Putin Threatens US Missile Bases In Europe

Melugo writes to let us know that Russian president Vladimir Putin has warned that US plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe would force Moscow to target its weapons against Europe. This reader notes: "It feels like the Cold War all over again." "'If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe,' Putin said... 'It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles.'"

Comments

I have a better idea

[ILuvRamen]

Why doesn't he threaten to blow terrorists up with WMDs? You know, just to mix it up a little for once. I think that'd be much more interesting cuz Europe's probably just gonna be like "Russia sucks" and go back to suing Microsoft some more.

Re:I have a better idea

[The Clockwork Troll]

I'm afraid it's more serious.

Monday morning editions of western European regional newspapers are verifying reports of construction of Russian SRBM silos in the southwest of France, where fashion sits: Putin armed Biarritz.

Re:I have a better idea

[BakaHoushi]

I know you're just a troll, but, it's kinda hard to hit "terr'ists" with WMDs. Considering they're not a country... or a city... or in any way organized enough to really have some sort of location that can be targeted.

Honestly, I don't get it. Both why Putin would make an ass out of himself like this, and why we need missile defense systems in Europe. But then again, I'm not a fan of the military of any country. I fail to see its utility, when the money involved could be put to better uses.

Still, sounds like more politicians trying to flex their muscles.

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering they're not a country... or a city... or in any way organized enough to really have some sort of location that can be targeted.

Sure, they can be hit with a small sized nuke. Haven't you heard of Bekaa Valley in Lebanon? That's Hezbollah country right there [http://www.cfr.org/publication/9516/ and an assortment of other terrorist camps.

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I don't get it. Both why Putin would make an ass out of himself like this, and why we need missile defense systems in Europe. But then again, I'm not a fan of the military of any country. I fail to see its utility, when the money involved could be put to better uses.

Still, sounds like more politicians trying to flex their muscles.

Ok, time for my weekly conspiracy theory:
Why did the Cuba crisis start? According to a recent Documentary on the Discovery Channel (Not the best of sources I know but this time it told the story from the Russian POV as well) it went something like this:

1. A fellow named Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev who also happens to be the premier of the Soviet Union takes a vacation on the Black Sea.
2. He gets a visit from a general who points out to him US missile bases on the Turkish side a strategic stone's throw from where they are standing.
3. Khrushchev decides that if the USA can plant missiles in the USSR's back yard surely the USSR can plant missiles in the USA's back yard?
4. Vastly underestimating depth of US anti communist hysteria Krushev orders missies to be deployed to Cuba.
5. The US finds out.
6. Outrage sweeps in Washington, nobody seems to register the degree to which similar US actions might have contributed to this.
7. Surprise at the US reaction sweeps Moscow, nobody had seriously thought about what reaction nuclear missiles in Cuba might cause in Washington. After all the USA had planted nuclear missiles in Turkey within sight of the Soviet premier's summer house hadn't it?
8. The US president John F Kennedy is overwhelmed both by Soviet actions and pressure by hawks in the US to respond with maximum force. To his credit he orders reconnaissance flights to be made by US forces in order to establish the facts on the ground before pressing any red buttons. At first these flights are relatively non threatening U-2 missions but eventually high speed low level over-flights are ordered at altitudes of some 300m in order to obtain detailed imagery. These over-flights along with a few other incidents caused by overzealous people on both sides including one involving aggressive US Navy behavior towards a missile armed Soviet sub in the region convinced many Soviet and Cuban participators in the crisis that the US was trying really, really hard to deliberately provoke a war. In reality of course it seems that people in the US were simply trying really, really hard to figure out what was going on in Cuba and not taking into consideration what over-flights by reconnaissance aircraft, aircraft who incidentally were almost indistinguishable from the fighter and bomber variants of the same aircraft type, made at high subsonic and even super sonic speeds would look like to the Cuban/Soviet military.
9. Nuclear war (almost) ensues but is averted by a frighteningly small number of cool heads on both sides of the curtain, sometimes by communicating through unofficial channels.

I don't think Putin & Co and Bush and his people. are trying to provoke a war any more than JFK and Khrushchev were. They simply are so entrenched in their respective preconceptions that GWB for example can't accurately assess what effect it will have to plant a missile defense system in Russia's back yard and that Russia has no effective answer to. I don't doubt that the Americans honestly intend this system mainly to defend against missile attacks from rogue states such as N-Korea and Iran, they would be insane if they really intended it to upset the MAD balance with Russia. But Putin & Co, who also seem to be unable to accurately assess US intentions for various reasons, see this as the first step in an attempt to create a situation where the US can nuke them but they can't respond so they have reacted in their own way which is to re-heat the cold war with new missiles. If the US and Russia continue to provoke each other the only thing it will achieve is to m

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I don't get it. Both why Putin would make an ass out of himself like this, and why we need missile defense systems in Europe. He is not making an ass out of himself. Invasions of Russia have traditionally come from the west. Who and where are the new US missiles pointed at?

In my opinion, the US has made an ass out of itself by declaring a War on Terrorism that cannot be won (and is guaranteed to make things worse), and apparently I am no longer in the minority, according to recent polls.

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

These are defensive weapons. They are not pointed at - but intended to bring down missiles pointed to Europe and the US.

Re:I have a better idea

[JoeInnes]

I completely agree... and I have to be honest, I support Putin. If it really is a missile defence system, then okay, fair enough, but no guarantee the US can give will be enough to convince me that they're not moving in nukes secretly. I also don't much fancy the idea of the US using Eastern Europe as any kind of launch base. Imagine if they were ever to fire those "defensive" missiles. How many red-phone calls would be needed to calm down the neighbouring countries? In order for the missiles to be launched effectively, then they would need to be launched pretty nearly immediately, and if I were Putin, I'd shit myself if I were called in the middle of the night by a security advisor telling me the US had just initiated a countdown in a facility within immediate striking distance from Moscow. Even if Bush rang up and assured me that it was a defensive launch against an Iranian missile, I'd move to a state of immediate readiness. Then, how do you think Bush would react getting a phone call saying "Sir, the entire Russian nuclear arsenal just switched to full readiness"? Before you know it, both countries would be battle-ready, and neither would be prepared to back down until the other did. I'm not a military strategist, but even so, I'm fairly confident of my assessment of the situation. Putin's doing all his posturing now to save himself a few sleepless nights later on. I genuinely think the US should back down on this one.

Re:I have a better idea

[toQDuj]

and are perfectly capable of being offensive weapons.

Besides that, what good is the threat of mutually assured destruction if one side can block the other's? The balance of power is then skewed, and anyone with too much power, even the venerable Americans, abuses their position.

B.

Re:I have a better idea

[BakaHoushi]

I most certainly agree. Terrorism is an idea and a strategy, and you can't declare a war on it anymore than you can declare war on flanking. But I thought this long before the war in Iraq began (and still no one can tell me what, exactly, Iraq has to do with said "war.")

But to me, the idea that we would invade Russia is absolutely absurd. Maybe I'm naive? But, why would we ever want to? It feels even beyond the barely-there justification of Iraq.

Re:I have a better idea

[phayes]

A military is needed to protect the civilian populations from situations like that occurring presently in northern Lebanon. The civilian population in the camp is suffering because no military was present to prevent an armed organization installing itself in it's midst. In an ideal world, no such forces would be present but as we do not live in an ideal world, we will always need armed forces to protect the sheep from the wolves.

Re:I have a better idea

[Columcille]

You're forgetting something. If they can detect the launch of US defensive missiles then they would also be able to detect whether or not any additional missiles are in the air. Defensive missiles don't fire until an enemy missile is already in the air and en route. If Russia or China, etc etc, detected the launch of US missiles they should rather quickly know what is going on by noticing whether or not any enemy missiles are also in the air.

Re:I have a better idea

[rbanffy]

I don't think they can be used as offensive weapons, but the mere fact that they could render (I seriously doubt that) offensive weapons useless is enough to create a dangerous unbalance on the MAD principle. If Russians have to throw 30 nukes to hit 10 targets and Americans throw, say, 12 to hit 10 targets, then, while not being offensive weapons, they are offensive enough. Keep it also in mind that, just like any proto-dictator, Putin needs an enemy for their country to hate and the US with its utterly terrible foreign policy seems to be perfect for it.

One good way to deal with it is to cooperate on the technology with the Russians, so they can build the defensive systems themselves.

Re:I have a better idea

[jollyreaper]

Monday morning editions of western European regional newspapers are verifying reports of construction of Russian SRBM silos in the southwest of France, where fashion sits: Putin armed Biarritz. Great, now I'm going to spend the rest of the day imagining Putin and Gene Wilder dancing in tophats. Jerk.

Re:I have a better idea

[jollyreaper]

I don't think Putin & Co and Bush and his people. are trying to provoke a war any more than JFK and Khrushchev were. They simply are so entrenched in their respective preconceptions that GWB for example can't accurately assess what effect it will have to plant a missile defense system in Russia's back yard and that Russia has no effective answer to. In that case, Putin has nothing to worry about. The system doesn't work. He can go back to his soviet russia jokes as normal.

Re:I have a better idea

[toQDuj]

Well, missiles are missiles. The purpose of missles is to go up, come down and explode. These are probably too light to carry a decent nuclear weapon with them (I honestly do not know the weight of a Hydrogen fusion bomb, let's leave those out of the equation for a while), but can still be used as strategic medium-range missiles, taking out some small targets.

Whether they work or not is in this case not important. They merely have to pretend to work to throw the balance of power off. Uncertainty in the "assured" destruction ridicules the idea. Not to mention that the missiles can be upgraded at any time, without the risk of a new escalation. The scale of the missiles doesn't matter in this case, just that they are missiles. In exchange, Russia should be allowed to place missiles anywhere they want, but just imagine the political impact that would have :).

I seriously doubt the motives of the Americans behind these missiles as well. They benefit not from protecting Europe, they have shown in various ways (think environmental protection treaties here) not to care much for the rest of the world. The Americans must have a direct benefit from the placement of those missiles there. I just cannot see what it is yet, and probably we will not until it is too late do do anything about them.

B.

Re:I have a better idea

[JoeInnes]

True... even so, I'd be loathe to dismiss any missile launch that close to me. A defense system in the UK for example, shouldn't bother the Russians, because it's far enough away that they'll have been tracking the missile already in the air, and have a reasonable idea where it's heading, and there's time to discuss it with the Americans without the immediate threat to national security that would be presented by an outpost practically on Russia's borders.

Re:I have a better idea

[big dumb dog]

...Bay of Pigs?

Hopefully we this incident isn't anywhere near the level of that situation.

Re:I have a better idea

[nschubach]

Yeah, but you hit that area with a small nuke and there's bound to be a cat, dog, small child, or a playground in the area that will be hurt as well. The media would have a field day with how horrible the military is. Even if it did take out hundreds or thousands of militant radicals and only one kid (who will likely be raised in the same way.)

Re:I have a better idea

[Ngarrang]

"...would force Moscow to target its weapons against Europe."

I am still trying to figure out how this is a Bad Thing (tm). Russia needs to take the European Bloc more seriously.

Re:I have a better idea

[Daravon]

That's the beauty of controlling the country's media. Instead of "Nuclear Bomb Aimed at Terrorists Kill xx Civilians" it's "Thousands of Terrorists Dead!" with some note about some minor casualties.

Re:I have a better idea

[bberens]

Yeah, I can see it now. "Don't worry, all the missiles in this giant missile silo are for... ummm... defense, yeah defense, that's it."

Re:I have a better idea

[ravenshrike]

Um, because if we wanted to we could just place a few boomers in the barents, kara, and baltic seas and just nuke them that way. Be one hell of a lot cheaper.

Re:I have a better idea

[catbutt]

I'm not a fan of the military of any country. I fail to see its utility, when the money involved could be put to better uses.

I think there was once a country that took that attitude. But you've probably never heard of it because it existed for like, what, 10 minutes?

Nice fantasy, though.

Re:I have a better idea

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Well, missiles are missiles.

Good luck trying to shoot down a plane with an AGM-65.

The purpose of missles is to go up, come down and explode.

No it isn't. Surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles are generally intended to explode while they're still up there.

Re:I have a better idea

[Spookticus]

Maybe you will see the military as important when you are being shot in the face because some dictator in la la dictator land decides to invade your country. It is apart of human history that we fight. Yes I do agree that being able to spend the money supporting something else would be beneficial. But we still live in the dark times of human stupidity and having no military would be a death wish. Not everyone's emotions have caught up with their intelligence. This could take some time to accomplish

Re:I have a better idea

[skrolle2]

You mean like Costa Rica?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world -factbook/geos/cs.html

(Ok, they're not completely without a military, but getting pretty close to it)

Re:I have a better idea

[doktorjayd]

you seem to have glossed over the 'population in the camp' part.

would you care to elaborate?

or is it to be accepted now that millions of displaced are permanent refugees?

i think in this case, the sheep and the wolves are one, fed up and frustrated by decades of neglect.

this was the inevitable outcome of the imposition of the modern state of israel on the middle east. commentators of the time knew it, but still it went ahead, and still there is conflict as a result.

the people in these camps are the displaced persons from the territories given to the modern state of israel ( by whom, and from whom is something i'll leave to the reader to discover), plus of course the refugees created when israel expanded during several wars in the ensuing years.

a military to protect these people?

please, it was the military of modern israel ( backed of course by USA) that lead to these people being in the permanent displaced state they are in, and it is the various state military that will keep them there for generations to come.

Re:I have a better idea

[Mister Whirly]

"it's kinda hard to hit "terr'ists" with WMDs"

Well it's no harder than declaring an unwinnable war on an intangilbe object...

Why don't they just cut to the chase and declare the great "War on Evil"??

Re:I have a better idea

[catbutt]

True but they are protected by the Inter American Mutual Assistance Treaty. Someone is covering their asses. If someone tried to invade them or otherwise push them around, someone else would step in, and they know it.

There isn't a country on the planet that isn't defended by some military force, implicitly or explicitly.

Re:I have a better idea

[Marcus Green]

By that logic the existence of any military anywhere means that someone/everyone is being "protected" by the military.

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a bad idea, there's a fair chance that the radiactive fallout will land on Israel, after all. Surely it's worth sacrificing a few Hezbollah fighters to kill a shitload of Israelis? Hezbollah would certainly think so.

The real beauty of it is that the Lebanese will die in an instant, but the Israelis will die in great pain after decades of suffering.

Re:I have a better idea

[Deliveranc3]

My favorite part about this is what if there is a specific site they want to attack now, instead of being able to send in a surgical strike they have to launch all their missiles because its an act of chance how many get through.

Instead of we're really pissed lets nuke a city it becomes we're really pissed but if we launch one and they intercept it they won't be scared anymore and they'll attack so we better send 300 nukes just to make sure we remind them how much this nuclear war thing sucks.

Re:I have a better idea

[l4m3z0r]

I think there was once a country that took that attitude. But you've probably never heard of it because it existed for like, what, 10 minutes?

Actually, that country was called the United States of America, from 1783 to 1791 we had no standing army, but the federalists made short work of what was a beautiful experiment. The idea that amatuer state militias could defend a country effectively without the need for a standing army. In fact until the 20th century american wars were predominantly fought by volunteer state militias.

Re:I have a better idea

[catbutt]

That's not my logic. For a place to be protected (or "defended", if that is a better word), there has to be the assumption that said military would attempt to prevent by force another entity from invading or occupying the region.

I guess your point is that in some cases "protection" could be more accurately labeled "occupation", and while that's true, my point remains. A place that is not defended will soon be invaded, settled, absorbed or occupied by someone who is going to defend it.

Re:I have a better idea

[catbutt]

1783 to 1791

Well, that falls under my broad definition of "about 10 minutes".

The US had just won a war (with a lot of help from France, who did have a standing army), so there was certainly an implicit threat to anyone who decided to set up camp here against the wishes of the new government, or against the wishes of France for that matter.

Regardless, back then volunteer militias could be pretty effective. These days they can't. Do you seriously think that if we had nothing but volunteer militias, that we wouldn't be subject to German or Japanese or whoever ruling us now?

People have, from the dawn of time, liked to expand their influence into other lands, whether or not it is against the wishes of the inhabitants of those lands. Not advocating it, just saying it is still a reality, and any place today that wants its independence from (militarily backed) others must have a military themselves. The reason why is pretty obvious if you study a bit of Darwin.

Re:I have a better idea

[MrMarket]

Okay, I'll take a crack at it:

1) EADS wants some contract money, and the EU wants to dole out gov't contract money to new member states; this missile defense system fits the bill.

2) Putin longs for the days when Russia was relevant, and he finally has some oil money to play with now that he's bought back some oligarch assets

3) Putin uses the missile defense system as an excuse to frame global politics in the only way he knows how: cold war missile defense grandstanding, and points his missiles at Europe to stroke his cold war ego.

It's all rather pathetic -- almost like a movie script modeled after the "let's get the gang back together again," theme like the original Ocean's Eleven or the Sting

Re:I have a better idea

[l4m3z0r]

Regardless, back then volunteer militias could be pretty effective. These days they can't. Do you seriously think that if we had nothing but volunteer militias, that we wouldn't be subject to German or Japanese or whoever ruling us now?

I think a volunteer militia in a free society is far more effective than a standing army. Especially if the people have access to military small arms. Japan rejected a west coast invasion of the US during WW2 as too dangerous because they believed that the American citizenry was too well armed. What it comes down to is that people who are defending their homes and who are patriotic about their government will destroy a large standing army through attrition. The French military didn't defeat the Germans, but the french resistance did(with allied help of course).

Do you honestly believe that the German military could control all of America and europe for an extended period of time. Not possible. The populations of those countries would not have allowed it and resistance movements organized by volunteers would have eventually driven them out.

For another example of how smaller volunteer forces are more effective than large standing armies, look at how Finland was able to neutralize the threat of the soviet union during WW2. They were eventually compelled to surrender but the spirited fight they put up during the winter war is extremely eye opening and calls the conventional wisdom that large standing armies are the only means of defense into question.

And I would also like to ask: why can't they be effective today?

The insurgents of Iraq are pretty effective, and they are all volunteers.

Re:I have a better idea

[Hognoxious]

he finally has some oil money to play with now that he's bought back some oligarch assets

An interesting (and somewhat creative) definition of "bought back". Must be one of those odd linguistic quirks that what Germany did to Austria in 1936 is referred to as the "Anchluss" and not the "Zurückkaufung"...

Re:I have a better idea

[OrangeTide]

Anti-missile system is what is truly needed for Europe, so that long range missiles can be intercepted in Turkey or Greece instead of hitting Austria or Germany or Italy.

But it is not completely unreasonable to want nukes that can hit Iran given their current stance on nuclear weapons. Or would you rather France became a target next time they mistreat Muslims and Iran decides to retaliate? (not that they can hit France with their current missile technology, give it 10 years and they might)

Russia is nearly irrelevant, and Putin does these things to draw attention to himself politically. Partly it's an ego thing, but mostly it is a political maneuver. It is well known that American leaders create some terrible "enemy" to drum up support for their election and leadership, does it surprise you that Putin would use the same tactics?

It will be used as leverage for trade and export regulations between Russia and the EU. Russia might be able to get higher prices on natural gas and oil from Europe, and break some of the regulation-based monopolies that exist in the EU. Even the US views the EU has a trade threat (or to put it in a nicer term: a rival), and a far smaller percentage of the US's trade is through the EU compared to Russia. Russia's economy is highly dependent on trade with the EU, and europe has has highly regulated markets, so nations that trade with them are on the whim of the regulators.

the EU has been better in a way because it standardized the regulations between many European nations, but that also puts everyone on a level playing field with Germany and France. so it was not so good for them, at least in the short term.

Re:I have a better idea

[Krojack]

You also forgot that Russia fell apart in the late 1980's and early 90's. If Russia HAD put nukes in Cuba who do you think would be in control of the nukes now? The high and mighty Fidel Castro that all the libs and Hollywood scum (Michael Moore's) seem to worship.

Re:I have a better idea

[Dun Malg]

True... even so, I'd be loathe to dismiss any missile launch that close to me. Seriously, you people are arguing a moot point. The nature of defensive missile systems is such that there is no chance whatsoever that a launch would be confused with a nuke. Anti ballistic missile systems are all about being FAST. As such they are small, lightweight, and usually don't even have (nor have they the capacity to carry) a warhead. Their launch physics are totally unlike those of an SRBM or ICBM.

Re:I have a better idea

[defile]

Khrushchev decides that if the USA can plant missiles in the USSR's back yard surely the USSR can plant missiles in the USA's back yard?

Their tactical mistake was accepting this.

Our tactical success was in opposing reciprocation.

It may be moot anyway.

Wasn't it ultimately revealed that Cuba had the capacity to launch attacks on the USSR anyway?

Re:I have a better idea

[catbutt]

Do you honestly believe that the German military could control all of America and europe for an extended period of time. Not possible. The populations of those countries would not have allowed it and resistance movements organized by volunteers would have eventually driven them out.

And once they had, they'd probably keep a proper military around to prevent it happening again. Because militias aren't particularly effective against mechanized armies.

But I'm not convinced that they would be driven out quickly at all, if ever. Most likely they would just become "the government" after a while.

Remember, most countries that exist today used to be lots of separate independent states. Those that didn't defend their independence got abosrbed into a bigger entitity.

The insurgents of Iraq are pretty effective, and they are all volunteers.

Effective at.....what exactly? Raining misery on others? And that's somehow a good thing? Thanks, but having something comparable to Iraqi insurgents pretecting my interests doesn't sound like something I want.

Re:I have a better idea

[BakaHoushi]

Okay, I don't call myself liberal, but where in the nine hells did you get the idea that Fidel Castro is liked by ANY chunk of America? Where on Earth did you come up with that factoid? Everyone I know, on all sides of the spectrum, are waiting for him to kick the bucket. So, how can you make such a bold claim?

Re:I have a better idea

[BakaHoushi]

You, and many others, seem to misunderstand what I said. The "it" in my post refers to this "missile defense system," not the army.

I do not LIKE armies, but I do understand their necessity in this day and age.

Of course, this leads to problems when the dictator trying to shoot you is the one who CONTROLS the army, and got to power by other means (not trying to say that's happening now, but just a theoretical situation).

But I'd also like to point out, I'm in America. Who in their right mind would invade us? I'm not saying because we're better than them, or we're unbeatable or some other patriotic garbage, but from a military standpoint, how do you quickly conquer a country an ocean away from most other first world nations and so incredibly wide that you would not be stopped quickly? Even if it did happen, see the scale of America. The odds of my area in particular of being invaded is particularly low.

Again, this is not a cry of "get rid of the armies," I'm just saying I'm not particularly worried about being killed by a foreign invasion.

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You never try to kill Fidel Castro for 70 years, since 1937.

In 1937, United States of America was a weird society in comparison with today.

United States of America is still a cobard country that can not kill Cuba as Irak because there are Russians in Cuba with their vacancies.

Re:I have a better idea

[Penguinisto]

I know you're just a troll, but, it's kinda hard to hit "terr'ists" with WMDs.

You could, but it would bring down a whole lot of bad mojo when you did... Take for example Islamic Fanaticism. A couple of megatons in the Makah-Madinah area, and you'd wipe out a HUGE chunk of the symbology right there - or wipe out Madinah and threaten Makah... and see how fast the faithful will turn against the extremists amongst them to save what's left. (Before anyone screams - this is actually a tactic straight out of the 13th Century, with every flaw and problem that arises from it, so I wouldn't really recommend actually doing it).

But then, you'd have about a billion very pissed-off Muslims wanting a good hard piece of your arse carved and served on a platter, too...

As for the latter half of your comment, I kind of agree - the EU's GDP is big enough for them to defend themselves. The US has no further business (at this time) with having any serious military presence there. Let Brussels build their own army and save us taxpayers over here some dough.

/P

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless, back then volunteer militias could be pretty effective. These days they can't.

Has anybody told that to the US commanders in Iraq?

"Volunteer militias" may not be able to preserve your government in the face of a foreign invasion, but they can certainly make the invaders wish they'd never heard of the place, and (eventually) retire with their metaphorical tail between their legs.

If you really want a defensive military, the important thing is to make it clear to any potential invader that the costs would far outweigh the benefits. To do that, the simplest way would be (a) to abolish the navy and air force entirely, and (b) train the army exclusively and intensively in terrorism, infiltration and guerrilla tactics.

Re:I have a better idea

[rbanffy]

You know... There is a very good reason for the acronym to be MAD. I don't think the people involved in coining it would have any difficulty to find a completely innocent combination of letters.

Re:I have a better idea

[catbutt]

(b) train the army exclusively and intensively in terrorism, infiltration and guerrilla tactics. And hope that whoever is trying to take you over is unwilling to drop a few nukes, or to just wipe out all civilians with nerve gas or such. Or blatantly and publically torture anyone and everyone till they get the names and locations of the terrorists. The US is at a disadvantage in Iraq because they play by the rules a hell of a lot more than do the bad guys.

And no, I am not supporting US policy there at all. I wish we'd keep to ourself and not go invading other countries. I just think the idea that our country could exist without a military is absurd. It would simply be taken over by someone either within or from elsewhere that had the force to back them up.

In any case, are you advocating this? This would be your preference to live in a world where the "peace" was kept by terrorism?

Re:I have a better idea

[kaatochacha]

I've talked to groups of people who wax philosophic about the joy of Castro, the fantastic medical services there, and how the US just hates him cuz he's such a swell fellow. So, yes, there are people in the US who'd like nothing better than to collect his castoff cigars and plate them in bronze.

Re:I have a better idea

[BakaHoushi]

I'm praying these people you met were at an insane asylum/idiots convention/*insert another place for crazy people* because a dictator is a dictator. Or maybe they're just a few examples of the EXTREME left.

Re:I have a better idea

[phayes]

This isn't the forum to go into the causes of the presence of the camps which I purposely glossed over to avoid going OT.

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You bloodthirsty fucking murderer. Before you make such suggestions again, why don't you try to envision yourself walking up to said kid and slicing his neck with a knife? Same end result, only you won't be so comfortably distant.

Re:I have a better idea

[l4m3z0r]

Effective at.....what exactly? Raining misery on others?

Isn't it obvious? Our massive standing army is being driven out through attrition. The insurgents don't have to win organized large scale battles in order to make US citizens at home demand that we leave the country. You also need to look at what others they are raining misery on, Iraqi's might not agree with you that the insurgents are terrorists raining misery on people

And that's somehow a good thing? Thanks, but having something comparable to Iraqi insurgents pretecting my interests doesn't sound like something I want.

Now your just being stupid. You CAN look at the methods of an enemy force and say "wow thats effective" without supporting the cause. And why should'nt we learn from how they are fighting against us? To say that the lesson is worthless because they are "evil" is just foolish and pig headed.

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'd also like to point out, I'm in America. Who in their right mind would invade us?
We say we come in peace and offer trinkets^h^h^h furniture you have to assemble yourself for trade. Before you know it you'll be eating meatballs with lingonberries at dinner. //the swedes

In soviet Russia

[future assassin]

First post nukes you.

Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[adnonsense]

As the post is crying out for it:

In Soviet Russia, strategic weapons target you!

(The best contribution wins a 10 year all-inclusive activity holiday to Siberia.)

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[thedarknite]

In Soviet Russia, you threaten strategic weapons

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[fm6]

Slashdot so needs this mod: -100: Old and lame!

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[tiny69]

In Soviet Russia, missle defense system's target you!

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[ajanp]

In Soviet Russia, strategic weapons target you! well...umm... maybe it's just too late for me to see how this makes sense as a Soviet Russia joke.... but strategic weapons DO target you (that's the point!).

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[jibjibjib]

In Soviet Russia, apostrophes misplace you!

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[weighn]

In Soviet Russia ... Moscow forces US plans

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[ajanp]

Let's take a look at how this thread is destined to play out:

1. Legitimate one-liners:
In Soviet Russia, missile builds YOU!

2. Later on, off-topic one-liners that we still love/hate for whatever reason.
In Soviet Russia, iPHONE releases YOU!

3. Then we are almost guarenteed to see some /. zingers.
In Soviet Russia, threads mod YOU!

And by this time we can hopefully expect to read through a couple +5 Funny threads, laugh (and die) a little on the inside, and then move on to other posts/articles.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[EvilSporkMan]

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, the Cold War feels like you!

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[NoMaster]

It would certainly make the front page quicker to load...

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Tribbin]

I Soviet Russia, Siberia includes you!

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[grimdawg]

In Soviet Russia, bad joke repeats slashdotters ad nauseum!

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Hal_Porter]

I dunno, I hope to read some posts explaining how Russia is totally justified in threatening to attack Poland and the Czech Republic for hosting American missiles which are designed to shoot down Iranian ICBMs.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[dintech]

That's pretty naive of you. Iran is decades off from the kind of technology you're talking about. The weapons are being placed in those countries because the cold war has had a bit of resurgence lately. Aside from that, I'd be pretty sure that Moscow is already targeting most of Europe anyway.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

(The best contribution wins a 10 year all-inclusive activity holiday to Siberia.)

The best contributor wins a 25 year all-inclusive activity holiday... and life time surveillance service.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[janrinok]

The Russian argument is that, although the US might claim that the defences are intended solely for use against Iranian missiles, they could have a role against Russia's own missiles which would destabilise the existing balance of power. The radar system is also capable of observing activity inside Russian airspace. Of course, the US will claim that they wouldn't use it like that, but there are many threads on /. which point out that, if a system can be abused, then at some point it will. US actions around the globe can appear to some to be expansionist and bullying. Now a lot of this is Russian rhetoric - i.e. 'they would say that, wouldn't they?' but with the US recently withdrawing from at least one treaty with Russia, with its current propensity of using force to resolve issues that could, and should, be resolved diplomatically and with Western forces having established a significant presence on many of Russia's borders, you should at least try to consider the situation from their point of view. No, I don't think that they are correct, but I can understand how they might feel.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Andrei D]

I always though it's crying:
All your base are belong to us

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of nuked Europeans who run Linux.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Hal_Porter]

Iran is decades off from the kind of technology you're talking about

It's hard to tell really. Most people reckon that they will have it in a decade or so. And possibly some other rogue state will develop it and sell it to them.

Sooner or later I suspect Iran, North Korea and a few other places will have a small number of 50's style ICBMs. Post Iraq, invading them is out of the question and the UN won't do anything to stop them. So it makes sense to try to make sure that the technology (missiles) and politics (basing) is ready to shoot them down.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, mod parents you.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[TapeCutter]

What on earth makes you think the neo-cons have suddenly started telling the truth?

Have you not noticed that the US are building "shields" in the Pacific and have them planned for the eastern edge of the the EU?

Miss the fact that an invasion of Iraq puts a large chunk of the US military slap in the middle of the chess board...err...middle east?

Ooooo and then there are little details like Pakistan, a few decades back they were a stone age soviet ally, now they're a nuclear armed US ally on the door-step of the Caspian sea. NATO stomping around Afghanistan looking to kill the people who the CIA trained and supplied to kick the soviets out (OBL/Taliban).

OTOH: Ten anti-missle misslies (by themselves) are certainly not a realistic defense against Russia (not even enogh to stop Isreal) but I'm sure they will be very effective at stopping Iranian WMD's that only the neo-cons can find.

Speaking of Iran reminds me of another "supreme council", do you think that maybe the veto holders in the UNSC are stll fighting each other in proxy wars just as they have done since the end of WWII? Has the underlying "competition" for ever dwindling resources somehow been solved or have the peices just moved around on the "chess board"?

Meditate and discuss: The real moral behind the story of Adam and Eve is: Don't let anyone spoonfeed you apple-pie.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[ThJ]

I have a pet peeve with people who misspell Isreal... oh wait.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[ThJ]

On a more serious note, "Israel" rhymes with "Raphael," not "is real."

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[codefool]

The best contributor wins a 25 year all-inclusive activity holiday... and life time surveillance service.

Nah - you get that as part of the Comrade Standard Package(tm)!

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Putin, Putin, Putin! The War is over! Can't we - can't we just be friends?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Hognoxious]

In Soviet Russia, Latin noun incorrectly declines you!!!!

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[toQDuj]

...whilst we plant a few more missles here and there? I mean, really, it's not against you! It never was! blink blink puppy dog bush eyes.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[AaronLawrence]

Expansionist Russia vs expansionist USA... which do we believe, or disbelieve? Is USA really the "good guys" as they would claim?

After WWII Russia clearly was expansionist - Stalin used the oppportunity to seize lots of countries. But that was 60 years ago under a pyschopath. Then again, the initial assumption of the Bolsheviks was that they WOULD need to force worldwide revolution. But the hard core of Bolsheviks rapidly dissappeared too.

USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense, but we can see they do like to make their influence felt strongly. In particular they want to trade on their terms and they want to be able to land their military in your country if they feel the need. And lately, there seems to be a much stronger push to force "little USAs" even if people don't actually want them. An assumption of moral superiority.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[HalifaxRage]

In Soviet Union, discussion board is for intelligent posters only!

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Columcille]

That's pretty naive of you. Iran is decades off from the kind of technology you're talking about.

The numbers I hear put it a bit closer than "decades off"... But either way, you suggest we should wait until after they have the ability to wipe us out, then respond?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[macdaddy]

Lets look at this from yet another angle. There's a lot of oil in Siberia, isn't there? And Siberia is in Russia, isn't it? And Bush and friends love their oil, don't they? Now, is it much of a stretch to think that March 20, 2003">war to acquire oil? Na, it could never happen, again.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

he weapons are being placed in those countries because the cold war has had a bit of resurgence lately

You realize that a Russian ICBM aimed at the United States wouldn't be within range of any interceptors in Eastern Europe anyway, right? It would likely come in over the pole. That's why we put all of our early warning systems in the Canadian wilderness back in the day.

Aside from that, I'd be pretty sure that Moscow is already targeting most of Europe anyway

Officially nobody is targeting anybody. In reality you can target a modern ICBM with a few keystrokes once the orders come down. But who cares anyway? This is just sabre-rattling. And given the choice between stateless terrorists flying their airplanes into our buildings and the classical game of brinkmanship between nation states I'll take the Cold War any day.

It's about time for a new Rocky movie, isn't it? ;)

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

There's a lot of oil in Siberia, isn't there? And Siberia is in Russia, isn't it? And Bush and friends love their oil, don't they? Now, is it much of a stretch to think that March 20, 2003">war to acquire oil? Na, it could never happen, again.

You can't be serious. Bush and friends are going to go to war with a power that has thousands of nuclear weapons that can reach the United States over oil?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Hal_Porter]

After WWII Russia clearly was expansionist - Stalin used the oppportunity to seize lots of countries. But that was 60 years ago under a pyschopath. Then again, the initial assumption of the Bolsheviks was that they WOULD need to force worldwide revolution. But the hard core of Bolsheviks rapidly dissappeared too.

So wait is Stalin bad (expansionist, psychopathic dictator) or good (the hard code of Bolsheviks rapidly disappeared) ?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[wellingj]

So what you are saying is Ron Paul for President?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

The Russian argument is that, although the US might claim that the defences are intended solely for use against Iranian missiles, they could have a role against Russia's own missiles which would destabilise the existing balance of power.

That's a more logical argument to make against placing defenses in Alaska or the Canadian North. Interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe won't be very effective against missiles launched over the pole and aimed at North America.

you should at least try to consider the situation from their point of view

That's fair. But they should consider the situation from our point of view. For better or worse Americans remember the Iranian hostage crisis. The first thought of many Americans when they think of Islam is of people willing to strap on explosives and kill themselves if they can take a few Westerners out with them. Combine all of that with the memory of 9/11 and the fact that the leader of Iran has called for the destruction of Israel (a nation that for better or worse is typically highly regarded in the United States) and denies the Holocaust and you can start to understand how Americans feel about the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

I'm not saying that any of those feelings are justified or legitimate. I for one realize that Iran had no connection to 9/11 and that most Iranians are moderate and decent people. I for one realize that we've given the Iranian people lots of justifiable reasons for hating our guts at worst and for being wary of us at best. But that still doesn't change the fact that on some level they scare the hell out of me. Given that fact I will support any defensive efforts my Government makes to negate any Iranian missile threat aimed at the United States. And while I do not like a lot of things about Israel I would want to see us defend them against Iranian aggression.

Hopefully it won't come to any of that. Bush will be gone soon -- hopefully to be replaced by somebody more reasonable and versed in the language of diplomacy and a foreign policy based more on realism then on ideology. With any luck maybe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be gone soon too.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

America can fuck off out of Europe.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[jollyreaper]

Officially nobody is targeting anybody. In reality you can target a modern ICBM with a few keystrokes once the orders come down. But who cares anyway? This is just sabre-rattling. And given the choice between stateless terrorists flying their airplanes into our buildings and the classical game of brinkmanship between nation states I'll take the Cold War any day. And I'll take The War Against Terror (TWAT). While the individual instances of terrorism are far more likely than a nuclear exchange, the body counts are a lot smaller. I'll take a 100-to-1 chance of partly cloudy with a chance of suicide airplanes hitting buildings than a 1000-to-1 chance someone presses the button.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

And I'll take The War Against Terror (TWAT)

Hahahahaha, I've never seen it called "Twat" before. You just made my day :)

I'll take a 100-to-1 chance of partly cloudy with a chance of suicide airplanes hitting buildings than a 1000-to-1 chance someone presses the button.

That's logical. Still, the Cold War was easier to understand. I'll take peace on Earth over both of them but we all know that's a pipe dream and not likely to happen in our lifetimes. *sigh*

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't even have the capacity to reach Israel, they improved some of their missiles so that they can cross the Hormuz straight, and that is it. That alone will keep them safe.

It is laughable to use Iranians as an argument. Iran cannot compete offensively with NATO countries, why would they provoke them?

To my knowledge, Iran has never attacked a neighbor since it's revolution, the Iraq-Iran war was in self defense. Ever since, they've developed means of self defense, not offense.

If you look at arms budgets you'll notice that Iran (which has one of the largest armies) invests much less money in their military in comparison with smaller armies, they save money by investing mostly in personal - not tanks or planes. That makes a blitzkrieg impossible.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

"But that still doesn't change the fact that on some level they scare the hell out of me. Given that fact I will support any defensive efforts my Government makes to negate any Iranian missile threat aimed at the United States"

Then you're an idiot.

Point One: Who defines defensive? Missile Shield == missiles. Russian missiles == missiles. Defensive defines how they are used, not what they are.

Point Two: You, and the rest of the US are terrified of the Iranian boogeyman. Well, fear makes wise men act foolishly, and your country is proving the truth of this phrase every day.

Point Three: Those of us in Europe, caught between two monolithic, stupid, agressive, violent and unreasonable powers are beginning to wonder why we need either of you. Perhaps you should be more worried about the EU turning round and atomic-bitchslapping you both - because that is, overwhelmingly, what the population seems to want right now, regardless of whther that's a good strategic choice.

Fuck You, Fuck the US, Fuck Russia, and get the fuck out of our countries you arrogant pricks.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense,

Sure, just ask people from South America. I don't see much difference between a USA-backed puppet leader and a USSR-backed puppet leader.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Point One: Who defines defensive? Missile Shield == missiles. Russian missiles == missiles. Defensive defines how they are used, not what they are.

An interceptor missile that can only be used to shoot down an ICBM or a RV (reentry vehicle) is a defensive weapon by nature. Do you really think that a kinetic kill vehicle can wipe out a city?

Point Two: You, and the rest of the US are terrified of the Iranian boogeyman

So is Europe, apparently, because they have largely supported our efforts in this area. Indeed, they were leading the effort against the Iranian nuclear program for quite awhile. Russia (and China to a lesser extent) are the ones throwing up roadblocks.

Those of us in Europe, caught between two monolithic, stupid, agressive, violent and unreasonable powers are beginning to wonder why we need either of you.

Those of you in Europe wonder why you need the United States and/or Russia? Maybe because those of you in Europe couldn't stop Hitler yourselves? Blame the French and the British. If they could have handled him then maybe the US and Russia would never have been involved in Europe.

Perhaps you should be more worried about the EU turning round and atomic-bitchslapping you both - because that is, overwhelmingly, what the population seems to want right now, regardless of whther that's a good strategic choice.

The EU doesn't have the means to "atomic-bitchslap" the United States or Russia. The EU could hurt either country very badly but would be utterly wiped out in return. And that seems like an awful lot of posturing to be making when the EU can't even agree on internal trade quotas or policies. And a lot of Europeans I've met seem to think that the EU is nothing more then a means for Paris and Berlin to dominate Europe and they are less then happy to be a part of it.

Fuck You, Fuck the US, Fuck Russia, and get the fuck out of our countries you arrogant pricks.

Kind of ironic since you are posting on an American website. I bet you are even using American software on your computer. Oh, and your apartment is probably heated with natural gas from Russia ;) But, by all means, let's isolate the EU from the US and Russia. I bet you'd fall upon yourselves within a matter of decades.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Wookietim]

I thought that the cold war was over....

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Perl-Pusher]

Personally, I could care less about Europe. They are ungrateful little bastards and need to be left to their own. That means gone with the social programs to pay for defense. Without the protection afforded by the US, they would be conquered faster than the French can surrender. Whether it becomes an Islamic super state or a Russian gulag, I could care less. I'm tired on your incessant whining. Like a spoiled child Europe needs to be bitch slapped back into reality.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[vertinox]

USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense

I know some native Americans who would disagree with you.

Not only that, but in the 1890's America adopted a hostile stance towards Spain and expanded it territories in Guam, Cuba, and the Philippines.

But on Stalin's scale... Well no... But the US has been historically expansionist since its early days.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[d_i_r_t_y]

>>>
I will support any defensive efforts my Government makes to negate any Iranian missile threat aimed at the United States.

Wanting to install american bases and/or missile defence systems more than 10000km away from any US state or territory is not defence, it's aggression.

Just look at how the US responded in the Cuban missile crisis. It's typical American double standards all over again.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

To point out the obvious we never subjected or really did anything to exploit those countries. (The deal with the native Americans is just a big old mess)
It was more or less we kicked Spain out then helped them to develop, and with the expectation of some violence in the Philippines it mostly turned out rather well for the countries in question (for what we could do anyway, Cuba for example f-cked itself over). Where as what happened to every country that Russia touched the exact opposite can be said.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Khisanth Magus]

I must say that this post is the biggest piece of pro-"America Rules!" trash I have seen in a long time. I love how you keep saying "Most Americans" as if you knew what most Americans thought. I'm an American. I'm not very PROUD of that fact recently, but it is there. The only reason I was remotely worried about the Iranian "hostage" situation was because I feared our wonderful "kill em all and let God sort em out" government would use it as an excuse to turn an already 2 front war(Afghanistan and Iraq) into a 3 front war. As they said in one of my favorite book series: "Only an idiot fights a war on 2 fronts. Only a complete madman fights a war on 3." I don't view Islam as a bunch of suicide bombers any more than I view Christianity as a bunch of witch burners. There are unreasonable fanatics in every religion. Then there is good old Israel...Palestine shoots a few missiles at Israel, killing less than 10 people. What does Israel do? They make bombing runs into Palestine, killing almost 100 people. They have committed as many acts of terrorism as Palestine in their private little war down there. I personally don't see any reason why we even support Israel, other than the conspiracy theorists' idea that they have way too much say in what our government does. Oh, and the Swiss also "deny" that the holocaust happened. Are we going to be pointing missiles at them next?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[diskis]

"Maybe because those of you in Europe couldn't stop Hitler yourselves?"

That is why we hate you. Cut that crap already. Sure, you fought against Hitler, but was it decisive? I don't know, and you neither.

"The EU doesn't have the means to "atomic-bitchslap" the United States or Russia."

Please read about the Second World War. About how Soviet attacked Finland, and the 10-to-1 kill ratio. That was the reason that the United States intervened, as someone else showed that the Red Army was not so good as it appeared. If you do not understand the scale of that accomplishment, pretend that Florida is a country you need to invade, and you fail at it.

Now consider Germany who got subdued when Russia, USA, England and France ganged up on them. What about when France, Germany and England gangs up on somebody else?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[hobo sapiens]

"USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense"
Manifest destiny was all about expansionism. Worse still, giving it a title like "Manifest Destiny" gave it a religious justification.

Anyway, the US as a young nation grabbed up land much like the young USSR did, and using roughly the same tactics (Siberia, Indian reservations, same thing really). But in the late 19th century the US moved from being expansionist to imperialist (as you said, "they do like to make their influence felt strongly").

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[burnin1965]

Just look at how the US responded in the Cuban missile crisis. It's typical American double standards all over again.

Far from it, its likely you already know this but just in case, the Cuban missile crisis arose because the installations in Cuba were not a defensive system, they were R-12 Dvina medium range missiles carrying mega-ton class nuclear warheads. The proximity of the installations presented a first strike capability with little to no warning for US civil defense plans and the objective of such a system is not defense but to kill as many U.S. civilians as possible if and when they decided to use the system.

Comparing the installation of an anti-missile defense system to a first strike attack installation is hardly grounds for a double standard arguement. If anyone should be concerned it is the Europeans as the fallout from any overhead anti-missile strike is likely to be above them.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

American-made puppets use brightly-coloured felt and high-grade styrene filler where as Soviet puppets are knit from drab-grey wool and stuffed with sawdust.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[mcwop]

In America you are shielded by missiles.

In Soviet Russia missiles shield you.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Score Whore]

I don't view Islam as a bunch of suicide bombers any more than I view Christianity as a bunch of witch burners.

Yeah, because there's no difference between two hundred years ago and two days ago.

Not that all Muslims agree with suicide bombing, but it's pretty fucking stupid to compare hundred year old witch burnings with contemporary suicide bombing.

Palestine shoots a few missiles at Israel, killing less than 10 people. What does Israel do? They make bombing runs into Palestine, killing almost 100 people.

Did you really just say that? Like killing 10 people doesn't matter? If it was any other country in the world being attacked, they'd have already plowed and paved Palestine.

Prior to 1967 Palestine had zero sovereignity. The region was under the control of Egypt and Jordan. When those two stupid gits attacked Isreal, Isreal kicked their asses and took over the area now known as Palestine. Over the last few yeas Isreal has forcibly removed their own citizens from the area and given the Palestineans the most self determination that they've ever had. And in response, the people of Palestine allow thugs and criminals to hide among them. They elect those same criminals to run their country. Yeah, Isreal is over reacting.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[N3WBI3]

"but was it decisive? I don't know, and you neither."

You're joking right? Ill hand it to the Brits for holding out but they could not get a boot onto the continant soil without the help of the US. Hitler being stupid enough to engage Russia did not hurt either. If the US and/or Russia did not become involved the *best* outcome for Europe is England suing for piece, and Vici France pretending to be a real nation.

" Now consider Germany who got subdued when Russia, USA, England and France ganged up on them. What about when France, Germany and England gangs up on somebody else?"

History is always fun to look at but its quite unlikely that Europe in a militarily offensive conflict could take the US or Russia, let alone both.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[oatworm]

That is why we hate you. Cut that crap already. Sure, you fought against Hitler, but was it decisive? I don't know, and you neither.
Was it decisive? Yeah, actually, it was. Is the Nazi party in control of Germany? No. Are the Fascists in charge of Italy? No. Is the military in control of Japan? No. Looks like we're three for three.

Please read about the Second World War. About how Soviet attacked Finland, and the 10-to-1 kill ratio. That was the reason that the United States intervened, as someone else showed that the Red Army was not so good as it appeared. If you do not understand the scale of that accomplishment, pretend that Florida is a country you need to invade, and you fail at it.
Actually, the US was quite anti-Soviet during the Soviet-Finnish invasion, in part because of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which divided Eastern Europe between Hitler and Stalin. The country which royally got screwed in all of this was Finland because they dared to fight our "allies" after Hitler double-crossed Stalin and supported Finnish resistance against the Soviet military. By the way, how did France and Britain do against the Soviets during that war? Oh, that's right - they did nothing. Outstanding. In fact, if memory serves, France ended up collapsing faster than they did against the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian War and the British led the greatest amphibious evacuation of an area in Dunkirk - being in the record books for the biggest retreat is not something to be proud of, y'know.

Now consider Germany who got subdued when Russia, USA, England and France ganged up on them. What about when France, Germany and England gangs up on somebody else?
Oh, you mean like in Bosnia and Kosovo, where the Europeans let a nice little genocide proceed before the US finally decided it was time to show up? Or how about Rwanda, where the French openly supported the bad guys? Of the three countries you just listed, England is the only one to actually win a war within recent memory, and that was against Argentina. Also, France did distressingly little in World War II, at least in any organized sense. They certainly didn't do any more than the Polish or any of the other Nazi-occupied countries did against their occupiers. Read up on the Polish resistance some time - they contributed more troops than every country in the war, save for the Soviets, Americans, and the British.

Look, don't get me wrong - I'm not a flag-waving pro-USA kind of guy here, but you guys need to get honest with yourselves here. Your population is declining, you have a bunch of Muslim immigrants that you don't know what to do with, and a welfare state that you guys love to hate but can't bring yourselves to kill off before it completely chokes your economies. Fix your own problems, then talk to us about ours. We'll be busy talking about our own problems here since, well, shoot, we're Americans - we don't care about your problems or the problems of anyone else in the world unless they become our problems, right?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[macdaddy]

Bush and friends started a war in the middle of a bunch of hothead countries that simply live for a reason to fight. Bush and friends started a war in a country that hates us for not finishing the job the last time we were there. Bush and friends started a war in those conditions over oil. What makes you think that they wouldn't do the same thing to Russia? You think they won't attack Russia because they have nukes? That's a pretty naive assessment of our current administration's willingness to piss off other countries.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anspen]

The proximity of the installations presented a first strike capability with little to no warning for US civil defense plans and the objective of such a system is not defense but to kill as many U.S. civilians as possible if and when they decided to use the system.

You mean just like the American missiles placed in Turkey at the time? In a classical MAD nuclear standoff all weapons systems are both offensive and defensive. If country A can stop missiles from hitting its territory (defensive) it can attack without relation (which makes it part of an offensive system). And vice versa.

The reason the Russians are so unhappy about the proposed missile system in Eastern Europe (gee, anyone else get a flashback from sentences like that?) has less to do with the actual missiles (which after all still couldn't hit the side of a barn if it had a GPS tracker inside) but with radar, which could see very far into Russian territory.

It's hardly an unfair assessment that it is a threatening move by the US from their viewpoint. I highly doubt the US would quietly accept a similar system being installed by the Russians in Cuba to protect them from the nefarious Jamaicans.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Ernesto Alvarez]

Given that fact I will support any defensive efforts my Government makes to negate any Iranian missile threat aimed at the United States. And while I do not like a lot of things about Israel I would want to see us defend them against Iranian aggression.

In nuclear war, things are not as they seem to be. Those defensive missiles could be considered offensive weapons.

Suppose you deploy a missile defense system that can be used against Russia/Iran/Whoever. Although it seems a defensive action, it can be considered offensive, because after the system is installed, the USA can attack that country without fear of being nuked in response.

That's exactly the reason everyone starts getting itchy when someone mentions SDI or ABM. The nuclear deterrent is only effective if launching means suicide. If that was not the case, then the country with a "missile shield" would be better off launching a first strike.

Knowing that, you now know why Russia is angry. Either they think the system can be used against them, or they think it can be used against Iran, and Russia does not want the USA to invade Iran.

The only reason the USA could justify an ABM system pointed at Iran would be the Iranian leaders being insane (as in willing to launch a first strike). Keep in mind that North Korea is still sane under this assumption (talk as much as you like but don't launch). As the Iranian leaders seem to be, too.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[MrSteveSD]

USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense

I'm not so sure about that. Russia controlled Eastern European states via Puppet governments. The US (and the UK) has done a very similar thing. For example, removing the democratically elected leader of Iran and replacing him with the Shah. Then there is US control over Cuba via various leaders which came to an end with Castro. There can be no doubt that the US has tried to control governments in Central and South America and this has lead to violent backlashes, e.g. the Sandinistas in Nacaragua.

Perhaps one difference is that US control tends to have more of an economic drive to it. For example, when the government of Guatemala was considering policies that the United Fruit Company didn't like, they went to the US government for help. This culminated in a huge propaganda campaign and an eventual coup against the Guatemalan government. Yes, a government was overthrown by a US company worried about its bananas. It's not always about oil, but it's usually about greed in some way.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

In Korea, only old people are old and lame.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[GreyPoopon]

So wait is Stalin bad (expansionist, psychopathic dictator) or good (the hard code of Bolsheviks rapidly disappeared) ?

Doesn't evil ultimately destroy itself? ;)

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[odyaws]

The only reason I was remotely worried about the Iranian "hostage" situation was because I feared our wonderful "kill em all and let God sort em out" government would use it as an excuse to turn an already 2 front war(Afghanistan and Iraq) into a 3 front war. I'm pretty sure this is the hostage crisis GP was talking about. In 1979 Iranian militants seized the American embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostange for 444 days (with the approval of the new theocratic government).

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Captain Splendid]

You forgot that Bush, and much of the people he's got surrounding him are all fundamentalist Christians who are basically hoping like crazy that the apocalypse will happen on their watch, so World War 3 isn't exactly "off-limits" to their way of thinking.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[jafiwam]

Wanting to install american bases and/or missile defence systems more than 10000km away from any US state or territory is not defence, it's aggression.

Ok, that's just simply retarded. If the Russians do something dumb to Germany or someone else, we have to respond by law with war. Massive war, probably. The missile system can prevent that.

Please use the internet (that thing you used to post) to look up "NATO" and get back to us folks who have a clue with further questions.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Those defensive missiles could be considered offensive weapons.

I understand that. But the fact of the matter is that they are in a useless location in terms of defending against any Russian ICBMs launched at the United States. The fact of the matter is that Russia can easily overwhelm any defense system we can put up with current technology. Barring a new arms race this isn't likely to change any time soon.

The only reason the USA could justify an ABM system pointed at Iran would be the Iranian leaders being insane

The leader of one country calling for another country to be "wiped off the map" doesn't give you pause?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[The One and Only]

After WWII Russia clearly was expansionist - Stalin used the oppportunity to seize lots of countries.

Before, during, and after. Before, Stalin took Finland and the Baltic states. During, Stalin took half of Poland. After, Stalin took all of Poland, half of Germany, and almost every other eastern European country.

USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense

Other than seizing 37 out of 50 states in westward expansion, you're totally correct.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[mmalove]

Yea, and the US declared victory in Iraq in what, 2003?

The government starts and stops wars all the time. It does nothing to change to diplomatic issues on the ground, it's just a go ahead to test the newest weapons on each other.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

If country A can stop missiles from hitting its territory (defensive) it can attack without relation (which makes it part of an offensive system)

Let me know when we can stop Russian missiles from hitting the United States.

but with radar, which could see very far into Russian territory

Then maybe instead of posturing and trying to re-capture the Cold War they should get on board with the international efforts to stop the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons instead of stonewalling them.

I've never advocated the go-it-alone-damn-the-rest-of-the-world foreign policy of Bush, but you can start to understand American frustrations when we engage the rest of the world to try and find a diplomatic solution only to have Russia take an opposing stance because it's in their vested interest to keep the United States off-balance.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Aris Katsaris]

Expansionist Russia vs expansionist USA... which do we believe, or disbelieve?

False question. USA isn't being expansionist against Russia. Russia isn't being expansionist against America. The field in confrontation is Eastern Europe, where the real situation is as goes:

* Russia expansionist *against* Poland, Czech Republic and her various other former protectorates in Eastern Europe.
* United States in *support* of Poland, Czech Republic and the various other new democracies of Eastern Europe.

Does that make the situation to understand on a moral level?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

That is why we hate you. Cut that crap already. Sure, you fought against Hitler, but was it decisive? I don't know, and you neither.

Your kidding, right? I didn't claim that the United States alone defeated him. I was merely pointing out that without American and Russian involvement Europe would be a Nazi state today. Do you really think that the UK alone could have defeated Germany?

Please read about the Second World War. About how Soviet attacked Finland, and the 10-to-1 kill ratio. That was the reason that the United States intervened, as someone else showed that the Red Army was not so good as it appeared. If you do not understand the scale of that accomplishment, pretend that Florida is a country you need to invade, and you fail at it.

How the hell is the Winter War relevant to this? Part of my family background is Finnish. I'm tremendously proud of what they managed to accomplish in WW2. It's the only country that managed to avoid being consumed by either side of the war and came out of it with their sovereignty intact. But WTF is your point here? That the little guy can win? Are you really comparing the Finnish efforts to defend their homeland to the GPs obnoxious post about the EU "bitch-slapping" Russia and the United States? Because if you actually think that the EU could wage a war of aggression against Russia or the United States (never mind both at the same time) I want some of what you are smoking.

What about when France, Germany and England gangs up on somebody else?

You really think that England would jump on board with a EU scheme to dominate the World? You can't even convince them that the Euro is in their best interest. And culturally speaking they have far more in common with the United States, Canada and Australia then they ever will with Europe.

Germany? What happens when Germany tries to take over the World?

France? Your kidding, right?

Even if you could get an alliance of all three of those powers and the rest of Europe for good measure, they still lose against the United States or Russia. But it's all a moot point because it will never happen. This whole argument is stupid. I was only responding to the GP's arrogant statement about the EU "bitch-slapping" the United States and/or Russia.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[General Wesc]

Those of you in Europe wonder why you need the United States and/or Russia? Maybe because those of you in Europe couldn't stop Hitler yourselves?

Umm...yeah, sixty-odd years ago. I think the political climate has changed a wee bit since then. Germany is not going to invade France and England (plus the UK and France have nukes now). Iran's a problem, but one completely different from Hitler. Whether the old Europe could handle Hitler is irrelevant. Try again.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Your math does not work out. I assume that you are only counting the original 13 states, but the land in the Louisiana Purchase was bought (not taken by force), as was the land for Alaska. As for the rest of the states, you are correct. Of course, native americans might see the whole of the western(-style) countries in the western hemisphere as European expansionism.

-a

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[The One and Only]

(The deal with the native Americans is just a big old mess)

That's a funny way to put committing genocide, engaging in forced relocations, and stealing their land.

It was more or less we kicked Spain out then helped them to develop, and with the expectation of some violence in the Philippines it mostly turned out rather well for the countries in question

The Phillippines were brutally occupied for decades and their people hated us for it for half a century. We only redeemed ourselves by liberating them from the Japanese and making them an independent country.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[WilliamSChips]

In the time it took you to launch those missiles, David Banh just got a PhD in nuclear physics.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

You forgot that Bush, and much of the people he's got surrounding him are all fundamentalist Christians who are basically hoping like crazy that the apocalypse will happen on their watch

If you actually think that then you are dumber then most people around here. Bush and Co. use religion as a tool to convince the unwashed masses of Christians to vote for them. Talk to an actual fundamentalist about Bush. They are as disappointed in him as anybody else is (though for different reasons) and basically feel like they were used.

Bush and the people surrounding him are idiots that think that America should dominate the World for cultural and business reasons. Every decision they've made has been based around big business interests. If you actually think that religion is driving them then you are drinking the kool-aid.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Whether the old Europe could handle Hitler is irrelevant

Ok. Let's go for modern problems. How how effectively Europe was able to address the issues in the Balkans and stop the ethic cleansing without American help.

Oooops, that's right, you needed our help to clean up that problem in your own backyard too.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[The One and Only]

I'm sure all of you would have been perfectly content to rebuild your continent without American aid too, eh?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[norman619]

Spoken like a true European with thier head stuck in the sand reading revisionist history. Fact is teh EU couldn't much against either the US or Russia if either or both decided to invade. The EU lacks teh military power to pose a real threat to either nation. You sound like Hugo Chavez and his crazy selfdelusional rantings about being able to stand up against a world power. Accept the world as it is and deal with your own issues at home. Oh yeah if the EU can take care of itself don't ask for our help next time some crisis breaks out. For a long time the US has sent it's troops to help when asked. Even at with protests of it's own people. We have been the police force of the world for a long time. I'd like to see how different the world would be if we kept our troops at home and let the world fend for itself.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Vo1t]

Yeah right and he's using the American Internet to post on Slashdot
His computer is not American, it probably comes from China (or at least most of its parts)
American Software - well it depends, I'm not sure if 100% components of his software were written by American citizens.
His gas or oil could come from Kazachstan, not necessarily from Russia

My point is that the world today is much more interconnected than it was 50 years ago. Every once in a while an asshole wakes up and claims that everyone owes him and that he's the best. Well, good luck with that. It might be a good idea in short-term, but if you look further - Russia is spending its income without investments in high-tech. That means they will be eaten alive by the Chinese in lets say 50 years.
Both USA and Russia are arrogant, each of them in their own way. But USA is in debt with China, and Russia need to import food and high tech.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[lymond01]

Expansionist Russia vs expansionist USA... which do we believe, or disbelieve? Is USA really the "good guys" as they would claim?

If you look at things in a different light, you might see the world as eventually coming together. No longer separate nations, but one global economy, one currency, one government. But long before then, there will be struggles for power in the economic area, political area, military, human rights, resources, etc.

The US has the upper hand in many areas but they need to keep that upper hand, and they aren't going to be able to do it by becoming Fortress America. Military bases in the Middle East (moreso, the fear incited by our attacks there), expansion of global industry and commerce (outsourcing, international companies, etc), making sure we don't "follow" (see Kyoto, etc) and that we're always seen as a leader.

It's difficult to see a road where the US and its beliefs/policies that we're used to are premier in the world without us throwing our weight around. Call us expansionist, imperialist, whatever...we're trying to stay on top.

I suppose the big question is: Do we want the US and its beliefs/policies to be on top? Many of them, I'd say yes to...but power corrupts and we may end up being genocidal to accomplish our goals and that's not something I believe in.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[norman619]

Spoken like a true European with thier head stuck in the sand reading revisionist history. Fact is teh EU couldn't much against either the US or Russia if either or both decided to invade. The EU lacks teh military power to pose a real threat to either nation. You sound like Hugo Chavez and his crazy selfdelusional rantings about being able to stand up against a world power. Accept the world as it is and deal with your own issues at home. Oh yeah if the EU can take care of itself don't ask for our help next time some crisis breaks out. For a long time the US has sent it's troops to help when asked. Even at with protests of it's own people. We have been the police force of the world for a long time. I'd like to see how different the world would be if we kept our troops at home and let the world fend for itself.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[SvetBeard]

Make sure you know about Ron Paul's links to white supremicist organizations before you go endorsing the man: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.h tml

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Hal_Porter]

Doesn't evil ultimately destroy itself? ;)

That's a myth spread by Hollywood movies. For most of the world's history, the majority of people lived under a government much more evil than the current American one, in societies where science and art had all but ground to a halt and the vast majority of people were not in the slightest bit free. And up to the end of WWII or maybe even the Cold War it was quite likely that all of the world's population would end up living under one, forever.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

must say that this post is the biggest piece of pro-"America Rules!" trash I have seen in a long time.

Really? Somebody explained the legitimate concerns that the Russians have. I explained the concerns that many Americans have. How is that "America rules!"? If I wanted to pull an "America Rules!" I could have started making arrogant statements about our military power or some such. I didn't do that.

I'm an American. I'm not very PROUD of that fact recently, but it is there

I'm very proud to be an American. I'm not very proud of what my country has been doing lately. There's a difference.

The only reason I was remotely worried about the Iranian "hostage" situation was because I feared our wonderful "kill em all and let God sort em out" government would use it as an excuse to turn an already 2 front war(Afghanistan and Iraq) into a 3 front war.

