Dark Angel - Dark Angel - Get To Know Me #9 - Ad Infinitum - Page 7

**The Happy Psycho** · 07-09-2008, 06:38 PM

Its nice to see Russia finally getting back up onto its feet. But all this Cold War style posturing isn't going to do anything but drive Eastern Europe into NATO.

A few months I read an article that estimated 90-95% of the world's population lives within just a few hours range of the US Military. We really shouldn't be so offended when people get touchy about it.

**Cryostar** · 07-10-2008, 05:11 AM

Completely agree about both parts. Especially since we have an idiot at the helm (yes, I know, I voted for him too) who's shown that he doesn't have the most responsible ways of handling the military.

As for Russia, Putin's return to the old ways, well, I understand the need to increase the nation's pride, there's much to be prideful about, but there are times that I wonder if he's inciting things just to do so. I think a lot of Georgia and Iran's tensions are because of bad intelligence that Russia's feeding folks.

**The Happy Psycho** · 07-10-2008, 02:56 PM

An ex-KGB agent spreading disinformation? Say it ain't so.

What do you think about our missile shield in eastern Europe? Personally, I really don't see a need for it. If we haven't had a nuclear exchange with Russia so far its unlikely we ever will. And as for it being intended to defend against "rogue states", lets face it, firing a missile or 2 at a nuclear super power is not the brightest idea.

**Cryostar** · 07-11-2008, 05:01 AM

Well, I think Europe needs protection, not saying anyone's going to do anything, but it's a nice contingency, you know. I think if we were really worried about Iran or Syria, the network would be further south than Poland and the Czech Republic, like Greece or Turkey. So yes, it's one more example of Bush's horrible foreign policy in action.

Especially given that the Shahab-3 missile doesn't have the range to hit Europe. Shrug. Perhaps it's a way of solidifying these states against a new Eastern Block.

**The Happy Psycho** · 07-11-2008, 05:59 AM

From what I read yesterday Poland is unhappy with being a likely target for a first strike against our missile shield. Can't say as I blame them. They're requesting that we do more to defend them in the event of an attack. Specifically, they want Patriot missile batteries to knock down short range attacks because the missile shield will only handle medium and long range stuff.

**Freaky Wednesday** · 07-12-2008, 06:52 AM

I spent all day yesterday talking politics with my cousins so yeah Im all out here, mt minds kind of not working to see at to say.

But my cousin did say something about no one darin g to use a nuclear device cause of all the damage so thats not really a threat its all the other types of weapons being used that are. And yes I know I did not make any sense right now.

And Jerry I agree about the troups being streched too thin but this is Bush were talking about, I dont think he thinks much about things.

**Cryostar** · 07-14-2008, 05:16 AM

Sheida, while it's true that it is Bush, it's also the Republicans in an election year. Now politics takes over, and they won't risk possibly losing the election by Bush acting stupid. If they have to gag him and put him in the basement, they will, as long as it doesn't hurt their chances.

As for Nuclear war, this is what kept the cold war going for so long. No one wants to die. Someone fires a nuclear warhead, there's time (30-40 minutes). Even countries like the US and Russia that have enough to damaged 70+% of the world, there's time. Time means that people react, and that reacting is usually launching their own. Anyone that happens to survive inherits a desolate wasteland that isn't good for much....so why do it?

Crash, yeah, they want like 2+ billion in defense incentives. That's fine, sell it to them...it would piss putin off more, which I'm sure we all need more of.

**Freaky Wednesday** · 07-14-2008, 05:24 AM

About the nuclear war, yes thats what my cousin was saying too, no one will fire one cause the range isnt enough to take out the whole country so the other parts will react if one is fired so thats why everyones staying away from it, its more like a power thing, just to show the world you have the ability to do it, but I dont think theyll be used anytime soon.

That is a good point about Bush,

People here are pretty much against Ahmadinejad for the stuff hes done but theres a rumour going around that a few months left to the elections hes gonna cut prices down and I dont really know how to explain this but he says hes gonna make bank accounts for everyone and give the poor money every month, if this actually happens people are going to forget everything when they see money so he will be re-elected without a doubt, which is what scares me, another 4 years of him.

**The Happy Psycho** · 07-14-2008, 02:53 PM

I can remember when premium gas was $0.99 per gallon.

When I moved to South Carolina I griped about it being $1.16. I'm seriously considering buying a bike. But I digress...

I DO NOT want a Democrat president. I'd vote for a Scientologist before I voted for a Democrat. At least they'd be entertaining.

**Cryostar** · 07-16-2008, 05:35 AM

Sheida, sounds like the oldest election trick on the book. The question I have, and this is because I don't have first hand knowledge of Iran's politics, but how much is him, and how much is his party? I know he makes some decisions, but much like any leader, they're also a figure head for their party, who gets to make some decisions as well.

A scientologist, really? You're scary.

As for nuclear proliferation....let's take the shortest possible targets, say Syria has a missile and launches at Israel, unless the nuke was detonated by person within the borders, it will take time to get there, say 5 minutes, max. Nuclear warheads have limited area affect, say 100 miles wide. I think the points of both arguements are well made, you can't take everyone out at once, and they have 5 minutes to do something back at you before they're all dead. As the distances grow, that time grows. Allies get involved, the world disolves into nothingness.

This is why I'm going to buy a small island in the Carribean sea, and start a small place for a few people to live. When the world blows up, we should be safe. First, I need to win the lottery.

**Freaky Wednesday** · 07-16-2008, 05:42 AM

Im not really sure Jerry, Im gonna have to ask my dad but from what I know I dont think we have parties like republicans and democrats, its just different people running, but Im not sure, Ill get back to you with the details on that one.

Can I be in your island too, please?

**The Happy Psycho** · 07-16-2008, 05:08 PM

You two set up the island, I'll be along shortly to conquer it.

You know for years now the German navy has been exporting submarines to, among other countries, Israel. These diesel subs are capable of launching cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Put 2 and 2 together. While I'm being disturbing, a single US ballistic missile submarine, by itself, is capable of unleashing more destruction than has ever been seen in the history of man. Now that begs the question...why haven't we annexed Canada yet?

I know, I'm confused too. Just accept that this is how I see the world.

**Cryostar** · 07-17-2008, 05:17 AM

Crash, in the anti-scientologist thought of the day, you need to look up the stories on Scientology vs Anonymous. The internet community is fighting back.

Even a launch from a submarine would be detected, the missile identified and retaliation would be swift. Just no way around it.

Sheida, I know what you mean. I don't think it's parties, in a proper sense, but it's more like people banding together with common ideological thoughts.

**Freaky Wednesday** · 07-17-2008, 08:03 AM

Yeah it is different people running, there are no political parties in Iran, last election time we had I think 8 candidates and you vote for their ideologies and what they say, last time we had a guy who promised to pay every family 50,000 Tomans (approximately $50) a month who came in third and then we had this real intellectual guy who vowed to make relations with the US better and was all about culture and books and stuff, we voted for him, he came in 5-6 I think, though in the end it is the parliament that passes laws and makes desicions, they can choose to change the president if they think he is unworthy (I dont think theyve ever done that) and the parliament is made up of people representing different cities and the people for their representatives. the Leader of Iran can I think over rule them all but he never does that he mostly agrees with the choices they make. Thats how they do it here, I dont know much (or anything) about US politics to know how different or similair it is.

Crash, you wish you conquer us, nah-uh, no way!

**Cryostar** · 07-18-2008, 05:19 AM

US Politics sucks.

It's supposed to be that we vote for regional representatives, they make laws, and the president signs them in, but many times, the person we vote for is the not person (same physical person, just different ideas) that takes office.