Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,520 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,337,853
Pageviews Today: 3,177,432Threads Today: 765Posts Today: 14,436
10:15 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27412420
Canada
11/10/2012 07:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
[link to translate.googleusercontent.com]
D.Rogozin: "Russia expects transactions from M.Obama on missile shield"

Russia expects President Barack Obama, to show more flexibility on the issue of missile defense the U.S. after his re-election, said Deputy Prime Minister of the country and responsible for the war industry, Dmitry Rogozin,.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 27412420
Canada
11/10/2012 07:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
[link to www.newser.com]
Russia expects President Barack Obama to be more flexible on missile defense shield dispute

Russia hopes for US flexibility on missile shield
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9744765
United Kingdom
11/10/2012 07:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
[link to www.newser.com]
Russia expects President Barack Obama to be more flexible on missile defense shield dispute

Russia hopes for US flexibility on missile shield

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27412420






ohyeah




.
RolandDeschain

User ID: 27207556
United Kingdom
11/10/2012 07:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I think this idea of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was a bad one from the start to be honest. It was bound to upset Russia who still regards the area as being under its 'sphere of influence'.

I think at the moment its better to keep Russia on the US side. Having the anti-ballistic missiles on ships and on US soil is a better idea. Although what I don't understand with Russia is why they should feel threatened by a very limited 'shield'.

They have hundreds of missiles still, and this defence shield would make a minimum impact on their arsenal - it is aimed at Iran, North Korea and other smaller countries. I also think its a bit hypocritical when Russia still has the anti-ballistic system around Moscow - the Gazelles and Gorgons plus it is expanding its S400 bases as well as developing S500 - which are rumoured to have REAL anti-ballistic capability.
"If we don't end war, war will end us"
H. G. Wells
BZB

User ID: 26703704
United States
11/10/2012 07:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
encroachment. that is the problem. First antiballistic shield then ballistic missiles. they see the writing on the wall.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 27412420
Canada
11/10/2012 07:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I think this idea of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was a bad one from the start to be honest. It was bound to upset Russia who still regards the area as being under its 'sphere of influence'.

I think at the moment its better to keep Russia on the US side. Having the anti-ballistic missiles on ships and on US soil is a better idea. Although what I don't understand with Russia is why they should feel threatened by a very limited 'shield'.

They have hundreds of missiles still, and this defence shield would make a minimum impact on their arsenal - it is aimed at Iran, North Korea and other smaller countries. I also think its a bit hypocritical when Russia still has the anti-ballistic system around Moscow - the Gazelles and Gorgons plus it is expanding its S400 bases as well as developing S500 - which are rumoured to have REAL anti-ballistic capability.
 Quoting: RolandDeschain


That's because Russia is thinking ahead. They know that eventually, the missile shield will have thousands of interceptors that kick asses...

Then Russia will be vulnerable to a first strike... especially with the START treaties, reducing the total launchers to 800.

Let's say a first strike takes out half of those... 400 launchers left... the missile shield takes out 300 of those... 100 that explode are ``acceptable losses``.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23343731
Australia
11/10/2012 07:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I think this idea of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was a bad one from the start to be honest. It was bound to upset Russia who still regards the area as being under its 'sphere of influence'.

I think at the moment its better to keep Russia on the US side. Having the anti-ballistic missiles on ships and on US soil is a better idea. Although what I don't understand with Russia is why they should feel threatened by a very limited 'shield'.

They have hundreds of missiles still, and this defence shield would make a minimum impact on their arsenal - it is aimed at Iran, North Korea and other smaller countries. I also think its a bit hypocritical when Russia still has the anti-ballistic system around Moscow - the Gazelles and Gorgons plus it is expanding its S400 bases as well as developing S500 - which are rumoured to have REAL anti-ballistic capability.
 Quoting: RolandDeschain


And if Russia agitated to install "government friendly to the Kremlin" in, say, Mexico...and then set about setting up a "shield" adjacent to US territory.

Sorry, but the US is being provocative and should fucking back off.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27385060
Germany
11/10/2012 08:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I think this idea of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was a bad one from the start to be honest. It was bound to upset Russia who still regards the area as being under its 'sphere of influence'.

I think at the moment its better to keep Russia on the US side. Having the anti-ballistic missiles on ships and on US soil is a better idea. Although what I don't understand with Russia is why they should feel threatened by a very limited 'shield'.

