I don't put Obama or anyone else on a pedestal.
You're exhibiting a very narrow mind if you think you've suddenly identified "me and my kind" based on the comment I submitted.
Moreover, I'm not being defensive when I'm point out the absurd pattern in Breitbart comments: attack Obama for every single news story, even if that news story has little or nothing to do with the Administration.

Name calling is distasteful whether it is done by liberals or conservatives.

I don't care what side of the debate you're on, it's not helping anything when you stoop to sweeping insults of large groups of people.

I strongly agree with you.

We'll see what they do on Iran's nukes.
We're getting mixed messages through the media on Russia's stance on sanctions right now.
I'm not fooling myself into thinking that we'll have their full support, but maybe they won't stand in the way of sanctions.

As for the missile shield, like I said elsewhere on this thread... I think that shield was needlessly provocative towards Russia, who isn't supposed to be our 'enemy' at this time.
I think it's very bad foreign policy to go starting fights with countries when it's not necessary.
Placing an anti-missile battery right on Russia's doorstep is a sure way to escalate tensions and weaken what little cooperation we might get out of them.
And to what gain?
What would the missile shield accomplish?
I have strong doubts that the shield is good enough to protect Europe from Russia if Russia really wanted to rain down missiles or ride in with tanks.
Reasonable people can (and do) disagree on this, but on balance I think that the missile shield's flimsy protection is not worth it.

Yeah, it still sounds like it's likely the same policy, just packaged differently.
I'd direct you to another quote:
"Russian military analysts said the hawkish former domestic intelligence chief's remarks were mostly muscle-flexing for show, because what he revealed about the proposed new doctrine suggests it differs little from the current one.

One independent analyst, Alexander Golts, said current policy already allows for a nuclear strike to repel an aggression of any sort. Another, Pavel Felgenhauer, said that effectively allows for a pre-emptive strike because the type of aggression that would warrant such a strike is not clearly defined."

As for sanctions...
We're getting mixed messages through the press on that one, so I'm not ready to speculate whether Russia is for or against, but I don't expect full support... the best we can probably hope for is that they won't stand in the way.
We'll see.

Hey, Eric09...

I'm glad to see other dissenting opinions on Breitbart, and obviously I don't agree with a lot of the people on here about various issues.

But one thing I really dislike about many of the people on here is that they often casually insult whole swathes of people, like saying everyone on the left is ignorant, or that all liberals are unreasonable.

Not only is it not true, but its also degrading to the American political discourse.

But this applies to both the right and the left... Eric, you're doing the same thing when you call all conservatives idiots...

So even though I might agree with some of your points, I have to register my distaste for you insulting the entire right wing.

For what it's worth.

A missile shield?
You're telling me that keeping that missile shield up would have deterred Russia from keeping this aggressive stance on nukes?

Then why was Russia just as (arguably more) aggressive towards Bush when the missile shield was up?
All it takes to prove that aggression is a Google news search of the summer/fall of 2007.
Russia was way more provocative than this at that time.

I think you're saying that noone could prevent Russia from taking this stance (I agree), but that you still disagree with Obama taking down the missile shield.
That is a reasonable opinion.
I, however, think that the missile shield was needlessly provocative towards Russia at a time when we are trying to build better relations with them.
We put anti-missile batteries right at their doorstep and we expected them to cooperate with us in foreign affairs?
It's plain stupid for the United States to go starting fights with major world powers when we don't have to.
I don't think that is strength, I think that's short-sighted bravado.

But hey, people differ on foreign policy all the time.
At least you had something substantive so say, phflipper.

I certainly have, and I also read a lot of news.

But please, your comment doesn't really mean anything.
I asked a question in my comment, and you aren't giving an answer to it.
I would have thought a historian such as yourself would surely be able to pinpoint where Bush or Obama could have persuaded the Russians to change its policy on nuclear weapons...

I'm not crying over crap and Obama is not my boy.

Disagreeing with you or most of the people on a very biased forum such as this is hardly pathetic.
I think having nothing more substantive to say besides "Own it dude" is dumb and boring.

Are you kidding me?
Not hearing this much saber rattling under Bush?
Do you read the news?

Do yourself a favor.
Run a Google news search for Russia Missile Shield, and go to archives for 2007.
Check out some of those news stories and tell me if Russia wasn't rattling its saber.
Look, I'll get you started:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/18/russi...