patrick.net

Obama took the missle defense out of Europe, we're at Russia's mercy whether we like it or not.

We need another Reagan to rid the world of Nukes AGAIN!

Why are Liberals such War Pigs?

Oh shit. We have 7100 and they have 7300? We're fucked. Need... More... Nukes...

NO dipshit we need a defense shield in Europe but Obama the Kenyan terrorist thought better of it.

Totally missed the point.
You don't give away the singular element that has kept WWIII at bay for the past 65 years.
This trend can be reversed in a heartbeat, and you better have the resources to keep up.
A viable strategy for an opponent would be to hoard as much of the opponent's resources as possible prior to ramping up themselves.

YesYNot MAPGA says

Oh shit. We have 7100 and they have 7300? We're fucked. Need... More... Nukes...

Ranina ranina says

Totally missed the point.

You don't give away the singular element that has kept WWIII at bay for the past 65 years.

Jesus Christ. Neither the US nor Russia is limited by raw materials when deciding how many nukes to have on hand. We reduced the number by treaties, where we agreed that the world would be safer if we had less of these to look after. We both still have more than enough to blow the other country to smithereens. I focused on the # of nukes (with my sarcastic comment), b/c you chose to put up that graphic. If you want to focus on the strategic aspect of giving away mineral rights, then you should focus your argument better. Plus, if you look at the amount they harvested from their mine in WY, you will find that it is a very small amount of material.

we need sumone to remember to close their italics.
here we go... hows that?

Totally missed the point.
You don't allow your enemies to own any businesses in your country. They become fronts for spywork, trojan horse infiltration and such.,..
And you don't personally profit from the maneuver as a government representitive...

YesYNot MAPGA says

Jesus Christ. Neither the US nor Russia is limited by raw materials when deciding how many nukes to have on hand. We reduced the number by treaties, where we agreed that the world would be safer if we had less of these to look after.

Whaaaa???

junkmail says

we need sumone to remember to close their italics.

nm i fixed it. Was off topic.. sorry
(coding issue)
Just can't stand to read italics, which every post had become.
On the up side... I just bumped your topic!

Ranina ranina says

Who the fuck in their right mind gives Russia control over any of our uranium (read "nuclear") resources?

The committee for foreign investments. Which isn't under the state department so I really don't know how you or bloomberg manage to tie the clinton foundation in. Hell of a foundation to manage to control so many department heads, councils, and offices. When can we expect you to post documentation tying all these people's decision to the clinton foundation? The twelfth of never I would guess. The just make shit up club is getting bigger and bigger every day.

The members of CFIUS include the heads of the following departments and offices:
Department of the Treasury (chair)
Department of Justice
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of State
Department of Energy
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Office of Science & Technology Policy

The following offices also observe and, as appropriate, participate in CFIUS’s activities:
Office of Management & Budget
Council of Economic Advisors
National Security Council
National Economic Council
Homeland Security Council

Ranina ranina says

This is the poster child of "Treason"...

You want the US to invest in being able to nuke another quarter of the world, when we can obliterate it 10 times over? If it really did matter that they have 200 more warheads, which it doesn't, but if it did ... there is no analysis on the type and yield of warheads or state and deployment and readiness.

I'd much rather have the US military, superior substance, than what Russia has always been since the 60s: cheap numbers and B1ski thinking.

Where you see 'traitor' I see a military focusing on what matters. This isn't 1968.

Then you obviously did not read the Bloomberg article.

bob2356 says

The committee for foreign investments. Which isn't under the state department so I really don't know how you or bloomberg manage to tie the clinton foundation in.

Never said that.
Any more comments stating things that I want that I never indicated verbally or in writ?

Rew says

You want the US to invest in being able to nuke another quarter of the world,

Ranina ranina says

Never said that.

You didn't write much of anything in the OP. You even put treason in quotes, so we have no idea what you mean by that. It's a very vague post, so you have people trying to infer some meaning from your post. If you don't like it, just be clear. It's not complicated.