Putin spouting off [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

JamMaster

02-10-2007, 03:35 AM

I read this article on CNN.com and I actually kind of agree with Putin on this.  What are your thoughts?<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_re_eu/security_conference">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_re_eu/security_conference</a>

Yerdaddy

02-10-2007, 04:00 AM

Yeah, his main points are largely accurate. When you've ceded the high moral ground to a guy like Putin you seriously need to take a step back and do some self-analysis. I'm just furious that the democrats have gotten us into this mess in the first place.

DarkHippie

02-10-2007, 04:09 AM

I don't think he's wrong, but this is the pot calling the kettle black.  Putin isn't exactly ghandi

JamMaster

02-10-2007, 04:39 AM

Unless I am completely off base...the missle defense system we are building could never stop a full on ballistic missle attack from Russia or China.  But It could stop a few missles sent from like North Korea or the other rogue states.   How would this technology start another arms race?

Sheeplovr

02-10-2007, 05:46 AM

If you're blue and you don't know where to go to why don't you go where fashion sits Putin' on the Ritz p.s. putin my butt 

This message was edited by Sheeplovr on 2-10-07 @ 9:48 AM

TheMojoPin

02-10-2007, 05:51 AM

Oh, if only...<img src="http://www.bestreadguide.com/branson/images/042606/yakovpres.jpg" border="0" width="298" height="400" />

FUNKMAN

02-10-2007, 05:54 AM

his wife must be putinanni

PapaBear

02-10-2007, 07:27 AM

He's just Putin things in perspective.

EffMeBoobs

02-10-2007, 07:34 AM

He really likes the old story of Put 'N Boots.

Yerdaddy

02-10-2007, 07:57 AM

JamMaster wrote: Unless I am completely off base...the missle defense system we are building could never stop a full on ballistic missle attack from Russia or China.  But It could stop a few missles sent from like North Korea or the other rogue states.   How would this technology start another arms race?Sometimes the only thing I hate worse than the kinds of crazy stupid attacks I get in the politics forum sometimes is a good fucking question. My political OCD is a fucking curse and when I just want to come on here and talk about pussy darts and reeshy's age someone asks an intelligent question that deserves an answer and, for one reason or another, I think I can do it even if it takes all day. I don't know why but the question "why should I?" never pops into my head and before I know it I'm obsessively digging up the fucking answer. For this reason, JM, this is for you:<img src="http://www.thesmithgeeks.com/images/i_shake_my_fist_at_you.JPG" border="0" width="640" height="480" />I had an internship at the Federation of American Scientists for about a year and I remember the basics of missile defense and deterrence but I'd still rather let the experts do the talking. Basically I'd rather you ignored my drivel and read what's behind all the links.) Fortunately <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/" target="_blank">Frontline covered the subject in 2002</a> so, seriously, take the time to explore their site - with all the interviews and backgrounders and links to other sources - and get acquainted with the issue. It's much more important that the little bit of media attention it gets suggests. The amount of defense dollars this program takes up makes it literally a decision to defend us against missiles at the expense of defending us against terrorism and other threats. Because of the element of resources it drains a number of serious questions are being debated in policy circles and really should involve the public much more than they currently are. The main questions are: 1. Will it even work? Essentially that's still an open question and yet we're building it anyway. That then begs the question: If it doesn't work, will our enemies know that and won't it make us less safe for having built it? 2. Even if it works, does the threat from a missile attack justify the expense in comparison to terrorism and other threats we face? (<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/interviews/habiger.html" target="_blank">This guy's resume and the questions he raises should demonstrate the seriousness of this question.</a>) 3. Regardless of whether it works or not, how will other countries (enemies, allies and everything inbetween) respond to it? Will they give up even trying to build a missile program that can threaten us and invest in other methods of attack that maybe we've neglected defending against, or will they try to "build a better missile" that can get through it or even invest in missiles that can attack our interests without hitting us directly. 4. Then there's the question of to what degree will we use this system as pure defense and to what degree does it facilitate our offensive capabilities and actions.That last one is what Putin is criticizing us for. (Criticizing Bush directly but us indirectly, I suppose.) First of all Putin's a scumbag. He's raising these issues merely to serve his own interests. He's got the moral compass of a lawyer at Anna Nichole's funeral. Problem is, because we've allowed Bush to make such bad decisions and fuck things up so much around the world Putin can point out what's wrong with that and gain some of the credibility that we've lost. But if we hadn't given up that moral ground in the first place he wouldn't be able to take it. He'd have to go back to saying

Yerdaddy

02-10-2007, 08:15 AM

Ah jeez did I just kill teh funny? Again? Sorry. Hey! He's just trying to Putin his two rubles!

A.J.

