backtop


Print 209 comment(s) - last by roykahn.. on Feb 15 at 9:50 PM

The two nations are still discussing missile defense systems, though it's unsure when a resolution can be reached

A Russian military officer recently said the country is concerned that the proposed U.S. missile defense plans are now a threat to Russia, leading to a slowdown in arms control talks between the two nations.

"We view it very negatively, because it could weaken our missile forces," said Gen. Nikolai Makarov, Russian senior officer, during an interview.  "The development of missile defense is aimed against the Russian Federation."

The U.S. government has denied all reports of potential friction between the U.S. and Russia, with President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev declining to speak of missile defense plans.

"I think the notion that somehow this is in any way an impediment to what's going on with START is -- is simply -- it's simply not true," said White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs during a recent press conference.  "It certainly wasn't what President Medvedev told President Obama."

The START nuclear arms reduction pact, a Cold War era agreement between the United States and former Soviet Union, expired in December with the two countries now trying to figure out how to move forward.  President Obama won't use Poland and the Czech Republic as hosts for missile shield locations, but will instead use missile interceptors over land and sea.

Obama plans to have a missile defense system in place that is able to intercept warheads fired from North Korea, Iran and other "rogue states," not Russia.  Until both sides are able to reach an official agreement regarding the new missile shield, tensions could remain high.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Like a bully in a bar...
By dgingeri on 2/10/2010 7:50:19 AM , Rating: 5
These guys are like a bully in a bar. They view anything they can as a threat just so they have an excuse to threaten someone. This is the very reason the cold war went on so long, and why it ended the way it did.

They are just trying to show their people a reason to spend more on the military. If the Russian people actually fall for this garbage, they deserve what they get.




RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Mithan on 2/10/2010 7:59:28 AM , Rating: 5
Oh give me a break, the United States does the same damn thing these days. Somebody doesn't do something you like and before you know it, you have idiots in the US calling for invasions and other things.

Russia and the US need each other, or their defense industries would collapse.

Fear fear fear.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By FireSnake on 2/10/2010 8:14:11 AM , Rating: 2
Too bad I posted so soon and I am unable to rate you up!

Couldn't of agree more!


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By WinstonSmith on 2/10/2010 10:15:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, the other side is always ten feet tall. That's what helped keep the Cold War and its military industrial complex taxpayer cash gravy train going on both sides. Now, about the only manufactured good that either side has left for export are things that kill people in large numbers.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Jaybus on 2/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By dgingeri on 2/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By BansheeX on 2/10/2010 9:03:09 PM , Rating: 5
Terrorism is a tactic by individuals on a global scale. The enemy is not as clearly defined as a nation. If you want to go after the perpetrators of a specific crime, fine. But that once again has mutated into trying to be the world police. Your rambo mentality only strengthens anti-American propaganda, leaves our borders porous, makes it easier to kill Americans, and balloons our debt to foreign financiers. The best reaction to 9/11 was air marshals and locked cockpits, not invading Iraq and Afghanistan with Bush calling it our "crusade". They don't even have to bother trying to get a visa anymore, they can just plant IEDs on our supply routes. Good luck perma-policing fanatical opium-dependent third world countries until the end of time. If your son or daughter was told to sacrifice themselves for a country other than this one in some paranoid preemptive strategy that assumes anyone who isn't annexed is going to attack us at any moment, you'd probably react more sensibly to an attack made possible by a laundry list of domestic failures.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By ekv on 2/11/2010 3:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Terrorism is a tactic used by groups on a global scale. The enemy is not as clearly defined as an "individual". If you want to go after the perpetrators of a specific terrorist act, then you have your work cut out for you. Using the correct terminology helps in keeping you from going back to the "world police" mind-set. For example, not being able to call this a "war on terrorism". [But we are spending billions for the, get this, war on obesity].

As you can see I'm not so concerned about anti-American propaganda. The thing that leaves our borders porous is mind-set. Historically speaking, the USA has had a rather can-do mind-set. The technology of porous borders can be solved. Say what you will, but it CAN be done (to a high percentage of success).

Ballooning "our debt to foreign financiers"? Not sure what you're referring to here. The USA's national debt is insane. This is a leadership problem, mainly Congress, though elsewhere too.

Instead of reacting, how about showing some leadership. Have you heard that Afghanistan has tremendous oil reserves? That country could make a fortune if they went from an opium economy (as you say) to an oil economy. Think about it. What is stopping them from being an economic powerhouse?

Think man. Think. Didn't they teach you nothing in school?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By roykahn on 2/10/2010 10:13:07 PM , Rating: 5
dgingeri, you are like most Americans. Blissfully unaware of the horrors that are committed by humans around the world. You are given a very controlled perspective of world violence by your media. You have no idea about the conflicts between countries or their histories.

You think that America leaves other countries alone if they are not attacked. That is a ridiculously naive belief. Do some proper study of international affairs and you will see how powerful countries (not just America) seek to control and weaken other countries for their own benefit. You will also learn how attackers can justify their attacks. Just like terrorists try to justify what they do, America tries to justify what it does. The main difference is the scale of operation.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Blessedman on 2/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By roykahn on 2/11/2010 2:30:55 AM , Rating: 1
Wrong. Sorry, but you appear rather delusional. What matters to terrorists, or more accurately, terrorist leaders, is communication and money. Religion is mostly a facade.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By roykahn on 2/10/2010 10:00:01 PM , Rating: 5
You're mostly correct, Mithan. However, the former USSR was crippled economically when it was trying to play the arms race with the USA.

Both have used their military to control and intimidate foreign countries and have indirectly fought each other via other countries. This is just another small event in many such negotiations between countries. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

The USA will never reduce military spending, so expect more hostility from the rest of the world. This site is dominated by American readers, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the comments are critical of Russia while ignoring the problems that their own country causes. This is nothing new and nothing surprising. It's just an indication of the fantastic job that the government and media have done to manufacture public consent through lies, omission, and deception.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Shining Arcanine on 2/11/2010 5:09:17 AM , Rating: 2
If you cannot get another country to do something you want by asking, then you can either go to war or ignore it. You cannot do anything else.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By roykahn on 2/12/2010 4:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you cannot get another country to do something you want by asking, then you can either go to war or ignore it. You cannot do anything else.


Wow. You're kidding, right? I hope you don't work in foreign affairs.

There's all sorts of sneaky ways that countries pressure other countries into doing what they want and punishing them when they don't. Here's some examples for you: economic pressure, sanctions, political pressure, diplomatic pressure, funding terrorism.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By FireSnake on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By michal1980 on 2/10/2010 8:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
we are incompent in our security?

since 9-11 who's been hit with more terror attacts? the US or Europe?

Heck you guys couldn't even beat the germans in WW2, had to cry to the US to save your butts.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Fitzmogwai on 2/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Desslok on 2/10/2010 9:32:58 AM , Rating: 4
People who forget history are doomed to repeat it.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/10/2010 10:28:28 AM , Rating: 5
and they get marked down too... :)

I wish more people would remember their history. Then they would understand that the USA did not want to be involved in World War II. We were dragged into and then become a major factor in ending it. Yes, other countries where needed and helped, but we were the fresh blood that finished the job.
For that reason after the war we became the "New Super Power", which means we became the country that polices other countries when they do not play fair with each other. We did not want the job, it's an expensive job(humans and money), it's not a popular job, your expected help others right away, listen to side line critics and not gripe about the complaints. So if your country can do a better job at it then get off you butts and start doing the job... I promise, we will let you do it.... For those countries and people who understand this a support us where and when they can... Thank you.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 11:17:32 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, other countries where needed and helped, but we were the fresh blood that finished the job."

I'd say by 1944 the Soviets were quite capable of finishing the job, but I have no doubt the map of Europe would have looked quite different if they had.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/10/2010 11:24:02 AM , Rating: 4
Patton would have agreed with you... That is way he wanted to keep pushing into Russia. He saw them as a future problem that he could just take care of right now.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By MrBlastman on 2/10/2010 11:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
It is a shame how Patton was so unappreciated while he was serving in WW2. The man was built for War and he was a million times more competent than MacArthur ever was (even IF they were in completely different theaters). If Stalin could have been stopped then, we might not even be sitting here right now arguing about this "Missile Defense System."


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
That reminds me, I haven't seen the movie in a few months. Getting about time to watch it again.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:32:20 AM , Rating: 1
The only reason the Soviets even survived until 1944 is because of US intervention. Forget what we did to draw off German forces, had the US not prevented Japan from attacking Russia's exposed Eastern flank, the Soviets would have fallen in weeks.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Ratinator on 2/10/2010 1:30:51 PM , Rating: 1
How short sighted. Without the Russians holding the Eastern front, the whole Western front would have collapsed. Some of you are so self-rightous you fail to see that it was only with the combined effort of all the Allies that that war was won.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
How about you read a post (and actually understand it) before you reply to it? I never said the US could have defeated the entire Axis powers single-handedly. I was responding to the incorrect assertion that the Soviets could have done so.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Ratinator on 2/10/2010 1:43:10 PM , Rating: 1
I swear that reply was not meant to go to you. I was positive I clicked on a different post. It was meant to go to michal1980.

I completely agree with what you had to say.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
My apologies then! I shot a little too fast from the hip on that one :)


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 1:46:44 PM , Rating: 1
Now I know for sure you know nothing about history.
Draw off German forces? That didn't happen in any significant way until 1944! You may have had a (small) case had you said we helped them with the lend lease program, but this is just nonsense.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:51:47 PM , Rating: 4
"Draw off German forces? That didn't happen in any significant way until 1944! "

Err, did you forget the entire North African campaign?

In any case, as I already said, the primary assistance the US gave the Soviets was NOT in drawing off German forces or the lend-lease program, but in keeping the USSR from fighting a two-front war, by engaging Japan in the Pacific.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By karielash on 2/11/2010 3:48:14 AM , Rating: 1
The Japanese invaded the soviet union twice, the first time it was 1937 and the last time it was 1940/1941. The Japanese were beaten back with heavy losses both times due to combined forces of Russian tanks, artillery and infantry commanded by General Georgi Zhukov.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/11/2010 10:44:25 AM , Rating: 3
"The Japanese invaded the soviet union twice, the first time it was 1937..."