You realize I was talking about the 1979 crisis, right?

Palestine shoots a few missiles at Israel, killing less than 10 people. What does Israel do? They make bombing runs into Palestine, killing almost 100 people.

What should Israel do? Do you have a better suggestion?

They have committed as many acts of terrorism as Palestine in their private little war down there.

War sucks. I'm pretty sure I even said that I don't condone or support everything that Israel does. In fact I think that we let them push us around too much sometimes (with the pro-Israel lobby in the United States Congress). Despite that, I would want the United States to come to their aid in the event that madman in Tehran went after them and tried to make good on his threats about "wiping them off the map".

I personally don't see any reason why we even support Israel

Why do we support Europe then? Why do we support Australia, Japan or New Zealand? What are you advocating? Isolationism? Who should we support? The western-style country and democracy that we have a shared culture and trading relationship with? Or the Muslim countries that hate our guts and that we don't generally need for anything other then oil?

Oh, and the Swiss also "deny" that the holocaust happened. Are we going to be pointing missiles at them next?

We aren't pointing missiles at anybody. This is a defensive system.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[dharbee]

"Sure, you fought against Hitler, but was it decisive? I don't know"

Then you're an exceedingly poor student of history.

"About how Soviet attacked Finland, and the 10-to-1 kill ratio."

I have. What's your point, that an army that is equipped and trained to fight on their home turf can beat a larger, less well equipped, less well trained army? You are aware that happened several times long before WW2, aren't you?

"Now consider Germany who got subdued when Russia, USA, and England ganged up on them."

Fixed that for you.

And lastly, are you aware of how ignorant your post makes you appear? I sincerely hope for your sake you're just trolling because if you genuinely believe what you wrote, your teachers owe you an apology.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

My point is that the world today is much more interconnected than it was 50 years ago

That was my point as well in responding to his arrogance.

Russia is spending its income without investments in high-tech

Ditto for large parts of OPEC as well. Where are they going to be when we aren't using fossil fuel for energy?

That means they will be eaten alive by the Chinese in lets say 50 years

Maybe, maybe not. Russia has historically had many of the problems that they have today. Despite that, history teaches us that they are a force to be respected and I rather suspect that they will continue to be a major player in world history. And historically speaking invasions of Russia don't usually work out real well for the invaders.

But USA is in debt with China

And that worries me, but China depends on us just as much as we depend on them. They will be a major player. So will the United States. So will Russia. So will Europe. The only point I wanted to make with my original post was to slap-down the arrogance of the person who assumed that Europe could "bitch-slap" the US and Russia.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[dharbee]

"His computer is not American, it probably comes from China (or at least most of its parts)
American Software - well it depends, I'm not sure if 100% components of his software were written by American citizens."

I'm sorry but no, this line of reasoning completely fails regardless of how many times you try it.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[MillionthMonkey]

And given the choice between stateless terrorists flying their airplanes into our buildings and the classical game of brinkmanship between nation states

And two more choices: neither, and both which is where I'd put my money with this crew.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[operagost]

I'll take a 100-to-1 chance of partly cloudy with a chance of suicide airplanes hitting buildings than a 1000-to-1 chance someone presses the button.

Your entire argument is invalidated by the totally bogus probabilities you pulled out of your butt.

And I'll take The War Against Terror (TWAT)

Thanks for the fun acronym, but everyone else calls it the War on Terror (WOT???!!!).

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[operagost]

The Phillippines were brutally occupied for decades

Define "brutally". That word is thrown around in a rather cavalier manner of late.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[dm0527]

Excellent and thoughtful response to an attempted lashing by someone afraid and angry that just doesn't get it. My particular frustration with his post is the statement "I'm an American. I'm not very PROUD of that fact recently, but it is there" you responded to beautifully. "I'm very proud to be an American. I'm not very proud of what my country has been doing lately. There's a difference."

I especially appreciate your restraint - I would have felt much more like lashing out a bit.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the point building an anti-Iranian ICBM facility in Poland or Czech Republic? The Iranian neither a) want to attack Europe nor b) have the suitable weaponry.

Is the USA going to install an anti-Martian IPBM facility in Argentina next?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Vo1t]

I'm not from US so I don't mind your ignorance, it doesn't give you any advantage. Can't argue with what you said, but because it's not an argument, not because I agree with you.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Kelbear]

Parent, your comments are the natural interpretation that Russia hopes for, and it was how I initially received the news as well.

However upon consideration, when a country upsets the balance of power by deploying heavier defensive systems, the appropriate response is NOT to increase offensive capability in their direction.

The appropriate response is to increase /defensive capability/ in turn.

So why have they chosen the obviously antagonistic response? It's because they have already been beefing up their offensive ability confidentially and this is just a good opportunity to come out with an excuse. I would guess that the U.S is beefing up their offensive ability as well.

This announcement is pretty much just PR and no substance.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[RealGrouchy]

Is USA really the "good guys" as they would claim?

They're phrasing the question to imply that there is "a good guy", as opposed to both sides being "good", or neither.

Once you've gotten people to assume that one side must be good and one must be bad, all you have to do is point out bad things that your opponent is doing, and the sheeple will follow.

- RG>

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Kelbear]

"In nuclear war, things are not as they seem to be. Those defensive missiles could be considered offensive weapons.

Suppose you deploy a missile defense system that can be used against Russia/Iran/Whoever. Although it seems a defensive action, it can be considered offensive, because after the system is installed, the USA can attack that country without fear of being nuked in response."

The appropriate retaliation is to improve their own defensive capability. A Cold War in defensive capabilities results in nobody getting missiles through to anyone else, peace by ineffectiveness. A Cold War in offensive capability results in either peace by intimidation, or peace by MAD.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Elektroschock]

There may be another aspect: they are not deployed in the nations where traditionally American rocket are but in new NATO member states which russia regards as its sphere of influence. and of course the missile defense it targeted at russia.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[SrJsignal]

That's a more logical argument to make against placing defenses in Alaska or the Canadian North. Interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe won't be very effective against missiles launched over the pole and aimed at North America. Ummm no, see you have to shoot down an ICBM before re-entry stage, once it's coming back through the atmosphere it's much too difficult of a problem to shoot it down effectively, or be able to count on when the multiple warheads will separate, given that they've already received all of the kinetic energy they need to reach their target.

I for one realize that Iran had no connection to 9/11 and that most Iranians are moderate and decent people. I for one realize that we've given the Iranian people lots of justifiable reasons for hating our guts at worst and for being wary of us at best. Oh really, you have proof that they had no connection?... about as much as we have that there was. Also, what have we done to the Iranians? Last I checked, nothing, except kidnap some soldiers.... oh wait, that was them taking British soldiers... Also, saying most of them are decent is about like a blanket "most Muslims are decent people" reference this: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May22/0,4670,Poll MuslimAmericans,00.html Sure I suppose if only 51% said bombing wasn't ok, you could say most of them are decent, but that's still a hell of a lot that aren't.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Grishnakh]

Purchasing isn't the same thing as seizing. This is the same mistake people make when questioning the existence of Israel. If people willingly sell you their land, there's nothing wrong with buying it. If your leaders sell your land against your wishes, well, you better take that up with your leaders, not the buyers.

Most of the land in those 37 states you're talking about was purchased. Texas, IIRC, was a separate country which fought for independence from Mexico, and then decided to join the USA. The other western states (AZ, CA, NM, etc.) were seized from Mexico because Mexico chose to go to war with the US, and lost. Spoils of war. There's land in France that was seized from Germany at the end of WWII; are you going to say they should give that back too?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[raddan]

An interceptor missile that can only be used to shoot down an ICBM or a RV (reentry vehicle) is a defensive weapon by nature. Do you really think that a kinetic kill vehicle can wipe out a city?

As my uncle (a Lt. Col. and chopper pilot in the Army) pointed out to my father (an idealistic physics Ph.D. working on missle guidance systems at the time), the terms "defensive" and "offensive" are dubious distinctions. Anything that gives one side a tactical advantage can be considered offensive. Consider smokescreens-- a classic "defensive" technology. Only when he used it, in Vietnam, it was used to provide cover for troops on the offensive. Isn't it, then, an "offensive" weapon? He pointed out to my father that a missle defense system (which was what my father was working on) most certainly changes the power balance, which one side could exploit. Up until this point, my father considered working on defensive systems to be unquestionably moral, since it prevented deaths. But in reality, the scenario is far more complex-- it may actually enable one side to kill far more people than if they not had it.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Grishnakh]

Those of you in Europe wonder why you need the United States and/or Russia? Maybe because those of you in Europe couldn't stop Hitler yourselves? Blame the French and the British. If they could have handled him then maybe the US and Russia would never have been involved in Europe.

Don't blame the French or the British for Hitler (well, France's military strategists might bear some blame, but aside from that...).

Blame the Germans, Austrians, and Italians for bringing these fascist leaders to power and helping them to wreak havoc upon the world.

As an American, I bear some blame for Bush and his incompetent governance (though I didn't vote for him), but his actions in no way compare to Hitler's.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Mattizzle1]

The American retaliation on the resistance was 'brutal'. Destroying whole villages of women and children for every American soldier killed. One of the generals called it 'a nigger killing business'. If that isn't brutal, what is?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[I Like Pudding]

104 people would just mod him right back up. I call this "The Digg Effect".

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[VJ42]

I'm very proud to be an American.

Why? I'm a Brit, I see no reason to be proud of the fact that I happen to have been born on a small rock of the west coast of Europe. Why anyone would be proud of the place they were born by fluke of nature is beyond me.

Don't get me wrong I'm proud of many things my country has done in it's thousand year history, but am I proud to be British by virtue of birth? No. That's as stupid as hereditary privilege (we still have a lot of that here, but we've got rid of the worst of it thank goodness); I assume you don't think someone should be leader head of government just because they were born into the right family at the right time.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Malc]

And Britain 200 years ago wasn't expansionist. It was just protecting its trade and wealth generation. The parallels with the US today are great in number. Although back then the British government ran up a debt of 30x their annual income trying to achieve naval supremacy over all others to protect its trade.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Achromatic1978]

Hahaha. Oh man, that's priceless. "WE MUST FIGHT. BY LAW. WE MUST GO TO WAR, MASSIVE WAR. BECAUSE OF A TREATY." Right. Like all the other treaties the US has signed and openly flouts and ignores, you mean? Why is this one any different?

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[alcmaeon]

"And while I do not like a lot of things about Israel I would want to see us defend them against Iranian aggression."

Why?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Why? I'm a Brit, I see no reason to be proud of the fact that I happen to have been born on a small rock of the west coast of Europe. Why anyone would be proud of the place they were born by fluke of nature is beyond me.

Who said I was born in the United States? I said I was proud to be an American. Not that I was proud to be born here.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Why?

Because they are a democracy? Because they are a valuable trading partner? Because it would be in our interest to do so? Because if we didn't and they had their backs to the wall they'd wind up using nukes?

Those are just the practical reasons.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[UncleFluffy]

If people willingly sell you their land, there's nothing wrong with buying it.

True, if they have legitimate title to said land. If they don't, and you know it, then there is something wrong with buying it.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Don't blame the French or the British for Hitler

I wasn't blaming them directly. I was explaining to the GP why Russia and the United States wound up so heavily involved in European affairs. If France and the UK had been able to handle him then he would never have invaded Russia or declared war on the United States. Hence, it's possible that neither country would have the involvement in European affairs that they have today.

well, France's military strategists might bear some blame, but aside from that...

Some? They forfeited every single advantage they had, allowed a supposed allied country (Poland) to go under without even trying to fight and sat behind their wall waiting to be attacked. If the French had shown the courage of the Polish, the Finns, the Serbs or the Greeks it's probable that Hitler would have stopped in 1940. No Eastern Front, no Holocaust, no Iron Curtain, no American intervention, etc, etc, etc. The French deserve the ever lasting lasting scorn of all free people for their despicable performance during the Battle of France and for sitting on their asses during the Phoney War.

Blame the Germans, Austrians, and Italians for bringing these fascist leaders to power and helping them to wreak havoc upon the world.

The French and the British deserve some of the blame for creating the conditions in Germany that allowed Hitler to come to power in the first place. One wonders what would have happened if the French and British had adopted the 14 points and had Wilson's attitude towards the defeated powers instead of imposing the harsh Treaty of Versailles that destroyed Germany's economy and laid the stage for the bitterness that allowed Hilter to come to power.

As an American, I bear some blame for Bush and his incompetent governance (though I didn't vote for him), but his actions in no way compare to Hitler's.

Did I say they did???

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[VJ42]

You didn't answer the question, why are you proud to be an American? What makes you proud of the random piece of land and associated documents you happen to live on. You are where you are now as a fluke; change any one of a million things in your history and you wouldn't be American. You'd be British or Swiss or Greek or Italian, and you'd probably be telling me how proud you are to be British or Swiss or Greek or Italian, and that would be equally nonsensical. As I tried to say before, by all means, be proud of things your country has done, even become proud of your country, but to be proud of your nationality is absurd.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

you clear have no idea what you're talking about, Pakistan has always aligned itself with the US, it was India tried to flirt with the soviets.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> The Russian argument is that, although the US might claim that the defences are intended solely
> for use against Iranian missiles, they could have a role against Russia's own missiles which
> would destabilise the existing balance of power.

What balance of power?

They're a freedom-based democracy, right?

There is no "balance of power" between the US and France, or England, or India, or Germany, or Japan, or Italy, or Israel, or etc., or etc., or etc...

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

As I tried to say before, by all means, be proud of things your country has done, even become proud of your country, but to be proud of your nationality is absurd.

*shrug*, I guess I don't see the difference between being proud of who you are if that pride is based on your accomplishments (or the accomplishments of your people/nation in this case).

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense

Yes, expanding freedom, however badly being flubbed at the moment, is akin to expanding totalitarian dictatorship.

Seems like you have three choices: US Style, Soviet Style, or Islamic Style. Pick one. WHOA!!! EVERYBODY STOP RUNNIN' IN MY DIRECTION!

Hyperbole is nice -- you didn't actually expect us to LIVE anywhere else than US Style, did you?

I await downmodding by people upset at the US who would never go to Russia or an Islamic country to live in any case.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Occasional abberant behavior was recognized and dealt with. Compare that to the North's official policies, as well as the subsequent 30 years.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If you think Russia is "the good guys", go ahead and live there.

I'll wait.

G'wan. Go.

"Wait! I didn't actually [i]mean to follow my rhetoric![/i]" >:( Gosh! Golly >:(

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[rafael_es_son]

"For better or worse Americans remember the Iranian hostage crisis. The first thought of many Americans when they think of Islam is of people willing to strap on explosives and kill themselves if they can take a few Westerners out with them." You confuse "Westerner" with "United Statian". When are you guys getting a real name for your country anyway. I'm zuper zerial.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Ummm no, see you have to shoot down an ICBM before re-entry stage, once it's coming back through the atmosphere it's much too difficult of a problem to shoot it down effectively, or be able to count on when the multiple warheads will separate, given that they've already received all of the kinetic energy they need to reach their target.

Granted, but how does that change my point that the purposed site for the missiles in Eastern Europe will be useless at shooting down Russian ICBMs aimed at North America?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[The One and Only]

Expansionism only refers to expanding your territory. It's not necessarily aggressive--you can claim uninhabited lands as new territory as well, which is also expansionist.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[The One and Only]

As I explained in a cousin comment, expansionism does not necessarily infer aggression. You can expand by purchasing land as well.

Texas, IIRC, was a separate country which fought for independence from Mexico, and then decided to join the USA. The other western states (AZ, CA, NM, etc.) were seized from Mexico because Mexico chose to go to war with the US, and lost. Spoils of war.

Texas "fought for independence from Mexico" after it was settled by Americans, and "then decided to join the USA". Either way, America expanded. The United States was the aggressor in the Mexican War, not Mexico.

There's land in France that was seized from Germany at the end of WWII; are you going to say they should give that back too?

When did I ever make a statement about what countries "should" do? Are you saying that France didn't expand its territory?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Grishnakh]

And when do you allege this happened?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Grishnakh]

well, France's military strategists might bear some blame, but aside from that...

Some? They forfeited every single advantage they had, allowed a supposed allied country (Poland) to go under without even trying to fight and sat behind their wall waiting to be attacked. If the French had shown the courage of the Polish, the Finns, the Serbs or the Greeks it's probable that Hitler would have stopped in 1940. No Eastern Front, no Holocaust, no Iron Curtain, no American intervention, etc, etc, etc. The French deserve the ever lasting lasting scorn of all free people for their despicable performance during the Battle of France and for sitting on their asses during the Phoney War.

Ok, I suppose my comment above was a bit of an understatement.

But I think the British did the best they could, under the circumstances (at least after Churchill took over). They just weren't a military match for the Germans. I'm not even sure the French could have done that much damage to the German war machine, though they certainly could have done a lot more than they did. What kind of army and navy did France have at the time?

The French and the British deserve some of the blame for creating the conditions in Germany that allowed Hitler to come to power in the first place. One wonders what would have happened if the French and British had adopted the 14 points and had Wilson's attitude towards the defeated powers instead of imposing the harsh Treaty of Versailles that destroyed Germany's economy and laid the stage for the bitterness that allowed Hilter to come to power.

That's a good point. I had forgotten about that.

As an American, I bear some blame for Bush and his incompetent governance (though I didn't vote for him), but his actions in no way compare to Hitler's.

Did I say they did???

No, no, I was just making a comparison to support my point that the ultimate blame really lies at the feet of the people who undertook evil action (or at least supported their leaders in doing so).

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Chris Burke]

You're joking right? Ill hand it to the Brits for holding out but they could not get a boot onto the continant soil without the help of the US. Hitler being stupid enough to engage Russia did not hurt either. If the US and/or Russia did not become involved the *best* outcome for Europe is England suing for piece, and Vici France pretending to be a real nation.

Let's just call a spade a spade: It was Hitler's foolish decision to invade Russia, and the defeat of his army on the Eastern Front, that saved England. He only forestalled an actual invasion across the channel because he felt England would surrender after he defeated Russia -- he could have conquered England first, then fought a single-front war against Russia which he still might have lost.

The Eastern Front is what decided the war. It is where the most casualties occured, it is where Hitler committed the strength of the Wermacht and saw it bleed and bleed and bleed millions of soldiers until its former glory was destroyed. The forces the U.S. and Britain and Canada fought in Western Europe were the dredged up remains of survivors of the Eastern Front, cobbled together units often made from soldiers in completely different unit types (e.g. paratroopers in bunker machine gun posts) just because there weren't enough properly trained men left. It was no longer the same Wermacht.

I'm not trying to diminish what the Allies accomplished on the Western Front, or Britain's defense. I'm just saying it was the Eastern Front that was the fulcrum on which the tide of war turned. It is a painful lesson to have to hear, but the fact is that the only reason "evil" lost WWII was that evil was monumentally stupid, and the deciding fight in the war was "evil" vs another equally bad "evil".

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[UncleFluffy]

Hrm. Louisiana purchase for one?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[janrinok]

There is still a balance between Russia and the US, and that is what the Russians are referring to. You are absolutely correct there is no"balance of power" between the US and France, or England, or India, or Germany, or Japan, or Italy, or Israel, or etc., or etc., or etc..., but I never claimed that there was.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because someone has "links" to him, doesn't mean he has "links" to them. I.e. a "link" does not constitute endorsement.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

I'm not even sure the French could have done that much damage to the German war machine, though they certainly could have done a lot more than they did. What kind of army and navy did France have at the time?

Well, the Navy isn't really that important in this consideration. As for the French Army they actually outnumbered the Germans in troops and tanks -- they just lacked the tactics to use them effectively. Still, had the French bothered to made an actual offensive into Germany while Germany was busy invading Poland, the outcome of the war probably would have been very different. The French outnumbered the German forces in the West by almost two to one. Germany had no armor on the Western Front (it was all in Poland) and the French tanks of the time were actually superior to the German ones.

People seem to have this idea in their head that Nazi Germany was always all powerful and all conquering. The reality is that Germany never even bothered switching to a war economy until 1942, that Germany in 1938 wouldn't even have been successful at invading Czechoslovakia (his generals told him as much when he was bullying Britain and France into accepting the Munich Agreement), that Germany in 1939 made many mistakes in the Polish campaign and was only successful by weight of numbers, allied indifference and the Soviet involvement. The OKW was terrified of the risks that Hitler was taking with his aggressive diplomacy prior to the outbreak of the war. Had France and Britain stood up to him in 1938 history would have been very different.

No, no, I was just making a comparison to support my point that the ultimate blame really lies at the feet of the people who undertook evil action (or at least supported their leaders in doing so).

That's fair. And by and large the German people today acknowledge their share of the blame. Contrasted to the Japanese who have done their very best to forget about their crimes and erase them from their history books.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

As were the US Jupitermedium range missiles that the US put in Turkey, threatening Moscow, which started the crisis.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[jollyreaper]

I'll take a 100-to-1 chance of partly cloudy with a chance of suicide airplanes hitting buildings than a 1000-to-1 chance someone presses the button. Your entire argument is invalidated by the totally bogus probabilities you pulled out of your butt. You're right, the spread is probably a lot greater. I know the odds of getting struck by lightning twice are supposed to be better than winning the lottery or getting killed in a terror attack. The odds of getting killed in a nuclear war are a lot longer than that. At the same time, the NUMBER of people involved is greater. One 9-11 really fucks up the day of people in Manhattan. One nuclear war fucks up the day of everyone on the planet. There's a difference there.

And I'll take The War Against Terror (TWAT) Thanks for the fun acronym, but everyone else calls it the War on Terror (WOT???!!!). I find my acronym far more instructive than the Bush Administration's. For example, I think that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a misnomer, it's really Operation Iraqi Liberation.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Cigarra]

Most americans and western europeans always like to think they're the center of the universe. In this case, they like to think Hitler's plan what all about conquering France and England. Which doesn't make any sense.

Hitler always aimed to the East. Russia was his primary target, and that's where he put most of his resources and war efforts. Just compare the SIZE of the war in both fronts, and you'll realize it yourself. Yeah, I know Hollywood films tells you otherwise, but hey, you can do better than that to learn history, right?

That said, it's also fair to remember also that US involvement in the war began much before "D day", with money, supplies and kind of help to UK and Russia. But to think that US/UK/Canada/etc DECIDED the war by winning the western front, is to be EXTREMELY naive.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[N3WBI3]

I can agree with that the loss to the soviet union crippled Germany I do, however, think even w/out the easter front (i.e. evil being dumb) with the help of the US that Germany would have been defeated (it would have taken longer and been much harder fought)

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[N3WBI3]

Funny I dont remember saying that Russia had nothing to do with it.. Thanks for reminding me of what I did not say..

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[fucksl4shd0t]

Speaking of France expanding its territory, we are all aware that the vietnamese war for independence lasted something like 25 years, while American involvement only lasted for about 15, right? Who were the vietnamese fighting the other 10 years?

(The answer is France, of course)

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[zoftie]

America doesn't care for any particular country's distruction. Often the money and interests drive political contributions and in general how money changes hands. America doesn't give two shits about Israel, besides the fact that is one of the largest purchasers of American military equipment. At present war is going to end in Iraq sooner or later, It is time for white house to find some other area they can expend money they don't have, on stock piling weapons militarization programs etc.

Follow the trail of the money, usually will yield meaningful answer as to why these things happen. Besides the fact that Russians are scared to be subdued into a thirdworld country status, fact that it is mandated in the american law that russia/ussr to dissolved any means possible/impossible.

*shrug*
People get upset when you cut them off from their prodigious money flows. You know making lots of money is like drugs, its very addictive and rehabilitation can take a while. There was alot of fraudulent money flowing out of Russia, and now this has stopped. Rightly so people are looking to fix this situation with strong russian government and reliable economy. Resources are becoming scarcer every day and Russia looks like big meaty pie for a resource hungry first world. And its back to the money.
2c

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[fucksl4shd0t]

To answer your big question, there's a core of american values that is shared by many cultures that I strongly believe I want to see on top and dominant in the world. But I do not see our current american society really sticking to this core anymore. So I guess I don't really have an answer to the question.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Chris Burke]

I can't pretend to have that much optimism. Would we ever have been able to build a beachhead and invade Europe if Hitler had an additional 4 million fresh troops in well-trained cohesive units? Remember too that in this hypothetical scenario Hitler would have been focused on the taking of Britain, so we may not have even had that safe haven to launch from.

I'm certainly not going to say it would have been impossible. I just see the outcome as being very, very tenuous. If anything, Europe may have been decided by The Bomb, and we may not have been able to use it to simply ensure complete surrender, but may have had to produce enough to win militarily. I think I'll end with a statement that is hopefully easier to agree with completely: Thank goodness Hitler was dumb. :)

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Grishnakh]

The land was owned by France, after it had been seized from Spain (in a war between France and Spain). The US bought it from Napoleon. I don't see the problem.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Cigarra]

I didn't put those words in you mouth either.

What you did say is:

If the US and/or Russia did not become involved the *best* outcome for Europe is England suing for piece, and Vici France pretending to be a real nation.

And that's just a useless premise (to think Russia could *not* be involved), since WWII can't be imagined without Hitler going for Russia: that's what all of it was about. France and England just got in Hitler's way he invaded Poland.

6 months of phoney war later, Hitler having to secure his back before going east, he attacked Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and France, tied it all very tightly, and aimed USSR again. He finally headed east, several months later than he would've preferred, because of the delay fighting in western europe.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[moeinvt]

"when a country upsets the balance of power by deploying heavier defensive systems, the appropriate response is NOT to increase offensive capability in their direction . . . the appropriate response is to increase defensive capability in turn."

By what higher authority do you judge how "appropriate" a particular military strategy is?

The U.S. has poured untold billions into the idea of missile defense under various acronyms. The result has been a string of miserable failures and a few dubious "successes". It's an incredibly difficult engineering problem, and it's unlikely that the system in question would ever be very effective. Rather than waste vast amounts of their own resources in a futile effort to try to catch up with this "defensive" technology, the Russians are just going to redeploy a few missiles to make sure that the Pentagon's new toy would be overwhelmed in the event of a conflict.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[The Conductor]

removing the democratically elected leader of Iran and replacing him with the Shah

This bit of leftist mythos is a pet peeve for me, probably because it had me fooled for awhile. That "democratically elected leader" was a Communist, and, in the manner of all Communists who come to power by election, promptly set about destroying the democratic institutions that brought him to power. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, even Hitler was duly & democratically elected chancellor by the Reichstag. Does that mean Eisenhower should have stopped at the Rhine?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[drsquare]

None of the countries that 'Bush and friends' have attacked had the capability to strike America back. Russia has the capability to drop a dozen nukes on every major American city.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

>The EU doesn't have the means to "atomic-bitchslap" the United States or Russia. The EU could hurt either country very >badly but would be utterly wiped out in return.

You can say exactly the same thing reversed: France has a bit less than 100 ato mic bo nbs, each of them can destroy a city like NY. The result is that each of us can destroy the other.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[llefler]

The appropriate retaliation is to improve their own defensive capability.

Not if they are still honoring their commitment to the 1972 ABM treaty. By building more effective ICBMs they can offset missile defense systems and maintain MAD. And if they replace old ICBMs with new ones, they stay in compliance with START I and START II. And since they are testing missiles and not nuclear warheads, they stay in compliance with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Sadly, I've learned more about these treaties in the last few weeks that I ever wished to know. When it comes to nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction, defensive weapons can be viewed as offensive threats.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[secPM_MS]

It is also worth remembering that the US had somewhat earlier based nuclear missiles in Turkey, which posed an identical problem to the USSR. As part of the settlement of the Cuban standoff, the US removed its missiles, but not its radar, from Turkey.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[styrotech]

Prior to 1967 Palestine had zero sovereignity. The region was under the control of Egypt and Jordan. When those two stupid gits attacked Isreal, Isreal kicked their asses and took over the area now known as Palestine.

In terms of who attacked who I think you're thinking of 1973 - in 1967 it was Israel that attacked Egypt and Jordan etc.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[lubost]

Is it really so ironic that i post on american website? Well, the new military base is about to be located like 60 miles from the place i live. I feel competent to post. You bet I am using American software? Don't get me wrong, but software (no matter if proprietary or free) is not only written in America. You are most probably using software from my country too. What's the point?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> Russian ICBM aimed at the United States ... come in over the pole.
> That's why we put all of our early warning systems in the Canadian wilderness back in the day.

Bad news. Adjutant to their proposed "Cellular Phone Signals Passing Through Our Airspace Tax", The First Nations are also imposing a "Russian ICBM in transit Tax". Putin vs Bush vs First Nations. Let's put the 'World' back in 'World Wrestling Federation'.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[MrSteveSD]

Mossadegh actually had big disagreements with the Communists. Britain was trying to convince the US that Mossadegh was becoming more and more communist to get them "on board". The reason for the coup was that he kicked out the AIOC (later to be re-branded BP). In a similar way, the reason for the coup in Guatemala was the threat to United Fruits, not that it was going to become a "Soviet beachhead" (which was just propaganda). The problem in Mossadegh's last days was that he knew there was a foreign-backed coup being organised (which there was) which is why he started doing extreme things like expelling all the UK diplomats. You can't expect everything to go along as normal in those extreme circumstances. Amongst other things, we were conducting false flag operations against him using gangs of thugs who pretended to be pro-Mossadegh.

If the US government felt there was a coup plot, it would also start doing quite extreme things I would imagine. As for Godwin's law, I find it quite inane that people pounce on you for making a Hitler comparison. Mossadegh was hardly Hitler though. The Shah was far more of a "Hitler" than Mossadegh and he of course had US backing.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[ichigo 2.0]

And don't forget the Mexican wars, Mexico lost ~50% percent of their territory to the US. Other examples are Alaska, Hawaii, Wake Island etc. The most recent expansion happened in 1970, when the US gained ~600 acres of land from Mexico. Claiming that the US is not expansionist is absurd.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I've never been able to understand the general panic over the thought of Iran/North Korea/Evil-nation-of-the-day obtaining atomic warheads and the ability to launch them across tho globe.

Assuming Iran, for example, obtains ten warheads and uses them against the United States. The US loses ten cities, and surrounding countryside. In retaliation, Iran loses -everything-, as the US, and quite likely other nuclear-capable nations, launch a counter attack that turns the entire country into radioactive glass.

The US mourns the dead, cleans up, and rebuilds. Iran, on the other hand, does nothing, because it's entire population, down to the last cockroach, are dead.

One incident such as that, and no nation will ever risk a repeat of it.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[burnin1965]

You mean just like the American missiles placed in Turkey at the time?

Absolutely. But we aren't talking about the U.S. placing an offensive missile system in Eastern Europe, are we.

 

In a classical MAD nuclear standoff all weapons systems are both offensive and defensive. If country A can stop missiles from hitting its territory (defensive) it can attack without relation (which makes it part of an offensive system). And vice versa.

Well, now were getting into another goofy non-sensical arguement.

The reason MAD is called MAD is because there is no defense, there is only deterrent. A defensive system would have the capability of thwarting an attack if it is launched, like the anti-missile defense system. A MAD system does not defend against an attack, it only ensures that both sides are severely pummeled.

If the U.S. was installing anti-missile defense systems in Eastern Europe AND had nuclear weapon bearing missiles in Turkey pointed at Russian targets, then we would have some serious issues to argue about.

 

I highly doubt the US would quietly accept a similar system being installed by the Russians in Cuba to protect them from the nefarious Jamaicans.

I see, and do you suppose that Cuba is now at risk of an imminent attack by the Jamaicans now that Russia has shut down the radar installation in Lourdes, Cuba which operated from 1964 to 2002? Or perhaps it was actually an offensive weapon to be used against the U.S.? Myself, I'm sure it was used for intelligence purposes in the on going cold war but I doubt it was used to kill anyone in the U.S.

You would think that investment in defensive systems would be welcome sanity after decades of MAD. I only hope that the leadership in some of the up and coming nuclear powers aren't as psychotic as they are portrayed by western media or that their own breed of religious nut jobs have any significant influence on the people with control of the weapons. Even with a defensive system it would be a sad day if there was a nuclear exchange anywhere in the world and the repercussions that would surely follow even if a nuclear attack were thwarted.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

"USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense, but we can see they do like to make their influence felt strongly. In particular they want to trade on their terms and they want to be able to land their military in your country if they feel the need. "

And people to follow their laws, and that they just turn over any citizen to be prosecuted in the US.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[The One and Only]

And each other.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

"I hope to read some posts explaining how Russia is totally justified in threatening to attack Poland and the Czech Republic for "

That's not what he did.

"hosting American missiles "

Which could be fired at russia.

"which are designed to shoot down Iranian ICBMs."

Yeah, except they don't have any.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[The One and Only]

The original claim to Louisiana was made by France, and it only transferred back and forth between France and Spain on friendly terms--Spain kept it so that Britain wouldn't get it after war between Britain and France. The original claim wasn't very legitimate though, since France vaguely claimed the entire Mississippi watershed, which was already inhabited by lots of people who weren't French, or European for that matter.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

"But that still doesn't change the fact that on some level they scare the hell out of me."

And therefore people kill and invent gods: They fear.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[The One and Only]

The North? What the fuck are you talking about? Korea? The US Civil War? Canada?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

America doesn't give two shits about Israel

And that statement right there shows your ignorance of America. Ever tried to contend with the Israeli interests in Congress? The American Jewish community? If you think our support of Israel is strictly about dollars and cents then you don't know a damn thing about America.

besides the fact that is one of the largest purchasers of American military equipment

You realize that most of that equipment is purchased with money that we lend to Israel, right? That kinda blows your profit theory out of the water.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

"An interceptor missile that can only be used to shoot down an ICBM or a RV (reentry vehicle) is a defensive weapon by nature."

If you trust that description.

"Those of you in Europe wonder why you need the United States and/or Russia? Maybe because those of you in Europe couldn't stop Hitler yourselves?"

We could - we were about to when the US finally decided to join, at that point we would have won anyway. I know most of your movies always show the US won the war on their own, but its just not true.

And even if it had been, that was then this is now - many feel you are more trouble than help.

"The EU doesn't have the means to "atomic-bitchslap" the United States or Russia. The EU could hurt either country very badly but would be utterly wiped out in return."

So the one with most kills wins?

"And that seems like an awful lot of posturing to be making when the EU can't even agree on internal trade quotas or policies."

Most humans need an outside enemy to agree on something - apparently some feel the US could be that enemy.

"Kind of ironic since you are posting on an American website."

A website which is IN america, not his country presumably.

"But, by all means, let's isolate the EU from the US and Russia. I bet you'd fall upon yourselves within a matter of decades."

Hari Seldon would tell you the US has started to fall, you just haven't noticed it yet.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

"Comparing the installation of an anti-missile defense system to a first strike attack installation is hardly grounds for a double standard arguement. "

Any system is a first strike attack system with the right missiles loaded.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

If you trust that description.

That's why we have arms control agreements and allow inspectors to visit military bases/weapons sites. It's worked since the days of the Washington Naval Treaty. I see no reason why this system would be any different.

We could - we were about to when the US finally decided to join, at that point we would have won anyway. I know most of your movies always show the US won the war on their own, but its just not true.

Maybe you should have actually read my comment before you assumed it was just typical American posturing. I was responding to the GP who was bitching about both the United States and Russia being so heavily involved in Europe. I pointed out that if Europe could have handled Hilter on his own, then neither the United States or Russia would be as involved in European affairs. Do you claim that Europe could have defeated him without Soviet involvement as well? Keep in mind that "Europe" at that point consisted of the United Kingdom.

So the one with most kills wins?

Again, I was responding to the GP's claim that the EU could "atomic-bitchslap" the United States and/or Russia.

Most humans need an outside enemy to agree on something - apparently some feel the US could be that enemy.

And others feel that Paris and Berlin are the enemy and that the EU is a ploy for them to dominate Europe.

Hari Seldon would tell you the US has started to fall, you just haven't noticed it yet.

History will tell. Though "fall" is likely to take a different picture then in ages past. The US will probably not remain the sole global superpower forever. But it's likely that we will remain a superpower for some time. The US has too much economic muscle, too much technological muscle, too much military muscle and too many resources to "fall" in the classical sense. The European nations didn't "fall" when they lost their colonial empires. Somehow I doubt the US would fall if we lost our cultural and economic empire.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU doesn't have the means to "atomic-bitchslap" the United States or Russia. The EU could hurt either country very badly but would be utterly wiped out in return.

France has about 350 nuclear weapons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_F rance) each of them could destroy a city the size of Los Angeles. Do you mean that a few cities here and there in the US would not be totally destroyed, hence the "victory"?)

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

You can say exactly the same thing reversed: France has a bit less than 100 ato mic bo nbs, each of them can destroy a city like NY. The result is that each of us can destroy the other.

Do you really want to play this tit-for-tat game? Even assuming that France was able to successfully deliver all 100 of their bombs (a huge assumption given that we could probably get some of them with a first strike), equally split between the United States and Russia, so what?

Take away the 50 largest cities in the United States and Russia. You set back both countries by decades and kill tens or hundreds of millions of people. And what happens in return? France ceases to exist as a nation-state. Every square kilometer of France is glassed. The French language and culture cease to exist as anything other then an academic discussion.

I'm sorry, but the EU can't "destroy" the United States or Russia. They can hurt them very badly -- enough that thinking about war between the EU and the US or Russia is pointless (MAD works here) -- but they can't destroy them.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

You are most probably using software from my country too. What's the point?

My point was to call the GP's post for the idiocy that it was. Normally I'm content to let the typical anti-American bitching go unanswered because it seems to be the "in" thing these days. But the GP's stupidity rose to a new level. He doesn't just hate the United States. He hates Russia. He seems to think that the EU could "bitchslap" both countries. I tend to doubt that.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Jarik_Tentsu]

The whole essence of the Bolshevik ideals were to force revolution. When the Communist Party broke up into the Menshevik and Bolshevik factions, that was one of the differences in political views. The Mensheviks believed that the masses should rise up against the government - the revolution should start from below. The Bolsheviks believed that the revolution should be done more in a 'coup d'etat' style - that is, a handful of 'elite educated revolutionaries' (forming the Bolshevik party) would guide the 'proletariat' (workers) to revolution - aka, they would do the revolution 'for' the workers.

That's what happened during October 1917 revolution - only 10,000 or so Red Guards stormed the Winter Palace of the Provisional Government as opposed to the Soviets and the masses attacking together. This whole attitude of 'we know what's best for the proletariat - they agree with us' is what allowed them to become so expansionist - they would simply say they were doing the will of the masses who couldn't do it themselves.

Really, thinking about it is kind of similar to what America is doing, except America will claim to be doing the will of the masses - with communism replaced with democracy/liberty. While it is probably true liberty/democracy *is* probably the will of many individuals in these countries, it is still an interesting comparison to make. The 'we know what's best for you' attitude.

~Jarik

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

France has about 350 nuclear weapons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_F rance) each of them could destroy a city the size of Los Angeles. Do you mean that a few cities here and there in the US would not be totally destroyed, hence the "victory"?)

Well, for starters, the GP's arrogant statement was that the EU could "atomic-bitchslap" the United States and Russia. If an American postured like that he would have been jumped all over by the Europeans reading the thread. Instead my reply that pointed out that the EU would be completely destroyed if it attempted that has been jumped on by people insisting that the EU could destroy the US or Russia.

I maintain that is not the case. It would be impossible to disarm the United States or Russia with a first strike, both nations have warning systems, huge stockpiles of weapons and SSBN fleets that are basically invulnerable to attack. So your choice as the leader of the EU looking to "atomic-bitchslap" them is to murder tens or hundreds of millions of civilians.

One has to realize that a stockpile of 350 weapons doesn't mean you can destroy 350 cities. Modern nuclear weapons are smaller then years past and modern targeting strategy typically says that you blanket an area with several weapons to obtain maximum destruction. So let's say that they utterly destroy the 50 largest cities in both the United States and Russia. So you've destroyed 100 cities between the US and Russia. Both countries are completely devastated beyond comprehension. Hundreds of millions of people are dead. Both economies are set back decades. Infrastructure that took decades to build has been destroyed.

And what happens now? The United States and Russia launch a massive counter-strike. Russia has at least 7,200 active nuclear weapons. The United States has over 5,000. Europe is completely destroyed and ceases to exist. A new dark age probably begins. But the United States and Russia have the surviving population and means to rebuild. It will take decades, maybe even centuries. But it would happen. Europe no longer exists.

In any case this is all a moot point. No European leader is likely to attempt to "atomic-bitchslap" the United States or Russia. But anybody that thinks that Europe could "destroy" either country is drinking the kool-aid.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Hal_Porter]

Which could be fired at russia.

You mean "could be fired at incoming Russian ICBMS".

These missiles are purely defensive - they are only designed to destroy missiles.

Rice claimed they don't even have warheads, which is plausible for a hit to kill interceptor.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Nutria]

inhabited by lots of people who weren't French, or European for that matter.

Define "lots".

However many "lots" were, it wasn't a whole "lot", since wave after wave of European immigrants rolled over them.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[KudyardRipling]

The difference is Lead-206 [Knock,knock...Pwrrt--THUD,bag,tag,drag,drag,drag. ..] and Polonium-210 [This chai tastes a little funny...NUKE-PUKE! NUKE-PUKE! WASTE-WASTE-WASTEAWAY, DEAD!]

Q: What starts with 09 and ends with 56 88 C0?
A: Firetruck

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[dazzz67]

"Now consider Germany who got subdued when Russia, USA, England and France ganged up on them. What about when France, Germany and England gangs up on somebody else?" Then, the world laughs. Add up all those countries military victories in the past two centuries and you get Napoleon and 2 world wars that they fought (against each other) and needed American/Russian help to get out of. Will Germany and England be adopting the official saying of the French Military? "We surrender!". Seriously, the state of Texas could go over and defeat the combined might of England, France and Germany.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[vivian]

The UK alone has a stockpile of 200 warheads - France another 350 or so.

if even half of them are launched, you are going to have a pretty bad hair day.
Don't underestimate just how ridiculously over capacity the nuclear powers are in terms of wiping life off the planet.

Sure, Europe wouldn't survive a return strike, but then could you really call that a win, when your back yards glass, most of your family is probably vapor and any survivors have fond memories of when it looked like the planet was going to be going into global warming instead of a nuclear winter?
Imagine what just 10 would do, if they landed on the to 10 US cities? Utter chaos - everyone would loose.

Even if the US somehow managed to block every single missile and wiped Europe off the map, it would be ruined economically - there is so much interdependence between Europe, China and the US, that for any such action to occur would be financial and economic disaster for all parties involved.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[watermodem]

Russian ABM system currently installed with Nuclear Warheads.

ABM-4 Gorgon - installed 1983/84 - still operational
Exo-atmospheric (upper-tier) interceptor
Range: 350 km. (320 km.)
Warhead: Nuclear (1 Mt)
ABM interceptor missile introduced in the mid 1980s.
Improved ABM-1b, based in silos surrounding Moscow.

ABM-3 Gazelle - installed 1984 - still operational
Endo-atmospheric (lower-tier) interceptor
Range: 80 km.
Warhead: Nuclear (10 kt)
Short-range ABM interceptor missile which was first
introduced in the mid 1980s, tasked with destroying the
ballistic missiles that will evade the ABM-1 interceptors.
Similar in design and mission to the U.S. Sprint missile.

ABM-2 - status unknown
A backup development for the ABM-3, which included
various improvements over the ABM-1. It was under
development during the early 1970s, probably along
with the prototype of the ABM-3 (ABM-X-3), and was
apparently discarded after the success of the ABM-3.
No other information is available on this ABM system.

ABM-1 Galosh - 1960 - ? (assumed no longer operational) a and b variants
Exo-atmospheric (upper-tier) interceptor
Range: 322 km.
Warhead: Nuclear ((2 - 3 Mt)
ABM interceptor missile introduced in the 1960s which
is using mechanically steered radars for guidance and a
high yield nuclear warhead, very similar in performance
to the American made Nike-Zeus. The improved version
was introduced in the mid 1970s. Both of these missiles
are replaced by the newer ABM-4 missile, introduced in
the mid 1980s, as a part of the new A-135 ABM system.

V-1000 - 1960 - no longer operational
Range: 250 km.
Warhead: Nuclear (unknown)

The SA-5 Griffon is the first Russian ABM missile. Its development started in the late 1950s, while the first launch sites were activated in the early 1960s near the
Estonian capital Tallinn and Leningrad. After a short time these were replaced by the improved Gammon.

It was the first Russian ABM which was tested at the Sary Shagan test range in Kazahstan. Although this was just an experimental model it was deployed in a
number of launch sites until the development of the ABM-1. The SA-5 Griffon was also the precursor of the SA-5 Gammon SAM which was developed later.

more photos

details on: Gorgon (SH-11/ABM-4)

The Gorgon (SH-11/ABM-4), also known by its Russian designation, 51T6, is a long-range interceptor missile designed and manufactured by the Soviet Union.(1) At present, 32 Gorgon interceptors are deployed around Moscow as part of System A-135.

As the exoatmospheric tier of System A-135, the Gorgon was designed to detonate a 1-megaton nuclear warhead just outside the Earth's atmosphere and destroy any incoming ballistic missiles descending upon Moscow. In the event of an attack on Moscow, the idea was that the Gorgons would serve as a first line of defense and, if any warheads managed to evade them, the short-range Gazelle interceptors would provide a second layer of protection.(5)

Russia Tests Modernized Missile Defense System

November 29, 2004 :: Itar-Tass :: News

Russia today conducted a successful test of an upgraded version of its A-135 ballistic missile defense system. The test took place at the Sary Shagan Missile Range, located in Kazakhstan. Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov described the test as flawless: "The missile accurately hit the training target." Putin was reported as having responded to the test, saying "Good, congratulations." According to RIA Novosti, Ivanov also said that "We intend to upgrade and modernize the anti-ballistic missile defense system further."
The A-135 system, based around and designed to defend Moscow and the surrounding areas, consists of two interceptor missiles, the short range "Gazelle" and the long range "Gorgon."
Pavel Podvig cites one Ru

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[The One and Only]

However many "lots" were, it wasn't a whole "lot", since wave after wave of European immigrants rolled over them.

Either you're using "European" to mean "white", or you're not well-versed in North American history. Most of the Louisiana Territory wasn't settled until after the US purchased it--the parts that were settled were largely in what is now the American state of Louisiana, which is far smaller than the actual territory. In any case, having gunpowder and smallpox on your side helps things a bit. Is it okay if a large number of white immigrants commits genocide on a small number of Great Plains tribes, but not a large number of them? If a large section of land is already inhabited by an entire race of human beings, at what numerical advantage is it acceptable to "roll over them", slaughtering them with armies and with biological warfare?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[vivian]

Theres one small problem with that theory.
The Machine gun, in it's early form, was one of the most powerful weapons there was - for defence. Being too heavy to carry into battle by foot, it's offensive capabilities were limited - but given a couple of miles of trenches and appropriately placed machine guns, and you could hold off thousands with a handful. The result? The massive massacres of WW1.

Just because a weapon is mostly usable in a defensive role does not mean that it does not cause a lot of deaths should war break. Sure, you might be able to hold your position for a long time, but there are going to be a lot of deaths.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[demachina]

"USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense..."

Whoa that is a whopper. The U.S. has been VERY expansionist for all of its 200+ years. They even had a term for it, Manifest Destiny

As you recall it started as 13 little colonies on the east coast, and even those were carved out with imperial expansion based on genocide and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous peoples. Texas was seized from Mexico by a migration of Americans in to it who rebelled and took it from Mexico. The SouthWest was taken from Mexico in the Mexican-American war. The Spanish American war was largely a concoction of the Hearst Newspaper empire used to seize control of Cuba and the Phillipines from the Spanish. The Phillipines was occupied by the U.S. until World War II and the U.S. waged a bloody counter insurgency against Phillipines rebels for much of that period. The U.S. then propped up a corrupt dictator named Marcos keeping it as a defacto colony until recently.

The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was the basis for the U.S. to exert extensive control over all of Central and South America. It lead to Banana Republics throughout much of the Hemisphere. The United Fruit company backed by American marines insured regimes throughout the region were friendly to American interests and United Fruit's profit margins. These regimes were typically brutal right wing dictatorships whose only redeeming quality was they protected American business and political interests.

The U.S. has engineered the overthrow of countless regimes around the world for at least a century and most of the regimes they've installed haven't been enlightened or democratic or improvements over what was there before. Whenever the democratic process in some country elected someone who was .... gasp..... Socialist a U.S. backed coup was sure to follow. You see America has always touted Democracy to the world but only when the right people win.

Its just a complete and utter travesty for American's and America to paint themselves and purveyors of freedom and democracy around the globe. The history just isn't there to support the claim. After all from Jamestown until the Civil War America was one of the world's leading slave states. From the end of the civil war until very recently America was an apartheid state segregating minorties.

Russia and the U.S. are two peas in pod, they've spent the last century trying to carve up the world, mostly at the rest of the world's expense and it appear this is likely to continue. Russia is feeling its oats lately because it is sitting on top of vast oil and gas reserves and it and a trade s

The U.S. trying to force a missile defense in to Europe is a ridiculously provactive power play. There is no threat to Europe from Iran, this is just designed to further antagonize Russia and continue the campaign to expand NATO to the gates of Moscow. If Moscow wants to bring Europe to its knees all it has to do is shut off its gas pipelines in the middle of winter.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think US can destroy nuclear submarines. So if you consider it's OK that NY, LA and some other cities are completely destroyed, then yes you can nuke France. Now if you call that a victory, that's beyond me.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[veliath]

The leader of one country calling for another country to be "wiped off the map" doesn't give you pause? I understand he said "Israel is a stain on the map that will fade away with time" or something to that effect. "Wiped off the map" is a very convenient Axis of Evil promoting translation.

veliath

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[azrina_ma]

Do you think that all the people died in the 9/11 are only US citizens? Let me remind you that there are many other people of various other nationalities and religions died that day! But only US have the stupid idea of conquering Iraq. Yes, I do mean conquering. The so called Iraq government currently there is under Bush thumb. Many of US citizens are blind or want to believe that US is the best. Only a few really saw what a tyrant Bush is. These people...I salute.

As for Muslims in Iraq, of course they would strike back when US bombed their home. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't anyone??? And by this time, it seems that they are much more successful in killing US people than of Bush trampling on Iraq. How many of our young ones had died to defend other countries?

Now, everyone saw US prohibits and declare war on other nations that have nuclear power. Iran? South Korea?? What they have is only peanuts compared to what US have. But have US ever think of disposing its own cache??? Who give him the rights to become our planet's police? Bush himself!!

As for Russians, go ahead and nuke US. I believe even Mother Russia is already fed up with Bush. Just make sure, the nuke is small enough to cover the White House...and this time, make sure that he is in.

With all his blunders, it is a miracle that he still lives. Like father like son. Let us hope that the grandson/grandaughter do not ascend the throne. Then, he/she will declare wars all over again.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

In any case this is all a moot point. No European leader is likely to attempt to "atomic-bitchslap" the United States or Russia. But anybody that thinks that Europe could "destroy" either country is drinking the kool-aid.

France can send atomic bombs to many of the largest cities in the US from nuclear submarines - even if US strikes first. The mere fact that there would be some American survivors doesn't mean you can afford it (unless you're insane). You just *can't *afford it, plain and simple, the same way we can't afford any strike on you, so we are on equal position on this point.

France does not plan to use any atom bomb, we only built enough of them to make sure the price to pay for such an attack would be too much. What would be the result of an antimissile program? All other nuclear weapons (unless possibly Britain) are going to build more atom bombs.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[azrina_ma]

Whose sons and whose daughters are send out? I prefer our younglings stay at home and improve US economics instead og helping policing other nations. Btw, sometimes, no one asks but our esteemed president suddenly wants to get involved in other nations politics. Typical. Another thing, when can we even pay our debts to UN???!!!??

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[megaditto]

Perhaps the US would become a country similar to present-day France or Spain? And the Chinese children will be curious to know why the US has a veto power in the UN and the Indian LlamaNews' anchor will be calling for a boycot on Californian wine because the US did not support their war on Nigerian Terror?

Crazy place, the future...

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[r00t]

LA is definitly OK to lose. NY is a maybe.

Please take Camden, Miami, Houston, and New Orleans.

If you have any neutron bombs, please cleanse San Francisco of the fruits and nuts.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of you in Europe wonder why you need the United States and/or Russia? Maybe because those of you in Europe couldn't stop Hitler yourselves? Blame the French and the British. If they could have handled him then maybe the US and Russia would never have been involved in Europe.

Should we also blame France for your failure in Iraq? Oh wait, I forget how much better is the situation in Iraq now. Keep up the good work.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually we should give France to the Germans. They won it fair and square after all. It's not like they do anything good for the world anyway. Who wants to eat horses and snails anyway? Neigh

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

But WHY secure Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and France? All that would have happened is he would have gotten bad food, good chocolate and good beer to the rear as he invaded.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, oh please fucking Jesus, take Houston off the map. Please.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[AaronLawrence]

It's almost as if no real person is ENTIRELY good or bad. Could that be? FWIW, some Russians do look back on Stalin's times with nostalgia or respect, even if they acknowledge some of the terrible things he did. Painful and bloody but he did build the industrial base considerably.

Anyway, Stalin alone was not responsible for destroying the Bolsheviks. Pretty early on they found it hard to cope with actually running a country and started squabbling amongst themselves.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[M1FCJ]

Pakistan has always been a major US ally. India, on the other hand, was always more symphatetic towards Russia. If you want to check this, compare the military equipment both country has - India had/has lots of Migs, Pakistan had/has American make fighters. Currently they have a decent fleet of F-16s. On the other hand they have been purchasing some Chinese aircraft lately, mainly because they are cheaper to buy. Indian Air force has loads of Mig-29s and some British made light fighters.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anspen]

Absolutely. But we aren't talking about the U.S. placing an offensive missile system in Eastern Europe, are we.

It's a system that could stop Russia from launching it's missiles (well not right now, since it's a crap system, but you know, at some point). Undermining the offensive capability of a country/enemy is an offensive move. It Creates a situation in which Russia can be attacked witouth being able to retaliate.

The reason MAD is called MAD is because there is no defense, there is only deterrent. A defensive system would have the capability of thwarting an attack if it is launched, like the anti-missile defense system. A MAD system does not defend against an attack, it only ensures that both sides are severely pummeled.

The point is that by putting a defensive system in place you break the MAD. You give one country the capability to attack/destroy an other country with impunity. That's what makes a defensive system an offensive risk.

If the U.S. was installing anti-missile defense systems in Eastern Europe AND had nuclear weapon bearing missiles in Turkey pointed at Russian targets, then we would have some serious issues to argue about.

Why would the US need missiles in Turkey? They have perfectly nice ICBMs stationed in the US itself and on submarines which could hit Russia within half an hour or so.

I see, and do you suppose that Cuba is now at risk of an imminent attack by the Jamaicans now that Russia has shut down the radar installation in Lourdes, Cuba [bbc.co.uk] which operated from 1964 to 2002? Or perhaps it was actually an offensive weapon to be used against the U.S.? Myself, I'm sure it was used for intelligence purposes in the on going cold war but I doubt it was used to kill anyone in the U.S.

That's a nice way to muddy up the waters. Obviously a listening station (which is what Lourdes mostly was) is different from an X-band radar capable of sweeping most of your country. But even accepting that, the US put a lot of pressure on Russia to close that listening station in Cuba. How is Russia's reaction to a potentially more dangerous system strange? From Russia's viewpoint Iran is just an excuse to put a base right at it's border.

You would think that investment in defensive systems would be welcome sanity after decades of MAD.

As I've said before: from the viewpoint of the country without a defensive system the world is safer with MAD than without.

I only hope that the leadership in some of the up and coming nuclear powers aren't as psychotic as they are portrayed by western media or that their own breed of religious nut jobs have any significant influence on the people with control of the weapons. Even with a defensive system it would be a sad day if there was a nuclear exchange anywhere in the world and the repercussions that would surely follow even if a nuclear attack were thwarted

The new nuclear powers aren't in any way more psychotic than those of the past. They are guided just as much by self-preservation as the US, France or China. The only danger I see there is a revolution in Pakistan or North Korea, either putting real nutjobs in temporary power or creating chaos which makes a nuclear theft possible. But even in that case I expect them to just drive a nuke over the border, not launch it for all the world to see.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Hal_Porter]

It's almost as if no real person is ENTIRELY good or bad. Could that be?

It's probably true, technically. Hitler built some good roads and Stalin's dash for industrialization allowed the Russians to fight off the Germans and conquer half of Europe. On the other hand, him and Stalin killed and enslaved millions and if they had succeeded, the world would have ended up entirely dominated by large tyrannical empires, 1984 style which makes them quite literally enemies of civilisation. So in practice the approximation that Hitler and Stalin are bad is extraordinarily close to the truth.

Anyway, Stalin alone was not responsible for destroying the Bolsheviks.

Umm, yes he was. Wikipedia doesn't have a kill rate for Stalin and Old Bolsheviks, but he was remarkably successful.

Incidentally, there was a chilling story about the NKVD and the Gestapo in the time between the Nazi Soviet Pact and the German invasion of Russia. Even though they were technically still enemies, the Gestapo would tell the NKVD when Communists were being exiled. Apparantly, the NKVD regarded people that had been abroad with suspicion and they were invariably arrested and sent to labour camps, so they asked the Gestapo to tip them off. Similarly, the NKVD handed back German and Austrian communists to the Gestapo as "unwanted aliens".

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.ph p?t=36517

Pretty early on they found it hard to cope with actually running a country and started squabbling amongst themselves.

I think the squabbling was symptomatic of an interregnum after Lenin became unable to rule. Once another Czar appeared it would have ended, whether that Czar was Trotsky or Stalin. And either way it would have ended badly for the people doing the squabbling.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

""So the one with most kills wins? "

Again, I was responding to the GP's claim that the EU could "atomic-bitchslap" the United States and/or Russia."

Which they could, he wasn't talking about desperate reshoots.

""Most humans need an outside enemy to agree on something - apparently some feel the US could be that enemy. "

And others feel that Paris and Berlin are the enemy and that the EU is a ploy for them to dominate Europe."

Hence the external enemy to unite the internal.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

""Which could be fired at russia."

You mean "could be fired at incoming Russian ICBMS"."

No, I mean could be fired at russia.

"These missiles are purely defensive - they are only designed to destroy missiles."

Yeah yeah, that's what they claim. But you can always change missles quickly once you have launch sites.

"Rice claimed they don't even have warheads, which is plausible for a hit to kill interceptor."

She also claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Hal_Porter]

Yeah yeah, that's what they claim. But you can always change missles quickly once you have launch sites.

They don't need to do that. If they wanted to nuke Russia they could do it from the US, or a submarine, or a cruise missile launched from a packing crate or mobile launcher. If Poland or the Czech Republic were threatened with Russian invasion, they'd probably let the US do it. But at the moment they just don't want to because Russia isn't a credible threat.

The US knows this and has given up on a balance of power. They've left the ABM treaty and most of Eastern Europe has escaped from Russian domination and is therefore quite keen on the US. But they know that a balance of power won't work with the next generation of nuclear powers - they basically want to have thousands of nukes and a defensive shield that requires any potential adversary to have at least hundreds to have a chance of harming them before they are fried.

The fact of the matter is that Russia doesn't matter anymore - the US and their allies in Europe are going for omnipotence, and there's nothing that Russia can do about it, short of a premptive attack. And that would be suicide.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

And claiming a bordered delineation is expansionist just because the net transfer was 600 acres our way is equally absurd. That was nothing more than basically a resurveying of the lines.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[SenorCitizen]

Before, Stalin took Finland and the Baltic states. During, Stalin took half of Poland. After, Stalin took all of Poland, half of Germany, and almost every other eastern European country.

When exactly did Stalin "take" Finland? And just to nitpick... WW2 was already on when the USSR invaded the Baltic states, which was in 1940. The German invasion of Poland started the war in September 1939.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly they seek our essence. Our precious bodily fluids....

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[ichigo 2.0]

Who pushed for a resurvey of the lines? What was wrong with the borders as they were before 1970?

On an off-topic note, why do I have to disable the new comment system to see AC responses to myself? Is it a bug in Firefox or in the comment system? And why does my post seem to consist only of unanswered questions?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[The One and Only]

Russia invaded Finland twice at the time, which was followed by a German invasion of Finland. Finland managed to defend itself without the direct help of the other powers through most of that.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

I don't think US can destroy nuclear submarines

Yeah, because they have forcefields and are immune to attack.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Perhaps the US would become a country similar to present-day France

You mean with a cultural inferiority complex to go with our lack of economic and military clout? Somehow I don't see that happening. American culture has always been willing to embrace, extend and assimilate the best of other cultures. The French refuse to do this.

or Spain

Spain hasn't been a great power for hundreds of years. You might make a case for them being one on paper for part of that time -- at least until the Spanish-American war -- but even that is doubtful.

calling for a boycot on Californian wine

Go ahead. The only thing that sucks more then Californian wine is French wine ;) (yes, I'm from one of the wine producing states of the US that gets no respect and is completely overshadowed by California)

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

" "Yeah yeah, that's what they claim. But you can always change missles quickly once you have launch sites."

They don't need to do that. "

Not relevant.

"They've left the ABM treaty "

Of course, otherwise they couldn't spread weapons all over europe.

"The fact of the matter is that Russia doesn't matter anymore "

Lol. Dream on. Print that out, come back in 10 years and see if you don't blush.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Hence the external enemy to unite the internal.

Let me know how that goes for you. Just as soon as you figure out what to do with your welfare state, how the command structure for your forces will work and how you will bring the rest of the EU (some of whom actually like the United States) on board with your plan to unite against the US.

I've been to Italy, the UK, Ireland, Greece and Turkey, all in the last three years. And most of the people that I met had a more or less positive opinion of the US. They dislike some of our actions and most of them hate Bush (common ground because I hate him as well), but they don't view us as an enemy.

In fact the only people I've ever encountered hostility from where either French (big surprise) or Germans. I don't even have to do anything other then be present to piss them off. French tourists in Florence talking about my girlfriend and I -- not even bothering to lower their voices and just assuming that neither one of us spoke their language. But my all time favorite moment came at the Uffizi in Florence when a group of German tourists told me, in English that I should be "ashamed" to be an American because of my leader.

Germans telling somebody that they should be ashamed because of their leader (whom I didn't even vote for, FYI). That's irony.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed:

If the United States had wanted to cripple, kill, annihilate Russia, they would have CERTAINLY made their move when they had them on the ropes!
In 1992 The Russians had to 'borrow'-that is, get food hand outs- from the US and Japan!
    All the civilized world had to do was not loan the Russians all that economic aid they requested-begged for- in the 1993 to 1997 time frame.
From 1996 to 1999 the US could have buried Russia in bad money and bought the whole nation with the good money!! The Russia that Dictator' Putin is trying to make today and going forward, WILL end up where the Soviet Union ended up,...EXTINCT!!! Doomed and kaput like the Dinosaurs running merrily, in my cars gas tank!!!
    People who hate Putin are coming down with radiation poisioning at a MacDonalds near you: Death is a state passion once again!
Oh, and tell Putin he has to PAY FOR THAT SUPERBOWL RING HE STOLE AND PAWNED!!! Yes, a state leader who is no better than a two-bit, low-brow, degenerate trailer-park boy!!!:
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/001558.ht ml

Mr. Putini-I am NOT impressed! Get thee to a nunnery, you COMMIE PIMP!

