• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Compromises National Defense

Read the intro and vote accordingly

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Russians are once again celebrating Democrat stupidity...

The Right-Wing Underground: Obama Compromises National Defense

So the question is, when Obama is finished subverting U.S. interests abroad and making us utterly beholden to the whims of foreign powers, will Democrats once again get away with falsely blaming Republicans for their own refusal to learn from history, as they did with 9/11, Iran, North Korea, etc?
 
Last edited:
Obama isn't the President of Eastern Europe.
 
Good to see Obama getting something right. Pissing off Russia by deploying a missile shield that is unlikely to work against threats that currently do not exist is a bad strategy. Iran is not going to be able to attack us with missiles for a very long while, and Israel will not allow them to develop nukes. If you want a missile shield, it should actually work, and be deployed on American soil in secret.
 
It was a bloody stupid idea to start with. It shows how much some rightwing groups have taken up a liberal view on IR. Any neo-realist could have told them pissing off the Russians on their own doorstep in this way and by increasing the membership of NATO is a silly idea in terms of stability and ultimate security.
 
Good to see Obama getting something right.



Newsflash: Taking Russia's word for it that they will pressure the lunatic Kamikaze regime Democrats installed in Iran...which was armed by...Russia...the country that always sides with Iran and its own economic interests over international security...to give up it's nuclear program...is pretty much the exact opposite of "getting something right."

Try again. :lol:

Pissing off Russia by deploying a missile shield that is unlikely to work against threats that currently do not exist is a bad strategy. Iran is not going to be able to attack us with missiles for a very long while, and Israel will not allow them to develop nukes. If you want a missile shield, it should actually work, and be deployed on American soil in secret.

-So many falsehoods, so little time. If it were unlikely to work Russia wouldn't have been scrambling like mad to get us to take it down.

-Iran isn't a threat? Meanwhile, on planet Earth, this laughably stupid claim needs no debate. It's erroneous on its face.

-No one's claiming that Iran will be able to attack US anytime soon...it's Europe and Israel...the country they want to wipe off the map...that needs the shield. The shield gives us leverage. Obama, just like Clinton and Carter before him, is merely visionlessly subverting our interests so we can end up at the mercy of our enemies once again. Liberals pay zero attention to history, hence their insistence on repeating such catastrophic blunders.
 
It was a bloody stupid idea to start with. It shows how much some rightwing groups have taken up a liberal view on IR. Any neo-realist could have told them pissing off the Russians on their own doorstep in this way and by increasing the membership of NATO is a silly idea in terms of stability and ultimate security.

Yeah, how absurd of us to check the power of the racist lunatic regime in Iran and the increasingly abusive dictatorship in Russia at the same time. As much as the ridiculous children of the left may not want to come to terms with it, the reality is that resisting aggression by monsters generally angers them and is not a valid excuse for groveling and surrender.
 
-No one's claiming that Iran will be able to attack US anytime soon...it's Europe and Israel...the country they want to wipe off the map...that needs the shield.

Then why not just let Europe and Israel to build the shield if they want it, instead of us building it? It's not like these are destitute third-world nations who can't afford it (inasmuch as any nation can afford this)...
 
Yeah, how absurd of us to check the power of the racist lunatic regime in Iran and the increasingly abusive dictatorship in Russia at the same time.
Indeed. If you are interested in stability, global security and domestic liberty it is an absurd idea to go for these liberal interventionist strategies.

As much as the ridiculous children of the left may not want to come to terms with it, the reality is that resisting aggression by monsters generally angers them and is not a valid excuse for groveling and surrender.
You arguments are liberal to the core. You are arguing for humanitarian interventionism to defeat regimes on ideological grounds when for the cause of stability or national interest is little served by it.
 
Then why not just let Europe and Israel to build the shield if they want it, instead of us building it? It's not like these are destitute third-world nations who can't afford it (inasmuch as any nation can afford this)...

Because foreign policy is a giant chess match. It gives us tremendous leverage over both the Iranians and the increasingly abusive Russians to be able to neutralize their missile threat.
 
Because foreign policy is a giant chess match. It gives us tremendous leverage over both the Iranians and the increasingly abusive Russians to be able to neutralize their missile threat.

Uhh
So I guess I have to ask the obvious question...

Why not just let the Europeans and Israelis gain tremendous leverage over the Iranians and Russians to be able to neutralize their missile threat? Since they're the ones affected by it, after all. Let THEM spend the billions of dollars on this boondoggle.
 
