WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:15 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 444 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 18  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6344
Location: Montana
silverscreenselect wrote:
In the words of that esteemed statesman, Gomer Pyle: "Surprise, surprise, surprise."

Trump cancels North Korean Summit

Once again, Trump gets played by a foreign leader. And for those that say that liberals wanted this to fail, what upset me, and I'm sure many other liberals, wasn't the idea that Trump might come to a peace agreement with North Korea, but the fact that every right wing news outlet and, of course, Republican politicians and Trump himself were falling all over themselves patting themselves on the back from Day One. Diplomats who live in the real world pretty much predicted what would happen; the only question being whether Trump or Kim would find a reason to pull the plug.

Meanwhile, North Korea still has its nukes and several months of breathing room while it builds a replacement test site, and Kim has gained a lot of stature in diplomatic circles.

But Trump does have those nifty challenge coins he can sell on Ebay or in souvenir shops at Trump properties.


Huh.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15474
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
If this happened under a hillary presidency, you would be overjoyed. It didn't happen under Obama. If it did, you and the MSM would be overjoyed, and I would think the same thing I do now: It is a good thing for the world, but it must be verified very strongly. And if it turns into a Treaty, it must go through Congress.


That's the point. There are reasons it didn't happen under Obama (or any previous president in the last 40 years) and it wouldn't have happened under Hillary. Other Presidents knew what's involved with this level of diplomacy and take steps leading up to it that would show that North Korea is indeed serious about anything other than a major photo op. And whenever, we've started that preliminary talk with North Korea in the past, they eventually pull back.

If this happened under Hillary, it would have been proceeded by months of negotiations at a lower level with a general consensus reached about the agenda before she ever flew off to Singapore or whatever.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6344
Location: Montana
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
How did he get played? Did we give NK something? Maybe I missed it. They returned 3 folks being held prisoner. At the end of the day, if there is no summit, we are still in a net gain position.


Face, prestige, implicit acceptance as an equal nuclear power. Not to mention that the North Koreans can now spin a debacle on their part (the damage to their test facility) as a sign of their willingness to be reasonable in nuclear negotiations (as they rebuild the facility somewhere else). These are what Kim was looking for all along. That's why we refuse to "negotiate" with what we consider terrorists and rogue states (while we engage in back channel talks when needed), because we don't want to give them legitimacy. We just gave Kim a ton of legitimacy, as evidenced by that silly coin and all of Trump's blathering about how nice a guy he is. We did get three hostages back and that's good. But, if anything, Trump has made the U.S. negotiating posture in the future even more difficult than it was before. And Trump looks like even more of a fool than he did before.


He's not the one who looks like a fool.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:23 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17367
Location: By the phone
Spock wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
We're ending joint military exercises with South Korea? A long-standing ally and a democracy that faces a very credible military threat on its very border. Can someone please tell me just what the Great Negotiator got in return for screwing over another ally? --Bob


Now do when Obama scrapped missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic.
Whataboutism. Not an answer to my question. What the hell did Donny get in exchange for screwing South Korea? --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6344
Location: Montana
Bob78164 wrote:
We're ending joint military exercises with South Korea? A long-standing ally and a democracy that faces a very credible military threat on its very border. Can someone please tell me just what the Great Negotiator got in return for screwing over another ally? --Bob


LOL - for years before November 2016, libs were calling these exercises 'taunting' and claiming they only provoked NK. Now ending them is 'screwing' an ally. Because, Trump.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 4210
Location: Merion, Pa.
Bob78164 wrote:
We're ending joint military exercises with South Korea? A long-standing ally and a democracy that faces a very credible military threat on its very border. Can someone please tell me just what the Great Negotiator got in return for screwing over another ally? --Bob

jarnon wrote:
Trump's overture was sought for by South Korean President Moon, who was elected on a platform of engagement with the North. It's similar to Obama's policy towards Iran when moderate (by Iranian standards) Rohani was elected, and Cuba after a long stalemate. Diplomacy with rogue regimes usually fails, but IMHO it's still worth a try.

jarnon wrote:
Moon is determined to keep the peace process alive.

Leaders of North and South Korea Hold Surprise Second Summit

If there is a Trump-Kim summit, expectations have been lowered. The best we can hope for is the start of diplomacy that will lead to, as Trump put it, North Korea joining the real world.

The summit wouldn't have happened without Moon. If the South Koreans feel screwed over (which I doubt), they have only their own president to blame, and themselves for electing somebody who believes in reaching out to Kim.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:55 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17367
Location: By the phone
jarnon wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
We're ending joint military exercises with South Korea? A long-standing ally and a democracy that faces a very credible military threat on its very border. Can someone please tell me just what the Great Negotiator got in return for screwing over another ally? --Bob

jarnon wrote:
Trump's overture was sought for by South Korean President Moon, who was elected on a platform of engagement with the North. It's similar to Obama's policy towards Iran when moderate (by Iranian standards) Rohani was elected, and Cuba after a long stalemate. Diplomacy with rogue regimes usually fails, but IMHO it's still worth a try.

jarnon wrote:
Moon is determined to keep the peace process alive.