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[TapeCutter]

I checked and you are 100% correct, it was a flipant example culled from childhood memories of the 60's - I don't know why a 10yro Aussie would confuse India with Pakistan. :)

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

""Hence the external enemy to unite the internal. "

Let me know how that goes for you."

I was just telling him how people work.

"as soon as you figure out what to do with your welfare state,"

Do with it? Just keep it where it is - of course not spending money on all kinds of other crap would help.

"how the command structure for your forces will work "

In a couple of hundred of years thepoliticians will probably have forced through a join EU army.

"how you will bring the rest of the EU (some of whom actually like the United States) on board with your plan to unite against the US"

My plan? What plan? What nonsense are you inventing (or is it drugs perhaps?)

"I've been to Italy, the UK, Ireland, Greece and Turkey, all in the last three years. And most of the people that I met had a more or less positive opinion of the US."

Ah, you noticed a "more or less" attitude - the people who hate are the ones who lost family and friends because of military intervention - you haven't bombed europe lately (just snatched a few citizens illegaly)

"In fact the only people I've ever encountered hostility"

Open hostility is pointless, unless you have a big army.

"a group of German tourists told me, in English that I should be "ashamed" to be an American because of my leader."

An emotional level you have yet to attain apparently, however you will notice many of your countrymen and politicians do feel ashamed - collective emotional responsibility.

Besides, if you aren't it must be because you agree with him.

"Germans telling somebody that they should be ashamed because of their leader (whom I didn't even vote for, FYI). That's irony."

Why is that Irony, do you have a problem with the German leader Andrea Merkel?

Or is it irony because you feel justified in blaming people living today for what a certain Austrian guy did more than 60 years ago?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Do with it? Just keep it where it is - of course not spending money on all kinds of other crap would help.

You wouldn't even be able to have that welfare state if you hadn't been leaning on the United States for your collective defense for the last 60 years. If Europe had to foot the cost of building a large enough military machine to resist the Soviet Union where would it be today?

Ah, you noticed a "more or less" attitude - the people who hate are the ones who lost family and friends because of military intervention - you haven't bombed europe lately (just snatched a few citizens illegaly)

Yes, a "more or less" attitude. Most of the people that I've met in Europe had nice things to say about the United States and nice things to say about Americans. Most of them didn't much care for Bush, but that's hardly an opinion limited to Europe (seen his approval ratings lately?).

do you have a problem with the German leader Andrea Merkel?

Well, I think she should have slapped Bush when he started giving her that massage, but that's just me ;)

Or is it irony because you feel justified in blaming people living today for what a certain Austrian guy did more than 60 years ago?

Did I say I blamed them? I only said that it was ironic that they used the words "you should be ashamed of your leader". There's nothing in American history that comes close to what Germany did in WW2 and as the old saying goes, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

"You wouldn't even be able to have that welfare state if you hadn't been leaning on the United States for your collective defense for the last 60 years. If Europe had to foot the cost of building a large enough military machine to resist the Soviet Union where would it be today?"

Or the US intereferede to make sure sure the countries of Europe developed in a way the US wanted.

Besides, there is always money for arms.

""Or is it irony because you feel justified in blaming people living today for what a certain Austrian guy did more than 60 years ago? "

Did I say I blamed them? "

Yes, by using ironic - everbody in germany below the age of 70 does not have anything at all to do with what some people did many many years ago - to even suggest its ironic is stupid. Whereas if you live in a democracy you bear some blame for the actions of the leader - would you accept "We didn't vote for Hitler" as an excuse from Germans 60 years ago?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

everbody in germany below the age of 70 does not have anything at all to do with what some people did many many years ago - to even suggest its ironic is stupid

To tell me that I should be ashamed because of my leader is equally stupid. To be rude to me when I'm a guest in your country because of my leader is equally stupid. What, you can dish it out but you can't take it?

You seem to think that the United States is holding you down. By all means go it alone without us. Can we have all of our money from the Marshall Plan and post WW2 aid please? How about our war debts (some of which date back to the first world war) that you never repaid? How about that little mess down in the Balkans that you couldn't even solve without our help (via NATO) not ten years ago? How about the Berlin airlift and defending the people of Germany against Russian vengeance for their crimes on the Eastern Front?

Now I'm not saying that all of that entitles us to walk all over you. But I do think that the blind and arrogant anti-Americanism shown by many Europeans really needs to end. Try a constructive dialog sometime. You'll find it more productive then spouting off the latest bit of propaganda spoon-fed to you by those that hate or envy the United States.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

""everbody in germany below the age of 70 does not have anything at all to do with what some people did many many years ago - to even suggest its ironic is stupid "

To tell me that I should be ashamed because of my leader is equally stupid."

Not so much.

"To be rude to me when I'm a guest in your country because of my leader is equally stupid. "

Well, is not polite, and its mostly pointless. But when people feel threatened they vent how they can.

"What, you can dish it out but you can't take it?"

Like you they probably weren't interested in the opposing view.

"You seem to think that the United States is holding you down. "

Keeping reigns on allowed development paths.

"Can we have all of our money from the Marshall Plan and post WW2 aid please?"

That money was economic imperialism, spent in an attempt to buy control over Western Europe. Though interestingly enough nations who receive little "aid" (Germany, Austria, Italy) grew more in post war years than nations who received a lot (Sweden, Greece and Britian) infact you kept fleesing Britain in the lendlease act for decades, with them finishing it of in 2000. But I'm sure the rest of the world would like the US to cough up the billions they owe the UN.

"How about our war debts (some of which date back to the first world war) that you never repaid?"

Well if you have lent money to someone you'd have to talk to the people you lent it to, I haven't borrowed anything. But I can imagine you are getting desperate with the dollar going down the drain http://pressesc.com/01180629622_dollar_falls

"How about that little mess down in the Balkans that you couldn't even solve without our help (via NATO) not ten years ago? "

I didn't ask you for "help". Just stay away. The primitives need to slug it out - and unless you can keep the parties in opposing ringsides for several generations they are back at it when you turn yours. Of course they are siding with each other in the Eurovision song contest, so perhaps songs will win the peace!

"How about the Berlin airlift and defending the people of Germany against Russian vengeance for their crimes on the Eastern Front?"

What, helping Hitler supporters to gain foothold in europe? I don't know, what about it?

"Now I'm not saying that all of that entitles us to walk all over you."

But perhaps it entitles you to think you are the center of the universe and that all who breathes envy you?

"But I do think that the blind and arrogant anti-Americanism shown by many Europeans really needs to end. "

I'm sure that happens once the americans are less pro american and more than 40% believe in Evolution.

"Try a constructive dialog sometime. You'll find it more productive"

Productive? Hardly.

"...then spouting off the latest bit of propaganda spoon-fed to you by those that hate or envy the United States"

Is so funny, i've never met anyone who envies it. I've only ever heard about it from americans, usually right after they tell us how great they are and how we should worship them.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

But when people feel threatened they vent how they can.

Yes, because the American tourist sitting at an open-air cafe in Florence eating lunch with his girlfriend is really threatening and deserves to be insulted and mocked even though he was minding his own business and trying to enjoy the day.

I didn't ask you for "help"

No, your leaders did.

The primitives need to slug it out - and unless you can keep the parties in opposing ringsides for several generations they are back at it when you turn yours

There wouldn't have been that whole mess if the Western Powers after WW1 hadn't got the bright idea of creating an artificial country. Come to think of it there might not have been a WW2 if the Western Powers had listened to Wilson (*gasp*, an American!) and treated the defeated Central Powers with some respect and humility instead of breaking the backbone of the German economy and setting the stage for Hitler's rise to power.

But perhaps it entitles you to think you are the center of the universe and that all who breathes envy you?

And statements like that are what pisses me off about people like you. You spout so much anti-American nonsense that you anger the moderate people like me that might actually listen to your viewpoint if you presented it with some tact and less rhetoric. I personally don't like Bush. I personally don't like some of the things my country has done lately. But when you start trashing us and spouting the same old anti-American nonsense that I expect from the likes of Hugo Chavez you encourage Americans to close ranks and unite against you.

I'm sure that happens once the americans are less pro american

Unlike most Europeans we aren't ashamed of what we are and we aren't falling all over ourselves trying to apologize for Western civilization.

and more than 40% believe in Evolution.

Again with the blanket statements that serve no purpose other then pissing educated Americans off. You realize that statements like that close the door to any meaningful debate with the educated and moderate Americans that are likely on your side to begin with? My first reaction upon reading that was to type "go fuck yourself" but I restrained myself.

That money was economic imperialism, spent in an attempt to buy control over Western Europe. Though interestingly enough nations who receive little "aid" (Germany, Austria, Italy) grew more in post war years than nations who received a lot (Sweden, Greece and Britian)

That's funny because Germany and Italy received a lot more aid then Sweden did. And that money was 'economic imperialism'? So the United States helps to rebuild your countries, after you destroyed them in a war that you started, and you look upon that as imperialism? Has the US never done a single positive thing in your World?

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

""But when people feel threatened they vent how they can. "

Yes, because the American tourist sitting at an open-air cafe in Florence eating lunch with his girlfriend is really threatening and deserves to be insulted and mocked even though he was minding his own business and trying to enjoy the day"

I just told you how it works.

""I didn't ask you for "help"

No, your leaders did."

Just like your leader invaded iraq (to give them the joys of copyright and get their oil)

"There wouldn't have been that whole mess if the Western Powers after WW1 hadn't got the bright idea of creating an artificial country."

Yeah, it always creates problems, just look at the Israelis ("Our supernatural being told us we must live here - move over")

"I personally don't like Bush. I personally don't like some of the things my country has done lately."

Good.

"But when you start trashing us and spouting the same old anti-American nonsense that I expect from the likes of Hugo Chavez you encourage Americans to close ranks and unite against you."

And *that* is what I said originally is happening in the other end when too many start with the "you should be greatefull for all we have done for you"

""and more than 40% believe in Evolution."

Again with the blanket statements that serve no purpose other then pissing educated Americans off."

Just read it in the latest issue of Wired (gasp, an american magazine) - the US comming in at the 29th spot of 30 countries.
Of course Turkey was at 30th with 28% - here's hoping they don't get in.

"You realize that statements like that close the door to any meaningful debate with the educated and moderate Americans that are likely on your side to begin with? "

Hm, not really no. If the other party thinks "Yeah, that is sad" its sort of over already, and if he thinks "But God is real, we can prove that" its definitely over as well.

"That's funny because Germany and Italy received a lot more aid then Sweden did."

Well its possible my source were incorrect - quite frankly I can't be bothered to research any further.

"And that money was 'economic imperialism'?"

Valid interpretation.

"So the United States helps to rebuild your countries"

Or made sure they didn't join the soviet union (which some wanted).

"after you destroyed them in a war that you started"

Yeah, like you started the war when the Japanese started shooting at you.

"Has the US never done a single positive thing in your World?"

Sure.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Shakrai]

Or made sure they didn't join the soviet union (which some wanted).

Really? Which countries are those again? Poland didn't want to be a part of the Soviet Union/Eastern Bloc. I kinda doubt any part of Germany did either, seeing as how the Red Army basically raped and pillaged it's way across Germany in the closing days of WW2.

There were communist movements in many European countries (Greece comes to mind) but what country willingly wanted to "join" the Soviet Union? In fact, Yugoslavia (a communist country) made a point to get out of the Eastern Bloc as soon as they were able to do so. The Hungarian Revolution would also seem to suggest that most people who fell under the thumb of the Eastern Bloc were less then happy about it.

You can really look at all that history and the actions of the Soviet Union under Stalin and tell me that you would rather the United States hadn't stuck around in Europe after WW2? Say what you will about the United States/NATO/the West/what have you but there weren't armed uprisings against any of the countries on this side of the iron curtain.

Yeah, like you started the war when the Japanese started shooting at you.

I was referring to the fact that Europeans started and fought WW2, not Germans specifically. It seems interesting to bemoan the fact that the United States (and Russia to an extent) is so heavily involved in European affairs without looking at history to find out why. If the Western Powers had treated a defeated Germany with respect then it's probable that Hitler never comes to power. If France and the UK had actually fought the opening stages of WW2 instead of sitting around waiting to be attacked it's probable that Germany would have been defeated in 1939/40 and that the United States and Russia never would have been part of the war. Or if they had stood up to him during the Sudetenland Crisis instead of abandoning Czechoslovakia.

This has been an interesting conversation but I honestly don't see you changing your viewpoints about the United States. It's interesting that people are rooting for our downfall -- I suspect that if the United States was replaced with another superpower that everybody would decide to starting rooting against them as well (unless that superpower is their own country of course) regardless of anything good or bad that they may do.

Only time and history will tell I suppose.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Snaller]

""Or made sure they didn't join the soviet union (which some wanted). "

Really? Which countries are those again?"

People.

""Yeah, like you started the war when the Japanese started shooting at you. "

I was referring to the fact that Europeans started and fought WW2, not Germans specifically. "

And I was dismissing it. One austrian started to invade all other countries, they had the choice to do nothing or defend themselves - obviously they defended themselves.

"the Western Powers had treated a defeated Germany with respect "

Ah, like you treated japan - well then Hitler would have chosen another excuse. People generally feel insecure, and will for milennia to come most likely.

"This has been an interesting conversation but I honestly don't see you changing your viewpoints about the United States"

I doubt you know them.

"It's interesting that people are rooting for our downfall "

As you said not everybody is. Perhaps there is a god on your side.

"I suspect that if the United States was replaced with another superpower that everybody would decide to starting rooting against them as well (unless that superpower is their own country of course) regardless of anything good or bad that they may do."

Most likely, unless they are very skilled psychologists.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you have much of a clue about this topic; please refrain from posting anything else.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Hognoxious]

Well back in the middle ages, knights only used to buckle on their armour after they'd been stabbed and hacked to bits, so it makes perfect sense to me.

Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread

[Hognoxious]

the land in the Louisiana Purchase was bought (not taken by force)

From the French, who didn't own it anyway.

This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

The US defenses are oriented and located to where they will NOT be able to counter ANY Russion launches toward the US or Europe.

Just do the damned trajectory math. It does not work for much anything except stuff being flung from Tehran.

Putin is doing what Bush does, just rabble rousing to distract people from all the crap he is pulling behind the scenes.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Just do the damned trajectory math. It does not work for much anything except stuff being flung from Tehran.

You are a fucking idiot. The reason it would be more effective in defending from Iran than Russia is because Iran has less missiles.

Nothing whatsoever to do with trajectory math. Be glad you posted anonymously.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[blowdart]

Just do the damned trajectory math. It does not work for much anything except stuff being flung from Tehran.

Share your math, because I don't see how. Placing a missile base in Poland, with, if the publicity is to be believed (and there are more unsuccessful tests than successful ones) the capability to shoot down incoming missiles two minutes after detection means that unless Russia is going to put missiles right on its border with Europe rather than their current locations then it is more than capable of intercepting missiles inbound from the Urals.

And of course why would you be protecting against Iran when (right now) the Shabab 4/5/6 missiles are theoretical? If anything the major threat to the US is (still) North Korea.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[WindBourne]

That is false. It actually will protect Europe from Russian, Chinese, NK, and Iranian launches. Why? Because this gets the rockets in cruise phase as opposed to boost or targeting. So anything that is coming overheard or just to the side will be blocked. The real issue is, how many missiles are we looking to put in? Not many. Russia can easily overrun our number with current inventory. The simple solution for Russia is to have verification of launchers/missiles. But it would be better for everyone if Bush would spend more time talking to Putin about this.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Share your math, because I don't see how. Placing a missile base in Poland, with, if the publicity is to be believed (and there are more unsuccessful tests than successful ones) the capability to shoot down incoming missiles two minutes after detection means that unless Russia is going to put missiles right on its border with Europe rather than their current locations then it is more than capable of intercepting missiles inbound from the Urals.

The point for the US is that the missile shield does not protect the *US* from Russian missiles. And that point is correct. Russian missiles launched at the US travel north over the polar icecap, not across Europe. You don't take down a ballistic missile by launching a non-ballistic missile directly behind it. It won't be able to outrun the ballistic missile. Preferably you take it out by launching a missile at a right angle to it when it is launched or it is re-entering the atmosphere. The missile bases in Europe are useful for this purpose.

And of course why would you be protecting against Iran when (right now) the Shabab 4/5/6 missiles are theoretical? If anything the major threat to the US is (still) North Korea.

The US has moved significant anti-missile resources to Japan, including several AEGIS cruisers and Army PAC-3 systems. You need to pay more attention to the news.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I think so too, but I haven't done the math, and I'm probably too stupid to solve it without help anyways. But for some reason I've admired a lot of Russian scientists and I kind of doubt that a missile defense shield against a Soviet attack would even work. Either way it's a bunch of political BS. So how about the survival of the human race and the betterment of life on this garden we call planet Earth?

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[bmgoau]

Im not agreeing with any of the conclusions this article is attempting to make, but i would like to let the parent of this thread know that scientists have successfully tested something called a "guided" thats right, a "guieded" missle, that is actually capable of flight that is not parabolic. It makes use of new high tech hydrogen and oxygen engines that allow the missle to control its direction of flight.

It is because of this new innovation that missle defence systems are scattered and not always directly in the line of a possible missle trajectory.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[2ms]

Please explain what you mean as the best way for the US to deal with this. You say Bush should be talking to Putin more. Please elaborate/be more specific.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

For a totally different perspective check out J. R. Nyquist... I've been reading his stuff for years because its so intriguing and apocalyptic.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[WindBourne]

Bush needs to go to Moscow. They are both sending in envoys who are dancing around each other. Ppl like rice is wasting time and pissing off everybody. But, W. has said that he can easily do business with Putin. Now is the time to prove it. He needs to spend some time with him convincing him that this is NOT about Russia. As I said in my first post, this is about verification of HOW many missiles we have there. Once the radar goes in, if we can put in 4000 missiles, then yes, we can block Russia. But if all we have there is a small number (unknown to other countries, but known to Russia), AND can be easily verified (space pix will not work due to small size) by physical presence, then it shoul dbe possib le to make peace over this.

At the very least, W. needs to convince everybody else that this was offered to Putin and HE turned it down. Then it becomes an issue with Putin's intentions.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Swingblade]

You are wrong in what yo write. Russia informed Norway a few years back that one of the new American built radars in northern Norway had hidden capabilities. One of these was supposedly anti-missile system based. The Norwegian gov. was not informed of these hidden capabilities when the radar was built, but got it confirmed from the USA after Russia put down proofs. This means that even if the locations in Poland and CZE are "pointed" to the middle east, the radar dome in Norway (and god knows elsewhere) are pointed towards non-NATO countries, and the one in northern Norway is probabl pointing to the east.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[dave1791]

I've not heard of this before. Do you have a credible reference for it? Without a credible reference (emphasis on credible), this is a he-said-shes-said story.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[The Mgt]

The US defenses are oriented and located to where they will NOT be able to counter ANY Russion launches toward the US or Europe.

AFAIK given the semi-vapourware status of this missile defense system it wouldn't be able to counter any launches from anywhere.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[value_added]

That is false. It actually will protect Europe from ... Iranian launches.

Launches of what? Homemade explosive devices? Propaganda leaflets? A large bowl of hummus? I can see it now. Fifteen athletic Iranian guys carrying a long cylindrical object running at full tilt toward a cliff. Or was that was the Coyote in perpetual war against the evil Roadrunner?

But back to real facts. Russia feels threatened, and rightfully so. Doesn't take a genius to see an aggressively expanding NATO (made up, in part, of some of their former satellites) at their doorstep as something other than problematic.

But it would be better for everyone if Bush would spend more time talking to Putin about this.

Agreed, but despite the fact that the cold war ended years ago, and despite the very real (and recently demonstrated) value of Russia to the US in everything from terrorism to geopolitics, we still refuse to talk to them (except through back channels) or acknowledge their importance. Come to think of it, we don't talk to anybody but our friends. I guess the strategy is to piss everyone off, and threaten anyone who objects.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Hal_Porter]

It seems like the US has already done this. They've explained that

1) The missiles are no threat to Russia. They can only shoot down ICBMs and are thus completely defensive.
2) The missiles are no threate to Russian ICBMs. If Russia launches an all out attack, they would overwhelm the system.

The problem is that either the Russians don't believe this, or Russian internal politics forces Putin to make this somehwhat crazy threat. Or maybe there's something else going on, like Russia is trying to make sure some other third rate power like Iran has the ability to lob ICBMs at the US.

I think the Russians and the Chinese are worried that even if a missile defense system starts of being designed to shoot down a few 1950's technology missiles from Iran, it will eventually be upgraded to the point where it can shoot down thousands of state of the art missiles from Russia or China. At which point, their deterrent would not be worth anything.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[martin-boundary]

Right, I'm sure the US would have NO problem if the Russians decided to put radar stations and missiles in Cuba, all ORIENTED towards Chechnya. Clearly, it's trivial for the US to invade Cuba if they ever want to.

</Rolls eyes>

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, if they have nothing to launch, then why develop missiles in the first place? The truth is, that it is trivial to build gas and bio weapons. Always has been, and will continue to be so. And this assumes that Iran will not develop nukes. They will be doing so. Will that be so surprising? They have to always fight. They view Israel as a nightmare. They have now been given the plans for building nukes from pakistan. So, no, it should not be the least bit surprising when they do. Of course, the bulk of the uranium will go in to cheap energy (at least they are brighter than we are).

Should Russia feel threatened from this? I do not think so. But the simple fact is, if we scale it up QUIETLY, then yeah, it becomes a serious threat. So as I mentioned elsewhere, we need them to do verification of count.

Oh, W. is an idiot. Always has been and always will be. The fact that we are having a falling out for the lunar work says it all. I am not a big believer in putin, either. But the simple fact is, that our foreign policy is at an all-time low. He has pissed off friends and enemies alike. Quite honestly, read through some of these postings (and in other stories), and u realize that we Americans are now hated. That happens when you bully the world while at the same time, feeding it. It is hard to be dependent on a friend. But Nobody wants to be dependent on a bully. And that is us.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[bentcd]

And of course why would you be protecting against Iran when (right now) the Shabab 4/5/6 missiles are theoretical? Considering that the missile defense system is also (right now) theoretical, this somehow seems strangely fitting.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Fred_A]

I don't think it has anything to do with any of this. This anti-missile system (which probably doesn't work anyway) is supposed to protect against a threat which doesn't even exist. The main problem Putin and others have with it is the perceived loss of face. This might be exacerbated by the fact that some factions in Russia haven't gotten over the dismemberment of the USSR and still view the former satellite states as their playground even though a lot of them are now part of the EU (which for some obscure reason still seems to allow the deployment of the US toys on its territory).

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[packeteer]

And of course why would you be protecting against Iran when (right now) the Shabab 4/5/6 missiles are theoretical? If anything the major threat to the US is (still) North Korea.

How are they a threat? They don't have any oil we want. I was under the impression that only countries with oil were a threat to us.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU is not allowing anything. The member states are still sovereign for this matter. Mind you, if the EU Constitution Treaty had passed, maybe the eastern EU members would actually have to at least debate their choice with other state members. As a matter of fact, the NMD is not really appreciated in states like France (surprised huh ?), Germany, Spain, Italy...

Chirac recently proposed to use nuclear weapons not only to sanctuarize France but also any other allied country, including implicitly any EU members. Combined with English weapons, it could provide a strong enough deterrent against any threats. Besides technical weaknesses, the NMD looks pretty useless and dangerous politically...

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that they -and you- are apparently focused on missile missile missile when it's JUST as easy for Tehran or someone else to put a nuke in a container truck and ship it into a port or something.

It doesn't have to pass security at the port, so long as the port city is the target. Blow it before security can do anything.

Meanwhile everyone is focused on ABMs that won't stop attacks but which WILL antagonize the Russians.

This blustering by the US does nothing to protect anyone from anything. It merely trashes decades worth of marginal trust crafted between two sides who can ill afford to get caught up in a war.

There's an old saying that you can measure a man by the wars he causes. There is a generation in power, formed by the end of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War which measures themselves by the fights they've gotten into. They like conflict with Russia. It's an old adversary they've missed sparring. But the stakes have gotten higher in the last 20 years and it's not the same Russia. These little ego war games are at the same time much more dangerous than they ever were, and they're being played by a generation that has poor judgment and a lack of ability to see consequences more than six months out.

Now, they're creating an ABM fiasco which will cause problems not out six months, not out a few years when the parties involved are out of power, but it will cause problems down the line for decades to come. And again, of course, it will be so easy to bypass the ABM so as to make all this stress and conflict and war absolutely worthless. It's literally the modern day Maginot line, and we know how well THAT worked the first time. (it didn't)

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[mikerich]

It doesn't matter what the current missiles CAN do, its what future missiles COULD do and what the Russians THINK America wants to do.

To clarify. Poland and the Czech Republic are on Russia's doorstep, less than a generation ago they were firmly inside the orbit of Moscow. Now, not only are they members of NATO but they are enthusiastically embracing the policies of the US military. This is bound to set red lights flashing in the Kremlin. Imagine the reaction in Washinton if Ottawa announced it was placing Russian missiles in Ontario - the US would see it as a grave provocation within its sphere of influence.

Secondly, long term treaty aims are to reduce the amount of MIRVing on missiles AND to reduce to the number of missiles. The Russians are already coming from behind on this, they have large fleets of liquid fuelled SS18 missiles, well past their sell-by date, but capable of putting 10 warheads pretty much anywhere in the US. If they go down the treaty route they'll find themselves surrounded by anti-missile stations that MAY be upgradeable to take out Russian missiles.

Russia was humiliated by the end of the Cold War, it lost its Empire, saw its beliefs collapse and then allowed its economy to be destroyed by Western 'reformers'; the end result was millions of Russians in horrifying poverty, the collapse of the economy, social system, education, and in large parts of the country, law-and-order. Now, it has discovered it has unbelievable power in the form of its energy reserves, it has massive amounts of foreign currency sloshing around, AND in the form of Putin, the fabled Russian strong man who can unite the country.

American policy towards Russia under Bush has been a disaster, it has provoked confrontation after confrontation, rolled its tanks up to the borders, abbrogated long-standing treaties and acted like Russia was a backward nation. Putin is using national resentment to give America (and Britain in particular) a serious case of the jitters.

Whether American missiles can destroy Russian missiles is almost immaterial, it gives the Russians a chance to throw their not-inconsiderable weight around, and it offers their, let be honest, stunning missile designers, plenty of opportunities to bring in a new generation of planet killers. Putin can now make sure he's succeeded by a fellow strong man and Russia can really start to influence European politics - at the end of the day, it's going to be the gas taps as much as the warheads that will make Europe gradually turn towards the East. And that may not be a good thing.

But you can be sure this will also have been noticed in Beijing - another cash-rich country will soon be pouring money into solid-fuelled, MIRVed missiles. China is almost certain to build a missile submarine fleet and expand its own Pacific fleet - which brings another force into direct conflict with US strategic interests. At the end of the day, can the US compete in an arms race against TWO superpowers?

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[SharpFang]

"It actually will protect Europe from Russian, _Chinese_, _NK_, and _Iranian_ launches."

Typical geography knowledge of an American. Yeah, it might protect Finland from Iranian launches. Or maybe some of Sweden and northwest of Norway. Poland is way too far north to protect centre of Europe from the Middle East. I'd understand Romania or Grecce, but Poland is strictly against Russia, and Russia's reaction is quite natural. Oh, and same bullshit goes to the US. So North Korea launches the missiles 3/4 the way around the globe to include Poland on the route to the US? Iran makes a 2000km detour north before the missiles are turned west? China... China, with some luck could launch over Russia, Poland, Greenland, wrap around northern Canada and hit Alaska in a straight line like that.

Oh, but we all know Bush isn't too good at geography...

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[robot_love]

You claimed that Western reformers left millions of Russians in "horrifying poverty". This is misleading.

The Soviet system was already responsible for the horrifying poverty of the Russian people. Exposure to free-market influences simply made it impossible to ignore.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Carewolf]

Come to think of it, we don't talk to anybody but our friends.

You are talking to you friends?
Why do they just feel you are just pissing on them then?

Or is that a matter of: What friends?

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[SharpFang]

"Launches of what?"

Launches of suborbital missiles that fly over Africa, Antarctica, Pacific Ocean, North Pole, and in the end fall on Europe flying over Poland.
Or the ones that make a big circle through Russia or Atlantic Ocean and come back to Europe from North.

Check location of Europe on the map. Check location of Iran. Then check location of Poland. Then try to draw possible trajectories of missiles launched from Iran, flying to most of Europe, that could be intercepted by missiles from Poland.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

but russian missle targeting the USA won't be flying over Europe, just look at the globe: the russian rockets are launched from selfpropeled mobile launchers scattedred in the wastelands of siberia and will be sent over the polar cap rather then Europe or the Pacific.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[AaronLawrence]

Sorry, no. The Russian people were not, in general, in poverty in the 80's towards the end of the USSR. Sure, they were a way behind the comforts of the west, and the farmers were worse off than the urbanites (by design in Marxism, never could get my head around that), but things were generally manageable. Then they went free-market all at once and most existing organisations collapsed - things got a LOT worse for many people.

Why do you think so many Russians look back on the USSR with nostalgia? It's not just the power, many were actually better off.

It's almost like the free market isn't a panacea, like maybe there is a role for a government to manage things. Nah, that can't be it.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as much the possibility of shooting down their missles that pisses off russia but rather the fact that American soldiers will be deployed in countries that russians still view as their own.

Just look at the histerical reactions when Estonians removed a monument to soviet occupants or when Georgians busted a russian spy rig. But this in the long run is something far more important for russians: if in say 15 or 20 years from now russia moves to once again invade Poland our allies might or might not react similary to what they did 1939, but when there will be US miliary instalations here a key component of a system needed to defened America it greatly increases the likelyhood of the US keeping its obligations. This is something the putin doesn't want.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[T23M]

Funny how we don't seem to be seeing much of that, considering oil prices; I think it's time to retire the oil argument.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[shutdown -p now]

Doesn't take a genius to see an aggressively expanding NATO (made up, in part, of some of their former satellites) at their doorstep as something other than problematic.

How so? The "aggressive expansion" of NATO is nothing more than the open-doors policy, wherein all Western democratic countries willing to join are allowed to do so. In essense, expansion of NATO mirrors the expansion of democracy in post-Soviet space. Now, I agree that it is worrying for the Russian leaders, but not because of some military concerns. The idea of a military confrontation of NATO and Russia initiated by NATO is, in modern day and age, rather insane. The other way around - why, we are pretty much seeing the seeds sown for that today.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Evil Poot Cat]

You know, if the world were flat, you and your friends in this thread would probably have a point.

However, the world is round, and "Most of Europe" is is not relevant in this case. The part of Europe behind the interceptors is. Specifically (from Iran's point of view): most of Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, and (probably the actual beneficiary in this case) the UK and Ireland.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The missiles are no threat to Russia. They can only shoot down ICBMs and are thus completely defensive.

ICBMs, each and every one on the planet, US, Russian, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Israeli, North Korean and Iranian projects... all of them are aggression deterrence weapons. It is a last resort defensive weapon. It is just our PoV that some of those nations should not have ultimate defense because we have a thing of two to teach them about some important things... which some of them are apparently very aware of!

2) The missiles are no threate to Russian ICBMs. If Russia launches an all out attack, they would overwhelm the system.

However, the "Low intensity conflict" game can be played ... Russia wants to keep open the option of "Tit for Tat" strategy in it. They don't want to be forced to choose between national sovereignty and bare existence - there is an obvious preferred choice in it.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[shutdown -p now]

Bear in mind that parliamentary elections are due in Russia in December this year, and presidential elections are soon to follow in March 2008. Which means it's time to rattle the rusty Imperial saber and score some more points with the population - not really for the votes, mind you, the way the recent elections went, the people in power can pretty much announce any results they wish; but to get some popular support for the crackdown on the still-existing opposition. Just declare them all a bunch of traitors funded by the West, and there we go. But for that, the people must first learn to see the West, as a whole, as the enemy; and what better way to do so then to revive the old Cold War instincts?

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

"Launches of what?" you ask. It seems you know nothing about Iran's aerospace engineering capabailities. Maybe you should do some research on this topic. You will likely be surprised.

I deal with export control of aerospace products for a living.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[BlueTrin]

Don't forget Switzerland

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[MaGGuN]

Doesn't take a genius to see an aggressively expanding NATO (made up, in part, of some of their former satellites) at their doorstep as something other than problematic.

The countries have been included by their own free will. This makes me wonder how you would word expansion by military force? Very aggressive expansion? At least Russia understands who wants in on nato. And does Russia have a good reason for being concerned about nato's expansion? The fear of wanting in on nato by free will?

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Valacosa]

You used "at the end of the day" twice in two paragraphs.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Chrisje]

As I've stated here, the Russians might be geared up for a small world-destroying war, but they don't have the cash or manpower to make any claims to being a superpower anymore. Before you go on to say that the EU is not geared for war, WWI and WWII have shown us how much of a pain in the ass countries like Germany can become in no time whatsoever. Money can be re-routed faster than missiles, if you will.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how we don't seem to be seeing much of that, considering oil prices; I think it's time to retire the oil argument.

The problem with not ascribing to malice what could be ascribed to incompetence is that sometimes people are both. Before we invaded Iraq, the administration clearly stated that all of this would be paid for by Iraqi oil. They also stated that we could be in and out in months and be done with it.

"Considering oil prices" it appears that Bush's war for Iraqi oil was an utter failure.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[genrader]

Uh, government = reason everything collapsed. Socialism can be sustained only in a world where capitalism and prices is the norm.

Now if you had the slightest bit of sense about you, you'd understand that the reason the economy collapsed is because the ruble was decimated and worth nothing after the Western banks withdrew investments and stopped using the ruble for anything. The same will happen for the dollar in America.

People may say conspiracy but it always leads back to the money control. What we have in the world is never capitalism. There are behind the scenes forces at work.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are just sad.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Shadowland]

> American policy towards Russia under Bush has been a disaster

Here, let me fix that for you:

"American policy under Bush has been a disaster"

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Himring]

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[doctor_nation]

Can the US compete against two superpowers in an arms race? Well, since our military budget is more than that of all other countries combined, I'd have to say yes. Should we? No. But I'm sure we could (for at least a while).

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[trifish]

against a threat which doesn't even exist.

Iran is working on it. North Korea already launched some missile. They can get better very soon.

a lot of them are now part of the EU (which for some obscure reason still seems to allow the deployment of the US toys on its territory).

You forgot that most EU members and the US are also members of NATO, which makes them direct military allies bound by treaties.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had mod points now, I'd mod parent up.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[lahvak]

Sorry, no. The Russian people were not, in general, in poverty in the 80's towards the end of the USSR. Sure, they were a way behind the comforts of the west, and the farmers were worse off than the urbanites (by design in Marxism, never could get my head around that), but things were generally manageable. Then they went free-market all at once and most existing organisations collapsed - things got a LOT worse for many people. The Russian economy, much as the economy of the rest of eastern Europe, was decimated by decades of planned socialist system. It was completely drained, and was to collapse at any time. If communists stayed in power, and the system continued, you would see the exact same, and possibly even worse poverty and destruction. Most of the party leadership understood that, too, that's why they were willing to accept reforms, in some cases actually initiated reforms. Some of them did not care about reforms, just wanted to quickly bail out. They knew the system is not going to work much longer. Lenin understood that long time ago, thus his NEP. Chinese understand that. Most eastern European parties and governments just simply gave up, with surprisingly little pressure from the people. They realized it was better to get out as quickly as possible, rather than waiting and ending up being held responsible for what was inevitably going to happen in the next five or ten years.

The collapse of the eastern block was not a result of the cold war. The pressure from the west, arms races etc. probably speeded things up a bit, but the system collapsed because it was not economically viable. Planned economy which discourages any personal initiative and treats majority of its citizens as potential enemies simply does not work.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3B the Iranian Shahab-3B can already reach Istanbul, and Bucharest and Athens are close to its range. The Shahab-3C and 3D are more advanced versions of the missile that are already in mass production. And the Iranians are undertaking further missile research.

The day is very close -- it may already have arrived -- when Prague and Rome will be vulnerable to strikes by Iranian missiles. Having some possibility of destroying incoming missiles leaves our diplomatic and military options open.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[lixee]

The real issue is, how many missiles are we looking to put in?

Intended pun?

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[mikerich]

The hyperinflation of the Yeltsin years was a direct result of Western economic advisors enforcing a rapid transition to market economics. All of this was done under the 'Washington Consensus' of the IMF, World Bank, and US Treasury. At first, they opened the markets to imports without any attempt at preparing the domestic market, then watched as domestic producers went out of business and capital fled the country in the form of buying imports with ever devaluing roubles. To cure the hyperinflation they'd unleashed, the advisors then enforced an austerity regime involving a lack of credit, high interest rates (killing off those industries that could have survived with access to loans) and removal of subsidies on basics like bread and energy which hit the poorest people hardest.

According to The World Bank (not known for its enthusiasm for Communism) 1.5% of the population lived in poverty (less than $25 per month) in the last days of Communism; that went up to somewhere between 39% and 49% by 1993. This is a collapse akin to that of the Great Depression in the West - and look what nasties that spawned.

The Communist economic system needed to be dismantled, but the way it was done in Russia was barbaric. We botched it, now we're reaping the consequences.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_II

better than nothing =p
just search for globus II if you want something better

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

...at the end of the day, it's going to be the gas taps as much as the warheads that will make Europe gradually turn towards the East.

Gas taps and warheads and nothing else? Tad arrogant, isn't it? How about being pissed off enough with US foreign policy that the Russian point of view just seems to be more reasonable at times?

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[lahvak]

Poland and the Czech Republic are on Russia's doorstep,... Poland is on Russia's doorstep only if you ignore all the countries that separate the two of them. Of course, a Russian nationalist would say that Ukraine and Belarus always belonged to Russia, and still are and will always be parts of Russia, even though they are currently little disobedient, being under evil western influence. Quick glance on a map will tell you that saying that Czech Republic is on Russia's doorstep is about as valid as saying that Austria and Germany are on Russia's doorstep.

Russia was humiliated by the end of the Cold War, it lost its Empire, saw its beliefs collapse and then allowed its economy to be destroyed by Western 'reformers'; Russian economy was not destroyed by western reformers, it was destroyed by decades of communism. It is probably true that many things about bringing economical aid and foreign investment into Russia could have been handled better, but if anything it was just the last blow to an already almost dead system.

the end result was millions of Russians in horrifying poverty, the collapse of the economy, social system, education, and in large parts of the country, law-and-order. Now, it has discovered it has unbelievable power in the form of its energy reserves, it has massive amounts of foreign currency sloshing around, AND in the form of Putin, the fabled Russian strong man who can unite the country.

American policy towards Russia under Bush has been a disaster, That I completely agree with.

it has provoked confrontation after confrontation, rolled its tanks up to the borders, abbrogated long-standing treaties and acted like Russia was a backward nation. Putin is using national resentment to give America (and Britain in particular) a serious case of the jitters.

Whether American missiles can destroy Russian missiles is almost immaterial, it gives the Russians a chance to throw their not-inconsiderable weight around, and it offers their, let be honest, stunning missile designers, plenty of opportunities to bring in a new generation of planet killers. Putin can now make sure he's succeeded by a fellow strong man and Russia can really start to influence European politics - at the end of the day, it's going to be the gas taps as much as the warheads that will make Europe gradually turn towards the East. And that may not be a good thing. Indeed.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[kalirion]

Funny how we don't seem to be seeing much of that, considering oil prices; I think it's time to retire the oil argument.

Why don't you check out the Big Oil profits from the last few years.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent way of putting it. I served many years on a SSBN in the US and want to clarify one thing when it comes to this post. A single warhead (or MIRV) is one nuclear bomb. For every 1 missile that carries 10 warheads that is 10 seperate (and by seperate were talking hundreds and potentially thousands of miles) targets. Name the top ten cities in any country and that would be 1 missile. One US missile is generally capable of vaporising a 20 square mile area (vaporising, nothing left, not even tiny rubble) where some Soviet era missiles could do the same to a 200 square mile area. Considering the size of each countries missile inventory any one of the countries mentioned could easily destroy the entire world many times over. And both countries like playing "Thermo Nuclear War" for kicks.

Also, China an SSBN and a new SSBN in development (nuclear missile carrying subs) and have for since 1981. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xia_class_submarine and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_094_submarine. There is only one Xia but it still exsists and the Type 94 is still in production.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[kennylogins]

"At the end of the day, can the US compete in an arms race against TWO superpowers?"

This in addition to the middle-eastern quagmire really makes me wonder, wtf reality does this administration live in?
Not fighting a war on multiple fronts as well as some tactical subtlety in relations was basic knowledge, I thought.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Lockejaw]

Nothing whatsoever to do with trajectory math.

If Russia launched missiles at the U.S., they would not fly over Europe. If Iran launched missiles at the U.S., they would fly over Eastern Europe. Go check an azimuthal map and see for yourself.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[ThousandStars]

Russia was humiliated by the end of the Cold War, it lost its Empire, saw its beliefs collapse and then allowed its economy to be destroyed by Western 'reformers'; the end result was millions of Russians in horrifying poverty, the collapse of the economy, social system, education, and in large parts of the country, law-and-order. Now, it has discovered it has unbelievable power in the form of its energy reserves, it has massive amounts of foreign currency sloshing around, AND in the form of Putin, the fabled Russian strong man who can unite the country.

Putin no longer believes this, but a rational observer should believe that Russia has long been humiliated by the fact that it can't live by the rule of law or allow its citizens to participate in a meaningful way in government. The wealth and military power of the U.S. do not flow from the government, they flow from the people, and the purpose of the government is to serve the people, not vice-versa (cue Bush jokes). Consequently, if Russia wants to avoid humiliation, it also wants to avoid the strong man at the center, which it has never been able to do. Putin seeks the trappings of a great state without the government of a great state.

Good luck. Russia humiliates itself.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Swingblade]

http://www.armscontrol.ru/START/vardo.htm

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

One US missile is generally capable of vaporising a 20 square mile area (vaporising, nothing left, not even tiny rubble) where some Soviet era missiles could do the same to a 200 square mile area. Considering the size of each countries missile inventory any one of the countries mentioned could easily destroy the entire world many times over. And both countries like playing "Thermo Nuclear War" for kicks.

Bullshit.
Assuming your 200 square miles per missile is right; to destroy the 57,505,708 square miles of land on this planet would mean the Russians would need to have 287,528 missiles to destroy the world even ONCE over. Even if you only need to hit only 10% of the planet for it to be considered destroyed that would still be almost 29,000 missiles.
Not to mention the problems of hitting valleys which would be protected by the hills/mountains as well as trying to hit all 1000s of islands around the world.
The world is quite safe from being destroyed. Irradiated from fallout maybe... but destroying the world is beyond our capability as of yet.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[isa-kuruption]

You're obviously thoroughly confused.

The Russians had a saying, "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."

The Russian economy was in the shit hole long before any "western influence". The fact is that the USSR fell because it's economy could not keep up with the US and Europe during the boom of the mid to late 1980s. The USSR was spending more money trying to "keep up" with the advances in military power in the US that it forgot to pay it's own people... and as a result, those people became poor and inflation in the USSR skyrocketed. The ruble became worth absolutely nothing in the global economy. The USSR then finally "gave in" and once they entered the world economy with a currency worth shit, the problems in the USSR became *obvious* to the rest of the world.

Don't blame the "west" because the USSR wasn't feeding it's own people. Blame the soviets and their attitude of "government before people". The only reason people are nostalgic for the past soviet Russia is because there they felt they had a sense of power being under one of the great world powers. Under the new Russia, they are weak and their government is weaker.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[novitk]

Way to miss a point.

Nobody is arguing that USSR economy lost a race to the West, due to its deficient design, low oil prices and the latest spin of an arm's race by Reagan. The point is that during 90s, in transitional period, the team of Western advisers and their Russian understudies did everything possible wrong. The industry almost collapsed, intellectual power went abroad, living standards were of the third world. Whether this was by chance or on purpose is a different subject, but the free market reforms done by other countries (China) were done with a much better result. This, justifiably, is the reason for the current Russian perception of their American "friends". Needless to say Dubya doesn't help the matters.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[misanthrope101]

We botched it, now we're reaping the consequences.

Whoa there, bucko. The USA has not, is not, and will not ever be responsible, in any way, for the consequences of any of our decisions. We are responsible for our motives, which are pure and idealistic. Only other countries are responsible for their actions. So this whole "We did A, and A caused B" shenanigans needs to stop right f-ing here. We don't cotton to that talk, because it means you hate us for our freedoms.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[fm6]

It actually will protect Europe from Russian, Chinese, NK, and Iranian launches.

You mean it will attempt to protect. ABM systems have a terrible track record and this one has never been properly tested!

The simple fact is that hitting one free-falling object with another is computationally difficult. With current computer technology, it just can't be done. But this doesn't matter to an administration that only listens to "experts" that tell it what it wants to hear.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a dumb joke, made worse by the fact that Iran has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Iran

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[isa-kuruption]

No, you're missing the point...

All of those things that you said happened (e.g. industry almost collapsed, intellectual power went abroad, living standards were of the third world) occured long before the "fall" of the soviet union. The industry was already sour in the 1980s and many of the intellectual power tried their hardest to get out, claiming to attending conventions in the west, for example, and then not coming back. The living were standards at that point were already crap. When the bloc fell apart, the remains of the intellectual power left the country... and industry continued to be poor... and people were still poor. This has nothing to do with th *west*... all the west tried to do is prevent mass famine and basically prevent any civil unrest.

If your hypothesis was true, it would be true for ALL soviet bloc nations. However, nations like Romania, Poland and the Ukraine seem to have come out of it. The reason why the Russians could not come out of it has NOTHING to do with how the west handled the situation.

OTOH, China is a completely different story. China is still a communist state but slowly migrating towards Democracy by opening itself to international trade (something the Soviet Union didnt do) and allowing free enterprise (something the Soviet Union didnt do) while maintaining a government that is still fundamentally Communist. However, living conditions in China are still poor for most people (my Russian coworker's sister went to China recently and was appalled by the living conditions despite having grown up in the USSR). At the same time, China is going through an industrial boom similar to that of the USSR in the 1960s and 1970s and nothing like their problems in the 1980s which allows the Chinese to have a valid and valuable product to bring to market.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is US is teh SovietUnion of our times and uses same methods Soviets were infamous of. They say worldwide revolution then, worldwide democratia now, whatever utopian ideology bollocks they come up with... behind this demagogy quite apparent world domination complex.
I'd say those mentioned as threats realize this quite well. That's why Korea and Iran are so desperate about gettin nuclear weapons, they don't wanna play the role Pols and Chechs were playing back in the Soviet days. They are on the US bomblist and will be 'democratized' Iraqi or Balkan style sooner or later.
As for those Eastern Europeans, so deep in their post-traumatic anti Russian sentiment, thinking US is any different... Well, it's quite evident what part US assigns to them in its geopolytical games, innit?
So what do we have here: Korea and Iran affraid of US, Old Europe affraid of Korea and Iran, New Europe affraid of Russia, Russia affraid of NATO. When people are affraid, they act inadequate. With so many parties involved this may lead to really unpretty huge wave of sh*t covering the whole globe.
Imo, it's about the time to say them bastards to stop fscking sabre-rattling and start fscking talking. Ya know, you, as demos wield some cratos, to make them listen. At least theoretically.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Prune]

ICBMs come from above, not horizontally, so valleys and mountains are irrelevant.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[tsm_sf]

That is, hands down, the best one-paragraph summary of the situation I've seen yet.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Daniel Dvorkin]

This in addition to the middle-eastern quagmire really makes me wonder, wtf reality does this administration live in?
Not fighting a war on multiple fronts as well as some tactical subtlety in relations was basic knowledge, I thought.

What are you talking about? We have always been at war with Eurasia and Eastasia. Eurasia and Eastasia have always been allied against Oceania.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Copid]

Funny how we don't seem to be seeing much of that, considering oil prices; I think it's time to retire the oil argument.

The fact that our leaders are too incompetent to pull off the "create a stable military presence around our oil source" maneuver doesn't mean that oil wasn't at the core of the Iraq war. I don't blame them for it--if it weren't for oil Iraq would have been a really stupid place to start a war given the other options. In fact, I submit that any president who is not concerned with future energy availability is derelict in his duties. I just happen to think that the way this particular president went about it was ham-handed, short sighted, and generally moronic.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[novitk]

> If your hypothesis was true, it would be true for ALL soviet bloc nations. However, nations like
> Romania, Poland and the Ukraine seem to have come out of it. The reason why the Russians could
> not come out of it has NOTHING to do with how the west handled the situation.

I'll try slowly again:
First of all I'm talking about the current perception of the US in Russia, not my view on the world history. The perception I don't share by the way, but this doesn't make it invalid. Giving my experience it's also a widely-popular opinion and shared by people of different social status, profession and wealth in Russia.

The perception is that during 90s, the West (with US playing a leading role) tried to weaken Russia into a submissive role in the world. The dreadful reforms (which were advised by mostly Americans) performed during the time, certainly seem to confirm this point in the aftermath. There are obviously numerous benefits for the US/West from a subdued Russia - cheap and reliable energy sources, one less independent player in a world affairs, cheap intellectual capital, etc. The example of Romania, Poland and the Ukraine is simply not correct, as there is nothing in those countries of value to the West outside of publicity effect of "free markets" success. By the way those countries certainly don't "seem to have come out of it", as I would say Russia currently is much more stable and prosperous of the four.

Amplifying this view is also the fact that when Putin came to power the tide turned, and while relationship with US soared and western influence weakened, economy and living conditions quickly improved. Now I personally think this is mostly due to oil prices then anything else, but Moscow propaganda certainly can easily distort the picture for the masses. Nevertheless it's not hard to see that the current course is much better for the Russia than the one during Yeltsin' era.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

"The hyperinflation of the Yeltsin years was a direct result of Western economic advisors enforcing a rapid transition to market economics."

Umm, you got it wrong. USSR was hyperinflating before any rapid transistion reforms. Rapid reforms brought about a "horrible end" to an "endless horror". Just as in the Baltics where it happened quicker.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

It stops the blast not the missile smart guy.
As powerful as our bombs are 100s of feet of dirt and rock are stronger still.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[bckrispi]

Mod -1 "Dumbass".
Pick up an Econ 101 book, and read the chapter entitled "Supply, Demand and Market Price". Then you should be able to see the idiocy of your comment.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[CodeBuster]

That is false. It actually will protect Europe from Russian, Chinese, NK, and Iranian launches. Why? Because this gets the rockets in cruise phase as opposed to boost or targeting. So anything that is coming overheard or just to the side will be blocked.

It *might* be effective against some short or intermediate range ballistic missiles (and that is a big if) launched against targets in Europe (and this would probably be point blank range for those interceptors since Iran is somewhat further away to the South and East), but it would certainly NOT be effective against missiles launched towards the the North American continent (which would still be in the high acceleration boost phase while passing over the north pole). I don't remember exactly but I am pretty sure that there are no efficient ballistic trajectories to hit North America while passing over Europe within range of the proposed interceptor bases (i.e. if they were going to hit America then they would fire North or East, not West).

The real issue is, how many missiles are we looking to put in? Not many. Russia can easily overrun our number with current inventory.

That is exactly the point that Bush and everyone else is making. It has long been known that missile defense interceptors are not economical in an arms race with an approximately equal adversary (i.e. an adversary who can field at least 1/4 as many MIRV missiles to overwhelm your interceptors, assuming that the interceptors are 100% effective which they are not in any case). The United States, for this reason, elected not to build the single allowed missile defense site under the ABM treaty. We decided that we would rather spend that money increasing the number of offensive missiles instead of protecting a single location at great expense for the following reasons (among others):

1) At the time of the ABM treaty (1972) technology was limited such that the only viable interceptors of ballistic inbound missiles were themselves nuclear tipped (not the direct impact or conventional warhead interceptors that we are now testing). Thus, such a system, even if it worked at all, would be limited to at *most* a couple of intercepts before the radars were rendered totally useless by the detonations of their own interceptors (the rest of the inbounds would make it through before the effects of the EMP dissipated enough for the ABM system to track and fire again).

2) Any use of the ABM system would necessarily involve nuclear detonations above or close to one's own territory (with all of the deleterious effects thereof) making the whole system that much less desirable as opposed to having no ABM system at all.

3) Most of the scenarios that were gamed out very quickly escalated into a full scale attack and/or retaliation by the other side (there really was and is no such thing as a limited engagement between similarly armed adversaries). So what is the point of getting a couple of intercepts when there are a couple of hundred warheads heading your way?

It was (and probably still is) cheaper and better to simply do nothing or maybe build a few more offensive missiles when faced with similarly armed adversaries. Incidentally, the Russians chose Moscow as their allowed ABM site under the treaty, but there has never been a full scale test (for obvious reasons) so who knows if it (the Russian ABM system) actually works (and the Russians probably don't care anyway since the value of such a system is mainly propaganda for the uninformed masses...look we have a defense!). The proposed system does not in any way erode the credibility of the Russian deterrent despite improved interceptor technology (offensive missiles have improved as well or could be in short order which leads us to the next point...)

The simple solution for Russia is to have verification of launchers/missiles

Which they (the Russians) are doing with increased testing and upgrades.

But it would be better for everyone if Bush would spend more time talking to Putin about this.

Which they (NATO) have clearly tried to do, but Putin is using the issue as a pretext to promote his political agenda and curry favor at home.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[toddestan]

Russian missiles launched at the US travel north over the polar icecap, not across Europe.

Why? I suppose it would make sense for something like a commercial airplane where you want to get there the quickest and burn the least fuel. However, if I was Russia and I wanted to catch the US off-guard, I would do something totally unexpected. Assuming that a missle from Russia would come over the polar icecap is dangerous and stupid, in my opinion.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine the reaction in Washington if Ottawa announced it was placing Russian missiles in Ontario

I don't think George Bush could find Ottawa on a map. Also, go Sens!

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Your parent meant to point out that our current nuclear inventory consists of air burst weapons, which detonate well above the surface, allowing the shockwave to propagate across hills, low mountains, into valleys, etc.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[SharpFang]

Get a map.

Norway, Sweden, Finland, east of Germany. Maybe Denmark. If the location was Romania or Greece, all , or almost all of Europe would be protected. Except not from Russia.

Re:This is just Putin playing politics

[tm2b]

Of course, a Russian nationalist would say that Ukraine and Belarus always belonged to Russia, and still are and will always be parts of Russia

Hell, the Poles I know say that Ukraine and Belarus are Russia.

This is stupid

[furball]

Let's think about this for a second. A missile defense system ... defends against missiles. So you're going to fight that by throwing missiles at it?

It seems what Mr. Putin needs is more artillery, not missiles. That's what I'd do if I was going to wage war against someone using a missile defense system.

Re:This is stupid

[AuMatar]

No, it still makes sense

1)Missile defense systems are largely untested. There's large doubts to if they'd work at all.
2)Missile defense systems can be overloaded- shoot too many, and they won't catch them all.
3)Missiles have larger range than artillery. Its easier to shoot 10 missiles and let 2 or 3 go through than position and fire artillery.

Re:This is stupid

[Tuoqui]

Zerg tactics ofcourse... I'm sure Russia has more than enough missiles to overwhelm the missile defense system.

Re:This is stupid

[ajanp]

The missile defense system in question:

The United States made a formal request in January to place a radar base in a military area southwest of Prague, Czech Republic, and 10 interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland as part of plans for a missile defense shield that Washington says would protect against a potential threat from Iran.

The U.S. plans have brought a strong reaction from Russia, which accuses the United States of threatening Russian territory and of trying to start a new arms race. Really? Does Russia seriously think that this system is meant to threaten them given the horrible reputation the US has at home and abroad right now and the host of domestic and foreign problems the country is dealing with.

I guess a cyber war against Estonia just wasn't enough for them... http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/17/124 8215

Re:This is stupid

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Let's think about this for a second. A missile defense system ... defends against missiles. So you're going to fight that by throwing missiles at it?

Yes, you are. Enough missiles going in & you overwhelm the defense system.

Re:This is stupid

[jsse]

Thanks for your post finally surfaced so that we could comment on.

Any defense is effectively lower the ability of Russian to fight back when under attacked. Russian has all the right the tell the world that their nation is at risk of increasing threat against warfare.

You may still refuse to accept such bullshit game theory, but if I told you instead Russian has installed a defense system that could effectively block any attack from NATO, then I'm sure your president would alarm for the safety of his people.

And I'm sure Putin is the only one in the world who'd give WMD's effectiveness highest esteem. ^_^

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia's new RS-24 missle can (reportedly) by-pass ANY missle defense system in the world. Read up on that before opening your mouth and saying you cant throw missles at anti-missle defense systems. The germans threw Panzer IVs at the polish 35mm anti-tank guns and slaughtered them, not all anti-something weapons work.

Re:This is stupid

[no-body]

No - very smart!

There's large doubts to if they'd work at all.

Works great! A lot of money is transfered (well it is "spent") and nobody really questions the whole thing because it is to much money.
Nothing happens without a reason and a benefit for somebody. So - who benefits?
I mean, is there any doubt that normal, simple people actually could get along? Well, maybe no more, after being bombed and shot into pieces. Which also helps.

Maybe at one point it gets so bad that enough people really have had it. In USA with that news media - can take a long time.....

Re:This is stupid

[Wicko]

No no no.. I think you missed the point. See, a missle defense system isn't all that handy if it isn't built. Note that he said US plans will force them to target Europe.

Re:This is stupid

[jsse]

You seem to ignore my last sentence: Putin can choose to ignore the fact that WMD sucks. He could have given WMD the highest esteem for his political manipulation.

If you hired a guy raise up his hands and tell the world that you've installed a new defense system, Putin would make the same threat, too.

This is politics, come on. He wants you put put down your defense, by politics not by technological superority. I found your technical detail interesting, but I also found my hand-raising defense system as effective, too.

BTW, I found irony in your righteous comment as an Anonymous Coward. ^o^

Re:This is stupid

[wall0159]

I think you meant to say:
"A missle defence system attempts to defend against missles"

The two aren't quite the same...

But anyway, this is just Putin's chest-beating in response to Bush's chest-beating - a load of bollocks to keep the gullible voters happy.

Re:This is stupid

[drgonzo59]

You under-estimate the Russian missiles. US says that the defense systems are there for the missiles flying from North Korea. Russian missiles a lot more advanced than North Korean ones. Take this little puppy for example. She is beautiful, isn't she!.
  An attack with those babies will not be stopped by the current generation of missile defense systems. It is _not_ a completely ballistic rocket. In other words predicting, calculating it's trajectory and using all the billions of dollars of infrastructure designed for ballistic missiles is not as useful anymore.

The competition between missile defense and missiles will mostly end up with a win for the missile. This reminds me of the competition between artillery and armor. There are certain artillery shells that no current armor can protect against it.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It's missile, you ignorant twerp.

Re:This is stupid

[furball]

"A missle defence system attempts to defend against missles"

Given enough time and effort, any endeavor is possible. What isn't possible now will be possible later.

Re:This is stupid

[Simon Garlick]

Missile defense systems are largely untested. There's large doubts to if they'd work at all.

Are you kidding? Purchasing officers, politicians, and defense contractors protecting billion-dollar contracts wouldn't lie!

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia couldn't hack it in the real world, so they elected Putin as proto-dictator and have been steadily reverting back to their paranoid Soviet days when everything was much nicer, apparently.

Just think, we used to worry about a sodden drunk with his finger on the Russian button. Putin is far worse; he's a paranoid ex-KGB man on a decade long power trip. The shadows, they move!

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I'm now concentrating on making your dog's head explode via telekinesis... I'm going to keep on doing this for a million bajillion years...

Re:This is stupid

[drgonzo59]

I guess a cyberwar against Estonia just wasn't enough for them

You mean the war that wasn't and was just a ... a hoax. Oh yeah, I forgot, we accept everything Slashdot feeds us as gospel. Good thing Bush doesn't read Slashdot, he might have decided to get his preemptive strike 'on'..

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, they were Polish.

Re:This is stupid

[2ms]

You are assuming that the purpose of the missile defense system is to compete on cutting edge with missile technology. That doesn't seem to be the idea behind the missile defense system.

The idea seems to be to address the danger of lone crazed person getting hands on more ghetto nuke missile. You know, the guy who thinks allah has sent message by appearing in tomato to nuke someone. Or the crazed megalomaniac surrounded by yes-men who thinks all he has to do to control the world is obtain one nuclear missile and then blackmail everyone with it.

Sane people, of course, want to do everything possible to avoid launching nuclear missile. It's the crazy ones that are the big danger. The crazy ones tend to run countries that are messed up and, to say the least, do not have cutting edge missile technology.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The Putinjugend already claimed responsibility. That's about as close as official you can get.

Re:This is stupid

[wall0159]

"Given enough time and effort, any endeavor is possible. What isn't possible now will be possible later." Except that the missiles will also get more sophisticated.

Re:This is stupid

[vux984]

Sane people, of course, want to do everything possible to avoid launching nuclear missile. It's the crazy ones that are the big danger. The crazy ones tend to run countries that are messed up and, to say the least, do not have cutting edge missile technology.

I do hate to do it, but come on, remember Hitler.

"Crazy people" are perfectly capable of ending up with cutting edge missile technology. Hell, there is nothing stopping a "crazy person" from becoming the president of the US. I think the greatest threat to the United States and world security in general is the United States.

Besides, if a 'crazy terrorist' wants to nuke the US, a missile base in poland has only a fraction of a snowballs chance in hell of stopping him. Considering how much drugs, illegals, and other contraband manages to cross the border every hour I wouldn't be much surprised if the 'crazy terrorists' launched their nuke from *inside* the US border.

Meanwhile the very fact that the US feels the need to set up all these bases in the first place just riles all those 'crazy people' up. Its like guarding against fire ants by poking their nest with a stick 'to let them know who's boss'. It's only going to end badly.

Re:This is stupid

[janrinok]

The defensive system has no capability against cruise missiles - which is precisely what Putin has said he will use.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"None of the sources we have analyzed from around the world show a clear line from Moscow to Tallinn; instead, it's from everywhere around the world to Estonia."

Sounds like what a botnet attack would be like.

Re:This is stupid

[phayes]

Oh, puhlease... You may accept information from slashdot/wired/other as gospel, but some of us think for ourselves.
Wired's analysis is so flawed as to be completely useless. The Wired "report" stated that "we see attacks coming from around the world, so the cyber attack is not coming from Russia". Given that we know that the DDOS attack was botnet generated and that botnets are a global problem, of course the attacks were coming from everywhere! The only way to clearly determine where the attacsk were coming from would be to have the logs of the control channels of the botnets used in the DDOS & determine who set them on this DDOS attack.
There may be no concrete trail of evidence leading to the kremlin, yet there is no evidence that clears them either.

Re:This is stupid

[drgonzo59]

It wasn't something organized by the Russian government. The closest you can get to the government is a group called Nashi, which is a young adult supporters of Putin. I doubt Putin himself would have issued the orders as that would have put him in an extremely bad light. And Russian military is not up to such things yet. This doesn't mean that groups of Russian hackers would not have done, I am sure they did, especially the ones living __in Estonia__. But Russian hackers != Russia. Just like the Israeli hackers that deface Arab websites != State of Israel and vice versa. Media just likes to throw words like "cyberwar" around to create sensationalism.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he wouldn't give the order himself, personally. But it is very naive to believe that the Putinjugend is not influenced from the outside.

