russia/ georgia

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I understand that but I don't get exactly what you think WE should be doing. All I am hearing is "Bush sucks". I guess I am just confused by your message here. How should we be handling this?

Obviously I advocate diplomacy or as some would label appeasement. We should at least be mindful of our delusion of grandeur and don't pretend we have the upper hand or the will and the means to do anything if Russia attacks Poland.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Obviously I advocate diplomacy or as some would label appeasement. We should at least be mindful of our delusion of grandeur and don't pretend we have the upper hand or the will and the means to do anything if Russia attacks Poland.

Jimmy Carter advocated diplomacy too. That didn't work out too well.

I don't think we should confront Russia either, let them have Poland...again (Yalta,FDR, Alger Hiss). It's too much of a risk to honor our committment to NATO anyway. Russia's expansion and reclaiming of old Soviet bloc territory isn't our problem. When they work with Chavez to base missles in Venezula, that's no big deal either....it would be Bush's fault anyway because he's such an idiot and has just F'd everything in the world up.

P.S. You are ridiculously underestimating the capabilities of the USAF and overestimating Russia's military. It's one thing to roll into Georgia(the stupid, idiotic, Bush Admin told Georgia not to start this), its entirely another to stop Stealth fighter/bombers from completely destroying your military infrastructure. Putin's no idiot, he'll have his surrogates talk, but he won't cross the "line in the sand" of attacking a NATO country.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

But [Colonel Christopher Langton, Senior Fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies] said Russia's campaign in Georgia left many questions about its military capability unanswered.

"There is no way they could say from this operation that they are capable of carrying out operations against something as sophisticated as NATO forces," he said. "It wasn't a serious test for them."

Georgia war shows Russian army strong but flawed | U.S. | Reuters

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

But [Colonel Christopher Langton, Senior Fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies] said Russia's campaign in Georgia left many questions about its military capability unanswered.

"There is no way they could say from this operation that they are capable of carrying out operations against something as sophisticated as NATO forces," he said. "It wasn't a serious test for them."

Georgia war shows Russian army strong but flawed | U.S. | Reuters

Good article.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Miller101

I agree with you Saden. And this is exactly why I think our President should be smart enough to speak English!!! This fucking idiot that we got running things now is known for always making the wrong decisions at the right times!

I mean, if he was smart enough do you actually think he would have invaded a country without a real plan? Or do you think he would have been more accurate AND get this, ON THE SAME PAGE with the Iraqi government about withdrawing American troops? What about catching Bin Laden back in 2001? We did have him cornered there as you might recall. But Bush, in all of his wisdom, decides to let the local people catch him...........those people probably played poker with Bin Laden in his cave from time to time.

And now there is Russia. Whats next Bush? Its your move. Just please don't fuck this thing up!

So I guess your a Bush fan!

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Miller101

And now there is Russia. Whats next Bush? Its your move. Just please don't fuck this thing up!

Instead of saying "f Bush," articulate what you think Bush did wrong. What exactly did he do that was so wrong with respect to RUSSIA? Sometimes I swear, if Bush said he liked babies, some people would say that babies are as evil as Hitler.

As for this whole crisis between Russia, Poland and the US, it's way overblown. Poland is very important to Russia, but no one should seriously think that Russia is going to start a war with NATO over it.

[Beemnseven]

Just some food for thought: Six former Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, while the United States has nearly 130,000 troops stationed just south of Russia in two different countries.

How nervous would we be in the United States if the situation were reversed? What would our reaction be with Russian warships stationed in the Gulf of Mexico for as long as they saw fit ? Suppose to our west, there was a multi-nation alliance whose original purpose was to fight us if we made any sort of move, is now re-arming with new installed missle shield batteries?

We'd be freaking out, and with good reason.

Sometimes it's good to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

Here's a pretty short piece that was written some time ago on why Russia appears to be getting a little ansy.

Why has Putin's Russia turned hostile? Why is Putin mending fences with China, Iran and Syria? Why is Putin sending Bear bombers to the edge of American airspace? Why has Russia turned against America? For Putin's approval rating is three times that of George Bush. Who restarted the Cold War?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Just some food for thought: Six former Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, while the United States has nearly 130,000 troops stationed just south of Russia in two different countries.

How nervous would we be in the United States if the situation were reversed? What would our reaction be with Russian warships stationed in the Gulf of Mexico for as long as they saw fit ? Suppose to our west, there was a multi-nation alliance whose original purpose was to fight us if we made any sort of move, is now re-arming with new installed missle shield batteries?

We'd be freaking out, and with good reason.