Indeed. If you are interested in stability, global security and domestic liberty it is an absurd idea to go for these liberal interventionist strategies.

Just like it was absurd for us to intervene in Bosnia or Somalia, because we all know those pristine and undisturbed places have completely fallen to ashes since we "de-stabilized" them.

Newsflash: Russia and Iran are the ones destabilizing the region. Us resisting their aggressions undoes the turmoil they create. Please, stop hyperventilating over angering aggressors...your approach has a long track record of embarrassing failure.

You arguments are liberal to the core. You are arguing for humanitarian interventionism to defeat regimes on ideological grounds when for the cause of stability or national interest is little served by it.

Wrong. What is happening here is you are failing to comprehend what I am arguing. See my last post (chess match) for clarification.
 
Uhh
So I guess I have to ask the obvious question...

Why not just let the Europeans and Israelis gain tremendous leverage over the Iranians and Russians to be able to neutralize their missile threat? Since they're the ones affected by it, after all. Let THEM spend the billions of dollars on this boondoggle.

Spoken like a true pre-WWII visionless isolationist.

Newsflash: we have a great deal at stake in the affairs of Europe, Israel and the entire Middle East...and as even a cursory review of world history will confirm, resisting the aggressions of a monster today will prevent far more costly interventions later.

Good night all.
 
Just like it was absurd for us to intervene in Bosnia or Somalia, because we all know those pristine and undisturbed places have completely fallen to ashes since we "de-stabilized" them.
Unless there is likely to be something like a genocide then intervening is a silly liberal idea and yes it tends to increase destabilisation. The US and Ethopia recently overturned the Islamic courts in Somalia who for all their faults had something of a stable control over significant parts of the country and now it has gone back to almost complete chaos.

Newsflash: Russia and Iran are the ones destabilizing the region. Us resisting their aggressions undoes the turmoil they create. Please, stop hyperventilating over angering aggressors...your approach has a long track record of embarrassing failure.
This is Russia's region and Iran is doing precious little and is far away from either the US or UK. You are suggesting liberal interventionism for abstract ideological reasons and it will only lead to harm.


Wrong. What is happening here is you are failing to comprehend what I am arguing. See my last post (chess match) for clarification.
You argument is muddled and confused. You talk in a neo-realist fashion about chess-matchs and then seem to wish to intervene in another great powers backyard for ideological reasons, which is absurd from a realist position and will lead to obvious instability.
 
Last edited:
The Russians are once again celebrating Democrat stupidity...

The Right-Wing Underground: Obama Compromises National Defense

So the question is, when Obama is finished subverting U.S. interests abroad and making us utterly beholden to the whims of foreign powers, will Democrats once again get away with falsely blaming Republicans for their own refusal to learn from history, as they did with 9/11, Iran, North Korea, etc?


This partisan bull**** is never going to end... is it? :(
 
Newsflash: we have a great deal at stake in the affairs of Europe, Israel and the entire Middle East.

We certainly have less of a stake in the affairs of Europe, Israel, and the Middle East than Europe, Israel, and the Middle East do. :roll:

Again, these are not poor countries who are completely dependent on us. They could build this thing if they wanted to. It's ridiculous to conclude that WE need this boondoggle for OUR national interests, when even the countries at risk aren't willing to pay for it.

aquapub said:
..and as even a cursory review of world history will confirm, resisting the aggressions of a monster today will prevent far more costly interventions later.

World history offers mixed reviews of that formula. See, not every single world leader whom you don't like is Adolf Hitler. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
The U.S still has its ballistic missile subs, and ICBMs so I really don't see the need for a missile shield to make the Russians behave.

Russia is a paper tiger. End of. Europe can pay for its own defense strategy.....

It amazes me that some conservatives are the first people to whinge about the size of government, but they don't seem to blink an eye when government spending is increased on useless defense policies. Then some conservatives bemoan Europe's attitude towards defence, that it is; the US is always bailing their ass. My point is this; how can you ever encourage Europe to look after its on affairs if it can easily pam it of to America? You don't change bad behavior by rewarding it.

The US has the worlds most powerful aircraft carrier fleet. It has the most powerful army and marine corp in the world. It has the largest navy and air force in the world. It has the best equipment in the world, it has a massive nuclear arsenal. Eastern Europe does not need a military-corporate-welfare program to defend itself from Russian aggression.

Unlike some symbolic hawks, I would rather governments engage in effective military deterrents that are necessary for collective or national defense. I do not believe that building the modern equivalents of rail guns, is necessary.
 