Re:This is stupid

[drgonzo59]

Well, just like many terrorist cells they might not get direct orders from anyone they just follow the same general agenda. Probably just a bunch of bored teenagers that want to feel powerful and famous. They wouldn't even be working for money, just for the recognition of their l33t skillz.

Re:This is stupid

[phayes]

The russian government is to blame because the over the top rhetoric of the government controlled media is to blame for fanning the flames of the nationalists who perpetrated the act. Putin (& the rest of the russian government) cannot escape the blame by saying "I didn't say that, it was the media" when the government controls the media. Putin's drive to take control of the russian media has thus robbed him of this excuse. The acts of the russian nationalists are indefensible by sniggering "They deserved everything they got when they impugned the honor of Mother Russia". You may be able to justify it to yourselves, but the hypocrisy of the situation is clearly visible to outside observers.

I admire much about Russia & it's culture, but globally, Russia's treatment (recent & historic) of the Estonians is a shameful moment of russian history.

Re:This is stupid

[j. andrew rogers]

"An attack with those babies will not be stopped by the current generation of missile defense systems. It is _not_ a completely ballistic rocket. In other words predicting, calculating it's trajectory and using all the billions of dollars of infrastructure designed for ballistic missiles is not as useful anymore."

You severely underestimate and misunderstand the operation of modern ABM systems. Current US ABM missile technology uses broad-spectrum imaging based terminal guidance, exactly like air-to-air missiles and similar (in fact the terminal homing software is largely identical). It has the same ability to follow a non-ballistic trajectory that all other missiles with this type of guidance do, and these targets are far less agile than, say, a fighter aircraft. The "new technology" in state-of-the-art ABM was the ability to marry this kind of terminal guidance package to a rocket that operates in the ABM envelope (though most of that "technology" is little more than extremely advanced materials science).

The Russians are talking nonsense and preying on the ignorance of most people regarding how modern US ABM systems actually function. The design of the US ABM system was to defeat all targets, agile or otherwise, but extending the envelope of target capability well into the ABM range rather than just local air defense.

Re:This is stupid

[DeepHurtn!]

She is beautiful, isn't she!.

No, actually, "she" isn't.

/disgusted at military fetishism

As a russian expatriate

[iamacat]

I call Putin's bullshit. Defense is defense, it's not necessarily aimed against US. Iran and North Korea could come up with some primitive missiles in a few years. A mere defense mechanism doesn't "force" anyone to target nukes at a peaceful country.

It's the whole different matter that the missile shield is ineffective and a colossal waste of money.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[rumith]

Sure, North Korea could come up with some primitive missiles in a few years... that's why the US must deploy interceptors in Europe, instead of Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea. Same goes about Iran: the US has huge military presence in Turkey, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates, why not use those bases?

Besides, something tells me that if Russia attempted to deploy similar ICBM countermeasures at Cuban or Venezuelan territory, all hell would break loose. Just because somebody is at peace with you now, doesn't mean that he won't be at war with you some time later, especially if you're dealing with the world's mightiest and most aggressive superpower.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Intercepters in Alaska will be able to intercept missles lauched off the Korean penisula. Not to mention the theater defense missles, and air born laser. For those to be effective in an Iranian scenerio the US would have to supply air dominance over the airspace between Iran and europe, against the will of nations which might wish to remain neutral, and in contravention of treaties, which in the US have the force of law. It's called an atlas. If North Korea wants to nuke Russia or China, fuck them anyway, who cares about stopping those. Not me. The instability of Afganistan and the internal pressures of Pakistan aren't insignificant either. But I'm sure the 15 seconds the Russians would have spent switching the targets on their warheads from the middle of the atlantic to actual targets would have made all the difference anyway. The fact that this "story" is being covered at all demonstrates how easy it is to manipulate the news when the people charged with presenting it are so ignorant.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Tablizer]

I call Putin's bullshit. Defense is defense, it's not necessarily aimed against US. Iran and North Korea could come up with some primitive missiles in a few years. A mere defense mechanism doesn't "force" anyone to target nukes at a peaceful country.

Why don't we make a public deal that we'll not put missile defense there if Putin can stop Iran's and N.Korea's nuke programs? That's Putin the ball back in his court (pun intended).

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Anonymous Coward]

No one cares what YOU think. Go back to your masturbation.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[0ptix]

I think that's over simplifying things a bit. It's about changing the balance of power (at least in theory). If both you and your enemy have the capability to attack each other there is a balance; a detent. However if then your enemy develops and puts in place means to block your attack, even if the development is purely "defensive" the balance has now been scewed and the next step in the arms race has begun. This is an extreme example but imagen this on a level of "can block us more then we can block him" and you get to what Putin is talking about.

Note i'm talking theory here and not making any argument about weather this really applies to the current situation. After all, the US claims the shield is against single rogue missiles not huge swarms like Russia commands. But my honest opinion is that all of this are political, economic and strategic games and what the public gets to see and read is just the very tip of the iceberg, making the judgment of a meaning and intent behind a leaders statement a very tricky thing at best.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[bdjacobson]

if Russia attempted to deploy similar ICBM countermeasures at Cuban or Venezuelan territory, all hell would break loose.

What would we do? Sanction Cube to even less sugar exports to the US?

One day I'm going to "lol" when the other countries realize our economic sanctions mean nothing, because we don't have a middle class anymore and all the money is with the upper elite. In their greed to be rich they've killed their very future. The other countries will laugh at us and our sanctions and do whatever they darn well please; and we'll be able to do nothing about it.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Anonymous Coward]

that's why the US must deploy interceptors in Europe, instead of Japan How do idiots like you get modded up? The US has already deployed missile defense systems in Japan and has signed contracts to deploy more. Additionally, the US is selling Japan missile defense AEGIS cruisers. Was it too hard to fucking Google it?

Put down your crack pipe and your beer bong and start researching topics before making reckless assumptions, okay?

Re:As a russian expatriate

[TrueRecord]

These anti-missile systems are nothing. The problem is that
there was a promise made by NATO not to move all these staff to Russian borders. The word is broken. Yet again. It's more important.

P.S. Imagine for a moment that Russian missiles again in Cuba. Do others as you would like them to do to you. The military had better search for a play ground somewhere else than around Russia.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[jez9999]

It's the whole different matter that the missile shield is ineffective and a colossal waste of money.

Why did they go ahead with researching it then? What happened to the lasers in space idea? That was at least cool.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[iamacat]

that's why the US must deploy interceptors in Europe, instead of Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea.

The idea is to provide defense for all NATO members. The reality of course is that the technology to find and destroy missiles which are designed with interceptors in mind is not feasible at this moment. For example, there is nothing stopping the enemy from launching a large number of decoy missiles to overwhelm the defense system. If G.W.Bush thinks he can overcome a full fledged russian nuclear strike, he is even more of a nutcase than Putin.

something tells me that if Russia attempted to deploy similar ICBM countermeasures at Cuban or Venezuelan territory, all hell would break loose

Hey, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan have or are developing nuclear weapons now and US is not doing anything against these relatively weak in military sense countries. Russia has a huge number of nuclear bombs which are not managed securely these days and US does nothing. I don't see deployment of a purely defensive technology even making it to CNN headlines.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[iamacat]

Why did they go ahead with researching it then?

Do I have to explain that the current US president and vice president have a pretty tenuous grasp on reality?

What happened to the lasers in space idea?

Same thing that happened to the idea of notebooks lasting a week on a single charge - lack of a suitable source of high capacity or high discharge rate power, especially if we don't want nuclear bombs in orbit (which will necessarily fall back down within a decade). A series research in fusion should be able to overcome this at least for military use, where you don't care about cost and efficiency.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Hal_Porter]

You have to admire the almost Chaucerian vulgarity of the Anonymous Coward.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[MvD_Moscow]

This is not the same thing as Cuba. The missile interceptor facilities are not capable of protecting against Russian missiles. It's obvious that this whole issue involves domestic Russian problems. Putin with his whole "Russia is back!" cannot stand to have former Soviet satellites housing NATO missile facilities.

The West really needs to start taking Russia more seriously. They need to diversify energy supplies, help Georgia and Ukraine enter NATO and the EU. Maybe even support Chechen separatists, I am not a big fan of their tactics, but it looks like they are better choice than Khadirov Jr.

P.S. I am quarter Russian, so don't take this as ignorant American BS.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[martin-boundary]

Yeh yeah, except: if the North Koreans are a threat, the US can put missiles in South Korea and Japan. If the Iranians are a threat, the US can put missiles in the permanent bases that are being built in Iraq. Why the hell would you put missiles half way around the world? You might as well build more silos in mainland USA.

The Bush administration is recklessly antagonizing friendly nations once more, where IS the Democrat voice of opposition, anyway?

Re:As a russian expatriate

[TrueRecord]

Should you be a quater Russian you'd prefer to shoot yourself rather than to suggest supporting merciless terrorists. You know nothing of Russia.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Cyberax]

Actually, Russia HAD military bases with radiolocators on Cuba and in Vietnam. Russia removed these bases in 90-s:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1784742.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1964253.stm [bbc.co.uk]

So, Russia did some real steps for disarmament. And got US military bases in Europe as a result.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[MvD_Moscow]

I am only technically quarter Russian, luckily I have a Ukrainian passport. :) I don't know if I would be able to tolerate being a citizen of Nazi Russia.

Merciless terrorists? Are you talking about the Russian army and Ramzan Kadyrov (who is a former rebel himself, no less)? So when you supporting Russia, you stop being a merciless terrorist? I like the way that works. Is institutionalized kidnappings by the Russian army normal? Do you even know whats going in Chechnya? Ramzan Kadyrov is like a warlord. Don't agree with him, vote for Yabloka, you get beat up or better yet, you disappear in Kadyrov private palace to never be seen again.

You think Nord Ost and Beslan where just random acts? You think people do this kind of shit just for fun? Bah, Russians are as much to blame for those events as the Chechen separatists. I'd like to see how you would react when your parents are abducted by the Russian military and you never see them again. Nord Ost and Beslan will happen again because the vast majority of Russians are racists assholes who are willing to let the Russian forces slaughter Chechens as long as they can masturbate to Putin saying "how great Russia is and how they will point their missiles against Europe." I always feel bad for the few Russians who try to bring true democracy to Russia, they were prosecuted under the Soviet regime and they continue to be prosecuted now.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Znork]

"If G.W.Bush thinks he can overcome a full fledged russian nuclear strike, he is even more of a nutcase than Putin."

Putin may be a nasty customer, but I dont doubt for a second that GWB is far more of a nutcase than Putin is.

And IMO, that's where the problem is. It doesnt really matter if US interceptor bases in Europe stands a realistic chance against a Russian launch or not; it's enough that Bush or some other nutcase on the US throne thinks it may stand a chance. And with the aid of GOD they WILL be shot DOWN!

Bush has repeatedly shown that he will not listen to either real intelligence or military advise, so why would he listen if the military says the bases wont defend against Russia (especially if they secretly put in a few more and better interceptors, after all, our pals in the defense industry promised these were really great and we paid a lot for them)?

Russia is left with no choice but to ensure that in no way, no how, can these bases be in any way, even with the help of GOD, ever be imagined to be capable of shooting down a Russian strike. Or they risk that some current or future utterly deranged administration may think they'll profit from another oil crisis, small scale armed attack, etc, whatever a far gone US administration can imagine to be profitable as long as they do not risk a retaliatory strike.

It's Dr. Strangelove all over again. What good is a doomsday device if you dont tell the world about it? It's not enough that you _can_ screw the other guy, the other guy has to _know_ you'll screw him. If he thinks, even in his raving delusional psychosis, that he can get away with it, the deterrent just isnt enough.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Xonstantine]

Sure, North Korea could come up with some primitive missiles in a few years... that's why the US must deploy interceptors in Europe, instead of Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea.

Never fails, log on to Slashdot to read the ignorant talk about geopolitics.

The US already has deployed inteceptors to the Pacific. Before interceptors can go in, radar has to go in. This is what is now being talked about in Europe.

As for North Korea coming up with a missile in a few years, a few years has already come and gone. They already have the missile, as does Iran since they have bought all of the NK missile designs.

Same goes about Iran: the US has huge military presence in Turkey, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates, why not use those bases?

I dunno, maybe because a missile from Iran wouldn't fly over those countries??? Great Circle from Tehran to NYC

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Evil Poot Cat]

Really? ...got military bases as a result of "disarming" ten years ago? Bullshit.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[dreamchaser]

It got modded up because any post that makes the US look bad, true or not, gets modded up here.

There are plenty of real reasons to take shots at the US. No need to use false or misleading information to do so, yet we see it daily on Slashdot.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[TrueRecord]

Leave democracy to yourself (you're about to lose it at home) and let others preserve diversity of cultures, languages, various ways of life.

Though I'm in doubt of your ability to perceive it. You've mix it all up, names, places, causes and consequences, let alone you forget about the overwhelming life complexity. And in addition you've just accused the Russians of Nazism, the people who lost more than 20 000 000  lives in WW2 against German Nazism.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[malsdavis]

How has such a discussion got anything to do with science or technology and therefore why is it even on slashdot? - supposedly a site featuring "news for nerds, stuff that matters".

For nerds, such international politics are irrelevant and belong on mainstream news sites (CNN, Msnbc etc.) NOT SLASHDOT!

There are plenty of technology orientated stories out there today but instead this gets put on. It shows what Slashdot has become: " news for wannabe nerds ".

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Cyberax]

What "bullshit"?

USSR and then Russia had radiolocation bases near US border. Russia removed them as a sign of goodwill. As a "reward" US is building military bases near Russian border.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazism has this strange property where German nazism seems bad to Russians, but Russian nazism seems patriotic. Think about it.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[i_ate_god]

This is for latency.

If the defensive silos are further away, they have more time to target properly.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[ultranova]

What happened to the lasers in space idea? That was at least cool.

Someone realized that if you wrap tinfoil around the missile, the laser gets reflected back to the sender.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[kalirion]

Do you know why the Cold War stayed "cold"? The threat of mutual annihilation. Once one country is no longer afraid of the other, the tables turn, and the Russians are not willing to be caught on the losing end.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Vellmont]

that's why the US must deploy interceptors in Europe, instead of Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea. Same goes about Iran: the US has huge military presence in Turkey, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates, why not use those

I don't know a lot about anti ballistic missile technology, but I do know there's two different times you can intercept them. The "boost" phase when they're launched, and the re-entry phase when they re-enter the atmosphere. The cruise phase when they're in space is virtually impossible to intercept them since they're practically invisible.

One can imagine that the technology intercepts missiles in the re-entry phase, so having ABM technology near where the boost phase happens wouldn't be useful to intercept in the re-entry phase.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[rumith]

The thing is, it's much easier to target an ICBM during the boost phase than during the re-entry phase.

• Because it might carry separating payload, meaning that you'll have to intercept multiple targets instead of one
• Because during boost you can target the super-hot and thus easily detectable exhaust instead of having to detect and lock relatively small warheads
• Because the velocity of the ascending missile is lower by an order of magnitude than the velocity of warheads at the re-entry
• Because if you hit the missile, it will literally fall back on the launch site, obviously making life for the launch crews difficult in case of fuel detonation, and if you hit a warhead, one of many results can occur, including premature detonation or mere deviation from the trajectory.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[iamacat]

It was never a given that Cold War would stay cold. On many occasions, only dedicated people on both sides and lots of luck stopped full fledged nuclear strikes and counterstrikes that would be far worse than US and USSR during it out conventionally. Futhermore, all threat of MAD did is push the warfare to the territory of other countries, which was not exactly fair to Vietnam, Korea and Afganistan. Today, we have a situation where any bully with nuclear weapons - North Korea, Pakistan, China - can do whatever they please without being checked by international community.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[Evil Poot Cat]

The bullshit that the two actions are somehow directly related, that's what.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[MvD_Moscow]

Bla Bla Bla, saying "You've got it all wrong!" doesn't add anything to your argument. What has culture got to do with this argument? Or are you justifying attacks on foreigners as method of preserving Russians culture?

Ad hominem attacks also don't add to your argument, on the contrary they underline that you've lost this argument. Of course life is more complex than my quick post. You're a random person on slashdot talking some BS, I am not going to go into a lengthy analysis with links to relevant sources. As far as I am concerned, you're not worth it.

Losing 20 million people doesn't stop the government from institutionalizing racism and ignoring neo-Nazi organizations. What was it that the chief of the Moscow police said? There are no skinheads in Moscow? This is Russia for you:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/02/01aff c5f-01e8-4cfb-b621-ffcafc9c9343.html

The people who gave their lives fighting Nazi Germany would be really proud of modern Russia.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[TrueRecord]

As for the given link, try to learn the difference between occasional crimes committed by individuals and nationalistic domestic policy like we see in Estonia (closing Russian schools, prohibition of the Language, reviving SS).
And then remember that you speak of Russia, a great country with over 145 000 000 population and over 180 different peoples (nationalities) who try to live in one country and at the same time save their cultures independent. A suggestion of nazism in Russia is very odd.
The US is a great country too, only a person there rarely truly cares where he comes from, he is an American after all.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[MvD_Moscow]

Occasional crimes? Racism is institutionalized in Russian institutions. Why does every single cop call me a 'Hohol'? He is supposed to be respectful for wasting my time. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, lets not start about arson in dorms full of foreigners. And ignoring skin head organization. These issues really don't seem too important to you. Try talking to some non-white expats (although white expats get their own share of Russian xenophobia).

I have to say that your perception on Estonia's actions is result of Russian FUD.

What's wrong with requiring knowledge of Estonian to get a job? It's their country, they want their language back. If you live in a foreign country, you need to know the language to get a job, that sounds fair. Certainly fairer than Russia's policy of issuing job permits. It is not viable for me to get an official part time job in Russia, even though I speak perfect Russian. The actual documents costs something like $500, that would be waste considering I need part time job for the summer before University starts.

Your comment about the SS is full of shit, unlike Moscow, Nazi organizations aren't really an issue in Talin. You won't get beat of for being black and walking in the wrong neighborhood. And police will never bother you, especially if you are tourist (this includes Russian tourists). In general, this kind of attitude undermines what little validity there is your argument. You are obviously bullshitting about the SS revival.

Russians need to realize the Estonia is not part of Russia, the USSR is over. They want their language and country back, don't like it, go back to Russia. Russia certainly has no problems with this kind of attitude with regards to kicking out Georgian nationals and job permits. Although I come from the Russian-speaking part of Ukraine and my Ukrainian is almost non-existant, I think it's stupid that children in Lugansk are taught Russian. Why? We are Ukrainian not Russian! And I am not even very nationalistic, I simply have Ukrainian passport by the virtue of my mother being Ukrainian, my father is from A different continent and it looks like my permanent home is going to be in the US.

P.S. US is great in some ways, like the way their institutions interact and their adherence to basic civil liberties, but on the social front the US has a lot of catching up to do. Homosexuals can't even get civil-unions let alone marriages. Marijuana consumption is prosecuted in an an reasonable manner. Theres seem to be very little checks and balances with regards to corporate activity, but I guess that's required to remain competitive in a globalized world.

Re:As a russian expatriate

[TrueRecord]

Whatever you say, whatever they say, in Russia such words from abroad may be listened to, but hardly taken to thorough consideration for one important reason: Russia has thrown away the ideological chains of communism, there are no false aims or goals any more, she will do whatever she sees necessary. Her policy both foreign and internal is accounted for by her interests, mainly economic. And those interests will be pursued  to the utmost extent. It is being capitalist. The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on. Nowadays Russia does not have enemies (except terrorists of course) , only competitors. And allies. But what's more important allies in one industry are rivals in another and vice versa. And it's an excellent interrelation.

As for the media and how it covers the news I again saw what I had seen before: the media showed only what mattered to the audience. The western media  was  mute about Estonian events as if nothing happened. There is no need for censorship, have ignorant or self-centered audience and no one knows the truth. Such media will hardly tell you the truth about the tension that happened between Estonia and Russia. Which is simple: Estonian government does their best to interfere with Russia's building the tube, the oil pipe line across the Baltic. Conflict of interests. And of course Russia is destined to protect her compatriots even if they reside in that country or somewhere else. And don't accuse me of BS about Nazis in Estonia. You have not seen it but it is there: SS veterans and their followers march in the streets openly.

Much the same goes with Georgia and Poland. Russia doesn't profit from importing rotten re-exported meat, cheep wine and other stuff like that. That causes almost all the conflicts with them.

As for your attitude to the language issue then, try to suggest forbidding French (or English) in Canada and see the result ;-)

My dear quarter brother,
you are lucky enough, you can be a bridge between two worlds and you can look and see more broadly than an average American, a Russian or Ukrainian can ever do. Only making conclusions please don't jump to them. And remember Russia is not a melting pot like the USA, it is a great project to try to co-exist peacefully being one country consisting of many nations. Russia is not the USSR, and as well, Russia is not only Moscow and the Orthodox church, but much-much more. It's a difficult task to preserve cultural diversity and to be one country at the same time. You can't expect immediate improvements with such a big country. Things are developing gradually. For that development Russia needs Peace, that is why it will suppress any violence within and will try to maintain peace abroad. That's why from now on neither the USA, nor other countries will get a free hand or a carte blanche to make war. That sounds nice.

P.S. A point about homosexuality. You can't expect the majority to be bothered by the minority's problems.  At least the proportion (or percentage)  of this attention should remain steady, or else I'm afraid the minority will suffer rather than profit from it. ;-)

Re:As a russian expatriate

[MvD_Moscow]

While you might perceive Russia's foreign policy to be product of economic and social necessities of developing democracy, this obviously not the case. While the ideology of communism had become defunct, Russia has not been capable of developing institutions such as an independent judiciary, multi-party elections (not just United Russia vs pro-government party B) and a civil society. Just changing economic systems isn't good enough, society itself has drop the Soviet/Nationalist mentality. The fact that Putin considers the government sponsored assault on the Estonian Embassy an element of civil society just shows how he doesn't really care about a real civil society or human rights.

You really don't access a lot of Western media sources if you think that Western media ignored the whole memorial scandal. Just read Google News from time to time. Even if CNN didn't mention it (which I highly doubt is this case) that doesn't mean the West ignored the whole incident, what did you want them to do, condemn Estonia for managing its own affairs and not listening to Russia? USSR is dead, Russians in Estonia need to learn that they are in a foreign country and they have to abide by Estonian laws. If they don't like, they can always come back to Russia, Putin definitely prefers Russian to immigrate back home as opposed to non-Russian immigration.

"And of course Russia is destined to protect her compatriots even if they reside in that country or somewhere else."

BS, the whole issue is highly political. It's not about her compatriots suffering, it's about them suffering in country like Estonia. You never hear bout Russians suffering in Turkmenistan. So it's okay to abuse Russians as long as the party in question is friendly towards Russia? I don't get your logic. The whole monument thing was a huge farce, Putin and Co couldn't care less about the fallen soldiers, just watch they way they clear monument in Russia itself to make way for highways.

"Much the same goes with Georgia and Poland. Russia doesn't profit from importing rotten re-exported meat, cheep wine and other stuff like that."

Please, the whole thing was obviously political. Georgian and Polish products might not be that good by Western standards, but this is Russia we are talking about, the kind of shit they sell in some places is just beyond. You're not seriously saying that banning Georgian/Polish products was simply an economic/health policy. It was obviously political, punish Georgia for moving towards the West.

"As for your attitude to the language issue then, try to suggest forbidding French (or English) in Canada and see the result ;-)"

Your comparing French Canada to Estonia? Significant French presence in Canada dates back to the 17th century. The British gave Quebec independence during the American war from independence. Compare that to Estonia which has been under Russian occupation for around 50 years but still maintains a majority Estonian population (what did you say about ignoring the minority for the better good of the majority - the Estonians should apply Russia's policy towards homosexuals towards the Russians in Estonia).

"Things are developing gradually. For that development Russia needs Peace, that is why it will suppress any violence within and will try to maintain peace abroad."

You think the Chechen people don't need peace and economic development? What makes you think that Russia has the right to decide what's right for Chechnya? The Chechens obviously don't want to be part of Russia, they've been fighting you guys for the better part of the last 200 years. Why not let them go? Why assassinate the few Chechen separatists that are moderate? Why hold their families hostage? Why associate with scum like Ramzan? Russians obviously don't care about Chechens, they are fine with them being abused at all levels. So why should Chechens care about whether Russia needs stability or not?

"That's why from now on neither the USA, nor other countries will get a free hand or a

Re:As a russian expatriate

[TrueRecord]

Russia will never be a replica of the US. It's too big. While the European part has a liking for a democratic state, the South tends to prefer a more traditional way. Let alone there are primitive tribes in northern and eastern parts of the country  which are hardly aware of all the politics in the center. And the state is supposed to protect its citizens both home and abroad regardless of their development. But on the whole Russia is a democratic state. Last Duma elections were held among more than 20 parties including United Russia, Communists, Rodina, Zhirinovky party, Yabloko, URF and others (BTW in the US there are only two worth saying, and W. Bush was not really elected  but appointed president in the court, very democratic indeed ;-).All formalities for democracy in Russia has been fulfilled: the majority rules by elections.

Well, there are people believing in Santa Claus, there are ones believing that Putin sponsored cyberattacks on Estonian servers and "assault" on the Estonian Embassy while reality is simpler than it seems: the people were so agitated about all this indecent behavior of the Estonian government towards the fallen soldiers and about the disrespect for peoples' wishes. The poll taken by Eesti Paevaleht, an Estonian newspaper, showed that 44% were against the removal of the monument and only 38% were pro. Again democracy just thrives in there.;-)

Speaking of minorities, the Russian population in Estonia is 25-30%. Not that few. More than a quoter of all the population, though the government thinks of every way to reduce that percentage, trying to make  Estonia for Estonians. You are right, the Russians from Estonia would be welcomed home, since most of them are mobile and intellectual people.

As for Chechnya, you may forget about it for the next 200 years ;-). At the moment the Chechen people enjoy peace. Thank God the war is over. And that wound is being healed. Don't attack Ramzan or existing problems there, or else it will be regarded as your desire to continue the war.

"LOL, sounds like some propaganda you might hear on Russian TV. Self defining anti-Americanism mixed with rabid paranoia. Get over it, if Georgia or Ukraine wants to join NATO, it's their choice, not Russia's. And who cares about Russia's desire for stability and maintaining it's former influence. It's not like Russia ever does anything good for the world (Just for you - just because Russia doesn't do shit, doesn't mean I think USA or Europe are doing a lot of good), in terms of global politics Russia rarely sends real peace keeping troops. It only sends 'peace-keeping troops' in regions that are deemed strategically important like Abhazia, Kosovo and South Ossetia. You'd never see Russians try and help stabilize Afghanistan or Congo. Russia almost always support undemocratic regimes form central Asia to North Korea and Iran."

This needs commenting. First. I don't know about all Georgia's wanting to join NATO, but Ukraine definitely does not. Inquire for yourself, it's true. It's again a matter of democracy, while the people want to stay away from NATO, some of the government pushes the issue. Second. Russian peace keepers are always doing a very important task to preserve peace (= save lives) wherever they are ordered to be. Russia supports peace above all.

A point about democracy. Didn't you ever think that people could be quite happy with a traditional form of government? You, Americans, could be nice guys if you minded your own business and not tried to reform the rest of the world according to your viewpoints, mostly limited and false.

Yes and No

[dispatch]

"Russia has not overtly targeted Europe since agreeing after the fall of the Soviet Union not to direct missiles against specific countries, according to Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent military analyst based in Moscow. He added however, that that was simple technical matter, since a missile can be given a target within minutes." - MSNBC

So yes it is notable that the missles *might* be pointed at Europe but it is not the same as "Russia builds missles targeted at Europe".....

Re:Yes and No

[af_robot]

I think they were talking about cruise missiles, which Russia recently tested, not ballistic ones like Satan SS-18. Cruise subsonic missiles (like Tomahawk) are cheaper and much harder to intercept and they will hit the targets in Europe within 10-15 minutes.

Re:Yes and No

[Anonymous Coward]

The text you quoted is about missiles, but does it apply to your "missles" as well?

Re:Yes and no

[NanoGradStudent]

Like the old engineering motto goes:

"Good enough is the enemy of perfect." ...Especially if it costs that much less.

what defenses?

[wizardforce]

what exactly are we talking here in regards to these defense in europe- because if it is that new fangled starwars like defense net Bush was talking about I hear the success rate is about 3/8

Re:what defenses?

[bhima]

given the way the tests were setup that's more like saying you've got a 3 in 8 success rate with hookers.

putin just likes talking smack

[Anonymous Coward]

now i read some article somewhere last week that i can't quote and i don't remember where i read it so take what i say with a grain of salt. it was that the US was only going to have the capability in europe to stop only a very small number of missiles from a rouge state *COUGH* IRAN *COUGH* from shooting over 2-3 nukes at europe and that it couldnt possibly be considered any attempt to stop russia at all.

"Targeting" is just rhetoric.

[Kadin2048]

This is the same "targeting" rhetoric from the early 1990s all over again. Pretending that whether missiles are 'targeted' at some city somewhere, really changes the strategic position at all.

It's bullshit. Where a missile is 'targeted' has almost no real-world meaning. You can re-target a missile in a few seconds; in fact all submarine-launched and mobile missile systems have to be targeted right before launch, because the trajectories need to take into account the launch position.

The only scenario in which the 'default target' or preselected target of a missile might matter, would be an accidental launch. But even then, having the missiles aimed at neutral territory might not buy you much, because the unexpected launch itself might be perceived as hostile and engender a response; you can't depend on the mis-targeting for security -- that needs to be built-in to the command-and-control systems absolutely.

Re:"Targeting" is just rhetoric.

[bmo]

"This is the same "targeting" rhetoric from the early 1990s all over again. Pretending that whether missiles are 'targeted' at some city somewhere, really changes the strategic position at all."

Cue to Kids in the Hall

"I'm crushing your head! I'm crushing your head!"

Vladimir Putin = Mr. Tyzik?

--
BMO

Re:"Targeting" is just rhetoric.

[dunstan]

Indeed, I would have thought that any missile could be retargetted or destroyed in flight. Or are Russian missiles still so primitive that they have to input the destination using thumbwheels?

Re:"Targeting" is just rhetoric.

[SharpFang]

Yep, except the targetting itself is a process of picking a pre-selected set of coordinates from a list of known, prioritized targets. The list of targets is a matter of careful planning, and their coordinates are a result of espionage and precise target recognition. It's not like "They fired their rockets. I want coordinates of all their military bases as soon as the satellite can locate them"

  Likely until now the targets in Poland included some strategical bridges, some cities, sea ports, airports, and were quite low on the list, "just in case something goes on very very wrong". Now the first rockets to be fired will fall on the territory of Poland, on the location of the shield base if the exact location is known, on all the suspected locations of the base, if no exact position has been found.

Re:"Targeting" is just rhetoric.

[MaGGuN]

It's bullshit. Where a missile is 'targeted' has almost no real-world meaning.

It certainly made the news didn't it? The only intent is to create a reaction from european states causing a withdrawal of missile installations. This to give a political blow to the US, by the 'mighty' Russia. Mine are bigger than yours. It's that simple.

Chill Out, Vladimir!!!

[fm6]

It's not as if the system actually works!!

Jeez, I'd be scared...

[Audent]

if I thought the missile defence screen actually worked...

but it doesn't. Which begs the question: is this security theatre played out on a large scale for our amusement and if it is then what's in it for Putin and Bush?

Just curious.

Re:Jeez, I'd be scared...

[wheelgun]

Why are you scared of a defensive weapon? It makes as much sense as being scared of an old lady with a can of mace.

If he only had one missle per defense system, yes.

[attemptedgoalie]

These deployments of missile protection systems are limited in their rate of fire. When they work.

The Russians are not nearly as limited in firepower as the defense systems that could ever be deployed.

Artillery is also an excellent target since it can't shoot something coming from so far away. If you have a defensive ability to knock 3 missiles out of the sky in short order, yet your opponent can drop 20 on you, you're screwed, and so is your artillery.

My suggestion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have W. And Putin stand by an high-amperage electric fence and then give them a few beers. Sooner or later, one of the these 2 idiots will get the bright idea to have a contest to see who can piss on it. If we are lucky, they will both hit it at the same time. Or just send them out with Cehney to do some hunting. Issue will be solved.

Old, poor Russia...

[thelima]

To cast little bit more light on the topic. America decided to locate this shield in Poland and Czech. Since the decision had been taken, Russia started to threaten both countries, we (Poland) have export embargo (for example for meat) and some "warnings" and "good advices" from Russia. Now they try to convince Us other way around... My posting is little bit biased - Forgive me, but I spent all my childhood under the Russian occupation and regime in Poland, sorry, could not resist. So before anyone starting shouting at Bush please - thing twice. First Russia occupied Poland, Czech, Slovakia etc for 40 Years, then, after the collapse of the communism, they were against joining NATO by Our, independent then, countries. Then they are against this shield. Technically shield located partially in Poland and in Czech is no threat for Russia at all, they now this. Also, technically, this shield cannot defend nuclear attack for this part of Europe. Please Russia understand that You are Our "supervisor" no longer, we are independed countries and taking Our decisions Ourselves. lima

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

To follow up on this excellent post, I'd like to point out that I'm American and I've spent a good deal of time in Ukraine in the past. My Ukrainian ex-girlfriend had 2 great-grandparents who were murdered by Stalin's henchmen while her grandfather was forced to watch for the "crime" of supposedly being Ukrainian nationalists. Putin is drunk with power and money thanks to Russia's oil and gas reserves. Times are more or less good in Russia for people who live in bigger cities. Even for common people. They're making more money than ever before and they credit Putin. He not only has little real opposition, but what little there is has been suppressed by him and he's stacked the deck to be sure that his party and his eventual hand picked successor will become the next president. Putin is an ex-KGB guy and he laments the breakup of the USSR. His wet dream is to rebuild the USSR, but I think at some level he knows that won't happen, so he'd prefer to have vassal states that pay homage to him and give him a virtual USSR to rule. He flipped out when Ukraiane protested the bogus presidential elections in late 2004 and eventually elected Yushchenko in a fair election. He wasn't happy with what happened in Georgia first in the Rose Revolution, but I think until Ukraine elected Yushchenko, he thought he could just bully Georgia back into line. I have little doubt that Putin would love to tell all of the old Warsaw Pact countries what to do just like in the "good old days". The US has stated that they intend to put 10, yes, 10 interceptor missles in Poland. Since Russia has well over 1000 nuclear missles, this is just more of Putin's nonsense that such interceptor missles are a "threat" to Russia. My ex-girlfriend and her family knew first hand what kind of "love" Mother Russia gives to her children and I can't say I blame thelima for not being interested in falling under Russian influence again.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

> we are independed countries and taking Our decisions Ourselves

Are you sure about that ?
You are simply now under a different "supervision" as you put it.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you're saying that you'd have no problems with Russia putting bases in Mexico? After all, Mexico is an independent nation and the US should have no say in what happens there or near it's borders.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, first you were occupied by the USSR, now you are brown-nosing the USA. Maybe your country is a country of slaves. Seems like you just have to have a master.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[thelima]

Yes, definitely I'm sure. Now we had a chance to make the decision and say 'No, thanks' or 'Sure, we do agree'. Before we even didn't have opportunity to choose, even more, nobody asked Us. Do You see the difference?

I remember the times when Russia located huge nuclear arsenal here in Poland and did't asked anyone. They had no problem doing this then. But if we decide (and yes - we *do* decide now, not Our 'best friends') to allow someone else mount some *defence* systems in Our country - Russia has strong objectives. I have only one world to describe this - hypocrisy.

It's not that all poles agree this shield is good. We just started negotiations and we are not sure if we will finally agree, but again - this will be Our decision.

lima

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[kisak]

America decided to locate this shield in Poland and Czech.

Please Russia understand that You are Our "supervisor" no longer, we are independed countries and taking Our decisions Ourselves. lima

I don't think Poland and Czech knows the meaning of meaning of being independed nations yet. Don't blame you, you are well trained to do what you are told to do by the biggest bully around.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[kisak]

2 great-grandparents who were murdered by Stalin's henchmen

First, Putin is definitly a person who does not believe in democracy and free press. Putin also clearly see murder as a political tool. But, Putin cannot be blamed for what Stalin did, the same way todays German politicians cannot be blamed for Hitler's actions.

Putin is drunk with power and money thanks to Russia's oil and gas reserves.

And the EU and USA is just slightly intoxicated with the power and money we got? You cannot blame Russia for grabbing the ressources and influence and power they have and use it for what it is worth.

The US has stated that they intend to put 10, yes, 10 interceptor missles in Poland. Since Russia has well over 1000 nuclear missles, this is just more of Putin's nonsense that such interceptor missles are a "threat" to Russia.

I am sure the USA will not mind if Russia puts 10, yes, 10 "interceptor" missles in Cuba, since USA has well over 1000 nuclear missles. These 10 missles will be used to protect Russia from hostile countries like Venezuela.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell would Mexico want Russia putting up a military base in their country? That's just not going to happen.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[adinu79]

Out Romanian president put it to the Russians straight.

When a russian parliament member protested the fact that Romania has allowed the States to have military bases on it's territory and asked for explanations, Mr. president responded: "You stayed in Romania for 30 years and nobody asked you why".

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying that Russia is doing anything remotely reasonable, but that's no reason not to yell at Bush for trying to install a system that doesn't work for large amounts of money.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

To some Poland is just a fabricated country that came into existence after WW I (there had not been a Polish state since 1815). For Russia WW II had been incredibly costly with that in mind they created a series of buffer states (the Warsaw Pact) to protect their homeland against invasion from the west.

Poland a country bordering with Russia joining Nato is a security risk to Russia. You can't underestimated what WW2 has done to the Russian mindset. A neighbor belonging to opposing military bloc and fielding rocketshields (doesn't matter how little or how ineffictive they might be) is a security threath to Russia.

Poland joining an alliance with Russia and stationing advanced Russian SAMs and armored divisions would provoke a similar reaction from Europe.

Its in Polands best intrest to play both fields and please the Russians as well as the Western powers. There is a great potential for good deals (cheap Russian gas, Western investment) when you please them with token gestures.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[ceeam]

Oh, please... If one nation suffered from communism more than others it's Russia itself. You make it sound that all commies were Russian. Wrong. Percentage-wise there were no less communist members in Poland and Eastern Germany, for example, than in Russia. "Russian" revolution were sponsored by Germans and all kind of nations participated in it (on commie side). "Latvian shooters" were famous red-army guard forces for example. Poor latvian and east germans then... occupied by evil Russia. Well - next time think better of who you support. Next - Russian occupation? Was you city boss or police chief Russians? Would you like them more to be Germans? And do you think that you were worse off than people in Russia under "Russian occupation"?

Overall - sorry, "totalitarianism" of any kind was not exclusive to Russia and it was not even invented there. And yes - we needed a Nuremberg process for communism and what it did. First-most to Russians.

And, BTW - just for the record - during last 500 years Poland invaded Russia much more often than Russia did Poland.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[martin-boundary]

Who needs Mexico? I'm sure the Venezuelans would have no qualms. The parent point stands: the White House's argument that the missiles are for North Korea is transparent bullshit.

Think about it, how are missiles going to fly from Poland to NK? Oops, sorry Putin, your country is in the way.

Don't believe the Bush administration's bullshit.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to see one of you New-Europe east-block countries say 'No' to the US.

It's not gonna happen.

You're so busy whoring yourselves out to the superpower du jour that you lose all semblance of national sovereignty the minute someone flashes a wad of dollars or euros.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[DDLKermit007]

Hey, if Russia, and Mexico were up for it, had a valid reason, and were all buddy buddy I'd say go for it (wheres th rouge state on our continent who can strike at Russia?). A meager 10 missile defense system means shit next to each countrie's massive stockpiles. If either country launched an offensive on the other with missiles, no countermeasure system short of some Star Trek style shield of doom would stop the other country. This is purely posturing, and distractions from other more important issues Putin has on his plate back at home.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't kid yourself.

The decision will be forced on you whether you choose to recognize it as your own or not. In the end your country has _nothing_ to offer except for its geographical position (unlike, say, Switzerland). The smartest thing to do would be to stay away from geo-political games altogether, because there are no places left in it except for pawns.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Cyberax]

This shield is not a threat NOW. But it can be a threat in 15 years - and Putin has to think at such scales. So, Poland and Cezch will now live under the threat of immediate destruction in case of nuclear war.

And actually, Russia HAD military bases with radiolocators on Cuba and in Vietnam. Russia removed these bases in 90-s:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1784742.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1964253.stm

So, Russia did some real steps for disarmament. And got US military bases in Europe as a result.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

So why indeed do you let US military bases in your country ? Just to stick it to the Russians ? That's hardly an intelligent thing to do.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sieben, Sieben

Ai lyu lyu

Sieben, Sieben

ein, zwei

Sieben, Sieben

Ai lyu lyu

ein, zwei, drei

Tanzen!

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[temcat]

Oh buddy, seems like you are jealous that your former slave found himself another master?

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[SharpFang]

Maybe if Poland wasn't licking the US ass so much, we'd have better relationships with Russia. Sure Russia is a bully in the class, but Poland is this stupid kid with ego too big to step aside when Russia wants to pass. No wonder we get all the spanking. Additionally, the way Poland butters up the US and is being screwed by them in return makes me really rethink our friends.

The shield in Poland is, citing Bush, to protect the US from middle-east terrorist threat. Whoa, draw a straight line on the map between the US and any of the "rogue countries". Which one goes through Poland? North Korea maybe, but only if they choose to shoot the longer way. No, the shield is against Russia and Russia reacts the natural way.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[SolitaryMan]

...knew first hand what kind of "love" Mother Russia gives to her children...

Please, do not use this rhetoric. Putin is not Russia and Stalin is not Russia. Russian people suffered (suffer) from both of them as well. Some of them, sadly, are too blind to see the truth through all the propaganda shit, which is happening here on TV.

Disclaimer: I'm a Ukrainian, but currently I live in Russia.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell would Poland want the US putting up a military base in
their country? Or (not so) secret US torture facilites for that
matter?

What a puzzler!

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Please Russia understand that You are Our "supervisor" no longer, we are independed countries and taking Our decisions Ourselves."

Independent you say? Poland has US military bases on its soil, no? Poland had secret CIA torture camps on its soil, no? Poland is about to take US missiles on its soil. You're far from independent, in fact nothing but a bitch of the USA. All NATO countries are..

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Shisha]

Finally a sensible comment from someone who knows what's going on. I'm Czech and I fell exactly the same.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[JAlexoi]

Please, please, please..... Remember that neither Poland nor Czech Republic are in the center of this "debacle". You are not the ones that someone will listen to.
US uses your oppinion as a reason, although they don't really care, since you don't elect Bush or Putin.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Chrisje]

Russian influence... Nowadays, that's just funny. What I don't understand is what they are thinking, Bush and Putin. Let's compare for a bit...

EU: Roughly 400 million people with a GDP of 14.5 trillion dollars.
USA: Roughly 300 million people with a GDP of 13.2 trillion dollars.
Russia: Roughly 140 million people with a GDP of .9 (!) trillion dollars.
China: Roughly 1300 million people with a GDP of 2.6 trillion dollars
India: Roughly 1100 million people with a GDP of .9 trillion dollars

Russia, by this comparison, is a piss in the pond in terms of both manpower and sheer economic productivity. Currently, the USA is producing more buckaroos per capita than the collective EU, but this might change as Poland, the Baltic nations, Slovenia, Slovakia and Czech Republic scramble to reach Western European standards. As it is however, the US is still behind in terms of sheer manpower.

The EU (only member states) *does* have a rather significant financial club to swing. My employer's revenues are a good illustration of that. It is publicly well known that 42% of the global revenue for HP comes from the EMEA region. Second runner up the Americas (including Canada and South America) and lastly APJ. The majority of the EMEA revenue is coming the Core European countries.

Given the manpower and economic leverage the EU can muster, I really wonder why we idly stand by and let it appear that the US and Russia are fighting over scraps here. The EU ought to kick any US missile bases that do not serve our collective purposes off our territories, tell Russia to fuck off lest the EU quit investing in the country altogether (and therefore bankrupt them in spite of their oil) and whack some sense into these two nation's leaders.

On the bright side, the whole discussion seems pointless... If the Indians and Chinese properly ramp up their respective economies, the EU, US, Russia and all the rest will become moot. In my view, this ought to be inevitable somewhere down the line.

Lastly, while I was looking at the numbers for the GDP, it warmed my heart that my homeys in the Netherlands are ranked 16th in the world with a GDP of .6 trillion (2/3 the GDP of Russia/India, with only 16.2 million people... that ain't bad)

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

and yet it is in russia that there are attempts to rehabilitate the soviet union.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Kagura]

So... you're saying that you'd have no problems with Russia putting bases in Mexico?

Hey, I think something like that happened once...

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[thelima]

I don't think Poland and Czech knows the meaning of meaning of being independed nations yet. Don't blame you, you are well trained to do what you are told to do by the biggest bully around.

Yeah, right, according to You, we should kindly beg Mr. Putin to forgive Our gaffe, and back to sit quietly to be "really independent"?

Back to the "biggest bully" - do You believe that, for example Germany, is not really dependent since they have dozens of US Army camps, including the biggest one in Rammsau?

lima

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[thelima]

The decision will be forced on you whether you choose to recognize it as your own or not. In the end your country has _nothing_ to offer except for its geographical position (unlike, say, Switzerland). Probably.

The smartest thing to do would be to stay away from geo-political games altogether, because there are no places left in it except for pawns. Thanks for Your advice :).

lima

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[thelima]

Great, first you were occupied by the USSR, now you are brown-nosing the USA. Maybe your country is a country of slaves. Seems like you just have to have a master. C'mone I wish You were here in Poland 25-30 Years ago. You would finally understand what communism and Russian occupation was all about, maybe also You would understand why Your comparison is stupid. Please have a distance. Right now in Germany there are dozens of US Army camps, including biggest one in Rammstain. Do You think Germans are slaves? And BTW: there are no US troops in Poland for the time being.

lima

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[thelima]

And this is different topic, actually ;) lima

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[malsdavis]

Well Bush's lack of geographic knowledge is pretty well known. He probably thinks Poland is an island somewhere in the pacific between North Korea and the USA.

Surrounded by his yes-men, no-one has yet worked up the courage to point out his mistake.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Richthofen80]

The EU ought to kick any US missile bases that do not serve our collective purposes off our territories

That's the thing. The EU has no problem snubbing the United States, as illustrated in the Iraq war, etc. If the EU did not want protection from Iran, they would not allow these interceptors.

The EU has played it close to Iran, Iraq and other questionable regimes. They have done business with them in the past. (I believe the nuclear reactors built in Iraq were of French build). Now they have to deal with the reality of a potentially nuclear-armed Terhan; They welcome any protection they can get from their shortsighted decision-making.

The Europeans preach appeasement and tolerance of illegitimate dictators; yet they're the ones most vulnerable to the whims of such people. It is to be seen if the chickens will come home to roost.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[k2r]

> we are independed countries and taking Our decisions Ourselves.

Could you please fix your government, then?
You're alpha-twins are just embarassing and do not represent any values that a nation proficient in so many ways like yours seemed to have.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Chrisje]

> The EU has played it close to Iran, Iraq and other questionable regimes. They have done business with them in the past.
> (I believe the nuclear reactors built in Iraq were of French build). Now they have to deal with the reality of a potentially
> nuclear-armed Terhan; They welcome any protection they can get from their shortsighted decision-making.

You seem to forget that the US has been very, very involved in weapons trading with Iraq during the wars there. Hell, they single-handedly installed Saddam Hussein's regime when they felt Khomeini had "undesirable" tendencies.

Could you point me to a developed nation that hasn't "played it close" to "other questionable regimes"? Afghanistan, Vietnam, Nicaragua, other South- and Middle-American nations, Iraq, Indonesia, African regimes and suchlike have all been sponsored by EU member states, US and USSR in their time. However, I would argue that *most* of the damage done in these arenas hasn't been caused by the EU lately.

You're threading on thin ice if you're trying to white-wash the US foreign policy with regards to armaments. If you want to start a character-defamation or pie-throwing contest, you'd better do it on a topic everyone's squeaky clean on.

By the way, French-built "nucular" reactors would indicate that Iraq had a nuclear energy program. Not necessarily a WMD program. Lastly, I fail to see how "French-built" nuclear reactors in *IRAQ* would have *any* bearing on nuclear arms in Tehran. Not that Iran *has* any Nuclear Arms, but that's another discussion.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Richthofen80]

You seem to forget that the US has been very, very involved in weapons trading with Iraq during the wars there. Hell, they single-handedly installed Saddam Hussein's regime when they felt Khomeini had "undesirable" tendencies.

I did not forget. I however, did not at all in my post lend credibility to the United States' foreign policy at all. I think instead you assumed that because I snubbed the EU's member nations foreign policy, that I am a proponent of the US foreign policy. I am not.

You failed to address the meat of my argument, which is, if the EU does not feel that the threat that the US suggests exists, they would not allow the missiles to be placed in EU member nation territory.

You're threading on thin ice if you're trying to white-wash the US foreign policy with regards to armaments. If you want to start a character-defamation or pie-throwing contest, you'd better do it on a topic everyone's squeaky clean on.


Your statement implies that one can only denounce a foreign policy to which your own nation or all other nations does not adhere to. That's a pretty restrictive and arbitrary position to take. If that were the case, no one could criticize anyone with regards to foreign policy. The United States previously permitted slavery by law. This does not destroy my argument that any state that currently allows slavery is illegitimate. The same principle applies to the situation with Iran. The nation I live in may not have the best track record when it comes to foreign policy; but that does not stop me from analyzing and forming an opinion based on facts of a current foreign policy of another nation.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't underestimated what WW2 has done to the Russian mindset.

Quite false, no one understands the Russians feeling invincible quite like us in Eastern Europe.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[lahvak]

There is a huge difference between "Russia" and "Russians", just as there is a huge difference between "America" and "Americans". In 1968, when the "Russian" army invaded my country, several Russians risked all they had, including their lives, to protest the occupation by chaining themselves to a statue an the Red Square. In the meantime, large numbers of my compatriots were trying to figure out how they could personally benefit from the sudden change of political situation in their country.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Chrisje]

>if the EU does not feel that the threat that the US suggests exists, they would not allow the missiles to be placed in EU member nation territory.

You have a point. I failed to address that. Let me take the time to do so.

I have a gut feeling one of the reasons the EU allows this is that the EU feels the relationship with the US would be damaged if they didn't. There's probably not a single nation in the EU at present that sees Iran as their Most Dangerous Enemy(tm). Everyone knows that Iran is at least 10 years away from any nuclear capabilities, including power stations, for crying out loud.

If we started saying "no" to the US, on the other hand, it could jeopardize trade and good-will with the US. In a big way, if you look at the US' track record of the last 7 years.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Richthofen80]

I have a gut feeling one of the reasons the EU allows this is that the EU feels the relationship with the US would be damaged if they didn't. There's probably not a single nation in the EU at present that sees Iran as their Most Dangerous Enemy(tm). Everyone knows that Iran is at least 10 years away from any nuclear capabilities, including power stations, for crying out loud.

My first comment on your statement: Just because the EU does not see Iran as their most dangerous enemy, does not mean it isn't so. What other player in that region is more unstable, more bellicose towards democracy, and has denounced nations that support Israel? (which most, if not all, European nations do.) Iran is suspected in aiding subversive groups in Afghanistan (which is a NATO/EU effort as well as a US effort) and Iraq. Iran has an active nuclear program which could be set up to create atomic weapons.( if we take suggestion from another nation with an active program a few years ago with bellicose language and a shady track record, AKA North Korea. Who did indeed go on to make atomic weapons.)

My second comment is that the UN's watchdog, probably the most authoritative voice on atomic energy and weapons production, has stated the Iran is 3-8 years from the bomb.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2087272,00 .html

If we started saying "no" to the US, on the other hand, it could jeopardize trade and good-will with the US. In a big way, if you look at the US' track record of the last 7 years.

A larger snub was the Iraq war. France has refused participation and did a great deal of stonewalling; Aside from a small amount of 'no france' individuals; there has not been any effort by the government of the United States (other than freedom fries) to curtail our economic activity in Europe. As a parent poster noted, the EU has major purchasing power and a large number of companies in the United States do a large amount of business in the EU. I just don't see that argument as being very convincing. Also, by allowing the missiles they do alienate the Russians, losing their economic support (and they have treasure-troves of natural gas and oil.)

I appreciate your candor; but to me, the EU respects it own sovereignty. It would not allow useless or purposeless weapons to be placed on its soil, if it did not believe there is a real threat.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Chrisje]

> has denounced nations that support Israel?

Syria, to name one.

> Iran is suspected in aiding subversive groups in Afghanistan (which is a NATO/EU effort as well as a US effort) and Iraq.

Which could be construed as a fairly level-headed reaction to the power mongering and invasiveness of the US, for that matter. You forget to mention Hizbollah which is being sponsored by Syria and Iran over the conflict for the '67 territories Israel captured from Syria and Lebanon. Still, this doesn't make Iran an immediate threat to the EU. Iran's beef seems to (rightfully or not, that is a debate) be with the US and Israel (in which I currently live, I must add).

> 3-8 years

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the watchdog is erring on the side of caution. Let's also assume the Iranians are working like mad on this. If they pull it off in 5-6 years, they'd be lucky. If their current government survives that long. Even in Tehran, there are more moderate forces at work in the form of non-fundamentalist ayatollahs and the women's lib movement. Now I'm not an expert on Iran, but I seriously doubt they will steer towards all-out nuclear conflict. Specifically since Israel is in their back yard, and has 300 nukes aimed at various targets in the middle east.

> As a parent poster noted,

That would have been me. And you're right. The US has no inherent interest in disrupting trade relations with the EU. It would kill the economy of both parties. However, I do feel that certain allowances are being made for the benefit of that relationship. If you don't water the plant, it'll shrivel up.

> do alienate the Russians, losing their economic support (and they have treasure-troves of natural gas and oil.)

First of all, a lot of the foreign capital that is keeping Russia afloat is coming from the EU. Precisely in the form of investments in their oil and gas infrastructure and other sectors. Russia can't afford to cut ties with the EU either, for that matter.

The EU however (as companies like Shell and Statoil prove) gets oil from the Norwegians, Arab countries (who doesn't?) and gas from reserves such as the one in the Netherlands. Furthermore, France gets more than 75% of its electricity from Nuclear sources while the rest of the EU is working on solar, wind and tidal alternatives. Not to mention the hydro-plants in Sweden. I feel that the Russians are benefiting from the energy deal in a bigger way than the EU, because I have the sneaky suspicion we would survive without the Russian's energy. We've done so for more than 40 years as the cold war was raging on.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

A larger snub was the Iraq war. France has refused participation and did a great deal of stonewalling

And do you that that this was the right thing to do?

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't understand why such posts full of hatred and nonsence get modded up. most countries have some kind of dark past, but why judge current generations for wrongdoings of their grand-grand-parents? do you remember racist america and murdered afro-americans? hiroshima and nagasaki? or maybe anti-commie witch hunts? many russians died in nazi german concentration camps, my grendpa was killed in wwii, do i hate germans? no, why should i?!?

yes many people suffered under stalin regime! do you think current russia is the same?
if so you also probably believe that it's always winter in moscow and bears are walking the streets there.
...but it's ok for your below 50 iq...

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Abcd1234]

Could you point me to a developed nation that hasn't "played it close" to "other questionable regimes"?

Canada.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[citizenr]

You are soo missing the point my friend :(. We (Poland) are US bitch, first "WDMs are all over the place" and we send >1K soldiers there (twenty died), then Stare Kiejkuty while shouting loudly "we do not torture, and if we do its not in Europe", now "10 interceptors, we promise". What makes you think US will do what they say? For all we know they could place ICBMs there.
  US always fucks us over. Russia did fuck us over many times in the past. Now UE is looking into fucking us over (they try hard to ignore Russia meat embargo). In essence EVERYONE fucks us over, and we are always willing to spread our collective ass. The "Shield" will be one of those anal moments.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Prune]

You imbecile, the US is putting ten interceptors there, whereas Russia has thousands of missiles. This is no threat to Russia, and is just lame Putin posturing.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[kisak]

Why don't Poland start to think of their own interest instead of kissing the ass of either Bush or Putin? What possible benefit does the polish people get from putting these weapons on their soil?

The US Army camps were build there after WWII when Germany was definitly dependent on the US (and Russia in East Germany). How more dependent can you be than being occupied? That the camps are still there, are because it is much harder to get rid of something once it is there, something for Poland to consider. Or put another way, it is a difficult excersise to get back sovereign control of land that you give to another country.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[WilliamSChips]

Actually, Putin was a member of the KGB during the days of Brezhnev.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[WilliamSChips]

Are you kidding? Canada has played it close to Ba'al's regime in the galaxy for eight years and is now funding the Ori invasion!

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[WilliamSChips]

yes many people suffered under stalin regime! do you think current russia is the same? No, but although Gorbachev and Yeltsin increased the amount of freedom Russians had, Putin is decreasing the amount of freedom Russians have. This is what you get when you put a KGB agent in control.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, too bad, I guess you shouldn't have done this this this this this or this and many, many other things if you wanted to have any friends here who would give a slightest fuck about your sense of insecurity about having US military bases stationed here.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. It's not so much wrongdoings of "grand-grand-grand...-grandpraents" as of fathers at most
2. You seem to miss the difference between "judging and blaming for sins of fathers" and "being cautious just in case the children want to follow the footsteps of their parents"
3. Germany is now a completely different country when compared to what they were in 1940. Russia? Not so much. They still think that being the biggest bully gives them right to order sovereign nations around, just like in the "good old days". Most of their people do not have any problem with that, and in fact think that Russia should reestablish it's posiiotn as the empire. Well, as a citizen of one of their former puppet stated I certainly DO have a problem with that.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

US bases in Poland increases US commitment to defend Poland.
Any attack on Poland means dead US soldiers + NATO obligation.

Germany, France and some of the rest of the EU would sell out
Poland and the rest of eastern Europe for cheap gas to the
Russians, not to mention if Russia creditably threatened war.
Just look at Schroeder's support for Putin and gas pipelines
that will allow Russia to selectively turn of gas for political
reasons on a country by country basis as opposed to the EU as a
whole that makes Russia as depended on EU money as EU is on Russian gas.

Speaking as a Pole, having an ally who is criticized for
overzealousness in common defense is very very reassuring!

Poland understands the difference between real torture and real
oppression and media circus that occurs today.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[thelima]

Why do You think that doing anything with US automatically means "kissing the ass"? Poland is doing a lot of things with for example EU more frequently, more important and much more expensive - and this is "kissing EU ass"? Ain't You little bit biased agains US? I started to thing whatever we do together with US it will be "ass kissing" to You...

Why don't Poland start to think of their own interest instead of kissing the ass of either Bush or Putin? What possible benefit does the polish people get from putting these weapons on their soil? Again, please read my posts carefully. I'm not saying this base on Our soil is good/bad thing. What I try to emphasize is quite different thing. When US had chosen Poland as a best place among few other in the Europe, from this very moment it's up to Poland and US to agree on this or not. Mr. Putin has nothing to say here. Dot.

Also lots of countries have US military bases on it's soil. Germany is only one example. 3 sec gooogling gave me little bit more, just few examples in Europe:
U.S. Naval Station, Rota, Spain
Naval Support Activity, Naples, Italy
Naval Air Station Keflavik, Iceland
Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy
Aviano Air Base, Italy
Incirlik Air Base, Turkey
Taszar Air Base, Hungary
Please go and advice those "bitch" countries not to "lick US ass". Oh or maybe those countries aren't independent? Uhm, maybe Hungary or Spain had some special historical considerations contrary to Poland? Ideas? Oh BTW: Where You come from?

lima

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Chrisje]

Hehehehe... Canada has Quebecoise and Newfies, and you call 'm developed?

All jokes aside, you do have me there. I can't think of any evil thing Canada has done.

Except bombing the Baldwins, of course.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Helge9210]

But, Putin cannot be blamed for what Stalin did

Except under Putin they are trying to portrait Stalin as a harsh but just ruler of USSR, not as a murderer of entire nations.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[thelima]

I would love to see one of you New-Europe east-block countries say 'No' to the US. It's not gonna happen. Oh really?

You're so busy whoring yourselves out to the superpower du jour that you lose all semblance of national sovereignty the minute someone flashes a wad of dollars or euros. Really? First, comparing this 10 square kilometers camp with dozens of rockets to Russian occupation annihilated few hundred thousands of people in Poland, devastating country for 40 years is plain stupidity. Sorry cannot said different way. Please have some distance.

Coming to bold statements, new EU countries are whores etc... Well, where have You been when there were built US army camps in Spain, Italy, Iceland, Turkey, Hungary, Bosnia to name few countries in Europe only? Do You mean Italy and Spain sold their soil for few bugs? Or maybe they are whoring all the time? Uh, maybe they introduced regime? Erm, not they are probably slaves? Yeah, sure, they are slaves. BTW. Where You come from?

lima

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[thelima]

Agian, we are not placing bases in Our country yet. We start to talk about this. What we do want is to decide about this Ouerselves. We just are sick of advices from Russia in the style of last Putin statement (and this is not first such a statement, just first gainig global interest). That's all.

lima

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[thelima]

Oh, please... If one nation suffered from communism more than others it's Russia itself. You make it sound that all commies were Russian. Wrong. Percentage-wise there were no less communist members in Poland and Eastern Germany, for example, than in Russia. "Russian" revolution were sponsored by Germans and all kind of nations participated in it (on commie side). "Latvian shooters" were famous red-army guard forces for example. Poor latvian and east germans then... occupied by evil Russia. Well - next time think better of who you support. Next - Russian occupation? Was you city boss or police chief Russians? Would you like them more to be Germans? And do you think that you were worse off than people in Russia under "Russian occupation"? Look, I know that Russian suffered badly from communism, so Poland and the rest of this part of the Europe. You know the difference between Russia and other countries was simple - we were occupied they don't. Simple. Remember those dramatical facts, few month ago in Talling with Russian Soldier monument? You, from the other side of the wall, will never understand Our position. For Us soviet army was just anyother Army. Not so different from Germans, really. It wasn't freedom for Us, it just was other form of occupation, lasting 50 years.

And, BTW - just for the record - during last 500 years Poland invaded Russia much more often than Russia did Poland. That's just plain false statement. Show proofs. You know, for last 300 years Poland had been occupied for most the time... lima

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

First Russia occupied Poland, Czech, Slovakia etc for 40 Years, then, after the collapse of the communism, they were against joining NATO by Our, independent then, countries.

Even independent countries have to honour agreements. The NATO extension to eastern Europe was 1. decided and pressed by the US more than by the 'independent' countries that joined and 2. a violation of NATO-Russia agreements. So expect at least a grudge from Russia.

Technically shield located partially in Poland and in Czech is no threat for Russia at all, they now this.

Right. So this shield alledgedly a defense against what, some nebulous thread from Iran and North Corea? And for that it must of course be built in Poland and the Czech rep, as close to Russia as possible, not in, say, the NATO countries Italy and Greece, or any of the US bases in the middle east. Also, strangely enough, quite a few of the european countries this system is appearently protecting are, shall we say, less than happy about it. Oh Why? Well, because they know that claiming the system is there to shoot down NK missiles is, to say the least, laughable. The system is directed right at Russia, nothing else.

