Like what ignorance? That the Russians have no right to place a battery of Iskanders of their own territory because you said so? That they are obliged to provide you a reasonable explanation? Who said that?

Russians are whining that somebody else sniffs around in their former playground. Right. Bush&Rice tandem were constantly whining about weapon deliveries to Venezuela, they too don’t like Russians playing games on their former territory, for what is even worse, an oil-rich one. The same story being repeated, what’s the big deal? Medvedev is not doing anything that Bush has not been constantly doing for (almost) the last decade, be it invasion to Georgia or whining over Poland.

Now quit your double standard, it’s already getting beyond boring.

You have not even read my posts, I challenge you to either qoute where I said the Russians have no right to base Iskanders in Kaliningrad or apologise immediately.:mad:

SOC, excellent piece of work,

It is interesting that both the radar systems cover the northern entrance to the Taiwan straight, yet another example of the effect that the arrival of two CVBG’s had on the Chinese military pshyche back in 1996.

They were provided earlier anyway. :rolleyes: So go cry the thread a river.

No they were not.:rolleyes:

The right to freedom of speech comes along with the responsibility to respect the privacy and feelings of others. You can’t demand the former and then shirk the latter.

If people in general were as concerned about their responsibilities are they are about their rights, then we’d all be a lot better off.

Exactly,
Exactly. I can only assume that symon believes it is also his right to put fireworks through peoples letter boxs.:mad:

I do love the amount of times I’ve been abroad and found myself queuing for something (as if by second nature), only to see that the ‘natives’ are just piling on in!

I’m part of the “what is all the fuss about?” gang. If nothing else, there are worse things going on in the world and there are more important things people should/could be doing than complain about something they’ve not even heard/seen (although yes, everyone is entitled to freedom of speech).

I think the worst thing is (from Brand/Ross’ POV), is that Sach’s knew about the calls before the show was broadcast and gave his OK for a selection of clips to be aired in his absence. Then what happens? Some talented (to some (including me)) entertainer had to lose his job because people were jumping on a bandwagon?

Anyway. If there was one thing that made me laugh more than Clarkson’s original “lorry driver” gags on episode 1, it was his blatant refusal to publically apologise about it on episode 2!

This is not a freedom of speech issue and it is perverse that some (including you) have managed to make it as such. This is about it is fundementally wrong to prank call the elderly and leave them messages taunting them about the sexual activities of their grand children.

Sachs did not know that the comments were going to be broadcast, he had said ok to a heavily edited version not the one that was broadcast.

The Clarkson prostitute comment is free speech related and of dubious offensiveness, which is why there were so few complaints.

I find it troubling that you regard bullying the elderly like an out of control teenager as talent.:mad:

Well, the SOC’s map is quite interesting. It shows some potential to reach the trajectory of the missiles launched from the most west bases (Name ?) and potentially intercept points over the North Sea (the two most south yellow lines). Now, if we consider an attack toward i.e. Florida, the window of interception enlarges a little more. The map also gives ground to the point 4 (The Pole site follows the deployment pattern predicted by Gen. Solovtsov a few years ago and likely will be followed in the next decade by a fourth site in Scotland based on the existing LPAR located here). In the Podvig site there is a pdf from Ted Postol showing this. Anyway, we are now in a sort “nuclear planning discussion”.

Regards.

Still nothing to disprove SOC’s posts.

Respect to the issue of Patriots to protect the Pole ABM site, I knew a Russian article a weeks ago that was quite interesting. The main points were:
1) The Patriot protection to the site will show unambiguously that NATO is interested in its anti-Russian potential; since Patriots will be of no utility against any imaginary Iranian strike (you know the paranoid official explanation is that the site is designed to counter Iranian ICBM).
2) The Patriot shield to the Pole site will increase even more the already heavy burden involved in the deployment of such a system and in no way will guaranty a high level of protection against a well planned coordinated strike from the Kaliningrad exclave.
3) The additional protection to the site given by a relatively dense Patriot net can be offset by a marginal increment in the number of deployed Iskanders. This because the laws of probabilities rule the game and the penetration-features of Iskander is regarded as quite effective by the author.
4) The Pole site follows the deployment pattern predicted by Gen. Solovtsov a few years ago and likely will be followed in the next decade by a fourth site in Scotland based on the existing LPAR located here.

I will search for the article.

Until you can disprove SOC’s factual explanation as to why the ABM system is not aimed against Russia the above is just nonsense that makes you look rather silly.:rolleyes:

If Iran isn’t nuclear capable then America is wasting its dried out money. :rolleyes:

That does not make any sense.:rolleyes:

I just explained that you dont need nukes for ballistic missiles and that is not even pointing out the fact that Iran is likely pursuing nuclear arms.:rolleyes: