• 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 warns US will 'isolate' Russia if Putin doesn't pull back in Ukraine

You may be right. If Obama was spearheading that thing, that's a very big problem. Very big.

China accused the US of instigating the protests. And, both China and Russia were very unhappy with the US/NATO expanding the UN resolution for Libya, engaging in regime change. This is the very reason why they both blocked all attempts to secure a resolution for use of force in Syria. They are on to the US foreign policy game of toppling governments we don't like.
 
No you were not correct. I said Iran had stopped enriching uranium to 20 per cent. You said there had been no change since 2003. That wiki article states that:



It doesn't say they stopped enriching uranium to 20 percent in 2003.



No, it doesn't say they are still enriching uranium to 20 percent. What is says is:

You are correct. They keep a stockpile of 20% and have increased their capacity with more centrifuges but are no longer enriching to that percentage.
 
What poll was that?

The one I took last year, you missed it?

Just kidding.

(CNSNews.com) – The past year witnessed bloodshed in Syria and Iraq, turmoil in Egypt, anarchy in Central Africa, threats by a nuclear-armed North Korea and Chinese military posturing, but as 2013 ends a global poll finds that the country seen as representing the greatest threat to peace today is ... the United States. - See more at: And The Country Posing The Greatest Threat to Peace as 2013 Ends is
 
The one I took last year, you missed it?

Just kidding.

(CNSNews.com) – The past year witnessed bloodshed in Syria and Iraq, turmoil in Egypt, anarchy in Central Africa, threats by a nuclear-armed North Korea and Chinese military posturing, but as 2013 ends a global poll finds that the country seen as representing the greatest threat to peace today is ... the United States. - See more at: And The Country Posing The Greatest Threat to Peace as 2013 Ends is

And you take that seriously?

Paradoxically, just because people view the U.S. as the biggest threat doesn’t necessarily mean they wouldn’t like to move there if they could.

Sounds like the opinion stems mostly from jealousy. :shrug:
 
Indeed, but Russia and China and France had already been "reaching out". Obama just can't be given the credit for that agreement and yes, it would have happened without him. In fact Russia could have done it on their own.

ITAR-TASS: World - Iran hopes Russia will assist to reaching final agreement with P5+1

First of all you want to lay fault on Obama when something is wrong, but you don't want to give him any credit for that agreement. That's just blatant partisan politics. It ignores reality and just wants to score political points.


Partly because we paid him and partly because it wasn't the US but the UN security council that was willing to give armed entry into the country the nod if he didn't.

If he didn't believe there would be consequences if he didn't give them up, he would have kept them. Do you think Syria developed those weapons just for the fun of it? There is no way Assad would have given up a weapons arsenal of that size if he had NO respect for what Obama could do if he didn't.

No matter how incompetent they think Obama is, they still need the bucks to keep flowing from the US. And again, that agreement has little to nothing to do with the US.

They may think he is incompetent, but they have to respect him. And you are just plain wrong if you want to assert that the agreement had nothing to do with the US. You cannot present credible, objective evidence to prove your point.
 
The point is that there is NO WAY such an agreement could have been reached with Iran IF Obama lacked political and diplomatic capital.



Having problems as President of the United States is no criteria for being a weak leader. It's a position where you are constantly confronted with problems.

Actually, there is no substantive agreement with Iran, its merely window dressing.

And objectively, based on his foreign and domestic policy Obama has proven a weak leader.
 
Actually, there is no substantive agreement with Iran, its merely window dressing.

Just the fact that representatives from the highest levels of both governments were in the same room trying to reach an agreement was substantive and historic in itself. It had not happened since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. That was quite an achievement for Obama.
 
Just the fact that representatives from the highest levels of both governments were in the same room trying to reach an agreement was substantive and historic in itself. It had not happened since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. That was quite an achievement for Obama.

Not really-the purpose was presented as stopping Iran from getting nukes-immediately after they dismissed that.

Some of us care about outcomes, others appear to care more about intentions.
 
And you take that seriously?



Sounds like the opinion stems mostly from jealousy. :shrug:

It's a Gallop poll, what do you mean?

No, not jealousy, getting the hell out of a country that might be next on the target.
 
Russia is lucky to have you, isn't it?

What the hell does that mean. They're doing fine on their own. As though you wouldn't scream like a six year old if they were to install such a system in Canada, said it was defensive, early detection and destruction of potential weapons fired at them by the US.
 
Good, I'm glad you do.

Funny you think that when none of the 66,000 polled said that. Most people are in denial, your in good company.
 
Funny you think that when none of the 66,000 polled said that. Most people are in denial, your in good company.

Yeah, they said the US is a danger...and I want to live there. :roll:
 
Wow what a surprise, the pro-Russian Crimean Parliament installed last month voted for Putin. It means nothing but you chalk up another victory for your hero.

:lol: Putin is a left-wing autocratic dictator with even less regard for the West than he has for individual liberty. If he was in charge of any other country, the Left would be feting him like they celebrated Chavez. And the only miserable defense you can muster for the utter fail that is this administrations' policy towards Russia is to launch the feeble critique that the people on the side of the aisle whom your guy made fun of for warning us about Putin are secretly fans of his?