Leaders of North and South Korea Hold Surprise Second Summit

If there is a Trump-Kim summit, expectations have been lowered. The best we can hope for is the start of diplomacy that will lead to, as Trump put it, North Korea joining the real world.

The summit wouldn't have happened without Moon. If the South Koreans feel screwed over (which I doubt), they have only their own president to blame, and themselves for electing somebody who believes in reaching out to Kim.
Thanks, jarnon. This is useful context previously unknown to me. It still concerns me, a lot, that this appears to have happened without coordinating with South Korea. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
If this happened under a hillary presidency, you would be overjoyed. It didn't happen under Obama. If it did, you and the MSM would be overjoyed, and I would think the same thing I do now: It is a good thing for the world, but it must be verified very strongly. And if it turns into a Treaty, it must go through Congress.


That's the point. There are reasons it didn't happen under Obama (or any previous president in the last 40 years) and it wouldn't have happened under Hillary. Other Presidents knew what's involved with this level of diplomacy and take steps leading up to it that would show that North Korea is indeed serious about anything other than a major photo op. And whenever, we've started that preliminary talk with North Korea in the past, they eventually pull back.

If this happened under Hillary, it would have been proceeded by months of negotiations at a lower level with a general consensus reached about the agenda before she ever flew off to Singapore or whatever.


None of this would have happened with the smartest woman in the world as our President. You know it and I know it. So stop auditioning for Cirque de Soleil with your contortions. It must really hurt at your age.

No previous President has ever gotten this far with NK. And I believe trump will do a lot more to make sure they stick to their agreements than past administrations, which was pretty much nothing. You trump haters are really something else.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15474
tlynn78 wrote:
He's not the one who looks like a fool.


Only to his base.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 21978
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Spock wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
We're ending joint military exercises with South Korea? A long-standing ally and a democracy that faces a very credible military threat on its very border. Can someone please tell me just what the Great Negotiator got in return for screwing over another ally? --Bob


Now do when Obama scrapped missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/28/the-gop-claim-that-obama-scrapped-a-missile-defense-system-as-a-gift-to-putin/?utm_term=.9aa867bdf754

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15474
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
None of this would have happened with the smartest woman in the world as our President. You know it and I know it.


You're right. I know it wouldn't have happened with Hillary as President just as it didn't with Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan. Because none of them would have sat down to the table with one of the Kims unless they were sure that the North Koreans were serious. We've had preliminary agreements in place and they have always fallen apart because the North Koreans would never agree to a verifiable end to the nuclear program (which in the early years wasn't nearly as far along as it is now).

Maybe this time it will work. And maybe you'll win the Powerball next time.

Trump does things primarily to undo what Obama has done, like scrap the Iran deal and roll back a lot of regulations.

I highly doubt Trump is going to have to "do" anything to "make it stick" because there won't be anything to make stick other than reaffirming a commitment.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 21978
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
None of this would have happened with the smartest woman in the world as our President. You know it and I know it.


You're right. I know it wouldn't have happened with Hillary as President just as it didn't with Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan. Because none of them would have sat down to the table with one of the Kims unless they were sure that the North Koreans were serious. We've had preliminary agreements in place and they have always fallen apart because the North Koreans would never agree to a verifiable end to the nuclear program (which in the early years wasn't nearly as far along as it is now).

Maybe this time it will work. And maybe you'll win the Powerball next time.

Trump does things primarily to undo what Obama has done, like scrap the Iran deal and roll back a lot of regulations.

I highly doubt Trump is going to have to "do" anything to "make it stick" because there won't be anything to make stick other than reaffirming a commitment.

Two Truthless Leaders Just Signed an Agreement That Commits No One to Anything
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/p ... mmitments/

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9928
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob Juch wrote:
Two Truthless Leaders Just Signed an Agreement That Commits No One to Anything
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/p ... mmitments/


LOL. Esquire? Why not Highlights? Or Mad?

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
Two Truthless Leaders Just Signed an Agreement That Commits No One to Anything
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/p ... mmitments/


LOL. Esquire? Why not Highlights? Or Mad?


One trump hating columnist just wrote an article that surprises no one.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15474
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
One trump hating columnist just wrote an article that surprises no one.


I hope you will label similar articles supporting him as "one Trump suckup columnist just wrote an article that surprises no one."

