and I understand that sometimes what you read in headlines does not reflect what is happening...however in one day the following...

Report: Russia to allow pre-emptive nukes

A top Russian security official says Moscow reserves the right to conduct pre-emptive nuclear strikes to safeguard the country against aggression on both a large and a local scale, according to a newspaper interview published Wednesday.
Presidential Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev also singled out the U.S. and NATO, saying Moscow's Cold War foes still pose potential threats to Russia despite what he called a global trend toward local conflicts

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Russia's Putin warns against intimidating Iran

"BEIJING (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned major powers on Wednesday against intimidating Iran and said talk of sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme was "premature".

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldN...43160620091014

Tentative Inspection Program Would Allow Russia to Visit U.S. Nuclear Sites

Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...nuclear-sites/

Again, I understand that many times what you read is not what is actually going on, but to see these 3 headlines together on the same day was a bit alarming.

Keeping a close eye on what we are doing in foreign relations !

These headlines are troubling, but (unfortunately) really don't reflect anything new. Putin reiterated the latent preemptive strike option shortly after George W. Bush made "preemption" the centerpiece of his foreign policy- (Thus the "preemptive", but ultimately faulty invasion of Iraq).

Russia, for God knows why, has always been a strong supporter of Iran, along with France. Perhaps it relates back to the Cold War- and The USSR's glee at the Iraninan American hostage situation under Carter, not to mention the USSR's anger at the US arming our mortal enemies, the Taliban, sorry Mujahadeem as we called them then. Go Rambo! Way to support Al Queda!

Russia and the US have had longstanding mutual missile and nuclear inspections under START and other non-proliferation treaties. People need to realize that the treaty is set to expire very soon, and what we political science majors call CBM's - confidence building measures- will act as a "patch" to keep things stable while a new treaty is worked on.

Finally, I think it's realistic to consider that Putin is looking to solidify his base as he looks to run for Prime Minister again- something term limits prohibited under the Russian constitution.

Putin was president of Russian for four years - two full terms. Since the constituution, at that time, limited anyone to two terms, Putin then assumed the role of Prime Minister. The constitution has since been amended and Putin can return to the position of President and conceivably, remain there until 2024. At no time has anyone questioned that Putin is the leader of Russia. No big whoop, but it does confirm that he intends to continue to pursue Russia's current policies and there appears to be no-one who can challenge him.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

These headlines are troubling, but (unfortunately) really don't reflect anything new. Putin reiterated the latent preemptive strike option shortly after George W. Bush made "preemption" the centerpiece of his foreign policy- (Thus the "preemptive", but ultimately faulty invasion of Iraq).

Russia, for God knows why, has always been a strong supporter of Iran, along with France. Perhaps it relates back to the Cold War- and The USSR's glee at the Iraninan American hostage situation under Carter, not to mention the USSR's anger at the US arming our mortal enemies, the Taliban, sorry Mujahadeem as we called them then. Go Rambo! Way to support Al Queda!

Russia and the US have had longstanding mutual missile and nuclear inspections under START and other non-proliferation treaties. People need to realize that the treaty is set to expire very soon, and what we political science majors call CBM's - confidence building measures- will act as a "patch" to keep things stable while a new treaty is worked on.

Finally, I think it's realistic to consider that Putin is looking to solidify his base as he looks to run for Prime Minister again- something term limits prohibited under the Russian constitution.

You may be right, however, the relationship between Iran and Russia is a long term BUSINESS relationship, but all I have heard from this administration has been how the dismantling of the defense system to appease Russia would allow them to help us put pressure on Iran. It appears that may not be the case.

I just hope that our policy of appeasement does not back us into a corner !

The man behind the desk does make a difference.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

Putin was president of Russian for four years - two full terms. Since the constituution, at that time, limited anyone to two terms, Putin then assumed the role of Prime Minister. The constitution has since been amended and Putin can return to the position of President and conceivably, remain there until 2024. At no time has anyone questioned that Putin is the leader of Russia. No big whoop, but it does confirm that he intends to continue to pursue Russia's current policies and there appears to be no-one who can challenge him.

Dyslexic I am

Originally Posted by dklassen

The man behind the desk does make a difference.

Good point.

Yoda

I'm sorry - putting Bush next to Reagan is an insult to Reagan.

Imagine if 9/11 had happened under Reagan's watch. Do you think he would have kept sitting reading "My Pet Goat"?

Originally Posted by djplong

I'm sorry - putting Bush next to Reagan is an insult to Reagan.

Imagine if 9/11 had happened under Reagan's watch. Do you think he would have kept sitting reading "My Pet Goat"?

I like this guy! Welcome to TOTV and hopefully someday - Welcome to the Villages.

Originally Posted by djplong

I'm sorry - putting Bush next to Reagan is an insult to Reagan.

Imagine if 9/11 had happened under Reagan's watch. Do you think he would have kept sitting reading "My Pet Goat"?

A bit petty, don't you think?

Yoda

It was a reaction to the picture.

I was a huge defender of Bush for quite some time. I defended him when he would be called a 'moron' or 'trained monkey'. I protested that people should have respect for the office, at the very least. When people argued about the holes in his service record and that he was stupid, I came back pointing out that you can't be a moron and learn to fly military fighter jets. I know how difficult it is to fly a *Cessna*, never mind a warplane.

Bush disappointed me time and time again.

Comparatively speaking, Bush can't hold Reagan's horse's reins. Compare Bush to Reagan. In *every* *single* category, he comes up short. You will notice how, during the last campaign, the GOP was invoking Reagan's name all over the place. But if you didn't already know, watching that coverage wouldn't have told you who the sitting President was.

It would be petty to ridicule Bush for his occasional speech flubs.

It would be petty to slam him for unproven allegations.

It does an opponent no good to make up stories when the truth sits right there. Just *sits* there when he's told we are UNDER ATTACK.

I firmly believe that Reagan would have politely excused himself from those children and immediately left the room. I mean, come on, even *Clinton* would have done that.

I've seen the tape. Repeatedly. I will never forget the "deer caught in the headlights" look. That's when I started to doubt him.

Originally Posted by djplong

I'm sorry - putting Bush next to Reagan is an insult to Reagan.

Imagine if 9/11 had happened under Reagan's watch. Do you think he would have kept sitting reading "My Pet Goat"?

I agree! My money's still on that the kids were actually reading TO Bush!

Originally Posted by djplong

I'm sorry - putting Bush next to Reagan is an insult to Reagan.

Imagine if 9/11 had happened under Reagan's watch. Do you think he would have kept sitting reading "My Pet Goat"?

Yes. Reagan had the panache to carry it off. The difference was that GW did not have the ruthlessness to destroy his opponents as Ronnie would have done had he been treated similarly.




`

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I agree! My money's still on that the kids were actually reading TO Bush!

Imagine...just imagine if ANYONE on here made such an insulting statement similiar to this about our current President ?

Bucco: Chelsea24's comment is exactly the kind of thing I talk about. People call Bush a moron and make all kinds of jokes. It does their position no benefit. What I think happened to Bush was that he surrounded himself with "yes men" who eventually became the puppet masters. Bush wasn't a moron (you can't be a moron and fly a military jet). Was he a puppet? It sure seems that way to me. Listen carefully to Cheney these days and you may be able to see examples of how the strings were pulled.