Please Russia understand that You are Our "supervisor" no longer, we are independed countries and taking Our decisions Ourselves.

Allow me to quote your first two sentences: To cast little bit more light on the topic. America decided to locate this shield in Poland and Czech. .

Indeed, 'America' decided this. Don't think that Poland and the Czech republic had much of say in it; so boasting too much about independence is a little off.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Abcd1234]

All jokes aside, you do have me there. I can't think of any evil thing Canada has done.

Of course, one might argue that's as much a function of capability...

Except bombing the Baldwins, of course.

I'm sorry, but *that* we simply won't apologize for... they had it coming.

Re:Old, poor Russia...

[Chrisje]

> they had it coming.

So does Brian Adams, but I don't see you bombing him. Although your government did formally apologize for him.

With regards to capability vs intent: The Dutch are 16 mio people right now. Before, when they were involved in global slave-trading, empire building, ripping off natives of various countries and killing innocent people left, right and center, they were many, many fewer than 16 million.

There's 30 million Canadians. Surely they can do *something* evil? Besides spawning Shania, Brian and Celine, that is.

Therefore, I postulate the Canadians don't have the intent to do evil. Gee. Rare condition.

Possible Cause

[UnHolier than ever]

Because US missile bases in Europe threaten Putin? Honestly, the rethoric is more threatening than usual, but where did you expect the Russians to point their weapons at?

Re:Possible Cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly? I kinda of hoped Russia and the US would be past this infantile chest-pounding bullshit 10 or 15 years ago. Bush has played way too much cowboy during his presidency, but for fuck's sake, at least we're behaving somewhat responsibly sober as the only country to ever bear the responsibility for having USED a nuclear weapon in war. Putin's bringing back the cold war in a desperate bid to make Russia once again relevant on the world stage.

When I was a kid, a friend of mine told me stories that Russia had "big guns" pointed at the US and a bunch of other countries. For the life of us, neither of us could figure out why they would do that or why we would point at them. I learned later what a nuclear missile was, of course. It didn't make the thought any less horrible. Worse yet, even as an adult, the posturing and hatred STILL makes no fucking sense, save for its usefulness in inciting fear in the populace to allow you to assert control.

Bush has already found an infinite boogieman (THE TER'RISTS!) to keep people malleable and in fear. Putin could follow that and just get control of his own people, but instead he wants to posture against the world's remaining super power. The only reason I can see to do that instead is to gain control AND gain a place in the world spotlight again.

I just wish threatening to become the most PEACEFUL and least warlike country in the world could get the same amount of attention. Definitely would make me much more willing to listen to somebody.

All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[A beautiful mind]

...makes me wish the EU to take a stronger stand. This isn't the cold war anymore where Europe was divided and I don't appreciate power plays over my head when the EU has more than enough economic might to not have to deal with this crap coming from the USA trying to install weapons in Europe and the Russians reacting to it.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are an idiot. The USA is not forcing these weapons in these countries, these countries have joined NATO and want these systems installed, because unlike you don't trust Russia as they were forced into the Soviet Union you know where you join or die.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[budword]

You ungrateful ass. You and the all of Europe would still be dragging your sorry asses out of a decades long economic hangover from communism if it wasn't for the weapons and protection of the USA. That is, if you weren't sitting around trying to figure out how to get the damn nazi's that a few hundred thousand Americans died to defeat, not even to keep you free, but to FREE your already defeated ass. Maybe the next time some fascist defeats your country in an afternoon we'll let them keep it.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[A beautiful mind]

I don't think these countries want these US controlled systems. And I don't trust Russia, but the point is, I don't trust the USA one bit more either!

FYI, I'm from an ex soviet block country, so I guess I have a bit broader view on the topic than some anonymous troll from the USA.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[A beautiful mind]

How could I be so ungrateful to reject the gifts and protection of the Roman empire?

Your country didn't do anyone a favor but themselves. Maybe you should study history and look at the suffering you have caused all around the world. Iraq is only the latest in the line of atrocities.

And FYI, your country DID hang my country out to dry, it happened in 1956, look it up.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you would still be speaking the Queen's english if it wasn't for the French.

Thanks for validating his point.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please inform me what drug you're smoking. The EU is dependant on Russian oil and USA's demand for imports. It is in no position to complain, even assuming it's members could have a united foriegn policy.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[budword]

And what nation would that be ?

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[MKalus]

Those countries ARE playing politics. They want those weapons because it makes them more "important".

Remember the whole "old Europe" vs. "new Europe" that Rumsfeld was calling for? Old Europe was France & Germany, the new ones where the new members and Spain and Italy. All of them using this as an opportunity to get some attention in Brussels. The Spaniards and Italians because they didn't want to lose their transfer payments to the new member states and the new member states because they wanted to be taken serious.

This is just the next round.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

its a bit difficult to get too hot on their ass when we rely on them for oil and gas

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[budword]

When the alternative is Nazi's or Communists ? Yeah, be pretty fucking grateful.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Xiph]

why don't you check out what happened in 56.. If you want us to respect the U.S for it's history, you should at least try to understand it yourself.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Unbelievable_Truth]

Any understanding about history and you would know what 1956 signifies, you might even know that all the way through Radio America kept broadcasting and people believed the Americans couldn't possibly encourage them then abandon them. They were wrong.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

And FYI, your country DID hang my country out to dry, it happened in 1956, look it up.

It's always the same way with you people. Once you get behind the crypto-moral talk, the real objection to the U.S. and China is that they stopped Europeans from ruling and abusing the world...

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[budword]

I'm sure lots happened in 56. Happened to whom is the question. I read a bit of history, and would love to know who the hell you are talking about.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[budword]

You are Hungarian ? So you believe the USA shouldn't send Americans to die for Iraq. (I agree with you by the way.) But you think Americans should have invaded to save your nation ? You sound like the French. It's great for a few hundred thousand American's to die for French freedom, but it's evil for a few thousand American's to die for Iraqi freedom ?

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm, of course, refering to the Suez War in 1956, where the U.S. forced Britian and France to abandon thier attempt to place a puppet in Egypt . Other commenters seem to think that the GP is referring to the Hungerian revolt. If so, I apologize to the GP, but do not withdraw my comment as far as the general case is concerned.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[budword]

It's a big world Mr Mystery. I'm not in the history biz. Just a guy who likes to read.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Unbelievable_Truth]

Ok, didn't mean to offend, Hungarian Uprising. I guess it's a bit better known if your ex-wife was Hungarian and you came from europe anyway. The ex Soviet Bloc is a very interesting place at the moment. Putin seems to be flexing his muscles.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[DDLKermit007]

Yes, you have such a broader view. Sounds like your just skewed in yet another way personally. Stop "thinking" those countries don't want those defense weapons, and do some damn research on your own instead of guessing what you want the truth to be (or I dunno, use some critical thinking). It's what continually fucks up history. People who just believe what they want to believe. The US can't FORCE a country to take those defense systems (unless they are occupying). They have to actually want them to be installed. Surprise surprise, both Czech, and Poland's government want the systems installed. It's their sovereign territory afterall. Only people really bitching about the installation are those extremely small cluster of inhabitants around the installation's proposed location. To make the matter more interesting the Communist Party in the region is running a propaganda campaign. No wonder the people are bitching about it.

I'm from the US personally, and have my own hatred for the country (currently in Hong Kong), but all of this is boiling down to the US wanting to protect itself, and others from unknown rouge groups from firing small amounts of hostilities at ourselves, and others just because we are free in our political, and religious beliefs. This system would drop at most 10 of the 1000s of missiles the Soviets have. On the other side you have a government official who needs a distraction from more important issues (hey not only the US does that!).

As much as I hate the military industrial complex we all having going, I would certainly love to see how the world would keep itself stable if the US really minded it's own business, and pulled out of all military installations that are not on it's own soil. So many countries would be utterly screwed, and thrown back into old, and completely fucking stupid conflicts (not to mention unleash current monsters it mostly keeps caged in their own country) without the looming giant known as the US military who is happy to put it's nose where it may or may not belong. I'll take a well meaning, dumb brute behind me any day over an obviously insane dictator next door with delusions of grandeur, and genocide. The systems not perfect, but if you have a better solution, please do run for office wherever you live. People are open to suggestions!

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[MvD_Moscow]

As a Ukrainian citizen, I would have to question your thoughts about Poland and the Czech Republic being coerced into joining the missile shield. Significant sections of former USSR (excluding Russia of course) can't stand the Russians (try speaking in Lviv). I don't know about the Czech Republic, but the Poles can't stand the Russians and their imperialist policy. Just look at the whole depute over Polish meat exports. If anything, the Polish leaders are happy to have military sites just to show the Russians that the USSR/Warsaw pact is as dead as ever.

P.S. I am biased against Russia, but so what? I proud to be biased against a nation of nationalist xenophobes.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Corporate Troll]

"old Europe" vs. "new Europe" that Rumsfeld was calling for? Old Europe was France & Germany, the new ones where the new members and Spain and Italy.

Well, then Mr. Rumsfield needs to learn his history. If we talk about "new member states", we think about the states that joined after 2000. Italy has been there since the beginning and Spain joined in 1989... that's over 15 years ago! (Member states of the EU

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Hal_Porter]

Maybe you should study history and look at the suffering you have caused all around the world. Iraq is only the latest in the line of atrocities.

And FYI, your country DID hang my country out to dry, it happened in 1956, look it up.

So intervening in Iraq where the bad guys had almost no military capability was bad, but intervening in Hungary where there was a fair chance of starting WWIII with the Russians would have been good?

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[janrinok]

Your posts in this thread indicate that you are precisely what the rest of the world dislikes most about Americans. The vast majority are decent people - I have fought alongside them, worked with them, and count many Americans among my closest friends. Unfortunately, you do not fit into any of these groups.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[budword]

I'm exactly what most of the world dislikes about Americans. I'm right.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Magada]

Nonono... GP poster is speaking about the Americans not invading (or providing any sort of aid, really) AFTER having promised to help and support the revolution.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[budword]

And you think it would have been good for the Hungarians if America invaded Hungry or even just gave the Hungarians weapons to fight the Soviets at the zenith of their power, when they had the means, and will to make 20 million of their own people disappear without consequence ? It would have been a complete blood bath. It would have been WW3. But this time the belligerent partys had nukes.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[janrinok]

No, you might be right about some things but not all.

Assuming that the USA _did_ save Western Europe from the Nazis it was not without the loss of almost 25 million Russians. How many Americans were lost during the entire Second World War? Assuming the the USA _did_ save Western Europe from communism, it was not without a contribution from those countries that make up Europe. How many countries make up NATO?

So you think that we are ungrateful? Was your sole purpose for 'saving Europe' simply so that we would be forever in your debt and would roll over a do your bidding whenever you want us to? No, it was also in your own interests to make sure that any war that was fought would be mainly over someone else's soil. Just how many times has the US been invaded or occupied? (I'm discounting the arrival of the Europeans and others that make up the vast majority of the US population.) We are grateful for what you have done and we have expressed that gratitude in many different ways. But it is not something that we should be expected to continue to do without question.

However, YOU could have been considerably more polite in the way that you made your argument - it matters not whether you are right or wrong. And that is the problem.... The US has taken it upon itself to dictate to many what they should do. You feel that we should all agree with your own particular point of view because of our shared history. Some in the US now think that, because it is the only viable superpower, that it can now throw its weight around and everyone will kowtow and shower you with their gratitude. It is not so. You have not been elected the world's police. Some countries, my own included, will stand alongside you in the fight against terrorism because we feel it is the right thing to do. My own countrymen are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not do this in order to make you indebted to us, nor because we expect you to demonstrate your own undying gratitude until eternity. No, we do it because it is the right thing to do. Just as you were involved in WW2 and the Cold War. However, your claims of 'ungrateful ass', your suggestions that we should all act as surrogate US states, that YOU, as an American, must always be right, are what I was criticising.

YOU remain the single cause of the US losing so much of its support around the world. Its your condescending attitude. Not the millions of other Americans whom I have fought alongside, worked with, or count amongst my friends. Just YOU and the small number of others like you.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[budword]

So let me get this straight. The first post, perhaps you lost track in your haste to bash America, but the first post I replied to thought the EU should use economic muscle to force the USA to remove a DEFENSIVE missile system from European soil. Never mind asking Russia to stop pointing Nukes at them, he thinks Europeans should bitch that America has missiles on their soil to SHOOT DOWN the nukes. Think about that a minute. One country has nukes pointed AT him. The USA puts in an incomplete NUKE shield system, that would also protect his own nation. And he doesn't think the guy pointing the damn nukes at him is the bad guy ? He thinks the guy with the arrows to SHOOT DOWN the nukes (pointed at HIM) is the bad guy ? And you think Americans are in the wrong here ? That is exactly the type of thinking that leads Americans like myself to believe the Nazi's conquered all of Europe so easily because you guys can't think your way out of paper bag. It's not like the Nazi's were real sharp guys. Just for your information. I don't believe America should have invaded Iraq. And the poster I was rude to implied that living under the Nazi's or Communism could in any way compare to living in a nation protected by America. (Japan or Germany might not agree. I think the former East Germans have some strong feeling on this matter.) The people who started the war in Iraq are dumbasses. Every one here in the USA knows it. Even the republicans know it now. But if the Nazi's or the Soviets invaded there is no doubt they would have succeded, where the USA is failing. The Nazi's or the Soviets would use the same brutal tactics Saddam used to supress the Iraqi's. You doing notice the insurgents pulling this shit against Saddam ? He would have murdered their whole damn village, and no one would have tried again. Case closed. Do I think Europe should let the USA do anything it wants to ? NO. Do I think Europe should let the USA put defensive missiles in Europe, to defend against nukes ? Well yeah. How can you not ? Maybe you would rather just deal with the nukes huh ? Good plan.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[moz25]

I'm right.

Nope, you're wrong. But that's forgivable, because you've probably been raised in an environment with strong nationalistic sentiments. You're merely using as a reference what you've been thought. Now to remain ignorant... that would just be obtuse, so I hope you take the opportunity to learn more about the actual history of WWII.

As any historical archive will indicate, the U.S. not only joined the war relatively late in the game, but also suffered the relatively few military casualties: 2% of all allied deaths were Americans, 64% were Russians. So if we look at who paid a higher price for Europe's freedom, I'd say that we need to be a lot more grateful to Russia. The reward, on the other hand, has been mostly for the U.S., who didn't only get very attractive strategical partners, but also a much bigger market (it's about economics after all).

Now that's not to say that I'm not grateful to the allies who fought against the Nazis, because I am. However, I see no reason whatsoever to be grateful to you, as you have most likely had no involvement whatsoever in WWII.

What we need to realize of course, is that the fuel of Nazi ideology can occur anywhere. Nationalism isn't a German monopoly. That's the danger that we should collectively fight against, whether it's German nationalism, Russian nationalism or American nationalism.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Brussels, "Old Europe".

I don't believe that Russia has any interest in nuking Europe nor Iran. We are their biggest clients after all. They've got a better tool to make their point "fossile engergies".

It looks to me that European countries are (once again) used by foreign powers for their own agenda. But the sad thing about it, this is our fault. European countries are weak and divided.
You can't expect to be taken seriously with 26 (Plus?) foreign ministers with different point of view and interests.

Remember Kissinger who said something like he could not dial a common European phone number in case of a crisis. So Ironic and so true.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[janrinok]

Well, you sure twisted that argument. I thought the US was claiming that the defensive missile shield would NOT be usable against Russian missiles. You are using the opposite to justify its deployment!

The countries that the article is claiming the system will be used against DO NOT HAVE nuclear missiles. When they do, my own country can use its own nuclear missiles as a deterrent just as easily as you can hope to shoot them down - in fact, our system is proven while yours is still experimental.

My country is part of Europe but was never defeated by the Nazis. So please be careful of any accusations that you wish to make against 'Europeans'.

And my criticism was not with your facts, which I do not agree with but I am not debating them here, but your attitude and rudeness. He was not being an 'ungrateful ass' but saying that he, personally, does not wish the US to deploy missiles using his safety as justification. He is entitled to that point of view. You getting all upset and becoming rude doesn't change that fact.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[budword]

I am absolutely not a Nationalist. If anything I'm an isolationist. I think present America has serous problems. Calling me a nationalist when you know nothing about me is no different from me calling you a Nazi. Russians did suffer huge casualties. They also played a major role in starting the war in the first place. Hitler would have been slowed considerably in his war with Western Europe without Stalin's non-aggression pact. I'm much too young to have participated in WWII, but I grew up hearing many first hand accounts of it, as my grandfather fought all over Europe. Even spent 6 weeks in Moscow at the end of the war. And the reward being mostly for the Americans ? The French might not agree with you. Well, the French might, they are French after all. But they shouldn't. That statement is ridiculous.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Magada]

Erm... A couple thousand RPG's, a hundred or so MANPADS and an couple dozen "civilian" "advisors" would have added up to a nice gesture, bloodbath or no. Who said start WW3 over it? It was all done (properly) in Afghanistan twenty-something years later and it worked like a charm, even though Russia had immensely more nukes and a much more capable army than in 1956.

BTW, there WAS a bloodbath after the Russkies rolled in... short and intense, just like Machiavelli recommends.

You see, these things get overlooked and rationalised away, but if the "containment" policy hadn't existed (i.e. defend everything you can and hope their system collapses from the inside), the URSS might have collapsed in the '60s. The existence of stiff, but static, opposition probably propped it up.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[stdarg]

I think what was meant was that New Europe = (new members) and (Spain and Italy), not that Spain and Italy are "new member states"

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Corporate Troll]

Ah, okay... That's quite a strange way to put it. I think I understand now. Let's just say "new europe" = "supporting the US" and "old europe" = "warning the US not to get into this mess". It technically has nothing to do of who has greater seniority in the EU.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Guppy06]

"I don't appreciate power plays over my head when the EU has more than enough economic might to not have to deal with this crap coming from the USA trying to install weapons in Europe and the Russians reacting to it."

Part of this "economic might" of Europe comes from not having to pay for your own defense beyond a token military. The price of having others pay for your military defense is to put up with those others deciding matters of military defense for you.

If you really want to see both the Americans and the Russians leave Europe alone, take a stand and enlist in your national military (assuming your country doesn't practice universal conscription).

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[fsmunoz]

For that to happen we, as Europeans, would actually have to regrow the balls that were cut off after WW2. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the fact of the matter is that North Americans are *right* in one thing: we should put out, or shut up. If we want to take a "stronger stand" then this seemingly eternal masochism in what regards the War has to stop, and though decisions made. NATO is nonsensical and it's only a remnant of European subservience to the US. "Economic power" without the actual guts is of little importance: the EU will be the fatest neutered pig in the world, oh how bloody nice.

Worst of it all is that not only the West has the tongue firmly implanted in the US's ass, but now the East apparently has chosen to do the same.

We should stop blaming others, especially the USA. It's utter hipocrisy to whine and whine while remaining under the "protection" and refusing to actually do anything. I would be sick and tired of Europeans if I was an American. When it's convenient we are all great "Atlantic allies"; when it isn't we call Bush a retarded idiot - which he is of course, but that's behyond the point - and make calls for "dialogue". Gutless, spinless ghosts, a mere shadow of the past.

As for Russia, well, they are part of Europe, always were, always will be. This artificial division between West and East has hurt us enough and has served well the interests of others. While we were divided "...from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic..." we can still believe in a Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[dharbee]

"As any historical archive will indicate, the U.S. not only joined the war relatively late in the game, but also suffered the relatively few military casualties:"

None of which has anything to do with the fact that Europe would have been conquered had we not intervened, late, early, or otherwise. Using casualty numbers is an arbitrary and essentially meaningless statistic, which you like because it allows you to deny much of the US importance.

"So if we look at who paid a higher price for Europe's freedom, I'd say that we need to be a lot more grateful to Russia."

And yet, you weren't Do you think that's an accident? Also, you conveniently overlook who footed the bill for rebuilding.

If you were trying to make an legitimate argument here, you failed completely.

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

> can't stand the Russians (try speaking in Lviv)

> nationalist xenophobes

Heh, who do you call that again?

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[moz25]

You may be an isolationist, but the U.S. does not (or cannot) thrive in isolation. My point is that a thriving Europe is good for the U.S. (and vice versa), both economically and culturally. It's a mutually beneficial friendship and not one in which one party is some form of beggar; that idea is something that's echoed too often and IMO it's offensive.

My grandfather would probably get along with yours (if mine weren't dead). He had lots of stories to tell as well. Apparently, he was in the resistance although we always kind of took the magnitude of his involvement with a minor grain of salt :-)

As for the French... ah well, the French...

Re:All this shit lately about US vs Russia...

[moz25]

"So if we look at who paid a higher price for Europe's freedom, I'd say that we need to be a lot more grateful to Russia."

And yet, you weren't Do you think that's an accident? Also, you conveniently overlook who footed the bill for rebuilding.

It's no accident, it's because Europe and the U.S. have very strong historical ties, economically, culturally and otherwise. Heck, we footed the bill for discovering the U.S. in the first place! A little "thank you" is in place there, dude. Let's also not conveniently overlook all the science and technology we gave you. That took some time and money to get going, you know. Let's not get started about the alphabet, Latin-derived languages, democratic concepts and so on.

Seriously though, the sentiment I was responding to was that the relationship between the U.S. and Europe wasn't mutually beneficial. I think it is. Regardless of what you think of my response, I maintain that it's a poor argument to try to stifle criticism by using the argument "we helped you in WWII, so shut it!".

meh

[Rumagent]

Dear mr. Putin

Go fuck yourself.

Sincerely
Every state not stuck in the cold war (you know, the one you lost)

Re:meh

[dbIII]

You have this backwards.

Unfortunately this missile sheild is from some idiots stuck in the cold war and trying to restart it. If they would stop listening to geriatric corrupt idiots like Kissenger perhaps there would be more interest in North Korea or Iran instead of putting a missile sheild in the north of Europe that would have been far too late to be useful even when Reagan was President.

It's from idiots that know they "won" the cold war but want a replay because they can't figure out how it happened.

Re:meh

[drgonzo59]

And who won the cold war? Did we win it? That is what we want to tell ourselves -- that someone won and of course it is the almighty America. In fact if you study history you'll find that Soviet Union collapsed because it's economy collapsed. Soviet style communism simply does not work. We can shout all we want that we 'won' but it is more like the Soviet Union just slowly killed itself. So I guess you can say that you won a fight if the opponent gets the plague and dies in the process but it doesn't mean that you beat the opponent, you just 'won' by default.

You probably don't realize how much power and influence Russia has in Europe simply because it controls all the energy. It doesn't have to shoot any rockets anywhere, it just needs to shut down the pipelines. So you can keep cursing at Putin all you want if it makes you feel better, but Russia is a player that we will still have to reckon with.

And by the way one of these puppies won't be stopped by our multi-bullion dollar missile defense system. Probably should have used that money for healthcare and better schools...Hmm, excessive spending on military infrastructure at the expense of taking care of it's citizens sounds familiar ... oh yeah.. Soviet Union did that. Perhaps we are not that different after all. Now that's a thought!

Re:meh

[Rumagent]

Yeah, you are probably right. I seem to go in flame mode when the subject falls on de facto dictators of 3. world countries suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Re:meh

[Xiph]

Actually, the soviet union collapsed when the regions started having enough political power (due to economic development)
to demand some sort of autonomy.
There was the occupation of the tv-tower in Vilnius as response, causing the vote on the retention of power to slide.

This in turn led to the august coup Which failed,
and forced the supreme soviet to finally give up it's power monopoly.

So I would say, the Soviet Union collapsed, due to economic reform in the vassal states, without political reform to back it.
The funny thing about this way of thinking, is that it fits with the doctrine, that a change in economic power without a change in political influence leads to violent change.

Re:meh

[bentcd]

In fact if you study history you'll find that Soviet Union collapsed because it's economy collapsed. And the economy collapsed in large part because of having to compete with the military developments of the West.

Soviet style communism simply does not work. This isn't really known. All we know is that Soviet style communism appears to fail after a while when competing with free market economies. This effect was predicted by Marx, who well knew that capitalism is considerably more economically effecient than marxism could ever hope to be. This follows from the realisation that marxism was designed to be fair, while capitalism was designed to be effecient. There is nothing new here.

Re:meh

[dbIII]

I'm mostly suprised this is happening post-Rumsfeld. I suppose there are more deranged dinosaurs than just one senile wrestler in the wrong place.

Re:meh

[DerWulf]

You should know your Marx better. Marx predicted that capitalism would develop into socialism /after/ affecting enourmos economic growth.

Re:meh

[drgonzo59]

I lived in the Soviet Union during the time of it's collapse. The fundamental reason of the collapse is that people will stop working if they cannot directly take their salary home but are forced to share it with everyone. After a while, most will realize that they can just not work much and still get the free healthcare, the state sponsored housing and so on. One of my grandfathers was an avid communist (my other one was an ex-Orthodox monk -- I have an interesting family, don't I ;-). And my grandfathers' generation believed they were building a better country (well nevermind the repressions and the famine). So their generation won the war and built up the country like never before. However my parent's generation realized that it's all bullshit. People were never equal and will never be equal, eventually they stopped working. As soon as the net consumption exceeded the net production the system was headed downhill. Compound that with the logistical nightmare to micromanage the economy of a country larger than most continents out there (just stuff like setting a price for everything -- bread was 0.2 rubles -- _everywhere_!) and you have a failed system. Because prices were fixed, it led to a deficit of goods (therefore the breadlines).

Yes, the war in Afghanistan sped up the collapse but it was already coasting on fumes by then.

If everyone didn't have to wait in freaking breadlines like me and my parents did. If we had normal living conditions, I don't think people would have minded the communists as much, but of course that is provided that human nature is different and / or there is an unlimited supply of funds.

Re:meh

[drgonzo59]

And the economy collapsed in large part because of having to compete with the military developments of the West.

Even if they didn't have to compete. Human nature would have done its job. People will stop working and throwing money in the common pot if they know that they can get all the public goodies like free healthcare (which wasn't bad at all by the way!), education and housing anyway. Eventually people will find ways to slide by and not put in their share of work. As soon as enough people realize this fact the system is headed for collapse. Yes Afghanistan and Cold War sped it up considerably but the system was rotting from within. My grandparent's generation after the war really believed in building a better future and look how much the Soviet system progressed in those years. As they started to retire and my parent's generation came around, the system was already headed for decline. And I was there to witness it...

Re:meh

[bentcd]

You should know your Marx better. Marx predicted that capitalism would develop into socialism /after/ affecting enourmos economic growth. And then he said, more or less, that marxism would eventually squander all this wealth and a new period of capitalism would be necessary to build the wealth necessary for the next period of marxism.

It follows that a marxist system that is forced to compete with a capitalist one will eventually lose out in the finance end of things. It might be hoped that the marxist system would win out on freedom, fairness, general viability, etc., but we'll never know since the few that have tried quickly degenerated into some form of dictatorship that had neither of those qualities.

Re:meh

[bentcd]

People will stop working and throwing money in the common pot if they know that they can get all the public goodies like free healthcare (which wasn't bad at all by the way!), education and housing anyway. These are all offered by the Scandinavian countries, and we tend to be doing quite well. In practice, people aren't quite as selfish as you seem to think, and the system is capable of making adjustments to avoid the worst of the negative effects. If there was a problem in the Soviet Union, it may have been borne from a general dissatisfaction with the system and associated apathy. In such an atmosphere, the proportion of freeloaders is likely to increase drastically. To what extent would highly trained professionals or otherwise very successful people be rewarded in the Soviet Union? If little or not at all, then this would certainly contribute to apathy. Modern social democracies tend to allow highly successful people to have more luxuries than the general population and so there remains an incentive to work hard even if they do pay more taxes.

And then you still have the freeloaders. They are satisfied with little and they're too lazy to bother working to get more luxuries for themselves(*). In practice, they're not too much of a problem and one might consider that if useless people like that were to actually get a job they would probably cause more problems than they solve anyway so they're doing society a favour by not making an effort :-)

* - I simplify, of course.

Re:meh

[DerWulf]

Well the real existing socialistic system actually profited from the free countries around them. Without any refence market the steering commities would have been even more clueless about which goods to prioritize over others etc. There is a compelling case to be made that this 'competion' with the free market actually allowed those 'economies' to exist longer than they could have on their own.

Re:meh

[bentcd]

There is a compelling case to be made that this 'competion' with the free market actually allowed those 'economies' to exist longer than they could have on their own. This is certainly an interesting hypothesis. Thank you.

Now, it doesn't change the fundamental theory since we already know that marxism will burn out at some point. The question rather becomes how long a marxist system can last before it needs to temporarily revert to capitalism. This probably has to be at least one generation (more likely several) or else the constant transitions back and forth will just become too painful and disruptive. Seeing as communism burned out in ~70 years with competition (which we hypothesise to have helped prolong the life of its economic system), this would seem to suggest that a planned economy simply won't last long enough on its own for marxism to be a practicable economic system.

Still too few data points though - too bad it turns out to be so expensive to gather them :-/

Re:meh

[AaronLawrence]

Do you think there is some truth that capitalism is closer to human nature? Capitalism is not "nice" but it does give people a sound reason to work, ie. survival and comfort.

It always seemed that true believers in communism were a small portion of the Russian popoulation, and even there many of them could not resist taking advantage of the guaranteed salary, health care etc (like you say). That minority of believers essentially used force to hold on to power until people accepted the status quo, as most of us do normally. Then the leadership decayed until they no longer had the heart to keep enforcing it. Reading about Gorbachev's changes, it was obvious he sincerely thought socialism could somehow encompass bits of free market thinking.

I also wondered if perhaps, once there was leadership which had entirely grown up under communism, and therefore assumed it was the right way and didn't need to be enforced - that they no longer had what it took to hold it together. One way to describe this would be that once the leadership honestly believed in socialism, it became impossible to maintain it.

Re:meh

[drgonzo59]

To what extent would highly trained professionals or otherwise very successful people be rewarded in the Soviet Union?

Not by much and that was the problem. The only individuals who got plenty of luxuries were the members of the party and the government workers. No wonder by the time of Brejnev, the bureaucratic apparatus of the Soviet Union was large enough to run all the countries in the world. The people who worked harder and were professional would not be compensated proportionately. If they would have been, it would have created a situation of inequality. That would be totally incompatible with the 'everyone is equal' state policy. I admire the Scandinavian countries. Indeed, they seem to have found a golden middle between "let big corporations own everyone's lives" capitalism and Soviet's "submit to the state" system.

Re:meh

[dfenstrate]

These are all offered by the Scandinavian countries, and we tend to be doing quite well.

Yeah, but for how long? Are the scandinavians generally a decade or two or three into their socialized healthcare plans? Soviet Russia lasted 70 years. I wouldn't be so quick to call the scandanavian plan much better just yet.

Two or three generations in and then we'll see if it's got better staying power. I'm guessing from the plummeting birthrates of highly-socialized nations that the system will be in grave danger within two generations. Demographics is destiny, and with birthrates around 1.7-1.8 (summary from some google search) the system can't continue forever. You'll get too many old people who need healthcare, and not enough young people to pay for it in taxes or even provide the labor for it.

Re:meh

[Ogive17]

Of course the US (and 1st world) won the Cold War. It was a war of attrition and the Soviet Union could not maintain that level of spending.

Sure the USSR would most likely have collapsed eventually if there had been no arms race, but it would've taken much longer.

Re:meh

[bentcd]

I'm guessing from the plummeting birthrates of highly-socialized nations that the system will be in grave danger within two generations. A common error in trying to predict the future of natural events based on the past is to neglect the possibility that the event is a cyclical one. Birth rates may very well turn out to be one of these (especially in a well organised society where you can offer people incentives to raise kids), but of course that remains to be seen.

Re:meh

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone didn't have to wait in freaking breadlines like me and my parents did. If we had normal living conditions, I don't think people would have minded the communists as much, but of course that is provided that human nature is different and / or there is an unlimited supply of funds.

Which is a fact Chinese communists seem to have grasp of...

Re:meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism is grass-root and as such it stems directly from human nature. Communism is essentially just a reaction to capitalism-gone-bad, which was rampant until the beginning of the Cold War.

Ironically, the communists indirectly tamed and humanized capitalism in major capitalist countries but at the same time have shown in their own countries the futility of trying to stray to far from it.

However, it was just a temporary political measure.

Now the pendulum is swinging back and we all feel erosion and thinning of "middle-class" which is wrongly attributed to "globalisation" when in fact it is just a recovery from "red scare". No hope in revolution == no middle class necessary (too expensive!).

The scare of the day is unattractive religious fundamentalism which is too strange for most of the "working class citizens". Instead of bribing them, the government of today can use this new scare to push own citizens communist-style: just like Stalinists excused everything they did wrong with "Imperialists' menace", today capitalists' governments can push anything they wish by pulling "Terorists' menace".

Re:meh

[drgonzo59]

Seeing as communism burned out in ~70 years with

I think it's hard quantify or measure anything in this regard because the economic system was not isolated but rather intimately tied in with politics (internal and external), societal issues and culture (yes, culture too, one could argue that Chinese culture of uniformity is better suited to communism than the American culture of individualism, but it's hard to say which gives rise to which of course).

In other words one would have to create some kind of computer model that would account for human behavior (averaged) but will be immune to other variables (Cold War, Chernobyl etc.) to see if the communism could sustain itself. In this model it will be important to consider 'what preceded communism' or what did people overthrow and establish communism instead. After so many peasants were fed up with the Czarist rule they were very willing to work for a 'bright communist future'.

After WWII again, people saw Nazism and in contrast they were very happy to build up their country, and communism seemed like a great idea. However, just one generation after WWII (my parents' generation: born in 1945-1955) people started to realize that they could take advantage of the common goods and produce less than they would consume. This stemmed from the artificial idea of "equality for all" , which on the other hand meant "no matter how hard you work, you won't get to own a Mercedes ..ever => might as well not work very hard". As soon as that starts happening the system will start to disintegrate. A large country like ex Soviet Union will coast for quite bit (20 or more years perhaps) but eventually it will self implode.

I usually go into this explanation every time Americans boast they they 'beat' the Soviet in the Cold War. I argue that they didn't even have to do anything and the Soviet Union would have self-destroyed eventually.

Re:meh

[drgonzo59]

well organized society where you can offer people incentives to raise kids), but of course that remains to be seen.

That usually is the case. A government that has enough resources (i.e. is not dirt poor) will monitor birth rates and will provide adequate incentives to either encourage or discourage population growth. There is something "strange" about this as it makes people into goods/commodities. The country needs more so they "ramp up the production", if the country needs less they "will pull back" (pun intended! ;-). But sometimes, because of other constraints (such as resources or territory, there will have to be a choice of allowing more births or saving resources and have an older population). Two extreme cases are probably China and Japan. Both in Asia. China promotes a policy of reducing birth rates and Japan grows increasingly old (but I am not sure it is really trying to increase birth rates...).

Russia has IP rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia has IP rights for rockets and missiles! They're just exercising their rights!

Mr Putin

[LarsWestergren]

Let's drop the pretense that Russia is in any way a modern democracy please. Elections are a joke, independent journalists are permanently silenced, and if you didn't order it you are certainly didn't doing much to investigate it. You are bullying surrounding nations as soon as they take any steps towards democracy or independence from you or displease you in any way. Fascists and neo-Nazis run rampant in the streets, with the police literarily looking on with arms crossed doing nothing.

And even with all this, Putin has soaring approval ratings, proving once again that nationlist pride is one of the most dangerous memes ever.

Re:Mr Putin

[DigiShaman]

Putin has soaring approval ratings

According to whom? Would the sources be inside or outside Russia? If they are from inside, I would have serious doubts about that sources reputation. Hell, even doing international business with Russia is dubious at best.

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but Russia is corrupt as hell. Just WHO would you trust there? I feel sorry for them. I put far more trust in China's political and economic system than Russia's. That's saying a lot!

Re:Mr Putin

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's drop the pretense that Russia is in any way a modern democracy please. Elections are a joke, independent journalists are...

Lets see how America ("the land of the free") fares here. Elections are a joke (check! - as a wise man once said about democracy - its not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes!), independent journalists are either thoroughly rigged (CNN is totally manipulated) to keep the American public completely misguided (see under WMD, Iraq war and what have you), and bullying "surrounding nations" (check! - If you count Iraq and Afghanistan as your neighbours). In Russia's defence at least it hasn't openly attacked any country in a good long time and neither has it dropped nukes on anyone. Fascists are all over the place - just look into you're own country first for heavens sake - the only thing differentiating "other" bullies and America is the level and sophistication of propaganda that makes Americans believe they're country is "fighting for democracy".

Re:Mr Putin

[LarsWestergren]

According to whom? Would the sources be inside or outside Russia? If they are from inside, I would have serious doubts about that sources reputation

I agree, you are of course right to be sceptic. With Russia having one of the worst rankings in the world for press freedom, I do not have access to any sources I know for sure to be impartial, so it is difficult to know what I read has any slant or not. But from what I have heard in the news in Sweden, and from some quick Googling, it still seems his ratings remain high. I believe this is for two reasons. First is that he controls media, and negative reports are not allowed to be aired. Second is that with the sense of insecurity and humiliation, Russians actually think they need a "strong man" to impose Order and restore national Pride. So the stuff I mentioned above only makes him more popular.

I feel sorry for them. I put far more trust in China's political and economic system than Russia's. That's saying a lot!

I hear you...

Re:Mr Putin

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always been amused by the very concept of Russian neo-nazis. When the time comes, will their great action be to kill themselves, slavic untermenschen that they are?

Re:Mr Putin

[mr_musan]

Sounds like another "modern democracy" a little bit to the west i have herd about

Re:Mr Putin

[martin-boundary]

Do you have a point? What does democracy have to do with complaining when missiles and radar stations are being pointed at your country?

Don't complicate a simple issue: the US is putting missiles on Russia's doorstep, and the Russians don't like it. The US wouldn't like it if the Russians decided to put missiles in Cuba ("no no Mr President, those Cuban missiles are pointed towards Chile, they're not pointed at you"). It's the same deal.

Re:Mr Putin

[digitig]

Let's drop the pretense that Russia is in any way a modern democracy please. Elections are a joke Since the UK (in particular, Scotland (ahref=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jht ml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/10/dl1001.xmlrel=url2html- 12681http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml ?xml=/opinion/2007/05/10/dl1001.xml>)), the USA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3 956129.stm) and (maybe stretching it a bit) Australia (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/mar2002/holl-m0 2.shtml) have all had doubts raised about the fairness of their electoral processes, so there are probably relatively few left on /. who are in a position to point a finger at Russia's elections. Hands up if your particular western democracy is happy to have independent international electoral observers?

Re:Mr Putin

[MvD_Moscow]

OMG, how hate such teen angst "But Bush is worse than Putin posts!" You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You've most probably never been to Russia or anywhere in the former USSR.

America at least has some sort of system of checks and balances, Gonzales might have been fired yet, but there at least people criticizing him and exerting pressure for him to resign. In Russia, Gonzales' behavior is the norm. There are no independent institutions in Russia, everything works via system of contacts/relationships. Putin decides that he wants to lower the chance of particular successor (elections are internalized in Russia, a small group of people decide who gets to be in power, sometimes there is conflict inside this group), he just moves him to a less influential position.

There is no parliament in Russia, we have micromanagement of parties. There essentially two parties, a pro-government party and an "opposition party", they both will do what the government will tell them to but at the same time they pretend to be fighting against each other. The real opposition is completely marginalized, they are not allowed to stage demonstrations in the central locations (the governments excuse being that the pro-government organization needed that particular time slot for their own demonstrations). The choice between Democrats and Republicans isn't too good, but better than having no choice at all, at least it keep the ruling group under pressure.

Your statement about freedom of the press in the USA further underlines that you don't know what you are talking about. For Russia, FOX news would be one of the most pro-opposition channels on TV. In Russia the government virtually controls all forms of mass media. And they all just report what the government tells them to. FOX news pro-conservative shit is a walk in the park compared to Russian TV. Russian engages in racism, it promotes the idea of democracy as simple PR exercise, for all it's work Russian TV is simply a capitalist version of Soviet era TV. It's all propaganda, just now instead of documentary on the glory of communism, they show the Russian version of American Idol.

Seriously, don't ever compare Russia to the US! By doing so you are severely undermining the contribution of the few people in Russia who are doing something to oppose Putin and his fascists. You really don't much about politics or current events judging from your statement about Russia not invading, if anything it just shows how much you watch FOX news/CNN. Just because American TV don't report about certain things, doesn't mean they don't happen. Read up on South Ossetia, Abhazia and Transnistria and how Russian troops are in these regions without a UN peace keeping mandate. And even ignoring these areas, until recently Russia was in no state to battle the Chechens (arguably, they are still in trouble with Chechnya - no way to evaluate that however due to the government's media blockade), let alone invading other countries.

And just because I don't like Russia and it's government, doesn't mean I am a fan of the US. Both the Dems and the Republicans are full of shit, America primitive social laws (you can't drink until your 21, but it's okay to buy a semi-automatic weapons for your own protection) are an embarrassment. And America's foreign policy is just a joke. What you guys need is a test on international events and foreign cultures for everyone who wants to vote. Can't find Somalia on the map? The only Georgia you know of is an American state? Sorry can't vote! That would also have a good side effect of eliminating the fascist (bible) belt as a political force.

Re:Mr Putin

[Cyberax]

Neo-nazis in Russia is not a problem - there's not a lot of them and they have ZERO popular support.

"Cyber-war" against Estonia is a joke.

Again, there are LOT of critical articles and books about Putin in Russia. And I don't see mass-murders of journalists. Politkovskaya most probably was killed by Putin's enemies.

Of course, not everything is well in Russia, but you should live here and see that it is NOWHERE close to Soviet time.

Re:Mr Putin

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't there enough neo-nazis in Moscow to murder approx. 150 coloured poeple last year out of racial hatred ?

Re:Mr Putin

[shutdown -p now]

As a Russian, I can confirm to you that Putin policies are indeed by and large supported by the population. I don't trust the ratings, but I trust my own eyes and ears; and from what I see a hear, should there be free and fair elections in 2008, Putin will still win them. He might get 60% rather than the (official) prediction of 80%, but he will win.

Re:Mr Putin

[shutdown -p now]

European Neo-nazis have largely abandoned the original concept that Slavic people are Untermensch. On the other hand, many young people in Eastern European states, and Russia in particular, came to believe that national socialism is indeed a very nice tool to reach their ends - except when their own nation is substituted where the original mentioned the German people. The end result is that Nazism is relatively popular (compared to Western Europe) among the younger people in Russia, Bulgaria, and even Poland.

Re:Mr Putin

[Aris Katsaris]

Do you have a point? What does democracy have to do with complaining when missiles and radar stations are being pointed at your country? It has lots to do with the legitimacy of Putin complaining about anything that concerns "his" country. When he himself murders Russian citizens by the hundreds, and enslaves them by the millions, complains about missile defense systems in neaby countries seem to me to merely represent his frustration that he may not find it so easy to kill and enslave people in those neighbouring nations as well. the US is putting missiles on Russia's doorstep NO. The US is putting missiles on certain independent nations that requested the presence of those missiles. Those nations possess their own independence and their own sovereignty, and you have no right to diminish them to the status of "Russia's doorstep". They're not Russia's doorstep. They are the living room of the next-door neighbour. You may complain about things put on your own doorstep, but you have no right to complain about things put in the living room of the next-door neighbour.

Re:Mr Putin

[Aris Katsaris]

And I don't see mass-murders of journalists.

Really?

2007

* Vadim Kuznetsov, editor-in-chief of journal "World and home. Saint Petersburg", killed in Saint Petersburg
* Konstantin Brovko, journalist of TV company "Gubernia" (Russian: ""), killed in Khabarovsk
* Ivan Safronov, Military columninst of newspaper "Kommersant". Killed in Moscow on March 2.

2006

* Vaghif Kochetkov, newspaper Trud (Labor), killed in Tula;
* Ilya Zimin, he worked for NTV Russia television channel, killed in Moscow;
* Vyacheslav Akatov, special reporter, "Business Moscow" TV show, killed in Moscow Region;
* Anton Kretenchuk, cameraman, 38th TV Channel, killed in Rostov-on-Don;
* Yevgeny Gerasimenko, newspaper "Saratovsky Rasklad", Saratov;
* Vlad Kidanov, freelance journalist, Cheboksary;
* Alexander Petrov, editor-in-chief, "Right for Choice" magazine, killed near Omsk - in Altai Republic;
* Vyacheslav Plotnikov, reporter, 41st TV Channel, Voronezh;
* Anna Politkovskaya, observer, newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Moscow.

2005

* Pavel Makeyev, reporter for TNT-Pulse Company, Rostov-on-Don;
* Magomedzaghid Varisov, Makhachkala;
* Alexander Pitersky, Baltika Radio reporter, Saint Petersburg;
* Vladimir Pashutin, newspaper Smolensky Literator, Smolensk;
* Tamirlan Kazikhanov, press service head, Anti-Terrorist Center of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs's Main Department for the Southern Federal District, Nalchik;
* Kira Lezhneva, reporter, newspaper "Kamensky Worker", Sverdlovsk Region.

2004

* Yefim Sukhanov, ATK-Media, Archangelsk;
* Farit Urazbayev, cameraman, Vladivostok TV/Radio Company, city of Vladivostok;
* Adlan Khassanov, Reuters reporter, killed in Grozny;
* Shangysh Mondush, correspondent for newspaper Khemchiktin Syldyzy, Tuva Republic;
* Paul Khlebnikov, editor of Russian version of Forbes magazine, Moscow;
* Payl Peloyan, editor of Armyansky Pereulok magazine, Moscow;
* Zoya Ivanova, BGTRK broadcaster, Republic of Buryatia;
* Vladimir Pritchin, editor-in-chief of North Baikal TV/Radio Company, Republic of Buryatia;
* Ian Travinsky, Saint Petersburg, killed in Irkutsk;

2003

* Aleksei Sidorov, Tolyatinskoye Obozreniye, October 9, 2003, Togliatti. He was the second editor-in-chief of local newspaper, "Tolyatinskoye Obozreniye" to be shot to death. His predecessor, Valery Ivanov, was shot in April 2002. The newspaper was known for reporting on organized crime and corruption in the industrial city of Togliatti. [1]
* Yuri Shchekochikhin, Novaya Gazeta, July 3, 2003, Moscow. Deputy editor of the Novaya Gazeta, he died just a few days before his scheduled trip to USA to discuss the results of his journalist investigation with FBI officials. He investigated "Three Whales Corruption Scandal" that involved high-ranking FSB officials. Shchekochikhin died from an "acute allergic reaction" to a substance that was presumably identified as thallium. [2]
* Dmitry Shvets, TV-21 Northwestern Broadcasting, April 18, 2003, Murmansk. He was deputy director of the independent television station TV-21 Northwestern Broadcasting. He was shot dead outs

Re:Mr Putin

[Cyberax]

How do you determine that people was killed due to a racial hatred? 150 killed is just about the number of colored people killed every year in Moscow.

And considering that immigrants from Asia make a lot of ethnic criminal gangs - it's not a very high number.

Re:Mr Putin

[Ash Vince]

Sounds like London

Cuban missile chrisis

[Oldsmobile]

It's like the Cuban missile chrisis all over again, except this time it's the Americans playing crazy dangerous games with missiles.

Re:Cuban missile chrisis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

It's like the Cuban missile chrisis all over again, except this time it's the Americans playing crazy dangerous games with missiles

FYI: the Cuban missile crisis was also caused by "the Americans playing crazy dangerous games with missiles". The placement of USSR's missiles in Cuba was a response to the US placing missiles in Turkey (with a comparable range to USSR's border to that of Cuba to USA's). Of course the US follows a different set of rules from everyone else and so while it claimed to be putting up missiles essentially on USSR's border for "defense", the USSR was not entitled to the same "defensive" distance for theirs. And the rest is history. Note that despite of all the posturing, the US missiles were eventually removed from Turkey (semi-secretly).

Re:Cuban missile chrisis

[budword]

These are defensive missiles. There are no "crazy dangeous games" you CAN play with defensive missiles. If the USA was going to ever nuke anyone first, it wouldn't Russia. There is no doubt it would be North Korea or Iran, and the USA still hasn't done either. Pretending otherwise just displays your bias. Have fun with that, you are in the right place for it.

Re:Cuban missile chrisis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

These are defensive missiles. There are no "crazy dangeous games" you CAN play with defensive missiles.

As many people already pointed out, there is no such thing as a "defensive" weapon. Every new defense upsets the balance of offense, and thus at best initiates an arms race, and at worst enables one side to overpower the other since a shield is in essence a way to decrease the power of the other guy's weapons, preferrably, from the point of view of the party with the shield, to zero. And thus allowing the shield-wielder to strike first, with impunity.

If the USA was going to ever nuke anyone first, it wouldn't Russia.

There is no way to predict the future course of history. Not so long ago a majority of Americans would be very offended if you had postulated that the USA will be engaged in invasion and occupation of whole countries based on fabricated evidence and questionable pet theories of deranged ideologues combined with avarice of certain corporate elites. They would be very outraged and incredulous if you had suggested that the USA would be running what essentially amounts to a Gulag network and that its top justice officials would be engaged in "what is the meaning of is" type of parsing of the Geneva Conventions in order to justify torturing the denisens of those Gulags. I could go on.

Re:Cuban missile chrisis

[T23M]

Not so long ago a majority of Americans would be very offended if you had postulated that the USA will be engaged in invasion and occupation of whole countries based on fabricated evidence and questionable pet theories of deranged ideologues combined with avarice of certain corporate elites. They would be very outraged and incredulous if you had suggested that the USA would be running what essentially amounts to a Gulag network and that its top justice officials would be engaged in "what is the meaning of is" type of parsing of the Geneva Conventions in order to justify torturing the denisens of those Gulags.

Frankly, I'm still offended by those theories.

Re:Cuban missile chrisis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Frankly, I'm still offended by those theories.

I believe they call your kind "the twenty eight percenter", after that portion of the US population having a propensity to unquestioningly believe whatever fantastic yarn the FOX "news" and the Bush Administration spins at the moment, irrespective of any objective reality around you.

Re:Cuban missile chrisis

[thestreetmeat]

If so, let's hope there are a lot more Vasily Arkhipovs out there.

Re:Cuban missile chrisis

[megaditto]

Damn liberal lies! There are at least 34% of patriotic Americans here.

Re:Cuban missile chrisis

[Big_Al_B]

Not so long ago a majority of Americans would be very offended if you had postulated that the USA will be engaged in invasion and occupation of whole countries based on fabricated evidence and questionable pet theories of deranged ideologues combined with avarice of certain corporate elites. They would be very outraged and incredulous if you had suggested that the USA would be running what essentially amounts to a Gulag network and that its top justice officials would be engaged in "what is the meaning of is" type of parsing of the Geneva Conventions in order to justify torturing the denisens of those Gulags. I could go on. Spot on. I agree completely.

The current state of affairs here is mindboggling to me. In fact, had someone forecast it, I might not have even been offended at the suggestion...only because it would have been so far outside the bounds of my imagination that I would have written off the speaker as a total loon.

Now that it's upon us, I'm so offended by it that I've gone beyond my previous "do my homework and vote" level of civic commitment to the "campaign volunteer for someone I believe in" activity tier.

I believe they call your kind "the twenty eight percenter" Perhaps I misread the poster, but I believe he meant that he not only would have been offended, but still is offended by the way things are going, hence agreeing with your statements, as opposed to arguing with you.

Re:Cuban missile chrisis

[Oldsmobile]

You are correct of course, I was oversimplifying to try to make a point go through thick skulls.

Domestic Message on a Global Stage

[Shihar]

This is nothing more then rhetoric for the domestic crowd.

The Russian objections to the US missile defense system are silly. Even if the system ever worked perfectly (it doesn't), it would never be able to stop more then a handful of missiles. Russia has more then a handful of missiles. The only thing the missile defense system can do is blunt an extremely small scale nuclear attack by ballistic missiles. Launch anything BUT that exact type of attack, and the entire missile defense system is worthless. Beyond this, the US has offered to include Russia in the shield, share their tracking data, in general, make a worthless defense against Russian attack even more worthless by making it transparent. North Korea, Iran, and anyone else thinking of how much fun it would be to hold a dozen nukes should be worried. For Russia, this is a joke.

Putin really is just playing to scare his population and score a few 'against America' points. It is a cry for attention and a desperate pleading to PLEASE start some verbal shit to keep his population focused on foreign 'threats' rather than some of the more crushing domestic issues Russia faces. If the Dems kill the program, he will happily take credit for scaring the American weapons of Russia oppression away... when the reality is that the Dems have always found the program to be a waste of money and are happy to tear into a lame duck president on the issue... not because Putin is a scary guy.

Look, the ballistic missile defense system is a joke. We already have one; it is called a few thousand nuclear missiles that can hit anywhere in the globe. I would be the first person to advocate throwing this worthless money hog on a chopping block, or at least relegating it to a lab for more 'research'. That said, Putin's saber rattling has nothing to do with reality. Putin knows that the ballistic missile defense program is a joke, and even if it wasn't a joke, it is only effective against nations with less then a dozen nukes... and it is safe to say Russia has more then a dozen nukes laying around these days.

If you want a real headline, make it this "Putin recall history and tries to invoke Cold War to score domestic political points, Americans continue to piss money into the wind and uphill". This is a domestic issue getting bounced around by a global media and nothing more.

Re:Domestic Message on a Global Stage

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree. The reality is, is that the missle defence system is meant to stop one of two possible occurances.

1. A small scale attack by crazy mofos in North Korea or Iran. Since they only have a handful of missiles the small scale of the missile defence would be perfectly suitable for nullifying the threat from these countries.
2. An accidental launch. This has nearly happened several times, and in the event that a missile by some technical malfunction mistakenly launched, at least with a system like this in place it might be averted.

This really is just the russians playing politics in the region as they have in the past by trying to cut off europe from natural gas. These missiles are NOT a defence against russia that has thousands of nukes, as I doubt a couple dozen interceptors could do a whole lot to that aresenal, it's purely against rogue assholes and accidental launches.

Re:Domestic Message on a Global Stage

[hengist]

> Look, the ballistic missile defense system is a joke. We already have one; it is called a few thousand nuclear missiles
> that can hit anywhere in the globe.

Two points to consider:

Firstly, not having a nuclear warhead explode over your country is a preferable option than having one go off, then turning its lauchsite into glass.

Secondly, the deterrent value of thousands of nuclear warheads is somewhat lost on religious fanatics who don't care if they and a million other faithful get sent straight to Allah.

Re:Domestic Message on a Global Stage

[whereareweheadedto]

Funny, if one replaces Putin with Bush the article still makes sense... They are both assholes, but for me, Bush wins. With all the advisors, US administration should know better than provoke Russians, which they knew they would by setting up this shield.

Re:Domestic Message on a Global Stage

[mr_musan]

Well you know democrasies have to keep the fear form the out side so they can keep the inside "secure"

Re:Domestic Message on a Global Stage

[Shihar]

Firstly, not having a nuclear warhead explode over your country is a preferable option than having one go off, then turning its lauchsite into glass. If it actually worked, that might be true. Even then, it might also be better to have NO defense because the only response can be a nuclear attack in kind. The whole point of a nuclear deterrent is so that both sides realize that the costs of going into a nuclear war is too high to even contemplate.

The real reason why this silly little system is popular is because it breaks down the concept of MAD. If Iran gets nukes, Iran is not going to launch them because the result would be total annihilation. That said, if I ran was already facing total annihilation in the form of an American attack (conventional or otherwise), Iran might be able to pick off a few cities with nukes. This threat would effectively make Iran a nation that is off limits to military coercion. North Korea already enjoys this status by having a few thousand pieces of artillery loaded up with all manner of horrible non-nuclear weapons (chemical and biological) pointed at the capital of South Korea (which is in artillery range of the North). The result is that the US has never ever contemplated any serious military action against North Korea. Iran wants to score this same status. The ballistic missile defense system breaks this equation. A system that could reliably take down a few dozen missiles would help to void military limits that a nuclear deterrent puts in a nation like the US.

Secondly, the deterrent value of thousands of nuclear warheads is somewhat lost on religious fanatics who don't care if they and a million other faithful get sent straight to Allah. Ah, but here is the rub, and here is why the logic of the ballistic missile defense breaks down. You are making the very poor assumption that the easiest way to blow up a nuke in London or Washington is to strap it onto a few tens of thousand of pounds metal, put a few tons of explosives under it, then launch that missile in a parabolic arc that skips it out into space, and then back down into the Earth's atmosphere onto a target a few tens of thousands of miles away. This is a really bad assumption.

The way that someone is going to nuke the US is by taking an American yacht flying an American flag, loading it up with a nuke encased in led, dropping it right into New York harbor, and pressing the big red button. The ballistic missile defense system is like nailing the front door shut while leaving all the windows wide open. It might make you feel safer, but the truth is that you simply just create a change in tactics. Further, the tactic that you make less effective is the one that a terrorist organization is most likely to be able to not pull off (how many ballistic rocks have you made with duct tape and a few wooden planks).

and how is it that...

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is it that russia has its new found power? Well its all that oil that they now sell. It was a lot easier to keep russia weak when the price of oil was 20 $ a barrel rather than 60$. One could argue that the price of oil was going to rise regardless, because of chinese and indian demands on the supply. But president dumb fuck hasn't helped by destabilizing the worlds major oil producing region.

Fuck the missile defence..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from Europe and want no part in defending US soil by placing targets on ours. Well my country (Finland) isn't in NATO and thus not a bitch of the USA like Poland for example. I know the Czechs don't want that fucking system on their soil. It's so damn wrong if their government is going to force it upon them anyways. And it's not like the system even works.. You throw 10 missiles at it at the same time and at least half of them will go thru..

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[thelima]

Dear Anonymous Coward, I for one come from this "bitch" country You mentioned. Sorry for not being kind, but Finnland is all about being kind about Russia all the time. Isn't it that You were just sitting quiet, happy You are on the right side of the wall, after II WW? Where have You been when Russia put nuclear arsenal in Poland 35 Years ago? If Poland is America's bitch, whose bitch is Finnland then?

And for Your information, we are not sure if we agree having this shield in Our country just like Czech. We just don't want to 3-rd countries like Russia decide what we should do.

lima

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[Anonymous Coward]

You make it sound as if the fact that we were on the right side of the wall just happened by magic. Let me enlighten you: we fought them, and we drove them off. You bent over and took it. First from the nazis, then the russkis and now that they're gone (not that you had anything to do with that, mind) you feel empty and willingly bend to the other direction? Oh yes, you're a bitch alright. A very willing one.

Btw. having had a misfortune to live in an apartment building with some polish exchange "students", would you like to enlighten me, what the fuck is with all the YELLING? Don't you guys have anything more constructive to do than shout at each other? Might want to consider trying a civilization one day, it's pretty nifty.

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[jetxee]

If Poland is America's bitch, whose bitch is Finnland then? ...

We just don't want to 3-rd countries like Russia decide what we should do.

FYI: major part of Poland being part of Russia as long as since 1772, Russia is no way the ``3-rd country'' to Poland.

I readily believe that many Polish people do not like their ex-metropolitan state. I know there are reasons to. But this time it is not that Polish people should be afraid of military invasion from the east or do not enjoy political freedoms. It is Russian powers which are afraid of the 3-rd country rockets next to its borders.

And this time Poland just sells their strategically attractive land to the rich powers from the different hemisphere. Putin uses it as an excuse to fuel its ``outer threat'' campaign to gain credits and increase its authoritarian power.

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[Anonymous Coward]

mm, it must really piss you off that US has so many bitches: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nato#Current_members

Too bad Finland was for a LONG time THE bitch of the USSR, and afaik the only one in the "western" world. For example YAA treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Friendsh ip%2C_Cooperation%2C_and_Mutual_Assistance
or great achievments of your wonderful former president Kekkonen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urho_Kekkonen.

Disclaimer: I have nothing against Finland or Finnish people, only against idiots.

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[thelima]

FYI: major part of Poland being part of Russia as long as since 1772, Russia is no way the ``3-rd country'' to Poland. You just forgot to say, that Russia together with Prussia and Austria had split Poland (and Lithuania and Belarus) among them right in 1772. Before, those "parts" of Russia belong to Poland since 996. Yes for almost 800 years. And Russia is just 3-rd part country to Poland exactly the same way it is for any any other country in Europe, including Your one (unless You live in Russia).

I readily believe that many Polish people do not like their ex-metropolitan state. I know there are reasons to. But this time it is not that Polish people should be afraid of military invasion from the east or do not enjoy political freedoms. It is Russian powers which are afraid of the 3-rd country rockets next to its borders. Maybe, but still - when Russia put their nuclear rockets, in the same places in Poland 35 Years ago they had no such a dilemma.

And this time Poland just sells their strategically attractive land to the rich powers from the different hemisphere. Putin uses it as an excuse to fuel its ``outer threat'' campaign to gain credits and increase its authoritarian power. Come on, how Poland is different from the other Europen countries like Germany, whose have huge camps like Rammsau? Agin, this is up to Poland if we decide to "sell" Our land to someone or not. Russia has nothing to say here, fortunately.

lima

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[Anonymous Coward]

> Come on, how Poland is different from the other Europen countries like Germany, whose have huge camps like Rammsau?

You know, history, things like that. You do business, it's quite different.

> Agin, this is up to Poland if we decide to "sell" Our land to someone or not.
True. You can continue to let a foreign country build military on your soil, you can continue to let that same country violate Genova convention on your soil, business is business. And you can buy more F16 too...

Welcome in EU.

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[thelima]

True. You can continue to let a foreign country build military on your soil, you can continue to let that same country violate Genova convention on your soil, business is business. And you can buy more F16 too... You are starting mix topics. If we allow this shield to be build on Our soil it won't automatically mean that we accept everything America is doing. You know it's even not connected to Bush or something, Bush will leave WH in a Year - shield will be finished something like 2010...

Welcome in EU. I'm getting sick of statements like this one. What EU? Driven by Jacques Chirack saying that Poland should shout up? Or Gerhard Schroedder accepting deal (with Russia btw) and then being a manager of it?

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[jetxee]

FYI: major part of Poland being part of Russia as long as since 1772, Russia is no way the ``3-rd country'' to Poland.

You just forgot to say, that Russia together with Prussia and Austria had split Poland (and Lithuania and Belarus) among them right in 1772. Before, those "parts" of Russia belong to Poland since 996. Yes for almost 800 years. And Russia is just 3-rd part country to Poland exactly the same way it is for any any other country in Europe, including Your one (unless You live in Russia).

1772... 1776 was the year of the Declaration of Independence in America. Before that it was just a bunch of european colonies. And before europeans this part of the world belong to american natives for 11000 (eleven thousand) years... So, Poland was part of Russia for almost as long as the USA are being independent (well, minus few decades in the XX century).

You see, history does not matter much in questions like this. It is the power to declare sovereignty and to maintain it that matters.

Come on, how Poland is different from the other Europen countries like Germany, whose have huge camps like Rammsau? Agin, this is up to Poland if we decide to "sell" Our land to someone or not. Russia has nothing to say here, fortunately.

