BF2S Forums Obama gets rid of missle shield right as IAEA says Iran can make nukes

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's that attitude that makes people haters....

Obama is doing a good job of getting them back on good terms.

Obama is being naive if he think he's getting America back on good terms with rogue states such as Nkorea, Russia, and Iran.  There is no such thing as good terms. 

I remember back when the Bamster offered Russia the missle shield in exchange for them pressuring Iran not to develope nukes.  Russia said "piss off".  So what do we do?  Give it up anyways.  It is f'n retarded foreign policy.

Yeah, because Poland, The Czech Republic and the rest of Europe are all rogue states...

Pull your fucking head in.

Red Forman wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Good for Obama. Europe should look after itself. Fucking Eastern European governments selling their sovereignty so cheaply. The people of those nations were broadly opposed anyway so this is good news all round I guess.

dude in poland wasnt too happy with obama and said so.  but hey, not according to cam.

One of the thousands that marched in protest at it? I forgot that everybody agrees with their government, especially in the USA.....

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-09-19 08:11:06)

Red Forman wrote:

no.  the leader or whatever they call him.  geez.  lol

The goverments of those countries wanted it. The people broadly didn't. Try reading.

Red Forman wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

no.  the leader or whatever they call him.  geez.  lol

The goverments of those countries wanted it. The people broadly didn't. Try reading.

are they elected......by the people?  try government.

Yeah but as even the most neanderthal and imbecillic lowlifes on earth recognise people don't elect governments on the basis of missile shields - they generally elect them on matters of economics, healthcare and education. George W. Bush was despised by the majority of Americans towards the end of his tenure - did he represent the will of the people? No he fucking didn't. Logic man, you should try it some time.

CameronPoe wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The goverments of those countries wanted it. The people broadly didn't. Try reading.

are they elected......by the people?  try government.

Yeah but as even the most neanderthal and imbecillic lowlifes on earth recognise people don't elect governments on the basis of missile shields - they generally elect them on matters of economics, healthcare and education. George W. Bush was despised by the majority of Americans towards the end of his tenure - did he represent the will of the people? No he fucking didn't. Logic man, you should try it some time.

GW is not the only one who made decisions.  you see, he gets info from all kinds of people and committees filled with elected officials.  but ya, you want to insult and be a smart ass so the hell with you.

nah.  dont want to say something wrong to the golden boy.

CameronPoe wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

nah.  dont want to say something wrong to the golden boy.

Still not exactly sure where this supposed insult is but whatever....

not an insult towards you...

yes master

I think Iran has more pressing concerns with its own stability at the moment.  The last thing they'd want to do right now is enter a war, because that would probably be the straw that would break the camel's back for their system.

Harmor wrote:

A war would probably allow them to kill all their protesters, blame it on us Americans, and then galvanize their regime around the Ayatollah.

While it is true that Argentina did something similar with the Falklands War, I think Iran's situation is a little different.

Right now, Iran faces 2 massive problems: a blatantly corrupt electoral process and a heroin addiction rate that is worse than the vast majority of the world.

The corruption in their elections is widely known, but the less discussed heroin addiction is directly connected to the opium production in neighboring Afghanistan.

I suppose if there was any country Iran would have in its best interests to invade, it would be Afghanistan, so they could destroy the opium crops in the process.  Obviously, our presence in Afghanistan is what keeps them from invading, but at this point, I'm not sure if Iran invading Afghanistan is such a bad thing (assuming we'd withdraw from the area first).

If Iran was burdened with running Afghanistan, they'd be a lot less likely to try and start something with anyone else because of being overextended.  At the same time, they'd be fighting a war against the opium trade, which apparently we aren't currently doing much about.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-09-20 17:11:45)

Spark wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's that attitude that makes people haters....

Obama is doing a good job of getting them back on good terms.

Obama is being naive if he think he's getting America back on good terms with rogue states such as Nkorea, Russia, and Iran.  There is no such thing as good terms. 

I remember back when the Bamster offered Russia the missle shield in exchange for them pressuring Iran not to develope nukes.  Russia said "piss off".  So what do we do?  Give it up anyways.  It is f'n retarded foreign policy.

Yeah, because Poland, The Czech Republic and the rest of Europe are all rogue states...

Pull your fucking head in.

What are you on about?

Red Forman wrote:

[
ZURICH (Reuters) - Russia's top general said on Monday that plans to deploy missiles in an enclave next to Poland had not been shelved, despite a decision by the United States to rethink plans for missile defence in Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/ … ussia.html

--------------------------------------

well done obama.  and well done to the muppets in this thread.

There was a reason for those bases to be located where they were.  You really think Obama will follow through?  Oh, Russia gave up what then?  Oh nothing... Riiight.

Red Forman wrote:

yes but at least the euros liked us more because of nObama lol

Point taken, but those aren't the guys we should be worried about.