Putin is a badass, he doesn't mince words and says it like it is

The thing that stood out to me most in that article is that Putin is looking likely to become president again (didn't realise it was possible), and seemingly pretty much acts as one anyway despite having served his maximum two terms. Not sure that's exactly how the system is meant to work. :shock:
 
Togowack said:
Sure he does, if he said what he was really thinking, he'd say he can't take over the world with an American missile shield in place, it deflects his plans for world domination. why do you think Russians love him so much, he is what they all want.
Click to expand...
Oh god, not you again... sorry but I'm going to HAVE to ignore you throughout this entire thread, don't take offense, you're just SO intellectually superior to me that I would be crushed instantly and laughed out of my own thread if I were to engage you.
 
i would say building nukes and supporting a gigantic military (relative to its population) probably wasn't the most efficient use of north korean resources.

you know, because of all the millions of people who starved to death and the almost total lack of infrastructure.
 
Monkey_b said:
Yes and President Bush snorted cocaine off a hookers ass who gives a shit.

We're talking global poltics right now, let's stick to the context of the discussion.
Click to expand...

i wouldn't conflate bush snorting coke with fixing elections and killing the free press but ok.

putin did a good job of getting russia back on its feet using high oil and gas prices to get the economy moving after the chaos of the 90s. the problem is is that russia's economy lacks any real diversity to speak of, there's endemic corruption, and they have a gigantic demographic crisis (here's a good article: World Affairs Journal - Drunken Nation: Russia?s Depopulation Bomb).

hell look at what medvedev himself had to say on the topic, it's pretty sobering: President of Russia
 
Monkey_b said:
Oh really, why are we so concerned about Iran then?

Why were we so concerned about N. Korea? Remind me again.. how did Kim Jong Il's acquisition of nukes affect the whole U.S. -> N.Korea dynamic?

You obviously don't know what you're talking about or you wouldn't make such assinine statements.
Click to expand...

Getting hit with a nuke hurts. Obviously we'll be interested in anyone who acquires these weapons. They are a preventative measure against attack.

But if the US were to conduct a preemptive strike, we'd annihilate N Korea and Iran, and they wouldnt be able to do anything about it since neither have the capability of delivering their nukes to the US.

Our military is the largest and best equipped on the planet. It would take Russia's nuclear arsenal to have any real impact on our ability to wage war, hence why they want to keep them. We have no reason to keep our nukes other than as a deterrent. They're nothing more than paying off other countries not to use their arsenals against us.

Now calm the fuck down.
 
Pretty much none of the countries that have nukes plan on using them to attack the U.S., they have them because it helps ensure their sovereignty in the face of military agressors.
 
Monkey_b said:
Pretty much none of the countries that have nukes plan on using them to attack the U.S., they have them because it helps ensure their sovereignty in the face of military agressors.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Russia would stop pressuring the US if we scrapped the missile shield.
 
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean exactly, but you understand major powers always take intrusions on their circle of influence very seriously, especially when it comes from another major power on the other end of the globe that has no real business there. The U.S. would react in equal if not more aggressive fashion were the tables turned (see Cuban Missile Crisis).

Political pressure to change foreign policy never ends, as countries always look to one-up each other, but there's a big difference between that and the agressive military posturing that's taken when a countries circle of influence (and future stability) is threatened by a foreign power.

Feel free to call me a hippie if you're completely oblivious to the fact that escalation of weapon stockpiles and military rhetoric between major powers is just fucking bad... and that's not a comment directed towards you doc, but rather the entire audience.
 
Last edited:
You know the answer to my question. This shield has nothing to do with Russia directly, but they choose to make it about them. Why?

Considering their stockpile and countermeasures to this system it has very little bearing on their sphere of influence. What it does influence are the countries like Iran, NK, etc that Russia works with and makes money off of. If anything all they are doing is putting on the "hey we oppose this" face when they probably welcome it so they can sell more tech and support to these smaller countries.

Its smart business, nothing more.

Russia's economy revolves around energy and military/nuke tech.
 
Swensonator said:
Getting hit with a nuke hurts. Obviously we'll be interested in anyone who acquires these weapons. They are a preventative measure against attack.

But if the US were to conduct a preemptive strike, we'd annihilate N Korea and Iran, and they wouldnt be able to do anything about it since neither have the capability of delivering their nukes to the US.

Our military is the largest and best equipped on the planet. It would take Russia's nuclear arsenal to have any real impact on our ability to wage war, hence why they want to keep them. We have no reason to keep our nukes other than as a deterrent. They're nothing more than paying off other countries not to use their arsenals against us.

Now calm the fuck down.
Click to expand...

holy sh*t you are high on yourself

in many ways your military is one of the most dated as well.
 
Monkey_b said:
Yes and President Bush snorted cocaine off a hookers ass who gives a shit.

We're talking global poltics right now, let's stick to the context of the discussion.
Click to expand...

you could have easily just said bush also was under suspicion for rigging elections. you could have even brought up the patriot act.

but you chose drugs and strippers

you, sir, do not mince words or play games
 
-§trife- said:
i would say building nukes and supporting a gigantic military (relative to its population) probably wasn't the most efficient use of north korean resources.

you know, because of all the millions of people who starved to death and the almost total lack of infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Those deaths were never of any consequence to them anyway. They cant grow anything on their land, nor had much other production to begin with. They have always been a parasitic country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top