Mitt Romney makes total fool of himself re: START

[Vympel]

What about putting the ICBMs on bombers?!

[Simon_Jester]

Well, ALBMs are not unheard of, but they lack intercontinental range and no longer exist.

So while there are more idiotic things he could have said (such as worrying about the threat of nukes being hauled up into space by Santa Claus's reindeer and dropped on us)... he'd have really had to work in order to become a bigger idiot than he actually did.

[Einzige]

I wonder what the American reaction would be to "modest" Russian missile "defense" plans in Canada or Mexico!

At any rate, I'm glad Romney opened his fat fucking mouth. It only goes to show just how dishonest the Republicans are every time they pledge to cut wasteful spending on wasteful government programmes - which our entire defense establishment is the prime representative of.

[Patrick Degan]

I can take it as a given that membership in the Republican Party no longer carries any sort of minimum IQ requirement.

Nevermind how dishonest Republicans show themselves to be, I'm far more worried about how thunderingly stupid they show themselves to be. Dishonest people in power can be dealt with, gotten around, or eventually removed, and they've at least got an interest in maintaining some standard of competency to keep things working. Stupid people in power, though, could crash the whole country before anybody could do anything about it.

[Simon_Jester]

I can take it as a given that membership in the Republican Party no longer carries any sort of minimum IQ requirement.

More to the point, and this is far more alarming: leadership of the Republican Party no longer carries any sort of minimum IQ requirement.

You can find idiots in any party. It's only problematic when you can find idiots running one, people who have a serious, realistic chance of becoming national leaders (Sarah Palin had a slim one, Romney had and has a frighteningly better one).

[Stofsk]

Who is more idiotic, the idiot that gives the speech or the idiot that writes the speech?

[Ritterin Sophia]

I wonder what the American reaction would be to "modest" Russian missile "defense" plans in Canada or Mexico!

Canada and Mexico are not members of a multinational mutual defense pact with Russia. Poland is a member of NATO and that site is considered the optimal spot to stop an nuclear attack coming from the Middle East and thus protecting the rest of our allies in Europe.

PS What's with the quotation around 'defense'? The Patriot System is in no way an offensive one.

[Einzige]

I wonder what the American reaction would be to "modest" Russian missile "defense" plans in Canada or Mexico!

Canada and Mexico are not members of a multinational mutual defense pact with Russia. Poland is a member of NATO and that site is considered the optimal spot to stop an nuclear attack coming from the Middle East and thus protecting the rest of our allies in Europe.

So? They're in as close proximity to the continental United States as is Poland to Russia. The hypocrisy of the defenders of the warfare-welfare state Establishment on this issue never ceases to astonish me.

PS What's with the quotation around 'defense'? The Patriot System is in no way an offensive one.

PATRIOT has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with fattening the pockets of a few big government contractors.

[TimothyC]

I wonder what the American reaction would be to "modest" Russian missile "defense" plans in Canada or Mexico!

Canada and Mexico are not members of a multinational mutual defense pact with Russia. Poland is a member of NATO and that site is considered the optimal spot to stop an nuclear attack coming from the Middle East and thus protecting the rest of our allies in Europe.

So? They're in as close proximity to the continental United States as is Poland to Russia. The hypocrisy of the defenders of the warfare-welfare state Establishment on this issue never ceases to astonish me.

Read The Missile Defense Equation: Factors for Decision Making by Peter J. Mantle. Then come back to us. The kinetics of GBIs launched from Poland are marginal for Tail-chasing ICBMs over the North Pole. But then again you don't seem to have a knowledge of ABM so I'm not surprised by you not knowing this. The kinetics are however very good for hitting ICBMs from Iran targeted at North American and Europe. The Russian's don't like the systems in Eastern Europe because they don't like the idea that the US is in their former sphere of influence. President ZerObama made a great call when he announced that the original plan was going to be scrapped On the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, but such a call is par for the course with the current administration

PS What's with the quotation around 'defense'? The Patriot System is in no way an offensive one.

PATRIOT has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with fattening the pockets of a few big government contractors.

Really? Would you please provide some proof that ABM systems like PATRIOT PAC-3, THAAD, and GBI don't work? Or that the systems can be used offensively? Or do you just have a hatred for the military (which is the vibe I get from your posts)?

[Ritterin Sophia]

So? They're in as close proximity to the continental United States as is Poland to Russia. The hypocrisy of the defenders of the warfare-welfare state Establishment on this issue never ceases to astonish me.

