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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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*
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.
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?
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?;)
but I'm not sure what legal recourse they would have.
It's been awhile since I've been to a MLB game but I would suspect that the back of your ticket has a blanket "We can kick you out for any reason we want" clause on it.
I'm not sure what legal recourse you would have if they asked you to leave.
If it's on the airwaves, it's public property. That doesn't mean that you can redistribute the material (that's where copyright law kicks in), but the airwaves are a single instance of a free distribution to all.
I watch the Mets. They broadcast on their own cable channel. It doesn't come in over the (public) airwaves. Does this still apply?
If the full-time professional army was allowed to fight like their enemies in Iraq do, then the situation there would be different.
If we were actually fighting a War of Conquest, as people seem to insist that we are, then the situation would be different. We aren't fighting a War of Conquest though. We are fighting some sort of wet-dream nation-building exercise created by the Neo-Cons that assumed we'd be welcomed as liberators and only planned on being there for six months or so after the war. We are fighting Dubya's war because he had to one-up his Dad and go to Baghdad.
Irregular/guerrilla warfare only works if you assume that the occupying power has to follow certain conventions and rules of war that you (as the guerrilla) don't. If the occupying power is free from any political constraints then the guerrillas are screwed. Guerrilla warfare never worked against Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.
It also never really worked against the early Romans. They were only too happy to slaughter entire villages. Kill every male of military age and sell the women and children into slavery. Yeah, it's not pretty, but by the rules of the day it worked quite well. Lay down your arms and you can join the empire, resist us and we will crush you utterly and enslave any survivors.
People who accuse the United States of trying to "conquer" Iraq or Afghanistan don't know what true conquest is.
The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines
Sure about that? New York State imposes a self-reported "Sales & Use" tax on our income tax returns. We are supposed to report any purchases of taxable items made out of state or over the internet where NYS Sales Tax wasn't paid.
Granted, I just put "$0" down each year, but still.... it's there.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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???
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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*
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.
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?
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? ;)
but I'm not sure what legal recourse they would have.
It's been awhile since I've been to a MLB game but I would suspect that the back of your ticket has a blanket "We can kick you out for any reason we want" clause on it.
I'm not sure what legal recourse you would have if they asked you to leave.
If it's on the airwaves, it's public property. That doesn't mean that you can redistribute the material (that's where copyright law kicks in), but the airwaves are a single instance of a free distribution to all.
I watch the Mets. They broadcast on their own cable channel. It doesn't come in over the (public) airwaves. Does this still apply?
You could choose one without a pile of patches to the kernel
It's called Slackware. Works pretty well for me.
If the full-time professional army was allowed to fight like their enemies in Iraq do, then the situation there would be different.
If we were actually fighting a War of Conquest, as people seem to insist that we are, then the situation would be different. We aren't fighting a War of Conquest though. We are fighting some sort of wet-dream nation-building exercise created by the Neo-Cons that assumed we'd be welcomed as liberators and only planned on being there for six months or so after the war. We are fighting Dubya's war because he had to one-up his Dad and go to Baghdad.
Irregular/guerrilla warfare only works if you assume that the occupying power has to follow certain conventions and rules of war that you (as the guerrilla) don't. If the occupying power is free from any political constraints then the guerrillas are screwed. Guerrilla warfare never worked against Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.
It also never really worked against the early Romans. They were only too happy to slaughter entire villages. Kill every male of military age and sell the women and children into slavery. Yeah, it's not pretty, but by the rules of the day it worked quite well. Lay down your arms and you can join the empire, resist us and we will crush you utterly and enslave any survivors.
People who accuse the United States of trying to "conquer" Iraq or Afghanistan don't know what true conquest is.
The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines
Sure about that? New York State imposes a self-reported "Sales & Use" tax on our income tax returns. We are supposed to report any purchases of taxable items made out of state or over the internet where NYS Sales Tax wasn't paid.
Granted, I just put "$0" down each year, but still.... it's there.