russia/ georgia

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

What do "chickenhawks," "sheeple" and fear mongering have to do with Putin's aspirations? This seems like you're going off on a bit of rant/tangent.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

So you really believe that Putin really just wants to re-establish the USSR because he doesn't agree with our foreign policy? I don't think you know Putin too well if you think he's just afraid that our invasion of Iraq is just the first step in our march toward Moscow.

Also, I think it's kind of silly to attribute our foreign policy objectives to one monolithic force that is simply bent on world domination. That makes for a nice John Wayne-style world that is divided between the "good guys" and the "bad guys," but life is a tad bit more complicated than that. Our foreign policy is influenced by 1 President, 1 Vice President, dozens Executive Branch advisors and employees, a Congress of over 400 people and thousands of Congressional advisors, thousands of lobbyists (including, yes, corporate lobbyists), and MILLIONS of members of the voting public like me and you. It's kinda silly to say our government's foreign policy is motivated and controlled by one set of evil values and people, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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 think you are, yet again, oversimplifying things. To say that one single country is responsible for most of the world's problems is not realistic. We have done some serious harm around the world via armed interventions, supporting military dictatorships, etc. and we should recognize those problems. But we should also recognize the good that our country has done around the world. Instead, our society seems to be divided between two camps: the first of which refuses to admit that we can do any wrong; and the second of which seems to love self-flagellation and to attribute every bad thing to the American capitalist conspiracy. That you believe that the invasion of Iraq caused Putin to invade Georgia tells me you are in the latter camp.

[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.

[Miller101]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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.

F Bush!?!?!? I was pleading with Bush not to screw up again! Thats all! Sorry I didn't make that clearer...............and whose to say that Russia is going to start a war with NATO? How do you know that Bush won't press a launch key by mistake?

Look, I know you might be a fan of Bush. You might be a Republican and that is cool. You also might be an independent. And thats cool too. It really is. But, you have to understand that all I've seen that guy do is screw up. And now that Russia is back I'm a little worried. And I just hope Bush doesn't screw this one up. And from the sounds of it things are cooling down a little bit and thats good. Maybe we can get out of this okay.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Miller101

But, you have to understand that all I've seen that guy do is screw up.

This is what is wrong with our political system today.

Not picking on Miller in particular here at all just using his words to show what is a common theme in US politics from every side. Absolute statements in general are usually wrong. Absolute statements in politics are ALWAYS wrong. Look, Bush sucked. A lot. But not every single thing he has done has been a screw up. Our current political system allows for only black and white. An "either you're with me or against me" type of thinking where the "opposition" can never do right and has never done right and where my "allies" are always wrong and couldn't ever be wrong. What ever happened to us using some thought to establish nuanced opinions free of absolutism and demagoguery? Are we all to stupid and lazy to think anymore?

I feel like most people's political opinions are as well though out as the opinions of a 14 year old not yet capable of putting any actual time, effort or brain power into actually KNOWING what they are talking about and using that information to form an opinion within the context of their own personal beliefs. They're 50% talking points and 50% emotion.

Again this is not about Miller at all but there are a lot of opinions on this site that come off this way from both sides of the aisle. Not just this site but society in general I guess.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What do "chickenhawks," "sheeple" and fear mongering have to do with Putin's aspirations? . . . [do] you really believe that Putin really just wants to re-establish the USSR because he doesn't agree with our foreign policy? I don't think you know Putin too well if you think he's just afraid that our invasion of Iraq is just the first step in our march toward Moscow.

It is the policies set forth by the chickenhawks in this administration and elsewhere in the government that Putin is responding to. The sheeple -- whom I classify as apathetic citizens, oblivious to the actions of their government, yet who continue to vote for the same two-party system that gets us into messes like this -- blindly go along with it. What we have seen from Putin is a reaction, not an unwarranted offensive. I will say that if Putin does long for the days of Soviet domination of the East, our government has done a fine job of pushing him in that direction.

Putin's aspirations are directly tied to U.S. military adventures in the middle east, the stationing of over 130,000 U.S. troops in Russia's back yard, by the U.S. government's support of Georgia's admittance into NATO, and by insistence on the part of our government to establish anti-missle systems in Poland. To me, there appears to be a strong faction in Washington, D.C. hell bent on rekindling the Cold War. You call that "silly," but I call it a simple observation of the facts.