I assert that:

• Poland is a sovereign (as of 2007-06-04).
• Polish government may decide which military forces may use its land and for what purpose.
• Permit from the Poland does not necessary render the deployment of the military forces or weapons legit, as it may violate agreements and pacts between third parties.
• In particular, Russian goverment may be unhappy about deployment of american rockets next to its borders.
• Tension does not help stability.
• Putin uses the tension to boost his power internally (both because population now feels like their country is being endangered, and because it is a good point to distract attention from the real problems). It might be worse also for Poland in long term (remember Stalin?).
• ???.
• Don't be surprised that Russia suddenly bans Polish products.

It is a no-win situation: neither for Europeans in general, nor for Polish people in particular, nor for Russians (except for Putin and the elite).

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[thelima]

1772... 1776 was the year of the Declaration of Independence in America. Before that it was just a bunch of european colonies. And before europeans this part of the world belong to american natives for 11000 (eleven thousand) years... So, Poland was part of Russia for almost as long as the USA are being independent (well, minus few decades in the XX century). You see, history does not matter much in questions like this. It is the power to declare sovereignty and to maintain it that matters. Let's take a look at it other way. Poland stayed independent country for 800 Years, two times longer than US now. And everything it started 400+ before Columbus had arrived to America, or, 800 years before US had declared independence. Not so bad score. And yes it had happened that Russia occupied Poland for quite a long - but same applies to Austria and Prussia - which disappeared BTW. And according to You Russia has some special influence on Poland? Interesting. It's just like saying that France had special influence on US because quite a few states had belong to France before US declared Independence AFAIK.

Don't be surprised that Russia suddenly bans Polish products. Funny. Russia had banned Polish products roughly Year before anybody here heard about American shield... lima

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm getting sick of statements like this one.

I don't really blame Poland, nobody plays the team in Europe anyway. We can't really ask new members to be better than the old ones. Cynicism and sarcasm is all the EU deserve.

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[dharbee]

"Treaties signed in 1947 and 1948 with the Soviet Union included obligations, restraints, and reparations on Finland vis-à-vis the Soviet Union as well as further Finnish territorial concessions (cf. the Moscow Peace Treaty of 1940). Finland ceded most of Finnish Karelia, Salla, and Pechenga, which amounted to 10% of its land area, 20% of industrial capacity and 400,000 evacuees, mainly women and children."

Yeah you didn't bend over and take it...

Did you at least get a reach-around with that deal?

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[jetxee]

Poland stayed independent country for 800 Years

I am afraid it is not true. According to http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/RisePower.html

• The Coronation of Boleslaw Chrobry (the Brave) As the first king of Poland, in 1024, established Poland's right as an independent kingdom.
• In 1138 the Testament of Boleslaw III shattered the precarious unity of Poland by dividing the realm among Boleslaw's sons.
• The [Teutonic] Order turned on the Poles and began to grab large chunks of Polish territory, finally invading Gdansk in 1308 and massacring its Polish inhabitants. At the same time, a steady influx of German colonists helped to consolidate the Order's wealth and power.
• A brief period of Czech rule from 1300-1305, under Vaclav II, reunited a main part of Poland [So there was even an external rule over the country].
• From 1609 Poland became involved in a series of wars and was invaded by Swedes, Turks and Muscovites in such numbers that the country was almost submerged by enemy forces; this period became known as the "Deluge".
• ...

I do not think this sounds like 800 years of independence. After that there were 300 years of being under external control. And it seems like now Poland is seeking revenge?

And according to You Russia has some special influence on Poland? Interesting. It's just like saying that France had special influence on US because quite a few states had belong to France before US declared Independence AFAIK.

It is not that I state that Russia has some special influence on Poland. It is just that it had this kind of influence for a long time. So it probably proves that this land was of great interest for russian powers and is strategically important. Letting deployment of antagonistic weaponry on this territory is like trying to piss off the neighbour.

According to me this is not good for anyone that Poland together with the US, together with Russian governemt seek to escalate the tension in this region.

Re:Fuck the missile defence..

[thelima]

I beg to disagree. I won't discuss You analysis, you know i have learned history of my country for almost 10 years - so I believe know it little bit more. Learning history by googling few sites is not the best way. I don't want suggest You are biased, but why didn't You cite wikipedia.org at least, instead You have chosen random source, selecting information in-line with Your suggestions. OK, start from beginning (for in-depth history please read excellent Norman Davies "God's Playground" - and You will understand why You did substantial mistakes in Your analysis below):

wikipedia

The Polish state was born in 966 with the baptism of Mieszko I, duke of the Slavic tribe of Polans and founder of the Piast dynasty. His conversion from paganism to Christianity was Poland's first recorded historical event. By 990, when Mieszko officially submitted to the authority of the Holy See, he had transformed his country into one of the strongest powers in Eastern Europe. Mieszko's son Bolesaw the Brave built on his father's achievements, for the first time uniting all the provinces that subsequently came to comprise the traditional territory of Poland. In 1025 he became the first king of Poland. After his death the country entered a period of instability, but was unified under the reign of Bolesaw the Wrymouth. After he died in 1138, however, the kingdom was divided among four of his sons, ushering in a period of fragmentation. For two centuries, the Piasts sparred with each other, the clergy, and the nobility for control over the divided kingdom. The civil strife and foreign invasions, such as that of the Mongols in 1241, weakened and depopulated the small Polish principalities. Emphasize is mine.

* The Coronation of Boleslaw Chrobry (the Brave) As the first king of Poland, in 1024, established Poland's right as an independent kingdom. Plain wrong. This date is the date of formal Coronation. It doesn't mean that Poland didn't exist before...

* In 1138 the Testament of Boleslaw III shattered the precarious unity of Poland by dividing the realm among Boleslaw's sons. * The [Teutonic] Order turned on the Poles and began to grab large chunks of Polish territory, finally invading Gdansk in 1308 and massacring its Polish inhabitants. At the same time, a steady influx of German colonists helped to consolidate the Order's wealth and power. Indeed. Do You suggest that by this "dividing" Poland disappeared or what?

* A brief period of Czech rule from 1300-1305, under Vaclav II, reunited a main part of Poland [So there was even an external rule over the country]. And?

* From 1609 Poland became involved in a series of wars and was invaded by Swedes, Turks and Muscovites in such numbers that the country was almost submerged by enemy forces; this period became known as the "Deluge". And Your point is? Most countries these times were involved into one or other war...

When will Putin learn that Islam is the...

[Anonymous Coward]

...real threat, not the USA? His Chinese neighbors don't seem to realize that either.

Our three countries should be banding together to fight this so called religion of "peace".

Re:When will Putin learn that Islam is the...

[Anonymous Coward]

If only. What leader is willing to name Islam as the enemy?

Re:When will Putin learn that Islam is the...

[ACE209]

I don't think it's about the Islam itself.
This religion is only used as tool to control the people.
To point at Islam itself would be the wrong way. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists.
Point at fundamentalism.

Re:When will Putin learn that Islam is the...

[Anonymous Coward]

The threat is clear... anyone trying to take over the world with nuclear weapons.

Money

[Threni]

Uh...Where are they going to get the money?

Cold War II

[iminplaya]

Let's see who can put the first man into space this time.

Mental illness feeds on itself.

[Futurepower(R)]

Putin wants to increase the threat of violence because it allows him to have more control.

Bush wants to increase the threat of violence because it allows him to have more control.

Bush's actions give Putin a chance to increase the threat of violence so he can have more control.

Then threatening actions by Putin give Bush a chance to increase the threat of violence so he can have more control.

Mental illness feeds on itself.

See the free 3-part BBC movie: The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear.

Threatening violence is only one of the formulas of manipulation. Here are others: The Bush administration found support for war through manipulation.

(If you are a U.S. citizen and you don't like my summary of U.S. government corruption, you must write your own. You can't say you love your country if you abandon thinking clearly when your country is in trouble.)

Re:Mental illness feeds on itself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mental illness? Is that a joke? Let's call a spade a spade: this is the power elite working in self-interest, just as they have been doing since the dawn of organized coercion.

There's a reason why every government expands in power and revenue throughout its lifetime, and it's not because the power elite are mentally ill. Clearly, the power elite are quite conscious of what they are doing and how they are doing it.

What about the old missle defense system?

[CrazyJim1]

You know the one where we both have missles so no one shoots?

Conspiracy theory

[tm2b]

Bush and Putin are geting together for a nice friendly sleepover in Connecticut. They get into their pajamas, have a pillow fight, and are sipping the hot chocolate that Barabara Bush brings them.

Bush: So, Putey. We have a problem here in the US. We don't have a rubber stamp Congress any more, but our milkies [that's what he calls the Military-Industrial Complex] need their allowance. We need some sort of way to make sure that they'll be getting their money even with a hostile Congress. A big threat of some sort, just like during the Cold War - you guys had everyone so scared nobody would challenge a vast military budget.
Putin: Da. The old days when I could get my GRU and KGB buddies everything they needed out of the huge military budget are long gone - it was bad for the economy, but great for us! These days, we have more resources but the people are scrambling over whatever crumbs organized crime leaves behind. We need a unifying opponent, who will let me get those citizens and mob bosses solidly back under my thumb. We too need a new Cold War - the Chechnyans just aren't doing it for us.
Bush: Great! Ma!
Putin and Bush together: More Ovaltine, please!

Re:Conspiracy theory

[Bodrius]

I thought they were supposed to order KFC, not have hot cocoa.
But maybe that's just what went wrong with it last time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_bacon/

"It feels like the Cold War all over again."

[XNormal]

Yes, only this time Europe goes dark without access to Russian natural gas.

Perhaps the French had the right idea with going 80% nuclear for their electric power needs.

Re:"It feels like the Cold War all over again."

[jez9999]

Perhaps the French had the right idea with going 80% nuclear for their electric power needs.

Yeah. Except - and I don't know if this is the same in the US - in Britain, the large majority of houses have gas heating installed for their central heating and hot water. Presumably this is because direct gas heating of water is more efficient than doing it via electricity.

Re:"It feels like the Cold War all over again."

[Xenna]

Thanks for the warning. When I buy my next house I'll make sure to put in aircon units that works as heat pumps as well. In case the gas supply fails and electric power stays up.

I'm sort of hoping the Russians will do something like this soon. Nothing like a few days without heat to increase public support for nuclear energy.

X.

Re:"It feels like the Cold War all over again."

[janrinok]

No, the UK discovered huge quantities of natural gas in the North Sea. It made a lot of sense to use our its resources rather than buy them from elsewhere. Now the gas is almost gone, the coal mines were closed because they were 'uneconomic', and they are becoming dependent on energy from other countries. France never had anywhere near the same natural gas resources, although they have wisely used what they have. But I believe that they elected to use nuclear so that they would not become entirely dependent on energy from elsewhere.

Re:"It feels like the Cold War all over again."

[Woy]

Perhaps the French had the right idea with going 80% nuclear for their electric power needs.

PERHAPS!???

Re:"It feels like the Cold War all over again."

[advocate_one]

I'd like to see those oil companies that are having their licenses "legally" stolen via sham courts sabotage the well heads... I do not want to see Putin and his cronies get their hands on the assets without having to drill for it themselves...

Re:"It feels like the Cold War all over again."

[Anonymous Coward]

correct me if i'm wrong, but the reason why France's got so much nuclear electricity is precisely for not being dependent to oil cf. the aftermaths of the 70s oil crisis. not for environmental reasons :)

Hmmm...

[EaglemanBSA]

It's not so much that the Cold War is starting all over again, but that it never really ended.

Central Europe?

[jenik]

Just look at the map...

just got done watching dr. stangelove

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously i just now got done watching Dr. Strangelove and this is up on /.
crazy!

best missile defense system

[polar red]

The best missile defense system is ending this excessive military spending, it seems like we're going back to the cold war! Everybody rolling muscles does NOT bring security ONE step closer.

Re:best missile defense system

[Tanuki64]

I am not sure of this. I grew up in West-Berlin. And I felt much safer during the "cold war". I there was a way for me to donate money for more Russian missiles, I would do it. America just needs a strong opponent to keep it in check.

Re:best missile defense system

[polar red]

America just needs a strong opponent to keep it in check. WHEN will humanity FINALLY end this BLACK-WHITE thinking? "opponent" is a medieval word. It should have been left at the door of the 21st century. Even in the EU we have trouble laying down our weapons. *sigh* back to the shelters.

Re:best missile defense system

[GnuDiff]

> Ten Thousand Years Of Killing, Just Because People Are Being Told The Other Is Different.

Well, if the Other is no different, you don't have that good a feeling when killing him anyway.

Re:best missile defense system

[SQL Error]

Are you insane? The only reason there even was a West Berlin is that the Soviets took over eastern Germany at the end of World War II. And the only reason West Berlin survived as a free city was the Berlin Airlift, organised and operated by Britain and - you guessed it - America. The Soviet Union under Stalin and his immediate successors was brutal and crazy. You can thank America for the simple fact that you are alive today.

Re:best missile defense system

[Tanuki64]

Thanks for the history lessen. Everything you wrote is true, but totally irrelevant today. I live in the present and not in the past. And in the present America has more than once proven that it cannot be trusted. I don't trust Russia, either. Therefore I want two strong opposed forces, which paralyze each other like in the cold war.

Re:best missile defense system

[dave1791]

Do you really want to go back to living under the shadow of the bomb? I don't understand all this nostalgia for the cold war. People were really afraid that the baloon could go up sometime and the world would end. Do you really want to go back to that?

Re:best missile defense system

[dave1791]

You'll find a difference anyway. Look at Northern Ireland. As a foreigner, I found this conflict incomprehensible. I can't tell the difference between a Catholic from there and a Protestant unless they tell me. Yet people were willing to kill over miniscule differences.

Re:best missile defense system

[Tanuki64]

Do you really want to go back to living under the shadow of the bomb?

And you really think this shadow does not exist anymore?

People were really afraid that the baloon could go up sometime and the world would end.

Currently I am much more afraid of the most worst scenarios of 1984 / Gattaca and similar still-mostly-fictions. And there are still enough bombs available to blow up the world. IMHO it became even more likely that they are being used now than back then.

Do you really want to go back to that?

To tell you the truth: Yes.

Re:best missile defense system

[Cafe Alpha]

You're an insane masochist.

Re:best missile defense system

[Tanuki64]

You're an insane masochist.

Oh, seems I missed an important argument. Looks like I have to rethink my position now.

Re:best missile defense system

[Pecisk]

Hush now, let's play big boys with their big toys. Otherwise they will go postal about that nobody understands them and they feel powerless.

Re:best missile defense system

[polar red]

If only they look at what's the same ...

Re:best missile defense system

[dfenstrate]

WHEN will humanity FINALLY end this BLACK-WHITE thinking? "opponent" is a medieval word. It should have been left at the door of the 21st century. Even in the EU we have trouble laying down our weapons. *sigh* back to the shelters.

Hey.. uh... I'm not sure if you've ever heard this one before, but despite all the touchy-feely instruction you recieved in your various levels of education, there are good reasons to stand in opposition (aka be an opponent) to something.

There is good, there is evil, there is better, there is worse. There are cultures, behavoirs, and attitudes that are inherently destructive towards the purveyors and their fellows, and there are traits that are beneficial to their purveyors and those around them.

You may find it laudable to bare your neck to people and cultures who would slit your throat for fun- I, however, do not. There are things worth fighting, killing, and dieing for.

I imagine you've probably spent your life in a great deal of comfort relative to the historical human norm of poverty, misery and oppression. That's the only way I can imagine you could spout off some trite kum-by-ya soundbite and be serious about it.

It's quite clear that several mods have also grown up so sheltered, else you wouldn't be so highly rated.

There is darkness in the hearts of men and women, and it cannot be allowed to rule- it must be fought. Darkness and corruption, by nature, won't lay down just because you ask nicely.

*This post makes no reference to any particular political stance or culture- only that faux-sophisticated "everything is shades of grey, it's all cool, man." thinking is deeply flawed.

Re:best missile defense system

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, Catholic vs. Protestant is not even what the conflict is about. It happens that the nationalists (those who want union with the republic of ireland) are majority nominally roman catholic and the unionists (those who want to remain part of the british nation) are majority nominally protestant, but the conflict is territorial, not religious. Several of the leaders of the nationalist movement that eventually caused most of Ireland to leave the united kingdom were in fact protestant (including many rich protestant landowners in the south of the country who got fed up paying taxes to the brits).

It's funny how so many territorial disputes are painted as religious disputes in the american media - Israel vs. Palestaine, Ireland vs. Britain, China vs. Tibet. Americans, get this through your skulls: it's not about religion. Most people, anywhere, don't give a damn about religion anymore (america is regarded as a relative hotbed of fundamentalism by europeans!)

Re:best missile defense system

[dave1791]

Do you really want to go back to that? To tell you the truth: Yes. oh... my...

We're slipping back into the danger zone and I am not at all happy about it. Let's start by looking at the Middle East. Pakistan has the bomb, but the government is unstable and could easily be replaced by people for whom "martyrdom" is more important than life. The president of Iran regularly throws letters down a well, addressed to a centuries dead Imam, that according to Shiite legend will walk the lands again when the apocalypse happens. Oh and in the Shiite version, the apocalypse is man made and started by the "good guys". Add the fact that a previous president of Iran - a man regarded in the west as a moderate - once said that Iran could win a nuclear war against Isreal because of the geographical size differential between the two countries. Throw in Shia/Sunni rivalry and it is only a matter of time before Arab countries have the bomb. Throw in a mind boggling dose of Israeli paranoia for good measure. The truly frightening thing is that the level of hate between the Israelis, Iranians and Arabs is so deep that it would be an astonishing feat of diplomacy just the get red phones installed. The missile flight times are and land space so scarce that the various sides, the Israelis in particular, won't have the luxury of verifying that the first impacts are indeed happening before launching the counter salvo. NORAD had the luxury of waiting to see if Alaska was actually hit before they launched their own missiles. In the mideast, a technical glitch can become a garden of mushroom clouds across the region in a few minutes. So the days of those people are numbered, but at least it is regional in nature.

I think you are letting nostalgia get the better of you. Let me draw your attention to the Wikipedia Article on the cold war. The particularly interesting part is not the Cuban missile crisis, when everyone in the western world was afraid that the end might come within a few days, but rather the list of accidental near catastrophes. Living in a time when strategic nuclear forces are not on routine alert, these things have receded in terms of danger. I for one would rather not have needless saber rattling bring that danger back. Wishing to have the world sit perpetually on the brink of Armageddon just so that has a little more opposition is insane.

As for the 1984 concerns. In modern democracies with strong constitutions, sanity eventually prevails. A particular government oversteps its bounds, but is eventually reigned in. This is already happening with Bush in America. He overstepped his constitutional bounds for a few years, now things are slowly being fixed and casual disregard for the law is catching up to the Bush administration as it is becoming a target for endless legal investigations. This sort of thing happened in that same country numerous times in its history, right from the very beginning and having a strong constitution eventually forced a purge of the insanity. Situations such as the end of the Weimar Republic and Chavez's Venezuela and Putin's Russia thrive only in an environment with a weak tradition of rule of law.

Re:best missile defense system

[polar red]

You may find it laudable to bare your neck to people and cultures who would slit your throat for fun- I, however, do not. And pointing weapons at them helps ????
Furthermore: there are FEW people who would slit throats for fun, only those that are brought up in conditions that can only to be described as war.

There are things worth fighting, killing, and dieing for. killing ? NEVER. fighting,dieing: yes.

I imagine you've probably spent your life in a great deal of comfort relative to the historical human norm of poverty, misery and oppression. That's the only way I can imagine you could spout off some trite kum-by-ya soundbite and be serious about it. Yes, but i know that relative comfort is only because there are people around the world who live in despicable conditions - which is why there are a lot of people envying and hating us.

There is darkness in the hearts of men and women, and it cannot be allowed to rule- it must be fought. Yes, by educating them, by letting them live their own life, by giving them chances, ...
NOT BY POINTING GUNS.

Re:best missile defense system

[Tanuki64]

I think you are letting nostalgia get the better of you.

Maybe, maybe not. All your examples above, from the letter throwing president of Iran to suddenly everyone and his grandmother has or is close to having the bomb, how comes? I deem the current situation much more dangerous than the situation around the 80th. Sure, there were some minor wars, but generally both super powers more or less behaved. But perhaps you can explain the apparent rise of 'terrorism' after the cold war? Coincidence?

As for the 1984 concerns. In modern democracies with strong constitutions, sanity eventually prevails.

Sorry, but I gave up this hope decades ago. I don't believe in democracy anymore. The average intelligence and character of the so called majority is simply too low.

A particular government oversteps its bounds, but is eventually reigned in.

This has to be proven, yet. At least it has be be proven that this is possible without a major spill of blood. For all the rest of your reply: We will see.

Re:best missile defense system

[dave1791]

Sorry, but I gave up this hope decades ago. I don't believe in democracy anymore. The average intelligence and character of the so called majority is simply too low. Allow me to translate: I dislike democracy becasue I can't get anybody to agree with me.

Re:best missile defense system

[dfenstrate]

The fundamental defect in your position is that you ascribe western values as universal and just below the surface in everyone- hence, your faith in education alone. You do not grasp how deeply toxic cultures are ingrained in their participants.

Modern western society is built on several fundamental concepts that we take for granted, and practice unconsciously to the point where many of us can't conceive of a vastly different line of thought. Here's a primer of one to get you started: Thar Mentality

Yes, but i know that relative comfort is only because there are people around the world who live in despicable conditions - which is why there are a lot of people envying and hating us.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. You could wall off modern nations from 'developing'/3rd world nations completely and the bottom 1% of western nations would still be better off than the the 80th percentile of the rest of the world. Sure, there would be some painful adjustment but the basis of western wealth is not the taking of raw materials cheaply from undeveloped countries. It's the processing and use of such materials that make us wealthy, and they can be pretty much had for a somewhat higher price with the borders of modern nations.

Oh, envy is a base human emotion, and I will not adjust my behavoir according to someone else's character defects. I may keep my behavoir in check out of humility, but that's not the same as weakining oneself to avoid envy.

killing ? NEVER. fighting,dieing: yes.

You're missing something fundamental about the concept of 'fighting', but If you can't figure it out by reading your own words, I don't imagine I can explain it to you.

Yes, by educating them, sure.
by letting them live their own life, With ya there too
by giving them chances, ... I'm all for that
NOT BY POINTING GUNS.

Another concept you're unfamiliar with: Prime divider societies

Here's the short version of the relevance: In any undeveloped country, there are the poor starving & suffering masses, and there are the few elite who do profit and live comfortably by theft, intimidation and outright murder. (This is different from wealth created by western societies, which is much more widespread and based on conducting mutually agreeable transactions)

Educating the masses in more productive ways of life will improve them, but it challenges the authority & wealth of the current people in the top positions & their cronies.

Such people aren't usually conducive to the changes, because the change into an overall better society involves an immediate and real decline in their prestige. They may very well protect their positions with force, and you asking them nicely to step down so their subjects can be better off isn't going to work. The only way to get such people out of the way is to remove them from the public scene, and if there's too many of them that are too well armed to imprison, then you have to kill them.

Again, the fundamental western concepts you unconsciously take for granted are not universal. You imagine great change in the societies we talk about, yet you imagine those who currently benefit will go quietly into the night. You want the crops without tilling the earth. You want the beauty of a snow-covered scene without the blizzard the night before. You want the life-giving rain without the thunder, lightning and floods that come with it.

It ain't that easy. Please, follow the links I put up there with an open mind. We gave peace a chance.

Re:best missile defense system

[Tanuki64]

Perhaps practice your translation skill a bit more. Never said that. But if you think that most things work the way the majority wants, I can understand your conclusion. However, in that case it would be totally ok if we get a new cold war. Russia is a democracy, America is a democracy, most of Europe's countries are democracies, so if we get a new cold war, it must be the will of the majority.

Re:best missile defense system

[dave1791]

Most things do work the way the majority wants, in the long run. I may have read your previous post a bit differently than you intended to write. I have quite a bit of experience dealing with leftist fundamentalists who can't get it out of their heads that violent revolution is the "only way" as well as off the deep end right wingers (of the American variety) who think that the government is trampling on their rights because they have to pay taxes and can't own and carry personal rocket launchers (yes, I once had a guy tell me that it should be legal to own RPGs - to keep the government in check you see). These fringe types tend to be dismissive of democracy because they can't get anyone to agree with them.

Russia does not have strong democratic traditions, just as Germany did not have strong democratic traditions under the Weimar republic. As for a cold war, it takes two to tango and Russia is really the only one talking cold war.

Re:best missile defense system

[dave1791]

Not all conflicts are about religion, but it makes a fine and dandy marker if "us" and "them". So does skin color, dialect, nationality, etc. My point was that paople will always find something, SOMETHING, to define that us and them. If you need another example, take an American and an English speaking Canadian. If you keep any conversation away from politics, most Europeans could not tell the difference. Now, tell a Canadian that they are just like Americans. I advise wearing a flak jacket when you do this.

Re:best missile defense system

[Tanuki64]

Most things do work the way the majority wants, in the long run.

I don't think the experiment 'democracy' is old enough to be really sure here. And even if this statement was valid in the past, I am not sure it is still applicable. The world changes, so does technology and especially the media. The methods to manipulate information today would have been the wet dream of a Joseph Goebbels. The most important requisites for democracy are not votes, but information.

I live in Germany and I can see democracy deteriorating at an alarmingly rate. Oh, we will always have our 'right' to vote, but it won't help, because with the proper control of the media and a proper divide and conquer strategy you can make sure to get the results you need.

I have quite a bit of experience dealing with leftist fundamentalists who can't get it out of their heads that violent revolution is the "only way"

I am not a leftist fundamentalist, but I am afraid that is what will happen. Not that I see this as 'way', especially not one that should be furthered, but one that will sooner or later happen. Just call me a pessimist, if you like.

I am also no right winger, but when I see how Germany (just as an example, there are still states) installs a surveillance state, which even dwarfs the DDR, then I say the state is trampling on my rights.

Generally I like the idea of a democracy, I just wonder how many will survive this century.

Russia does not have strong democratic traditions, just as Germany did not have strong democratic traditions under the Weimar republic.

What strong democratic traditions are worth can be seen in the best democracy money can buy.

As for a cold war, it takes two to tango and Russia is really the only one talking cold war.

Depends on where one stands. Just because one talks about a 'missile defense system' and the other one about 'missiles' it does not necessarily mean the one is more aggressive than the other. The one simply might have the better press.

Re:best missile defense system

[polar red]

You could wall off modern nations from 'developing'/3rd world nations completely I dare you to do that. Have you any idea how much of the things you have are produced in the 3rd world ? Your prime divider exists : it is in the form of the west the third world.

Modern western society is built on several fundamental concepts that we take for granted, and practice unconsciously to the point where many of us can't conceive of a vastly different line of thought These fundamental concepts-let's call them commandments- are much older than you think : they go back to at least the Babylonians.

You do not grasp how deeply toxic cultures are ingrained in their participants. Such a comment sends shivers through my backbone and I see a vision of the third reich. We are better than them? I don't want to even talk to you anymore.

Re:best missile defense system

[dfenstrate]

Pulling out the 'racist & nazi' card so early? Isn't that what your type does when they no longer believe they have the strong position in an argument? It's a cheap cop-out.

You do not grasp how deeply toxic cultures are ingrained in their participants.

Such a comment sends shivers through my backbone and I see a vision of the third reich. We are better than them? I don't want to even talk to you anymore.

There's a difference between race and culture. Race isn't what I'm talking about. Culture is, and culture is a learned set of behavoirs ingrained in since birth.

Are you of the opinion that no learned set of behavoirs is better than any other?

Re:best missile defense system

[polar red]

no learned set of behavoirs is better than any other? Not really. Which one is better than the rest and in what way ?

Re:best missile defense system

[dfenstrate]

Not really. Which one is better than the rest and in what way ?

In my second response to you I included two links, one on prime divider societies and one on the Thar mentality.

They explain it better than I. Please read and consider them. The "Prime Divider" article is the shorter if you're pressed for time, but the "Thar" one is also worth reading.

Re:best missile defense system

[polar red]

Nice articles. They describe a culture which the West has through centuries also practiced. If we let the Arab world develop a few decades WITHOUT interfering, this will be abolished. Problems arise when for example the USA and the USSR go to cold war all over the globe to gain influence (over resources). This leads to religious bastards being pushed to power.(Saddam, Bin Laden, ...) Natural cultural developments where destroyed. This is not a recent development - colonization is not new.

ALl those reply are forgetting one point

[aepervius]

Let us forget the occupation for a moment and concentrate on the heart of the matter : an increase of defensive/offensive arsenal inn poland by the US in czech and Poland is directly aimed at Russia. Naturally Russia will then react and try everything from economical to political pressure.

The US would do exactly the same if Russia were to put more defensive/offensive arsenal in (hypothetically) cuba, or mexico city.

Now if you want my opinion, No bonus point for neither the US nor Russia for not pursuying disarmement while lambasting Iran or some other country to try to build nuclear arms. And lately the US instead even make it worst by stirring the bee hives.

Re:ALl those reply are forgetting one point

[WindBourne]

an increase of defensive/offensive arsenal inn poland by the US in czech and Poland is directly aimed at Russia.

???? Excuse, but exactly WHAT arsenal is aimed at Russia? We have nothing there POINTING at Russia. We are looking at putting in a defensive shield. The funnny thing is that if America is claiming that it will guard against NK, and Iran for Europe, then by definition, it can guard against Russia (somewhat). The thing is that NK is on the otherside of Russia/China. The flight path is over when a number of Russian missles are located. So, if it will guard against NK, then by definition it can stop a few of the russian rockets. Likewise, the Iranian missiles are to the south AND east. That means that the radar and missiles have the ability to guard more than just what flies overhead (which would be worthless if that is all it did). But that means, that it can stop missiles from the side (to some degree).

So, can this system STOP russian rockets? Absolutely. Can it stop a small number of them? I seriously doubt it. Can it stop a major fraction of what Russia would send into Europe? Absolutely ZERO chance of that. It was not designed for that. But if a rougue rocket is launched, then yeah, it could defend.

Are these offensive arsenal similar in nature to what happened in Cuba? Next even close. In fact, I doubt that we would care if Putin or even china put up a similar system. These are NOT offensive in nature. Just defense.

Re:ALl those reply are forgetting one point

[janrinok]

So the 'defensive missile system' COULD stop a selective launch by Russia. A selective launch is designed to demonstrate that the limit has been reached and the next step is all-out nuclear war. It is a single or very limited use of a nuclear weapon. It has always existed although it is not very often discussed but it emphasises that it is not always a case of fire one missile and we fire them all. So the proposed US system IS changing the balance of power in Russia's eyes.

Re:ALl those reply are forgetting one point

[janrinok]

Link http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB159/inde x.htm (www.gwu.edu)

Re:ALl those reply are forgetting one point

[MikeBabcock]

First of all, you're assuming Putin believes the official line about the defense shield. I for one have never believed the defense shield wouldn't include offensive weaponry as well for rapid retaliation -- not that they'd officially condone such a thing in congress of course.

Its like the "secret" prisons all over Europe -- large numbers of people knew they existed, but everyone still seemed shocked when it hit the press. Trusting the American military machine to do what it says and no more is like trusting ants to protect your sugar supply.

Yawn...

[etnu]

Doesn't Russia know that nobody cares about them anymore? The only country that the U.S. fears right now is China, and China isn't going to start a war with us any time in the next 50 years.

Re:Yawn...

[goga_russian]

china has started a war long time ago, and wont it. wheres your stuff being made?
so relax, breathe deeply and let them ease it in a bit deeper

Weird to me.

[rayvd]

This must be Putin/Russia's way of attempting to stay relevant somehow? It seems pretty obvious to me (and must be also to the Russian military) that any sort of US missile shield would have no chance in heck of stopping a nuclear barrage from Russia. The system is just not good enough. It's really only capable of taking out a smaller strike by only a few missiles. This in no way would be able to offset a "mutual destruction" type scenario...

I just don't see how this is a threat to Russia at all.

It's just gotta be a tantrum aimed at riling up the Russian's old foe for old time's sake.

Mod parent down

[Kj0n]

-100: Old and lame

Re:Mod parent down

[buswolley]

We are post modern here. Even this response is at least -25 Old and lame.

Re:Mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

in soviet russia, you're modded -110 for being old and lame!

Re:Mod parent down

[Opportunist]

So this one would be +25: Retro?

Re:Mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia old and lame mod you!

Re:Mod parent down

[nschubach]

I think it's:
-10: Retro
+10: Modern
+25: Near Future
+100: Jetsons

Re:Mod parent down

[Evilest Doer]

In Soviet Russia old and lame mod you!

No, only in Korea do old and lame mod you!

Great Title ???

[eyeb1]

Great title .. "Putin Threatens US" ..

who is threatening who ???

ah!! .. glorious news speak .. formerly called propaganda ..

really what chose do the other countries of the world have ..

given the current ..

and in truth very old american imperialistic foreign policy .. and the trillions of dollars america and it's allies .. flavor of the day .. are pouring into the stockpiling of strategic materials .. new weapon and detection systems including nuclear .. significantly increased strategic FOREIGN military bases .. and a stated intention to weaponize space ..

after all .. america is the ONLY nation currently with FOREIGN militray bases of any significance ..

under the specter of "ur either fur us .. or agin us"

and just as in the past .. all started by the robber barons of america and it's allies of the day ..

sold to the american public .. this time .. under the guise of fighting (read: military escalation) an "unending" global war on terrorism ..

after all Wolfowitz did in fact call it World War III .. WAR= We Are Right

and just as in the past it's really all about profit .. only now with the Cheney's master plan fully implemented .. the outsourcing of the US military .. and implementation of a substantial global mercenary force .. operating outside of any goverment oversite or control .. even more so ..

when corporations go to war it's always about money .. regardless of the rational .. ethical .. or moral justifications made ..

it's really all about the ME and MINE and the BOTTOM line ..

Re:Great Title ???

[SpinyNorman]

Great title .. "Putin Threatens US" ..

who is threatening who ???

Reminds me of the "Cuban missile crisis" - nasty aggressive USSR positioning missiles on out border.... ... until we learned that it was in *response* to the USA positioning missilies in turkey targetted at the USSR

Bush was probably holding his history book upside down when he was trying to read it.

Re:Great Title ???

[Guppy06]

"Great title .. "Putin Threatens US""

You missed four words there.

"really what chose do the other countries of the world have"

They could imitate the French or the Swiss and arm themselves to the teeth and not allow foreign military meddling from either side, instead of relying on one or the other to provide a measure of national defense tax-free.

"after all .. america is the ONLY nation currently with FOREIGN militray bases of any significance .."

Because we're the only ones willing to pay for it. Any other member of the former G-7 has the money to do it, but saving money on national defense keeps the voters fat and happy back home.

"under the specter of "ur either fur us .. or agin us""

No, under the specter of "Or you'll have to take care of your own problems." It's so much easier to make problems in the Balkans a "NATO" issue rather than an "EU" one.

And really, with examples like the Poles and the Czechs, there's also the specter of "Or the Russians will come back, just like they've been doing for the past four centuries or so." They're looking for someone to counter the Russians in international affairs for their own protection, and for obvious historical reasons they're not all that willing to trust nuclear Britain or France or non-nuclear Germany to do it.

Like it or not, the United States is about as close to a disinterested third party in European politics as you're going to get, which is why so many European powers, east and west, are so keen on keeping the US and its troops involved in European affairs.

"and just as in the past .. all started by the robber barons of america and it's allies of the day "

Nice way to avoid the phrase "Jewish bankers" there.

Re:Great Title ???

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how a basically American news site gets most of the anti-American rhetoric voted Insightful... while at the same time they consider the US a state controlled media country who is evil and must be burned to the ground.

"WE SUCK!! NUKE US!! WE SUCK BECAUSE NOBODY LETS ME SAY HOW MUCH WE SUCK!!111!!"

Anyone else think the Americans are loosing it for totally different reasons then whats cool and popular?

Stay the hell out

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the US keeps it's grubby little paws out of Europe.

you are forgetting where the US is...

[Anonymous Coward]

..the US is all over the planet (not just north america), with military bases in over *one hundred* countries, including an ever widening ring around russia especially on the asian and eastern european side.. In any altercation,from the Russian POV, all of them are legit targets, along with NATO "allies".

I mean, this isn't geographical/political rocket science..err..wait, yes it is

What would the US say and do if Russia was establishing full time bases in Canada and Mexico and setting up missile sites, and so on? See how that works when you stop looking at events one sided, even if you think you are paying attention to the news?

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[ilzogoiby]

I think that the US should be placing missiles in their territory, not in... for god sake... Poland? It is a clear provocation, since it is a former russian "puppet state". We should be fighting for neutrality and demilitarization, not for some paranoid anti-missile system...

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[VagaStorm]

Remember that they do not plan to put nukes in Poland, merely a radar and intercepting missiles, which as posted earlier can not stop Russian missiles as they travel over the north pole.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[ilzogoiby]

Even so... what do they want to intercept? Iranian missiles? Please...

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Polish anti-Russian sentiment is historical constant over very wide period. Poland too had its share of imperial ambitions and plans of advancing to the East, but Russians resisted and over time expanded on their own until the two were not in the same league anymore. However, Pols never actually accepted the difference in "weight" and were actively working on "setting things right" ever since and as long as they were free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism), in some cases even when they weren't, by certain influential representatives of their national political tradition during the time of Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski) .

Between WWII and Berlin Wall fall, Poland was basically "occupied enemy country" just like DDR. It is not a coincidence that it was Poland who broke Soviet block in Cold War. US provided the support and services, but Poland put the neck on the line.

(Sometimes I wonder if destruction of opportunistic, sitting-on-its-hands, have-done-nothing-for-our-cause Yugoslavia was timed so that heroic Poland would get the reward of Western investments that would otherwise had gone down south where they could had yielded higher profits faster at that time? There are some remote indications that Yugoslav tragedy wasn't quite spontaneous inside self-combustion, but time will tell, once when it won't matter anymore or would conveniently be rationalized retroactively. Anyhow, most of the Yugoslav shards are still grateful - it seemed they could end up much worse, so the damage, drop and setback they experienced are acceptable - and although the one that got outcast and played villain in the show is now pushed toward Russia, it is almost completely neutralized, kept in check, strategically worthless, doesn't stand a chance in a conflict and makes Russia's rep even more bad. It is obviously a bait on a bear trap, although the mechanism of the trap is not yet apparent. But I digress...)

Therefore, I am not quite sure if "former puppet state" sticker on Poland can hold... perhaps "former hostage state" would be more appropriate one.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[UncleFluffy]

I think that the US should be placing missiles in their territory, not in... for god sake... Poland?

Poland is a sovereign nation, so it's up to them what missiles they permit on their territory, not the US and not Russia. Why is this so complicated?

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[Opportunist]

Care to explain the difference between Poland and Cuba?

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[Cyberax]

Actually, Russia HAD military bases with radiolocators on Cuba and in Vietnam. Russia removed these bases in 90-s:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1784742.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1964253.stm

So, Russia did some real steps for disarmament. And got US military bases in Europe as a result.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[ilzogoiby]

Yeah, I agree with that. But it's hard to ignore the political implications of such a presence in such geographical location. And isn't North Korea a sovereign nation as well (in spite of being governed by a maniac)? Why bother with the weapons they possess? Isn't Iran a sovereign nation? It's up to them where they place their missiles... why bother with it? And why such a complication around their nuclear program? Isn't it up to them the weapons they have and where they aim them to?

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[UncleFluffy]

And isn't North Korea a sovereign nation as well (in spite of being governed by a maniac)? Why bother with the weapons they possess? Isn't Iran a sovereign nation? It's up to them where they place their missiles... why bother with it? And why such a complication around their nuclear program? Isn't it up to them the weapons they have and where they aim them to?

NPT violation. They made a promise and went back on it, or look very close to doing so. (Yes, the US also are violating the NPT as well, but that's a separate conversation).

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[UncleFluffy]

None at all. Is that a problem?

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[SillyNickName4me]

NPT violation.

In case of Iran, suspected NPT violation. In case of North Korea, I believe they left the NPT, in which case its no loner a violation.

They made a promise and went back on it, or look very close to doing so.

In other words, we don't know, but we THINK Iran might be violating the NPT.

It would be similar to argue that while we don't know, we think you are planning some terrorist attack since well, you had this sudden interest in Islam and also started to learn Arab.. we don't have any proof, but just in case we'll lock you up.

Thinking something is nice, but by far not good enough for taking action in most cases.

(Yes, the US also are violating the NPT as well, but that's a separate conversation).

As a matter of fact, no, it is not a seperate discussion.

Nuclear ambitions of Iran are directly related to:
1. Israel's nuclear capabilities
2. Never ending interference in the ME by the USA.

Since 1. is a consequence of the USA and others having violated the NPT, you can't say that it is a seperate discussion.

Also, not keeping to a treaty yourself and then screaming about violations from others makes you laughable at best, and not someone whoms opinion is regarded highly. This has more then a little bit to do with how succesfull the USA is in trying to get others to keep to the NPT.

Being at fault yourself doesn't invalidate your message, but it does invalidate you as a speaker.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[Anonymous Coward]

not someone whoms opinion is regarded highly

I bet that makes you feel real clever. It doesn't make you look it.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[Viraptor]

Placement, government, history, freedoms, being part of international organizations, military power, democracy (whatever state it's in), .... almost every single thing is different about Cuba and Poland. WTF was that question about?

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[dharbee]

"So, Russia did some real steps for disarmament."

I don't think anyone with real knowledge of the situation believes this was disarmament for any reason other than cost. Russia simply couldn't afford them anymore.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[thebdj]

The Cuban Missile Crisis is what that post was about, I assume. It is a stupid comparison to make since that was over 40yrs ago and during a period when we almost blew the shit out of each other and "ended the world." By the way, another BIG difference is that the Russians were doing this in "secret." They actually did a pretty good job of getting missiles in place and setup before the US even knew they were there. I think the GP should really read up on history before trying to compare anti-ballistic missiles and radar in Poland in 2007 to nuclear warheads in Cuba in 1962.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[Opportunist]

Well, Poland's state of democracy could be compared to... well, imagine the right wing religious nutjobs taking over government.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[BlueTrin]

I think you should always look at both versions ... Basically the soviets reacted to the Jupiter bases in Turkey.

They removed the missiles in Cuba because the US also agreed to remove the Jupiters in Turkey.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[Cyberax]

Nope. The cost of these bases was trivial for a country of Russia's size, even during economic crisis.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[Lockejaw]

I don't know if Iran has them, and I don't know if the Pentagon things Iran has them, but if they do, that's a fine spot for interceptor missiles.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[diskis]

So, with USA with a impeding economical crisis, can afford similar stuff?

Come on, big enough countries can afford a few bases anytime. Simply leave a few homeless without food.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[dharbee]

Nope, it was not. Even during the economic crisis.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[dharbee]

"So, with USA with a impeding economical crisis, can afford similar stuff?"

This sentence makes it clear you're not qualified to discuss this matter.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[Cyberax]

At that time Russia had bases in Georgia, Moldavia, Abkhazia, Armenia.

Right now Russia is in process of pulling out of Georgia and Moldavia.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[dharbee]

None of which has anything to do with the fact that the bases they closed in Cuba and Vietnam were shut down because they weren't cost effective.

Re:you are forgetting where the US is...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it's only a democracy when the lefists win? Otherwise, even if "right wing religious nutjobs taking over government" is a direct result of a fair election it's not a democracy? Like it or not, but they have been democratically elected. Just because they don't conform to your ideas of what the government should do doesn't change the fact.

politics aside

[Theodor009]

Country A wants to place a missile defense system as close geographically as possible to the launch sites of country B. From a purely military standpoint there is no way country B can allow this to happen without a fight. The system doesn't work! Even if that is the case, there is no guarantee it will remain this way. It doesn't take much thought to see that this system, because of its location, can be used in an offensive manner, and is a direct threat to the defense of country B. How far do you think this would fly if Russia wanted to place the same type of system on Cuba? This isn't even a equal comparison. For that look to the Canadian border as the site location and now it doesn't look so innocent.

Re:politics aside

[Anonymous Coward]

I felt threatened by the US who put missile bases and troops all over the world, because when the US wants to acquire their resources (e.g., oil) and control others' opinions, they would play all kind of tricks or even violence with all sorts of lies and excuses in order to achieve her selfish objectives, as demonstrated in the Iraq war. To believe in the US to do right things is false.

Re:politics aside

[WindBourne]

Poland is about 300 miles away from Russia via belarus(and moscow MUCH further). Czech is even further away. And that assumes border to border. That would be == to Miami to the futherest point south on cuba. And to be honest, considering where Russia places their missiles, then it it more like Atlanta to Venezuela. That is the more fair comparisions. These missles will do not good at targeting ANYTHING from russia to America/Canada (but almost certainly, we will have something in one of the 2).

Re:politics aside

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely right. To believe that the United States would never misuse her power to abuse other countries is simply wrong.

Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[reporter]

"The Economist" recently published a concise summary of relations between the West and Russia. The summary stated, "DEMONSTRATORS thrashed on the streets of Moscow; the impending mugging of another big energy firm, this one part-owned by BP; cyberwarfare against a small neighbour; the bellicose testing of a new ballistic missile, supposedly able to bypass the American missile-defence system about which the Kremlin fulminates--and all that was only in the past fortnight. When the G8 group of rich countries meets next week in Germany, one of its biggest if unadvertised concerns will be the snarling behaviour of one of its own members, Vladimir Putin's Russia--and the urgent need for a more coherent Western policy towards it."

One of the biggest mistakes that we Westerners committed was to admit the Russians into the G-8. The original G-7 was intended to be the group of leading industrialized democracies committed to Western values.

We admitted the Russians in the hope that, although Russia was still highly non-Western (in, for example, its treatment of sexual-orientation or ethnic minorities), being lenient on Russia would encourage the Russians to modernize their society along Western lines. Well, we were wrong. Just last week, the Russian police smiled in approval as ordinary Russians violently beat up participants in a demonstration calling for rights for homosexuals. Some of the victims of the violence were European politicians who had participated into the demonstration.

The Russians make a mockery of the G-8 and its principles. Now, Putin is idly threatening to point his nuclear missiles at Eastern Europe. Nuclear annihilation is serious business. Before Russia joined the G-8, no member of the G-7 ever threatened nuclear annihilation against a prosperous, Western democracy.

The time has come for us to end this nonsense. We should expel Russia from the G-8, restoring the orignal name of "G-7".

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[MemoryDragon]

Ahem.. russia already is almost G8, it is G9 as for now, as for the cyber warfare, heise recently posted the results of the investigation, it could not be traced back to the russian government, it was traced back to a lot of rootkits some being hosted in the kremlin. Unfortunatly (I live in western europe btw.) there are more issues to all this than our own side. First of all the situation in Lithuania is not that easy, this country has a high russian population and has not given them full citizen rights (yes those are still sort of foreigners) secondly the entire thing was a very complicated issue. Russia currently plays tough politics, but the entire anti missile thing is kindof stupid, nobody really wants it except bush and the governments of Tzechia and Poland, if you talk with the people, they rather want to have peace and want to be left out of anything. And add to that the fact that the russian elections are upfront, while the Putin side not really has any opponent it is still elections, which means everyone goes haiwire (dont ask if there is not an inside battle between various putin successors going on, it sounds like it from the outside view) and the entire anti missile thing, is perfect fuel into the ongoing preelection process, to ride upon. If all of this would have happened in a saner manner a year later the tone probably would have been entirely different, Putin is a very smart man, but also very tough. You can deal with him if you are upfront honest, start upfront to talk with him and integrated him, but not the way the entire thing was started (We place it there no discussion, wee feed it upon you who cares, we are Americans!!!) So no wonder the G8 summit in germany has lots of Riots upfront, everything the Bush administration touches, causes the next trouble, this guy has the tendency to revert perfect peace into the next war out of plain stupidity and arrogance! The current situation between russia and the EU is not easy, but also not evil, but pushing fuel into a heated area like the US currently does does not help.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[martin-boundary]

The time has come for us to end this nonsense. We should expel Russia from the G-8, restoring the orignal name of "G-7".

And don't forget to bomb Iran, no?

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Fyz]

Lithuania? How do you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously when you haven't even bothered to learn which country you're talking about?
Hint: It starts with an 'E'

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Anonymous Coward]

They are the same.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[jandersen]

You are as bad as the scaremongers in Washington, my friend. What you are saying is that you want ironcurtain and segregation rather than dialog and diplomacy, basically.

The simply truth of the matter is that since Bush got to power, America has been building up it weapons and level of aggression with any excuse it could find, and the other large players feel threatened; arguably with good reason: America has been on a conquering-spree in the Middle East. Now, nobody outside the government may have any proof that would hold up in court, that says America intends to overrun the entire world and build an empire, but it is very easy to get that impression, and neither China, Russia or any other nation that doesn't see itself as a vassal state of the US can be blamed for taking that impression into account.

So what if the American government says 'We are not going to threaten Russia, honest, guv'? Is this present government one that any sane man would just trust on its word? And apart from that - even the most honest and wellmeaning person can only make promises for him- or herself. Nobody knows that all future American governments will respect those promises.

No, the only way forward if we want world peace is to build trust, respect and cooperation - even with the ones that are now our enemies. So, yes, it is time to end the rabid nonsense - of the neo-conservatives and the self-righteous idiots. We face far bigger problems now than the question of whether Islam or Christianity is better; or whether Communism or Capitalism-run-amok is the right way. If we can't find it in ourselves to reach across our differences and cooperate in honesty, we may well end up in a situation where petty squabbles over ideology or religion are utterly irrelevant.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[master_p]

Western values? like supporting dictatorships in Chile, central America countries, Greece, Pakistan etc?

Western values like allowing friend countries to invade and occupy foreign countries (Turkey over Cyprus) while doing the exact opposite thing with non-friend countries?

Western values like increasing the price of imported goods from Africa in order to protect domestic production?

Western values like economically supporting all the 'orange' revolutions in former soviet union countries in order to get the geopolitical advantage?

Western values like dismantling Yugoslavia because the southern part has the largest deposits of a rare metal which USA wants for replacing enhanced uranium in its weapons?

Western values like lying about WMDs in Iraq?

Western values like taking the culture of one country and arbitrarily assign it to another (yeap, I am talking about the so called country of 'Macedonia', one of the biggest thefts of cultural identity in history) ?

Western values like giving money under the table to enemies of Chaves so as that he is overthrown, even if he is legally elected?

Western values like illegally giving money to Israel under the table, as well as advanced technology that no other one has?

Western values like don't doing anything about Israel's 200 nuclear warheads, even when they openly admit it?

Western values like privatizing everything and leaving over 60 million americans in the mercy of god, without medical insurance and health care? and with private health care companies sucking everything out of their clients?

Western values like banks increasing their profits 500% each year while the average payment of an american employee has remained almost the same in the last 30 years?

Western values like stealing ancient artifacts from all around the globe and displaying them in your museums?

Western values like changing the borders of other countries (for example in the Balkans) so as you can divide and conquer, while in Africa there are thousands of slaughtered people every day in Sudan, yet you say 'it's not your problem'??? (as Angela Merkel told us a few days ago)...

Western values like not destroying the drug factories and plantations of south America, even if you have accurately mapped all the globe with your satellites?

Western values like not doing anything for the environment because it will hurt your wallet?

What western values are you talking about? all your values were invented somewhere else, and you might not know it, but almost all your habits and things you use daily come from other countries that you bash as 'non-western'. Your clothing habbits probably come from Europe. Your food from Europe and Latin America. Your language comes from Europe. Your political system comes from Europe. Your music comes from Africa. Your religion comes from Middle East. Your sports come from Europe and the Far East. The foundations of your technology come from West Germany, where almost all top scientists came to USA before and after WWII.

Get a grip on reality. The battle between USA and Russia is far from over, because Russia got the biggest natural energy resources, and USA is scared to death about Europe depending on Russia for its energy needs. That about sums it up, really.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[r_newman]

The time has come for us to end this nonsense. We should expel Russia from the G-8, restoring the orignal name of "G-7".

By your logic, the USA should be expelled from the UN. The USA acts unilaterally, benefiting nobody but its oil-tycoon vice-president, and arms-baron president (check out Bushs "defense" industry shares). For Americans to advocate the removal of Russia from "G8" is ridiculous and hypocritical in the extreme. Also, is it supposed to be one rule for the Russians and one rule for everybody else? Poland is as anti-gay as Russia, and in rural areas even more so, and yet they are your "friends", so they are spared your butch rhetoric? What unmitigated hypocrisy.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Sergeant Pepper]

"...Russia was still highly non-Western (in, for example, its treatment of sexual-orientation or ethnic minorities)"

Does that mean that Russia actually treated them decently?

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Descalzo]

No.

Western values like a working republic.

Western values like a Bill of Rights.

Western values like ...

Oh, never mind. What's the point.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[stdarg]

Your post's primary strength is that it's so long!

One point that I'm actually curious about is "Western values like taking the culture of one country and arbitrarily assign it to another (yeap, I am talking about the so called country of 'Macedonia', one of the biggest thefts of cultural identity in history)?"

What do you mean?

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Lithuania has few Russians, Latvia and Estonia have many.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[master_p]

In the southern region of former Yugoslavia, USA supports naming FYROM as 'Macedonia', assigning the culture of ancient Greeks that lived in the area a long time ago to Slavic people living there now.

USA supports the concept that the Great Alexander and Aristotelis, the founder of logic, were ...Slavic.

Talking about some crazy stuff!!!

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[dharbee]

"USA supports the concept that the Great Alexander and Aristotelis, the founder of logic, were ...Slavic."

Do you realize why one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other? What is wrong with your mental process that makes "naming a location" equivalent to "redefining the ancestry of a group of people"?

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[MemoryDragon]

Yes I apologize, I meant Estonia...

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Britz]

Actually half your points are "conspiracy theory". That is really bad, because it makes dismissing your comment very easy, after all you are just a nutty conspiracy theorist. Maybe half of the conspiracy nutty half have some truth to them, but they are not common knowledge.

The real point is that the West (including the US) has always been dealing with the devil and keeping a delicate balance between doing small "bad" for the greater good and doing good (and sometimes forgettig what that greater good was and doing only bad). So when Bush comes around talking about good and evil I have no clue why he is not thrown into rehab immediatly.

I mean seriously, what are US voters smoking? Other leaders also tell a lot of BS, but not even remotely as much as W.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[rainman_bc]

Western values? like supporting dictatorships in Chile, central America countries, Greece, Pakistan etc?

Are you seriously fucking kidding me? Greece a dicatorship? Greece is a republic and a democracy. They have a president and a prime minister, and are a very proud people, very proud of their independence and their democracy.

Dude, they don't like the US in Greece. The US was the reason Cypress was split in two and made its own country, and the US supports Turkey, not Greece.

Please, read up a bit more. I'm Greek, and while I may not be the ambassador for all of Greece, I do know enough about Greece and Greek people to know you pulled that post right from your anus...

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Anonymous Coward]

working republic?
Bill of rights?

If you -assuming you are a US citizien- mean a striking similarity to 1934 germany, Sure.
Allthough I believe they called it National Socialism back then.
Maybe you should get used to that moniker. It is, after all, your future.

Too bad you think we all should share it.

*sigh*

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that. The Greeks *invented* democracy.
It is the fsck'ing cradle of democracy! I'd be insulted too were I greek.

-T.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Bj�rn]

The parent post was referring to, I think, the military junta under Papadopoulos, during 1967 - 1974. The junta had close connections with the CIA and opened Greece to US espionage bases and missile launch sites. Papadopoulos was a fascist and admirer of Hitler. Bill Clinton has made a public apology for the US support of the regime.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Joey Vegetables]

Western values like taking the culture of one country and arbitrarily assign it to another (yeap, I am talking about the so called country of 'Macedonia', one of the biggest thefts of cultural identity in history)?

That a misappropriation of cultural identity occurred is actually not in dispute. The perpetrator is. To learn more about this, study the past history of the region, including the Ottoman occupation and the Balkan wars of the early part of the 20th century. Then also take a look at the relative freedom enjoyed in each country by nationals of the other. I obviously am biased toward the Macedonian or so-called "FYROM" side, my wife being from there, but I have friends from Greece as well, and I think the answers are clear if you try to look at things objectively.

Also, relations are relatively good between the nations of Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, except for these two issues (the naming dispute, and the treatment of minority nationals of one of these countries by the government of the other - I'll leave the identity of each as an exercise to the reader.) Aside from this things are fine. There is significant trade and cultural interchange between the two countries, which would likely increase further if some mutually acceptable compromise could be reached on these two issues.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[master_p]

"after all you are just a nutty conspiracy theorist"

Not at all. Every single thing I said is fact. Google is your friend.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[master_p]

"Please, read up a bit more. I'm Greek, and while I may not be the ambassador for all of Greece, I do know enough about Greece and Greek people to know you pulled that post right from your anus..."

You are funny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_of_the_Colonel s

You are not greek at all.

And it is Cyprus.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[master_p]

"I obviously am biased toward the Macedonian or so-called "FYROM" side, my wife being from there, but I have friends from Greece as well, and I think the answers are clear if you try to look at things objectively."

Oh please...the Great Alexander was Greek. Aristotelis was Greek. Phillip was Greek. Alexander is the Greek word 'alexandros' which means 'long man'. Aristotelis comes from 'aristos' which means 'best' and 'telos' which means 'always'. And Phillip comes from Filippos, which means 'filos' + 'ippos', i.e. friend with horses.

Nobody denies FYROM a country. But stop calling yourself Macedonia. You have absolutely no relation to ancient Greece!

"There is significant trade and cultural interchange between the two countries, which would likely increase further if some mutually acceptable compromise could be reached on these two issues."

The only compromise is to give Greece back the stolen goods, i.e. its macedonian culture and everything related to it. Go find yourself your own name, flag and history.

(actually it is communist Tito that is responsible for this mess - but I would expect Bush not to follow up on commies practices...)

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[master_p]

Because the location is accompanied with culture and history! do you know that the young children of FYROM are taught that the Great Alexander was their ancestor? I don't think you do. And you certainly don't know that FYROM recently named their biggest airport 'Alexander the Great'.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Anonymous Coward]

just read the last paragraph of the article:
"Given Mr Putin's power to select his own successor, the West also needs to concentrate on longer-term measures, such as supporting those independent media and lobby groups that still exist in Russia--even when the Kremlin denounces them as spies. The aim must be to ensure that whatever comes after Putinism is better for Russia, and for the world."

supporting those independent media and lobby groups - WTF??? since when anyone in this Western world decided that it is OK to meddle into internal affairs of any country - or is it a God given right of Christian Westerners?

The whole approach to Russia, China etc of the Western countries (read US and their bitches like UK) is plain wrong and is going to bite you in you pretty fat ass.

I am by no means a fan of Putin or anyone from his circle but you guys are plain wrong and pushing wrong Putin's buttons.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Sinical]

Western values? like supporting dictatorships in Chile, central America countries, Greece, Pakistan etc?

What are you talking about? You're going back to 1973 for Pinochet in Chile. He's dead, for Christ's sake. Chile has had a deomocratic government for ~18 years.

Central American countries? Who? I don't think anyone would believe that the Contra affair was a swell idea, but there's no "dictatorship" there. Guatemala? The coup there was in 1954: Carter cut off military aid in 1979.

Pakistan? Musharaff is an asshat, but would you have us do? Depose him? There's not much choice but to deal with him. And holy Jesus, can you imagine the cries of "interference" if we did depose him? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. We've put pressure on him, and I think he is finding out that being a dictatorial asshat can be hard work: his attempt to remove the Supreme Court Justice will hopefully moderate his stupidity.

Let's talk about Russia, then. Chechnya? Kazakhstan? Ukraine? Georgia? Cyberwarfare over a fucking war memorial? Assassinations on foreign soil. Destroying Yukos through "taxes". Putting potential political opponents in jail (Khodorkovsky, if not more). Assassinating journalists critical of the administration. Seeking extradition of others (Berezovsky) for completely bullshit reasons?

Western values like allowing friend countries to invade and occupy foreign countries (Turkey over Cyprus) while doing the exact opposite thing with non-friend countries?

Oh, yeah, totally we should have stopped that. Everyone loves us when we interfere. Hey, is it the United States or France that wants to (or could) keep Turkey out of the EU (god forbid all those poor Muslims get freedom of movement)?

Western values like increasing the price of imported goods from Africa in order to protect domestic production?

Yes, you're absolutely right. No one except the United States has protections on agriculture. Not the Europeans, not the Japanese, no one except the United States. We must prostrate ourselves before the will of all international fuckwits.

Western values like economically supporting all the 'orange' revolutions in former soviet union countries in order to get the geopolitical advantage?

Instead we should have let Putin install his toady. God forbid we support the Ukrainian people's choice. It's a little known fact that every single person that camped in the city's square was a CIA employee: wow, huh?! I guess that Putin miscalculated the dose on the dioxin poisoning there, huh? "Geopolitical advantage"? Give me a break.

"Western values like dismantling Yugoslavia because the southern part has the largest deposits of a rare metal which USA wants for replacing enhanced uranium in its weapons?"

You smoke too much crack. We "dismantled" Yugoslavia? What, we went back in time and incited the hundreds of years of historical hatreds. We invaded them and kept them under an iron curtain until the friction of authoritarian rule from above caused them to explode?

Western values like lying about WMDs in Iraq?

Bush is a fucking retard. I don't think anyone is denying this.

Western values like taking the culture of one country and arbitrarily assign it to another (yeap, I am talking about the so called country of 'Macedonia', one of the biggest thefts of cultural identity in history) ?

Totally. We assigned McDonalds and Nike to go in there and set that up. We R teh Awesomez!

Western values like giving money under the table to enemies of Chaves so as that he is overthrown, even if he is legally elected?

Maybe some evidence with those accusations, hrm? Our approach to Chavez is, "Oh god, what a nutcase". Do you know *anything* about

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Descalzo]

Are you saying that the Bill of Rights and a working republic are what makes the modern USA similar to 1934 Germany? I don't get it.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[msevior]

George Orwell would have been proud of you.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[OriginalArlen]

A grip on reality? Well I don't dispute many of those items you've listed, I'd be very interested to see any evidence that the US had anything to do with the implosion of Yugoslavia. Believe me, there's no outside influence needed to destabilise the Balkans. If you know differently, please share...

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[rainman_bc]

Thought you were referring to the present... Very familiar with the Junta... My mom lived through it. Although many Greeks seem to think the Junta was driven by the Freemasons...

And it is Cyprus

Force of habit - I'm in Vancouver, and there's a ski hill here called Cypress Bowl... D'oh!

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[drsquare]

Oh, yeah, totally we should have stopped that. Everyone loves us when we interfere. Hey, is it the United States or France that wants to (or could) keep Turkey out of the EU (god forbid all those poor Muslims get freedom of movement)?

It's not just France that doesn't want Turkey in the EU. Maybe us Europeans just don't want freedom of movement for people who riot over a cartoon.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[marksu]

Please note that since there is no East Germany theres also no West anymore. Also before and shortly after WWII there was only one Germany. :)

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[dharbee]

"Because the location is accompanied with culture and history!"

And a name is just a name. You lose.

Honestly, your point was moronic, I suggest you never bring it up again because you sound incredibly dumb arguing it.

Re:Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation!

[Upphew]

One word: Freedom fries!

Insightful?

[Jeppe Salvesen]

This ain't funny.

Who stands to benefit from a new cold war?

The military-industrial complex. They would love to have another cold war, with lots of money and visionary projects.

