russia/ georgia

[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.

[That Guy]

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

that world view seems a bit lopsided/biased and out of touch with reality. maybe bush jr didn't like that saddam tried to cap his dad, but i'm pretty sure it's not about empire, since the plan is to get out as soon as possible.

i mean, there might be some truth to using the war as a long term way to gain a sphere of influence in a part of the world where america isn't all that popular, but the oversimplified villany bit seems a bit over the top.

[FRPLG]

Beem, I get the jist of what you are saying and some of it I agree with to a degree but the idea that our foreign policy is driven by "empire building" is really very laughable. We live in a globalized world where there is no longer hundreds of unique national economies. We have ONE economy and it is the global one. What happens elsewhere in the world directly affects us. That we show interest and interevene by this interest is not "empire building" but rather self preservation. In some cases it has surely been screwy but I can't think of why some view us as imperialists rather than paranoid bully's. The later would seem to make more sense if one was inclined to view us negatively.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Beem, I get the jist of what you are saying and some of it I agree with to a degree but the idea that our foreign policy is driven by "empire building" is really very laughable. We live in a globalized world where there is no longer hundreds of unique national economies. We have ONE economy and it is the global one. What happens elsewhere in the world directly affects us. That we show interest and interevene by this interest is not "empire building" but rather self preservation. In some cases it has surely been screwy but I can't think of why some view us as imperialists rather than paranoid bully's. The later would seem to make more sense if one was inclined to view us negatively.

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.

[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.

[saden1]

I certify that I have read Beemnseven post above and I approve of his message.

[firstdown]

I think I'll go back to the Super Happy Funny Thread.

[saden1]

More news on the subject.

Russia stunned the West on Tuesday by recognizing the independence claims of two Georgian breakaway regions, and U.S. warships plied the waters off of Georgia in a gambit the Kremlin saw as gunboat diplomacy.

The announcement by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ignored the strong opposition of Europe and the United States, and signaled the Kremlin's determination to shape its neighbors' destinies even at the risk of closing its doors to the West.

"We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a Cold War," President Dmitry Medvedev said hours after announcing the Kremlin's decision and one day after Parliament had supported the recognition.

While the risk of a military clash with the West seemed remote, the lack of high-level public diplomacy between the White House and the Kremlin added to an uneasy sense here at least of an escalating crisis.

Medvedev also promised a Russian military response to a U.S. missile defense system in Europe. Washington says the system would counter threats from Iran and North Korea, but Russia says it is aimed at blunting Russian nuclear capability.

The Kremlin's recognition of the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia suggested it was willing to risk nearly two decades of economic, political and diplomatic bonds with its Cold War antagonists.

Sit tight folks, I'm sure Saber Rattling Diplomacy™ will eventually prevails.

[FRPLG]

In the words of saden. I have SGG's post above and I approve this message.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

As I've demonstrated multiple times now, setting up missle defense systems at the edge of the Russian border, and snatching up former Soviet Republic after former Soviet Republic into NATO is an alarming action to the Russians which they perceive to be a threat.

Just as we would see it if the situation were reversed. I've posted this three times now, and no one seems to have an answer for it, so I'll say it again: What would the United States do if the Russians had 130,000 troops just to the south of us, if they had established anti-missle systems just off international waters to our west, and if the Russian navy were patroling the Gulf of Mexico, acting as though they had the authority to permit or deny access to the gulf at their sole discretion. We would be livid, and rightly so. That would be seen as an act of war.

You are absolutely right. Isn't the Monroe doctrine still in effect? I'm sure Russia has a similar doctrine. Our actions in Georgia/Poland are acts of war. What bothers me, is that our government HAS to know this. So, I wonder, are they that confident (arrogant), or are they simply counting on Russia to remain idle?

Also, Georgia/Ossetia is incredibly similar to Russia/Chechnya. Nobody had a problem with Russia suppressing Chechens -- after all, they are terrorists, right? It's quite hypocritical of Russia to have a problem with Georgia and its actions towards Ossetia. It seems like they are just exploiting an opportunity at a land/power grab.

You have articulated my feelings almost perfectly with your posts. It would take quite some time for me to say it as well as you have.

If it isn't too confusing, I've also agreed with many of SGG's points. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

You are absolutely right. Isn't the Monroe doctrine still in effect? I'm sure Russia has a similar doctrine. Our actions in Georgia/Poland are acts of war. What bothers me, is that our government HAS to know this. So, I wonder, are they that confident (arrogant), or are they simply counting on Russia to remain idle?

Also, Georgia/Ossetia is incredibly similar to Russia/Chechnya. Nobody had a problem with Russia suppressing Chechens -- after all, they are terrorists, right? It's quite hypocritical of Russia to have a problem with Georgia and its actions towards Ossetia. It seems like they are just exploiting an opportunity at a land/power grab.

You have articulated my feelings almost perfectly with your posts. It would take quite some time for me to say it as well as you have.

If it isn't too confusing, I've also agreed with many of SGG's points. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Thanks for the compliment. I've read as much as I can on this subject, and I try to look at it from both angles, getting the viewpoints from people with opinions that differ from mine.

There's no easy answer here. Without a doubt, the Russians were lying in wait just looking for a reason to turn the Georgians over their knee and give them an old-fashioned ass whoopin'.

But it's also undeniable that Saakashvili knew that the United States would cry foul, and give the American taxpayer yet another crisis we can shell out our hard-earned money for.

That's why I favor a foreign policy of non-intervention. No more rescues of oppressed people from dictators who should be doing the overthrowing themselves. No more billions of dollars given out to nations that hate us. No more playing the role of policeman of the world. No more wandering into sh*tstorms we can't find our way out of. From now on, everybody's on their own.

We have our own problems to deal with.

[saden1]

To break away you have to be part of Georgia. Georgia as no more clam to these states than Russia has claim on Georgia.