Also, I think it's kind of silly to attribute our foreign policy objectives to one monolithic force that is simply bent on world domination. That makes for a nice John Wayne-style world that is divided between the "good guys" and the "bad guys," but life is a tad bit more complicated than that . . . It's kinda silly to say our government's foreign policy is motivated and controlled by one set of evil values and people, don't you think?

Actually, I don't think the neocons' ultimate goal is "world domination." I just don't think they're content with simply being the world's lone superpower. There's more to it than that, and their actions would indicate that they'd like to take it a step further. Take the fact that our military sent advisors to Georgia long before this crap started going down. Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already fighting in Georgia. Then you also have reports of the U.S. Marines Corps training the Georgian military. You seem like a reasonable guy, SGG. And you obviously follow this stuff. Can't you admit that there have been calculated attempts by our government to back Russia into a corner by gobbling up former Soviet republics into NATO for God knows what purpose? Why does NATO even exist anymore?

The Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but NATO sure as hell wasn't. NATO, whose sole function was to repel Soviet aggression, is trying to expand. What for? The Soviet Union collapsed, and even made strides toward implementing capitalism for their citizens. But it's main foe never went anywhere. In fact, it's re-arming, growing in the number of its member nations, and setting up new defensive installations on the edge of the Russian border. And yet you're mystified as to why Putin and the Russians are reacting so harshly? I'll ask the question I posed earlier: What would the U.S. reaction be if the "Evil Empire" was carrying on like this just south of our border, or it's navy was cruising around at will in the Gulf of Mexico?

You express doubts that our government is controlled by 'evil values' or that it's been hijacked by a 'monolithic force'. I don't know that I'd classify it as "evil". Misguided and bordering on suicidal, yes. But not evil. And I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that "one set of people" are in complete control of things. There are 'political winds,' so to speak. Trends that periodically lead us in one direction or the other, depending on who has power. This particular 'tough foreign policy' trend got started with Theodore Roosevelt and his "Great White Fleet," and continued with Woodrow Wilson's involvment in World War I. Then it kicked into high-gear with the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the American people of in his farewell address to the nation as his second term came to an end.

I could go on and on pointing to various interventions, violent overthrows of foreign governments, and covert operations all over the face of the Earth that the United States government organized, funded, or initiated since the earliest days of the 20th century which would prove my point. Thankfully, you're aware enough of history so that I won't have to rehash them all. But I don't think it's out of the question to say that this country -- this government, if you prefer -- is headed in the wrong direction when it comes to foreign affairs. But make no mistake, this trend is real. It permeates our government's outlook towards foreign policy to this very day by politicians on both sides of the aisle. And it's going to get a whole lot of people killed if we're not careful.

I think you are, yet again, oversimplifying things. To say that one single country is responsible for most of the world's problems is not realistic. We have done some serious harm around the world via armed interventions, supporting military dictatorships, etc. and we should recognize those problems. But we should also recognize the good that our country has done around the world. Instead, our society seems to be divided between two camps: the first of which refuses to admit that we can do any wrong; and the second of which seems to love self-flagellation and to attribute every bad thing to the American capitalist conspiracy. That you believe that the invasion of Iraq caused Putin to invade Georgia tells me you are in the latter camp.

For the record, and forgive me if I gave this impression, I don't believe Putin's response in Georgia was initiated by our war against Iraq. I just think it has made Russia nervous -- just as it made us nervous when they tried to use Cuba as a launching pad for some ICBMs back in 1962. To the contrary, Putin (no longer the president, by the way) and his government were fully aware of Georgia's intention to put the smackdown on South Ossetia. That's why they had their own troops positioned on the Georgian border in anticipation of the hostilities before Saakasvili's invasion of the breakaway province ever took place. That Georgia started this conflict is not in dispute. But I also believe Washington knew precisely what was about to take place. With all of the spy satellites and surveillance measures we take in that region of the world, there's no way the Bush administration was in the dark about what Saakashvili was prepared to do.

You also make reference to the notion that I'm looking at this as if it's black and white, or that it's a simple case of the good guys against the bad guys. It's the neocons and the blowhards in talk radio who characterize it that way. There's a lot of gray area in war, just as there is here. I've always understood that.