:lamo, man. Must be mighty depressing to be a Dem, these days. ;)

Since all referendums most be country wide to be valid I doubt Putin will get his way legally. Meanwhile the EU is readying a $13 billion euro aid package and has pledged full support for the new Govt. of the Ukraine. Tick,tick, how long before they sign the papers to make Ukraine a formal member?

:lol: Ukraine's GDP per capita is less half of Turkey's, which isn't allowed membership, bringing in the Ukraine when they are still extremely fragile is... very unlikely - especially if Putin makes it clear that he doesn't want them to. :lol: but your argument is still that Putin gets' everything he wants, and you count that as a loss for him? Good luck spinning that to anyone beyond those who are Desperate To Believe.
 
These are interceptor missiles, purpose designed and many are simply kinetic energy. We have plenty of ways to get offensive missiles just where we need them.

Anti-ballistic missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But they don't work. Our own quarter of a trillion $ system has yet to prove itself once. What they do is encourage another race to build more nukes. Just what the world needs.

Immediately following the Fourth of July fireworks, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) tried out some fireworks of its own. By trying to hit a missile with a missile they attempted a demonstration of the defensive “shield,” designed to protect the U.S. from North Korean and Iranian nuclear missiles. It turned out to be a dud. As with the two previous attempts, the Ground Based Missile Defense system once again failed. This failure happened despite the fact that the demonstration was essentially rigged: the intercept team knew ahead of time when to expect the incoming missile and all its relevant flight parameters. Such luxury is obviously not available in real-life combat. But even if the $214 million “test” had worked it would not prove much.
The Costly Failure of Missile Defense | The Nation
 
But they don't work. Our own quarter of a trillion $ system has yet to prove itself once. What they do is encourage another race to build more nukes. Just what the world needs.

The Costly Failure of Missile Defense | The Nation

They dont ALL work yet, but there are effective solutions, and technology continues to improve. Its why Putin does not want this purely defensive shield, which now seems like a nice thing to have.
 
They dont ALL work yet, but there are effective solutions, and technology continues to improve. Its why Putin does not want this purely defensive shield, which now seems like a nice thing to have.

LOL There is no more threatening or offensive capable weapon than a functioning missile shield or even the belief of the enemy that you are building one. It is grounds for war. If you don't understand why that is you are more naive than I thought.
You also should understand that all missile defense systems can be beaten by building more missiles. ANY system can be overwhelmed.
 
Last edited:
:lol: Putin is a left-wing autocratic dictator with even less regard for the West than he has for individual liberty. If he was in charge of any other country, the Left would be feting him like they celebrated Chavez. And the only miserable defense you can muster for the utter fail that is this administrations' policy towards Russia is to launch the feeble critique that the people on the side of the aisle whom your guy made fun of for warning us about Putin are secretly fans of his?

:lamo, man. Must be mighty depressing to be a Dem, these days. ;)



:lol: Ukraine's GDP per capita is less half of Turkey's, which isn't allowed membership, bringing in the Ukraine when they are still extremely fragile is... very unlikely - especially if Putin makes it clear that he doesn't want them to. :lol: but your argument is still that Putin gets' everything he wants, and you count that as a loss for him? Good luck spinning that to anyone beyond those who are Desperate To Believe.

Reality hasn't been kind to liberals.
 
:lol: Putin is a left-wing autocratic dictator with even less regard for the West than he has for individual liberty. If he was in charge of any other country, the Left would be feting him like they celebrated Chavez. And the only miserable defense you can muster for the utter fail that is this administrations' policy towards Russia is to launch the feeble critique that the people on the side of the aisle whom your guy made fun of for warning us about Putin are secretly fans of his?

:lamo, man. Must be mighty depressing to be a Dem, these days. ;)



:lol: Ukraine's GDP per capita is less half of Turkey's, which isn't allowed membership, bringing in the Ukraine when they are still extremely fragile is... very unlikely - especially if Putin makes it clear that he doesn't want them to. :lol: but your argument is still that Putin gets' everything he wants, and you count that as a loss for him? Good luck spinning that to anyone beyond those who are Desperate To Believe.

Reality hasn't been kind to liberals.
 
LOL There is no more threatening or offensive capable weapon than a functioning missile shield or even the belief of the enemy that you are building one. It is grounds for war. If you don't understand why that is you are more naive than I thought.
You also should understand that all missile defense systems can be beaten by building more missiles. ANY system can be overwhelmed.

Brilliant, so let me guess-no defense should ever be attempted. :doh
 
Brilliant, so let me guess-no defense should ever be attempted. :doh

A system that is designed to stop 1 or 2 rogue nukes might be prudent but not if it creates another nuclear arms race. We are years away from the tech even for that though
 
A system that is designed to stop 1 or 2 rogue nukes might be prudent but not if it creates another nuclear arms race. We are years away from the tech even for that though

So lets continue to appease. What could go wrong?

The left is gutting the military (and its research), and even if it was built-you'd say it will start an arms race. :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom