Poll: Should US back out of ABM Treaty?

[Ohwell]

Crap! Bush is an idiot! A police force, firefighters, safer airports and postal services would do more to combat terrorism than a million missles! Forgoing a police/saftey bill, to help the citizens feel safer, for a more expensive missle "shield"! Isn't that illegal?
Forgoing citizen saftey and well being for a shield against missles! He is the only president I have serious doubts in. He is almost making the United States, non American!

 

[amadeus]

All of this Bush-bashing is completely without merit. It's okay to disagree, but resort to name-calling really diminishes the point you're trying to make.

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
All of this Bush-bashing is completely without merit. It's okay to disagree, but resort to name-calling really diminishes the point you're trying to make.

I agree....but why don't you stop complaining about what he is being called...and defend your ideals.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The ABM treaty was for the United States and Soviet Union:

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Atlas/TPol/polnav.gif

Tell me where the Soviet Union is on this map..oh, can't find it?

If there would be a Soviet Union, Bush would probably change United States of Americas
name to United States of Northern America, and therefore said that the deal applied with just the USA,
but not the USNA.

 

[Ohwell]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
All of this Bush-bashing is completely without merit. It's okay to disagree, but resort to name-calling really diminishes the point you're trying to make.

I am definatley not bashing anyone. I am saying his ideas are a bit idiotic, and I am not namecalling. Right, I said I have doubts in him. So? That is my opinion. I suggest you post your opinion, not complaining about Bushbashing.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by CornMaster

I agree....but why don't you stop complaining about what he is being called...and defend your ideals.

Why bother to defend the carefully consider policy of experienced, educated leaders from the rantings mostly teenaged high school fools. this thread has become a sandbox for egotistical children, not a useful debating environment for persons who may have sothing useful to add. If you want serious debate, you must first become capable of it.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola


Why bother to defend the carefully consider policy of experienced, educated leaders from the rantings mostly teenaged high school fools. this thread has become a sandbox for egotistical children, not a useful debating environment for persons who may have sothing useful to add. If you want serious debate, you must first become capable of it.

Thank you. You have coinvinced me that you are not egoistical .

EDIT: How adult YOU indeed are. We are not agreeing with your opinion, so we must be idiotical fools.
We are idiotical fools, we must be from college, because when you were idiotical fool,
you were in college. I'm having serious difficulties to reduce myself from bashing you.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Juize


EDIT: How adult YOU indeed are. We are not agreeing with your opinion, so we must be idiotical fools.

I have not posted my opinion on the subject of this thread, only upon the quality of discussion herein, which, with more posts making foolish personal remarks about a world leader, than being pertinent to the supposed subject, is well beneath minimum I would need to usefully spend my time. The subject is well worth dicussing in many facets, pros and cons, but not with the average poster in this thread. Look at this thread. Do you really believe that a knowledgeble intelligent person who wanted a serious discussion of the subject, in which all parties have a chance of learning something about the isuue, would try to do it here with these personnel rather than elsewhere? If you want serious discusion, you must first be serious.

PM to cornmaster to avoid further cluttering this thread.

 

[Maj]

Why bother to defend the carefully consider policy of experienced, educated leaders from the rantings mostly teenaged high school fools. this thread has become a sandbox for egotistical children, not a useful debating environment for persons who may have sothing useful to add. If you want serious debate, you must first become capable of it.

Do you not question whose interests "carefully considered policies" serve?

And considering that you are lecturing us on what is necessary to properly debate a topic, could you please provide us an example and bother yourself by defending (I'm assuming that's your position on this issue) these aforementioned policies?

Satisfy my egotistical and childish mind by proving to us your capabilities. If you can put your money where your mouth is I'd be more than grateful since you would have actually provided some engaging facts and opinions.

I WANT to hear a solid argument that leaves me believing with little doubt that the pros of the Missle Defense Shield will outweigh the cons under both domestic and foreign terms. Or I at least want to hear a good argument. But simply throwing up a response that says little more than "I am too intelligent/knowledgeable to post my opinions" does nothing more than enrage the ignorant. Namely myself.

Educate me. Or take your own advice.

-Maj

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Why bother to defend the carefully consider policy of experienced, educated leaders from the rantings mostly teenaged high school fools. this thread has become a sandbox for egotistical children, not a useful debating environment for persons who may have sothing useful to add. If you want serious debate, you must first become capable of it.

Again....complaining about the people who make the arguement...and not actually talking about the arguement. What is it with you "old" guys, and not talking about the arguement.

I also don't appreacate being called a fool. Considering I'm not.

I've also given support for my arguement.

Talking about 3.2 Billion being too much money and then approving 7.8 Billion in spending just after. (AKA Lying) The missile sheild only protects against missiles launched from/into space. Not from subs, commercial airliners, bio-attacks, planted bombs, etc...

There are already ways to beat a missile shield....even in the small bit of protection that it does give. Written by Duck.

Now....counter these arguements and justify the huge amounts of money spent...."old fool".

 

[Fayadi]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


The strategic defense program is to intercept missiles so that they can't strike the United States.

Second, the Russians already HAD those missile systems, the treaty basically says WE can't have them.

Do u have any idea what ABM treaty is !Of course US and Russia have the system installed already,the ABM treaty is a treaty that limits the number of Anti-Ballistic Missile system!Think carefully before u say

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Ohwell


I am definatley not bashing anyone. I am saying his ideas are a bit idiotic, and I am not namecalling. Right, I said I have doubts in him. So? That is my opinion. I suggest you post your opinion, not complaining about Bushbashing.