They have hundreds of missiles still, and this defence shield would make a minimum impact on their arsenal - it is aimed at Iran, North Korea and other smaller countries. I also think its a bit hypocritical when Russia still has the anti-ballistic system around Moscow - the Gazelles and Gorgons plus it is expanding its S400 bases as well as developing S500 - which are rumoured to have REAL anti-ballistic capability.
 Quoting: RolandDeschain


That's because Russia is thinking ahead.
They know that eventually, the missile shield will have thousands of interceptors that kick asses...

Then Russia will be vulnerable to a first strike... especially with the START treaties, reducing the total launchers to 800.

Let's say a first strike takes out half of those... 400 launchers left... the missile shield takes out 300 of those... 100 that explode are ``acceptable losses``.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27412420


Both sides are not tards when it will come to War they know all tactics and the Generals have to deal with that you can not trust in honesty and friendly friendship, once your economy is threatened or broken a country will do almost anything.
Uncle Alyosha
User ID: 27443964
United States
11/10/2012 08:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I'm fluent in Russian - job security for when Russia takes over...

Believe me, you'll never want the lame USA back, comrades, after partying with the Russians!!!

OK, just kidding...partly...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22899606
United States
11/10/2012 08:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
[link to www.newser.com]
Russia expects President Barack Obama to be more flexible on missile defense shield dispute

Russia hopes for US flexibility on missile shield

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27412420






ohyeah




.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9744765


never make a promise with the russians if you don't plan on following through

otrike
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2324286
United States
11/10/2012 08:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
You mean like he said he would push the reset button with Russia and then stuck missiles all around them?

bsflag
RolandDeschain

User ID: 27207556
United Kingdom
11/10/2012 08:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I think this idea of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was a bad one from the start to be honest. It was bound to upset Russia who still regards the area as being under its 'sphere of influence'.

I think at the moment its better to keep Russia on the US side. Having the anti-ballistic missiles on ships and on US soil is a better idea. Although what I don't understand with Russia is why they should feel threatened by a very limited 'shield'.

They have hundreds of missiles still, and this defence shield would make a minimum impact on their arsenal - it is aimed at Iran, North Korea and other smaller countries. I also think its a bit hypocritical when Russia still has the anti-ballistic system around Moscow - the Gazelles and Gorgons plus it is expanding its S400 bases as well as developing S500 - which are rumoured to have REAL anti-ballistic capability.
 Quoting: RolandDeschain


That's because Russia is thinking ahead. They know that eventually, the missile shield will have thousands of interceptors that kick asses...

Then Russia will be vulnerable to a first strike... especially with the START treaties, reducing the total launchers to 800.

Let's say a first strike takes out half of those... 400 launchers left... the missile shield takes out 300 of those... 100 that explode are ``acceptable losses``.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27412420


I'm sorry but the idea of the US ever making a 'first strike' on Russia is incorrect to say the least. No first strike can ever get an acceptable amount of warheads. Russia will probably have more warheads in their submarines in the next few years when the Dorey Class expands to 6-8 boats and the SS18/SS19s are decommissioned. Plus the SS27 (one version anyway) is mobile and very difficult to hit.

Even if the US did get a sizeable number of Russian missiles on the ground and then hit half of what Russia launched it would still be a large number.

Lets say Russia got 50 warheads to the US and deliberately targeted cities? Do you think any President or administration would survive the backlash from the population after this? They'd be lynched and rightly so..

Plus, the US DOES NOT have the funds to approach anything like the scale of a defence shield that could nullify the Russian strategic force and what you describe. They may be able to shoot down the odd North Korean, Iranian or Chinese nuke but that would be it!

I think they should start to try and not annoy the Russian bear - they are not the enemy anymore and I think its just the Military-industrial complex trying to ensure they get hundreds of billions of dollars a year guaranteed.

The US should be looking to defend against smaller threats - terrorists, potential rogue nations. Not against Russia or China. Antagonise these nations and there will be no end to it.

The US should work with Russia to aim for a much smaller nuclear force - 300-400 warheads maximum. Have them on 6-8 submarines where the deterrent is real. This amount of nukes would be a huge deterrent still to any country that thought to threaten their interests.

Having 1550 nukes in todays world (and thats just the deployed STRATEGIC warheads, discounting the tactical ones) is wrong. It costs too much and the US needs to find cuts fast otherwise it will go bankrupt. It could make a start in getting rid of the three missile fields in Montana, Dakotas and reduce the Trident submarines to 8. More then enough still to deter Russia, China, Iran, etc.
"If we don't end war, war will end us"
H. G. Wells
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 27412420
Canada
11/10/2012 08:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I think this idea of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was a bad one from the start to be honest. It was bound to upset Russia who still regards the area as being under its 'sphere of influence'.

