Obama's Brilliant Foreign Policy

[crb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sj91NH5fvw&feature=related

Ya ya "Politics of fear" whatever.

And yes, I agree, excessive use of terrorist imagery in parts.

But this is a very well made and effective video showcases Obama's poor foreign policy decisions, which sometimes contradict his own statements, or geopolitical realities worldwide.

The video was made BEFORE Russia invaded George, so it doesn't mention that, but it also doesn't mention how our "unproven" missile defense system shot down a satellite that was going to crash land. It also doesn't feature as much as it could all of Obama's stuttering replies to surge questions he failed to answer when he was interviewed by the big 3 networks during his overseas tripped that marked the start of his fall in the polls.

Pay special attention to the dates of statements.

[Daniel]

WTF? Sattelites crash all the fucking time. I hardly see that justifying a MISSLE defense system.

[crb]

No no, you misunderstand (why am I not surprised?)

Obama said "unproven missile defense systems"

The fact that the satellite shootdown was a success means it is a proven system.

Of course, true, no country has shot an ICBM at us which we've intercepted, but I'd rather we not wait for that to happen before we decide to fund the program ya know?

[Daniel]

No no, you misunderstand (why am I not surprised?)

Obama said "unproven missile defense systems"

The fact that the satellite shootdown was a success means it is a proven system.


A floating Sattelite is far different from a missle. FAR FAR different. Come back when there's been a successful missle take down (there hasn't been).

Showing that projectiles fuck up stationary targets is not exactly a proven missle defense system.


Of course, true, no country has shot an ICBM at us which we've intercepted, but I'd rather we not wait for that to happen before we decide to fund the program ya know?


Nothing like politics of fear huh?

[crb]

A floating Sattelite is far different from a missle. FAR FAR different. Come back when there's been a successful missle take down (there hasn't been).

Showing that projectiles fuck up stationary targets is not exactly a proven missle defense system.



Nothing like politics of fear huh?
Umm... I'm not sure how up you are on like, physics, but satellites are not stationary, and failing falling satellites are not either. You may think satellites that are always above the same locations are stationary, but they are not. Orbit works because an item falls at the same rate as the earth moves, so instead of falling onto the earth, the earth moves during the fall, causing the object to move from the gravity, hence you get orbit. But it is correct to think that orbiting objects are just perpetually falling. Geosynchronous orbiting satellites orbit at the same rate as the turning off the earth on it's axis, making it seem as if they are hovering, but they aren't. Then of course decaying orbiting satellites are those in which the height of their orbit starts decreasing because of friction or something else, and they eventually fall to earth.

But, indeed, they're all moving.... oh and a satellite the size of an ICBM crashing towards earth has as much velocity as an ICBM. That is also just physics.

You can even kind of see this if you watch a rocket shoot up. The tail cloud, despite the fact that the rocket is heading straight up, always eventually ends up looking something like a spiral, because once it gets high enough these forces come into play.


And in anycase, as I recall it did shoot down a missile in a test. It didn't get 100% of the missiles in the test, but had it been a real situation I'm sure the people of chicago and LA would be happy they didn't die, even when the people of New York still did. You don't have to get 100% for the system to be worthwhile when you're talking about nukes ya know?

And this was like 02 as I remember, maybe 03, so I'm sure they've gotten better.

[Daniel]

wow

[Mabus]

Come back when there's been a successful missle take down (there hasn't been).


Really?
From Nov. 6, 2007
"This test marks the first successful attempt by any United States ballistic missile defense system at dual exo-atmospheric intercepts. The test also represents the Aegis BMD system’s 10th and 11th successful ballistic missile intercepts in 13 attempts."

Wrong again!

I would use words, like crb, but seeing as how "wow" might be your only "intelligent" response (and since PB is obviously out doing something productive...):

http://techluver.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/missile_defense_system.JPG

[Latrinsorm]

But, indeed, they're all moving.... oh and a satellite the size of an ICBM crashing towards earth has as much velocity as an ICBM. That is also just physics. This is incorrect. Satellites, by definition, only accelerate due to gravity. Missiles, by definition, have a fuel source and propulsion of some kind. ICBMs in particular move at approximately 6 km/s when they enter the atmosphere, a satellite's velocity is easily calculable as 2*pi*height/24 hours = 2.6 km/s. That is physics. :)

[Mistomeer]

The entire missile defense system only shields from a limited launch of ICBM's and this week Russia tested a new ICBM designed to beat missile defense systems. Further, the US has a very questionable record with missile defense from the Patriot failures in Israel during the first Gulf War to the tests conducted on the missile defense system. The way the system works now is that we can hit a test missile when we launch it ourselves thus knowing the time of the launch, the source of the launch and the destination of the missile.