02-10-2007, 09:49 AM

Russian President <a href="http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Vladimir+Putin" title="Related information on Vladimir Putin" onclick="activateYQinl(this);return false;">Vladimir Putin</a> warned Saturday that the United States' increased use of military force is creating a new arms race, with smaller nations turning toward developing nuclear weapons. Right.  Those countries only wished to be nuclear powers in the last 6 years.  It wasn't a response to Israeli/Indian/Pakistani nukes, or nationalistic aspirations to be bigger players in their respective regions - it was the Bush Doctrine.

sailor

02-10-2007, 10:01 AM

i was hoping for some russian porn.  damn.

Yerdaddy

02-10-2007, 09:06 PM

A.J. wrote: Russian President <a href="http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Vladimir+Putin" title="Related information on Vladimir Putin" onclick="activateYQinl(this);return false;">Vladimir Putin</a> warned Saturday that the United States' increased use of military force is creating a new arms race, with smaller nations turning toward developing nuclear weapons. Right.  Those countries only wished to be nuclear powers in the last 6 years.  It wasn't a response to Israeli/Indian/Pakistani nukes, or nationalistic aspirations to be bigger players in their respective regions - it was the Bush Doctrine.   When I was at FAS in 2000 there was a big story in the press about Iran holding an international conference on nuclear weapons in Tehran and all the talking head shows were talking about what this means for Iran's nuclear program and speculating about how long until Iran got the bomb blah blah blah. At lunch with all the project heads on Monday I was looking forward to hearing the discussions about this exciting development and there was nothing. So I brought it up and they all looked at me like a child and explained that yes the conference was full of international nuclear experts from all over the world but that they were all from universities. They explained that nuclear countries learned a long time ago that you can't let academics build a bomb. All they can do is blow up buildings and themselves. They work with theories and that's a valuable thing. But the fact that Iran had invited the academics and not people with hands on experience meant that Iran was trying to make the world think they had a nulcear program before negotiations with the international community over what we were going to give Iran not to build a bomb. It was a bluff. All that's changed since the US decided to invade Iraq. Iran has invested shitloads into it's nuclear program as a direct response to our invasion of Iraq. Only since 2001 have I seen legitimate estimates of when Iran could produce a nuke (most estimates between 5 and 15 years). We can still bribe them into giving it up but it will have to include security assurances that we don't want to give Iran. But basically Iran is saying that the US is a threat and as long as that remains the case it's going to work as hard as it can to build nukes as a deterrant. In other words, Iran has escalated it's nuclear and missile programs in response to the Bush doctrine.Most of NK's missile tests have come during Bush's term and their first <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_nuclear_test" target="_blank">nuclear detonation</a> was four months ago. They also threaten us with "retaliation" as much as we threaten them (their statements are usually crazier and more entertaining of course, but not by much). I can't say that they've escalated their program because it's hard to know, but they sure as hell haven't slowed down their nuclear and missile building because of the Bush Doctrine.Having said that there are finally serious <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/asia/11korea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" target="_blank">negotiations</a> happening between NK, the US and the other neighboring countries. Apparently the administration thought it was going to be able to make a big announcement that they negotiated an end to the NK nuclear program, but shit's still falling apart. Basically they might have realized God's not going to just give us a military that can scare the evil infidel North Koreans and we're finally going to buy their nuclear program off them. We'll see how they spin implimenting the Clinton model that they've been saying was the pussy's way out for the last six years. This round's going to be really fucking expensive I can tell you that.

Yerdaddy

02-10-2007, 09:08 PM

Putin my butt

Kevin

02-10-2007, 09:18 PM

Ah yes, When a guy like Putin can point out that your immoral.... That means this country and world is going to the crapper... Very depressing.

Recyclerz

02-10-2007, 09:33 PM

Yerdaddy

02-10-2007, 10:40 PM

Oh shit I hadn't seen this before:<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/europe/11munich.html?ei=5094&en=3c3dfce117120d6d&hp=&ex=1 171256400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all" target="_blank">Mr. Putin joked that he worried the United States was “hiding extra warheads under the pillow” despite its treaties with Moscow to reduce strategic nuclear stockpiles. And he indicated obliquely that the new Russian ballistic missile, known as the Topol-M, was being developed at least in part in response to American efforts to field missile defenses</a>.He's suggesting that he's betting that he can build a missile that can beat our shield. That makes me worry a little about the mineshaft gap.

A.J.