I see your grasp of Japanese history is as weak as your Iranian. Japan invaded Russia right after the revolution in 1914, and occupied large swathes of land for many years:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.ph...

Before that, of course, was the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-05:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

There were also some earlier encroachments at the beginning of the Meiji Period, but those were very minor.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By karielash on 2/11/2010 3:58:49 AM , Rating: 2

Oops... forgot the second paragraph

The most important consequence, though, was that the Japanese gave up all thoughts of implementing their "Strike North" policy and signed a Japanese/Soviet Union neutrality pact, this almost certainly led to the invasion of Dutch and British colonies to secure essential supplies and of course Pearl Harbour. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Ratinator on 2/10/2010 1:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
You forget the Americans were heavily involved in operations throughout Northern Africa. Imagine if Rommel didn't have to deal with that resistance and was sent to the Russian front instead. Africa was for the most over and done with until the Americans landed in force there to help the other Allies.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By eddieroolz on 2/10/2010 2:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like a moment to correct that statement, sir.

First off: I'm not am American. However I do recognize that the US has done wonders for the (then-failing) WWII war effort.

However, you assertion that Japan did not attack USSR was due to the US is completely invalid. Let me explain why.

The reason why Empire of Japan did not attack USSR, one of their premier threats at the time, was due to the signing of Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Japanese_Treat...

This treaty stipulated that both nations not engage in armed conflict with an option to renew it once it expired. This freed up Japanese resources in the north, and gave the Soviets a free hand to concentrate defences in the west.

The role US played in this is absolutely zero. In fact, even when the Japanese occupied the Aleutians, they never made any move to occupy Kamchatka. It was because of the Pact.

Conversely, it has been speculated that the main reason for Japanese surrender on August 15 is because of the Soviet threat, and that the American atomic bombs played very little role. Days before, they declared war on Japan and moved to take Manchukuo, Sakhalin and the Kurils. The Japanese were paranoid of Communists, but weren't so scared of the pending American invasion.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 3:32:20 PM , Rating: 1
"However, you assertion that Japan did not attack USSR was due to the US is completely invalid. Let me explain why."

Your explanation is a good attempt, but ultimately it fails. The reason Japan signed the treaty in the first place was due to the US threat.

Even your own link points out that within a few months of signing the pact, Japan considered denouncing it but "made the crucial decision to keep it". Now, ask yourself-- why was that decision crucial? And, without the US Juggernaut looming in the Pacific, would Japan have ignored its ally Germany, and failed to attack Russia?

You correctly understand that, when the pact no longer suited the Soviets, they immediately abrogated it. Japan was no different. They kept it because it was in their best intersts to do so...interests that existed only because of US involvement.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 4:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
"Well if this didn't happen and that didn't happen... You can't use that as evidence"

I don't know why I'm still surprised to find you so obtuse. Did Japan not sign the Tripartite Pact along with Germany and Italy? Did they not agree to help establish a new world order? Did they not explicitly and repeatedly state their intention to control the entire Far East?

Not even a child could fail to understand that, without being fought to a standstill by the US, Japan would have come to the aid of its Allies, and eventually attacked Russia's exposed Eastern flanks.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Harinezumi on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 7:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
"Dude, seriously, read your history. Try Googling the Battle of Khalkhin Gol."

Actually, I'm very familiar with it; my wife's grandfather lost a leg at Lake Khasan. However, these battles prove my point, not yours.. They show quite clearly that Japan desired territory claimed by Russia. (Japan had actually occupied large swathes of Russian terrority earlier, during the Russian civil war)

While it's true Japan certainly had no interest in fighting a Russia that had troops and material to defend itself, a Russia fighting for its life against Germany is a different matter entirely. Japanese historical documents show quite clearly that, when Germany attacked the USSR, Japan considered unilateral abrogation of its neutrality pact. Japan, however, didn't want a two-front war either, and with the situation with the US deteriorating rapidly, it made the wise decision to focus first on Southeast Asia for the present.

Had the US not intervened, the "SE Asian Quagmire" would have been quickly consolidated, and Japan would have returned to its earlier goals of dominating Sahkalin, Kamchatka, and much of Eastern Siberia.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 8:43:30 PM , Rating: 1
"They show quite clearly that Japan desired territory claimed by Russia."

Before the war.

"Had the US not intervened, the "SE Asian Quagmire" would have been quickly consolidated, and Japan would have returned to its earlier goals of dominating Sahkalin, Kamchatka, and much of Eastern Siberia."

So the loss of Kamchatka would have meant the entire Soviet Union would have crumbled "in weeks"?
You are so full of yourself it's unbelievable.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By TheEinstein on 2/10/2010 7:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually how about someone who has studied the war answering in here?

The Americans supplied Russia with the majority of the best equipment, especially aircraft, tanks, and munitions that Russia had available for the early parts of the war.

This supply kept Russia alive. At the same time the United States held Japan in a dance in the Oceans, Rushed further aid to England, and prepared an offensive Punch at the same time.

The Russians ultimately decided against our tanks being so helpful (Yeah we sucked at making tanks back then, but we sure made a lot of them!!!!) compared to their own, but ultimately without our assistance they would have fallen.

Mid-War we were perfect for holding off the entire Japanese Empire pretty much ourselves, and we were still supplying Russia and England war materials, while fighting two separate major engagements. At that time Amphibious landings were considered 'extremely' hazardous, due in part to the major failure at what is now known as Anzac Beach. Even in Africa, where resistance faltered and ended fast, from the French forces (these supposed to be loyal to occupied France), the Germans were initially in better positions, better equipped, had a much stronger air-force, and had the reputed best General of their forces there.

Russia on the other hand faced off against 2nd tier generals, and against soldiers who were 'being disciplined' since the Russian front was seen as a suicide gesture.

The Americans fought against Hitlers #1 and #2 fighters in The African and Sicily campaigns. Yes there were a lot of Italians in the conflict of Africa, but the American forces were less than well equipped at that time as well. Italy came a bit later, but was as well a hard fought battle, with chosen bottlenecks.

The Russian front had few potential bottlenecks that could not be gotten around without a huge detour. This allowed over-runs to happen frequently.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By karielash on 2/11/2010 5:05:26 AM , Rating: 1

I am not sure what is funnier, the crap you are spouting or the fact that you probably believe what you are saying...

the Russians faced second tier generals???? You and porkpie should get married.. you deserve each other...

start naming some of those Second tier generals, Paulus maybe or Manstien? Jodl? Guderian? Sepp? Model?, the Germans fielded some of their best generals on the Russian front, they were not just good they were some of the best in the world and led what was probably one of the most efficient war machines.

One thing I can tell... your claim to have 'studied' the war is complete and total bullshit.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By karielash on 2/11/2010 4:24:59 AM , Rating: 1
I posted this earlier, but you still spout crap so I will post it again... America had nothing to do with the non-invasion of Russia by the Japanese... you are seriously a space cadet... so...with no more prevarication... on to the real 'facts' :)

The Japanese invaded the soviet union twice, the first time it was 1937 and the last time it was 1940/1941. The Japanese were beaten back with heavy losses both times due to combined forces of russian tanks, artillery and infantry by General Georgi Zhukov.

The most important consequence, though, was that the Japanese gave up all thoughts of implementing their "Strike North" policy and signed a Japanese/Soviet Union neutrality pact, this almost certainly led to the invasion of Dutch and British colonies to secure essential supplies and of course Pearl Harbour. Your argument is fundamentally flawed


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/11/2010 10:52:47 AM , Rating: 2
"The Japanese invaded the soviet union twice, the first time it was 1937 "

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? How many times are you going to repost this nonsense? See my reply above for the real facts on Japanese-Russian conflicts, which dates back many decades earlier. Furthermore, Japan never invaded the USSR in 1941; I think you're confusing the dates on the 1939 Border War.

Still further, your post ignores the fact that Japan's defeat in '39 predates Germany's declaration of war on Russia (remember Germany...Japan's primary ally in WW2, the ones they signed the Tripartite Pact with).

Japanese historical documents confirm that Japan seriously ocnsidering abrogating their neutrality with Russia to support the German offensive. Instead, their fear of becoming embroiled in a two-front war led them to first concentrate on consolidating their gains in SE Asia...gains the US rapidly took from them.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By karielash on 2/12/2010 5:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
Retard Troll.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Danish1 on 2/11/2010 3:35:11 AM , Rating: 1
Except Japan could have attacked USSR anytime prior to Pearl Harbor?

You can't just ignore the fact that the US didn't want to join the war, it was dragged into it, and I find it highly unlikely that a japanese attack on the communists would have sparked a direct US intervention when the Nazis overruning most of the European democracies didn't.

Nope, what kept the anti-Axis powers afloat was Lend Lease and if you don't believe this you may want to read up on just how much war machinery and raw materials the US/allies shipped to the USSR.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Iaiken on 2/10/2010 10:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
Citing clichéd adages doesn't make you wise.

You seem to have forgot that WW2 was simply an extension of WW1 because of the punitive measures taken by Britain and France. The only person who seemed to understand the gravity of what they wanted was US President Woodrow Wilson and only because he wanted for the US to continue trading with Germany. Hitler was only able to rise to power because he capitalized on the xenophobic sentiment spreading throughout Germany.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:04:58 AM , Rating: 5
Citing cliched adages about the cause of WW2 doesn't make you wise, either. Hitler was only able to rebuild Germany's war machine and threaten the world because European leaders mistakenly thought appeasement was a better solution than intervention. You don't build a multi million-man army and tens of thousands of tanks in secret.