And your continued Liberal-Libertarian schtick continues to influence my opinion that all libertarianism is irrational idiocy when applied to the realities of international strategic planning and politics.

For one, if Russia wants to put an ABM system in Canada or Mexico they're welcome to it. Because such a system is completely useless against all foreseeable nuclear threats to Russia's interests, unless of course Russia's goal is to provide protection to North America against Eurasian nuclear attacks. The ABM will be on a tail chase in either case (America to Russia for a Mexican or Canadian ABM and Russia to US for a Polish ABM).

In order for your analogy to work Russia needs a group of nations allied with it that Russia perceives to be threatened by another third party,

PATRIOT has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with fattening the pockets of a few big government contractors.

Maybe for the contractors themselves, but America has a big interest in making sure we're providing perceivable benefit in terms of protecting our European allies. Without it we would see our military bloc disappear overnight and thus a major deterrent to our enemies and massive blow to our force projection capabilities as our allies would see no benefit in allowing us to operate our bases outside our own borders. These capabilities allow us to deploy troops to threats globally as hot-spots appear which, despite my opposition to wars such as Iraq, is still necessary so long as we are reliant upon foreign resources and goods to maintain our way of life.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't think there's anything wrong with hating the military, an organization created for one of the most ugly jobs in mankind's portfolio - war, which is state-sanctioned killing. That's a pretty legitimate feeling. I'm actually depressed sometimes that only the massive proliferation of especially destructive weapons ensures peace. And perhaps, if you follow that logic, means to combat WMDs are a threat to peace and destructive balance maintained by offensive weapons ready to make any nation a nuclear wasteland.

That's a grim vision, but talking to Stuart and others, I see no reason to believe anyone, any nation, no matter what it is and who leads it, unless I have a huge set of nukes that will get delivered to it no matter what. I'm genuinely saddened that the current world situation actually forces massive militarism and arms races between nations around the world because nothing guarantees safety and no threat of invasion better than lots of WMDs. It's a paradox, but not one I like.

Canada and Mexico are not members of a multinational mutual defense pact with Russia.

Shatten, you're back here with your double standards, I see? And what if they were? The guy asked "what would the US reaction to Russia placing it's weapons in a nation in the Americas be". Not "who is in whose pact".

And we know what would the US reaction to a militarization of South America with somebody else's deterrents. Hysteria. Like in 1962. Because the US is so fucking hysteric about it's hyperpower status, about the cozy warm safety of its citizens from weapons of BADDIES, that no other reaction could even be envisioned. And you ask that other nations should feel otherwise? Why? Maybe other nations do have a right to be hysteric about US military expansion? Not in Shattenworld - they have to shut the fuck up, because they're obviously jackasses stopping the glorious NATO... in doing what? Helping world's drug trade by making Afghanistan a narco-state, putting Iraq into a dark age, Mad Max like conditions for a good decade or more and allowing islamists to take foothold there? Saber-rattling against Iran now that they created a perfect platzdarm for Iranian influence by destroying Iraq?

Once again I'm reminded how fucking ridiculous and hysterical people get when anyone says "Maybe the expansion of U.S. military into other nations is not that good". Even the most "rational" folks display their nationalism as soon as that's mentioned.

These capabilities allow us to deploy troops to threats globally as hot-spots appear which, despite my opposition to wars such as Iraq, is still necessary so long as we are reliant upon foreign resources and goods to maintain our way of life.

Maybe your way of life, which rests on imperialism, subjugation and invasions of other nations, resource pressure, bribes and economic coercion is a problem.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Shatten, you're back here with your double standards, I see? And what if they were? The guy asked "what would the US reaction to Russia placing it's weapons in a nation in the Americas be". Not "who is in whose pact".

Fuck off Stas, you know better than that.

In order for it to be hypocritical Russia would need to have some sort of allies it intends to protect from someone else's (IE other than the US) nuclear missiles. The Polish Patriots and GBI are no threat to Russian capabilities since they have no chance of intercepting missiles over the fucking Arctic, that's why we were going to place the North American GBI system in Alaska where it actually could intercept.

Helping world's drug trade by making Afghanistan a narco-state, putting Iraq into a dark age, Mad Max like conditions for a good decade or more and allowing islamists to take foothold there? Saber-rattling against Iran now that they created a perfect platzdarm for Iranian influence by destroying Iraq?

Oh yes, because I've never spoken out against the justifications for the Iraq War or lamented the lack of actual effort in Afghanistan.