Also, the leaders. Putin is getting the most of out this, since he has stifled opposition and controls the media. And Bush is probably hoping to create an enemy large enough to scare the US into voting for a Republican in the next presidential elections.

Re:Insightful?

[tm2b]

Hey, you can most effectively communicate hard truths through humor.

But really, it's just assuming we're all stupid to do this at the same time that they're planning to meet at Bush's parents' house in Connecticut. And before people start believing sloppy reporters, that this is a meeting in reaction to the tensions, careful observers will remember that this meeting was announced before Putin started cranking up the Cold War rhetoric.

Re:Cuban missile crisis

[LeninZhiv]

If the USA was going to ever nuke anyone first

Um, what do you mean "ever"? I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the US is the only country to have nuked another one first.

Re:Cuban missile crisis

[budword]

Ok, you got me there. That is true. But they deserved it. Don't kick the big kid in the balls then complain he kicks your ass. We could have nuked stalin in the early 50's, before they had the bomb, and didn't. (Probably would have saved Millions of Russian lives too. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people.) Could have nuked any number of dinky little evil tin hat dictators or Islamist crazys, and didn't. Russia has nothing to worry about, from DEFENSIVE missiles.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

an analogy

[Maimun]

Decent people intend to place safer locks on their front doors. The thieve is furious and shouts: I'll improve my tools for breaking in so that your newer locks doesn't make you any safer!"

Re:an analogy

[Xiph]

an analogy. Angry Child A has found a new type of brick he can throw in the face of Angry Child B (after Angry Child B has been napping) Angry Child B responds by saying I still have loads of bricks, and i'll throw them at Napping Child C. Busy Child D sits quietly in a corner he's making pacifiers for A Angry Child E is finally starting to make amends after his fight with Angry Child F In 1984, it was argued that you needed 3 superpowers in to keep the people living in them subdued permanently, wonder what happens when there's 4, 5 or 6... A- U.S.A. B- Russia C- E.U. D- P.R.C E- India F- Pakistan

Re:an analogy

[tsjaikdus]

It's not about placing a lock on your front door and calling yourself decent, it's about digging a castle moat around your neighbour's house and calling him a thief.

Re:an analogy

[Maimun]

wrong. The castle moat (nice word, I've never come upon it, thanks) is around your house. Your neighbour considers it a threat -- so the most logical explanation is that he is considering the possibility of breaking into your castle and your attempts to make it more secure frustrates him. This sounds even more likely considering that Eastern Europe was invaded, occupied, and colonised until less than 20 years ago by the former USSR, and the current Russian dictator Putin considers the disintegration of the USSR (and the Soviet colonial system) "the worst disaster of the XX century". The latter is a direct quotation, modulo the wording of the translation.

Jack Bauer?

[antdude]

We need Jack Bauer for this!

Conspiracy facts

[Anonymous Coward]

What you humourously call the "milkies" are not the only ones who profit from military expenditure. Because the military process is funded by expanding the US Federal Debt it creates (paid for out of our future tax burdens) even greater profits for the shareholders of the central banks . Read the whole book to learn who these shareholders are, and thus who effectively owns America, its government and its people (and also who is richer than Bill G). The "central bank" in the USA is of course the privately owned Federal Reserve. The bankers funded both sides in both World War I and WWII.

A reminder

[Alioth]

Here is a 30 minute film (shown in the 80s by the BBC, in the TV programme 'QED') that will just remind you why we must never, ever have a nuclear war. It is in three parts on YouTube. Here is a link to the first part:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vdzyqQIEAI

Also, look up "The War Game", and "Threads".

And as usual, with this current posturing, Europe gets it in the shorts _again_. Nuclear war between US and Russia? Europe gets carpet bombed.

Fuck Putin. He's a dictator anyways. IRAN anyone?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Did we aim our missles at Russia when Russia kept helping the Iranians build their nuclear technology?

hmmm

Fuck Putin in his KGB ass. Hes a criminal and a dictator out to restore good old mother russia to its evil old ways.

2nd option

[cgenman]

Perhaps Putin is afraid of what the US might do if Mutually Assured Destruction was no longer mutually assured? After all, while a good shield can help save lives, it can also cost a lot more if the bearer of the shield no longer has to worry about the consequences of drawing his sword.

Re:2nd option

[WaZiX]

Very insightfull. But what you don't get is this missle system is really a prayer relay. When nuclear missiles are launched, the detection systems signals it to the christian fundies, which pray for a Godly temporary change in physics, rendering the nuclear missiles harmless.

Putin, however, didn't buy this for some reason...

Re:2nd option

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Except that this "shield" is paper thin and wouldn't survive an attack by a pair of blunt scissors, let alone a genuine sword.

MAD at the U.S./Russia scale would be entirely intact even with a fully functional "missile shield" today (even 100 missiles would be plenty to overwhelm it, and the US and Russia have well over 1000 operationally deployed missiles each). Anyone with the barest familiarity with the proposed defense system and the scale of the US and Russian arsenal knows this. Heck, under the ABM Treaty (which Bush tore up), the US and former USSR could deploy a one ABM system in their respective countries, so it has long been recognized that a small ABM system couldn't upset the balance because it was easy to overwhelm it.

As others have suggested, Putin is obviously playing to the home crowd, because his concern has no basis in the technical realities. He's worried about the political implications in Poland and the Czech republic. That's it. As a bonus, it makes a nice distraction for Bush at home too.

Re:2nd option

[Deliveranc3]

True, the U.S. has shown a total disregard for non-U.S. lives, freedoms, or economies. We need to remember that MAD is the only thing holding them back from treating Europe like they treat South America.

Political dissidents in the U.S. are talking about how free their media is. Noam Chomsky claims that he's being passively censored.

While I don't support Chomsky's political leanings (Anarchist Libertarian) his five filters on U.S. media are an important and coherent look at what I think many people have suspected for a long time, U.S. media is not a tool for examination of the government but rather a tool for directing the thoughts of the U.S. populance.

Re:2nd option

[NDPTAL85]

The US media is a business. It like all other industries exists to make money. Just because at one time some folks assigned romantic notions of a "4th estate" to it doesn't actually make that true.

Regular Press has good coverage of this issue

[tezza]

Read The Economist for broader coverage of this issue. What concerns them and other news media is the frosting of relations between Russia and American.

However, and I had never heard this put before, Russia defines so much about itself by its opposition to the USA. So an increased sense of Russian worth is correlated with sabre rattling of this sort.

More points raised:

* The deterents posed by the Shield could never, ever stop the amount of weapons Russia has.
* The argument for the shields "They are only for defense", echoes the Iranian defence of their Nuclear Weapons program. We don't believe the Iranians, why should the Russians believe the USA/Europe??
* This is all about influence, rather than actual defense
* Putin won't be around forever

A snippet of coverage:: A few interceptors, a big gap
They also had a whole special on it a few weeks back, if you're interested, it's in there.

Re:Regular Press has good coverage of this issue

[temcat]

Russia defines so much about itself by its opposition to the USA

Excellent point! And this is mostly for domestic consumption.

Re:Regular Press has good coverage of this issue

[Maimun]

The deterents posed by the Shield could never, ever stop the amount of weapons Russia has.

True. Even if the shield has, say, 99.7% efficiency, so that only 3 warheads in 1000 pass through it and reach their targets, those 3 in 1000 warheads are sufficient to act as deterrent. And the shield will never have such a high efficiency.

The argument for the shields "They are only for defense", echoes the Iranian defence of their Nuclear Weapons program.

No. The (future) Iranian nuclear weapons are far more versatile. The shield missiles are build very specifically to target other missiles or warheads.

This is all about influence, rather than actual defense

What is all about influence? If you mean Putin's tough talking, yes, he wants to boost his tough-guy image and to create even stronger anti-Western sentiments among the Russians. He is a KGB officer in his heart and Western liberalism and individualism are obnoxious to him.

Putin won't be around forever

Hopefully. However, his successor will most likely be not very different from him.

wow

[WindBourne]

ok, so you felt better back then. Would you have felt the same way if you were living in East Germany?

I realize that you think that I am trolling, but I really am not. By now, you should have spent a little bit of time over there. In addition, I would guess that you talked to many of the ex-citizens. so, do you think that you would have felt better living in East Germany? If so, why?

Re:wow

[Tanuki64]

ok, so you felt better back then. Would you have felt the same way if you were living in East Germany?

Don't know. But I will know in a few years since politically the BRD currently is turning into a bad copy of the DDR.

I realize that you think that I am trolling, but I really am not.

Never said you are trolling. Your argument is absolutely valid from an Eastern Germany point of view. But this is not really an argument against the fact that I felt safer during the cold war.

By now, you should have spent a little bit of time over there. In addition, I would guess that you talked to many of the ex-citizens. so, do you think that you would have felt better living in East Germany? If so, why?

Never said that I would have felt better in East Germany. This is simply not the point.

Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[reporter]

In a report issued today, the Bloomberg news service is also asking why Russia is in the G-8. The report states, "The tensions are again raising questions about why Putin is even a member of the [G-8] club. The original Group of Six leading industrialized nations -- the U.S., Japan, U.K., France, Germany and Italy -- first met in 1975, and Canada joined a year later. While Russia's economy is only the world's 10th largest -- behind nonmembers China and Spain -- it was admitted to the club in 1997 as President Boris Yeltsin struggled to manage the nation's transition to a capitalist democracy. G-8 membership was an 'advance payment' that assumed Russia would gradually move closer to the values of the other members, Volk says. Among leaders of the other nations, there were 'a lot of illusions that by engaging Russia they can influence Russia,' Volk says. That hasn't happened. These days, 'there's a consensus among every major western country' that Russia is going backward on democracy, says Masha Lipman, a political analyst at the Moscow Carnegie Center."

When the Kremlin threatens nuclear annihilation against Eastern Europe, the very least that we can do is to expel Russia from the G-8. Expulsion from the G-8 does not terminate relations between Russia and the West. Those relations shall continue. However, expulsion does send a strong, symbolic message that we Westerners condemn the authoritarian impulses of the Russian government.

Yes and no

[Moraelin]

Yes and no. You make it sound like it's a failure of armour, or that it lost the race, if it doesn't stop _everything_. But ever since some bronze age guy strapped a piece of metal to his chest, the goal was _not_ to be 100% invulnerable.

See, being invulnerable is too impractical. It makes you way too slow for a start. The goal is to, on the average, survive 1-2 glancing hits before a well aimed shot finally takes you out. That's already advantage enough.

Tanks and artillery shells are such an example. Tanks are not even designed to resist plunging artillery fire at all. The top armour is ridiculously thin, so even a 30mm gun from above can penetrate it. (Why do you think the A10 has that gun?)

Tanks against long range artillery are just supposed to be immune to shrapnel, since the probability of being hit by a howitzer shell is pretty low. So you just take that risk instead of making a 200 ton tank that can resist it... at the expense of being a large slow target. Tanks are supposed to resist hits from other tanks, and even then it's acceptable if _some_ penetrate.

Even tanks against tanks, the side and back armour is actually much thiner than the front armour, so eventually you will show a side to the enemy that can be penetrated. Or you'll get hit by aviation, anti-tank mines, whatever. Even the KV-1 or Matilda in WW2, which were damn close to invulnerable to the tank guns of that time, could still be killed eventually. You can't be completely immune, ever, and even trying would make you slow and expensive too. So noone even tries.

It's more of a bang per buck question than even imagining that you're invulnerable. It took 4 Shermans to kill a Tiger in WW2, but that was actually good bang per buck, because the 4 Shermans cost less to produce and to ship than it took the Germans to produce 1 Tiger. It may seem callous, but look at which side won the war. So you really try to figure out a good compromise, not go for invulnerability.

And historically the same happened before tanks too. The plate armour on renaissance knights, for example, wasn't invulnerable either, except to missiles. The lance for example, had the _massive_ momentum of a knight and horse behind that steel tip, so there was no realistic way to stop it except a stone wall. So noone even tried to be armoured enough to stop that.

The closest we've ever been to invulnerable, were the ironclads of the 19'th century, before the guns caught up. They were almost immune to each others' guns, but even those were still vulnerable to ramming, torpedoes (back then an explosive on a long pole), mines, etc.

Nukes are a whole new problem, because even one getting through can still do a _lot_ of damage. But that's basically a new problem, rather than "see, armour against guns lost too." Armour against guns works perfectly well for _that_ class of problems. It didn't lose by any reckoning.

A better analogy (formatted)

[Xiph]

an analogy.
Angry Child A has found a new type of brick he can throw in the face of Angry Child B (after Angry Child B has been napping)
Angry Child B responds by saying I still have loads of bricks, and i'll throw them at Napping Child C.

Busy Child D sits quietly in a corner he's making pacifiers for A
Angry Child E is finally starting to make amends after his fight with Angry Child F

In 1984, it was argued that you needed 3 superpowers in to keep the people living in them subdued permanently, wonder what happens when there's 4, 5 or 6...

A- U.S.A.
B- Russia
C- E.U.
D- P.R.C
E- India
F- Pakistan

In world politics, best way to understand what happens, is to compare them to small children...
I'm not looking forward for civilization reaching it's teenage years...

Do you want new Chernobyl for Eastern Eur&Ukra

[Anonymous Coward]

Please ask your girlfriend if she will be enjoyed when rocket from Poland/Czech will meet with a missile over Ukrainian territory and nuclear infection fall down on Ukraine.

Putin Threatens US Missile Bases In Europe

[Hope M.]

The Russian President should have the value of patience, because any problem could be solved by diplomacy, there is no such thing about the effects of violence and that the cold war is really over. For the American perspective, it should also try to minimize its presence in the part of eastern Europe, it is most likely that the nations in eastern Europe to accept offers from the US, so surely Russia would then follow suit. The two nations need a talk. Let's discuss this further, you can reach me at: http://forum.affiliatebot.com/register.php

You're all missing the point of what Putin said

[melted]

OF COURSE they will target US missile defense systems deployed in Europe. It would be stupid and irresponsible to NOT target them. That they will target Europe because of this is just a side effect. This is not really a threat, he's just stating the facts. Another thing he should do is restore Russian missile bases on Cuba as well. Otherwise he won't be able to do anything when the next psycho in the White House decides to "give the gift of democracy" to Russia.

Re:Cuban missile crisis

[Anonymous Coward]

You very nearly DID start a nuclear holocaust some time later, though.

The only thing stopping you in the first place was the treat of mutually assured destruction. It works both ways.

not news: countries pres. defends country

[timmarhy]

all i can say is, atleast he isn't engaging in premtive wars, aka iraq and afganhastan.

Re:not news: countries pres. defends country

[AngryJim]

I'm no expert on the matter, but I don't think Afghanistan was a preemptive strike. We knew Bin Laden was there. Yes, we totally fucked it up and let him slip through our fingers, but it wasn't preemptive the same way Iraq was.

George Bush, Ladies and Gentlemen

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets all hear it for George Bush, now officially the worst president ever. Any president can start a war, and a rare few could start two, but to start two wars and then re-start the Cold War, that takes a unique blend of incompetence, bad judgment, and lack of diplomatic skills. Throw in Katrina response, illegal wiretapping, torture memos, Plame, cronyism, and run-of-the mill lying and I think we have a winner.

Don't take it too seriously

[Kiuas]

Like many have already said, the defense system itself is not a threat of any kind to Russia. This is just a little word game by Putin in order to get some more power. Besides as someone mentioned before it really doesn't matter much where the nukes are targeted 'cause the target can be change so quickly.

Anyways, here in Finland we're all safe from nukes atleast, because I doubt that Russians are not so eager to radiate themselves that they'd target any missiles here. And, as long as Finland isn't a member of NATO, Putin won't give a shit about us.

Mod parent what?

[Cafe Alpha]

If we has a "completely bozo insane" tag, would that add points or subract them?

dont have a problem w/russian missiles in canada

[goga_russian]

- noone has a problem with russian missiles placed in canada. - noone would mind a few russian airbases in canade and mexico and maybe one on /the island/ for old times sake - a few floating carriers off the coast. noone will mind those right? so whats the problem? oh... where do the /shot down/ missiles aka intercepted missile parts fill fall? come on 5th graders lets do small gravity problem. if your next door neighbor is constantly acting funny, carrying arms and kinda eying you funny, his new friends that stop by the bbq also give you the eye for a few years you also might worry unless you a bubble head of course. so in a way you say russia should be the bubblehead and not worry. put yourself in that position if ur smart enough. so far feel lucky noting is built yet. you think some missiles being retargeted towards people you dont know is the end of this? not this time around...

Cold War

[shutdown -p now]

This reader notes: "It feels like the Cold War all over again."

Sure as hell it does feels like it when it was the whole intent! Mr.Putin said so himself:

... Russia has not specifically aimed its missiles at Europe since the end of the cold war but, asked if it might do so again if the US missile shield went ahead, Mr Putin said: "Of course we are returning to those times ..."

Que the "this is madness" jokes here - they've never been as appropriate. I'm a Russian, and I'm scared. Not because of the MAD being back, but because, if our rulers are now willing to toy so easily with such serious things, then all limits are off, and they don't care what the West says anymore, even nominally. This means the next Dissenters' March in Moscow might as well be met with real bullets...

Re:Cold War

[baKanale]

Que the "this is madness" jokes here - they've never been as appropriate.

This... is... RUSSIA!!!

Re:Cold War

[Quiet_Desperation]

Eh... everyone is just talking trash at this point.

This means the next Dissenters' March in Moscow might as well be met with real bullets...

So bring your own bullets. Hell, where do I need to ship some? I'll support ya.

Re:Cold War

[zoftie]

Somehow Cuban crisis has been forgotten, except this is in reverse play now. Do remember, that there is an official law in United States that mandates destruction of entity that is Russia using any means. If there is such intent, how can one country's government feel safe in face of such powerful nation.

Wonder if there will be a third term of Bush & Co, under real invocation of war powers acts and suspension of human rights.

Re:Do you want new Chernobyl for Eastern Eur&U

[geniusj]

From what I've heard, you'd just pick up the debris and be done with it. Short-term exposure to radioactive debris is not the end of the world, as long as we're not talking about a full scale detonation, which wouldn't occur obviously if the missile was destroyed.

This is remind me 1941.

[plastinin]

All this remind me 1941, when in Poland and Chehia German Wermacht established new weapons on just Russian borders etc etc. And now Americans doing the same, ha? . Even the same subjects in political speeches. deja vu ?

(oblig) The 80s called

[remmelt]

they want their cold war back.

(Or Reagan called, or whatever, think of something, this space for rent)

Re:(oblig) The 80s called

[pnutjam]

Time to break out my old books.

Re:Cuban missile crisis

[DDLKermit007]

I like how you talk almost like MAD wouldn't affect you. If someone is going down they generally end up taking everyone else they can down with them too. MAD is the only thinking holding the world together atm. One day that may change, but not today. Crazy little extremists right now however are threatening that system. They have this fucked up little desire TO die. Thats a system that is completely incompatible even with itself. It's a genetic, dead, end.

Where is the EU in all this?

[jotaeleemeese]

Firmly in the US side.

Latinamerica declared itself a zone free of nuclear weapons many decades ago, as a consequence no nuclear weapons are pointed against our countries. If anything, that saved the ass of Argentina when they fought against the UK, a nuclear state. Had Argentina had WMDs, who knows if the war fought for the control of the Malvinas islands in the 80s would have been limited to conventional warfare.

The strategic importance of Latinamerica can't be denied, just remembre the Cuba misile crisis. My point is that Europe, being equally or even more important strategically could also decide to go neutral on the issue of nuclear weapons.

But when countries like the UK and Poland (amongst others) shamefully allow "rendition" of terrorism suspects and beg for the US to deploy missiles on their territories, well, there is little hope for Europe to stop being a board for the global monopoly game between RUssia and the US where European defense interests are decided in Washington and antgonized in Moscow.

Re:Where is the EU in all this?

[Evil Poot Cat]

And, how would this hypothetical "neutrality" be violated by interceptor batteries?

Re:Where is the EU in all this?

[Guppy06]

"Latinamerica declared itself a zone free of nuclear weapons many decades ago,"

They also don't have their own nuclear weapons. Britain and France do.

"My point is that Europe, being equally or even more important strategically could also decide to go neutral on the issue of nuclear weapons."

Even if they were to go neutral in US vs. Russia matters, Russia is still on their doorstep and they still have Europe vs. Russia matters to deal with, along with their own nuclear weapons.

Would it still be so easy for the Spanish-speaking Americas to bow out of the conflict if we were talking about Brazil instead of Russia?

aren't missle defense systems not too effective?

[rook2pawn]

conventional stoppage with something like the Patriot is somewhere between 40-70%, and ICBM's can't be stopped with so many dummy warheads.

Russian rockets in Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Example: Russia places its rockets in Canada, for its own defense of course. What reaction would you expect from the U.S.?

Re:Russian rockets in Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Preemptive Defense. Any way their from the Red Leaf.

You all forget one thing...

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

You all forget the one thing that explains Russia's reactions: Russians are afraid that US with its allies will eventually get the missile defense system working and they will find a way to scale it to disable first Chinese and then secondly Russian nuclear threat. When we set our time frame to 2030 or 2050 and start project future advances in technology and manufacturing, it isn't so far fetched idea that the West could have in the future capabilities to build and deploy working SDI against any other nuclear power. This is what Russia is afraid.

It should also be pointed out that because Russia doesn't have large economic, industrial and technological base, and it will not have these in foreseeable future, there is no way to challenge the west after a working version of SDI has been build and deployed. It should also be pointed out that if and when west builds it SDI, China will probably build it's own version of SDI quite shortly after the west. So if we look at 2050, the strategic outlook may be very different: we have the West and China safely behind SDI and the rest of the world either trying to remain neutral or aligned to either party. In this situation Russians would be in very difficult situation: they must supply oil and gas to China or China will use it's military might to get what it wants and the West that challenges Russia in it's neighbourhood (Ukraine, Georgia etc..) leaving it either to accept that and join west, or be in mercy of Chinese.

The only way that Russia can play time and maybe avoid all this is to have west not deploy any kind of missile defense. If west doesn't deploy missile defense, the Chinese don't any motivation to start building their own. Thought it should be pointed out also that Chinese have, even with out west building SDI, impetus to do something: either have enough nuclear war heads to challenge both west and Russia, or to disable the nuclear threat all together by building SDI.

Re:You all forget one thing...

[HikingStick]

While there is truth in your argument, I believe that Putin is simply using this situation to bolster a rising nationalist tide by preying on the fears of his people (common in every nation, unfortunately). While Russia may have strategic reasons to fear the proposed missile shield sites in the long term, we have offered to bring them in on the technology and have provided them with numerous opportunities to work side-by-side with us during these deployments.

IMO, Putin does not know how to foster the long term growth and unity of his nation (which spans more time zones than any other, and a tremendous number of people groups) without resorting to the lever known as "primal fear."

Re:You all forget one thing...

[sheldon]

SDI is the modern day version of the Maginot line. A gigantic waste of money.

Russia is blustering right now because there is a new rise in nationalism within the country and this boosts Putin's popularity. That's all.

putin isn't that bad

[backtothelight23]

The reasons why putin is so popular at home are simple: When he took office russia was bankrupt, people had lost all their savings, wages and rents were not paid. Since then wages have quadrupled, russia is not just defacto debt free(~debt is at 8 % of gdp), but has currency reserves of over 400 billion dollars plus a stabilization fund of 117 billion dollars. Capital influx reached allready 40 billion dollars jan-may.The economy grew by 7.9 % in the frist quarter. And this growth is now driven by demand, and not longer by the gas and oil sector. Oil and gas revenues now stay in the country, without putin russia would not profit from the high oil prices, all money would end up in western bank accounts like under jelzin. Even birth rates are rising. The so called "opposition" figures like berezovsky and kasparov have no backing in the russian population, they are seen as thieves and hated. Putin brought stability, and the state has regained control over the country, which was lost in 1999. If the politics of the nineties were continued, russia could not exist anymore. In fact, putin saved russia. The west allready believed it was dead, and expanded nato to it's borders and ignored russia's concerns. This time is now over, and the west should accept russia as an equal partner, because without russia most problems we face today can't be solved, and the russian economy is a huge market for western goods. Russia can help us in many spheres, but has also the capability to create giant troubles for the west. As an european i don't want to see a europe full of weapons. I don't believe we have the right to interfere with russia's internal affairs - everytime the west tries to enforce so called "democracy" another desaster happens, just look at afghanistan, iraq and the political crises in the ukraine. Putin is no angel, and he makes difficult decisions which might look bad to the west, but are right from a russian perspective. Russia suffered more than most countries(for example it lost more people than any other country in WWII), and it's no germany, it's much bigger, it has over 100 nationalities, and has/had problems you can not solve with a western style government, just look how difficult it is for an european government to make just the simplest reforms. It's time for the west to make concessions, to get russia back in our boat, we need it to fight terrorism, as a market, for resources, and to solve all other outstanding issues. Russia is pragmatic, you can have everything from them if you respect them, and in contrast to the us which wants to control the whole world, russia only wants a backyard without foreign troops to feel save. Russia is back.

Re:putin isn't that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in other words, Putin is popular because Russians care more about "stability" and money than human rights or democracy. Gotcha.

Re:putin isn't that bad

[_Shad0w_]

Much like America, in fact.

Re:putin isn't that bad

[temcat]

That economic development you speak of, started under PM Primakov and strengthened under PM Kasyanov (the same that is The Evil Oppositioner now.) Those were the real implementors; it wasn't Putin's economic policy after all. About oil/gas revenues staying in the country, that doesn't matter very much for normal people (look at the roads, public medical service, schools; hell, we could get a completely upgraded military for that money!) The money is just not invested (except in a spot-like, unsystematic manner); the "national projects" are a joke by implementation. (BTW, talking about funds staying home, Stabilization Fund money are invested on the foreign market.) Corruption has soared and became more systemic. After Putin abolished governor elections, governors no longer depend in any way from the population of their respective territories and can do all sorts of crazy things (an example would be the gigantomaniac Matvienko in St. Petersburg that wants to stuff the area near the historical city center with 100- and 300-m buildings). There are "stop lists" on federal TV in radio stations - lists of people that should not be interviewed or even mentioned in news. The remaining elections are fully controlled by means of taking the "wrong" candidates off list for bullshit reasons (see "Yabloko" in St. Petersburg; the party was taken off list for allegedly false signatures; then people were brought before the Electoral Commission that were ready to testify that their signatures are not false, but the Commisssion refused to consider this and confirmed the earlier decision.) This is a sample of what is going in Russia under Putin. Unfortunately, it isn't even pragmatic; this situation costs Russia very much even from entirely domestic point of view.

Re:putin isn't that bad

[backtothelight23]

Russia can't simply invest all that money, inflation would instantly rise, simple economics. Inflation and the capability to survive lower oil prices are the reason they are saving money. Primakov and Kasyanov had no authority, it was putin who enforced the reforms. The national projects seem to be quite effective if you look how construction is booming, infant mortality goes down, birth rates up. The Reform of the military industrial complex, the aircraft industry, the shipbuilding industry are all putin's childs. Oligarchs now invest in the country, well they are now forced to do something for their country. What does Putin cost russia ? For the first time people are optimistic, I've spoken with many russians, and most say while some of them criticize him for one or antoher matter, that he was the right man at the right time. The liberals allready where in power, and they nearly destroyed russia. The western press isn't any better, just look how they surpressed war critics at the beginning of the iraq war, and who is in control of our media - there are only a couple of moguls like murdoch who control the whole press. Nobody double checks any information anymore, everybody just copy and pastes articles from reuters or other news agencies. The western media is biased and hysteric on russia, there is an anti-russian campaign never seen before, well the nazis did it in the second world war. You can read critical articles on putin even on state owned rian, it is possible to criticize putin and his government in russian media in a constructive way, and having media that isn't so sensational is something i would like to see in my country too. Governors are in many countries appointed by the president, india for example, and no one would call this undemocratic. The law on NGO's is not stricter than similar laws in france for example, but everybody is screaming because it's russia. That's double standards. Don't believe everything you hear in western media about russia - it's biased.

Re:putin isn't that bad

[lahvak]

Putin brought stability, and the state has regained control over the country, which was lost in 1999. If the politics of the nineties were continued, russia could not exist anymore. In fact, putin saved russia. Repeat after me: correlation does not imply causation.

Russia went through terrible time, because their economy was destroyed by more than half century of communism. It could not happen in any other way, and there was no way for that to be prevented. After decade and a half the new free market economy finally started working and Russia dug itself up from the hole it was in. At about the same time Putin came to power. How exactly does that make him a saviour of the Russian nation?

Re:putin isn't that bad

[temcat]

Firstly, we seem to agree on underinvestment (to put it mildly). This is good. Secondly, nowhere did I say that all of those money should be invested. When you remove the "all" word, you need the specific figures and proofs why inflation would measurably rise from specific investments. You haven't provided them so far. Thirdly, you can invest large money without rising inflation by hiring foreign contractors. Yes, money would go abroad, but investment will stay here, which is more important - because, for example, good roads boost transportation business, and transportation is involved in most industries. Money is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. If money stays home but is not invested, this money is a dead weight. Moreover, investment must be done now when the oil/gas prices are high; when they fall, the money will be spent on more current, short-term goals.

As for economic policy, I beg to differ. Primakov started (and conducted most successful transformations related to non-payment crisis) under Yeltsin, together with Maslyukov who was - shock, horror! - a communist. Kasyanov's cabinet generated policy proposals, and not merely what was ordered by the President Administration. Putin has never had an economic policy of his own - and neither has Yeltsin, for that matter. They largely let the cabinet implement its policy. Nowadays, the government means nothing. President Administration serves as a government now (and the servile Parliament rubberstamps pretty much everything they spew out). Economical decisions are basically taken by a close circle of Putins friends from KGB/FSK/FSB, and, by pure coincidence, from "Ozero" dacha cooperative, and they are taken considering their specific business interests. You can consider them the modern version of oligarchs. As I said before, corruption is more rampant and more systemic than ever, and also more difficult to trace since a significant chunk of current bureaucrats are from FSB. And corruption is the ultimate evil for business climate in the country.

construction is booming

Puhlease, are you joking now? If it were booming, we wouldn't have this outrageous level of prices. A Russian with the average salary can never afford a mortgage under these prices. But as far as I remember, the national project is called "Affordable Housing". So no, not even a glimpse of success here. And it probably has to do mostly not even with the project itself, but with corruption, taxes, bad laws, and weak property rights.

infant mortality goes down

It goes all the way down since 1994 with a slight peak around 1998 (http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2006/0255/lisa01.php). Surely it must be due to Putin, right?

birth rates up

See above regarding economic policy.

The Reform of the military industrial complex, the aircraft industry, the shipbuilding industry are all putin's childs.

Well, this is the only place where I can't argue much. Though where aircraft industry is concerned, there is a question whether one big holding is a solution here.

Oligarchs now invest in the country, well they are now forced to do something for their country.

A forced investment is not really an investment. This is a tax at best, and a robbery at worst. A policemen extorting money from you on the street could also say that he makes you invest in law enforcement of your country.

A forced investment, as a rule, is not effective. They would probably invest more (the oligarchs don't need a dead weight, either), if it weren't for the abovementioned corruption, taxes, bad laws, and weak property rights.

and they nearly destroyed Russia

Interesting, how exactly? Many people say that, but not many care to elaborate (aside from Chechnya, which under Kadyrov Jr. is as independent de facto as in the 90s, they're just smart not to express it that way.)

The western press isn't any better, just look how they surpressed war critics

There is no such

Re:putin isn't that bad

[metlin]

Please.

Everytime I see a comparison of some random country with the US, I cringe.

Despite what you may think, the US truly has democracy that works and we certainly do respect human rights much more than most countries in the world do. You have no idea how much human rights are respected here until you go out and see in some of the other countries out there.

Are we living up to your own standards? Sadly, no, not lately at least.

But are we better than almost everyone else out there? Hell yeah. Well, except maybe tiny little homogeneous neo-socialist European republics (think Scandinavia).

To compare the US with Russia? Where people disappear and nobody asks a question and where state prisons for "political prisoners" exist, with the ex-intel folks running their own little fun-filled camp? Please.

We've made a lot of mistakes. Iraq was one and gitmo is another, but we are no way the same as them. We made a few during the cold war, which are regrettable - but we *are* human. Compared to the mistakes of the other superpowers (WW1 and WW2 Germany, post-WW2 Soviet Union) etc, they're nothing. But the fact that we know we are making mistakes and work towards correcting them is what differentiates us from them.

If you really do not know what I mean, try going to one of those countries. I think Pakistan would be an excellent start - and calling their dictator names, or abusing Islam. Or better yet, go to Russia and try organizing a TRC against Putin. Or how about going to Saudi Arabia and trying to say some nice things about Allah? Or maybe, go to China and try speaking out the truth against PRC and its human rights practices or the Tiannamen Square massacre.

And then, why don't you go to a rural town in midwest and say some nice things about Jesus H. Christ? You might find a wee bit of a difference in how things are done outside the US.

Re:putin isn't that bad

[Ryn]

Regarding construction:

If you don't think that "construction is booming", take a trip to SPb. Go out to somewhere like Leninski Prospekt (basically, end of the metro line, there's still space there), get out of the subway and look around. You will see several either newly constructed highrises or cranes putting up highrises. People are buying real estate.

Or take a trip to Petergof. You'll see a lot of private houses (much like US) replacing the old dachas.

Don't like SPb? Yes, I agree that outside the big cities (which aren't just Moscow and SPb) it's pretty bad (actually not that bad. Even smaller cities are ok. I was in Kursk just this winter, and it does not look like a dying town. Life is ....normal.... for the lack of a better word. You want to go to a night club? Sure, there are a few. Pool hall? Go knock yourself out (and it costs 50 rubles per hour)). Yes, regional centers (raioncentr) are pretty bad off, majority fo power is concentrated in the urban environment....how else would you have it? People go where work is, where money is.

You think people can't afford mortgages? Last year my gf worked in a credit dept. in a bank, a standard rate is 8-10% to buy home appliances. How's that hard to afford?

Re:putin isn't that bad

[temcat]

Yes some people are buying real estate. Yes I see can the houses being built, it's just that it's misleading to qualify the situation here as a construction boom. (I see boom as a condition where supply rapidly outpaces demand driving prices down - something we don't see here.) In my post I provided a qualification - an average salary. As of last August, this is like 11,000 RUR. No way you can afford a mortgage with a salary like that.

So the question is, what kind of people that is and what is the percent of them. By virtue of your specific environment (family, colleagues, friends etc.) you may be tricked into thinking that mortgages are a trivial part of Russian life. They are not. According to a report by RSPP head on the 4th International Banking Forum that took place in Sochi on September 9, 2006, only 2 percent of Russian population can afford mortgages from the total of 350 banks that offer them. Part of the problem is that many buyers are simply investors, another part - that there is little competition on the real estate market (due to involvement of "administrative resourse" in parcellation and facilities connection), yet another - legalization of income. Under today's conditions, the minimum European level of 30 sq. m. per capita can be achieved only in 45 years.

Re:putin isn't that bad

[Ryn]

Nu zdras'te....
As far as average salary is concerned:
I'm somewhat torn on this one. 11K rubles may be average salary country-wide, but it's certainly not average in the city. However, I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to support that, where average families are able to buy cars, real estate and go on vacations. I think the main item missing from all of this is the side income. My grandfather works in a garage complex, and on top of nightly "tips", there's stuff like welding work. He quoted one guy 5000 rubles to weld him a set of shelves for his garage....how does that figure into the average salary statistic?

Re:putin isn't that bad

[temcat]

Well, for St. Pete the average salary was 14,633 RUR as of this February. Not that different actually, when you consider a mortgage. When talking about average families (using anecdotal evidence, as you admit yourself), you actually envision a sample from your specific environment, which could very well fall into the 2 percent cited in the RSPP head's report. As for side income, it can work somehow for buying small stuff like home appliances etc., but is much more problematic for cars and real estate, since we are talking loans and mortgages now, and this means you have to confirm your official large income. There were and probable still are banks willing to consider the "unofficial" source of income, but this is all on a shaky ground, as you understand.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Magada]

When the Kremlin threatens nuclear annihilation against Eastern Europe, the very least that we can do is to expel Russia from the G-8. That's exactly the kind of escalation mentality that brought us the Cold War. Russia is NOT threatening Eastern Europe with nuclear annihilation. Putin simply stated that the missile defense bases will be included in the Russian military's nuclear target list. That makes a lot of sense and is actually a measured response. If the Russians planted anti-missile-missile batteries around Guadalajara tomorrow, Bush would have them bombed the day after. Putin simply cannot afford that US military types begin to believe they could "win" a nuclear exchange because that would threaten the very existence of Russia. That is the only button you can push to make him behave aggressively right now, and Bush is pushing it, hard. Witness Putin's lame reaction when US troops landed in Afghanistan - Russia does not want conflict and cannot afford conflict even if it wanted it.

Speaking as someone who's directly interested in this: the best you (Americans) can do (as a nation) is stop threatening Russia (with starvation or nukes) and normalize your relations with China while you're at it. No-one much minds that you're carrying a big stick, as long as you walk softly. Build missile defense if you so wish - on your own territory. Try to change mentalities and regimes if you so wish - but not by force of weapons. And finally, and most importantly, _bring_the_boys_back_home. The US military, as it is now deployed, seems ready to make war on the whole world. That is insane.

Take down the morons running America, get a new government that is strong enough to afford putting the leash on Israel, effect regime change in Iran (no, nuking Teheran does not count as regime change, yes, it is possible and has been done before, no, bringing back the Shah's cronies is also not an option) and re-instate the kind of policy that has kept NK in check for as long as Kim Ir Sen was in power. Better yet, give China carte blanche in NK - they'd like nothing more than to serve Kim Jong Il the traditional last cup o' tea, if only paranoid americans would not fear them more than they fear the Koreans. Those are the real nuclear threats, not the two paper-tiger ex-superpowers.

Thank you America

[JackMeyhoff]

This one of many reasons why we want you to get out of our soil (just as you don't want us sticking our nose in YOUR business which we will happily do once you stop putting the rest of us at risk).

kinky sex makes the world go round

[CmdrGravy]

- Prime Minister's office, Prime Minister speaking.
- Greetings, this is the Secretary of War at the State Department of the United States... We have a problem. The companies want something done about this sluggish world economic situation... Profits have been running more than a little thin lately and we, we need to stimulate some growth. Now we know there's an alarmingly high number of young people roaming around in your country with nothing to do but stir up trouble for the police and damage private property... Doesn't look like they'll ever get a job. It's about time we did something constructive with these people... We've got thousands of 'em here too... They're crawling all over. The companies think it's time we all sit down, have a serious get-together and start another war... The President? Oh he loves the idea! All those missiles streaming overhead, to and fro... Napalm... People running down the road, skin on fire... The Soviets seem up for it... The Kremlin's been itching for the real thing for years. They want a little going-away-present for mister Brijnev Hell, Afghanistan's no fun... So whadya say?... We don't even have to win this war. We just want to cut down on some of this excess population... Now look. Just start up a draft; draft as many of those people as you can. We'll call up every last youngster we can get our hands on, give 'em an hour or two to learn how to use an automatic riffle and send 'em on their way... El Salvador? How 'bout Northern Ireland? Or a "moderately repressive regime" in South America? We'll just cook up a good Soviet threat story in the Middle East - we need that oil... We had Libya all ready to go and Colonel Khadafy's hit squad didn't even show up. I tell ya... that man is unreliable. The Russian had their fingers on the button just like we did for that one... Now just think for a minute - we can make this war so big, so BIG. The more people we kill in this war, the more the economy will prosper... We can get rid of practically everybody on your dole queues if we plan this right. Take every loafer on welfare right off our computer rolls... Now don't worry about those demonstrators, just pump up your drug supply. So many people have hooked themselves on heroin and amphetamines since we took over, it's just like Vietnam. We had everybody so busy with LSD they never got too strong. It kept the war functioning just fine... It's easy. We've got our college kids so interested in beer they don't even care if we start manufacturing germ bombs again. Put a nuclear stockpile in their back yard, they wouldn't even know what it looked like... So how 'bout it? I mean, look - war is money. The arms manufacturers tell me unless we get our bomb factories up to full production the whole economy is going to collapse... The Soviets are in the same boat. We all agree the time has come for the big one, so whadya say?!?... We all agree the time as come for the Big One!
- It's marvelous!
- That's excellent. We knew you'd agree... The companies will be very pleased.

Dead Kennedys - 1987.

Re:kinky sex makes the world go round

[Anonymous Coward]

If you hadn't posted this, I would have. To the other geeks who haven't heard this, do yourself a favor and give it a listen. The transcript doesn't do it justice.

the armys ADA sysetm will work

[wetwillyjoe69]

assuming the russians missles dont misfire, or blowup on the launcher, patriot and thaad will get the job done. we just need alot of missles.

Spheres of influence....

[Savage-Rabbit]

I don't think it has anything to do with any of this. This anti-missile system (which probably doesn't work anyway) is supposed to protect against a threat which doesn't even exist. The main problem Putin and others have with it is the perceived loss of face. In other words the Russian and probably the Chinese leadership as well is just as delusional as that of the USA. Why am I not surprised? :-D

This might be exacerbated by the fact that some factions in Russia haven't gotten over the dismemberment of the USSR and still view the former satellite states as their playground even though a lot of them are now part of the EU (which for some obscure reason still seems to allow the deployment of the US toys on its territory). That's what they used to call 'spheres of influence'. The US seems to think that the Russian and Chinese spheres of influence end at their national borders and that everything else is in the US sphere of influence. Mind you, this isn't as silly as it sounds. For a long time after the end of the cold war this was a de facto reality; the USA became the dominant world power. However, now that the economy of Russia is beginning to recover and that of China is booming, their power will grow correspondingly and as it does they are slowly beginning to redefine their spheres of influence and friction with the USA will increasingly ensue.

Mein Fuhrer !

[CmdrGravy]

Er, Mr President.

Wish you were here: Who profits?

[theolein]

Frankly, this is so ridiculous, it's almost funny. Here we have a Russian politician threatening firstly the USA, then Western Europe with nuclear weapons if they install what is almost certainly going to be a big fat white elephant that would not stop an Iranian nuclear weapon in any case (because the Iranians would certainly not be dumb enough to actually launch one, thy would pass it on to Hezbollah or some other radical grouping who would use it in a suicide nuclear bombing).

Basically, I'm pissed off with almost all the "players" at the moment:
a)The Americans. The current US government, not content with fighting two insurgencies concurrently, one of which is almost certainly already lost and the other one looks ominously like it's going that way as well, is blindly carrying on with this utterly useless missile defence scheme in Poland and the Czech republic which the majority of the populations do not want, but whose governments have been bought by big promises from the same group of corrupt (Wolfowitz, Gonzales, Feith, Cheney, Bremer et al) incompetents who bled Iraq dry while promising the sun and the moon.

b)The Russians. While I can certainly understand Russians in general wanting a strong government after the chaos and national humiliation of the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent robbery by Oil thieves and chaos of drunk and corrupt politicians, Putin is still in his heart a KGB man who wants a return of Russian might and power and who is just too dumb too see that the only place threatening the Europeans will lead to will be a gradual and then rapid rearmament of Western Europe, with the majority of nations bending over even further for the protection of American weapons than was thought possible. The American, Russian and European Arms lobbies must be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of new satanically expensive weapons systems of questionable value for their respective clients. The slashdot weapon groupies will be loudly masturbating over these same toys as they dream of killing millions in their science fiction dreams of sexual impotence.

c)The Eastern Europeans. Just how far did these nations expect to be able to provoke the Russians before the Russians went ahead and drew a line in the sand? Do the Czechs and the Poles, both of whom are so fond of criticing Western Europe (but happily take its cash and forgetting that England and France went to war for Poland in 1939 and that the Americans did sweet fuck all in 1968 when the Russians reinvaded Czechoslovakia) for not being totally willing to support their Russian baiting think that the USA would risk nuclear war for them so that they could threaten the Russians? I mean, I know the Nazis and the Soviets killed off a lot of intelligent people there, but really, just how dumb are they? The EU will unhappily be pulled into this mess by these three fuckups playing very dangerous games.

The only people who really profit in this is the arms manufacturers. Think about that and look at the situation again.

Re:Wish you were here: Who profits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting standard Usa vs. mother Russia flames aside let us see how things were put here, in Czech Republic:

- NO technical specifications about radar given. And yes, i care about megawatts of radiation in my close vicinity.
- NO specifications about powering such a big ear. (Talking indepedent powerful energy source. Fission anyone?)
- NO specifications about law system @ would-be-newly created US soil here. (Equals no control.)
- NO specifications about purposes of such radar, other than CNN WMD bull.
- NO data about staff, armament of the facility, etc. ... all of this proposed as solid fact and future plan by government, that's in charge by difference of 2 deserted votes formerly from the opposing party, result of nearly one year negotiation. ... all of this without choice of referendum as a gesture of lately oh-so-gladly advertised democracy course.

EQUALS: With onesided blatantly not plausible deal proposal like this I would happily kick your arse with a mighty pre-run, no matter what colour it helds.

c)The Eastern Europeans. Just how far did these nations expect to be able to provoke the Russians before the Russians went ahead and drew a line in the sand? Do the Czechs and the Poles, both of whom are so fond of criticing Western Europe (but happily take its cash and forgetting that England and France went to war for Poland in 1939 and that the Americans did sweet fuck all in 1968 when the Russians reinvaded Czechoslovakia) for not being totally willing to support their Russian baiting think that the USA would risk nuclear war for them so that they could threaten the Russians? I mean, I know the Nazis and the Soviets killed off a lot of intelligent people there, but really, just how dumb are they? The EU will unhappily be pulled into this mess by these three fuckups playing very dangerous games. England and France went to war for Poland and not for fear of Nazi hegemony, as documented by your betrayal @ Munich '38? USA would risk _nuclear_ war for nations they only drain from intellectual resources and use for leftovers market placing? For countries receiving radar proposals with already formal 'positive' answer? Have you been taking your history lessons on Disney channel or what? Did Mickey forgot to mention Eastern Europe doesn't involve Poland nor Czech Republic, placing geographical centre of Europe continent some 500km east of Prague? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe It's called Central and it's not a station, dear.

The arms manufacturers sidenote, however, you got right. After 40 years of heavy campaigning who didn't, anyway.

Nothing Czechs or Poles would brag about will be of any concern after all. Whatever games will be played, it is of sure nature none of proposals will involve plebs' opinion on a subject, USA happily proving that with initial negotiation. Like it ever did, right.

Re:Wish you were here: Who profits?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not going to comment on American lack of subtlety, or Russian paranoia and dreams of imperial rule, but I can tell you this: Eastern Europeans are PROVIKING Russia? What world are you living in? Fact: East European countries are NO LONGER some God-damned colonies of the good 'ol USSR, but independent states. Yes, even Estonia. The societies have no love for Russians, who managed to have a lot of fun with Eastern states in the past, from installing puppet regimes, to secret police zachistkas, not to mention Gulags and forced relocations, say, to Kazakhstan for instance. Estonians lost 20.000 to Soviets, as well as their hard fought independence. Finns almost got similarly shafted. Still thinking EE citizens have no reasons to dislike Russians?

Second thing, do read something about "phony war" before you praise the French and the British. Maybe you will actually learn something and stop pulling BS out of your ass. And last, but not least... generalizations, mate. Think EE folk are dumb? Guess who's dumber by throwing such broad statemnets left, right and centre.

Cheers.

Re:Cuban missile crisis

[Anonymous Coward]

So you (USA) and Israel (your masters) should stop screaming when Syria buys/installs the S-300 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S300 DEFENSIVE missiles system to it's borders to protect herself from incoming missiles, aircraft etc... After all, you have nothing to worry about, from DEFENSIVE missiles. Do you?

Re:If he only had one missle per defense system, y

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the USA is perfectioning their Preemptive striking. You don't have to wait until they start now.

missile defense system ..

[rs232]

It's obvious who the missiles are intended to intimidate, the Russians, just in case they try and steal our oil. It's straight out of the NeoCons plan for Pax Americana

The plan is for the Core to be safe while us here in the Gap will take the brunt of the war on whoever. Of course one of the unintended ironies of this 'war' is that in the course of defending 'democracy' at home, America is destroy it abroad.

http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-neo con-cold-war.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A merican_Century

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/projects/newrulesse t/The%20'Core'%20And%20The%20'Gap'.htm

So light the pipe up and blow the source

[cheekyboy]

Send an army of robots shaped like catapillars that use wheels and gas as fuel and send them with lots of C4 down the pipe for 1000s of miles.

Bush: Nuclear Terrorist

[Doc Ruby]

How about "US threatens Putin with Missile Bases in Europe"?

Bush is an insane tyrant, a rogue regime that's turned everything it's touched into new danger. He dropped the ABM Treaty that Nixon had signed with the Soviets which kept the Cold War from spiraling out of control. Because Star Wars "missile defense" was the main Bush "defense" agenda: create as many missile threats as possible to "market" Star Wars to a terrorized American public.

Just as Bush didn't let the Qaeda's Afghanistan base of attacks stop him from invading Iraq instead, the foreign policy his cronies wanted despite the real world, Bush is roaring right ahead with Star Wars. He's goading Russia into a new nuke race because it's good for him, right according to their original plans that he never abandons. Just like Cheney tried to provoke an armageddon with China over Taiwan. Hell, even Bush Sr's plans for NASA to deliver Star Wars are now in full swing, with the old Star Wars hand Griffin running the show, and a new National Space Policy of militarizing space by NASA for the Pentagon and CIA.

These insane tyrants must be stopped. IMPEACH THEM NOW. Today. Before it's too late.

Re:Bush: Nuclear Terrorist

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0
    50% Troll
    30% Underrated
    20% Insightful

TrollMods want another Cold War faceoff in Europe. I guess Slashdot's scriptkiddie contingent, born after 1990's end of that half-century nightmare, thinks it's all a videogame.

What does this defense system use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Missiles.

Things that make you go boom.

So why are they unable to shoot down, for example, planes? Or if they hit the ground, buildings or infrastructure?

And if they can do this, why are they ONLY defensive?

Read Between the Lips

[DynaSoar]

I remember the cold war, as does Putin, from the inside. Back then missiles had precoded targeting. What they have now can be targeted within 3 minutes. What he said amounts to absolutely nothing except a red cape for those with more bull than brains. Does anyone seriously think he'd take retargetable weapons and hard code them for specific targets, and so lose the flexibility gained? He doesn't. They've always had targeting data available, just as we have, and either could use them on very short notice to target or retarget. Think about it for a second: he says they'll target specific sites in response to our missile defense technology. That doesn't even make sense. If he were serious he have said nothing about it.

When you can't figure out why these erstwhile adults say and do things like this, just shrink them down to about the size of an 8 year old, and see if their behavior makes sense now. In a world of petulant children, politicians are among the most petulant and most childish. He's pitching a hissy fit. He lost his cool. He's mad because we ran them broke with Star Wars, and afterwards proceeded to keep working on it until at least part of it could be taken to testing. Bad testing with bad results, sure, but we're still working on it, and they're still broke.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Anonymous Coward]

re-instate the kind of policy that has kept NK in check for as long as Kim Ir Sen was in power.

"Kept in check"? How about the indiscriminate abduction of innocent members of public from South Korea and Japan?

If you're a russian expatriate, get THIS

[Moraelin]

If you're a russian expatriate, you might be interested in this little fact: right before WW2, there were a _lot_ of voices in the USA advocating _carpet-bombing_ the USSR with nukes preemptively. Just, you know, because they happen to be a _potential_ adversary.

What stopped them was when the USSR finally got their own nukes and you couldn't bomb them without getting bombed right back.

Just to put things into perspective: The USSR had until that point behaved like a pretty loyal ally. Sure, they had some different ideas about the economy, and securing their own sphere of influence, but by and large they were still grateful for the help in WW2. They stopped when they were told to stop, and stuff like that.

E.g., the reason why today there is a North Korea and a South Korea is because the USSR got asked by the allies to declare war on Japan after it's done with Germany. The USSR had little to gain there, but it honoured its treaty obligations. So it did take Manchuria from Japanese (dealing quite a bit of economic damage to Japan), and handed it over to China. And then proceeded to take Korea from Japan too. So the USA got a bit scared and asked Stalin to stop at the 38'th parallel. Noone actually expected that Stalin would actually stop at the 38'th parallel, but again, the guy actually did what his allies wanted, and actually stopped there.

E.g., a little known fact is that on 10 March 1952, Stalin actually proposed to let Germany reunite, if the result stays neutral (i.e., doesn't join either block.) It was the western powers that refused that.

Stalin was a bad guy, but in regards to the western powers he was _not_ at the moment the enemy. The USSR was in fact still by and large an ally of the USA, a member of the alliance that had just won WW2.

Even the later degrading into Cold War was slightly more a result of USA brinkmanship games than of USSR's doing any evil. The western capitalist world had gotten its panties in a knot at the idea of communism and became obsessed with opposing and thwarting the USSR at every step. The USSR was treated as the enemy, complete with violating their airspace daily, which helped deteriorate diplomatic relations very very fast.

I'm not saying that to defend Stalin or communism, I'm saying it to put it into perspective who did those guys want to nuke: an _ally_.

Without the USSR developping a counter-threat quickly, chances are you wouldn't even be here to brag about being a russian expatriate. Unless you immigrated some time in the 50's, you or your parents might well now be casualties in a statistic, because someone preemptively nuked Russia wholesale.

A missile shield turns all that right on its head. If the USA had a shield back then, it would have nuked Russia by now. The moment one side is immune to retaliation, it can threaten the other side with impunity, or even make good on those threats.

At any rate, maybe that little historical detail is why Putin is now getting his own underwear in a knot.

Re:If you're a russian expatriate, get THIS

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a russian expatriate, you might be interested in this little fact: right before WW2, there were a _lot_ of voices in the USA advocating _carpet-bombing_ the USSR with nukes preemptively.

Nobody wanted to nuke anyone before WW2, because nukes didn't exist.

Re:If you're a russian expatriate, get THIS

[Moraelin]

Erk, I meant "right after". Dunno how it ended up that way. Sorry.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Evil Poot Cat]

While I don't think it's practical (or even possible, actually) to boot Russia from the G-8, your agenda is really not welcome.

We did not spend 50 years of Cold War to bend over and take it up the ass from whatever bat-form the commies have taken these days. So, as long as your kind are calling the shots in one major party, the other party will have a blank check to elect the worst possible candidate, just like 2000 and 2004.

/who/ threatens?

[OriginalArlen]

It says here, "Putin Threatens US Missile Bases In Europe" -- but surely it's the Bushy regime that's threatening to install bomb-magnet "missile defence stations" in Europe? All long the EU's border with Russia and the vassal states. Odd, that...

Yesterday seemed to be one bit of bad news after another; we also had Prime Minister designate threatening to introduce even more so-called "anti-terror legislation" giving yet more powers of arbitrary searches, surveillance, arrest and detention without trial than Blair. What is it about government that 5 minutes with their hands on the levers of power that turns even the most reasonable civil rights activist into a raging authoritarians, and - dare I say - "fascists"? *shrug* Sharmi Chakrabarti for PM, that's what I say.

Well, as a european - fuck the USA... AND Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Welll, why the hell are sellout europeans letting the USA build missile bases in europe anyway? Wishful thinking: Europe should get a decent nuclear/biological arsenal and wipe both idiot upstart sides off the map. (To former eastern bloc countries afraid of russia - let me say: you WILL end as badly off under the american imperial thumb, better not to negotiate with either side.)

I would also remind america that russia has always been formally part of europe, though a belligerent and annoying part. You guys haven't.

Russians are idiots

[gatkinso]

The US BMD system - even if placed in an optimal position in Russia itself - would have absolutely no effect on a Russian attack even if it scored 100% against the attack.

The US knows this. The Russians know this.

Draw a great circle from central Iran to Washington DC. This path will not quite cross Poland - where the US wants to place their base - but coes damned close. Poland is a perfect place for such a base to counter an (admittedly somewhat vapourous) Iranian threat.

Russia justs needs an excuse to rile their citizens, rattle their rusty sbaers, and try to pretend like they are still a superpower (which they never actually really were).

So be it.

A better way to counter the threat is to just destroy any Iranian launch facilities now. God knows Bush is chomping at the bit for yet another oil war.

Re:Russians are idiots

[Dunbal]

A better way to counter the threat is to just destroy any Iranian launch facilities now.

      Umm - or an even better way perhaps is to back down and quit with the aggressive posturing, blame, accusations and name-calling?

      Who is guilty of starting a bar fight - the guy who smacked someone in the face, or the jerk who kept repeatedly harassing the guy until he got smacked?

Re:Russians are idiots

[gatkinso]

The bartender - for serving them alcohol.

The smacker is a victim of society, the smackee is just a plain ol' victim.

Welcome to PC America.

lemmings

[Mana Mana]

> memes I remember when this hipster talk was called a concept.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[scsirob]

Oh boy, this response is *TRUELY INSIGHTFUL*. My modpoints expired yesterday, I would have loved to spend them all on this entry alone.

I have worked for US companies for many years and have many friends there. None of them agree with the way their country is trying to bully the world into what Bush thinks the world should look like. Get this idiot out of the White House!

If only the next US president can get to the conclusion that there will always be countries that are ran in a different way. That have different cultures and different moral standards. Just agree to disagree on some points. Leave everyone in their value. Stop this nonsense and get those American soldier back to where they belong, in the USA!

Fuck Bush, what a disaster.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now this fucktard Bush has only about half a year to go, and he does his very best to rekindle the cold war. Please Americans get rid of him before he fucks up the whole world, instead of just the Middle East.

Man what i disaster these last two terms of the US presidency have been for the world. Please elect someone really different, with the mental and diplomatic skills that should correspond with such a powerful office.

Talking about disaster; has New Orleans been repaired already? Ok, the question is loaded; it has not. To busy wasting Iraqi's I guess.

Re:Fuck Bush, what a disaster.

[Dunbal]

Now this fucktard Bush has only about half a year to go, and he does his very best to rekindle the cold war.

      Citizen, I don't think you have been paying attention. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been allies with Eastasia...

Re:Cuban missile crisis

[LeninZhiv]

We could have nuked stalin in the early 50's, before they had the bomb, and didn't. (Probably would have saved Millions of Russian lives too. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people.)

Um, yeah. Except that Stalin's purges happened in the 1930's. Other than that minor detail, it's a good theory though.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Build missile defense if you so wish - on your own territory.

I don't think you really get it. It's up to me as a Czech and our Polish brothers (and of course the Americans) whether we wish to have an American missle defense system installed - on our own territory. What they think about it in Moscow is as irrelevent as the opinion in Antananarivo. We are independent nations and it's up to us to decide what we do and with whom.

Balanced Russian response?

[MaGGuN]

I believe it is very obvious that this has very little to do with the missile defense, and everything to do with politics. Putin ups the ante everytime he makes an official statement on this issue. It seems to be an attempt to exploit the growing skepticism towards usa, so that enough countries takes opposition and ultimately force the usa to stop/withdraw their defensive missile installations. And the aim is to portray russia as a potent international player. Just imagine how this will appear to anti-usa countries and movements around the world. Russia will be viewed upon as the nation that was able to strike a stark political blow against the usa in modern times.

Putin/Russia threatens with nuclear aggressive weapons, using footage of their latest nuclear delivery device on display for extra visual effect. A few defensive missiles is hardly enough to cause such a response. Radars is nothing new to either countries. Russia and putin understand very well that their approach to this is an overreaction and unjustified. Which i belive is evident in their own official statement, with emphasis on "we have done nothing, point finger at usa" wording included. They apologize for their behaviour, but want the attention off their actions.

I believe the worst scenario for the Russians is that the us and europe just dont take their statements and threats seriously. Putin has put his own reputation at stake in this matter. He wants international recognition, and this is an opening they have been looking for. And it goes in harmony with with what we have seen from Russia the last years. Putin has certainly been successfull in pushing events to their liking, when everything goes your way, you want more. It will be interesting to see how this progress. I expect him to raise the bar if the response he is looking for doesen't come. But I cannot imagine that some defensive missiles can be exploited to appear as the main reasoning for their aggressive behaviour in the long run.

Doomsday Clock

[macdaddy]

Is it time to update The Clock?

http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/

How many of you folks actually remember this thing?

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[bockelboy]

I'm of the same thought - the other guy's missile defense system is about a valid military as possible.

The missile-targeting issue is nearly-moot: it only takes what, a couple minutes to re-aim the missiles in the ground?

The larger issue is that Russia feels threatened by US armaments in its "backyard" for no apparent reason, just like we would feel threatened if Russia put an ABM system in Canada to "fight off the Mexicans". They don't buy Bush's line of "we're doing this to fight the terrorists". Sometimes it would be nice if politicians used Newspeak - "we view the ABM system as plusungood" instead of veiled threats. We need to work with these people, not stir up the anthill.

That said, I don't really care for the crackdown on liberties in Russia.

Re:Cuban missile crisis

[Evil Poot Cat]

Considering the people in this thread that are claiming the northwest Europe isn't downrange from Iran, while using the European countries in between as proxies, I can't say I'm surprised to see someone slip a decade or two.

Re:dont have a problem w/russian missiles in canad

[Evil Poot Cat]

You know what? When Mexico goes nuclear with an eye on Venezuela, then your comparison will be more than bullshit.

"Cold War"?

[weinrich]

Read notes: "It feels like the Cold War all over again"

Clearly the reader didn't live through the cold war. You'll know its cold war time again when each time you look at the horizon you wonder: 'Is today the day I'll see a mushroom cloud?' The Cold War was about REAL nuclear threats from REALLY big arsenals.

This is nothing more than politicians playing politics.

Geography knowledge of an American

[Descalzo]

I just looked at a polar projection map of the northern hemisphere, and it appears to me that the most direct path from the Middle East to the USA lies very near Poland. In fact, from what I can tell, to get any closer you'd have to put the missile defense system in Russia itself. Of course, it depends on which part of North America is your target.

Also, (and my measurements aren't exact here, I just used a Goldfish cracker to compare distances on the map) a missile base in Poland is about the same distance from North Korea as a missile base in central Alaska.

Similarly, a missile base in Poland is about the same distance from China as a missile base in central Alaska.

From what I've heard about Alaska, it would be far easier to construct and man a missile base in Poland than in Alaska.

If there is someone with more time on their hands and more appropriate measuring tools than a quick google images search and a Goldfish cracker, I'd be very interested in seeing actual measurements.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Magada]

I meant "kept in check" as in "prevented from developing nukes and buying IRBM tech".

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Magada]

Yes, fellow Eastern European. We should all be free to choose our masters, but riddle me this:

Do you feel better now, that your country is on the target list of Russian nukes, than you felt during the cold war (assuming you were alive and sentient back then), when you were a target for US and British nukes?

I can understand the depth of anti-russian sentiment in the former Eastern bloc. I actually feel all the same feelings, including the wish for historical revenge. Yet, I still think that policy decisions should not be based on hatred, but rather on cold examination of how they affect your chances as a people to survive and prosper.

Slash

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst I'm not going to be drawn on the conflict itself, it is quite funny that Slashdot tags this as 'politics, USA'. One would have thought Europe might feature somewhere... but then again I guess I'm not surprised.

It is going to be quite a difficult day for the US when they are overtaken in the economic race and the arms race. It will happen, but I'm not sure how it will cope...

hmm

[Vexorian]

Anyone else remembers the Simpsons' Nuclear submarine episode?