Sometimes it's good to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

excellent points. I mean, no, we're America, We're ALWAYS RIGHT!!!

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Beems,

Fair point. However, I don't think Putin's foreign policy decisions are rooted solely, or even in large part, on a fear of U.S. power. Putin called the collapse of the USSR the worst political development of the 20th century. He appears to be bent on restoring Russia to its former glory (i.e., domination of the old Soviet Republics). I wouldn't blame Russia's newfound aggressiveness on NATO's expansion, even though there is a strong tendency among some circles of our society to blame anything and everything that goes wrong on the US and its foreign policy.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Just some food for thought: Six former Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, while the United States has nearly 130,000 troops stationed just south of Russia in two different countries.

How nervous would we be in the United States if the situation were reversed? What would our reaction be with Russian warships stationed in the Gulf of Mexico for as long as they saw fit ? Suppose to our west, there was a multi-nation alliance whose original purpose was to fight us if we made any sort of move, is now re-arming with new installed missle shield batteries?

We'd be freaking out, and with good reason.

Sometimes it's good to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

Here's a pretty short piece that was written some time ago on why Russia appears to be getting a little ansy.

So a country that is "supposed" to be our ally is scared of us and that makes it ok for them to act like geo-political asses? I don't but it that much. I understand the missile shield is provocative but so are Russia's however many nukes.

I believe the missile shield excuse is providing convenient cover for them to be aggressive in a way that they wish they'd never given up.

[saden1]

Now this is ballin'...evil genius shit!

[GhettoDogAllStars]

The US claims the defense missiles are a proactive measure against Iran. However, to the best of my knowledge, Iran doesn't have inter-continental ballistic missiles. I believe they might have some missiles that could reach Israel, but probably not much further.

So, who nearby does have ICBMs? Russia.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

The US claims the defense missiles are a proactive measure against Iran. However, to the best of my knowledge, Iran doesn't have inter-continental ballistic missiles. I believe they might have some missiles that could reach Israel, but probably not much further.

So, who nearby does have ICBMs? Russia.

This is a bit dated (Aug. 2000)

https://www.cia.gov/news-information...ch_020900.html

but even then, Iran has tested an ICBM capable of reaching Turkey (a NATO member where we have permanent bases). N. Korea tested an ICBM allegedly capable of hitting the mainland U.S. earlier this year, if I remember correctly. While I don't think the performance was anywhere near advertised, it would still pose a significant threat to the NATO area if put in Iranian hands.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Beems,

Fair point. However, I don't think Putin's foreign policy decisions are rooted solely, or even in large part, on a fear of U.S. power. Putin called the collapse of the USSR the worst political development of the 20th century. He appears to be bent on restoring Russia to its former glory (i.e., domination of the old Soviet Republics). I wouldn't blame Russia's newfound aggressiveness on NATO's expansion, even though there is a strong tendency among some circles of our society to blame anything and everything that goes wrong on the US and its foreign policy.

I'll bet there were some in this country who didn't want to see the collapse of the Soviet Union. Namely, the military-industrial complex, along with certain chickenhawks in the current administration and elsewhere in the government. Remember, the best way to keep their stranglehold of power over the sheeple is to have an neverending pseudo "war" with vague, non-distinct enemies. It keeps everyone in fear, allows for the state to take more of our money and liberties, and paints anyone who challenges this "threat" as traitorous, unpatriotic, and un-American.

Putin is only responding to our government's zeal to "spread freedom" throughout the world -- which, as we all should know by now, including the Russians, is an elaborate ruse. The only real purpose is to establish empire, to maintain commitments to corporate interests, and to feed the suicidal, hawkish desires of those who do nothing but glorify war, and long for the days of having an "evil empire" to contend with. It's only human nature.

I don't put the blame solely at the feet of today's Bush Administration. America's long history of "tough" foreign policy goes back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt and World War I and can be directly traced to many, if not most of the world's problems we see today.

I'm sure there will be some who'll be foaming at the mouth upon reading this. But the truth usually has that effect.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

So a country that is "supposed" to be our ally is scared of us and that makes it ok for them to act like geo-political asses? I don't but it that much. I understand the missile shield is provocative but so are Russia's however many nukes.

I believe the missile shield excuse is providing convenient cover for them to be aggressive in a way that they wish they'd never given up.

The Russians probably regret giving up their aggressive tendencies after witnessing the recent actions of the United States government. It was the United States who stopped acting like an ally to Russia. Some might even point to the very election of Vladimir Putin, a former KGB strongman, as an announcement to the world that Russia will no longer put up with what they perceive to be increasing encroachment around their borders.

Russia is doing exactly what we would have done with only about half the intensity.