The United States is the best country in the world, and there's no place I'd rather live. But I also know we make mistakes -- a lot of them recently, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. I'm also upset by the casual attitude Americans take towards war, and the reflexive willingness to wrap ourselves up in the flag while refusing to take the time to look at issues like these from a different point of view; to recognize that we don't always carry the banner for righteousness -- that maybe our government is up to no good. Why is it we admit that can be the case on domestic issues, but with foreign policy we always walk amongst the angels?

Far more Americans fall into the 'we can do no wrong' camp than mine.

[saden1]

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

[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.

[firstdown]

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

[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.

[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.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already fighting in Georgia.

I enjoyed reading the majority of your previous post. While I think that bring up some valid points I have reservations about believing the eyewitness account of US troops fighting in Georgia. I want to make it very clear that I am not saying that it did not happen. I am going to point out why it is not likely.

First, I will start out petty and work my way up.

1. The woman said that us markings were worn on the forearm. We wear them on the shoulder. Petty... I know, words can get lost in translation.

2. Most U.S. service members fight in large groups and wear the standard ACU uniform. On these uniforms the U.S. REVERSE-SIDE FULL-COLOR U.S. FLAG CLOTH REPLICA. is worn. These uniforms are not "black".

3. There are smaller operations teams (I don't have to name them all) that do perform missions like this. However when they do, no one would be able to (positively) identify them as U.S. Troops. This is because there would be no names, no rank, no U.S. REVERSE-SIDE FULL-COLOR U.S. FLAG CLOTH REPLICA., and no U.S. Army (Navy or Marines) on those "black" uniforms.

4. Often times U.S. service members will buddy-up with Foreign Service members and exchange items such as uniforms, flags, rank, bayonets etc. It is not a stretch of the imagination that Georgian forces that train with or who have met U.S. troops, have exchanged some items.

It almost seems as if someone wants people to believe that there was U.S. involvement.

FYI, we train just about any allied nation that wants to be trained...to an extent.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It is the policies set forth by the chickenhawks in this administration and elsewhere in the government that Putin is responding to. The sheeple -- whom I classify as apathetic citizens, oblivious to the actions of their government, yet who continue to vote for the same two-party system that gets us into messes like this -- blindly go along with it. What we have seen from Putin is a reaction, not an unwarranted offensive. I will say that if Putin does long for the days of Soviet domination of the East, our government has done a fine job of pushing him in that direction.

I would like to know how exactly you know that Putin/Russian action in Georgia is a response to "policies set forth by the chickenhawks." Unless you are Vlad himself, you cannot tell me what is motivating Russian action in Georgia.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Putin's aspirations are directly tied to U.S. military adventures in the middle east, the stationing of over 130,000 U.S. troops in Russia's back yard, by the U.S. government's support of Georgia's admittance into NATO, and by insistence on the part of our government to establish anti-missle systems in Poland. To me, there appears to be a strong faction in Washington, D.C. hell bent on rekindling the Cold War. You call that "silly," but I call it a simple observation of the facts.

See my comments above. Also, I think it is noteworthy that the Russians put the smack down on the Chechen rebels well before the chickenhawks came into power. I suppose they were just anticipating that Bush would get elected, fill his cabinet with chickenhawks, invade Iraq, and put an anti-missile system in Poland?

Don't get me wrong, I think our foreign policy and superpower status irks the hell out of Putin. And, to be fair, many of the Bush administration's policies reek of arrogance and offend many people around the globe. But, Putin seems to long for the days of the USSR - that beast that openly and explicitly declared in numerous manifestos that its goal was world domination.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Actually, I don't think the neocons' ultimate goal is "world domination." I just don't think they're content with simply being the world's lone superpower. There's more to it than that, and their actions would indicate that they'd like to take it a step further. Take the fact that our military sent advisors to Georgia long before this crap started going down. Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already fighting in Georgia. Then you also have reports of the U.S. Marines Corps training the Georgian military. You seem like a reasonable guy, SGG. And you obviously follow this stuff. Can't you admit that there have been calculated attempts by our government to back Russia into a corner by gobbling up former Soviet republics into NATO for God knows what purpose?

Wait a second. Your other posts were within the world of reason. If I am reading this post, it is well outside the world of reason. Are you suggesting that our government is deliberately trying to start another Cold War?