I think at the moment its better to keep Russia on the US side. Having the anti-ballistic missiles on ships and on US soil is a better idea. Although what I don't understand with Russia is why they should feel threatened by a very limited 'shield'.

They have hundreds of missiles still, and this defence shield would make a minimum impact on their arsenal - it is aimed at Iran, North Korea and other smaller countries. I also think its a bit hypocritical when Russia still has the anti-ballistic system around Moscow - the Gazelles and Gorgons plus it is expanding its S400 bases as well as developing S500 - which are rumoured to have REAL anti-ballistic capability.
 Quoting: RolandDeschain


That's because Russia is thinking ahead. They know that eventually, the missile shield will have thousands of interceptors that kick asses...

Then Russia will be vulnerable to a first strike... especially with the START treaties, reducing the total launchers to 800.

Let's say a first strike takes out half of those... 400 launchers left... the missile shield takes out 300 of those... 100 that explode are ``acceptable losses``.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27412420


I'm sorry but the idea of the US ever making a 'first strike' on Russia is incorrect to say the least. No first strike can ever get an acceptable amount of warheads. Russia will probably have more warheads in their submarines in the next few years when the Dorey Class expands to 6-8 boats and the SS18/SS19s are decommissioned. Plus the SS27 (one version anyway) is mobile and very difficult to hit.

Even if the US did get a sizeable number of Russian missiles on the ground and then hit half of what Russia launched it would still be a large number.

Lets say Russia got 50 warheads to the US and deliberately targeted cities? Do you think any President or administration would survive the backlash from the population after this? They'd be lynched and rightly so..

Plus, the US DOES NOT have the funds to approach anything like the scale of a defence shield that could nullify the Russian strategic force and what you describe. They may be able to shoot down the odd North Korean, Iranian or Chinese nuke but that would be it!

I think they should start to try and not annoy the Russian bear - they are not the enemy anymore and I think its just the Military-industrial complex trying to ensure they get hundreds of billions of dollars a year guaranteed.

The US should be looking to defend against smaller threats - terrorists, potential rogue nations. Not against Russia or China. Antagonise these nations and there will be no end to it.

The US should work with Russia to aim for a much smaller nuclear force - 300-400 warheads maximum. Have them on 6-8 submarines where the deterrent is real. This amount of nukes would be a huge deterrent still to any country that thought to threaten their interests.

Having 1550 nukes in todays world (and thats just the deployed STRATEGIC warheads, discounting the tactical ones) is wrong. It costs too much and the US needs to find cuts fast otherwise it will go bankrupt. It could make a start in getting rid of the three missile fields in Montana, Dakotas and reduce the Trident submarines to 8. More then enough still to deter Russia, China, Iran, etc.
 Quoting: RolandDeschain



The elite would love a few cities incinerated. Population control and all that.
Silvershallows
User ID: 462458
Netherlands
11/10/2012 08:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
They first need a missile shield for Chernobyl!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24957083
United States
11/10/2012 09:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I think this idea of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was a bad one from the start to be honest. It was bound to upset Russia who still regards the area as being under its 'sphere of influence'.

I think at the moment its better to keep Russia on the US side. Having the anti-ballistic missiles on ships and on US soil is a better idea. Although what I don't understand with Russia is why they should feel threatened by a very limited 'shield'.

They have hundreds of missiles still, and this defence shield would make a minimum impact on their arsenal - it is aimed at Iran, North Korea and other smaller countries. I also think its a bit hypocritical when Russia still has the anti-ballistic system around Moscow - the Gazelles and Gorgons plus it is expanding its S400 bases as well as developing S500 - which are rumoured to have REAL anti-ballistic capability.
 Quoting: RolandDeschain


Which is a silly notion. Most of Eastern Europe doesn't considered itself under the sphere of influence of Russia and consider themselves more aligned to the west.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24957083
United States
11/10/2012 09:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
[link to www.newser.com]
Russia expects President Barack Obama to be more flexible on missile defense shield dispute

Russia hopes for US flexibility on missile shield

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27412420


Meanwhile, Russia continues to build more nuclear weapons and continue to operate the SS-18 while the US is being disarmed.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27421673
Germany
11/10/2012 09:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
[link to www.newser.com]
Russia expects President Barack Obama to be more flexible on missile defense shield dispute