And still today, much of Europe still thinks appeasement is a successful policy. I guess that old adage about not learning from history isn't as out of place as you thought, eh?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Harinezumi on 2/10/2010 6:52:34 PM , Rating: 3
This is the American misconception about WW2 that drives me up the wall the most. European leaders did not appease Germany because they thought Hitler was such a swell guy. They appeased it because by the time Hitler started making overt provocations and being seen as a credible threat, they were in no position to do anything about it.

During the early 30's everyone was too busy finger-pointing over the Great Depression. The British relations with France soured pretty quickly after WW1, the Brits having quite a bit of sympathy for the Germans, who were being crushed under the weight of French-imposed WW1 reparations. The fact that France undercut Britain's economy via monetary policy after the Brits went back to the gold standard didn't help things either. In the meantime nobody liked the US due to its insistence on repayments of WW1 debts and perceived culpability in the speculative bubble that crashed in '29.

During this time, Hitler turned Germany from Europe's basket case underdog to a well-oiled military machine. When its provocations got brazen enough to distract the rest of the Western European powers from going at each other's throats, they realized that if they were to confront Germany directly, they would be flattened. This evaluation was proven to be correct when, in 1939, they confronted Germany directly and got flattened.

So when Europe's leaders bent over for Hitler in 1937, they didn't do so out of some naive belief that the German problem would somehow go away. They did so because they had a gun to their head, and were hoping to buy time to reorganize and rearm. And who knows, maybe in the meantime Hitler would do something stupid, like provoke the US or attack the USSR.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 7:38:32 PM , Rating: 1
"European leaders...appeased because by the time Hitler started making overt provocations, they were in no position to do anything about it."

If you paid anything for your history education, I suggest you track down your teacher and demand a full refund. Chamberlain spent nearly three years appeasing Hitler, a period in which the Third Reich vastly expanded its war machine, along with its resources and territorial borders.

Now riddle me this, Robin...If Britain in the spring of 1937 was too weak to face down Hitler, how did they manage in the fall of 1939 to declare war against a much more powerful Germany and eventually win? Britain was not "buying time" to build its own war machine. Chamberlain was hoping to avert war entirely, by placating a hostile nation. There is no room to dispute this.

Yes, France "got flattened", as you say. But had France's leadership been wiser, and acted say, in 1935 when Hitler originally violated the treaty of Versailles, they would have never been occupied in the first place. But France then (as much of Europe is now) was laboring under the pudding-headed belief that "anything was preferable to war".

Yes, Hitler was not appeased because France and Germany thought "he was a good guy". Both nations thought they were avoiding war, and that, if they just caved in a little, that Germany would be satisfied. They were, of course, dead wrong.

Learn from history.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By karielash on 2/11/2010 4:28:57 AM , Rating: 1
You are stupid.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By karielash on 2/11/2010 4:52:07 AM , Rating: 1
British Defence spending as a proportion of GDP rose from 2.7% in 1935 to 7.7% in 1939, as a proportion of total Government spending the increase went from 13% in 1935 to 32% in 1939, creation of jobs per annum specifically in the arms industry went from 445,000 in 1935 to 1.5 Million in 1939, Britain (and other European countries) were trying to rebuild their military like crazy (and perhaps gives a fair warning to modern day leaders about what happens when you neglect your military). If Britain could have avoided war in 1939 it would have, it was still in no condition to fight one.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By JediJeb on 2/11/2010 2:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds pretty accurate to me. To bad it seems most of the Western World is falling into this mindset again. Just as we have people in the US government now that believe Iran and other terror threats will just go away if we talk nicely to them. Just like Hitler, the fanatics of today believe that they are destined to rule the world, or to remake the world to their standards of beliefs. You can not reason with an unreasonable person.

Like going up to the bully in the bar and saying " Please do not hurt me", it only emboldens the bully because they now take pleasure in defeating and even softer enemy, the very definition of a bully.

Appeasment only works on someone who is fighting for their own defense. Someone taking back what was taken from them can be appeased by giving that something back. Someone fighting because they want power or wealth will never be appeased until they have conquered everything they can, and even then they will desire more even if it doesn't exist.

The other reason Western Europe fell so easily to Hitler was because after WW1, the War to End All Wars, they thought they could now live in peace and harmony with everyone. They reduced their military, disarmed their citizens and focused on things other than being vigilant against possible threats. The mindset of " It will never happen again" or " It can never happen here" are things that will lead to the downfall of even great and powerful nations. I am afraid that if America or even Europe continues down the road they have been following then we will never learn from history and only again have to repeat it. I watch the news and thers is a story about a road side bomb in Iraq, and people watching with me always say " That could never happen here". That attitude frightens me because it is what leads to it actually happening here.

I would ask the leaders in the US that have the opinion that if we just sat down and talked to Iran and North Korea that they would stop their aggresive activities, if you believe that everyone can be so reasonable, why do you lock your doors at night?

It pays to look at all of history, not just the highlights the winners want to showcase.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:22:28 AM , Rating: 4
There's a vast difference between offensive missiles designed to kill innocent civilians, and defensive missiles designed to save them.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:38:13 AM , Rating: 1
"Everyone considers their missiles to be defensive"

A ballistic missile designed to destroy cities is not defensive. An anti-ballistic missile that can do nothing but destroy offensive missiles is defensive, plain and simple.

You can play semantic games all you want, but there's a clear difference.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 4:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
"They don't care whether they are offensive or defensive as long as it weakens them in some way. Something that you're unable to grasp"

Actually, I 'grasped' (and elucidated as much) in my very first post. Russia doesn't care that they are defensive weapons. They only care that they weaken Russia's ability to rain nuclear fire down on whomever, whenever.

Glad to see you realize that.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 8:50:52 PM , Rating: 1
Then you agree that all your whining that these missiles are "defensive" is irrelevant to the problem at hand.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 10:46:34 PM , Rating: 1
English really isn't that difficult a language, Maven. What I said was the fact that these missiles are defense is irrelevant to Russia.

Their defensive nature is, however, extremely relevant to the morality and and the wisdom of our attempts to deploy them.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 10:37:59 AM , Rating: 3
"World War 2 took place over sixty years ago. What possible relevance does it have to the current situation being discussed?"

Alright, how about we discuss NATO then which European nations are still demanding the US fund and staff? That's going on to this day. Seen NATO run any missions on US soil lately? It's primary purpose was to solve European problems for a Europe that couldn't do it on it's own.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Iaiken on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 10:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
"With the exception of the USSR, Germany, France & Britain have been both the manpower and the equipment to intervene in any of the European conflicts over the last 40 years"

a) The USSR was the primary reason for NATO's formation...because Europe wanted to US to stop Soviet tanks from rolling across their borders.

b) Germany, France, and Britain have not had "the manpower and equipment to intervene" in any of the European conflicts. Why else has US manpower and equipment been the primary (and occassionally the sole) component of EVERY NATO and UN peace-keeping mission?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Iaiken on 2/10/2010 11:34:21 AM , Rating: 1
A) Irrelevant, the US wanted to stop Soviet tanks from rolling across Europe just as bad as it would have completely tipped the power scales.

B) I think you're getting a big head on that one:

UNPROFOR (Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina)- French & Dutch airmen flew CAP along side US pilots. Canadian, German, Dutch and Russian troops made up the majority of the ground force in the contested areas.

IFOR (Successor to UNPROFOR) - The French-lead NATO contingent that took over the implementation of peace accords in the region. Participating NATO members are: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

SFOR (Successor to IFOR) - The US-Lead NATO contingent that has been tasked with the stabilization of the region and upholding of the Dayton Agreement. Of the 18,000 troops, only ~3,000 are US Soldiers while Canada (~3500), France (~3000), UK (~2800) have made similar contributions and remaining NATO/non-NATO members filling in the rest.

While these are only specific examples, you'll find that almost all UN/NATO missions were of similar consistency to the above.

While I would like to think that you were simply ignorant of the above, you too often lie to support your assertions for anyone to ever trust anything you write.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Danish1 on 2/11/2010 3:55:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's not irrelevant. Europe asked (begged, is a more accurate term) the US to protect them from Soviet forces. The US didn't ask Europe...and the mere fact we felt it a good idea to acceede to their request changes nothing.


That is probably the dumbest shit I've ever read on this board.

The US wanted a strong NATO to deny USSR influence as much as Western Europe did and you're an ignorant fool if you think otherwise.

NATO worked out well for all of us but spare me your glorifying propagande bullshit.

Next you're going to claim the US fought the Vietnam war for the Vietnamese people ?

Guys like you are the US counterparts to the Russians claiming they singlehandedly won WW2, historical facts mean nothing to you, toothing your own nationalistic horn with lies and half truths is all that matters.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Danish1 on 2/12/2010 2:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not anti american, in fact I'm very pro american.

I am, however, anti nationalistic.

and again you're a fool if you think US politicans don't act out of self interest, which happens to be;

#1 What's best for their chances of being re-elected
#2 What's best for the USA.

but certainly not what's best for Europe or the world.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By qdemn7 on 2/10/2010 2:25:08 PM , Rating: 1
Sometimes I think the very best thing that could have happened to world affairs in the 20th Century, would have been for Imperial Germany to win World War One in about 4 months.

No Treaty of Versailles as we know it, so maybe Hitler would hopefully been a nobody.

The Germans might have shot Lenin, Stalin and all the rest of the Bolsheviks. No Communists and no USSR.

The US would have stayed out of European affairs then, and hopefully later. Europe could have been left to its own devices and we could our nose where it belongs which is on the Western side of the Atlantic ocean.

And Britain, France (assuming it still exists) could direct all their complaints to the Kaiser.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By inperfectdarkness on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By FireSnake on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By MrBlastman on 2/10/2010 11:10:48 AM , Rating: 1
You said:

quote:
you are incompetent of taking care of your own security, so you are even more incompetent of holding info of MY transactions.


I find a lot of humor in this, as you Europeans are the ones that are unable to keep the Muslim population from overrunning your countries--all while caving into their radical demands and beliefs.