Putin Threatens US Missile Bases In Europe

[gloryhallelujah]

The U.S missile defense system in Europe is there to destroy those few Russian nuclear missiles that might get into the air after a U.S. nuclear first strike.

Defense against Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the USA don't have many neighbours, imagine the following situation...
Some bad blood between Russia and Mexico
Russia convinced Mexico has WMDs and rockets to deliver them. (They don't have proof apart from fact that Mexico is building a nuclear reactor or two for power generation... )

Now - Russia ships a boatload or two of "strategic defence missiles" to Cuba so defend themselves against Mexico and their partners in the tortilla of evil.

Would complaints from the US government be valid, or just playing politics??

Re:Defense against Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

The US would pull out of Iraq, just so they can blame them for the new problem and invade them again...

Russian translated to Meme...

[Jugalator]

I think this would be a case of trying to say "all your base are belong to us"?

Reexamine the SYSTEM, not the map

[WindBourne]

The system is capable of taking out missiles on the side, not just those that are overhead. What they can not do, is intercept against a missile that is fired at greater than a 90 angle (probably even less). IOW, it is designed to protect mostly Europe, but it does offer protection to NA from Iran (not a big deal for another 5-8 years) and some of China. I would guess that if these are accepted, then America will most likely put one up in either Canada or Alaska to offer North America protection from China, NK and a rogue missile or so from Russia.

Typical geography knowledge of an American.

Do you normally draw illogical inferences based on little to no knowledge? Or just resort to ad hominem attack? or should I consider this typical bigotry of a European based on lack of knowledge?

Re:Reexamine the SYSTEM, not the map

[SharpFang]

Do you normally draw illogical inferences based on little to no knowledge?

Oh, so you're an unique subset of two minorities: about 5% of Americans that know where Poland is, and another 5% that believe all Americans know it.

"then America will most likely put one up in either Canada or Alaska to offer North America protection from China"

wow. Just wow. And you accuse me of ignorance.

Re:Reexamine the SYSTEM, not the map

[WindBourne]

I should not respond, But I will in hopes that you learn a few things.

America consist of 50 states of which most are bigger than most of the EU's 27 countries. Most students learn about the countries that are closest or influence them the most. For Americans, that would be Canada, Mexico, countries from Central America, and those of the original western Europe. With that said, I doubt that average student in the world learns about ALL, let alone more than 5 states (Washington D.C., NY, CA, Texas, and maybe Florida) which are equal in size to your countries. In addition, I seriously doubt that your knowledge of geography extends past the average person from Poland (unless your focus was geography) or America. The fact that you are prejudiced against Americans with so little knowledge or facts, says a lot. Considering that I have been to places well beyond 1000KM probably means that I have traveled further than you have. I would guess that the average American sees more "foreign" places than you have. As it is, each of these states are as different as nations within EU are.

wow. Just wow. And you accuse me of ignorance.

Care to elaborate as to why my statement is incorrect? Putting up the "shield" in just poland/czech confers very little good for America. We will need it on the DEW line to have it be of any use. Or perhaps you have some piece of logic or reasoning why that is ignorant?

When I was growing up, my schools taught about USSR, but overall did not push it. Even now, I assume that students are catching up with all the changes.

Re:Reexamine the SYSTEM, not the map

[SharpFang]

Care to elaborate as to why my statement is incorrect?

There's already an extensive system of anti-missile defenses in Alaska. The system to be placed in Poland is not a prototype or such, but a plain copy of what is already in widespread use in the US. I'm surprised to find out I know more about the US defense systems than you do.

With that said, I doubt that average student in the world learns about ALL, let alone more than 5 states (Washington D.C., NY, CA, Texas, and maybe Florida) which are equal in size to your countries.

I doubt anyone in Poland asked about Kentucky or Minnesota would seek them in southern Asia or Africa. That's exactly what you get in the US when asking about Finland or Romania. And it's not just a geography knowledge - kids coming back from schools in the US to Poland must enter a class a year or two below their age, because that's how far behind the US education leaves them.

Considering that I have been to places well beyond 1000KM probably means that I have traveled further than you have.
I was on trips of 1000Km and more, not by plane too - trains, cars, ferry. In the course I crossed borders of 4 other countries, two of them on foot - but it doesn't really matter. Want a bragging contest? Here we go. In Europe, 100 miles is a long way to go. In the US, 100 years is a long time ago.
I live in a city which currently cellebrates its 750th anniversary of its city rights, and has quite a few places left from that times, not to mention all the history inbetween: a royal castle of about 500 years of royal rule over the country, a network of forts leftover from Swedish occupation, a restaurant left unchanged from the times of cultural revolution, and another one where kings have dined 500 years ago. The shortcut to a tram leads through a place where Kosciuszko (do you know the name? Should ring a bell!) was sworn in, the shortest route to my medical centre leads through remains of a german concentration camp, just by a hill artificially created over 1000 years ago in pre-christian times for relligious purposes, overlooking the former jewish ghetto district, not changed all that much since the times when it was the ghetto. I visit a friend in a district built in times of Stalin, as a showcase of the socialist thought, then we go drink a beer under the same trees where some of the best polish poets would seek inspiration 150, 200 years ago. I plan on starting riding horses at a small palace about half a kilometer away from where I live. It was built in 1535, being a residence of noble families. It was military barracks during the IWW, gestapo headqyarters during IIWW, now it's a riding center. And it's quite near of a football (soccer) stadium of the oldest polish soccer club, a hundred years old last year. A bit further there are some buildings of oldest and most prestigeous polish university, which was funded some 550 years ago.

So... what interesting historical pieces are there in your location?

Lol ..EU has "More than enough might" ???"

[HighOrbit]

the EU has more than enough economic might to not have to deal with this crap

That is hilarious. Samarkand (a city state in Central Asia on the Silk Route) had tons of gold. Did that stop the Mongols from burning it to the ground in 1220 and enslaving the population? Nope, the gold only *attracted* attack because the Mongol Khan needed to pay his army. Putin needs to pay the people who keep him in power. Can you guess where he thinks he is going to get the gold? I'll give you guess, it starts with "E" and has its capital in Brussels.

Europe won't have to "deal with the crap" and "power plays over (your) head" when you can field an credible army and navy that has a credible will to fight so that other people are actually deterred by it. Until then, Europe will be dependent upon other world powers for its defense and subject to the whims, threats, and power plays of others.

Let me know how that economic might without an army is doing for you when the Mongols come thundering out of the east. Maybe they will only demand a gold ransom (i.e. make you pay higher prices for oil and natural gas). That might protect you .... until the gold runs out.

Re:Bush: Nuclear Terrorist (mod parent up!)

[Anonymous Coward]

What fuck scored this one troll? He's right on the money!

No commands when they're in the air

[Kadin2048]

Well, actually they can't be retargeted or destroyed in flight, at least not to my knowledge. For any number of reasons, once they're out of the silo/launcher, they're un-recallable. (This is ballistic missiles; cruise missiles are probably different.) Basically they get all their data fed into them right before launch, and then the missile follows its path, using inertial (laser gyroscope, usually, I think) and stellar navigation (to correct for wind drift and other factors at apogee), to their targets. There's no communications channel by which to recall one, re-target it, or tell it to self-destruct.

Once you press the button, it's pretty much a done deal.

We may have won the cold war, but...

[CokeBear]

We may have won the cold war, but failed to secure the peace.

Duh?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Is Putin retarded?

US: Because of the terrorists we need missile defense systems in Europe.

Russia: The US is putting missile defense systems in Europe; target Europe!

Re:Duh?

[Vexorian]

The problem is that not everybody buys US' war on terror.

Imagine, let's say that Russia stated worries about Mexican plots against them, and thus Russia built a missile shield over Cuba and Venezuela, how would USA feel about that?

Re:Duh?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

The point wasn't the war on terror. What's the point in targeting missiles against somebody who is installing missile shield? It the missiles can get through the shield in sufficient numbers, the entity putting up the shield is waisting its resources. If the missiles can't get through you're waisting your time.

Imagine, let's say that Russia stated worries about Mexican plots against them, and thus Russia built a missile shield over Cuba and Venezuela, how would USA feel about that?

If the US had even the slightest amount of common sense, we would ignore them. Or if we wanted to annoy them, leak the information the the media and let private enterprise do our dirty work. But announcing the we were pointing missiles at the shield would the the dumbest, and unfortunately most likely, scenario.

In Soviet America:

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. Missile Bases Threaten Europe.

I hope this helps the criminal investigation of the world's biggest gunrunner.

Sincerely,
K. Trout

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[ravenshrike]

Because any truly serious threat against the norks will result in at the very least several million South Korean civvie casualties and the complete destruction of Seoul.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[afxgrin]

North Korea should join China. I imagine the Chinese government would stop this stupid never ending standoff between the north and south Koreas.

The North Korean people would probably be confused as to whether the Chinese communists are friends or enemies then and would hopefully avoid doing anything too crazy.

Dear Europe:

[pizpot]

Dear Europe:

Don't deal with the USA... only cares about it self.

Yours truly,

Canada and Mexico

Star-Wars

[Savage-Rabbit]

....just like any proto-dictator, Putin needs an enemy for their country to hate and the US with its utterly terrible foreign policy seems to be perfect for it. And GWB needs a new flashpoint to distract the US electorate from the mess he is making of everything else so in effect this is mutually beneficial situation.

One good way to deal with it is to cooperate on the technology with the Russians, so they can build the defensive systems themselves. If anything the Russians are just as good at making air defense systems as the west. Their SAM systems in particular were considerably more effective throughout the cold war than western equivalents. The USAF and the Israelis learned that the really painful way and Russia still manages to produce pretty lethal SAM systems today even if one only judges by the shrieks the Israelis let out every time they sell some to countries to an Arab country. I don't think the Russians particularly need technological help to create their own missile defense system. At the moment it's more of a question of them not having enough money to build a star-wars project. The Russian economy may have recovered to the point where Russia can afford to build new strategic bombers and commit to much needed upgrades of it's air, ground and naval forces but it's still far away from being able to build a star-wars program.

Re:Star-Wars

[rbanffy]

And GWB needs a new flashpoint to distract the US electorate from the mess he is making of everything else so in effect this is mutually beneficial situation.

You have to admire how politicians manage to turn two wrongs into a right. Well... At least for them.

Ob. Simpsons Clip

[HungSoLow]

Must... crush... Capitalism!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFemUdYl88s

Russia's powerplay... sans sense.

[kinglink]

OK let's first understand that the missile defense system is NOT a weapon, it's a defense system. Think of it as a giant shield. Imagine if you're in a gun fight and everyone is grabbing bigger guns. Then one guy grabs a riot shield, do you act like he's attacking you? So why is Russia?

This is just Geopolitics 105 "acting like a baby to get cool shit". Russia acts like an asshole about this until someone agrees to give them the missile defense system and then they act like they didn't do anything wrong. This is just standard politics. The fact that Putin is acting like the US is a "bad guy" because they figured out how to create a missile defense system just makes me sick. The other insinuation that the US is forcing a global arms race is just silly. If anything we still need disarmament and the defensive weapons is a step in the right direction. To me it sounds like Russia is looking for a reason to reacquire the former soviet republic's lands and is thinking this is it.

The threat that isn't getting enough attention is the fact that Iran is talking similarly about Israeli (claiming in pseudo vague terms that Israeli is going to be destroyed, then claiming they meant they will be disappear and it was a mistranslation). But that's a discussion for another time.

Re:Russia's powerplay... sans sense.

[nehumanuscrede]

It's a pointless argument already. The so called ' shield ' tries to protect from ballistic ( read that ICBM ) missiles only. Emphasis on ' tries ' because the common workaround for it will be to oversaturate it. Ten interceptor missiles or even fifty are no match for ICBM's with a dozen re-entry vehicles all capable of independent targeting. Put ten birds in the air and you now have 120 inbound warheads, some real, some decoy. Technology Iran and neighboring countries do not yet possess. While I've been out of the field for a while ( Ex-Tomahawk type myself ) I'm pretty sure that Russia still has quite a number of nuclear capable cruise missiles in their inventory. That so called ' shield ' is completely powerless to stop an attack of that nature. It's unlikely they'll even be seen until the first targets get vaporized. Russia knows this. The US knows it as does the EU.

Re:Russia's powerplay... sans sense.

[deanoaz]

>>> I'm pretty sure that Russia still has quite a number of nuclear capable cruise missiles in their inventory. That so called ' shield ' is completely powerless to stop an attack of that nature. It's unlikely they'll even be seen until the first targets get vaporized. Russia knows this. The US knows it as does the EU.

So, if we accept all that as true, the Russian position is even more evil. It means they want themselves, or another hostile power, to be able to destroy EU cities without having to expend enough missiles to overcome a defensive system.

There is no acceptable explanation for that.

Uhm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Between WWII and Berlin Wall fall, Poland was basically "occupied enemy country" just like DDR.

What does Dance Dance Revolution have to do with anything?

Everyone needs an enemy.

[Nim82]

Societies seem to need a common enemy to unite against. Where there isn't an existing enemy there is always a need to conjour one up, it pacifies the population to an extent and restores national pride. Ideally the 'enemy' is one that won't fight back, because frankly a real war spanners it.

In the west we conjured up the GWOT, for a while the general population got behind the governments, national pride was restored and the defence industry had a field day. I would imagine the Russians are doing the same. By hyping up and vilifying the West, they will largely take peoples eyes off their domestic problems and help unite the population. I know a lot of Russians, most seem to want to to go back to the old days in some ways, they don't miss the purges but they do miss the national pride and less obvious corruption.

Regarding ABM's etc, the current ABM missiles are intended to take out a single incoming warhead, 50 or so ABM's will do jack shit against the Russian arsenal, if they wanted to blow up the planet. Even if the rockets had a 100% success rate that means they could stop at most 50 Warheads, assuming each ICBM has 5 warheads that is just 10 missiles that are countered. As for principle, well yes it must be a bit irritating - but Russia has its own (albeit obsolete) ABM system - they have about 60 or so 'Gazelle' missiles located around Moscow (iirc).

In summary: Russia has no intention of vaporising the West, they need us to beat their chest at. They know full well that M.A.D. makes a real nuclear war inconceivable, they may go up to the line but they will not cross it. Western politicians behind the scenes are probably breathing a sigh of relief - they have a new threat to hype, and one which they wont ever have to fight directly. Wouldn't want to be living in a neighbouring Baltic state right now though, as I can see the 'Bear' flexing its muscles before too long,and lets face it, the only western response will be that of harsh language.

Mission accomplished

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact if you have read the forbes story, you should also compare it with
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,209483 9,00.html and the go on
trying different sources of information. Make it hard on them to spread their lies.

What will be "the state of the nation",
the day Shrub is kicked out of office..

- middle east completely destabilized, with an iraq on the permanent brink of a civil war
- massive debt increase on the american taxpayer
- palestine far more worse than 5 years ago
- climate of distrust between russia an nato (usa) - decades of constructive diplomacy to strengthen
bilateral trust ruined.
- russia isolated and threatened from surrounding territories.
- cheney and friends got all the money
- defense spending as high as ever
- civil liberties almost gone (not only in usa, but also in consequence in many other
countries also - "war on terror")
- international treaties riduculed and reputation of united nations damaged.
- no evidency for any terrorist networks or the existence of phantoms like al-caida, ibn ladin
- again: cheney and friends got all the money..
- the us political system infested with neocon placed bots everywhere

some will remember what kennedy did when russia tried to plant
missiles on cuba - right in the face of the usa, and: the consequences this little encounter
almost had. now, will there be a "poland crisis"? And would this help the neocons?

Putin isn't consistent.

[cunina]

Back in January 2006, he insisted that the new "supermissles" under development had nothing to do with American ABM systems:

"These missile systems don't represent a response to a missile defense system, but they are immune to that. They are hypersonic and capable of changing their flight path."

Yet he's changed his tune about that recently. It goes to show that in many countries, including Russia, foreign policy is often merely theater for domestic consumption. Europe shouldn't be concerned by this rhetoric.

Empire vs. Empire

[mi]

USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense, but we can see they do like to make their influence felt strongly. In particular they want to trade on their terms and they want to be able to land their military in your country if they feel the need. And lately, there seems to be a much stronger push to force "little USAs" even if people don't actually want them. An assumption of moral superiority.

Well, unlike Russia's America's presence and influence are, actually, beneficial. Even when achieved by questionable means. Compare, for example, the developments in Chile (US-supported dictatorship) vs. Cuba (USSR-supported dictatorship). Chile is the Latin America's top economy, while Cuba is the very lowest. Or compare the USSR-supported North with the US-supported South Koreas... Or look at how the US-assisted Western Europe recovered after WW2 and then consider the USSR-controlled Eastern Europe (including Eastern Germany!)

These are just the most obvious cases...

Every culture wants its presence felt (just listen to all the noise the French are making). But America's empire is the benevolent one — and the "way of life" it (strongly) suggests is the one of prosperity and comfort. And not necessarily due to the benevolence of all Americans — simply because for us to prosper, it is better to have prosperous (and peaceful!) neighbors. And we are willing to shove that prosperity and peacefulness down a throat or two...

Russians, on the other hand, just want an empire for the sake of empire — yes, we have huge rates of alcoholism, our population is declining, our former subjects all hate us, AIDS is rising, natural resources are our only sources of currency. But we are citizens of a Great Empire, you see, and that is somehow comforting on its own...

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[thetagger]

Compare, for example, the developments in Chile (US-supported dictatorship) vs. Cuba (USSR-supported dictatorship). Chile is the Latin America's top economy, while Cuba is the very lowest.

While I am no socialist, if you take a look at the UN Human Development Index, you will notice that Cuba actually scores pretty well for the region. Certainly a lot better than a dozen countries which have had the "blessing" of being under the American boot.

But yes, be sure to take only the "top" as a proof. It certainly makes you look better than looking at the whole picture.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[laddiebuck]

Well, unlike Russia's America's presence and influence are, actually, beneficial. Even when achieved by questionable means. Compare, for example, the developments in Chile (US-supported dictatorship) vs. Cuba (USSR-supported dictatorship). Chile is the Latin America's top economy, while Cuba is the very lowest. Or compare the USSR-supported North with the US-supported South Koreas... Or look at how the US-assisted Western Europe recovered after WW2 and then consider the USSR-controlled Eastern Europe (including Eastern Germany!)

And which has better healthcare: Cuba or Chile?

I am not disputing that Russia's influence is far worse. But you simply can't attribute Western Europe to American beneficial influence, when the characteristic structures had been there for hundreds of years. Russia's influence on other states has been clearly negative, but I would hesitate in characterising America's influence as unequivocally positive. Also, North Korea isn't quite a good indication, as it was never under direct Soviet control, unlike Eastern Europe.

(Disclaimer: I'm Eastern European, for what it's worth.)

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

All this Cuban health care propaganda that has been circulating in the media is pure bullshit. My mother still lives there and if she goes to the hospital she needs to bring her own fucking light bulb unless she wants to be in the dark. It's filthy, they re-use needles and many people have to wait so long for care that they die waiting. It's a shitty system; if you think it's so great why don't you put your money where your mouth is and move there? There is a huge line of people there who would gladly trade places with you, including my mother.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a foocking boyscout

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

I am cuban, I say you're not. At least, you have no clue of what you're saying... and I'm no Fidel supporter (hell, I'm living in Europe for a reason), but I have to say that one of the things I miss about Cuba is healthcare and the fact that my children were healthy and NOT addicted consumerists...

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Warped_Dragon]

Chile is the Latin America's top economy, while Cuba is the very lowest. Not that the little 'ol trade embargo imposed in 1962 and still in effect today would have anything to do with that, eh?

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[rafaMEX]

Yes, that's one of the must unfair comments I have seen so far on /. , I am sure that Dictator Pinochet was well supported by US and UK companies, but before that Salvador Allende economical plans were sabotaged in many ways for anything to work at all, another intresting thing before Allende's rulling years, in the 30's Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico extremly similar politics, but thanks to WWII he didn't had any issue with US and/or UK gov., both countries were very busy with Hitler to do anything against Mexico at all, if you read History of XX century you will find that Mexico is actually a country with a lot of luck since we still speak spanish and not english :P, atleast as a first language tho.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Snaller]

"Well, unlike Russia's America's presence and influence are, actually, beneficial."

Why is why the generate enemies all over the world - especially when the US sides with one side in a conflict against another.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[mi]

if you take a look at the UN Human Development Index, you will notice that Cuba actually scores pretty well for the region. Certainly a lot better than a dozen countries which have had the "blessing" of being under the American boot.

Link? Oops...

But yes, be sure to take only the "top" as a proof. It certainly makes you look better than looking at the whole picture.

When that top is derided daily as evidence of America's inherent evil, pointing out, that it is, in fact, a top is most appropriate. Awaiting links/names on those 12 countries suffering under the American boot...

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Even when achieved by questionable means. Compare, for example, the developments in Chile (US-supported dictatorship) vs. Cuba (USSR-supported dictatorship). Chile is the Latin America's top economy, while Cuba is the very lowest.
I disagree with that point.

Cuba originally existed as an American-backed Dictatorship. It was a backyard resort for Americans and a good place for American industry, but the dictatorship did not do anything good for the locals. This social discontent is what allowed Castro's revolution to occur.

In fact, for large periods of Castro's regime, he has had no Soviet support and a lot of the time has actually been in CONFLICT with Soviet support (Castro has run Cuba as a world power, instead of a small nation).

I have a lot of respect for Castro. Where the Bolshevik party became a party that used Communist ideals as a tool to achieve power, I believe Castro truly believed in Marxist Ideals (He went out of his way supporting other country's revolution to the point where Khrushchev threatened to remove Soviet support and allow an American invasion if he didn't stop).

So it wasn't really that much of a Soviet-backed Dictatorship as it was of Castro's regime which was supported by the USSR at times. As for the state of the country...a lot of that can be related to the US embargo and during the Cuban Missile Crisis, blockade. Except for one part where America offered a hand of friendship to Cuba (in which Castro shocked the world by turning it down in favour of supporting the communist revolution in Angolia), America has consistently tried to cause Cuba to fall. While a lot of Cuba's failings could be Castro's own goals being unachievable and not the best planned (which is why Soviet's ordered an executive committee to take over economic decisions in Cuba lest Cuba loses financial support), America is also to cause for Cuba's problems.

Really, while I can't agree with Castro's ideals, he's a lot more than a Russian-backed Dictator - a puppet of the USSR. Which is why Cuba stays true to Marxist ideals even today without superpower support.



As for your other points, I agree completely.

America does have a habit of destroying a regime and rebuilding it, while pouring money in it. As you said, West Germany and Japan are two very obvious examples - two of the world's top leaders in industry and manufacturing. America poured ridiculous amounts of money into West Berlin as a strategical measure - it was symbolic. Russia was angry at Germany for killing over 30million Russians in WWII - so they put huge debts on East Germany and East Berlin and fucked over the place. America on the other hand, wanted to compare East Berlin, which was falling apart to West Berlin - which was positively glowing. This was meant to be a comparison between 'Communism and Capitalism' - the symbolic 'prosperous society' versus the 'society that's falling apart'.

It's an effective strategy and probably the reason why so many countries in the Soviet Bloc rebelled as soon as Gorbachev showed weakness by allowing perestroika (liberalism) reforms. They saw Capitalism as superior due to these things.

There is of course the fact that after these countries become powerful, they feel indebted to America and offer good trade agreements and help the economy and prosperity of America.

~Jarik

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[mi]

Not that the little 'ol trade embargo imposed in 1962 and still in effect today would have anything to do with that, eh?

Sorry, that — the embargo — comes with the confiscations of property, mass executions of dissenters, and, most importantly, with inviting an openly hostile power to install nuclear missiles aimed at the US on your territory. Presumably — to fulfill your promise and desire to see the United States (or, at least, NYC) destroyed...

USSR has pumped a lot of resources into Cuba to compensate for the embargo. It was not enough — you can not compensate for the government, that is both bloody and incompetent...

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[mi]

and I'm no Fidel supporter (hell, I'm living in Europe for a reason), but I have to say that one of the things I miss about Cuba is healthcare and the fact that my children were healthy and NOT addicted consumerists...

So, we are supposed to believe your hazy recollections of Cuba's USSR-assisted past, over the earlier poster's current information, that comes from their mother, who — unlike you and your children — live in Cuba today...

Well, what else can be expected from someone, who thinks "consumerism" is a disease, that can be treated in a hospital?

I'm sure, you were happier in your youth in Cuba, than you are in your middle age — and saddled with "consumerist" children — in Europe. But location has nothing to do with it...

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[mi]

Why is why the generate enemies all over the world - especially when the US sides with one side in a conflict against another.

In addition to the dissed side customarily hating us for siding with its opponent, it is because cultures hate competition — especially, if they are losing it. So they pull out crappy non-arguments like: "yeah, but you are so consumerist"...

Unable to mount military attacks, they resort to propaganda, and some — to occasional terrorism. Come on — haven't you ever played Civilization?

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[mi]

So, sincere belief in the justice of one's actions, justifies the actions to those, who don't share the belief? Of course not...

You say, you respect Castro for sincerely believing, yet you don't seem to share the belief... That's a major flaw in your logic.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Jarik_Tentsu]

I respect the fact he's *genuine* and he really *cares* for his ideals and people, as opposed to just using ideals and people as political tools.

~Jarik

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[sousoux]

As you said, West Germany and Japan are two very obvious examples - two of the world's top leaders in industry and manufacturing. America poured ridiculous amounts of money into West Berlin as a strategical measure

After WW1 the allies (including the US) did exactly the opposite with Germany, imposing crippling reparation payments and humiliating its citizens to get their revenge. This greatly contributed to the nationalist sentiments in Germany that made Hitler's rise possible. After WWII the same mistake was not made by the Allies but was by the Russians.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

America's presence and influence is not more benefical than USSR's. If you ever have a chance, you will not choose to have any presence in your country. Thousands of lives were lost in Chile while there was an American supported dictatorship.
About empires, small, disarmed, countrys are forced to join empires, red flags or evil american contracts are the same, and both suported by army.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[sunspot42]

Link? Oops...

I'm sorry . . . we must have missed YOUR links. You know, the ones YOU didn't post to back up the assertions YOU made in YOUR original post.

It's a little disingenuous to demand links when you yourself didn't bother to provide any in the original post.

It's also more than a little ridiculous to compare Chile to Cuba. Chile is an enormous country compared to Cuba (756,950 sq km vs. 110,860 sq km), and has tremendous mineral wealth (copper, timber, iron ore, nitrates, precious metals, molybdenum, hydropower). Copper is Chile's biggest export, and copper prices have reached levels not seen since the 1960's. Cuba has some mineral wealth, mainly nickel, but its economy is far more dependent on agricultural exports. It's hardly surprising Chile's economy is biggger.

You can check all of this at the CIA Factbook for yourself, or at Wikipedia's article on copper, if you're remotely interested in the facts. Which I suspect you aren't.

Chile also hasn't been the subjected to a ridiculous, politically-motivated economic embargo by the US.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

Chile also hasn't been the subjected to a ridiculous, politically-motivated economic embargo by the US.

Proof that if we love you, you do well and if you piss us off, then we will kill you - either economically or physically with diseases of the gut if you don't respond to being poor.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, way to simplify. I have never heard divine right spelled out quite in that manner before "We have more fat people than you, therefore our civilisation is better"

Seriously.

We, your subjects, hate your ignorance, hate your "war as an extension of trade" policies and hate your belief in your culture of waste. You monkeys are not free, not just and sure as hell not happy. You don't even live in a Democracy. Militarised Republic I believe Vidal calls it with a degree of accuracy.

Hey, speaking of which, read how the Roman republic expanded around Greece and Syria. Trade and peace were the cry as the blood of humanity was trod beneath the sandaled feet of an Empire born. But that was ok because Romans were more civilised.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

"Chile is the Latin America's top economy, while Cuba is the very lowest."

The largest natural trading partner of Cuba is the USA - and they've been embargoing the Cubans for decades. Your comparison is therefore meaningless.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Snaller]

*Post scan complete: Beep. No content found*

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[mi]

It's a little disingenuous to demand links when you yourself didn't bother to provide any in the original post.

I posted facts, which raised no doubts. Not even from you. Someone stating, the sky is blue, for another example, needs to post no links either.

It's also more than a little ridiculous to compare Chile to Cuba. Chile is an enormous country compared to Cuba (756,950 sq km vs. 110,860 sq km), and has tremendous mineral wealth

Oh, please... So, it is the size (a lot of it — hardly habitable mountains, BTW), and the mineral wealth, huh? Right... There are countries without any of that (Taiwan, Israel to name a couple), which are doing much better than Cuba anyway — not that Cuba's own nickel (which you mysteriously dismiss) and oil (which you forget) are anything to sneeze at. It could also have excellent tourism industry, instead of (or in addition to) its current shady sex-tourism. The also have copper (yes, the same copper), cobalt, iron...

No, dear, there is no escaping the fact, that Castro's government — and the Communist governments in general — are not only bloody, but also horrendously inefficient and incompetent. It wouldn't have survived without USSR's support, and this willingness of the Russian empire to support anyone sufficiently loyal (for the sake of empire-building itself) was the point of my original posting in this thread.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

And we are willing to shove that prosperity and peacefulness down a throat or two...

It is precisely this sort of arrogance that defines an empire. "we're morally superior, we're justified to force, press, coerce, ignore rules and take away the self-determination from other nations if it benefits us" is the stance of a geo-bully.

Well, the Romans brought infrastructure to the countries they invaded and boosted their economies and culture by large factors. Same goes for the Chinese in Tibet. And wait for it, the Chinese will force their way of life 'down a throat or two' in a couple of decades. Whoever their victims may be then, they're sure going to benefit from their rape: they participate in Chinas boosting economy, and they'll be 'peaceful' (i.e. constrained by Peking). Lets hope the rules of your moral of the strong arm still applies when another superpower uses it.

Re:Empire vs. Empire

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clear that you have no fucking clue as to what you are talking about. Go pick up some culture.

What are you smoking?!

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

What are you smoking?! I don't know what propaganda you have been reading, but Europe most certainly isn't a fat pig waiting for slaughter, it has real military muscle. You might want to read more about from Wikipedia under Military of European Union. In there you can see how much money is spend by member countries on their defense, and there is also a chart showing you how much money combined is spent in Europe compared to US, Russia and China. When EU members are spending over 250 billion dollars on their defense, half of US defense budget and quadruple to China and Russia, EU is for certain not a fat pig waiting for slaughter.

Also you really don't seem to understand how vital good economic base is to modern warfare. When we talk about economics we speak about country's industrial ability to produce war material and equipment and it's ability to finance the production. Now at peace time EU member countries are spending in average 1-2% of their GDP to defense, if there would be credible threat against well being of Europe, the defense budgets would immediately jump in par with US which is spending 4-5% of it's GDP to it's defense. So in layman's terms, what the economic base allows is massive production of Eurofigters and Leopards to defend Europe.

On a note UK and France in combination have 550 nuclear weapons which of course compared to US and Russia isn't much, but still represents a credible threat. It may not be enough to oblitariate US or Russia but it would for certain level down most of their infrastructure.

Maybe next time when you start speaking about Europe and it's defense, you should first look on facts and see that Europe isn't anymore just booty divided by US and Russia, but an independent world power in formation. In Europe many still remember all the horrible things of second world war and all the pain and suffering that was caused in the war, and thus see that Europe should not engage to wars in general and especially not build empires. What Europe is doing is building itself and spreading peace and prosperity to it's neighbours and other countries by increasing international trade and exchange and influencing governments of other countries by means of dialogue and diplomacy. Even though Europe nowadays seems more like house cat that just wants comfort for itself and others, it doesn't mean that it couldn't defend itself. Is it so horrible that one of the power houses of world chooses not to engage in world domination and empire building?

China would not be happy...

[Etherwalk]

In the extreme event of a cold-war era array of forces, China wouldn't be happy--nobody sane would be happy. A very few particularly greedy and manipulative politicians and businessmen might be happy, but even that's dubious. The cold war nearly resulted in the effective destruction of humanity. Several times. *nobody* wants to return to a diplomatic and military polarization that means once every five or ten years, the entire world is nearly destroyed. Because if that keeps happening, we'll all die.

The exception being the few people who gain extreme amounts of power and wealth from such a state of affairs--and even they don't want the world actually destroyed, generally speaking. US Foreign Aid, for example, goes up tremendously during a cold war type era, as we bribe countries to support our cause; so there are a lot of corrupt dictators out there who enjoy the cold war from that point of view. And there are also poor people who benefit from that, in some of the countries in question.

My impression is that Putin & co are using the US for Fear-mongering propaganda purposes, clearly beyond any US intention of being militarily hostile towards Russia. Or at least, likely beyond it--I wouldn't be surprised if there were *some* thought being given to the possibility of intervening or muscle-flexing in the event of an aggressive move by the Russian military against one of the Newly Independent States between Russia and Western Europe. Though I don't see why such a conflict would go nuclear.

Did you even read your own link?

[dharbee]

"The decision to close Russia's largest military outpost abroad was announced in October by President Putin who said it was too expensive to maintain."

That came from YOUR link. How are you arguing this point when the link YOU posted states the same thing I said?

Did you even read the other link you posted?

[dharbee]

"Russia announced last October that it was abandoning the base for financial reasons."

Perhaps you can explain to me why you feel able to argue this point when BOTH of your links say I'm right?

Re:Did you even read the other link you posted?

[Cyberax]

That's the official reason. If Russia really thought about US as an enemy - then these bases would never have been removed.

You don't understand

[PenGun]

Putin does not care about the missiles. This is not about Iranian missiles. It is a rather good scam by the US that is not gonna fly.

  The reason the US wants that installation is for the radars involved. The reason Putin is pissed is because these radars right in his own back yard will make it possible for the US to implement a boost phase strike on his outgoing ICBMs.

  It screws the balance wildly and Putin will do what he has to to prevent this. Targeting the installation is a sure thing.

réponse

[Anonymous Coward]

ce putin de Putin! :-D

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[The One and Only]

and normalize your relations with China while you're at it

I think Nixon did that in the 1970's.

The US military, as it is now deployed, seems ready to make war on the whole world. That is insane.

The US military can't even successfully make war on a small Middle Eastern country.

Do Western Values include Torture?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even USA isn't committed to the so called Western values with the running of Guantanamo and open use of torture and kidnapping by CIA. Yes, US laws stil allow CIA to hire and use torture through places like Uzbekistan, Guantanamo is still open for business and water torture as per usual and Bush, Cheney and Gonzales are still running free. USA is forcing countries to give it's troops immunity against International Criminal Courts and even boasts of it's accomplishments at strongarming other countries' governments in this regard.

If Western Values are what make G7 or G8, then both USA and Russia should be kicked out.

You mean

[Anonymous Coward]

The Suez Crisis right? You didn't? My bad, I guess the whole fucking world doesn't revolve around whatever pissant country you think is important...

Cruise missiles are easier to intercept.

[mbkennel]

Generally cruise missiles are easier to intercept, given that they are approximately small aircraft.

They can be intercepted by SAM or better, the usual interception fighters.

Ballistic missiles, especially long range ones, come down stupendously fast, from the top of the troposphere
to ground level in four or five seconds.

Of course cruise missiles fly very low and are very difficult to intercept---but ballistic missiles are harder still (nearly impossible).

But low-observable (stealth) cruise missiles would be very hard to track and are much cheaper than ballistic missiles---using aircraft technology instead of rocket technology.

AHAHHA you got owned bitch!

[Anonymous Coward]

No guy, you just got your ass handed to you and now you're trying to save a little face.

GP slapped you like you were his ex-girlfriend and the best you could do was to accuse him of twisting the argument.

He's right, you Euros are morons.

Re:AHAHHA you got owned bitch!

[janrinok]

And I also pointed out that we have our own nuclear deterrent that we can use when, and if, those countries that the US claims to be defending us against actually has a weapon with the requisite range and a warhead to fit on it, and that we are part of Europe and were never conquered by the Nazis. I also explained that I was NOT countering his argument - although I do not agree with it - but I was taking issue with his arrogance and rude comments to the OP. I do not have to save face - I am not an American with an attitude. Now, if you can manage to read all the big words in the previous discussion and not just respond to one selected item without taking it in context, and without returning with profanities or childish comments such as "AHAHHA you got owned bitch!" you could also join in an adult discussion. Come back when you are adult enough and perhaps we can continue.

Re:AHAHHA you got owned bitch!

[janrinok]

And of course - don't post as AC, it only confirms that you are a coward....

No, just no, I mean really, no way

[dharbee]

No, that is THE reason. How hard is it to admit you're wrong?

Because it makes so much sense to say "we can't afford them" as opposed to "for purposes of good will, we are closing them down".

One makes you look weak and inept, the other gains you international good will. Yet you think they CHOSE to look weak and inept. Sure buddy.

I knew you'd try that, and it makes no sense whatsoever.

The Europeans would never defend themselves

[HighOrbit]

Having an army is different from being willing to use it. The most telling part of your post is this:

In Europe many still remember all the horrible things of second world war and all the pain and suffering that was caused in the war, and thus see that Europe should not engage to wars in general and especially not build empires. What Europe is doing is building itself and spreading peace and prosperity to it's neighbours and other countries by increasing international trade and exchange and influencing governments of other countries by means of dialogue and diplomacy. Even though Europe nowadays seems more like house cat that just wants comfort for itself and others, it doesn't mean that it couldn't defend itself.

Its not a question of whether Europe could defend itself (which is doubtable), but would Europe defend itself, or would it effectively surrender immediately by trying to negotiate tribute when threatened.

Now as to whether they actually could defend themselves, I also doubt that. Once the shooting starts, a war in Europe would likely be a "come as you are" affair and not a protracted conflict allowing a build up. Preparation would be paramount. Right now, the Russian Army is probably inferior to the combined EU forces (although its doubtful there is such a thing as reliably "combined" EU forces). If Russia were to build up its forces (which it looks like it is going to do), will the EU also increase to maintain superiority? Is the EU prepared to spend a greater portion of its GDP on defense, when it is already close to bankrupt from social spending? Probably not because the people would riot in the streets if social spending were cut to fund defense. So I doubt the EU will be in a position to defend itself when the time comes

The Russians don't need to conquer you outright, they only need to intimidate you into submission. When Russia rattles its saber, Europe's response will likely be to "negotiate" tribute and "achieve peace in our time".

Re:The Europeans would never defend themselves

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

There is no question would Europeans defend themselves or not, they would defend and the defensive warfare would be bitter. I myself, as all able Finnish men, have went to the army and been thought to fight against invading enemy. Officially Finland doesn't have any enemy, but in the army and past army, the one and only threat which against we have been thought to fight is Russia. If major war would break up with Russia, Finland would be the front-line country and we would be phasing the enemy first in pushing the invading force out of capital (Russians favor decapitating attack) and if that wouldn't work, Finnish forces would enter guerrilla warfare until western forces would drove invading force away. This is basically same in every European country. Even thought Europeans don't in every discussion jump to the guns and swear to fight until the death, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't. The reason why people go to army, why they are willing to bear arms and give their lives is that they have families, wife's and children, these are causes to fight.

As to question about can Europeans defend themselves, the answer is yes. As to question is there a combined European force, the answer is there is. Most of the EU member countries are part of NATO and their forces are part of it's command structure. Also countries that are EU members, but not NATO countries are very close to NATO and they have generally made sure that their armies are NATO compatible. So Europeans could and would defend themselves united via NATO structure. As to what comes to future and Russians preparation I would like to point out that they are already using a considerable high percentage of their GDP to army and raising it isn't probable or even wise, and it should also be pointed out that Russia's economic growth is totally depended on rising oil and gas prices not on major growth of their industrial base, so the Russian army that we see today is probably coming at it's peak. It should also be pointed out that even thought Russia does have high number of tanks, air-crafts and personnel, their forces are outdated and their technological sophistication is far from west. Also on a note, the usual Russian conscript isn't very motivated, they are treated like scum by their superiors and sacrificed with out no hesitation: they have no real motivation to die. If the push would come, there would be no doubt that Europe couldn't defend itself.

Also where do you get idea that European countries are bankrupt from social spending? Yes European countries spend quite much on in example public health-care, public education and public welfare, but these expenses also are paid in US and in other countries: the difference is that money just cycles through government and not directly from individual. It can be debated is it better to cycle the money via government or via private individuals. If there would be a need to spend more on defense, that could be done, that would mean cuts in some places, but not radical. I still would like to question the rational on Europe to spend much more to defense: Europeans already in combination spend half what US spends and quadruple what Russia and China spend, that is enough to keep Russian in line and US is our ally and will be in foreseeable future.

I also would like to know example on how Russian can threat us to submission? They would threat us with a nuclear holocaust? That would lead to same happening in Russia. They would threat us with invasion? From that moment they would have united Europe against them with all it's resources. They would threat to cut gas and oil? Their economy would collapse in the same moment.

You also should notice that international relationships aren't just between two, they are between everybody. If Russian would threaten Europe, US would defend it, and China would take advance on situation to take Siberia. If there is going to be a war, it will be world war and it will be a total war. For Russia to even think making an invasion, they would have plan how can the

To make this a little less insane, let's hypothesi

[melted]

To make this a little less insane, let's hypothesize a bit.

If Russia puts its missile defense systems on Cuban soil, will the US target those installations (and Cuba along with them, as a collateral)? There's no question in my mind that they would. It's a simple logic, there's no room for political play or negotiation. Missile defense systems are deployed with the intention of using them one day.

Re:Well, as a european - fuck the USA... AND Russi

[Anonymous Coward]

To former eastern bloc countries afraid of russia - let me say: you WILL end as badly off under the american imperial thumb, better not to negotiate with either side.

We here in Poland tried that in 1939. It didn't worked out.

How do you people come up with this crap

[dharbee]

You're the one who thinks spending pennies for labor while making fistfulls of money is somehow bad, and somehow makes the products less American.

"Can't argue with what you said, but because it's not an argument,"

You're right, it's a farce, and an obvious attempt to find something to dig the US over.

Let me let you in on something. If I own a company, and you WORK for me, what you make FOR MY COMPANY doesn't magically become yours. Yet you think it does, but I'm the one who is "ignorant"...

Get over your US hatred guy (and don't bother denying it) it makes you post nonsense.

Re:How do you people come up with this crap

[Vo1t]

"Let me let you in on something. If I own a company, and you WORK for me, what you make FOR MY COMPANY doesn't magically become yours"

If you OWN the company that has a problem and outsources the creation of its solution outside the US, then nor the people who invent it are from US, and neither is the solution American. I'm not talking about deploying mfg to China. I'm talking about licensing/buying/ordering software and hardware components and patents from companies which HQ and origin is not American.
No hatred towards US in it.

Of course, US is renowned for its conditions for entrepreneurship, but remember that some of entrepreneurs are immigrants. Just because they do business in US doesn't make them converted US citizens.

Who's the bad guy here....

[rwrife]

United States Position: We want to build a way to defend ourselves and our "friends" from being attacked by some rogue states.

Russia Position: We don't want you protecting your civilians from our missles and we want to build new offensive weapons to defeat your defensive weapons so we can kill whoever we want.

If Russia wants to maintain a balance of power then they should join in on the USA's efforts and try to build a global missle defense shield that makes all airborne threats, regardless of who they're from, obsolete....then eveybody is on a level playing field.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all it's Central Europe, the very geographic center of Europe is just outside Ledec in the Czech Republic and second I do not seek any sort of revenge against russians who themselves were a victim of the vile soviet regime, quite to the contrary I wish them all the best and would love to see russia transformed into a democratic and prosperous modern European country. I was born in the late 1970s so most of what I remember of communism is simply empty store shelves, people standing in lines for hours and the everyday humiliation but luckily was spared the mass svoiet terror which was already receding. And yes, I do feel a lot better being a potential target for russian nukes then I would have felt during the cold war when there were soviet tanks on the streets here.

Please Define :

[Anonymous Coward]

Rogue State.

Thanks in advance.

ludicris

[insomniac8400]

Why waste your missles on a target that can blow them up in mid air? They need to target a country that can't stop the missles from hitting the ground. Like australia.

Re:ludicris

[PigIronBob]

Thanks cobber with friends like this who needs enemies. your highly exposed aussie mate.

You are correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I view this as a waste of money. In fact, I would rather see us pour this money into laser systems; ABL AND space based. Of course, the space based is just as prohibited as is this folly, but I doubt that it would stop a person like W. and Cheney.

Genocide is permanent

[Anonymous Coward]

What it comes down to is that people who are defending their homes and who are patriotic about their government will destroy a large standing army through attrition.

That may be true sometimes, but only if the invaders want to rule their new subjects, as opposed to ruthlessly killing off the natives and taking their land. The Jews completely wiped out the city of Jericho during their exodus from Egypt; consequently, they never afterwards had to deal with resistance from that city. No people left means no resistance. See the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament (and the Torah).

So in the extreme case of a genocidal invader, you emphatically do need a modern army to defend yourself.

Department of Nostalgia

[spun]

You are in violation of the Conservation of Nostalgia act of 2002. As you may know, we are rapidly running out of past to be nostalgic about. We all fondly remember the days when we were nostalgic about things that happened ten years or more ago. Nowadays, we are frequently nostalgic for things that happened a year or two ago. At this rate, we will run out of past before 2012. Your blatant use of the word retro in a context referring to an original posted only hours ago is a blatant violation of the act, and represents a serious squandering of the past that all American share.

Re:Department of Nostalgia

[Opportunist]

That act won't stand an onslaugt. Look at current politics and see how hard we try to forget about the past and repeat it.

How to f*ck up comment with an opening statement

[apankrat]

> right before WW2, there were a _lot_ of voices in the USA advocating _carpet-bombing_ the USSR with nukes preemptively

FYI, nukes were not available before WW2.

Putin makes Bush look good.

[tjstork]

Threatening to nuke Europe over the deployment of an ABM system that a lot of people don't even think works....

Wow, that's a great way to make friends!

Honestly

[rafael_es_son]

Are Slashdot readers mainly from the bible-belt? All this patriotic blind moronic words against the a Russian President, who -as those who read the transcript might have learned- can express himself properly and coherently, demonstrates deep understanding of politics and history reminds me of hillbillies and shotguns.

Whatever makes you think anything your babbling baboon clown of a president says might remotely have anything to do with reality? Christian programmers are a paradox.

(mod parent up)

[Anonymous Coward]

A rather brief and broad but fair synopsis (seeing as how the GP was moderated 5 I fail to see how your reply could possibly be offtopic except to someone who values conformity of opinion over analysis; although you might consider conforming enough to use capitals). If the reader would like to discover more, the related overarching topic to research is "military industrial congressional complex" which helps explain much of the U.S. governments' world policies -- though much of the explanation occurs, like the underrated P, in alternative rather than mainstream media.

Re:(mod parent up)

[Anonymous Coward]

No Mods, please don't. Pulling the politics of Israel & the Palestinians into every possible situation is clearly OT to the subject.
FYI, posting "mod parent up" as an AC is dumb. If you want to comment on a posts moderation, have the courage of doing so openly. You'll also have a better chance of getting someone to follow your suggestion as most people will ignore AC posts when moderating. This is posted as an AC because I don't want it to be moderated up as it is clearly OT.

No surprise - here's why

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Just look into who's been supplying Saddam, North Korea, Iran, and any other nation in conflict with the US: Russia.

Additionally, Putin has ordered journalists to portray the "United States as the enemy" (NY Times)

Western values like...

[ginbot462]

... articulate and well formed arguments, maybe even in paragraph form. Not a list of repetitive, mind-numbing sentences. That would be slashdot values.

How to look unable to read more than a line ;)

[Moraelin]

Well, that was a most unfortunate fuck-up indeed. I sorta started with "before the cold war" and switched to "after WW2" in mid-flight, and brain-farts happen.

I will however assume that most people do have the mental power to read more than one line. In which case they'd notice I'm talking about events that happened in the late 40's and early 50's, and which are background info to the "let's bomb the russians" banner-waving. Hence the events I'm talking about can't happen earlier than the 50's, right?

Bush wants 100000 silos world to defend only US.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you like Russia then you like space war
If you hate Russia then you hate space war

George Bush Junior is furious because his Antimissile Balistic Missiles don't work. Bad bussiness for George Bush Junior!

I like much Russia!

I'm benchmarking the speed & reliability of the missiles, Russia is better than USofA.

The USofA's missiles don't work well, they work bad and hang 2 by each 3.

Typical Russian

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a picture of a typical drunk Russian (photographed in Ukraine):
http://gorod.dp.ua/photo/2007/c/chelovek/02/Zasnul .jpg
Any questions?

America

[photomonkey]

I understand the globalization of the marketplace and the diversity of world resources, but I really think it's about time to go back to the pre-1920's political notion of moderate cocooning.

We have so many internal problems to deal with now, and we seem to be overstretching ourselves abroad. Maybe it's time for a mostly closed-door policy.

I'm not suggesting we lock the door and throw away the key, but if we spent half the money that we spend on the military on actually trying to fix domestic issues, we and the rest of the world would be in a better place.

What happened to "Speak softly and carry a big stick?" We should keep to ourselves and if an actual, real threat arises, deal with it via the almighty buck and diplomacy. A smaller military could easily provide defense for the country, security abroad and a force to deal with real (as opposed to imagined) military threats.

Everybody will scream 9/11 here, but who will attack us (other than TerroristsTM) if we butt-out for a little while? Even still, cleaning out the caves in Afghanistan did far more good than the objective-less war in Iraq. The Iranians, despite being rather radical are not stupid people. They know that they can make threats all they want with little recourse. They also have to know that America and the European Union have the ability to absolutely erase them from the map if challenged militarily.

I suspect that Mr. Putin is seeking another arms-race in order to revitalize his economy, help his friends make a buck and attempt to keep America in check.

If I were him, I'd be worried about American-influenced security in the Middle East too. He's a lot closer to it, and has more to lose (extensive trade between Russia and the ME).

Sure, King George II only has a limited amount of time left in office, but after yesterday's debate, the Dems look as or more clueless than even he. I'm sure the GOP debate tomorrow will also fail to inspire confidence as well.

Putin is not dumb, although I disagree with his policies. If Khruschev didn't swing first, Putin won't either. Hell, Russia is nearly broke, very corrupt, and has sold off much of their military hardware. The only threat they can make is nukes.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the US military can successfully make war on a small Middle Eastern country. The US just forgot what making war really was. It is not running a heavily armed police force. The actual war part went fairly well, but that was the easy part.

-a

Do we have to bring back Pershing II?

[Quila]

It scared the hell out of the Soviets, who scrambled back to the bargaining table after we deployed the Pershing II in Germany.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's apparently been a blank check there for a while now, where were you when we were voting? Probably complaining about lack of options. Further, who are you to say whose agenda is or is not welcome? Your view is no more important or relevant than any other here.

How people in central Europe feel about US base?

[lubost]

I live in capital of Czech Republic. Very close to where US base is supposed to be. Hopefully, US Army can't build anything without our permission. There were already referendums held in 5 towns that are the most close to the place of planned base. Here are the results: Town of Hvozdany (about 3 miles far): 95% of people AGAINST the base. Town of Tene (5 miles): 98% AGAINST Town of Zajecov: 98.3% AGAINST Town of Trokavec: 99% AGAINST Town of Skorice: 99% AGAINST (only one vote for) Go find out what "demo" and "cracy" stand for.

Re:Bush wants 100000 silos world to defend only US

[Anonymous Coward]

Ago 45 years, J.F.Kennedy of the United States of America failed his unsuccessful invasion Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion in 1961 by the won Fidel Castro.

Invasion, ehhh?

After, his CIA did plans to kill to the president of the Cuba country with paid criminals because of his unsuccessful invasion.

Cuba is not United States of America.

The Guantanamo beach is your, but the Pigs beach is not your.

The USA country was harassing & embarrasing to Cuba country more than 45 years after many presidents re-elected.

Want you to send paid false & criminal ex-cuban exiles to do an "invasion made by US"?
.
You are more evil than the Satan devil.

Bah. Human politics are a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Distractions, distractions, distractions. . .

Many here seem rather involved in these hokey Risk board game dramatics.

The real story is that both sides are being heavily manipulated toward an end which has nothing to do with human interests.

Who put all those crop circles there, and what is the source of all those thousands of UFO sightings? --Not a couple of jokers with wooden planks and the planet Venus on the horizon. Human national dramas are nothing but stage dressing; it's like debating which meat rendering plant is more progressive. There's a much larger show going on, and those who rest in the comfort zones of armchair politics are going to be washed away.

Re:Bush wants 100000 silos world to defend only US

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Russia, dear Putin, ...

Why not install many RS-24 based ABM anti-missile ballistic missiles in Cuba and Mexico that are not from NATO?

You can transport many lightweight weapons as many silver bullets instead platinum bullets.

Mexicans are inmigrants, Cubans are inmigrants to. But the difference is in here are exile-cubans and are not exile-mexicans.
Why not invade Mexico because of inmigrants?

Re:dont have a problem w/russian missiles in canad

[goga_russian]

when.. then.. if maybe.
my statements holds true now.

i take dump on your shield

[or.exist]

yu tell em man. america gonna go down!

Hands up

[Anonymous Coward]

Hands up if your particular western democracy is happy to have independent international electoral observers?

Canada.

We have had international observers observe some of our elections to learn how it can be done. Our first-past-the-post system is inherently flawed; there is no political accountability outside of the elections themselves; political patronage runs rampant; and there have been a few cases of spectacular gerrymandering; but the voting system itself is fast, efficient and fair.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has got to be the dumbest, most contradictory /. post I've read in awhile, and evidence that an education does not invoke intelligence.

"That's exactly the kind of escalation mentality that brought us the Cold War."

To which you gladly participate in now. Apparently, threatening an entire continent is NOT an escalation, but kicking someone out of the G8 is.

"Russia is NOT threatening Eastern Europe with nuclear annihilation."

BULL. SHIT. Putin directly spoke to this issue. He advocated openly and publicly that not removing the defense shield would mean retargetting of EU sites. When asked for clarification, he defined this as US military bases and OTHER sites.

Plus, how stupid are you--do you honestly believe a nuclear aka multiple warhead FUSION bombs is going to have a limited impact over a military target?

"Speaking as someone who's directly interested in this:"

So you don't want the US folks to tell you what to do, but you want to tell "us" what to do. Hypocrite.

"the best you (Americans) can do (as a nation) is stop threatening Russia (with starvation or nukes)"

Huh? You may have an (ill-conceived, erroneous) argument with the nuke thing. But we are now also responsible for feeding Russia? We do that to reduce tensions, and now it's considered an OBLIGATION? Damn...so not only is the US reponsible for policing the world (or not), and curing all diseases in the world, it doesn't stop there--we are also responsible for feeding the world, and it's our fault if a country can't feed it's people to the point that it's a threat if we pull in OUR food stores.

Little wonder the US takes at least some action when things don't go its way.

"and normalize your relations with China while you're at it."

As they say, with friends like these, who needs enemies.

I've got a better idea. How about we withdraw our shields, our military bases, our food, our economic support and alliances, and watch what happens to the EU.

And again, if you can tell us what to do, we sure as hell can tell you and others what to do too.

"Putin simply cannot afford that US military types begin to believe they could "win" a nuclear exchange because that would threaten the very existence of Russia."

Basic cold war understanding--no one wins a nuclear war.

Basic cold war understanding--even fallout sucks (we knew this during the cold war, see star wars).

Basic cold war understanding--the US could invade Russia in a typical non-nuclear and likely win.

Basic cold war understanding--The US doesn't want to invade Russia. There is NO upside. We'd incur huge, heavy losses. The only upside would be oil and gas, to which we could easily obtain conquering some African, Middle East (Iraq is hardly included despite people like yourself playing it up), or South American country. We don't want to, we don't care to, we simply want to buy the shit.

"Build missile defense if you so wish - on your own territory."

Double standard again. Who the hell are you to dictate what the Czechs or Polish choose to do? Isn't that the same as what Russia is now doing, did in the past, and what you claim the US is doing?

Frankly speaking, the Czechs and Polish want us there, because it was Russia and THEIR DIRECT ACTIONS IN THE RECENT PAST where they were abused. Hell, you are so stupid you don't see that Russia flat out FAILED the basic test of letting their former satellite/hostage nations decide their own matters. So much so you blame the US.

Which frankly speaks to the crux of your post--the US can do no right.

After all, if we don't put up a defense shield there, we lose the progress those countries have made. Under US and EU help.

We go there, and it's our fault when Russia saber rattles and aims missiles at THE ENTIRETY OF THE EU.

I'm starting to think you're just nuts:

If a country asks for our help and we give it, that's not speaking or walking softly.

Mod that flaimbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the poster is obviously ignoring Iraq.

Get some history lessons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany attacked Russia, that is why it was involved in WWII.

Don't understand...

[freedom_india]

When US deploys missiles [targetting Russia] in Europe, it is for peace. But when Russia deploys its anti-missile missiles towards those missiles which threaten Rodina, Russia is a warmonger.
Am very surprised.

On one hand, we have a Toxic Texan who is power hungry, mad and as stupid as Stalin was, and still thinks Saddam planned 9/11.

On the other hand we have an extremely intelligent, former KGB spook, infant who is flush with New Money and thinks the toxic texan is an aberration.

GREAT ! We have the same Stalin/Hitler combo in 2007.

Now lets wait for someone to launch the initial attack.

Am putting my funds into Bonds.

Cyberax = Voice of Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

For the uninitiated, I point out that the numerous opinions expressed by cyberax are identical to the positions offered by the Kremlin. Coincidence? You make the call.

he's not sincere, he's political/warmonger

[r00t]

If he were sincere, he'd respond in kind: with a defensive arms race involving anti-ICBM systems.

The guy is an old KGB leader who probably misses the comfort of the cold war. He's now also a politician if we assume the elections are legit, so he also likes winning points for standing up against the USA.

Lovely game to play, huh?

Another cold war?

[uvajed_ekil]

"It feels like the Cold War all over again."

Mark those words. After some years of cooperation, and disarray in the East, tensions are increasing again. The US seems to have alienated once more many parts of the world, and Russia appears newly emboldened. Scary times, though I think every nuclear power is smart enough to keep its ICBMs in the silos, for now and the near future.

Strained Washington-Moscow relations are certainly not helping to calm the rest of the world. North Korea is still a wannabe threat, while China is something of a wild card who needs continued international trade but has aspirations of being the dominant superpower. All of this lingers in the back of my mind, with the weak dollar worrying more, at least for now.

Aggressive attitude receives aggressive response

[spfoo]

Installing military equipment next to another country's border is an aggressive action - in this case the US is acting aggressively. After all - what would we think if China would start installing missile defense sysstems in Mexico, Cuba and Canada?

I bought it

[steveoc]

I just had a quick look at the world map, and yes, it seems perfectly obvious to me that the Evil(tm) Iranian Empire is poised to launch a surprise human wave attack on Poland any day now.

It is essential that in the name of Freedom(tm), we must draw a line in the sand and defend the sovereignty of Poland, just like previous generations did in 1939.

Putting missiles in Eastern Europe makes perfect sense ....

Re:Finland is hardly typical EU country

[Anonymous Coward]

If I may interject, allow me to suggest that Finland is not a typical EU country, and that attitudes in your country are not common to other EU countries. Finland is a relatively homogenous country, with memories of the "Winter War" and WWII fighting against the USSR, and a decent economy. Other EU countries have large populations of immigrants (will they want to fight?), moribund economies, and their memories often hinder military expansion. Thinking of "EU countries' attitude towards the military", I can't help but think of the Danish politician who suggested replacing his country's armed forces which speakers shouting "we surrender". Also, I'd point out the Russia has much finer grained ways to squeeze Europe regarding energy, than to simply cut off energy supply.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Magada]

"First of all it's Central Europe, the very geographic center of Europe is just outside Ledec in the Czech Republic"
That makes you special how?

"I do not seek any sort of revenge against russians"
The tone of your previous post and the fact that it expresses your support for a policy which is overtly aggressive towards Russia would seem to imply otherwise.

"would love to see russia transformed into a democratic and prosperous modern European country"
So would I. Keep dreaming, something may come out of it in the end.

"And yes, I do feel a lot better being a potential target for russian nukes then I would have felt during the cold war when there were soviet tanks on the streets here."
No comments.

This could go two ways...

[Torqsis]

First question: Why do we need a missile defence system in north eastern Europe anyway unless there is something unknown to the general public? Second: Ok we put a missile defence system in... SO WHAT? Russia, what do you have to worry about. Third (ok three ways) Ok so you are targeting our defence system... SO WHAT? Two politicians with big heads and probably small... well you know.

Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8?

[Magada]

"To which you gladly participate in now. Apparently, threatening an entire continent is NOT an escalation, but kicking someone out of the G8 is."
The anti-missile missile bases are a military threat to Russia. It was met with an equal and opposite reaction. Now, the US has three options:
1. escalate (push for the exclusion of russia from G8, announce future deployment of IRBM's in Poland, whatever)
2. stand down (withdraw the missiles, obviously)
3. Stop.
Only option 2 brings us (as in, the world) back to the same tension level as before the deployment was announced.

"Plus, how stupid are you--do you honestly believe a nuclear aka multiple warhead FUSION bombs is going to have a limited impact over a military target?"
Never said that, or anything of the kind. Straw man.

"if we don't put up a defense shield there, we lose the progress those countries have made"
How so?

"Frankly speaking, the Czechs and Polish want us there, because it was Russia and THEIR DIRECT ACTIONS IN THE RECENT PAST where they were abused."
What actions? What remains, if that is true, of US claims that the missiles are there to protect EU and CONUS from Iranian and North Korean launches? You are contradicting yourself.

"Can you name a single Islamic country that has done this from within in the modern age?"
Turkey, Egipt, Palestine, Lybia, Syria... shall I go on?

"Which led to starvation, a DMZ, a nuclear weapons program gone bad...umm, yeah."
The DMZ is there ever since the Korean war. This sentence of yours pretty much shows how much you know about NK.

"You think the US is putting a roadblock to China invading NK? Are you mad?"
There is even a treaty provision (afaicr) saying that Chinese troops crossing into NK is a big no-no.

"using some stupid NK v. UK conflict."
huh? when did the UK come into play?

"The real threats are Iran and NK. "
You are restating my claims as if they somehow validate yours.

To sum this up: you are ignorant, abusive, narrow-minded and yet... not much of a troll. You failed at being the dregs of the Internet. I should go hide under a rock if I were you.

You are wrong

[dharbee]

"On April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that was sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry succeeded in routing the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair, after the slain U.S. officer who was in command. A few survivors escaped and returned to Fort Brown."

Before this, the only "aggression" was political maneuvering, and claiming it was The US who instigated it is factually incorrect and revisionist. Both sides engaged in said maneuvering, with no real claim of being "right" available to either.

Then you have attacks and deaths, perpetrated by the Mexicans. If you're going to claim one side is the "aggressor" when it was the other side who attacked them, you need an entirely new definition of "aggressor".

But happily, that's not necessary as you're just wrong.

I get it, you're just factually incorrect

[dharbee]

"I'm talking about licensing/buying/ordering software and hardware components and patents from companies which HQ and origin is not American."

Then you're a bigger imbecile than you appear. This DOES NOT happen in any significant quantity. I understand now why you were wrong.

Based on your post and 2 days of consideration, I have verified to 100% certainty that you're too stupid to discuss this subject.