Russia hopes for US flexibility on missile shield

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27412420


Meanwhile, Russia continues to build more nuclear weapons and continue to operate the SS-18 while the US is being disarmed.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24957083


The US still have the most powerful military machine on the planet, Russia is just catching up. And if i were them i'd hurry up with that aswell, Israel and the US were flirting with all the rich resources on the eurasian/russian plateu since a looong time.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26476310
Finland
11/10/2012 09:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected


The US is going to be bankrupt long before the missile shield is that effective.
RDprofessor

User ID: 19614366
United States
11/10/2012 11:42 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
One of the few positives of Obama re-election.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27457198
United States
11/10/2012 12:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
[link to www.newser.com]
Russia expects President Barack Obama to be more flexible on missile defense shield dispute

Russia hopes for US flexibility on missile shield

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27412420


Meanwhile, Russia continues to build more nuclear weapons and continue to operate the SS-18 while the US is being disarmed.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24957083


Exactly...Russia continues to add to their defenses,
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26027784
France
11/10/2012 01:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
Meanwhile, Russia continues to build more nuclear weapons and continue to operate the SS-18 while the US is being disarmed.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24957083



Meanwhile USA/NATO are playing strategic encirclement with Russia since a long time;

[link to usahitman.com]
, Iran is now the last open gate they have to the south with syria (about to collapse) on the meditterranean side.
So its not like they have choice to get more weapons or not...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4443279
Finland
11/10/2012 01:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
Meanwhile, Russia continues to build more nuclear weapons and continue to operate the SS-18 while the US is being disarmed.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24957083



Meanwhile USA/NATO are playing strategic encirclement with Russia since a long time;

[link to usahitman.com]
, Iran is now the last open gate they have to the south with syria (about to collapse) on the meditterranean side.
So its not like they have choice to get more weapons or not...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26027784


clappa
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27207556
United Kingdom
11/10/2012 01:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I think this idea of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was a bad one from the start to be honest. It was bound to upset Russia who still regards the area as being under its 'sphere of influence'.

I think at the moment its better to keep Russia on the US side. Having the anti-ballistic missiles on ships and on US soil is a better idea. Although what I don't understand with Russia is why they should feel threatened by a very limited 'shield'.

They have hundreds of missiles still, and this defence shield would make a minimum impact on their arsenal - it is aimed at Iran, North Korea and other smaller countries. I also think its a bit hypocritical when Russia still has the anti-ballistic system around Moscow - the Gazelles and Gorgons plus it is expanding its S400 bases as well as developing S500 - which are rumoured to have REAL anti-ballistic capability.
 Quoting: RolandDeschain


Which is a silly notion. Most of Eastern Europe doesn't considered itself under the sphere of influence of Russia and consider themselves more aligned to the west.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24957083



It is not silly according to Russia!

Russia has had concerns over the decades about any potential aggressor encroaching anywhere near its borders. You only have to look at Operation Barbarossato understand why Russia still has these feelings. True the presence of US interests in Eastern Europe cannot be compared in any way, shape or form to what happened when Hitler launched the attack against the Soviet Union which cost around 27 Million Soviet deaths.

However, any potential threat, no matter how small, is viewed as destabilising by Russia and they haven't forgotten about how US kicked up a fuss about Cuba in 1962 whilst they were at the same time putting missiles in Turkey.

The military assets in Eastern Europe are not needed. It would help US- Russian relations if they were abandoned and if they could work together to ensure they are safe from potential rogue states/ terrorists.

They also need to disarm more nukes as the amount they still have is too large for the 21st century and is hugely costly to upkeep. This money could be used for other military purposes or re-invested towards helping their countries escape the economic conditions they find themselves in.

Plus the SS18s will be gone by 2021 at the latest as this is the date when they will become virtually unusable - they have already had their service lives extended beyond 2016 and are not as reliable as they once were. Same goes for the SS19s and SS25s - all gone by 2020. At the moment the SS27 is the only new ICBM that is in use but even in its MIRVed form will only allow Russia to field 300-400 warheads on land at the most. Quite a drop from the 6000+ warheads they had on ICBMs in the 1980s, no?

