What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

If you put "smarter than" in the same sentence as Palin, you do not need to qualify it.

Anyway, pulling the starburst-blinded right's tail over her has nothing to do with her and everything to do with how empty they have become.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

iNdg0.jpg
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
Interesting idea. And thanks for a serious response. I'm not big on having U.S. troops all over the globe, including places where there's little threat of invasion (like say Germany), so some retrenchment there is ok with me. That in and of itself should more than fund missile defense R&D. On overall defense spending, any serious approach to reigning in the federal deficit will have to include defense cuts, probably substantial. It's too big a part of the budget to escape the ax. Of course hopefully it would be done with some wisdom. Realistically, it won't be cut meaningfully, just like most federal spending won't be cut meaningfully, but that's another discussion.

The network idea is interesting, and reminds me in some ways of Bush's interest in putting missile defense in various places, such as central/eastern Europe. A fundamental problem would be shipping our latest technology to folks who aren't that friendly to us. That's generally a no-no. Mostly my thinking is toward protecting our country and its population, but certainly there is a wider international aspect to this.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion if you makes cuts to the right stuff (IMO Germany, etc), you can't help but make effective and productive cuts.

The biggest problems with Bush's missle plan (in addition to the fact that costs were incremental additions to total defense spending) was that missles were not in say Romania or Bulgaria but rather in Poland. Polish installations pretty much focus all the technology against Russia...who unless there is an accident will likely not represent the threat in upcoming decades. The mentality of this solution IMO should be based on a shift in the nuclear threat to third world countries rather than having them based on an out of date cold war mentality.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

unofan said:
North Korea isn't in the "terror" game, though, any more than Russia was or Cuba is. It's not a group of pari-militants ala the Taliban; it's a soverign nation, albeit one led by a crackpot dictator.

And I've got a pretty good grip on why 9/11 happened. It's our own response to 9/11 that has me shrugging my shoulders.
Click to expand...
Not the terror game, but the threat of lobbing missiles and such is a very useful tool for NK. They have a lot more leverage when people are worrying about them being a nuclear power than if they weren't.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

5mn_Major said:
I'm of the opinion if you makes cuts to the right stuff (IMO Germany, etc), you can't help but make effective and productive cuts.

The biggest problems with Bush's missle plan (in addition to the fact that costs were incremental additions to total defense spending) was that missles were not in say Romania or Bulgaria but rather in Poland. Polish installations pretty much focus all the technology against Russia...who unless there is an accident will likely not represent the threat in upcoming decades. The mentality of this solution IMO should be based on a shift in the nuclear threat to third world countries rather than having them based on an out of date cold war mentality.
Click to expand...

you want to make it "all about Russia" you pile them up in Canada... a missle shield would only impact in as far as it affects europe... and that's what Putin's problem is in this case. Putin wants to pressure Europe in the years ahead as they weaken due to cap and trade and Islamic issues. That being said, generally this isn't about Russia as they certainly could overwhelm and defeat such a system... the Russians know that... you don't though... so they play on that.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Kepler said:
If you put "smarter than" in the same sentence as Palin, you do not need to qualify it.

Anyway, pulling the starburst-blinded right's tail over her has nothing to do with her and everything to do with how empty they have become.
Click to expand...

Gosh you still seem awfully worried about her. You want to ruin/change a converstation... just mention her name... Pavlov couldn't dream of that kind of a response.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
Not the terror game, but the threat of lobbing missiles and such is a very useful tool for NK. They have a lot more leverage when people are worrying about them being a nuclear power than if they weren't.
Click to expand...

The leverage is in the threat, though, not the act. The second they actually lob a nuke at anyone, or expand their conventional war beyond the border dispute, they lose all leverage.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
But, but, a missile shield is something Bush liked. :confused: Therefore it can't be useful or a good idea. At least until the Norks drop a nuke on San Francisco or something.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if this seems like Pick on Bob Day, but the irony was a little too delicious to pass up.

Bob Gray said:
Health Care was shoehorned?

ROTFLMAO
Click to expand...
You're right. That's too generous a term I used for what was foisted upon the American people.
Click to expand...

Goose. Meet gander.

Republicans suggest x. Obama passes x. Republicans hate x.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

unofan said:
The leverage is in the threat, though, not the act. The second they actually lob a nuke at anyone, or expand their conventional war beyond the border dispute, they lose all leverage.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's like Republicans and abortion. The moment they win, they lose. So they hold it as a sword of Damocles over women's heads to keep the pot boiling. And the money keeps pouring in.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Kepler said:
Exactly. It's like Republicans and abortion. The moment they win, they lose. So they hold it as a sword of Damocles over women's heads to keep the pot boiling. And the money keeps pouring in.
Click to expand...

Who cares if the Republicans win. The main point is the babies win.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

unofan said:
The leverage is in the threat, though, not the act. The second they actually lob a nuke at anyone, or expand their conventional war beyond the border dispute, they lose all leverage.
Click to expand...

Certainly. But with an unpredictable actor like North Korea, you are never quite sure when threat could turn into action with them, recognizing they aren't entirely rational actors.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Ew. Ewewewewewwew!

OK, that was pretty funny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top