Quote from ColeusRattus :

We just wanted to correct your overly US centric view of history. Of course the US played a huge part in the victory over Nazi Germany, but still, it's just a part of the common effort of all the allies, with the biggest part being done by the Russians.

Deal. Even though Russia only did it to benefit themselves and not the commonwealth of Europe in general.

It's not as if the war didn't greatly benefit the US as well, what with lifting it out of the Great Depression to become an economic superpower for 50+ years.

Quote from major_syphillis :

Nazis, when they invaded England? and who was there to bail you out. Funny how people forget.

Can I just confirm that you believe Nazis invaded England, and had nukes?

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

It's not as if the war didn't greatly benefit the US as well, what with lifting it out of the Great Depression to become an economic superpower for 50+ years.

I agree. No need to argue, we all have rights to our own beliefs and views of history.

Back on topic.

Quote from Jertje :

Can I just confirm that you believe Nazis invaded England, and had nukes?

No, that whole discussion snowballed way out of line, and people were misquoting. I was simply stating that the US is a peacekeeper.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200 ... /us_russia_medvedev_putin

Quote :

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev could resign from his post in 2009 to pave the way for Vladimir Putin to return to the Kremlin, Vedomosti newspaper reported on Thursday, citing an unidentified source close to the Kremlin.

Medvedev Wednesday proposed increasing the presidential term to six years from four years, a step the newspaper said was part of a plan drawn up by Vladislav Surkov, who serves as Medvedev's first deputy chief of staff.

Under the plan, Medvedev could implement changes to the constitution and unpopular social reforms "so that Putin could return to the Kremlin for a longer period," the newspaper said.

"Under this scenario Medvedev could resign early citing changes to the constitution and then presidential elections could take place in 2009," the newspaper said, citing the unidentified source close to the Kremlinl.

The paper said Putin, who is currently prime minister, could then rule for two six year terms, so from 2009 to 2021. The paper cited Putin's spokesman as saying he saw no reason for Putin to return to power in 2009.

Investors, already jittery over the impact of the financial crisis on Russia's economic boom, are trying to work out who is really in charge of Russia, the biggest question for those seeking to ascertain political risk.

They are seeking any details on how the current set up -- with Medvedev as president and Putin as prime minister -- could change. During Medvedev's speech Wednesday the Russian stock market erased most of the gains it made earlier in the day.

NATO concerns over Russia's missile plan

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1106/russia.html

Quote :

NATO has expressed serious concerns about the compatibility of Russian plans to deploy missiles in a western Russian enclave with arm control arrangements.

Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev announced yesterday the deployment of conventionally armed ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad, which borders Lithuania and Poland, in response to US missile defence plans.

NATO spokesman Robert Pszczel said the deployment, if confirmed, would raise serious worries concerning the conformity with existing arms control arrangements that are important for European security.

He said that the placing of these Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region would not help NATO and Russia to improve their relationship.

Mr Medvedev announced yesterday that the Iskander missiles were being deployed to neutralise the threat from planned US missile interceptors in Poland and radar facilities in the Czech Republic.

The US wants to deploy the shield in the central European nations by 2011-2013 to ward off potential attacks by so-called 'rogue' states.

Russia has denounced the plan as a threat to its own security.

It has in the past expressed its intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty signed between Moscow and Washington in 1987, which bans missiles with ranges of 500-5,500km.

Current Iskanders, which carry conventional warheads and which NATO calls SS-26 Stones, are supposed to have a range of up to 280km, but an updated version Russia aims to deploy between 2009-2015 could reach close to 500km.

Russia and NATO have not held regular talks since the military alliance decided that their resumption was conditional on a 12 August ceasefire to the brief Russian-Georgian war being respected.

Meanwhile, there is speculation that President Medvedev could resign from his post in 2009 to pave the way for Vladimir Putin to return to the Kremlin.

Vedomosti newspaper reported the story today citing an unidentified source close to the Kremlin.