Both sides should try and get down to 400-500 warheads at most - including strategic and tactical - anymore is a waste of money and overkill. A few hundred would be more then enough to deter any potential aggressor IMO.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4443279
Finland
11/10/2012 01:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I think this idea of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was a bad one from the start to be honest. It was bound to upset Russia who still regards the area as being under its 'sphere of influence'.

I think at the moment its better to keep Russia on the US side. Having the anti-ballistic missiles on ships and on US soil is a better idea. Although what I don't understand with Russia is why they should feel threatened by a very limited 'shield'.

They have hundreds of missiles still, and this defence shield would make a minimum impact on their arsenal - it is aimed at Iran, North Korea and other smaller countries. I also think its a bit hypocritical when Russia still has the anti-ballistic system around Moscow - the Gazelles and Gorgons plus it is expanding its S400 bases as well as developing S500 - which are rumoured to have REAL anti-ballistic capability.
 Quoting: RolandDeschain


Which is a silly notion. Most of Eastern Europe doesn't considered itself under the sphere of influence of Russia and consider themselves more aligned to the west.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24957083



It is not silly according to Russia!

Russia has had concerns over the decades about any potential aggressor encroaching anywhere near its borders. You only have to look at Operation Barbarossato understand why Russia still has these feelings. True the presence of US interests in Eastern Europe cannot be compared in any way, shape or form to what happened when Hitler launched the attack against the Soviet Union which cost around 27 Million Soviet deaths.

However, any potential threat, no matter how small, is viewed as destabilising by Russia and they haven't forgotten about how US kicked up a fuss about Cuba in 1962 whilst they were at the same time putting missiles in Turkey.

The military assets in Eastern Europe are not needed. It would help US- Russian relations if they were abandoned and if they could work together to ensure they are safe from potential rogue states/ terrorists.

They also need to disarm more nukes as the amount they still have is too large for the 21st century and is hugely costly to upkeep. This money could be used for other military purposes or re-invested towards helping their countries escape the economic conditions they find themselves in.

Plus the SS18s will be gone by 2021 at the latest as this is the date when they will become virtually unusable - they have already had their service lives extended beyond 2016 and are not as reliable as they once were. Same goes for the SS19s and SS25s - all gone by 2020. At the moment the SS27 is the only new ICBM that is in use but even in its MIRVed form will only allow Russia to field 300-400 warheads on land at the most. Quite a drop from the 6000+ warheads they had on ICBMs in the 1980s, no?

Both sides should try and get down to 400-500 warheads at most - including strategic and tactical - anymore is a waste of money and overkill. A few hundred would be more then enough to deter any potential aggressor IMO.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27207556


Russia also remembers very well failed NATO promises. They were promised in early 90's that NATO will not expand into former Warsaw pact countries. Look at the map now. Russia knows very well that NATO and the US are not to be trusted under any circumstances. They want to fuck Lady Russia up the ass without lube.
Boromir_sk

User ID: 27400379
Germany
11/10/2012 01:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
Russia just try to defend itself from aggressive NATO encirclement.

When NATO will invade Russia, IT WILL BE ALL OVER FOR MONTH OR TWO. The west will not exist any more. It will be NUCLEAR WINTER, and we will all die.

God, or Gods, created Russia to balance any force on this world. Therefore one country can not take everything.

US is in the path of self destruction. Clingon Empire is not acceptable by anybody, not even the higher unseen forces.

You will see Sandy ONE AFTER ANOTHER. THAN CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE. US WILL BE COUNTRY OF TOTAL DESTRUCTION.

Carma will wake up people, that EVERYTHING YOU DO, WILL RETURN TO YOU.

I was just watching people waiting for gassoline in New York.

This was the result of NATO bombardement in Yugoslavia.
Even this Kristian Amampure was a major correspondent for Wars in the Balkans. 99 percent of her reports were wrong, and invented facts, in order nato to do invasion.

Now She was crying about Sandy.

And there will be civil wars in US as I am informed.


Boromir
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26779413
United States
11/10/2012 01:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected

 Quoting: AlcoholicRunner


...


Most Americans misunderstand the open mic gaffe. Obama was trying to "sell" his deal to the Russians. Basically, accept my ABM system for now and I promise when I get re-elected, I will scale it back.

The Kremlin isn't stupid and of course they do not believe Obama. Why should they believe him? What did Bush senior promise Russia? "Pull your conventional forces behind the Urals and the USA/NATO will not expand Eastward"

Guess what happened? USA/NATO expanded all the way up to Poland, the former Soviet republics in the Baltic, Romania, and even tried to move into Georgia and Ukraine. So the answer is NYET. No Dice, Barry Soetero.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21271848

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23491596

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24446369

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26779413
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26779413
United States
11/10/2012 01:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected

 Quoting: AlcoholicRunner


...