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

The Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but NATO sure as hell wasn't. NATO, whose sole function was to repel Soviet aggression, is trying to expand. What for? The Soviet Union collapsed, and even made strides toward implementing capitalism for their citizens. But it's main foe never went anywhere. In fact, it's re-arming, growing in the number of its member nations, and setting up new defensive installations on the edge of the Russian border. And yet you're mystified as to why Putin and the Russians are reacting so harshly? I'll ask the question I posed earlier: What would the U.S. reaction be if the "Evil Empire" was carrying on like this just south of our border, or it's navy was cruising around at will in the Gulf of Mexico?

NATO is a defensive alliance and, unlike the Warsaw Pact, did not regularly engage in offensive operations against "innocent states." Moreover, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were totally different animals. NATO is an alliance of independent states, formed for defensive purposes. The Warsaw Pact was a sham; Moscow controlled every move, decision, and action of the Pact. Moreover, there were even talks of Russia joining NATO. So, do you really think Russia should view NATO as some threat that might ultimately parade through Moscow some day?

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

You express doubts that our government is controlled by 'evil values' or that it's been hijacked by a 'monolithic force'. I don't know that I'd classify it as "evil". Misguided and bordering on suicidal, yes. But not evil. And I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that "one set of people" are in complete control of things. There are 'political winds,' so to speak. Trends that periodically lead us in one direction or the other, depending on who has power. This particular 'tough foreign policy' trend got started with Theodore Roosevelt and his "Great White Fleet," and continued with Woodrow Wilson's involvment in World War I. Then it kicked into high-gear with the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the American people of in his farewell address to the nation as his second term came to an end.

What do you mean by "one set of people." If you mean a bunch of old, rich, white dudes smoking cigars and pulling levers behind a giant curtain, then no I don't share your view. People on the fringes of the left and right tend to view the government as one giant corrupt force controlled by a few select individuals (in that "V is for Vendetta" sense).

In reality, our government and its foreign policy is influenced by millions of people. The President often defers to advisors, who receive reports and recommendations from subordinates, and the Vice President. The President also considers "special interests," whether those be NGOs advocating on behalf of certain humanitarian causes or greedy corporations advocating on behalf of their shareholders. The President also has to consider how his policies will be viewed by the general public - that pesky group of 300 million that has the power to vote his ass, or his friends' asses, out of office.

After the President formulates policy, he has to go consult that pesky group called Congress. Yes, the President may make unilateral moves, but the big pricey decisions have to be vetted by Congress. Congress can be spineless, but the President rarely disregards it. Moreover, Congress is made up of about 500 congressmen and thousands upon thousands of staffers. On top of that, you've got tens of thousands of lobbyists representing both "good" and "bad" special interests effectively giving money to congressmen for votes.

In sum, fortunately, there are so damn many people trying to influence policy, that no single group dominates.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

For the record, and forgive me if I gave this impression, I don't believe Putin's response in Georgia was initiated by our war against Iraq. I just think it has made Russia nervous -- just as it made us nervous when they tried to use Cuba as a launching pad for some ICBMs back in 1962. To the contrary, Putin (no longer the president, by the way) and his government were fully aware of Georgia's intention to put the smackdown on South Ossetia. That's why they had their own troops positioned on the Georgian border in anticipation of the hostilities before Saakasvili's invasion of the breakaway province ever took place. That Georgia started this conflict is not in dispute. But I also believe Washington knew precisely what was about to take place. With all of the spy satellites and surveillance measures we take in that region of the world, there's no way the Bush administration was in the dark about what Saakashvili was prepared to do.

I can't agree with the bolded part above. I don't know who "started" the conflict. Some say the Russians did and others say the Georgians did. Russia can be compared to a guy that starts banging his neighbor's wife (i.e., S. Ossetia), the neighbor (i.e., Georgia) finds out and smacks his wife, and Russia then firebombs his neighbor's house. Russia has been trying to provoke Georgia into a military confrontation for quite some time. Moreover, Georgia never attacked Russia. Georgia attacked militants within its own borders.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Far more Americans fall into the 'we can do no wrong' camp than mine.

Maybe, maybe not. I've been living in college towns for the past few years and I'm surrounded by the "I don't eat chicken because I'm not a murderer like you, the U.S.-Israeli government (singular, not plural) masterminded 9/11 so it could take over the world, America is nothing but a bunch of dumbasses, the communists had it right, unlike the rest of America I see reality and am not blinded by the man" crowd.

[FRPLG]

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

[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.