At some point, you all will cry wolf and expect us to bail you out again. You should look at the missile defense shield as a gift, a free gift that despite the namecalling and mud you have thrown on us, we still are generously providing.

We can't hurt Russia with this shield. On the contrary, the Russian leadership is like the kid who thinks it is okay to make fun of other kids and joke about them but, when the tables are turned and a joke is made about them they start crying and shouting no fair. It is really humorous to hear what they say.

quote:
Don't bother, there is no point of telling this to a person, who is in state to say: "Heck you guys couldn't even beat the germans in WW2, had to cry to the US to save your butts. ".


The fact is simple, without us, you wouldn't exist like you do now. Without our missile defense shield, I suppose you are free to roll the dice and see if you get nuked. Maybe, just maybe, we should listen to you, take your advice, take our armies, planes, ships, troops and rockets, pack up and go back to America, build a wall around our country and ignore the rest of the world.

Would you be happy then?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Ratinator on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
Your statement doesn't contradict his. Are you unable to see that...or are you secretly tossing out red herrings just to test the rest of us?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Ratinator on 2/10/2010 2:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
Touche


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Iaiken on 2/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By MrBlastman on 2/10/2010 2:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
Egypt...

Now there's a shining example of Islamic tolerance! It was only a week ago I saw in the news of a father/daughter muslim family that converted to Christianity and they are now being hunted by the muslim citizens there who are trying to kill them.

Tolerance. Yes, Egypt is a shining example.

quote:
It's amazing what decades of investing in the education of the next generation and the fostering of good will can accomplish.


I really see your point now after mentioning what I did above. That's sarcasm btw. :)

Education in the Islamic world is only granted to the men. Women in many of these countries are shunned from education and they are persecuted and meant to stay in the home, veiled and removed from society. Education is lacking, not thriving there.

In Saudi Arabia if an unmarried woman is seen in public with another man she can be thrown in prison and subject to the death penalty. That's real progress!

Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong and it is laced with sarcasm of its own--I'm not sure. :)

But, I agree with you partially on this:

quote:
One side annihilates the other


Tensions will not cease until this is accomplished as the Muslims are so intolerant of the rest of us, or, at least the radical Muslims. So, really, either they must be wiped out or segregated from the rest of society so they can live in their own little world. It has already been shown that integration is a serious problem.

Mix religion with the rule of law and you are bound to have problems. Mix religion with a countries government and you are doomed. They both need to be kept completely separate. The problem with the Koran is (and to be fair, Ishmael was a primordial thug, the equivalent of a modern day gang leader) it does not permit this. In order to be in strict compliance with the Koran, Sharia law must reign supreme.

Mohammed was a thug, a con artist and helped grow one of the largest gangs in our world's history. It is unfortunate that many fail to see this.

But, like gangs, you can't reason with them, nor can you try to integrate them peacefully. They will always revolve around conflict.

The Europeans however, so strong on security, have been gradually caving into muslim demands for years. That is the equivalent of paying a gang protection money.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Nfarce on 2/10/2010 10:42:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
i can pretty much guarantee that israel has better security than the USA--yet they get attack far more frequently.


Oh sure they do - and way better intelligence as well. But you have to keep in mind they are surrounded by those who want them destroyed. The US can't be attacked by HAMAS firing rockets over a border and into a city.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/10/2010 11:21:10 AM , Rating: 1
Israel has to have a better security... Not an option for them. Yes, we in the USA could learn a lot from their security and I have no doubt we do learn a lot from them or at least did as Obama is not popular with Israel. From 9/12/2001 till 12/24/2009 the USA security was successful at stopping any terrorist attack on continental US soil. The "Christmas bomber" was successful, his bomb failed him. He boarded, they took off, he pressed the button, but it did not work correctly. So, he successfully cared out every step of his plan and we (US security) fail to catch him before he pressed the button. So, do we need improvements? yes. However, if you compare the 2000's to the 1990's there was a major improvement.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By ClownPuncher on 2/10/2010 11:24:52 AM , Rating: 3
We failed to catch the Christmas bomber because he wasn't boarding a plane in the US.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By FireSnake on 2/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By MrBlastman on 2/10/2010 11:28:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nazi technology (and Nazi employees) took you to the moon.


So because they helped us get to the moon, we shouldn't have killed them and let them thrive?

Get a life. We didn't purposefully let them thrive to steal rocket technology from them. That has got to be the most absurd thing I've read on DT in a while.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Ratinator on 2/10/2010 1:27:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Heck you guys couldn't even beat the germans in WW2, had to cry to the US to save your butts.


The one thing that every person who makes that comment fails to realise is that you couldn't have beat them either on your own. It was the Allies as a group that beat off the Germans.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By shaidorsai on 2/10/2010 8:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
Really? We are incapable of taking care of our own security? After 911 I can't recall any other major or even minor terrorist strikes in the US mainland. While Europe on the other hand, with it's awesome security, has seen bombings on buses, trains and airliners virtually across the entire continent.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/northameric...


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By shaidorsai on 2/10/2010 9:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
You do own a map right ? Spain, Britain, Russia...last time I looked that pretty much crossed Europe. And those are the major attacks that occurred by the way....many many more attempts every year. Sadly Europe does not have a high a success rate as the US in stopping them...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,...


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By dgingeri on 2/10/2010 11:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
Did you notice that Spain withdrew from Afghanistan shortly after those train bombings took place? Talk about weak resolve.

Australia, Britian, and Japan know we'll stand by them hard if anything happened to them. After the bus bombings in London, our CIA helped them track down the supply chain and any remaining Al Queda sleeper cells. They haven't see another attack like it again, and they probably won't. Australians were hurt in that bombing in Bali, and we worked to make sure that wouldn't happen again even though it wasn't on Australian soil. (You wouldn't believe what the US CIA did to stop those guys, and you probably wouldn't hear unless you had certain security clearance.)

All the while, Russia, France, and Germany were raking in profits defying the arms trade ban with Iraq, likely charging triple to quadruple for guns and artillery shells. (Those shells are likely what the insurgents are using against our troops right now in IEDs.) That's why they didn't want us to invade. They didn't want to lose their extra income. Granted, Russia needs it because their country is in almost total poverty.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 3
"Did you notice that Spain withdrew from Afghanistan shortly after those train bombings took place? Talk about weak resolve."

Forget resolve...it's a sure-fire way to teach terrorists that blowing up innocent civilians is a succesful way to get what you want.

Because of this, for the next 50 years any time a radical group wants to force Spain's hand, they're going to dperforma a similar act.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/10/2010 11:22:30 AM , Rating: 1
"All the while, Russia, France, and Germany were raking in profits defying the arms trade ban with Iraq, likely charging triple to quadruple for guns and artillery shells. (Those shells are likely what the insurgents are using against our troops right now in IEDs.) That's why they didn't want us to invade. They didn't want to lose their extra income. Granted, Russia needs it because their country is in almost total poverty."

Arms sales (agreements), by Supplier, 2001-2008 (in billions of constant 2008 U.S. dollars)

Supplier: Total Sales in US Dollars (billions): Percent of total sales:

United States 154.882 41%
Russia 63.823 17%
France 31.247 8%
United Kingdom 26.914 7%
China 10.125 3%
Germany 16.261 4%
Italy 11.053 3%
Other European 40.291 11%
Others 22.849 6%

Source: Richard F. Grimmett, CRS Report for Congress; Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008 . September 4, 2009

Pretty hypocritical, isn't it?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:30:58 AM , Rating: 2
"Pretty hypocritical, isn't it? "

No. The US doesn't sell to certain nations, period. When Iraq began attacking its own citizens with chemical weapons, the US cut off arms sales. Germany, on the other hand, began selling them chemical weapons plants...and let's not forget Iraq's Osiraq reactor, sold to them by France which, had Israel not destroyed it, would have given them nuclear weapons in time for the Iran-Iraq war.

North Korea, Libya, the Taliban government of Afghanistan...Russian and China will sell to anyone with cash. Anyone, no matter how repressive. France and Germany are somewhat more restrained, but only somewhat.

Furthermore, your statistics themselves are misleading, as Russia and China both engage regularly in arms-for-resources swaps, deals which don't show up in arms sales figures..


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/10/2010 11:58:09 AM , Rating: 2
"North Korea, Libya, the Taliban government of Afghanistan...Russian and China will sell to anyone with cash. Anyone, no matter how repressive. France and Germany are somewhat more restrained, but only somewhat." [citation needed]

Even if it's true the U.S. is no better.

Excerpt from:

"Post Sept. 11 Arms Sales and Military Aid Demonstrate Dangerous Trend"

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the United States has employed as many means as possible to fight the war on terror. In one aspect, however, an alarming trend has emerged. The United States is more willing than ever to sell or give away weapons to countries that have pledged assistance in the global war on terror. In the past, the United States has used arms sales to "reward" countries for their loyalty. And, today, if one examines each sale or change in policy individually, there does not appear to be a paradigm shift in U.S. arms export policy. However, when one looks at these transfers together, it becomes clear that the United States has altered its relationships with a significant number of countries, many of which are now receiving military aid that would have been denied before Sept. 11.

The United States has revised the list of countries that are ineligible to receive U.S. weapons. Since Sept. 11, the United States has waived restrictions on arms or military assistance to Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Yugoslavia.

Since Sept. 11, the United States has made billions of dollars worth of arms deals to strategic countries, including a $1.2 billion sale of fighter jets and missiles to Oman and nearly $400 million worth of missiles to Egypt. Countries identified as fighting terrorist groups are also set to receive large shipments of military aid, including $92 million in weapons to the Philippines. Other countries are benefiting from military training relationships. Indonesia, for example, which had been banned from receiving military training, is set to receive training through the new Regional Defense Counter Terrorism Fellowship Program, a new DoD program that is not subject to training limitations contained in the annual Foreign Operations legislation. Human rights and lack of democracy concerns have been given less importance in some cases. Turkey is now set to receive 14 Sea Hawk naval helicopters, even though accusations of gross human rights abuses and tensions with regional rival Greece have delayed other recent helicopter deals.