Indeed. If you are interested in stability, global security and domestic liberty it is an absurd idea to go for these liberal interventionist strategies.


You arguments are liberal to the core. You are arguing for humanitarian interventionism to defeat regimes on ideological grounds when for the cause of stability or national interest is little served by it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27iran.html?pagewanted=print
Bush says supports Russian shipment of enriched uranium to Iran - Haaretz - Israel News


Bush Backs Russia on Iran Nuclear Issue
U.S. agrees to EU's Iran nuclear plan - CNN.com




Liberals are just full of ideology and righteousness disregarding any common sense, it does not matter if they are Bush or Obama voters. Unintentionally Obama may do something right, but it is not like Russia would celebrate stupidity of the US. Russia would celebrate any American politician and/or leader matching the intelligence of Russian leaders. There is no more joy for an intelligent person than to talk and deal with another intelligent person.
Russia wants to see the US be smart and work together. It has no interest in nuclear Iran, the less it supports Muslim terrorism, actually it greatly opposes Muslim terrorism, - but in a smart way.
 
The Russians are once again celebrating Democrat stupidity...

The Right-Wing Underground: Obama Compromises National Defense

So the question is, when Obama is finished subverting U.S. interests abroad and making us utterly beholden to the whims of foreign powers, will Democrats once again get away with falsely blaming Republicans for their own refusal to learn from history, as they did with 9/11, Iran, North Korea, etc?

This piece of **** blog AGAIN?

Please tell me how this missile defense system, in the czech republic will change the way Russia runs it's ship, or how it will show anybody that we are not vulnerable...
I think most of this ideal of invincibility was hindered whenever a few Arabians, armed with box cutters, made the "breaking news" spot on CNN.
 
The Russians are once again celebrating Democrat stupidity...

The Right-Wing Underground: Obama Compromises National Defense

So the question is, when Obama is finished subverting U.S. interests abroad and making us utterly beholden to the whims of foreign powers, will Democrats once again get away with falsely blaming Republicans for their own refusal to learn from history, as they did with 9/11, Iran, North Korea, etc?

For those who are against this claim, it is impossible to answer this poll.

But to answer your question, the Republicans are quite capable of screwing themselves up.
 
Good to see Obama getting something right. Pissing off Russia by deploying a missile shield that is unlikely to work against threats that currently do not exist is a bad strategy. Iran is not going to be able to attack us with missiles for a very long while, and Israel will not allow them to develop nukes. If you want a missile shield, it should actually work, and be deployed on American soil in secret.





Right, because everything that has been invented has already been invented....


such a luddite comment here.


BMDO or MDA has made many technological advances.



This is a defensive measure.
 
Bush provoked a war between Georgia and Russia, just for the hell of it. I don't see how Obama could do anything remotely so stupid.
 
It amazes me that some conservatives are the first people to whinge about the size of government, but they don't seem to blink an eye when government spending is increased on useless defense policies. Then some conservatives bemoan Europe's attitude towards defence, that it is; the US is always bailing their ass. My point is this; how can you ever encourage Europe to look after its on affairs if it can easily pam it of to America? You don't change bad behavior by rewarding it.

This is only some Conservatives, namely neocons types and mostly American. A lot of Conservatives realise this ideological, bear-baiting liberal crap is not a good idea.
 
Right, because everything that has been invented has already been invented....


such a luddite comment here.


BMDO or MDA has made many technological advances.



This is a defensive measure.
A defensive measure in the backyard of a great power. Hardly the best idea to serve stability and national security. Unless you are willing to go to war and crush Russia and think it is easily worth then it is a silly idea. Otherwise it is not in your national interest and is a silly liberal ideological game.

How would you like it is Russia, or China or the EU, installed such a thing in central America?
 
Last edited:
Right, because everything that has been invented has already been invented.

Perhaps, but it is rather idiotic to spend money on that when the most likely use of a nuclear weapon against the US will be by smuggling in through the ports or across the border.

It's cheaper just to work with the Russians to eliminate the nukes in the first place and we get relatively cheap MOX out of it.

Bush deserves to be criticized for decades for his failure to do just that.

This is a defensive measure.

Perhaps if we were the Swiss yes. However, the ability to suppress a 2nd strike capacity from a potential target is indeed offensive. The tool that eliminates MAD is offensive in nature. A shield that is designed to destroy an enemy's shield has moved from the defensive use into the offensive.
 
Back
Top Bottom