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:33 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17367
Location: By the phone
Bob Juch wrote:
Spock wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
We're ending joint military exercises with South Korea? A long-standing ally and a democracy that faces a very credible military threat on its very border. Can someone please tell me just what the Great Negotiator got in return for screwing over another ally? --Bob


Now do when Obama scrapped missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/28/the-gop-claim-that-obama-scrapped-a-missile-defense-system-as-a-gift-to-putin/?utm_term=.9aa867bdf754
It's behind their paywall. Care to summarize? --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:42 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9386
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
It's behind their paywall. Care to summarize? --Bob


It's not behind a paywall...

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17367
Location: By the phone
Beebs52 wrote:
It is for me. You get a limited number of free visits. I've apparently used mine up. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15474
Beebs52 wrote:


It is for me as well. You get a handful of free articles a month with the Post and once you hit the limit, unless you subscribe the wall comes up.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 4210
Location: Merion, Pa.
Bob78164 wrote:
It's behind their paywall. Care to summarize? --Bob

I managed to slip past the paywall.
Washington Post (2014) wrote:
The United States should “reconsider putting in our missile defense system back into the Czech Republic and Poland, as we once planned. As you recall, we pulled that out as a gift to Russia.”
— Former governor Mitt Romney, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” March 23, 2014

Not to pick on Romney, but this is a common theme among Republican critics of President Obama’s handling of the tensions with Russia over Ukraine. Former vice president Richard B. Cheney, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others have made similar comments. Cheney said Obama had canceled the system to “appease Putin,” and McCain asserted he did it to “placate Putin.”

Let’s look back at this supposed gift.

The Facts

Toward the end of his presidency, George W. Bush, concerned about a possible threat to Europe and the United States from Iranian missiles, proposed to install 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. Administration officials at the time stressed repeatedly that the plan had nothing to do with Russia — and everything to do with Iran.

Then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008 said that Russia’s rhetoric about the system was “pathetic.” As she put it, “I frankly think that anybody who can do the math would know that 10 interceptors in Poland is not going to do anything to a Russian deterrent that has thousands of warheads.”

Enter President Obama, who announced in September 2009 that he was scrapping the Bush plan and introducing an alternative, what he called a “European phased adaptive approach.” The four-part plan would initially focus on threats posed by Iranian short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Europe, and then eventually would include a fourth phase that would target as-yet undeveloped Iranian intercontinental missiles.

The plan, a shield based on the Navy’s Aegis system, was designed to begin with Navy ships with SM-3 interceptors in the eastern Mediterranean and then progress to land-based SM-3s in Eastern Europe.

Obama made the announcement in the midst of a high-profile effort to “reset” relations with Russia, which included negotiations on an arms-reduction treaty. White House officials even described the new system as “less threatening” to Russia. Administration officials also failed to give a heads-up to the Poles and the Czechs, making it appear like a diplomatic snub at their expense.

Still, one key official described the shift as more effective, less costly and timelier than the Bush plan — then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. He also happened to be the guy who recommended the original plan to Bush. He defended the change at the time in an opinion article in the New York Times, noting that the Bush plan would not have been deployed until at least 2017. He then expanded on his defense of the shift in his recent memoir, “Duty.”

Gates, in his book, noted that while the Obama administration had stumbled in failing to lay the diplomatic groundwork for the shift, looking “like a bunch of bumbling fools,” the Bush plan was already running into trouble in both Prague and Warsaw and likely would have been rejected by parliaments in both countries. “The Polish and Czech governments were relieved,” he wrote.

“I sincerely believed the new program was better — more in accord with the political realities in Europe and more effective against the emerging Iranian threat,” Gates added. “While there certainly were some in the State Department and the White House who believed the third site in Europe was incompatible with the Russian ‘reset,’ we in Defense did not. Making the Russians happy wasn’t exactly on my to-do list.”

In fact, Gates says, the Russians quickly concluded that the Obama plan was even worse from their perspective, as it eventually might have capabilities that could be used against Russian intercontinental missiles.

“How ironic that U.S. critics of the new approach had portrayed it as a big concession to the Russians,” Gates added sardonically. “It would have been nice to hear a critic in Washington — just once in my career — say, Well I got that wrong.

The first three phases of Obama’s plan are proceeding on schedule. The plan also had a fourth European phase, which would have been aimed at protecting North America from Iranian intercontinental missiles using an interceptor called the SM-3 Block IIB that exists only on paper. But the fourth phase was canceled in 2013. So the nascent ICBM threat still needs to be addressed, most likely with interceptors on the East Coast. Still, in theory the original Bush plan for ground-based interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe could be revived, as Romney proposes.

Just remember: It’s not supposed to be about Russia.

