russia/ georgia

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

See, our foreign policy objectives go way beyond simple, economic considerations. They're a factor, certainly. But the idea that we're just acting for our 'self preservation' is interesting judging by what the implications could be by provoking Russia into World War III.

I'll direct my response to SSG above to you as well, for more details of my explanation.

Much of your stance seems based on the presumption that Russia would actually take up arms against the United States. The above bolded statement, and the one quoted below, seem to indicate you believe a Russian reaction to our historically covert, interventionalist strategies, would be an all-out war.

Misguided and bordering on suicidal, yes.

I will not comment on the ideology of your views, as I believe it would be a fruitless discussion and would peel back way too many layers of an onion for my tastes, what with economic and homeland defense motives at play.

But to suggest that our recent actions in Georgia and with NATO's missile defense would provoke Russia into an all-out war with us is to drastically overestimate both the threat Russia is capable of carrying out on us and drastically overestimate their likely response to such endeavors.

Simply put, we haven't pissed them off nearly enough, NOWHERE CLOSE, for them to think launching an all-out war is in their best interests.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

. . . to suggest that our recent actions in Georgia and with NATO's missile defense would provoke Russia into an all-out war with us is to drastically overestimate both the threat Russia is capable of carrying out on us and drastically overestimate their likely response to such endeavors.

Simply put, we haven't pissed them off nearly enough, NOWHERE CLOSE, for them to think launching an all-out war is in their best interests.

Schneed, the bolded comment perfectly illustrates this cavalier attitude that I spoke of among many Americans when it comes to war. Attempting to diminish what the Russians could do to us if fighting ever broke out is typical of those who don't actually have to face the prospect of fighting in such a conflict.

Do you know what the casualty counts would be if we turned our armies against Russia or if they turned against us? Even if, as you imply, we would ultimately "win" in a showdown with Russia, how many of our 130,000 troops already over there would be lost if the fecal matter started hitting the rotary device? 30,000? 50,000? Those might figures might be drastically low.

Our troops are over-extended, over-worked, and most of them are long overdue for leave time. We've had to borrow from our forces in Afganistan to allow for the 'surge' in Iraq. Now, we're losing ground in Afganistan. Americans at home are weary of the Iraq war, and polls have consistently shown that the public no longer supports it. You're telling me that none of this matters, and that the threat of Russia is overestimated?

Our military has been bogged down in the middle east for five years now -- and the Russians know it. Don't be so quick to assume that they are "nowhere close" to being pissed off enough to start something. Didn't you see what Medvedev just said recently? That they're not afraid of another Cold War? How about the U.S. naval ships carrying aid to Georgia that suddenly decided to turn around? You think they were concerned with Russia's possible intentions?

Napolean was arguably the greatest military leader who ever lived. He was defeated by the Russians. Nazi Germany's Wehrmacht was the absolute best fighting force ever assembled in the history of human civilization. In the final months that closed out World War II, historians have said that 75% of them were killed not by the United States -- but by the Russians. I wouldn't underestimate those people, Schneed.

One more thing, -- do you really want that man from Crawford, Texas leading us into a war with Russia? How about Barack Obama, with all of the experience he has in situations like this?

Sometimes it's better to play it smart, than it is to play it tough.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Schneed, the bolded comment perfectly illustrates this cavalier attitude that I spoke of among many Americans when it comes to war. Attempting to diminish what the Russians could do to us if fighting ever broke out is typical of those who don't actually have to face the prospect of fighting in such a conflict.

Do you know what the casualty counts would be if we turned our armies against Russia or if they turned against us? Even if, as you imply, we would ultimately "win" in a showdown with Russia, how many of our 130,000 troops already over there would be lost if the fecal matter started hitting the rotary device? 30,000? 50,000? Those might figures might be drastically low.

