Well wasn't this an interesting discussion!!! I think it even shut Copy up. Alan, Dave and TShirt, hats off to you guys for your knowledge. Keep it up.

who's going to be attacking us? mexico? canada?

this is from your site:

The test marked the sixth successful downing of a target in 10 full-fledged intercept tests since October 1999 in which knocking down the target was the primary objective, said Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the MISSILE DEFENCE AGENCY.

6 of of 10. if that's good enough for you, its good enough for everybody. except for them people in them 4 cities that were nuked.

and you know that the government wouldn't lie to you.

i read everything. and i use my mind about who i believe.

i believe in the government about 1% of the time.

yeah good idea tshirt, then when it hits the fan we'll defend ourselves with a mean fleet of cesnas'.

Well and good sentiment, don't think it'll happen but keep dreaming.

And you miss the point on Reagan. Yes he wanted elimination of nuclear weapons, heck we all do. But, he knew we couldn't be weak at the same time. Stand tall, speak softly, carry a big stick. Not saying use nukes! Just there are times when we can't back down. We just need to step back and decide when that really should be and even when we stay out of it, at least don't appear to be doing so from a position of weakness. That only invites the loonies to attack. It's a balancing act I suppose. But we have to look to our borders first and be strong about that!

"i don't want them people to lose their jobs, maybe they they can build CIVILIAN aircraft."

Um... no. remember those corporate guys who buy the civilian aircraft right now are being made out as villains. Who exactly are they supposed to sell to in today's market?

As far as "those sites" get over it. that's the same argument that says I shouldn't read fox news b/c they're conservative or that I should only read the Guardian b/c they're liberal. Facts are facts. You don't trust those sites? Find another article that talks about the same test I showed that says they failed. Until then, you can't call them liars like you are now.

Nobody wanted to kill Israelis until they stood their ground and declared that they were not leaving and would not negotiate with Arafat and other terrorists diguising themselves as political leaders. So we should be sheep and leave the rest of the world alone and they won't try to kill us? Wow, dude, what flavor Koolaid they serving you these days? I support 'crossing the line' whenever and where ever neccessary to keep ourselves and whoever wants to be free just that. Bowing down and making concessions worked out so well for Neville Chamberlain in 1939, didn't it? And that great statesman, Yassar Arafat, must have loved every minute of his meetings with Jimmy Carter. He was such a devoted, loving spokesman for the Palestinians. If all you think about is how wrong it is to stand up for freedom and how bad we are for making it clear to the rest of the world that we will step up to the plate, maybe living in a free country isn't for you. If we don't stand up and take on the tyrants of the world, who else will do it? Not you, I'm guessing.

of the websites that you get your information from will say it was sucessful. the are the military and business websites. of course their going to say that. if you want to see how its doing, you go to the website who don't want it to run. when they're all up in arms that it runs well, then i can believe that.

i don't want them people to lose their jobs, maybe they they can build CIVILIAN aircraft.

President Obama's desired outcome here is for the free-world to stand up together on this issue. For too long it has only been the US standing up for what is right. Obama seeks to have the world stand together. What's wrong with the free-world standing together in an attempt to make this a more peaceful place?

Dave - "When we have one nation saying day after day that it intends to wipe another nation off the face of the Earth, you can't just sit back and say "play nice.""
I don't imagine you mean "bomb bomb bomb - bomb bomb iran" do you?

And in regards to Reagan - he did stand tall in the face of the cold war. However, in his 1985 inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan said, "We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth."
He too started his presidency with this stated goal!!

"So don't portray someone as weak, naive, or living in a fantasy world when your beloved Reagan (and mine - big fan) lived in that same world with a desire for a more peaceful world."

Because he didn't blindly disarm when the rest of the world was arming.

Nuclear weapons aren't really at the center of the issue. We just get distracted by them.

What this is really about is smaller nations openly desiring to make the world a more dangerous place when the "big boys" are trying to disarm.

When we have one nation saying day after day that it intends to wipe another nation off the face of the Earth, you can't just sit back and say "play nice."

Reagan never did that. He crossed the line and demanded walls be torn down. He did so without first disarming and in the face of possibly causing a war.

