Does anyone here know why Bush is so insistent on short range ballistic missle in EU?

[Jand3rson]

I'm not gung-ho anti-liberal, but that shit is just fucking FUNNY.

[jflip2002]

Why missiles was the initial question.... Why? FTMFW maybe? I think bush is a member of forums throughout the world, and he wants dumb asses to post titilating debates on his dumb decisions.

As far as arabs being a bad word, I think its fine. a-rubs is ok, A-Rabs is kinda offensive. But I dont ride camels, so I cant tell you whats offensive and whats not. Nor do I think any of you can who are not of arab(ic) decent.

[hugh jass]

However, I think Bush is a smart man, I respect his principle and his backbone, so I stand behind him.

jesus christ where have you been the last 6 years? i guess you're part of the 30% that approves of his performance.

[Low Level E30]

jesus christ where have you been the last 6 years? i guess you're part of the 30% that approves of his performance.

Me? I was serving in the military, supporting his principles and his efforts, and proudly.

Yes, I am in that 30%.

Does anyone REALLY think John Kerry, for example, would have done a better job??? Haha - he's such a joke.

This election is going to be a tough one to choose from, as a voter - such a thin field of real candidates.

[atomic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Level E30
However, I think Bush is a smart man, I respect his principle and his backbone, so I stand behind him.

jesus christ where have you been the last 6 years? i guess you're part of the 30% that approves of his performance.

Altough I support the President I do not have to agree with all of his policies. But out of the upmost respect to him I stand behind him and his difficult decisions he has to make. I feel way more compelled to support how he has handled things than his counterparts did the previous 8 years prior to him being elected. Hence the problems we have with terrorism now. And at a time that this country needed a no BS taking president I would much rather have had him serve than anyone else that has ran for the position in the past elections...... AND YES I AM IN THE 30% WHICH ONCE AS AS HIGH AS 75%

[rwh11385]

all the liberals bitch about Bush but who is moronic enough to say the douchebags that the democrats have pathetically put up would have done better? when republicans take the white house yet again, it will show how sad the democrats are sobbing in the shadows

[Low Level E30]

Altough I support the President I do not have to agree with all of his policies. But out of the upmost respect to him I stand behind him and his difficult decisions he has to make. I feel way more compelled to support how he has handled things than his counterparts did the previous 8 years prior to him being elected. Hence the problems we have with terrorism now. And at a time that this country needed a no BS taking president I would much rather have had him serve than anyone else that has ran for the position in the past elections...... AND YES I AM IN THE 30% WHICH ONCE AS AS HIGH AS 75%

Well said.

I'd vote for him again, given the opportunity.

This time around, I'm hoping for Fred Thompson to run so I can vote for him.

[atomic]

Well said.

I'd vote for him again, given the opportunity.

This time around, I'm hoping for Fred Thompson to run so I can vote for him.

Fred is a shoe in for me since he is from my state to begin with.....

[e30sd]

lol listening to you fucks talking about proliferation issues is lol. anyhow a great resource for npr issues is the bulletin of atomic scientists. they're smart and shit.

http://www.thebulletin.org/

[Ben Carufel]

Hey, Pasha, wanna buy an M5?

[e30sd]

ahem whats goin on

[LINUS]

So anyhow, is there a short answer on why Bush is so big on these missiles, or that the other countries are so against us having them there?

I was just hoping for a quick answer in terms my little brain could understand, but if y'all want to just bash each others' politics, then that's always cheap entertainment too.

If anyone knows the short answer, I'd appreciate hearing it.

Carry on.

[e30sd]

missile deployment in eurasia is nothing new. it's cyclic. first we had em in turkey and the eastern bloc. we pulled out of turkey in the 60's, and in 1987 the INF treaty banned all strategic theatre based nuclear weapons. after the ussr fell, SAC and it's nuclear triad were dissassembled and redeployed (as STRATCOM). now with the apparent threat of nuclear weapons in iran (ha), presence in the southern asian peninsula (india/pakistan), and the sleeping giant called china, bush's security panel decided that deploying "missile defense" sites in the czech republic and poland would be a good idea. this is making putin uneasy, since it will inevitably lead back to a build up of nuclear forces (like another missile race, quid pro quo, missile gap, etc).

[trent]

jesus christ where have you been the last 6 years? i guess you're part of the 30% that approves of his performance.

I am most certainly in the 30% and will always be in that approval area. As stated, I may not approve with everything, but for the most part, he is doing a great job.

[hugh jass]

I am most certainly in the 30% and will always be in that approval area. As stated, I may not approve with everything, but for the most part, he is doing a great job.

good for you. high five.