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

[LINUS]

good for you. high five.

So why don't you give the class your take on the missile situation, and while you're at it - give us a idea of what you would do "so much better" than Bush.

Monday morning quarterbacking is a wicked slope, and I bet you were in some small way glad we had a Republican in office over a mealy mouth Dem when 9/11 happened, because you knew a Republican would demand payment somewhere, and the most a Dem might do was threaten a "trade embargo".

It's easy to jump on Bush, but you try making the decisions he has had to make in live action. Clinton looks great in retrospect because he didn't shake the doors of the "bad neighbors" - and it might even be easy to argue that because he was so busy getting head & playing sax, that Osama wasn't even remotely being watched as he helped a lot of people in Afganistan & became the man that was a threat as Bush got into office.

I'm not saying I agree with all Bush does, but it's one heck of a job calling the shot & I don't think I could do better - so unless I want to put up, I choose to respectfully voice my differences, but I sure don't envy the guy.

Anyhow, I just wondered what the flap over a few more missiles was - I sort of bet we have some that could do the job from a distance that wouldn't piss off the Russians, but I wanted some insight as to why this was a issue worth getting nasty over.

[blunttech]

So why don't you give the class your take on the missile situation, and while you're at it - give us a idea of what you would do "so much better" than Bush.

Monday morning quarterbacking is a wicked slope, and I bet you were in some small way glad we had a Republican in office over a mealy mouth Dem when 9/11 happened, because you knew a Republican would demand payment somewhere, and the most a Dem might do was threaten a "trade embargo".

It's easy to jump on Bush, but you try making the decisions he has had to make in live action. Clinton looks great in retrospect because he didn't shake the doors of the "bad neighbors" - and it might even be easy to argue that because he was so busy getting head & playing sax, that Osama wasn't even remotely being watched as he helped a lot of people in Afganistan & became the man that was a threat as Bush got into office.

I'm not saying I agree with all Bush does, but it's one heck of a job calling the shot & I don't think I could do better - so unless I want to put up, I choose to respectfully voice my differences, but I sure don't envy the guy.

Anyhow, I just wondered what the flap over a few more missiles was - I sort of bet we have some that could do the job from a distance that wouldn't piss off the Russians, but I wanted some insight as to why this was a issue worth getting nasty over.

you will be waiting a long time for hugh jass's reply. unless its something like "bush sucks" youre after. hes another whiny fucking liberal with no plan other than to complain.

[e30sd]

So why don't you give the class your take on the missile situation, and while you're at it - give us a idea of what you would do "so much better" than Bush.

Monday morning quarterbacking is a wicked slope, and I bet you were in some small way glad we had a Republican in office over a mealy mouth Dem when 9/11 happened, because you knew a Republican would demand payment somewhere, and the most a Dem might do was threaten a "trade embargo".

It's easy to jump on Bush, but you try making the decisions he has had to make in live action. Clinton looks great in retrospect because he didn't shake the doors of the "bad neighbors" - and it might even be easy to argue that because he was so busy getting head & playing sax, that Osama wasn't even remotely being watched as he helped a lot of people in Afganistan & became the man that was a threat as Bush got into office.

I'm not saying I agree with all Bush does, but it's one heck of a job calling the shot & I don't think I could do better - so unless I want to put up, I choose to respectfully voice my differences, but I sure don't envy the guy.

Anyhow, I just wondered what the flap over a few more missiles was - I sort of bet we have some that could do the job from a distance that wouldn't piss off the Russians, but I wanted some insight as to why this was a issue worth getting nasty over.

because the progression since nixon has been non proliferation and de-armament. NPT, SALT I, SALT II, INF, START, and the Moscow SORT. It has been a relatively forward progression for the last 40 years. However, with the expiration of START I in 2 years, and no verification order in place, some are worried that any action like new missile deployment (under any guise) could lead to a buildup of forces. the other issue is that a lot of these policies vary from administration to administration, so the next guy that comes in could adopt an ABB policy, much like bush adopted ABC.

[rwh11385]

So why don't you give the class your take on the missile situation, and while you're at it - give us a idea of what you would do "so much better" than Bush.

Monday morning quarterbacking is a wicked slope, and I bet you were in some small way glad we had a Republican in office over a mealy mouth Dem when 9/11 happened, because you knew a Republican would demand payment somewhere, and the most a Dem might do was threaten a "trade embargo".

It's easy to jump on Bush, but you try making the decisions he has had to make in live action. Clinton looks great in retrospect because he didn't shake the doors of the "bad neighbors" - and it might even be easy to argue that because he was so busy getting head & playing sax, that Osama wasn't even remotely being watched as he helped a lot of people in Afganistan & became the man that was a threat as Bush got into office.

I'm not saying I agree with all Bush does, but it's one heck of a job calling the shot & I don't think I could do better - so unless I want to put up, I choose to respectfully voice my differences, but I sure don't envy the guy.

Anyhow, I just wondered what the flap over a few more missiles was - I sort of bet we have some that could do the job from a distance that wouldn't piss off the Russians, but I wanted some insight as to why this was a issue worth getting nasty over.

BOOM SHAKA LAKA

[LINUS]

because the progression since nixon has been non proliferation and de-armament. NPT, SALT I, SALT II, INF, START, and the Moscow SORT. It has been a relatively forward progression for the last 40 years. However, with the expiration of START I in 2 years, and no verification order in place, some are worried that any action like new missile deployment (under any guise) could lead to a buildup of forces. the other issue is that a lot of these policies vary from administration to administration, so the next guy that comes in could adopt an ABB policy, much like bush adopted ABC.

So in layman's terms - is it just that the concept of "More missiles are bad missiles", and the fact that other countries (Russia mainly) don't have the resources to compete if we start planting missile bases?

That's what I get from your answer, and I must say it looks like you know your stuff. I like to keep it simple enough to just understand the broad strokes, but you really seem to have a grasp on this. Personal interest or part of your job to have an understanding of this issue?

[e30sd]

pretty much, for the whole non proliferation regime, this is a step in the wrong direction.

i go to gradz skool to stud-e nooks and shit.

[dirty30]

I'm not voting this time around, if someone is going to do something they are going to do it no matter what... I am going to open a can of natural light, cheers my brother and die a fast death in a blast of pure nuclear hellfire.