Once again I'm reminded how fucking ridiculous and hysterical people get when anyone says "Maybe the expansion of U.S. military into other nations is not that good". Even the most "rational" folks display their nationalism as soon as that's mentioned.

And what's wrong with nationalism? You're interested in your nation and I'm interested in mine, there are different degrees and your insinuation that all nationalism is bad is simply ridiculous.

Maybe your way of life, which rests on imperialism, subjugation and invasions of other nations, resource pressure, bribes and economic coercion is a problem.

Oh yes the patented 'Stas Bush Strawman'. Do you ever get tired of it? I said hotspots, IE Kuwait in '91 where our oil investments were threatened and so we went to the defense of another nation. I did not say Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan.

[Einzige]

Read The Missile Defense Equation: Factors for Decision Making by Peter J. Mantle. Then come back to us. The kinetics of GBIs launched from Poland are marginal for Tail-chasing ICBMs over the North Pole. But then again you don't seem to have a knowledge of ABM so I'm not surprised by you not knowing this. The kinetics are however very good for hitting ICBMs from Iran targeted at North American and Europe. The Russian's don't like the systems in Eastern Europe because they don't like the idea that the US is in their former sphere of influence.

Who cares? Who gives a shit? The fact remains that Russia's territorial integrity demands that they resist American encroachments into their sphere of influence, just as we would do - and have done - against Russian aggrandizement on American soil. This is their Cuban Missile Crisis, and I support Russia completely in defending their national interest, just as I'd support America if it actually had a point on this issue.

President ZerObama made a great call when he announced that the original plan was going to be scrapped On the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, but such a call is par for the course with the current administration.

You're right. In fact, it's probably the only good call he's made. But I don't expect a big spending faux-conservative whore like yourself to understand this.

Really? Would you please provide some proof that ABM systems like PATRIOT PAC-3, THAAD, and GBI don't work? Or that the systems can be used offensively? Or do you just have a hatred for the military (which is the vibe I get from your posts)?

I didn't say they don't work. I said the only reason they exist is to channel taxpayer funds into corporate hands.

[K. A. Pital]

The Polish Patriots and GBI are no threat to Russian capabilities since they have no chance of intercepting missiles over the fucking Arctic, that's why we were going to place the North American GBI system in Alaska where it actually could intercept.

Arctic blah blah blah, blah blah blah. You obviously know that US assets in Europe, the NATO centers and radar installations are targets for Russian strategic weapons. That is the same principle of virtual attrition. More missiles to waste NATO assets in Europe - less left to make the US a glowing crater. I already said time and again that US radar and ABM missile expansion basically makes Europe a missile sponge to save continental US from a greater number of missiles pounding. Touche.

Oh yes, because I've never spoken out against the justifications for the Iraq War or lamented the lack of actual effort in Afghanistan.

So why the hell is something validated simply because it's something happening in the NATO? If NATO actions have brought little good, if any good at all?

And what's wrong with nationalism? You're interested in your nation and I'm interested in mine, there are different degrees and your insinuation that all nationalism is bad is simply ridiculous.

*laughs* Nationalism, especially when tied with military expansionism, is pathetic. It assumes that some people have an inherent right to live better than others, pursue their interests at the expense of others, or stuff like that.

I said hotspots, IE Kuwait in '91 where our oil investments were threatened and so we went to the defense of another nation. I did not say Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan.

So your investments can get threatened, which means America will become a little poorer and will have to learn to survive (something that Americans gleefully tell other nations when they say "we have problems") - and this gives you the right to simply attack and invade any nation anywhere in the world. Like I said, jingo is a fun ideology.

But Saddam invaded Kuwait to improve his economy, you know - you said it's a legitimate cause, right? Standard of life and all that. That's about the same shit America does. Even if you don't improve the overall economy in those constant wars of yours, surely there are enough fatcats filling their pockets every time American bombs fly over nation X, be it Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, whatever.

And of course, your massive military is always recently used in cases like Kuwait? *scratches chin* Last 20 years. Right - Kuwait in 91, Yugoslavia in the late 1990s, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. You support only 1 out of 4 conflicts. Perhaps something is wrong with your perception?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Who cares? Who gives a shit? The fact remains that Russia's territorial integrity demands that they resist American encroachments into their sphere of influence, just as we would do - and have done - against Russian aggrandizement on American soil. This is their Cuban Missile Crisis, and I support Russia completely in defending their national interest, just as I'd support America if it actually had a point on this issue.