Our troops are over-extended, over-worked, and most of them are long overdue for leave time. We've had to borrow from our forces in Afganistan to allow for the 'surge' in Iraq. Now, we're losing ground in Afganistan. Americans at home are weary of the Iraq war, and polls have consistently shown that the public no longer supports it. You're telling me that none of this matters, and that the threat of Russia is overestimated?

Our military has been bogged down in the middle east for five years now -- and the Russians know it. Don't be so quick to assume that they are "nowhere close" to being pissed off enough to start something. Didn't you see what Medvedev just said recently? That they're not afraid of another Cold War? How about the U.S. naval ships carrying aid to Georgia that suddenly decided to turn around? You think they were concerned with Russia's possible intentions?

Napolean was arguably the greatest military leader who ever lived. He was defeated by the Russians. Nazi Germany's Wehrmacht was the absolute best fighting force ever assembled in the history of human civilization. In the final months that closed out World War II, historians have said that 75% of them were killed not by the United States -- but by the Russians. I wouldn't underestimate those people, Schneed.

One more thing, -- do you really want that man from Crawford, Texas leading us into a war with Russia? How about Barack Obama, with all of the experience he has in situations like this?

Sometimes it's better to play it smart, than it is to play it tough.

I disagree. What exactly is Russia going to do, launch an invasion of the European Union intent on attacking our NATO forces? How?

Their air force is far inferior to ours, any bombing runs they attempt will easily be thwarted as our NATO air forces are capable of putting multiple fighters into the air with 60 seconds notice.

Any ground force they attempt to launch could be thinned through the air significantly. Our forces are capable of putting C130s in the air and pounding armor on the ground with relative ease. Our fighters would establish air superiority over such a conflict in a matter of minutes, and our gunships would pound away under their cover.

In your historical example, Napoleon foolishly attacked Russia in the winter. Nazi Germany was fighting a war on two fronts after overextending itself throughout Europe. These scenarios are quite different from a potential invading Russian force upon NATO bases.

What recourse does Russia have? From a conventional military standpoint, little. They would never take that route because they'd face certain defeat. They'd instead reignite a cold war, and aim nukes in our direction. We'd be much more threatened by that action than any conventional type of aggression.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I disagree. What exactly is Russia going to do, launch an invasion of the European Union intent on attacking our NATO forces? How?

Their air force is far inferior to ours, any bombing runs they attempt will easily be thwarted as our NATO air forces are capable of putting multiple fighters into the air with 60 seconds notice.

Any ground force they attempt to launch could be thinned through the air significantly. Our forces are capable of putting C130s in the air and pounding armor on the ground with relative ease. Our fighters would establish air superiority over such a conflict in a matter of minutes, and our gunships would pound away under their cover.

In your historical example, Napoleon foolishly attacked Russia in the winter. Nazi Germany was fighting a war on two fronts after overextending itself throughout Europe. These scenarios are quite different from a potential invading Russian force upon NATO bases.

What recourse does Russia have? From a conventional military standpoint, little. They would never take that route because they'd face certain defeat. They'd instead reignite a cold war, and aim nukes in our direction. We'd be much more threatened by that action than any conventional type of aggression.

As to the historical notes, even the best among us make mistakes. Still, the fact remains, the Russians faced what at the time were two of the best trained, most invincible armies the world ever saw, and thwarted both of them.

As far as battlefield strategy goes, I'm not going to get into C-130s and airstrikes and whatnot. The most I can muster on that subject was what I learned playing Risk, Statego, and Axis & Allies when I was 14 years old.

None of that really matters. You may be right that the Russians wouldn't do anything. Perhaps they're just talking and acting tough. But that's not the point. The issue I'm trying to address is this mentality that violence is the first answer, or that we'll "win" or "beat" the enemy in a conflict with such a casual attitude as though we're watching a football game.

The only thing that matters is making sure something like that never happens. Because regardless of which side ultimately prevails, tens of thousands of Americans would be killed. And for what? American blood spilled over 4.6 million Georgians in a part of the world where we never should have been in the first place?