Mr Medvedev just yesterday proposed increasing the presidential term to six years from four years, a step the newspaper said was part of a plan drawn up by Vladislav Surkov, who serves as Mr Medvedev's first deputy chief of staff.

Under the plan, Mr Medvedev could implement changes to the constitution and unpopular social reforms 'so that Putin could return to the Kremlin for a longer period', the newspaper said.

Under this scenario President Medvedev could resign early citing changes to the constitution and then presidential elections could take place in 2009.

The paper said Mr Putin, who is currently prime minister, could then rule for two six-year terms, so from 2009 to 2021.

The paper cited Mr Putin's spokesman as saying he saw no reason for Mr Putin to return to power in 2009.

All I'm saying is that Obama has a shit storm brewing. I do not believe he is up to the challange as he believes that everything can be solved with diplomacy. I'd love for him to be right but it will go against everything that we have learned from history.

The alternative to diplomacy with Russia is World War 3, is that what you suggest? You need to study history by the way, because you are 100% wrong.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that he thinks diplomacy will solve everything.

Stating that he's willing to speak with antagonistic leaders doesn't mean he won't ever use force. He's stated explicitly his intent to beef up the military focus in Afghanistan (which I don't personally agree with, but at least it makes more sense than the ongoing mess in Iraq).

edit: It's just another one of the GOP's talking points, where they take a small, reasonable statement and blow it up into an epic character flaw. Suddenly "will speak to enemy leaders" = "will dismantle the armed forces within 10 minutes of assuming office". Total bullshit.

Quote from SamH :

.. and if a country IS communist, by the will of its people, then that's a damn fine thing.

can you give me some input on where it is the will of the people to live in a communist environment.


I can't really believe that people would like a communist government by free will.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

I'm not sure where you get the idea that he thinks diplomacy will solve everything.

Stating that he's willing to speak with antagonistic leaders doesn't mean he won't ever use force. He's stated explicitly his intent to beef up the military focus in Afghanistan (which I don't personally agree with, but at least it makes more sense than the ongoing mess in Iraq).

Afghanistan is an internationally supported and justified war, and they need more troops over there. The USA should be there anyway, it's their mess, they are the reason the taliban exists.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

edit: It's just another one of the GOP's talking points, where they take a small, reasonable statement and blow it up into an epic character flaw. Suddenly "will speak to enemy leaders" = "will dismantle the armed forces within 10 minutes of assuming office". Total bullshit.

Again, agreed. I'm not part of the GOP and think both sides blow things way out of proportion. Unfortunately, most of the GOP propaganda seemed more substantiated to me.

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

it's their mess, they are the reason the taliban exists.

how so? they are extremist radicals that hate the western influences. they have bombed many countries, killing innocent people to prove their point. the world should be against the taliban, not just the US.

WW3 Shit time to dig a bunker. DK room for 3 more a dog, a fish and a horse?

Quote from major_syphillis :

they [Taliban] have bombed many countries

Which countries?

Quote from major_syphillis :

how so? they are extremist radicals that hate the western influences. they have bombed many countries, killing innocent people to prove their point. the world should be against the taliban, not just the US.

Google it, or wait for someone to update you on the last 50 years of US history.

Quote from Kalev EST :

Which countries?

I can name one: The United States of Afghanistan. Of course, it was caused by the US going in to start with...

And before anyone goes off on me for what I called Afghanistan it's obviously a joke. Get over it.

Quote from JohnUK89 :

I can name one: The United States of Afghanistan. Of course, it was caused by the US going in to start with...

it's one of those things that happened. what would be the outcome if Russia was still in Afganistan? Can't really predict...

Quote from major_syphillis :

it's one of those things that happened. what would be the outcome if Russia was still in Afganistan? Can't really predict...

How about no 9/11, since they would have crushed the militia groups and Osama Bin Laden would probably have been killed.

Quote from major_syphillis :

it's one of those things that happened. what would be the outcome if Russia was still in Afganistan? Can't really predict...