Are you just completely ignorant of history? The Cuban Missile Crisis happened because up until the late sixties the USSR only had a handful of ICBM that could reach the US. Meanwhile the US had a huge disparity in throwing power with numerous missiles, forward deployed IRBM in Turkey, and bombers that could easily reach the USSR. The Soviets knew this and attempted to remedy this by placing IRBM and SRBM on America's doorstep just as we had in Turkey. This resulted in us pulling our shorter range missiles out of Turkey and in exchanged the Soviets did the same in Cuba.

Your analogy is false because, unlike the missiles in Turkey and Cuba, a Polish GBI would be and Patriots are completely benign towards Russia's nuclear arsenal. They can not touch them.

You're right. In fact, it's probably the only good call he's made. But I don't expect a big spendeing faux-conservative whore like yourself to understand this.

And in Liberal Libertopia supporting a weapons system that can't be used for attack and only for defense is a conservative position.

[Einzige]

Are you just completely ignorant of history? The Cuban Missile Crisis happened because up until the late sixties the USSR only had a handful of ICBM that could reach the US. Meanwhile the US had a huge disparity in throwing power with numerous missiles, forward deployed IRBM in Turkey, and bombers that could easily reach the USSR. The Soviets knew this and attempted to remedy this by placing IRBM and SRBM on America's doorstep just as we had in Turkey. This resulted in us pulling our shorter range missiles out of Turkey and in exchanged the Soviets did the same in Cuba.

Oh, I see. It's alright for the United States to build up its overseas arsenal when it has an overwhelming advantage in the area -- and not alright for Russia to build up its overseas arsenal when America has an overwhelming advantage in the area. Thanks for proving my point.

Your analogy is false because, unlike the missiles in Turkey and Cuba, a Polish GBI would be and Patriots are completely benign towards Russia's nuclear arsenal. They can not touch them.

So what the fuck is the point of putting them there if they do no good? Either put something in place that will actually make Russia feel the pain in the event of a war or stop wasting money on dick-waving projects. You aren't a dick-waver, are you?

And in Liberal Libertopia supporting a weapons system that can't be used for attack and only for defense is a conservative position.

I'm glad you've seen the light.

If a weapon can't be used for offensive purposes, it's even a greater waste of money than most weapons are.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Arctic blah blah blah, blah blah blah. You obviously know that US assets in Europe, the NATO centers and radar installations are targets for Russian strategic weapons. That is the same principle of virtual attrition. More missiles to waste NATO assets in Europe - less left to make the US a glowing crater. I already said time and again that US radar and ABM missile expansion basically makes Europe a missile sponge to save continental US from a greater number of missiles pounding. Touche.

So wait, are you saying protecting our ally is wrong? Lol okay, got it.
[quoteSo why the hell is something validated simply because it's something happening in the NATO? If NATO actions have brought little good, if any good at all?[/quote] Can you try rewriting this, your point isn't coming through.

*laughs* Nationalism, especially when tied with military expansionism, is pathetic. It assumes that some people have an inherent right to live better than others, pursue their interests at the expense of others, or stuff like that.

No, it assumes that I'm going to look out for my nation before yours, not at the expense of. For example I see no reason for countless American Christian charities outside the US when we can't even feed our own people or adopt them out.

So your investments can get threatened, which means America will become a little poorer and will have to learn to survive (something that Americans gleefully tell other nations when they say "we have problems") - and this gives you the right to simply attack and invade any nation anywhere in the world. Like I said, jingo is a fun ideology.

Yay more strawmen. Please provide where I said the US should not provide help to other nations, you know what don't bother, because I remember a time when you attacked me for suggesting the US should offer to send troops or aid to help Mexico get control of it's Drug Cartels.

But Saddam invaded Kuwait to improve his economy, you know - you said it's a legitimate cause, right? Standard of life and all that. That's about the same shit America does. Even if you don't improve the overall economy in those constant wars of yours, surely there are enough fatcats filling their pockets every time American bombs fly over nation X, be it Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, whatever.

Keep up the strawmen Stas. It's become your calling card.

No what I did say was that America should have the ability to protect it's foreign investments from aggression, I did not say this gives them the right to invade Iraq or Iran or whomever in the name of profit.

And of course, your massive military is always recently used in cases like Kuwait? *scratches chin* Last 20 years. Right - Kuwait in 91, Yugoslavia in the late 1990s, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. You support only 1 out of 4 conflicts. Perhaps something is wrong with your perception?

I like how you insinuate that Yugoslavia and Afghanistan were wrong. So now attempting to stop ethnic cleansing and trying to capture a terrorist responsible for killing 2k citizens is wrong? Good luck trying to peddle that bullshit.

