russians considering placing strategic bombers in cuba and venezuela......

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,583
231
63
"the bunker"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090314/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_bombers_cuba

well,i have to admit hilary and biden are fricking geniuses.....he said that bock would be tested, he just forgot to say over & over.....

and hilary?... it looks like hilary`s reset button worked...only problem is some dipdshit at the state dept set it for 1961 instead of 1991.....:00x25

we need a diversion....i think maybe it`s time to attack rush limbaugh again....:chairshot :lol:
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
From your own link. Don't worry. Everything is ok. They aren't going to attack us. lol

We(well, Cheney) want to set up shop in a totally useless way next to them, and they want to do the same. Shocking.



Russia has nothing to gain strategically from basing long-range craft within relatively short range of U.S. shores, independent military analyst Alexander Golts said, calling the military statement a retaliatory gesture aimed at hitting back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters near Georgia.

The military analyst Golts said basing Russian bombers in Venezuela or Cuba "has no military sense. The bombers don't need any base."

He said the bombers are considered strategic because they are capable of reaching an attacking range of the United States from Russia without the need for stopovers.

"This is just a retaliatory gesture," he said, adding that Russia wanted to hit back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,518
279
83
Victory Lane
it dont matter if they want to land their bombers in Cuba. who the fawk cares.

We got enough submarines near Russia to completely destroy entire Europe, Russia , and Asia.

Maybe we should try to reduce the number of nukes we both have. Both countries could save billions not having to maintain them.

Hey there is a thought

gw trying to start some simple shit:142smilie
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,583
231
63
"the bunker"
From your own link. Don't worry. Everything is ok. They aren't going to attack us. lol

We(well, Cheney) want to set up shop in a totally useless way next to them, and they want to do the same. Shocking.



Russia has nothing to gain strategically from basing long-range craft within relatively short range of U.S. shores, independent military analyst Alexander Golts said, calling the military statement a retaliatory gesture aimed at hitting back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters near Georgia.

The military analyst Golts said basing Russian bombers in Venezuela or Cuba "has no military sense. The bombers don't need any base."

He said the bombers are considered strategic because they are capable of reaching an attacking range of the United States from Russia without the need for stopovers.

"This is just a retaliatory gesture," he said, adding that Russia wanted to hit back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters.

his statement makes no sense at all...he`s saying it`s as easy to fly a bomber from cuba to washington or new york or florida as it is to fly one from minsk?....

if this is the case,then why is russia upset by a "strategic" missile defense system in eastern europe that doesn`t work(according to you)?....

lol

maybe we can get iran to talk to the russkies for us....i hear they have pretty good relations.

i do take some solace from wh spokesman robert gibbs` comments:

"....uuuuh....i've ......uuuhh.....not .....uuuh seen that...uuuhh report so ...uuuh i can't.....uhhh..comment".........

lol
 
Last edited:

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
Lots of good NCAA Bball Weaze....

Lots of good NCAA Bball Weaze....

Give politics a rest and enjoy....even the vocally diarhetic gas-bag maggot Limbaugh takes time off...


We got bases about everywhere in the known world...WW 2 and Korea are behind us and yet we persist on ..

Take those major tax dollars and promote solar power, fix the education system or defeat cancer....or (a personal request) buy Cleveland a major sport championship...
:shrug:
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,583
231
63
"the bunker"
Give politics a rest and enjoy....even the vocally diarhetic gas-bag maggot Limbaugh takes time off...


We got bases about everywhere in the known world...WW 2 and Korea are behind us and yet we persist on ..

Take those major tax dollars and promote solar power, fix the education system or defeat cancer....or (a personal request) buy Cleveland a major sport championship...
:shrug:

yeah..we need to throw more money at education...we`re spending a bundle now($9336 per student per year as of a few years ago...and it`s gone up quite a bit since then)....

it doesn`t go to the children anyway...it goes to the teacher`s unions...

he won`t do anything,dead.....fagedda 'bout it.... he's too tired from trying to fix bush's economic mess to pay attention to foreign affairs:SIB .......he`ll just sell out poland & the czech republic, to make his russian bomber situation go away....

i hope when the time comes,that bock at least holds out for some tough conditions when we finally surrender...;)

btw..the `cuse is a gritty bunch of mofos,ain`t they?.....whoa...you`d think they`d be gassed...
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
This just won't happen in any force. The russians are not complete fools. THey might send 4 to 6planes they don't mind lousing in minutes.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
it doesn`t go to the children anyway...it goes to the teacher`s unions...

Education spending doesn't go to the children? It goes to teacher's unions? That's a pretty strong comment. Any numbers to back that up? Seems to me, having a kid in school right now that he has a lot of opportunities that I (for one) did not have when I was going to school, and I went to a much larger school than he does. Seems to me, there are a lot of teachers and administrators here that care a lot about him, and do a lot for him. I know for a fact that due to budget cuts, some of these opportunities and teachers won't be around next year.