The point was... those are not Iranian concessions to Obama. Those were conditions that have to be met before they would give anything to us.

Responding to your with yes or nos would be silly as the argument Copyleft was making is that Iran has been cooperating now that Obama was in power.

"Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has criticized Obama as merely a continuation of President George W. Bush's policies toward Tehran's enemy, Israel. Khamenei has called Israel a "cancerous tumor" that is on the verge of collapse and has called for its destruction." - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/20/iranian-response-to-obama_n_177320.html

So... where are the concessions exactly? Where are they showing true signs of wanting to work with us and turn away from destroying Israel and pursuing nuclear weapons?

"are you sure it workable?"

Yup.

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 5, 2008 – The military today shot down a mock enemy missile, employing a synchronized network of sensors in what officials called the largest and most complex test of the missile defense system to date." - http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=52211

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. interceptor missile on Friday shot down a dummy warhead replicating an incoming North Korean missile in the seventh successful test of Boeing Co's long-range missile shield, the Pentagon said." - http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSWBT00766220070928

"'Not only did Raytheon components continue to perform, but the successful missile salvo acquisition and track represents a significant milestone,' said Pete Franklin, vice president, National & Theater Security Programs for Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems. 'The success underscores THAAD's ability to meet the missile defense mission and provide a reliable and affordable terminal missile defense capability for our nation.'" - http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1217&pagetemplate=release

It works. It may have some more kinks to work out, but we are very close compared to where we were in the 1980's. Even in the second article you posted, it said "In September, Japan successfully tested the new US-developed Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3), a surface-to-air missile that tracks and hits incoming targets."

The SM-3 failed in Nov., but the various parts of the system over all is seeing success.

As far as those evil F-22 ppl, they're civilian avionics manufactures, not military personal. Maybe I should openly hope that you loose your job. Maybe I shouldn't care one bit about how you and your family will find work or keep their job.

In a time like this, how can you hope that anyone looses their job when they themselves did nothing to deserve loosing it.

As far as the military and their place in society, um... what does the constitution say? That's all that matters ;) Where is the clause that says they should have less rights or respect than you do? Give me the article, clause and or amendment.

I know Hannity's mentioned this and I've brought it up with my wife and co-workers. Obama is the anti-Reagan. When Reagan inherited a recession, he cut taxes and spending. Obama has increased taxes and spending. Reagan strengthened our nation's defenses. Obama wants to weaken them. Given the success of the economy and national security we ultimately saw under Reagan's administration, it scares the hell out of me to see what will happen when the same kinds of situations unfold under the Obama administration doing exactly opposite of what's historically been proven to work and work well. I expect that Obama's choices will be historically proven to fail and fail miserably.

Kim is playing his usual game of showing off bad weapons and getting US aid to 'stop' and play nice. Next time, Obama should require the North Korean government to submit to the same level of control he's expecting our banks and auto companies to give. It's only fair if it's taxpayer dollars, right?

1) immediate cutoff in military aid to Israel ---- maybe

2),3),4),5),6) sounds good to me

i think our government should all our troops from oversea,

we should apologize for the shah, because we got him his job overthere. it's our fault the Ayatollah came to power.

if you manly-men would think for yourselves and not what the government spoon feeds you, this country wouldn't be in the shape its in.

These Democrats are KILLING us.

Not everyone can make carter look good, but hussein will do so easily at home and abroad. It will all be fun, games, spectacle, and cheesy drama until one or more of our cities goes boom.

What fool believes the world would leave a country wealthy as ours alone even if we retreated behind our borders? Didn't we learn that lesson by the Jefferson Administration, and several times in the last century(at the cost of over half a million American men)? What are we to do but laugh when the people who say lil' kim and the mad mullahs are no threat to us, and didn't bat an eye when wild bill and comrades sold the chicoms our nuke weapons designs, our MIRV technology, Aegis, and our sonar technology, get upset over some small arms and first generation ATGMs to the people they are now allowing to develop nukes and ICBMs?
Thanks for reminding us yet again yall were and still are clueless or worse about the soviets, chicoms, mad mullahs, sandanistas, jihadis, and just about everybody in the world that likes to kill Americans and would like to destroy the USA. You don't need to remind me, but there are plenty of others in the USA who apparently need the reminding.

I guess the Battling B*stards of Bataan, those Brewster Pilots facing A6Ms over Midway Atoll, and the Men of Task Force Smith really did die in vain, the dp/msm will make sure of it. As carter put it, they are here to manage our decline. Left unsaid is that they must first engineer a decline to manage, but that comes natural to them.

...when the FBI does not mention 9/11 as one of bin Laden's crimes on the FBI's most wanted site?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

How bad is the threat really if Bush and Obama absolutely refuse to secure the border and get the illegals out? Keep in mind Bush had time when he was gov. of Texas to take care of that problem also. If he didn't see a threat enough to get the border taken care of with all the intelligence he had, then why should we?

There was a great scene in "Team America: World Police" where a UN representative threatened Kim Jong Il with sending him a nasty letter if he didn't stop selling weapons to terrorists.

CopyLeft would have us believe that the Iranians have made concessions. Newsflash: the ayatollahs don't like girly men.

Here's a list of the "concessions" offered by Teheran:
1) immediate cutoff in military aid to Israel
2) complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan
3) immediate halt to defensive missile system in E. Europe
4) a public acknowledgement of the USA's errors in supporting the Shah regime
5) an immediate halt to all efforts to halt Iran's uranium-enrichment program
6) a U.S. withdrawal from all forward bases in the Persian Gulf

Yeah, this sounds like a real "coup" for all you weak, spineless liberals out there. And what does the US get in return for all this? Talks with that lunatic dictator Ahmedinejhad.

What did you want? Shoot the thing down? The plan from Secret Agent Gingrich to sneak into the most militaristic country on Earth and pull some wires on the missile so it wouldn't fire? Knock it out before it took off? Any of these scenarios and it's a good possibility that Seoul is smoldering. What would be your assessment of the new president's response then? Not favorable, if I were to guess. As I said yesterday, the little pissant wants attention. Engage him militarily and he's got all he wants. Just ignore the little troll.

Yeah, Ronald Reagan only gave money and weapons to the Iranians. We arent having any fears of them now are we?

Maybe if the U.S would stop the interventionism and interence in the internal affairs of other nations,and adopt a moreso conservative rather than left leaning paternalist/welfarism foreign policy, with countries taking some responsibility for themselves,maybe there would be less need for a defense sheild?

Carter 1.0 -> Reagan 1.0
Carter 2.0 -> Reagan 2.0?

Um... what it means is that the technology Reagan envisioned finally is up to par with the task. Unlike the 80's, we are actually able to knock missiles out of the sky now, but that's only because Bush saw the value in reviving the program. Now that it's working and all we need to do is distribute the system, a system that can ONLY be used in a defensive manner, our new President wants to dismantle the program.

Again... this is a purely defensive weapon system. You can't kill other people with it. You can only take out incoming missiles. Sure, let's disarm the nukes. Fine. Those are only weapons of "fear" and "mass destruction". Let's just not take out systems that are actually purely defensive.

Are we seriously going to bow down to Russia's demands over this? They're upset that they won't be able to attack us and Western Europe with their nukes should they feel the need. That's what it's about. It's not about the US having some new super weapon. Hell, Russia should have these babies too. I'd have no problem with that. The more systems like this are in place, the harder it is for people like you and me to be killed by a mad man.

Oh... and about those pensions? Get over it. Shut down this program and more people will be out of jobs. 2,000 people will probably get the axe in Atlanta now that the F-22 production is ended. There's no telling how many will be out of work once you see how many companies supply parts for the 2,000 people to build those F-22's.

Seemed pretty obvious to me that he was messing with you. It was hilarious and disappointing to see you fall for it, Neal.

I love seeing good old short the US dollar george spout off about how worthless the US dollar is. In my business it is called talking your position, which he is doing to the upmost as Buffet got out of his short dollar position and george didn't and is trying to get the dollar to go back down. mpw

Why does anyone care what that fathead has to say? And if he's looking to Saint Reagan for answers, shouldn't he be suggesting selling arms to the Iranians?