[K. A. Pital]

Good luck trying to peddle that bullshit.

I don't need to "peddle" anything - in Afghanistan you never captured "the terrorist", but created a narcostate. In Yugoslavia, you stopped the ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Serbs in favour of ethnic cleansing of Serbs by Muslim extremists.
Ergo, the outcome is not stellar to say the least.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Oh, I see. It's alright for the United States to build up its overseas arsenal when it has an overwhelming advantage in the area -- and not alright for Russia to build up its overseas arsenal when America has an overwhelming advantage in the area. Thanks for proving my point.

You're a total fucking retard aren't you? An ABM system in Poland is not a threat unless Russia intends to attack Europe and is useless when attacking the US. Likewise unless America is interested in attacking Canada (Always wanted a 51st State) a Russian system in Canada is useless.

So what the fuck is the point of putting them there if they do no good? Either put something in place that will actually make Russia feel the pain in the event of a war or stop wasting money on dick-waving projects. You aren't a dick-waver, are you?

It's not for Russia you raving idiot, the system that was for Russia was in fucking Alaska, the one in Poland is for Middle Eastern threats like Syria and Iran.

I'm glad you've seen the light.

If a weapon can't be used for offensive purposes, it's even a greater waste of money than most weapons are.

Why don't you calculate the cost of the lives of the people of San Francisco if you believe that to be so?

[Ritterin Sophia]

I don't need to "peddle" anything - in Afghanistan you never captured "the terrorist", but created a narcostate.

And I've told you, I am upset with how quickly the Bush Administration decided to take all the work we did in Afghanistan and let it go to waste changing focus to a war based on falsified intelligence and wasting our initiative.

In Yugoslavia, you stopped the ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Serbs in favour of ethnic cleansing of Serbs by Muslim extremists.

Would you make up your fucking mind? Either I think non-Americans or non-Westerners or whatever deserve better treatment than others or I'm a horrible person for supporting an attempt to stop ethnic cleansing only for it to reverse.

[Einzige]

You're a total fucking retard aren't you? An ABM system in Poland is not a threat unless Russia intends to attack Europe and is useless when attacking the US. Likewise unless America is interested in attacking Canada (Always wanted a 51st State) a Russian system in Canada is useless.

So not only are we spending massive amounts of money on a useless project, but we're spending them on a project that doesn't even directly defend the continental United States? Lovely.

It's not for Russia you raving idiot, the system that was for Russia was in fucking Alaska, the one in Poland is for Middle Eastern threats like Syria and Iran.

Bullfuckingshit. Nobody honestly believes that either Syria or Iran are legitimate threats to the United States or its allies. All that rhetoric is a smokescreen for aggression towards the Big Bad Ruskies and you damn well know it.

Why don't you calculate the cost of the lives of the people of San Francisco if you believe that to be so?

They're not worth the hundreds of billions we spend every year on nuclear Viagra, no.

[Ritterin Sophia]

So not only are we spending massive amounts of money on a useless project, but we're spending them on a project that doesn't even directly defend the continental United States? Lovely.

It doesn't need to, it facilitates our ability to protect our international interests.

Bullfuckingshit. Nobody honestly believes that either Syria or Iran are legitimate threats to the United States or its allies. All that rhetoric is a smokescreen for aggression towards the Big Bad Ruskies and you damn well know it.

[Citation Needed]

They're not worth the hundreds of billions we spend every year on nuclear Viagra, no.

How selfish, your penny pinching is more important than the hundreds of thousands of lives in San Francisco, typical conservative.

[TimothyC]

Who cares? Who gives a shit? The fact remains that Russia's territorial integrity demands that they resist American encroachments into their sphere of influence, just as we would do - and have done - against Russian aggrandizement on American soil. This is their Cuban Missile Crisis, and I support Russia completely in defending their national interest, just as I'd support America if it actually had a point on this issue.

They have every right and responsibility to defend their interest. We (the United States) has every right and responsibility to defend ourselves, and our allies in Europe.

You're right. In fact, it's probably the only good call he's made. But I don't expect a big spending faux-conservative whore like yourself to understand this.

Either your sarcasm meter is broken, or you are even more stupid than I thought. It was one of the worst calls he's made, right up there with his NASA and nuclear policy. Mark my words, history will see him as a failure on the magnitude of Carter - A man who shat on American allies for nothing in return.

I didn't say they don't work. I said the only reason they exist is to channel taxpayer funds into corporate hands.