Aides to Romney did not respond to queries.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:52 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17367
Location: By the phone
jarnon wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
It's behind their paywall. Care to summarize? --Bob

I managed to slip past the paywall.
Washington Post (2014) wrote:
The United States should “reconsider putting in our missile defense system back into the Czech Republic and Poland, as we once planned. As you recall, we pulled that out as a gift to Russia.”
— Former governor Mitt Romney, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” March 23, 2014

Not to pick on Romney, but this is a common theme among Republican critics of President Obama’s handling of the tensions with Russia over Ukraine. Former vice president Richard B. Cheney, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others have made similar comments. Cheney said Obama had canceled the system to “appease Putin,” and McCain asserted he did it to “placate Putin.”

Let’s look back at this supposed gift.

The Facts

Toward the end of his presidency, George W. Bush, concerned about a possible threat to Europe and the United States from Iranian missiles, proposed to install 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. Administration officials at the time stressed repeatedly that the plan had nothing to do with Russia — and everything to do with Iran.

Then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008 said that Russia’s rhetoric about the system was “pathetic.” As she put it, “I frankly think that anybody who can do the math would know that 10 interceptors in Poland is not going to do anything to a Russian deterrent that has thousands of warheads.”

Enter President Obama, who announced in September 2009 that he was scrapping the Bush plan and introducing an alternative, what he called a “European phased adaptive approach.” The four-part plan would initially focus on threats posed by Iranian short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Europe, and then eventually would include a fourth phase that would target as-yet undeveloped Iranian intercontinental missiles.

The plan, a shield based on the Navy’s Aegis system, was designed to begin with Navy ships with SM-3 interceptors in the eastern Mediterranean and then progress to land-based SM-3s in Eastern Europe.

Obama made the announcement in the midst of a high-profile effort to “reset” relations with Russia, which included negotiations on an arms-reduction treaty. White House officials even described the new system as “less threatening” to Russia. Administration officials also failed to give a heads-up to the Poles and the Czechs, making it appear like a diplomatic snub at their expense.

Still, one key official described the shift as more effective, less costly and timelier than the Bush plan — then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. He also happened to be the guy who recommended the original plan to Bush. He defended the change at the time in an opinion article in the New York Times, noting that the Bush plan would not have been deployed until at least 2017. He then expanded on his defense of the shift in his recent memoir, “Duty.”

Gates, in his book, noted that while the Obama administration had stumbled in failing to lay the diplomatic groundwork for the shift, looking “like a bunch of bumbling fools,” the Bush plan was already running into trouble in both Prague and Warsaw and likely would have been rejected by parliaments in both countries. “The Polish and Czech governments were relieved,” he wrote.

“I sincerely believed the new program was better — more in accord with the political realities in Europe and more effective against the emerging Iranian threat,” Gates added. “While there certainly were some in the State Department and the White House who believed the third site in Europe was incompatible with the Russian ‘reset,’ we in Defense did not. Making the Russians happy wasn’t exactly on my to-do list.”

In fact, Gates says, the Russians quickly concluded that the Obama plan was even worse from their perspective, as it eventually might have capabilities that could be used against Russian intercontinental missiles.

“How ironic that U.S. critics of the new approach had portrayed it as a big concession to the Russians,” Gates added sardonically. “It would have been nice to hear a critic in Washington — just once in my career — say, Well I got that wrong.

The first three phases of Obama’s plan are proceeding on schedule. The plan also had a fourth European phase, which would have been aimed at protecting North America from Iranian intercontinental missiles using an interceptor called the SM-3 Block IIB that exists only on paper. But the fourth phase was canceled in 2013. So the nascent ICBM threat still needs to be addressed, most likely with interceptors on the East Coast. Still, in theory the original Bush plan for ground-based interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe could be revived, as Romney proposes.

Just remember: It’s not supposed to be about Russia.

Aides to Romney did not respond to queries.
Thanks again, jarnon. So to summarize, neither the Poles nor the Czechs wanted the system there, the Russians preferred that to what President Obama actually deployed instead, the system was always intended to defend against Iran's capabilities, not Russia's, the guy who proposed the plan to President Bush said the Obama plan is better, and President Obama's system was both cheaper and quicker to deploy.

That's the other thing about whataboutism as practiced by most Republicans. When you take the time to chase down the facts, you learn that most of their what-about points, in addition to being completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (whether Donny screwed up with North Korea), are also pretty much a fact-free zone. Like much of Fox News. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 21978
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
I love this video. It shows how one-sided Faux News is.

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/ ... 8018721792

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
You might want to watch this one, there, BJ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pzZvMzotMc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 21978
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
You might want to watch this one, there, BJ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pzZvMzotMc

The problem with Faux News is that they aren't making mistakes, they are intentionally spreading disinformation.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob Juch wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
You might want to watch this one, there, BJ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pzZvMzotMc

The problem with Faux News is that they aren't making mistakes, and I am always intentionally spreading disinformation.


Fixed it for you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 444 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 18  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.