02-11-2007, 10:36 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: All that's changed since the US decided to invade Iraq. Iran has invested shitloads into it's nuclear program as a direct response to our invasion of Iraq. Only since 2001 have I seen legitimate estimates of when Iran could produce a nuke (most estimates between 5 and 15 years). We can still bribe them into giving it up but it will have to include security assurances that we don't want to give Iran. But basically Iran is saying that the US is a threat and as long as that remains the case it's going to work as hard as it can to build nukes as a deterrant. In other words, Iran has escalated it's nuclear and missile programs in response to the Bush doctrine. I agree with you about the highlighted part: that it has been escalated.  That's what I meant in my original post because Putin's words that I quoted make it sound like Iran's program/aspirations only started in 2002.I repeat: Iran is also thinking about Israel having a bomb as well as its neighbor Pakistan having a bomb.  And Iran can speed up their program by having the means to buy Russian technology and scientists.  I remember the former Commander of STRATCOM speaking to a meeting I attended where he said "the thing that scares me most is some piss-poor Russian soldier being offered a suitcase full of cash to open a gate and look the other way when somebody wants to empty out a lab full of nuclear materials and information."

A.J.

02-11-2007, 10:38 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Oh shit I hadn't seen this before:<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/europe/11munich.html?ei=5094&en=3c3dfce117120d6d&hp=&ex=1 171256400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all" target="_blank">Mr. Putin joked that he worried the United States was “hiding extra warheads under the pillow” despite its treaties with Moscow to reduce strategic nuclear stockpiles. And he indicated obliquely that the new Russian ballistic missile, known as the Topol-M, was being developed at least in part in response to American efforts to field missile defenses</a>. He's suggesting that he's betting that he can build a missile that can beat our shield. That makes me worry a little about the mineshaft gap. They've been working on such a missile for 10 years.  Dammit!  Now you're going to have to make me look up that Missile Defense report I worked on 10 years ago!

Team_Ramrod

02-11-2007, 11:00 AM

I like putin<img src="http://ca.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9FJqiPhdc9FYQYBBpj2FAx./SIG=12b211nde/EXP=1171310433/**http%3A//www.arthurhungry.com/pictures/may04/poutine2.jpg" border="0" width="350" height="263" />

K.C.

02-11-2007, 11:16 AM

I've been listening to the BBC World News station on XM a lot lately and they've been talking up the Putin comments a lot, so it's somewhat of a big deal internationally. I think it's basically him making a power play to increase Russia's international influence.None of these countries like the UK, France, Russia, and Germany want to hurt their relations with the U.S., but at the same time there's an opportunity to increase their influence over the smaller known countries by not appearing in lock-step with the U.S.I expect the UK to distance itself a bit from the U.S. after Blair resigns to sort of give a similar type of signal.  Also, don't forget, Condi took a shot at Putin a while back for eliminating parts of the democratic reforms in Russia that came after the Soviet Union fell, saying they need to be more representative in their government. It may just be payback.

Yerdaddy

02-11-2007, 12:10 PM

K.C. wrote: I've been listening to the BBC World News station on XM a lot lately and they've been talking up the Putin comments a lot, so it's somewhat of a big deal internationally. I think it's basically him making a power play to increase Russia's international influence.None of these countries like the UK, France, Russia, and Germany want to hurt their relations with the U.S., but at the same time there's an opportunity to increase their influence over the smaller known countries by not appearing in lock-step with the U.S.I expect the UK to distance itself a bit from the U.S. after Blair resigns to sort of give a similar type of signal.  Also, don't forget, Condi took a shot at Putin a while back for eliminating parts of the democratic reforms in Russia that came after the Soviet Union fell, saying they need to be more representative in their government. It may just be payback.  All good points. Even Condi's. Ultimately it was just an asshole talking shit. It's just embarassing wen an asshole calls you out on something you really did.

Yerdaddy

02-11-2007, 12:28 PM

A.J. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Oh shit I hadn't seen this before:<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/europe/11munich.html?ei=5094&en=3c3dfce117120d6d&hp=&ex=1 171256400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all" target="_blank">Mr. Putin joked that he worried the United States was “hiding extra warheads under the pillow” despite its treaties with Moscow to reduce strategic nuclear stockpiles. And he indicated obliquely that the new Russian ballistic missile, known as the Topol-M, was being developed at least in part in response to American efforts to field missile defenses</a>. He's suggesting that he's betting that he can build a missile that can beat our shield. That makes me worry a little about the mineshaft gap. They've been working on such a missile for 10 years.  Dammit!  Now you're going to have to make me look up that Missile Defense report I worked on 10 years ago!How bout we settle this with dueling Dr. Strangelove quotes. <img src="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/russia/story/analysis/putin2/top.putin.jpg" border="0" width="220" height="178" /> "There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap."

badmonkey

02-11-2007, 01:20 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: How bout we settle this with dueling Dr. Strangelove quotes. <img src="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/russia/story/analysis/putin2/top.putin.jpg" border="0" width="220" height="178" /> "There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines with flannel and denim, and we were afraid of The Gap."

JamMaster

02-13-2007, 11:25 AM

Thank you Yerdaddy.  I truly appreciate all of the information.  It was some good readin' !!!This is for you:<img src="http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/thumbsup-6021.jpg" border="0" width="326" height="375" />