To me, that very statement implies that you think the systems are worthless. I presume you would trade the money spent on ABM for say a major west coast city?

Are you just completely ignorant of history? The Cuban Missile Crisis happened because up until the late sixties the USSR only had a handful of ICBM that could reach the US. Meanwhile the US had a huge disparity in throwing power with numerous missiles, forward deployed IRBM in Turkey, and bombers that could easily reach the USSR. The Soviets knew this and attempted to remedy this by placing IRBM and SRBM on America's doorstep just as we had in Turkey. This resulted in us pulling our shorter range missiles out of Turkey and in exchanged the Soviets did the same in Cuba.

What most people forget is that the Turks were pissed, because they saw the US was not willing to stand with them.

So what the fuck is the point of putting them there if they do no good? Either put something in place that will actually make Russia feel the pain in the event of a war or stop wasting money on dick-waving projects. You aren't a dick-waver, are you?

The current system as designed and envisioned in the Bush Administration, would have been a thin screen useful for countering small strikes from states like Iran or North Korea. The Limited PRC ICBM force gets caught up by this as well. This is similar to the abilities that the USSR had with the S-200 And Moscow ABM system

If a weapon can't be used for offensive purposes, it's even a greater waste of money than most weapons are.

Then you are an idiot. ABM works, and the opportunity cost of an ABM system is less than the cost of replacing a major American City.

So not only are we spending massive amounts of money on a useless project, but we're spending them on a project that doesn't even directly defend the continental United States? Lovely.

It doesn't have to just defend CONUS. It also defends US forces, bases, and allies in Europe from missile attack originating in the Middle East.

Bullfuckingshit. Nobody honestly believes that either Syria or Iran are legitimate threats to the United States or its allies. All that rhetoric is a smokescreen for aggression towards the Big Bad Ruskies and you damn well know it.

They are intent on gaining the ability to attack us, I say we should be intent on being able to defend against said capability.

They're not worth the hundreds of billions we spend every year on nuclear Viagra, no.

Well. You lack the economic sense of the common man. That's not a compliment.

How selfish, your penny pinching is more important than the hundreds of thousands of lives in San Francisco, typical conservative.

HEY! Some of us conservatives are sane

[K. A. Pital]

In Yugoslavia, you stopped the ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Serbs in favour of ethnic cleansing of Serbs by Muslim extremists.

Would you make up your fucking mind? Either I think non-Americans or non-Westerners or whatever deserve better treatment than others or I'm a horrible person for supporting an attempt to stop ethnic cleansing only for it to reverse.

You don't think that "attempts" to stop ethnic cleansing that actually do not stop it, but encourage a reverse cleansing, are hardly deserving any commendation.

Besides, talk to Stuart - he'll quickly dispel your illusions that ABM systems in Europe don't create a virtual attrition against Russia - something I already said.

Oh, and while you are on it, Osama's terrorist act killed what, 2000 people? In Europe only (excluding CIS), drugs kill several thousand each year.
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... gerous_fix
In Russia

UNODC report concluded that Afghanistan's poppy crop, refined into hard drugs such as heroin and opium, kills 100,000 people annually around the world. According to Russian authorities 30,000 to 40,000 of those killed are Russian citizens, a higher number than all the Russian soldiers who died during the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s

Sorry, but the death tolls that are the consequences of Afghanistan becoming a narcostate are far higher than Osama's pathetic terrorist act.

Ponder on this. Truly, what are the lives of those in the WTC worth against 100 000 people? What are they worth against the 1 000 000 Afghans who are now drug addicts? Maybe zero? *laughs sadly* Hello, America.

[Ritterin Sophia]

You don't think that "attempts" to stop ethnic cleansing that actually do not stop it, but encourage a reverse cleansing, are hardly deserving any commendation.

I didn't say they did, what I did dispute was condemnation of the attempt.

Besides, talk to Stuart - he'll quickly dispel your illusions that ABM systems in Europe don't create a virtual attrition against Russia - something I already said.

And so? I never disputed this. But I don't see why the US should leave it's allies defenseless if we have the means to protect them as well.

Ponder on this. Truly, what are the lives of those in the WTC worth against 100 000 people? What are they worth against the 1 000 000 Afghans who are now drug addicts? Maybe zero? *laughs sadly* Hello, America.

False Dilemma. The Bush Admin diverted their attention to Iraq, had that not occurred more effort could have been put to use getting to the geological surveys that would have given the Afghan's a better alternative to poppy farming and a rich mineral export industry.