To avoid being seen as favoring one side over another, some of these recent sales and military aid packages have been given to both sides of a conflict. Both India and Pakistan are set to receive weapons and, in direct response to the lifting of sanctions to Azerbaijan, Armenia was promised $90 million in foreign assistance, $4 million in foreign military financing, and $300,000 for military training.

These sales are just the tip of the iceberg. After the Gulf War, arms exports to the Middle East skyrocketed. The recent display of force with American weaponry could lead to another spike in the near future. Further, while arms agreements are made in the short term, export licenses are good for four years and production can take much longer, and thus actual arms deliveries will continue in the long run.

source "Rachel Stohl". CDI Senior Analyst

War mongering and war profiteering at it's best


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By MrBlastman on 2/10/2010 12:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
If we sell them guns they can kill each other rather than us wasting our own men and womens lives fighting the war for them.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 12:24:36 PM , Rating: 3
"Even if it's true the U.S. is no better. "

It's true, and I notice nothing in your lengthy posting even attempts to dispute it.

Now, lets examine your fallacious conclusion a little more closely, shall we? Your article says the US is selling arms...to whom? Oman, Egypt, the Phillipines, India, Armenia...all responsible nations. None of them are rogue states like North Korea, Iran, or Libya.

The largest objection the article raises is for the US selling a few helicopters to Turkey. Turkey! A bleeding EU member, for god's sake! If the EU allows Turkey to be a member, why should the US refuse to give them a few helicopters? Insanity!

Even your own link admits the US maintains and regularly updates a list of nations that are ineligible to receive militay aid. Does Russia do that? Does China? No.

Care to try again?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/10/2010 12:52:12 PM , Rating: 1
"It's true" [citation needed]

"Even your own link admits the US maintains and regularly updates a list of nations that are ineligible to receive militay aid"

Wow, it seems you ignored every concern in this article,
I'll repeat it for you in concise form: America updates their list whenever there's a new opportunity for a good "business".

If that is not clear enough for you to understand here's an extra evidence of US wrongdoings.

In November 2001, The Center for Defense Information, a military watch-dog in Washington D.C., provided a detailed list of the 18 countries and 28 terrorist groups cited by the U.S. State Department as hotbeds of terrorist activity. Included in the list is a chronology of U.S. arms sales and training from 1990-1999 and information on use of child soldiers by governments and non-state actors in each country. The U.S. supplied arms to a number of these nations:

Excerpt:
In the period of 1990-1999, the United States supplied 16 of the 18 countries on the [U.S.] State Department list with arms through the government-to-government sales under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, or through industry contracted Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) programs, or with military assistance. Recipients included Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Sri Lanka …, where, arguably, the risk of diversion is high. In addition, the U.S. military (and the CIA) has trained the forces of many of these 18 countries in U.S. war fighting tactics, in some cases including individuals now involved in terrorism.

"source - A Risky Business; U.S. Arms Exports To Countries Where Terror Thrives, Center for Defense Information, November 29, 2001"

Furthermore:

A report from the World Policy Institute released mid-2005 has found that the U.S. is routinely funneling military aid and arms to undemocratic nations. In 2003, for which the most recent data was available at the time,
The United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts;
More than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13) were defined as undemocratic by the State Department;
When countries designated by the State Department’s Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003—a full 80%—were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses.

porkpie:
...continue to deny the obvious.



RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
"A report from the World Policy Institute released mid-2005 has found that the U.S. is routinely funneling military aid and arms to undemocratic nations"

Forgive me if I take with a grain of salt anything said by the ultra-liberal WPI, a group that regularly blasts the US on anything and everything from the climate change scam to our refusal to disband our entire military, just because they feel it would be a good idea.

As for supplying aid to "undemocratic nations", there's a vast difference between Saudi Arabia (responsible, but undemocratic) and nations like North Korean, or even Iraq which, under Hossein was technically "democratic", but still engaged in killing its own citizens with chemical weapons.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By dgingeri on 2/10/2010 1:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
you don't have a clue, do you? I never said profit was the problem. Profit is what keeps food on our tables, no matter which country we're in. Without profit, we lose jobs and go hungry.

My problem is that countries that were supposedly our friends went behind our backs and sold weapons, including chemical weapons, with a country they stated they wouldn't. They stabbed us in the back for their own profit. (Note that this isn't the first time for France, who sold weapons to Argentina just before and during their war with UK over the Falkland Islands.)

Yes, our country has sold weapons to countries we shouldn't have. (The Iran Contra thing. Look how that turned out for the guys who did it. It doesn't go unpunished.) However, we didn't go selling weapons to Iran or North Korea, or Syria, or Iraq (before the invasion), or Venezuela, or any other active enemies of our friends.

The one exception I would note on this would be India and Pakistan. However, we are supplying both sides equally currently, as we have a vested interest in the stability of Pakistan. If they fall, we have a very dangerous situation Al Queda likely getting nukes. If we don't work with them, they fall, then we lose a major city, likely from a boat sitting in the port of LA or SF Bay before it is even checked by Customs. Then we have to balance the scales with India to keep them from losing stability. This situation is complicated, and both sides of that conflict consider us friendly currently. In this case, it would be preserving peace, since neither side has any advantage over the other. Both sides would suffer greatly, so they don't attack. This keeps a precarious balance stable, and both sides at peace (of a sort). We aren't hurting anyone there, rather we are actively working to prevent that.

That isn't the case with Russia, France, and Germany. They supplied Iraq with banned weapons, knowing full well that we'd invade if they even flinched at making chemical or biological weapons. They pushed the stability to the point of tipping, rather than working to prevent anything. Than they start pushing in the press, saying they don't want it to happen because they knew they started it.

These days, Russia is likely supplying Iran with massive amounts of weapons, and that's why they're blustering about this now. They want to keep selling, or start selling, missiles to Iran, but don't want our defense systems in place that would makes their missiles far less effective. We put in defense systems, then Iran wouldn't buy because they'd know they wouldn't be worth the money. All this while the UN is forbidding arms sales to Iran.

We stabilize, they destabilize. That's the difference.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
"And Iraq is clearly more stable now then when Saddam was in charge"

It certainly is a far better place to live. Or would you prefer to see your wife gang-raped by police forces, while you're fed leg-first into a plastic-grinding machine? Or perhaps you enjoy seeing entire villages gassed with chemical weapons?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 1:42:27 PM , Rating: 1
That's an assanine comment. Iraq was most definitely a better place to live for the bulk of the population. Because they could go about their daily lives without the fear of getting blown up when simply shopping for food. Because being in a war zone is safer then dealing with a police force.
Not only that but if you're so damn upset about abuse of power, why aren't you clamoring for the invasion of Iran then? Surely their population is in a similar condition.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 2:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Iraq was most definitely a better place to live for the bulk of the population. "

That's the most laughably ludicrous statement you've made all week. Hossein's government killed 300,000 Shias alone. Kurdish deaths are incalculable..many of the the mass graves will never be found.

Militants could continue their random bombings for the next century, and still not kill as many as Hossein did.

"if you're so damn upset about abuse of power, why aren't you clamoring for the invasion of Iran then? Surely their population is in a similar condition. "

Again, you are showing your ignorance. Iran is actually quite democratic when compared to Iraq under Hossein. Iran squelches the occasional political protest, but their government is generally popular...and they have NEVER engaged in widespread genocide against their own citizens.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 2:35:51 PM , Rating: 1
You clearly have zero reading comprehension. Was Saddam killing hundreds of thousands of people in 2002 and 2003? None of that was true by the time we invaded. His regime was but a shadow of it's former self by that point. And how many people have died as a result of the occupation?

Thought so.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 3:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
"You clearly have zero reading comprehension. Was Saddam killing hundreds of thousands of people in 2002 and 2003? His regime was but a shadow of it's former self by that point.."

I sincerely hope you're joking. Hossein's regime was in no way, shape, or form weaker in its grip on the populace in 2003 than it was in 1998, or 1993. He had stopped wide-scale genocide simply because a) the US-enforced no-fly zones kept him from engaging in anything but expensive land-based operations, and b) he'd already killed all the most serious dissidents anyway.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 4:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about grip? I said that his regime was in no condition in 2003 to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Or invade his neighbors. Which you're not disproving at all. You do realize that the no fly zone gave us total air superiority and the ability to fire at will?
As to the other point, so if he had already killed most of the dissidents who else was he going to kill? Trying to have your cake and eat it too?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By eddieroolz on 2/10/2010 2:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but their government is generally popular


Funny, I thought the cause of the massive electoral demonstration was caused by popular discontent of the elected government.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By MrBlastman on 2/10/2010 2:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
Police force? How about a secret police force. History has shown that _any_ nation that has implemented a "secret police" has used it over time to abuse their power and influence to coerce the population through fear into submission.

If you think otherwise then I suggest you become a Jew, step into a time machine and travel back to 1930's Germany and take up residence in one of the major cities there. I'm sure with your idealistic viewpoint on the world you will truly make a difference.

Well, a small difference at least. You'll cause some german sap to form another blister on their hand after they shoveled your body out of a bathhouse after it was gassed.

Saddam kept order, yes, indeed he truly did. He kept the radical Shiites from conflicting with the other Islamic tribes such as the Sunnis and through fear and intimidation, he kept some sort of "order" there that made him rich and powerful beyond anything you can imagine.

But, it was a false sense of power. He was not loved by the people at all. Especially the relatives of the hundreds of thousands of innocent tribespeople that were murdered with chemical weapons.

But, I suppose in your ideal world, if the police force keeps the country safe by hiding their evil methods and veiling it in secrecy, through ignorance the people can feel safer?