Well let's just say it's the Americans (AND British, you're not alone over there) that the Taleban are bombing, not their own. And it's not "one of those things that happened". It happened BECAUSE the Americans (and Brits) went in. How can you bomb that which is not there?

This is good. I'm beginning to understand why Obama has so much support overseas.

Time will tell if any good comes out of his presidency.

Quote from major_syphillis :

where is New Mexico compared to Illinois on that list.

I absolutely love this, never actually thought it could be proved quite so literally that Republicans are stupid brainless idiots!

Quote from ajp71 :

I absolutely love this, never actually thought it could be proved quite so literally that Republicans are stupid brainless idiots!

did you catch the bottom of that chart?


IQ testing done by UK

Also, check out this link bro

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp


Funny, all those numbers are the same huh? It's total BS by the dems.

Take these into account and then have a look at your chart http://sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm

Quote from boosterfire :

I really don't agree with this. We're mostly all adults, I guess all relatively well educated, and however different our opinions may be, I firmly believe it is possible to have discussions of all kinds - and of all subjects - without insulting anybody.

I agree that it is sometimes hard for some people to remain polite when talking about delicate matters, but that's no reason for the forums to be censored. Yes, shit happens, and one in a while somebody will loose his nerves and post something rude and/or offensive to somebody, but when that happens it's up to the admins and moderators to administrate and moderate in any way they should see fit. It is in my opinion, however, not a reason to censor the whole forum and forbid particular subjects, however delicate they may be.

That's the thing, I agree entirely with you and I don't actually think that a "no politics" policy would be a good thing. It was a hypothetical based on Vic's response to the Prop 8 thread, as if to say "well, if these threads piss you off you so much, why not do something about it pre-emptively, or even earlier within the thread itself, instead of just locking it, getting snarky and threatening to ban everyone?" I simply don't think the lock or the flaming we all got was justified. Tightening up the moderation would be a good start if it's actually such a huge problem (also, not reading those controversial threads would have the same effect). You're right, most of us who get involved in these things are adult enough to carry on without acting like halfwits. Mostly...most of the time...

Curiously, this thread remains open despite the obvious kickings being dealt, the stark differences in opinions and despite the "usual suspects" being involved. Also curiously, some people here are (still) allowed to start pointless threads in this section on whatever the hell the voices in their heads say to them, which consistently degenerate ... but I only skim those so they don't bother me.

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

I love the way some people scream COMMIE! When even the most liberal American politician would be considered conservative in the rest of the world.

more to the point i love how the americans somehow seem to believe that liberal means left wing

Quote from Hankstar :

Curiously, this thread remains open despite the obvious kickings being dealt, the stark differences in opinions and despite the "usual suspects" being involved.

were still a long way from death threats though

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

I haven't vetted this, but pretty amusing:

New Jersey in third place? All I can say is there must be some extremely smart dudes at Princeton...

Quote from Shotglass :

more to the point i love how the americans somehow seem to believe that liberal means left wing

I love how so many Americans are under the impression their political system actually has a left wing. Barry O is a centrist - he and the Dems are only left-wing in comparison to the Republican party, who are so far right these days that it doesn't surprise me that people think anyone who opposes them is a big ol' Commie. Though the Reps, with their 700 billion dollar bank bailout, currently resemble a big ol' bunch of corporate socialists. You'd think if they were real capitalists they'd just say "Oh well, that's capitalism for you. Survival of the fittest! You got greedy, fouled up & lost the lot. Good luck to you at the soup kitchen." But no - they're saying "Aw, sucks to be you. Here, have several gazillion dollars - buy yourself a nice new yacht-copter."

Quote :

were still a long way from death threats though

For now.

Quote from major_syphillis :

Also, check out this link bro

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

Nice find. The page also says, prophetically:

Quote :

If 2008 produces another close presidential election as 2000 and 2004 did, expect to see this same joke again four years from now.