missiles where they're likely to go than would a defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. It's still not that close, but it's closer.
+The world stage might be completely different in six years.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#23
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
Proving nothing. The US finished its feuding with Russia a long time ago.




No.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#24
Quote by SteveHouse
I don't see what bit of that source is dumbassery, to be completely honest with you.

+The immediate plans for a missile shield have been scrapped. Even the Pentagon said it was ill-suited to defending Iran.
+Ships in the Aegean sea would be more capable of stopping Iranian missiles where they're likely to go than would a defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. It's still not that close, but it's closer.
+The world stage might be completely different in six years.

We're not defending Iran, it was to protect eastern europe and the us. I don't know how well the shield would have worked, I don't have that kind of knowledge, but I'd imagine the ships will form their own defense shield, which is mobile, but in reality if a missile is launched, they're basically a static defense like the shield would be. The difference is they could move on intelligence and hopefully be in position to intercept the missiles ebfore they were launched, which is a good thing, but why scrap the static defense totally instead of leaving it as is and giving the mobile defense a smaller operating area to worry about?

We're still planning to build missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic (which, naturally, the Russians will oppose when the time comes). We could have built the original shield and sent the ships for the short-range missiles and been done three years earlier.

We will probably build the bases no matter what the world stage is like. Iran is the current hot-topic but I'm sure another threat will pop up in the region should they fade from the limelight, as has been happening the past 30 or so years in that region.
#25
Quote by pak1351
We're not defending Iran, it was to protect eastern europe and the us. I don't know how well the shield would have worked, I don't have that kind of knowledge, but I'd imagine the ships will form their own defense shield, which is mobile, but in reality if a missile is launched, they're basically a static defense like the shield would be. The difference is they could move on intelligence and hopefully be in position to intercept the missiles, which is a good thing, but why scrap the static defense totally instead of leaving it as is and giving the mobile defense a smaller operating area to worry about?
I meant defending from Iran. Come on, Steve.

I agree, it is kind of silly to say "we aren't doing this..... yet." Where we differ in opinion is whether it's a good idea in itself.

We're still planning to build missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic (which, naturally, the Russians will oppose when the time comes). We could have built the original shield and sent the ships for the short-range missiles and been done three years earlier.

We will probably build the bases no matter what the world stage is like. Iran is the current hot-topic but I'm sure another threat will pop up in the region should they fade from the limelight, as has been happening the past 30 or so years in that region.
Oh, I'm sure we will. There aren't many worse political decisions in post-9/11 America than cutting the military. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#26
No one would ever actually launch a nuke anyway so it's not that big a deal.
No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable


@gossage91
@overtimefitnessau
#28
Quote by epiless
yeah i am sure no one in the world is bat**** crazy enough to launch a nuke



Well why would they? One launch starts it all and basically destroys civilisation. No one will risk that, be serious.
No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable


@gossage91
@overtimefitnessau
#29
Quote by SteveHouse
I meant defending from Iran. Come on, Steve.

I agree, it is kind of silly to say "we aren't doing this..... yet." Where we differ in opinion is whether it's a good idea in itself.
Oh, I'm sure we will. There aren't many worse political decisions in post-9/11 America than cutting the military. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

yep, and we probably won't come to any real agreement, nothing wrong with that.
#30
Quote by pak1351
yep, and we probably won't come to any real agreement, nothing wrong with that.

Civility?

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#31
Quote by jambi_mantra
No one would ever actually launch a nuke anyway so it's not that big a deal.





Owrly?
#32
^He's gonna die soon enough. Won't happen

Unless--Unless he does it from his death bed..........


[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)