At least now they live in fear but are able to finally have a shot and creating a country from the ground up that maybe, someday, will be fairer for everyone that lives there rather than a few. The sad thing is that through our withdrawal, we remove a prop that has been giving them some breathing room that they need to set all of this up.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 2:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
For the record I AM Jewish, and the hitler comparison is disingenuous.
But it is your viewpoint that is idealistic not mine. Mine is pragmatic. Because I realize that sometimes when you try to fix an existing mess you can create a much bigger mess. Was Saddam's regime horrible? You betcha. But it was a secular state that held a balance of power in the region. It kept Iran in check. It kept the muslim extremists out of that region. And while I'm sure people may have had dreary lives they were not in the middle of a war.
Not only that but you never even asked yourself what these people wanted. You're implying that what we think is best for them is best for them. Awfully presumptuous if you ask me.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 4:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
"you never even asked yourself what these people wanted. You're implying that what we think is best for them is best for them"

Face the facts. You already admitted the US enforced a No-fly zone upon Iraq. More than a dozen times while doing so, Iraqi forces fired upon US pilots. That ALONE gave the US the right to attack, by international law and long-standing historical precedent.

Iraq also failed repeatedly to live up to the terms of the original cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War. That failure abrogated the treaty, and also gave the US right to invade and continue prosecuting the original conflict.

The fact that displacing Hossein was a great benefit to the Iraqi people was a BONUS. It was not the justification for the war, nor did it need to be.

"And while I'm sure people may have had dreary lives..."

A "dreary life" is a chicken-***ited, mealy-mouth way to describe rape, torture, and widescale genocide. Why not grow a backbone and admit the truth? War or not, it wasn't US troops pulling down statues of Saddam. It wasn't US troops that hung him and spit on his body. It was the Iraqi people themselves.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 8:57:42 PM , Rating: 1
You sound like Masher changing the subject every time you're in a corner. Now who's a chicken shit?
The No-fly zone was a reason NOT to invade, because it meant that Saddam was NOT a threat, and the reason for going to war were BS. The reasons had nothing to do with this anyway, it was sold on non existent WMDs.
And you basically said that ending torture and rape was just a bonus? But it's so damn terrible that it had to be stopped? You have changed the justifications at least 5 times by now.

You have long since stopped making any sense and just love hearing yourself talk.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 10:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
"The No-fly zone was a reason NOT to invade"

Hossein's refusal to adhere to the zone, and his attacks on US personnel within it, were legal justification enough to invade. There is no wiggle-room on this.

"The reasons had nothing to do with this anyway, it was sold on non existent WMDs."

The existence of WMDs were never given as the sole (or even the primary) reason for the Iraqi war. You've tried to rewrite history on this so many times you've started to believe your own lies.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By CptTripps on 2/11/2010 11:07:59 AM , Rating: 2
No blister for the German sap as they made Jewish people empty the gas chambers.

I watched that "Auschwitz: Inside the nazi state" documentary and one gentleman they interviewed stated that when they would open the door all the bodies would still be standing because they were packed so tight.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By eddieroolz on 2/10/2010 2:35:39 PM , Rating: 1
I liked your post until this:

quote:
We stabilize, they destabilize. That's the difference.


Premier example: Vietnam War. Destabilized the entire region, not just Vietnam. Laos, Cambodia were all pulled into the war in one way or another.

Haitian Intervention - US intervened in Haiti for 200+ years, including "gunboat diplomacy". In general, they intervene not to stabilize, but to protect American interests.

Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, almost all Latin American nations - US intervenes heavily in the last four decades of 20th Century. Sometimes to fight rebels and secure American interests, other times to install a pro-Western dictator. Example: Venezuela, 2002. Attempted to remove Chavez and install a pro-American leader. Failed.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 4:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
"Haitian Intervention - US intervened in Haiti for 200+ years"

Err, the first US intervention in Haiti was less than 100 years ago actually, starting in 1915.

" Example: Venezuela, 2002. Attempted to remove Chavez and install a pro-American leader. Failed"

You've been watching too much Chavez-TV, son. The US had nothing to do with the 2002 coup attempt.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By eddieroolz on 2/10/2010 7:27:12 PM , Rating: 1
My friend, don't call me a son. I highly dislike people who pretend to be smarter than others.

Source: http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventio...

Remember, that is only part of the list of US interventions.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 10:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
"I highly dislike people who pretend to be smarter than others."

If you don't want to be patronized, don't make absurd statements. The US hasn't been "intervening in Haiti for 200+ years", and your own link doesn't even come close to supporting that.

The first intervention came in 1914 (just as I said). Your link lists an incident in 1891, which not only is still nowhere near 200 years ago, but wasn't even in Haiti itself, but rather the US territory of Navassa, which had been claimed by us a half-century before that.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By karielash on 2/12/2010 5:19:06 AM , Rating: 2

You are talking to Porkpie do you not know that? Expert on every subject, had a Grandfather lose a leg at every major battle in the last 120 years.

Unfortunately minor inconveniences, like historical fact are but a bump in the road to this guy... when I read his writings I somehow envisage a fat little retarded kid chasing an ice cream van down the road.... maybe not politically correct, but also probably not far from the truth...


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By dgingeri on 2/10/2010 11:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
We trade with our friends, and some not so friendly countries. France, Germany, and Russia were trading arms with a country they voted to ban arms trade with in the UN Security Council. Did they vote that way just to increase prices? I'd say that's likely.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 11:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
"That's why they didn't want us to invade. They didn't want to lose their extra income."

Because they are the only countries making a lot of money from arms sales? Get outta here!


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By dgingeri on 2/10/2010 11:47:15 AM , Rating: 2
because they were selling at inflated prices to a country that had a trade embargo, specifically over arms, but also other things. Germany supplied them with chemical components for insecticide, but that could be, and probably were, used for production of Sarin nerve gas. They were making a bank on iraq, after voting for the trade embargo in the UN Security Council.

Coincidence? I doubt it.

Who's profiteering now?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
"Germany supplied them with chemical components for insecticide, but that could be, and probably were, used for production of Sarin "

In one case, a German firm sold Iraq a complete chemical weapons plant, built to specification on site in Iraq...and German technicians even kindly analyzed the final product for potency before collecting the final check from Hussein.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By vcolon on 2/10/2010 9:30:38 AM , Rating: 1
Europe has a cesspool of leftist idiots who chose to forget history. Russia is completely wrong in their assesment. Why don't they deal strongly with Iran instead of worrying about America? Ask yourself that question. America needs to stand strong. Israel will soon attack Iran. Those who stand in the way also get a nuke up their ass.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Nfarce on 2/10/2010 10:38:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In short; mind your own business, and you are the last one to say: "Russian people actually fall for this garbage, they deserve what they get".


Hey bud, maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events, but when a terrorist gets on a plane overseas that's headed to the US in the attempt to blow himself - and the airplane up (on Christmas DAY mind you) - then you can bet your sweet ass we'll be wherever we have to be, covertly or otherwise, to minimize the risks to our citizens.

We can argue about the validity of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan all day long, but when we CONTINUE to receive DIRECT threats from overseas, the hell with "minding our own business."


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By dark matter on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By shaidorsai on 2/10/2010 9:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
Of course your over looking the obvious. When America does anything in the world anywhere it is always subject to a high level of scrutiny, not the least of which comes form our own blame-America-first media. To assume that because you can point to a history book and say, "Look at all the countries bad evil America has invaded or interfered with" does nothing to change the fact that Soviet Russia played the game just as hard. The only real difference is they shoot people to control what gets printed in history books...


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By Desslok on 2/10/2010 9:50:03 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
A religious nut lying to the population pushed on by a zionist minority


HAHHAHA, you are blaming the Iraq war on the Jews? hahahhahahahha

Better watch out they are EVERYWHERE !

And you are telling other people they are ignorant?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By kyleb2112 on 2/10/2010 2:40:59 PM , Rating: 3
Once you throw out "Zionist" your argument's pretty much done.
Let me guess, the JOOOOS are mixing the blood of Palestinian children into their unleavened bread. Or have they come up with a better one now.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 11:09:03 AM , Rating: 2
"These guys are like a bully in a bar. They view anything they can as a threat just so they have an excuse to threaten someone."

You mean kinda like... Iraq?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:17:38 AM , Rating: 3
C'mon...it's not like Iraq ever invaded anyone. Those forays into Kuwait and Iran were just Saddam and a few buddies looking for a good beach spot.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 11:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
How was that a threat to the United States? If we're going to attack anyone that attacks their neighbors why aren't we invading ALL of the middle east?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 12:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
"How was that a threat to the United States?"

a) Kuwait was a US ally, and begged for US assistance. That alone gave the US right of involvement.

b) If you seriously don't understand that an Iraq which controlled Kuwait, Iran and (as it was threatening to do) invade Saudi Arabi was an immense threat to US and world security, I feel sorry for you. And your parents. And every teacher you've ever had past third grade.

On a side note, Kuwait is one of the few countries in the world with enough character to actually pay back US assistance. Unlike Europe, I might add (Marshall plan, anyone?)


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 1:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Kuwait was a US ally, and begged for US assistance. That alone gave the US right of involvement."

If that was the case we would have had to fight against Russia in support of Georgia. That would have been just perfect in your world.

"If you seriously don't understand that an Iraq which controlled Kuwait, Iran and (as it was threatening to do) invade Saudi Arabi was an immense threat to US and world security"

How would Iraq have controlled Iran exactly? And world security? There are no Armies in the rest of the world capable of defeating them?! They weren't even a match for Israel let alone the US.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
"If that was the case we would have had to fight against Russia in support of Georgia"

Please try to think clearly. The US had signed no treaty of mutual assistance with Georgia, so we did not "have to fight against Russia". Had we CHOSEN to do so, then Georgia's request to allow us to assist would have certainly given us the right to do so, under international law and long-standing historical precedent.

"How would Iraq have controlled Iran exactly?"

Um, did you miss the entire Iran-Iraq war? Crack a history book sometimes...its amazing what you might learn.

"There are no Armies in the rest of the world capable of defeating them?!"

