Medvedev: Russia may target US missile shield

Do you blame Russia for responding in this manner? I mean, really, what do you expect? They're asking for assurance from us that it's not directed at them, and if we won't give them that assurance then it's pure logic to conclude that it is indeed directed at them. Duh.

 

Is there proof they don't already have missiles pointed at us anyhow? I'm certain we have some aimed at them as well.

Our leaders need to not blink at this and go forth with their plan. I'm really not concerned what Russia thinks about what we are doing. And seriously, I wonder why the paranoia is there in the first place about them worrying if any will be aimed at them? Guilty conscience?

(the more I read of Medvedev and his statemtent, the more I see it as political to gain votes)

 

It's not us, it's Europe.

Years ago Reagan's military buildup pushed the ailing Soviet economy over the brink, which along with other things (like their war in Afghanistan), ultimately resulted in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Their economy could not compete with ours.

I don't think that's the case any longer. It' OUR economy that we should be concerned with now. We desperately need to be looking after affairs at home and drop the notion of policing the world. We simply cannot afford it.

jmho.

 

I understand it's not us as far as homeland, yet it is still us in essence. The point is they have missiles aimed at us here, as well las we do toward them (I'm assuming.)

I agree we should help out own country, yes, but Obama isn't interested in helping this country, he and Michelle simply don't like our country, what it is founded upon, the constitution, or Bible and gun toters.

I still believe we should set up some defense over in Europe to help protect our allies. I also believe we shouldn't blink because of Medvedev in doing so. let him set up some missiles aimed at our sites, who cares?

 

That makes no sense at all. If the true intent of this weapons system is indeed to target Russia's nuclear capabiility, and they've done warned us beforehand that they are going to neutralize that system by targeting it with their own defense system (designed specifically to take such a system out), why should we BORROW yet more money to go ahead with it?

They're calling our bluff, and unlike the Reagan years, they're perfectly capable of carrying through with it. Again, we simply can't afford it.

Let's come home.

 

So you're saying we are in fact aiming missiles at Russia, and that our saying it is for Iran and defense of Iran is not true?

If this is your implication, why do you feel we are setting up missiles to target Russia?

 

Reference post #2:

Why won't we give them the 'legal assrurance' they're asking for? That's all it would take to stop them from neutralizing the system, a legal, binding assurance from us. Again, it's pure logic. (the Russians don't reign at chess for no reason)

 

lol...you're giving WAAAY to much credit to the Russians. It seems you're intimidated by them kyredneck.

BTW, there is no way Obama will concentrate efforts here, unless he does so for some votes.

 

It has been given to them. Why do you believe it hasn't? How do you know Russian is honestly objecting to this out of what they say rather than a hidden agenda?

 

No, I'm not intimidated at all, I'm enough of a chess player myself to know when it's time to assess whether in a weak or strong position. When you're down you don't attack, you go on the defensive.

Obama is flying high and way out in front of all others in the area of foreign policy; if you don't see that you are badly fooling yourself:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/22/opinion/brazile-obama-foreign/index.html

 

Uh, I don't see where foreign policy and the job he is doing therein became the subject all of a sudden?

This was about the missiles and Russia and doing more here, not foreign policy, correct?

Oh, and another thing, I wouldn't put any stock in what cnn has to say. Wonder who they want to be prez next term?

 

Uh, duh, if a U.S. missle system in Europe isn't about freign policy then what exactly is it? Immigration maybe?

And concerning CNN or any other media outlet, "Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then".

 

Oh, I see, you're getting in the flesh and all twisted again.

I was trying to stay on track within the context of our dialogue, (whether we should go forward or not) I was clueless that you'd turn it into a foreign policy peeing contest.

You win...congrats! :thumbsup:

 

????

I reiterate:

 

No, you retaliate. Big difference.

Like I said, you win the peeing contest after changing this to a "you're a fool" (implication) and other prattle after pretending I was arguing he isn't good at foreign policy. That was never an nor the issue. A strawman thrown in the mix by you.

Congrats, you win! :thumbsup:

 

Undoubtedly they're seeking legal binding checks as in any other treaty that has been with them in the past. They want to 'come see' for themselves as is normal procedure with treaties between nations.

Would you have this same concern if it were Israel we were talking about here?

I suspect not.

 

He doesn't know this.

 

I reiterate:

.....and if we're not willing to let them 'come see' for themselves, then what are they to conclude? From pure logic, the missle system is indeed intended for them, not Iran.

Duh.