Most Americans misunderstand the open mic gaffe. Obama was trying to "sell" his deal to the Russians. Basically, accept my ABM system for now and I promise when I get re-elected, I will scale it back.

The Kremlin isn't stupid and of course they do not believe Obama. Why should they believe him? What did Bush senior promise Russia? "Pull your conventional forces behind the Urals and the USA/NATO will not expand Eastward"

Guess what happened? USA/NATO expanded all the way up to Poland, the former Soviet republics in the Baltic, Romania, and even tried to move into Georgia and Ukraine. So the answer is NYET. No Dice, Barry Soetero.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21271848

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23491596

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24446369

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26779413
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26779413
United States
11/10/2012 01:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected

 Quoting: AlcoholicRunner


...


Most Americans misunderstand the open mic gaffe. Obama was trying to "sell" his deal to the Russians. Basically, accept my ABM system for now and I promise when I get re-elected, I will scale it back.

The Kremlin isn't stupid and of course they do not believe Obama. Why should they believe him? What did Bush senior promise Russia? "Pull your conventional forces behind the Urals and the USA/NATO will not expand Eastward"

Guess what happened? USA/NATO expanded all the way up to Poland, the former Soviet republics in the Baltic, Romania, and even tried to move into Georgia and Ukraine. So the answer is NYET. No Dice, Barry Soetero.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21271848

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23491596

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24446369

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26779413
Boromir_sk

User ID: 27400379
Germany
11/10/2012 01:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
[link to img12.nnm.ru]

THIS IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL IN THE WORLD.

This is why Russia MUST prepare itself for the NATO and US INVASION.

But I do think US will be destroyed before this happen.

US Satanical Cabal is planning invasion on Rus. But the country will go Bankcropt, Economic Disaster, than Natural Catastrophic events. Then wars in US among races and states.

US has become the EVIL empire, so NOW and in the NEAR FUTURE, will pay heavy price for such a behavior.


Boromir from Macedonia
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26779413
United States
11/10/2012 02:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I think this idea of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was a bad one from the start to be honest. It was bound to upset Russia who still regards the area as being under its 'sphere of influence'.

I think at the moment its better to keep Russia on the US side. Having the anti-ballistic missiles on ships and on US soil is a better idea. Although what I don't understand with Russia is why they should feel threatened by a very limited 'shield'.

They have hundreds of missiles still, and this defence shield would make a minimum impact on their arsenal - it is aimed at Iran, North Korea and other smaller countries. I also think its a bit hypocritical when Russia still has the anti-ballistic system around Moscow - the Gazelles and Gorgons plus it is expanding its S400 bases as well as developing S500 - which are rumoured to have REAL anti-ballistic capability.
 Quoting: RolandDeschain


And if Russia agitated to install "government friendly to the Kremlin" in, say, Mexico...and then set about setting up a "shield" adjacent to US territory.

Sorry, but the US is being provocative and should fucking back off.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23343731


clappa
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26779413
United States
11/10/2012 02:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Russia expecting deal on missile shield now that Obama has been reelected
I think this idea of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was a bad one from the start to be honest. It was bound to upset Russia who still regards the area as being under its 'sphere of influence'.

I think at the moment its better to keep Russia on the US side. Having the anti-ballistic missiles on ships and on US soil is a better idea. Although what I don't understand with Russia is why they should feel threatened by a very limited 'shield'.

They have hundreds of missiles still, and this defence shield would make a minimum impact on their arsenal - it is aimed at Iran, North Korea and other smaller countries. I also think its a bit hypocritical when Russia still has the anti-ballistic system around Moscow - the Gazelles and Gorgons plus it is expanding its S400 bases as well as developing S500 - which are rumoured to have REAL anti-ballistic capability.
 Quoting: RolandDeschain


Which is a silly notion. Most of Eastern Europe doesn't considered itself under the sphere of influence of Russia and consider themselves more aligned to the west.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24957083


Of course they don't consider themselves under the Russian sphere of influence, just like most latin American countries don't consider themselves under the American sphere of influence. However the United States would be quite irritable if Russia and China started building long range over the horizon radars and ABM sites in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuelaa and then claimed they were for defending against rouge "Israeli missiles"

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!