I'm really surprised I have to explain this to you. Remember what Iraq did when we pushed them out of Kuwait? What? They set its oil fields on fire....damage it took months (years in some cases) to restore.

An Iraq in charge of the oil fields not only in its own nation, but those in Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, has its pulse on the throat of the world. Period. There is NO WAY any nation could attack Iraq, without cutting off so much world oil production that would lead to a crisis.

The world is fed by oil. Agricultural production, supply, and transportation relies upon it. Had we allowed Iraq to fulfill its objectives, it would have been able to decimate the world economy -- and starve hundreds of milions of people to death -- with no way for us to stop it.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 1:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
"Um, did you miss the entire Iran-Iraq war? Crack a history book sometimes...its amazing what you might learn."

Thank you for proving my point, we supported Saddam during that war. So are you saying you WANTED Saddam to win? Or are you saying that even with our help he wasn't able to take over Iran?

"I'm really surprised I have to explain this to you."

Did you pat yourself on the back for that one? It is precisely because of oil that Iraq never stood a chance in such an event, since even countries like China would no doubt squash it like a bug just to make sure the oil kept flowing.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 2:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Thank you for proving my point, we supported Saddam during that war"

Correction. We gave a small amount of limited aid...right up to the point that Hossein started gassing his own people. Other nations (Russia, France and Germany among them) continued military aid, despite voting against it in UN resolutions.

Hossein's government at the start of the Iran war was very moderate, and seemed to be a net positive for the Iraqi people. His real abuses didn't start until later.

"It is precisely because of oil that Iraq never stood a chance in such an event,"

So you admit Iraq needed to be stopped...yet admonish the US for stopping them? I pity your poor few gray cells...life in there must be very lonely for them.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 2:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
"Hossein's government at the start of the Iran war was very moderate, and seemed to be a net positive for the Iraqi people. His real abuses didn't start until later."

Wow, totally danced around the point that Iraq wasn't able to conquer Iran even with assistance.

"So you admit Iraq needed to be stopped...yet admonish the US for stopping them? I pity your poor few gray cells...life in there must be very lonely for them."

Again, zero reading comprehension. Better look in the mirror. Needed to be stopped in 1991? Yes and it was, without regime change. In 2003 it was unable to threaten even Kuwait. What are you even talking about?!


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 4:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
"Wow, totally danced around the point that Iraq wasn't able to conquer Iran even with assistance."

Do I need to fill in the lines for you? Why did Iraq fail to conquer Iran? (though it did indeed come very close) Because of a lack of money and resources to continue prosecuting the war. But an Iraq military enriched with tens of billions of dollars annually from Kuwait and even more from Saudi Arabia would have had no trouble dealing with Iran.

Is there anything else painfully obvious you need pointed out to you?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 9:02:34 PM , Rating: 1
What's painfully obvious is that you have no idea what you're talking about anymore. More "But if only this happened!" stuff and nothing else. How was 2003 Saddam in any position to take over Kuwait?! How would he even make it to Saudi Arabia?

Admit it your hypothesis was crap.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 10:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
Good lord, talk about inability to think logically. You started this exercise with the absurd claim that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait wasn't any threat to the US. Now you've moved the goalposts to stating that Iraq couldn't have retaken Kuwait in 2003....a stellar little non sequitor if I ever saw one.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By NesuD on 2/10/2010 11:20:33 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
"We view it very negatively, because it could weaken our missile forces,"


So we should weaken our defenses to strengthen their offensive missle capability? Right. Only a fool would do that. Improving our ability to defend ourselves somehow threatens them. Laughable!!


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By machop on 2/10/2010 11:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
I have one question for you:
where did US set up missile? is it closer to Russian or US?


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 12:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
"where did US set up missile?"

The US was asked by Poland, to set up missile defense facilities within Poland. These facilities were useless for attack, and could only be used to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles.

After Russia threatened to setup batteries of shortrange nuclear missiles aimed directly at Poland, the proposal eventually fell through.


RE: Like a bully in a bar...
By cmdrdredd on 2/10/2010 6:01:47 PM , Rating: 1
One question. How does defense equate to threat? Seriously?

Think about this for a moment. I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry a gun for defense. I don't threaten people by doing that. If I didn't tell you I was doing it you wouldn't know or care. You'd go about your business and it wouldn't matter in the slightest because I am not doing anything to make you feel that I am ready to strike. Defensive posturing doesn't threaten anyone. Russia is simply looking for something that just isn't there. The only possible explanation is that Russia is supplying the people we are trying to set up defensive shields against and by being able to blow up their missiles, we are deterring them from using them and having to buy more supplies from Russia.


I don't get it...
By Helbore on 2/10/2010 8:14:54 AM , Rating: 4
This is a DEFENSIVE system, right? ie. it can't be used to attack other nations, just shoot down missiles. Surely that means this is only a problem for people who want to fire missles at the US or Europe.

So Russia is complaining that we are making it harder for them to fire missiles at us and think that this stance makes them look like the innocent party?




RE: I don't get it...
By Fitzmogwai on 2/10/2010 8:38:22 AM , Rating: 4
Think about it this way:

The US get their anti-missile shield in place. They can shoot down missiles aimed at them.

The whole reason that there wasn't a nuclear exchange during the Cold War was because of the MAD doctrine - Mutually Assured Destruction. You fire missiles at me, I fire missiles at you, we all die, no-one wins.

A missile shield upsets that balance of terror - it means that you can fire missiles at me, but the missiles I fire back at you will be destroyed. It means that the side with the missile shield can also threaten and bully other countries, safe in the knowledge that the ultimate deterrent against this sort of behaviour (i.e. nuclear missiles) are negated as a threat.

Obviously the Russians will use this to their political advantage as much as they can, but the fact is that, even though this is "defensive" in nature, it's also extremely destabilising geopolitically.

This is why there was so much of a problem when Poland and the Czech Republic were chosen by the Bush Government to be the sites for these anti-missile systems - placing them in Russia's back yard was an extremely aggressive move, even though they were only "defensive" weapons systems.


RE: I don't get it...
By Gholam on 2/10/2010 8:38:53 AM , Rating: 3
Russia doesn't have much of an army these days, so their primary defensive doctrine is that anyone who tries to invade them gets nuked. If that someone is immune to nukes, they don't have much to defend themselves with, so yes, they view missile defense systems as a threat.


RE: I don't get it...
By dark matter on 2/10/2010 8:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
I am not so sure you're right about the Army but if you are it certainly makes economical sense on behalf of the Russians.

The upkeep of a few nukes must be far less then the upkeep of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and has a far better effect at keeping "order" as well.


RE: I don't get it...
By nomagic on 2/10/2010 8:41:57 AM , Rating: 2
How would you feel if another nation surrounds you with their anti-missile system that makes your own missile system useless?


RE: I don't get it...
By shaidorsai on 2/10/2010 9:21:27 AM , Rating: 3
I would say it was utterly pointless against 100 or more nukes and aimed at piss-ant countries like North Korea. Since a large percentage of Russian nukes are on submarine or air launch delivery systems a missile defense shield in Europe would have really only defended Western Europe against rouge missiles. But hey, whatever. I'd rather the US spend the money paying down some debt...


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 10:39:18 AM , Rating: 2
"How would you feel if another nation surrounds you with their anti-missile system that makes your own missile system useless? "

Considering your 'missile system' was a system designed to obliterate tens of millions of innocent civilians, I'd say I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.


RE: I don't get it...
By ClownPuncher on 2/10/2010 11:20:32 AM , Rating: 3
How so? So America's missle system was built to shoot flowers? Seriously, if Russia, or any other country in the world for that matter, built an anti missle system in Mexico and Canada, we wouldnt stand for it. Did you expect Russia to say "Ok, we are heathens, you can do whatever you want!"

Russia is looking out for their best interests. If we ever went to war with them, they would be at a disadvantage with our anti missle system in place. Not a very smart strategy.


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:36:16 AM , Rating: 3
"So America's missle system was built to shoot flowers?"

US offensive missiles were designed for the same goal as Soviet missiles. Thankfully technology is invalidating them, and we have a better alternative than holding innocent civilians hostage for the good behaviour of their leaders.

Russia needs to move out of its 20th century Cold-war mentality, and join in that effort. It still believes its "best interests" are the ability to destroy any nation on earth if its pushed too far. Is that a reasonable security policy for the 21st century? I don't believe so.


RE: I don't get it...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 11:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
So since we're no longer bound by cold war thinking we have shut down all of our own nukes... right?
Face it you want the other side to do what we ourselves are not doing. And you consider that dandy because well, we are us and we would NEVER user our missiles to threaten anyone.


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 12:32:29 PM , Rating: 3
"Face it you want the other side to do what we ourselves are not doing. "

No. I want Russia to do EXACTLY what we're doing. Focus on defensive, anti-ballistic missile defense, rather than on offensive weapons deigned to destroy cities. Ultimately, a much more stable alternative.

" because well, we are us and we would NEVER user our missiles to threaten anyone. "

Pick up a history book sometime, kid. Russia (and before it, the USSR) has regularly threatened to rain nuclear fire down on its neighbors for the most trivial of reasons. I don't see the US doing that. Ever.


RE: I don't get it...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 1:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
"Pick up a history book sometime, kid. Russia (and before it, the USSR) has regularly threatened to rain nuclear fire down on its neighbors for the most trivial of reasons."

That's funny considering it was Truman that coined the phrase rain of ruin. Don't patronize me.


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 3:40:07 PM , Rating: 3
"That's funny considering it was Truman that coined the phrase rain of ruin. "

Conining a phrase is not the same as threatening your neighbors with nuclear destruction for the most trivial of causes. It's also not the same as loudly and vehemently proclaiming the official policy of your nation is world domination (something you apparently never learned in school, and a philosophy that was an integral part of the official Soviet platform until the 1970s).

"Don't patronize me. "

If you don't wish to be treated as a spoiled 12 year old, don't act like one.