Again, would like to hear your basis in fact on this one-sided comment. Teachers pay union dues, I'm guessing. So, I guess in some ways some of their pay goes to the unions, yes. How much of the nearly $10K per student goes to unions? Directly?
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Perhaps some of the money that's being funneled in to the No Child Left Behind program could go to pay teachers or keep programs going? Perhaps Bush's unfunded mandate should be re-examined? I know for a fact that this is another form of government mandating how our local schools have to be run - and seems to me that's not what a lot of conservatives want. They force schools to spend money in ways that have nothing to do with actual student activities or learning, and cut funding to school systems at the same time.

Plenty of children have been left behind in this "program." And even more are soon to come.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Chad your correct. The bush idea was tell them what to do. But the true Reb way of give no money.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Perhaps some of the money that's being funneled in to the No Child Left Behind program could go to pay teachers or keep programs going? Perhaps Bush's unfunded mandate should be re-examined? I know for a fact that this is another form of government mandating how our local schools have to be run - and seems to me that's not what a lot of conservatives want. They force schools to spend money in ways that have nothing to do with actual student activities or learning, and cut funding to school systems at the same time.

Plenty of children have been left behind in this "program." And even more are soon to come.
if u really want to get sick to ur stomach google around this little subject and look who owns this company. No Child Left Behind: Neil Bush cashes in too
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,583
231
63
"the bunker"
liberal tenets # 97 and 103...

97)"you got a problem,throw more of the taxpayer`s money at it"...

103)""this is bush's fault....not sure why yet..let me get back to you."...
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,518
279
83
Victory Lane
NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Obama is halfway through his first 100 days in office and, although he has focused primarily on domestic policy, he also has made a number of foreign policy moves.

Obama selected Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and she has made several overseas trips. Obama has been graded by critics from the left, right and center. Author and world affairs expert Fareed Zakaria gave his assessment of Obama's first days to CNN.

CNN: What have you thought of President Obama's first 50 days in office?

Zakaria: I'm impressed. His administration has been naturally overwhelmed by domestic policy. But despite the enormous space that this rightly occupies, Obama has managed to make a series of moves in foreign policy that improved the way the rest of the world -- and notably Arab journalist and politicians -- view America. He announced the closure of Guantanamo and the end of any official sanction for torture. He gave his first interview as president to an Arab network and spoke of the importance of respect when dealing with the Muslim world.

CNN: When you speak of the administration success are you also referring to Hillary Clinton?

Zakaria: Yes. Secretary Clinton hit the ground running as secretary of state, racking in more miles in a few weeks than many of her predecessors did in months and mixing her substantive talks with symbolic gestures of outreach to the countries she was in. Overall the administration has signaled a willingness to start engaging with troublesome regimes like Syria and Iran. It ordered a review of Afghanistan policy and said it might work with China on the global economic crisis and energy and environmental issues despite differences on human rights. It has offered the prospect of a more constructive relationship with Russia.

CNN: This all sounds good. Why are there still criticisms emerging form the Washington establishment?

Zakaria: Well, the conservative response should have been expected but is almost comical in its fury. The commentator Charles Krauthammer collected together a series of Russian actions and intentions -- many of them long in the planning -- and decided that they were all "brazen provocations" that Obama failed to counter. Krauthammer goes on to assert this "supine diplomacy" has produced a chain of catastrophes across the globe. The Pakistani government, for example, obviously sensing the weakness in Washington, "capitulated to the Taliban," in the Swat Valley. Somehow Krauthammer had missed the many such deals that Pakistan had made over the last three years -- during the heady years of George Bush -- with various elements of the Taliban, deals that were more hastily put together, on worse terms, and with poorer results.
:mj07:
CNN: But it's not all about conservatives weighing in against a Democratic president is it?

Zakaria: You are correct -- the right's reaction was predictable but many normally sober and intelligent commentators have weighed in as well. Leslie Gelb, the author of a smart new book, "Power Rules," says that in her comments on China, Hillary Clinton was right, but she shouldn't have said it publicly. As he says on our show today -- Secretary Kissinger often did things in private he would not admit in public. In a sense, duplicity is needed in power politics.

There is also a sense that President Obama is indulging in action for the wrong reason. "It's change for change's sake," rues Gelb.

CNN: Do you agree with that?

Zakaria: No. Do any of these commentators really think the policies of George W. Bush were working so well we should keep them in place?

And in reality the Obama administration has maintained a number of the Bush policies -- in stark contrast to Bush's own ABC ("Anything But Clinton") approach when he entered office in 2001. On Iraq, North Korea, Europe, Asia, President Obama has reversed nothing of any importance. He has only begun shifting policy in areas where it has been paralyzed.

It turns out that the problem with American foreign policy goes well beyond George Bush. It includes a Washington establishment that has gotten used to the exercise of hegemony and treats as treason any thought of compromise or tradeoffs. It prefers to deal with countries by issuing a series of maximalist demands. These countries can have no interests of their own, so any Russian demands are by definition unacceptable. This is not foreign policy; it's imperial policy. And it isn't likely to work in today's world.
.......................................................

"Bush cheney / This was not foreign policy it was imperial policy."

:142smilie

I coudnt have said it better myself.
 
Last edited:

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,518
279
83
Victory Lane
king-george.jpg
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top