Yeah, right. Allow me to refresh your memory...

Originally posted by Ohwell
Crap! Bush is an idiot! A police force, firefighters, safer airports and postal services would do more to combat terrorism than a million missles! Forgoing a police/saftey bill, to help the citizens feel safer, for a more expensive missle "shield"! Isn't that illegal?
Forgoing citizen saftey and well being for a shield against missles! He is the only president I have serious doubts in. He is almost making the United States, non American!

Damn, more about Bush than ive seen! He must be bad! Tell me more, do any people you know hate him too? I do. Man, this guy is wacko!

I have noticed all of these things, and I am dissapointed most of the American populace is too dumb to realize the beyond the nationalistic wall is an evil, warmongering, crazy, idiotic, unsimpathetic loser. Americans, flame me if you want to, I don't care. George Bush is the doom of us all!

As Tommy Lee Jones' character said in The Fugitive, "Would you care to revise your bullsh1t statement?"

 

[ComradeDavo]

Please consider that this 'Bush bashing' comes about because to us people outside of the USA Bush is the missile defence system, meaning that whenever it is mentioned our thoughts immediately turn to President Bush as our media mainl portrays the system as being HIS iniative (or the iniative of 'the Bush administrtation' to qoute a popular phrase in the British media).

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Fayadi


Do u have any idea what ABM treaty is !Of course US and Russia have the system installed already,the ABM treaty is a treaty that limits the number of Anti-Ballistic Missile system!Think carefully before u say

You're failing to see the point. The ABM Treaty was signed by the United States and Soviet Union (USSR, CCCP, etc.), NOT the Russian Federation.

 

[Michiel de Ruyter]

After the fall of the USSR, the Russian Federation 'inherited' most of it's international treaties (for example the permanent seat in the UN Security Counsil), and also the ABM-treaty.

At the time the US accepted this, so using the end of the USSR as an excuse to get out of the treaty looks at the least unreliable in international diplomacy.

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by Michiel de Ruyter
After the fall of the USSR, the Russian Federation 'inherited' most of it's international treaties (for example the permanent seat in the UN Security Counsil), and also the ABM-treaty.

You missed this point already rmsharpe.....do you see it this time?

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
As Tommy Lee Jones' character said in The Fugitive, "Would you care to revise your bullsh1t statement?"

It might be offensive to Bush supporters....but it's not bullsh1t. It's the bitter truth. And no one seems to be able to justify it. You do know what that means right??? The arguement is over.....and we have won.

 

[damunzy]

I fail to see how anyone has made any points in this thread. I see no links to reputable new sites (CNN, Bloomburg, Time, etc.) and to me it does see like a lot of bluster and Bush bashing. I don't like Bush to much myself, he seems to be pretty slow in the brain department, but if we are going to pick apart his choices let's at least show some proof of our "facts".

1. What is the purpose of the ABM treaty? What is it's full and complete name? Maybe a link to this information.
2. Every responding post should have a link to information on the internet if you want to be taken seriously. If you are refering to a particular post in question then use {quote} or say what post and provide some proof.

 

[damunzy]

Here, I did some of the work that others were too lazy to do.
All of the below links are to CNN from this search:
http://cnn.looksmart.com/r_search?l...&rf=1&venue=all&keyword=&qp=&search=0&key=abm

U.S. set the stage for dropping out of ABM treaty (13-Dec-01)
U.S. officials do not anticipate any harsh reaction to President Bush's announcement of his intention to withdraw from the 1972 ABM treaty because of legwork done in advance.

Putin: U.S. ABM move 'a mistake' (13-Dec-01)
Russian President Vladimir Putin says the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is a "mistake," but does not threaten Russia's national security.

U.S. quits ABM treaty (13-Dec-01)
President Bush said Thursday the United States has notified Russia that it intends to pull out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, starting a six-month timetable for withdrawal and opening the way for the creation of an anti-missile defense system.

Bush to quit ABM treaty Thursday (12-Dec-01)
President Bush on Thursday will formally announce the United States is withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, senior administration officials told CNN Wednesday.

China urges talks on U.S. missile defense (13-Dec-01) http://cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/13/china.talks/index.html
China has called for talks on the U.S. decision to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as it expressed concern over its implications.

Sources say U.S. to quit ABM treaty (11-Dec-01)
President Bush is expected soon to give the Russian government notice that the United States intends to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, sources said Tuesday.

 

[CornMaster]

I can't provide internet sources for information I gather from books and the TV now can I?

I saw the budget thing on a CNN show called Crossfire, where they interviewed two Republican Senators.
The stuff about the "shield" I learned in History 3 years ago.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by CornMaster
I can't provide internet sources for information I gather from books and the TV now can I?
I saw the budget thing on a CNN show called Crossfire, where they interviewed two Republican Senators.

No but you could provide the dates and times of the show. If you are too busy to do this then maybe you are too busy to engage in a true political debate and so let's get back to unsubstantiated mud slinging, that is so much more fun and easier.

Originally posted by CornMaster
The stuff about the "shield" I learned in History 3 years ago.

Right, so you are bringing up memories from 3 years ago and not doing further research on the subject. Hearsay, all hearsay!