No thanks.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

As to the historical notes, even the best among us make mistakes. Still, the fact remains, the Russians faced what at the time were two of the best trained, most invincible armies the world ever saw, and thwarted both of them.

As far as battlefield strategy goes, I'm not going to get into C-130s and airstrikes and whatnot. The most I can muster on that subject was what I learned playing Risk, Statego, and Axis & Allies when I was 14 years old.

None of that really matters. You may be right that the Russians wouldn't do anything. Perhaps they're just talking and acting tough. But that's not the point. The issue I'm trying to address is this mentality that violence is the first answer, or that we'll "win" or "beat" the enemy in a conflict with such a casual attitude as though we're watching a football game.

The only thing that matters is making sure something like that never happens. Because regardless of which side ultimately prevails, tens of thousands of Americans would be killed. And for what? American blood spilled over 4.6 million Georgians in a part of the world where we never should have been in the first place?

No thanks.

We never should have been in Europe, helping to set up NATO, during the Cold War when the USSR was publicly saying it's goal was world domination?

You're losing me. You've made some good points in this thread, but you're starting to run yourself out of the inning here.

Besides, even if you don't agree with the politics behind our presence in Georgia and other parts of Europe, you have to acknowledge the immense peace of mind a strategically placed missile defense system brings to us here at home.

We know that Iran has no problems dealing with terrorists. We also know they are working towards nuclear capabilities. Should our diplomacy/tough talk fail to persuade them to give up their pursuits, it's a rather smart contingency plan to be able to protect Europe, Israel, and the US mainland by having the ability to shoot any ICBM's out of the sky.

If it's not Iran, it could be North Korea. If it's not them, it could be someone else who has an axe to grind with us.

And please don't suggest we shouldn't be protecting Europe or Israel in the first place, because then you'd render yourself entirely irrelevant.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

We never should have been in Europe, helping to set up NATO, during the Cold War when the USSR was publicly saying it's goal was world domination?

You're losing me. You've made some good points in this thread, but you're starting to run yourself out of the inning here.

Besides, even if you don't agree with the politics behind our presence in Georgia and other parts of Europe, you have to acknowledge the immense peace of mind a strategically placed missile defense system brings to us here at home.

We know that Iran has no problems dealing with terrorists. We also know they are working towards nuclear capabilities. Should our diplomacy/tough talk fail to persuade them to give up their pursuits, it's a rather smart contingency plan to be able to protect Europe, Israel, and the US mainland by having the ability to shoot any ICBM's out of the sky.

If it's not Iran, it could be North Korea. If it's not them, it could be someone else who has an axe to grind with us.

And please don't suggest we shouldn't be protecting Europe or Israel in the first place, because then you'd render yourself entirely irrelevant.

I've lost you? Doesn't seem like we've ever been on the same page with this issue. If fact, your response here doesn't seem to fit anything that I've said in the first place.

I've said nothing about the beginnings of NATO, or the reasons for setting it up. Given the circumstances that we helped create, I understand the need to begin an alliance to deter aggression.

In general, I favor a foreign policy of non-intervention. That means we would never have gotten involved in World War I -- we would never have tipped the balance of power in favor of the allies; there would never have been a Treaty of Versailles, the German people would never have been crushed to the point of giving rise to Adolf Hitler, the Russians wouldn't have fallen for the promises of Lenin, and World War II as we know it wouldn't have happened. That means no Cold War, and hence, no need for NATO.

With no secret operation in Iran to overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, there would never have been the oppressive Shah, followed by the Ayatollah Khomeni. Iran would have been just another friendly nation -- as they were for eons -- instead of a nation "who has no problem dealing with terrorists" capable (and they aren't) of lobbing ICBMs at Europe.

And no, unless I've missed something, Israel isn't the 51st state so we have no obligation to protect them, or any other European nation.