If a rogue nation is intent on launching a nuclear attack on the United States, chances are it would be carried out in a terrorist fashion rather than a missile strike. The United States nuclear arsenal is enough of a threat that any country would ensure its own destruction by launching an ICBM at the United States.

Really, anyone who thinks that the missile defense system provides any kind of real security is just delusional. Why would any rogue nation launch an ICBM at the United States when they could just drive the payload over the border?

[Daniel]

Really, anyone who thinks that the missile defense system provides any kind of real security is just delusional. Why would any rogue nation launch an ICBM at the United States when they could just drive the payload over the border?


You obviously don't have constituents that produce components of a missile defense system.

[Methais]

OMG SUITCASE NUKES GET JACK BAUER ON THE LINE!!!!!!!!!!!111

[crb]

This is incorrect. Satellites, by definition, only accelerate due to gravity. Missiles, by definition, have a fuel source and propulsion of some kind. ICBMs in particular move at approximately 6 km/s when they enter the atmosphere, a satellite's velocity is easily calculable as 2*pi*height/24 hours = 2.6 km/s. That is physics. :)
Booster rockets are for entering the atmosphere, not for coming down.

You'll notice ICBMs are multistage rockets... all those excessive stages break off during ascent.

Furthermore, you may want to read up on MIRVs, these are the modern missile where 1 booster rocket contains multiple warheads. They shoot up into space, the warheads separate, and fall down to their targets.

Once they all reach space, propulsion is only used for aiming, not for rocketing down to the ground.

Secondly, to dismiss the speed of a large object falling due to gravity from the height of space, as you dismissed the satellite, is stupid. Do you know how fucking fast that is?

[crb]

The entire missile defense system only shields from a limited launch of ICBM's and this week Russia tested a new ICBM designed to beat missile defense systems. Further, the US has a very questionable record with missile defense from the Patriot failures in Israel during the first Gulf War to the tests conducted on the missile defense system. The way the system works now is that we can hit a test missile when we launch it ourselves thus knowing the time of the launch, the source of the launch and the destination of the missile.

If a rogue nation is intent on launching a nuclear attack on the United States, chances are it would be carried out in a terrorist fashion rather than a missile strike. The United States nuclear arsenal is enough of a threat that any country would ensure its own destruction by launching an ICBM at the United States.

Really, anyone who thinks that the missile defense system provides any kind of real security is just delusional. Why would any rogue nation launch an ICBM at the United States when they could just drive the payload over the border?
Wow, you've drunk the koolaid haven't you? It isn't worth defending against it, even though say just a 25% success rate could save tens of millions of lives. Get some fucking perspective.

And, you know, it isn't like it is one or the other. Missile defense or border screening for suitcase nukes. We've been actively adding both. I've seen on TV recently these giant drive through scanning devices they use for trucks leaving our ports. Don't act like they're mutually exclusive.

Finally... you can't rationalize religious zealots. A rational person would not launch a missile at us, but people aren't always rational, see suicide bombers. Well, what if the Ayatollahs decide their country should be a martyr? Or... what if a terrorist group accesses the missiles of a country and launches them.

We have the missile technology, all told it isn't that expensive, it provides defense industry jobs anyways, and like many advanced military projects there are civilian benefits from further developing the technology, and as the satellite shootdown shows, the technology is adaptable to other situations. (ala Deep Impact I'm sure).

Maybe... just maybe... Obama is wrong on this issue, but deciding that would require you not to be sheeple and hanging on everything he says... which has got to get you into hot water sometime because, honestly, Obama flips alot. In fact, I bet you 1 million silvers that between now and the election he says at one point that he will keep the missile system funded.

[Daniel]

Wow, you've drunk the koolaid haven't you? It isn't worth defending against it, even though say just a 25% success rate could save tens of millions of lives. Get some fucking perspective.



Are you fucking serious? Get some fucking perspective? You have the audacity to say that when you're justifying trillions of dollars spent and our good relations abroad to possibly save Chicago and Cleveland but not New york?

At the point in which we're losing major cities to nuclear strikes, we've already lost. Frankly, I don't want to give our leaders any solace that we could potentially start a nuclear war and come out ahead, because then we'd have jackasses like you running around talking about how risking NEW YORK CITY is a viable option. Nevermind the fact that Russia has more than 3 nukes and even a 95% success rate could equal the destruction of our country.

I'd much rather someone took the time to avoid the war in the first place.



Finally... you can't rationalize religious zealots. A rational person would not launch a missile at us, but people aren't always rational, see suicide bombers. Well, what if the Ayatollahs decide their country should be a martyr? Or... what if a terrorist group accesses the missiles of a country and launches them.


Wow. Just fucking wow. And you tell other people to get perspective?

Tell me champ, which country with an Ayatollah has the capability of launching a nuclear weapon at the US?

And you have the audacity to talk about the politics of fear?

Seriously?





Maybe... just maybe... Obama is wrong on this issue, but deciding that would require you not to be sheeple and hanging on everything he says... which has got to get you into hot water sometime because, honestly, Obama flips alot. In fact, I bet you 1 million silvers that between now and the election he says at one point that he will keep the missile system funded.

Actually I don't believe in massive frivilous defense spending as a way to fix our economy. If we're going to just throw away trillions of dollars I'd much rather have it go to schools and hospitals than defense contractors (and I am a defense contractor). I definitely believe in avoiding a nuclear war in the first place by maintaining our international standing.

[Latrinsorm]

Booster rockets are for entering the atmosphere, not for coming down.

You'll notice ICBMs are multistage rockets... all those excessive stages break off during ascent.

Furthermore, you may want to read up on MIRVs, these are the modern missile where 1 booster rocket contains multiple warheads. They shoot up into space, the warheads separate, and fall down to their targets.

Once they all reach space, propulsion is only used for aiming, not for rocketing down to the ground.

Secondly, to dismiss the speed of a large object falling due to gravity from the height of space, as you dismissed the satellite, is stupid. Do you know how fucking fast that is?I know precisely how fast it is: 2.6 km/s. I also have read up on ICBMs: they enter the atmosphere at approximately 6 km/s. Two things starting at the same place and ending at the same place does not entail that they will be moving at the same velocity when they do: that is extremely basic physics.

[Gan]

s=d/t

d=st

t=d/s

[Latrinsorm]

More like ma = -v*f(shape,m) + mg + rockets, but yeah! :)

[Solkern]

this is funny
everyone posting here is way to stubborn to accomplish anything but pointless arguing lol

[Gan]

s=d/t

d=st

t=d/s


More like ma = -v*f(shape,m) + mg + rockets, but yeah! :)

I was sticking to your mention of 'extremely basic physics'. :p

[Gan]

this is funny
everyone posting here is way to stubborn to accomplish anything but pointless arguing lol

/apply toallthreadsinpoliticsfolderonPC

[Solkern]

/apply toallthreadsinpoliticsfolderonPC



I concur with this statement

I'm a registered democrat and I could go into details on why because of Palin I'm voting for McCain now

but it would turn into pointless arguing, which will lead no where.

[Gan]

I concur with this statement

I'm a registered democrat and I could go into details on why because of Palin I'm voting for McCain now

but it would turn into pointless arguing, which will lead no where.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll102/learningtewfly/arguing_over_internet.jpg

[Snapp]

I concur with this statement

I'm a registered democrat and I could go into details on why because of Palin I'm voting for McCain now

but it would turn into pointless arguing, which will lead no where.

You announced that you were voting for McCain before he even announced that Palin would be his running mate.

[Gan]

Registered Democrat

Voting McCain

For Snapp.

You're welcome.

PS. Welcome to the club.

[Solkern]

You announced that you were voting for McCain before he even announced that Palin would be his running mate.

yes, I did say that

but, I still wasn't completely sure if I was going to vote for McCain, I was more of leaning to his side

But Palin, as VP made it a sure thing

[TheEschaton]

Why? Why why why? Maybe you can possibly think John McCain is a maverick, and independent, which may be good enough for you as a Democrat, but Sarah Palin is like, the anti-Democrat.

[crb]

Why? Why why why? Maybe you can possibly think John McCain is a maverick, and independent, which may be good enough for you as a Democrat, but Sarah Palin is like, the anti-Democrat.
socially, I don't think so economically.

[TheEschaton]

You have no idea what it means to be a Democrat economically, then.

[Parkbandit]

You have no idea what it means to be a Democrat economically, then.


I DO!!!

http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/democrats6.jpg

[Back]

I DO!!!

http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/democrats6.jpg

I bet that guy complains about affirmative action.