RE: I don't get it...
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 4:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
Show me those threats professor. Show me an example of where the soviets said "we will nuke you" for a "trivial" cause.

And show me this world domination platform. Or have you been watching Red Dawn again?

I will know more about the soviet union and Russia then you ever will. I have been there. I talk to people that live there, and people that came from there (like my grandparents).


RE: I don't get it...
By Landiepete on 2/10/2010 8:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
It perfectly describe the fallacy of the MAD politics. What they are essentially saying is 'hey, the reason we didn't nuke the majority of the worlds population into oblivion since the 50's is NOT dialogue, a quest for peace, higher beliefs or striving for civilization, but because we were afraid you'd do the same to us'.

Which is, as you pointedly remark, the only reason a bully doesn't pick a fight.


RE: I don't get it...
By dark matter on 2/10/2010 8:51:55 AM , Rating: 3
I guess that explains why no-one (including the USA) has invaded North Korea then. Turns out you are all Bullies.


By praktik on 2/10/2010 9:45:08 AM , Rating: 2
...especially when dealing with matters of politics.

What was most short-sighted about the anti-missile provocations was the myopia present in American decision makers (and here in this thread) with respect to Russia.

"The bully in the bar", they can pound sand if they don't like it!

Of course, while the USSR is no more Russia still has a permament seat on the security council. They supply much of Europe's natural gas and energy needs. Their cooperation is absolutely *required* in places where America has a vital strategic interest (or perceived one): Iran, India, southeast asia and central asia. Russia of course has an intimate knowledge of and relations with factions in Afghanistan.

So, you can still advocate for this missile shield if you really want to - but don't pretend there are no consequences for provoking Russia on a central plank of their national security. If you want to render American policy options more narrow, or frustrate American goals on other important issues then by all means - proceed with the missile defense.

Imagine, if you would, that Cuba's Russian nukes were allowed to stay. And that Russia installed a missile shield on cuban shores in recent years. How would America react?




By iFX on 2/10/2010 10:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
Read a history book.

You can cooperate and work with someone without liking them or trusting them. That is the relationship between the US and Russia.

The missile defense shield is an insurance policy. I would encourage Russia to build one as well. The name of the country may have changed but the people and the stockpile of nukes along with ready to fly ICBMs has not.

The US has a vested interest in protecting itself from the massive nuclear stockpile Russia has. Likewise, the European countries that the US has partnered with to build the shield are also happy it exists, as it protects them too.


By praktik on 2/10/2010 10:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I'm reading a history book right now. Young Stalin, by Simon Sebag Montefiore, which I will be following up with his excellent The Court of the Red Tsar...

fascinating author and great insight into Stalin...

http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/books.aspx

Your comment about the missile defense shield being an "insurance" policy is besides the point: whatever its value as insurance it is still a provocation on a central plank of Russian national security. It can be several things at one you know!

And as another commenter mentioned, with the Russian ability to launch from subs almost anywhere, the insurance value is dubious. So what is America getting out of it really? Not much other than frostier relations with a powerful nation whose influence is required in other areas that are no doubt, of vital importance to American national security.


By ianweck on 2/10/2010 12:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And as another commenter mentioned, with the Russian ability to launch from subs almost anywhere, the insurance value is dubious. So what is America getting out of it really?


That's the point. The shield is for use against Iran, not Russia. If America is getting nothing out of it regarding Russia's offensive abilities, then the debate is over.


By roykahn on 2/10/2010 10:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
Another laughable comment. How on Earth do people think Iran is a threat to America? Please explain this!

Please find a list of the amount of known/suspected nuclear weapons that every country has and see where Iran is on the list. You aren't worried about countries like Pakistan, Israel, or India, are you? Why don't you have a good think about why that is?

Congratulations for being fooled by your government and media.


By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
" but don't pretend there are no consequences for provoking Russia on a central plank of their national security"

Perhaps Russia needs a more ethical plank to their security policy than "I am holding hostage the lives of tens of millions of innocent civilians".

"Imagine, if you would, that Cuba's Russian nukes were allowed to stay"

The Cuban missiles were designed to bomb innocent cities. The US anti-missiles in Poland are designed to save innocent cities.

Big difference.


By praktik on 2/10/2010 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 1
Ah I get it, moral relativism. America = always good, Russkies = always bad...:)

More myopia. The mere fact that Russia has nukes means "they're holding millions of innocents hostage" - so why isn't that true for other nuclear powers, like India, France or America? Don't Russian civilians feel like they're being "held hostage" by the American nukes pointed at them, which could with a missile shield, theoretically be used with impunity?


By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
"so why isn't that true for other nuclear powers, like India, France or America?"

It is, of course. The only thing that can end such insanity is antimissile technology. Making defensive weapons stronger than offensive ones. Instead of your morally questionable strategy of fighting such a positive advance, why not help it along?

Once a full-scale missile defense shield is in place, why would any nation go to the trouble and expense of maintaining a few thousand useless, expensive ballistic missiles?


By maven81 on 2/10/2010 11:53:44 AM , Rating: 3
"Once a full-scale missile defense shield is in place, why would any nation go to the trouble and expense of maintaining a few thousand useless, expensive ballistic missiles?"

Because a missile shield that can block hundreds of warheads or has a 100% success rate exists only in your imagination.


By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:08:54 PM , Rating: 3
"Because a missile shield that can block hundreds of warheads or has a 100% success rate exists only in your imagination. "

Are you trying to embarraass yourself. If one ABM missile can shoot down 1 incoming ICBM, then 1000 ABMs can shoot down 1000 ICBMs. Once you have the technology, the only thing you need to do is build more.

As for the "100% success rate", this is even more ignorant. First of all, a perfect rate isn't required. If you can block most of a large-scale attack, you've essentially thwarted it. Secondly, even if a single interceptor only has a 90% kill rate, you can always use more than one interceptor per incoming missile.

Care to try again?


By maven81 on 2/10/2010 1:16:11 PM , Rating: 1
The only one embarrassing yourself is you. First we don't even have a working system. Need I remind you of the recent failure? And that was during a planned test, with a missile who's trajectory was known in advance. Nor does this system take into account decoys, or multiple warheads. Could it succeed with a single launch of a single missile launched from far away (giving us some time to react?) Perhaps, if we sink even more money into that pit. But a massive attack with hundreds of advanced missiles, mirvs, decoys etc? Not a chance.
Hell even the military themselves don't claim anything like that. And to build thousands of these, are you serious? Warheads are cheaper! The Russians are well aware of this judging by their quips that their response would be "asymmetrical". Which means if you do build such a system, they'll simply build more warheads to completely overwhelm it, instead of spending billions of dollars trying to make their own system. Is that what you really want?


By porkpie on 2/10/2010 1:34:33 PM , Rating: 1
"First we don't even have a working system. Need I remind you of the recent failure?

That's like saying, because your Civic got a flat tire, that we don't have working automobiles in America.

Current US MDI tests are achieving better than an 80% success rate...and nearly 1/2 the "failures" are due to failed launches from the test missiles being intercepted, rather than the interceptors themselves.

"Nor does this system take into account decoys, or multiple warheads."

Learn a little about your subject, please. MDI has conducted several tests against decoys, and missiles deploying multiple warheads.

"to build thousands of these, are you serious? Warheads are cheaper!"

Err, no. An EKV is significantly cheaper than a nuclear-tipped missile, especially when built in bulk. An EKV is only more expensive when intercepting conventional missiles...and who cares? The US can spend more money than Russia can, by far.



By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:56:38 AM , Rating: 2
"America = always good, Russkies = always bad...:)"

BTW, I've lived in Russia, so you're going to have a hard time applying that label to me. But if you think the USSR in the time of Stalin and Krushchev wasn't a very bad place, then you know nothing of history. The term "iron curtain" came from a European's mouth, not a American's...and it came for very good reason.


By praktik on 2/10/2010 11:17:14 AM , Rating: 1
"The Cuban missiles were designed to bomb innocent cities. "

No they weren't. They were calculated to ensure MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.

A balance that missile shields upset.


By porkpie on 2/10/2010 11:21:22 AM , Rating: 3
Don't play coy, son. MAD revolves around the bombing of innocent cities. It doesn't work any other way.

Those Cuban missiles had CEPs of 2-2.5 km at the time. They were useless for attacking military targets. They were designed with one purpose alone -- to kill millions of innocent civilians.


By maven81 on 2/10/2010 11:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
So were our missiles in Turkey. Which the soviet missiles in Cuba were a response to. By some estimates I've read, the total Soviet ICBM capability at the time was no more then several dozen missiles, if that. This was an attempt to balance things out in their favor. Which is what we're doing now, trying to balance things out in our favor. Your spiel about offensive and defensive missiles notwithstanding.


By ianweck on 2/10/2010 1:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing we're trying to do now is protect against unpredictable strikes from countries like Iran. Some of the loudest arguers on this thread even admit the capability of this shield would be useless against countries like Russia. Russia knows this as well, likely they are using the shield as a political tool.


By maven81 on 2/10/2010 1:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well of course they are. But the question is, why piss them off?


By ianweck on 2/10/2010 3:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well I'd like to try to keep everybody happy but some things are more urgent in my opinion. They could also support us in the case of Iran, instead of getting all in a knot with our solution. The sanctions as they are aren't working, and I think China and Russia are at least a little to blame.


By porkpie on 2/10/2010 7:25:38 PM , Rating: 3
"But the question is, why piss them off? "

Because, if we don't build an anti-missile capabiity, eventually someone will lob a nuclear missile at someone else.

No weapon in all of human history has been developed, then never used. The same is true for nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Each decade that passes, more and more nations have them. Eventually they're going to get used. You may not like that idea, but there's no escaping it.


How is Missile Defense a Threat?
By jdietz on 2/10/2010 11:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
It's missile defense . How is it a threat to anyone. No one should have any objection. It's the right of the United States to protect its citizens from all enemies. Purely defensive measures such as missile defense (that do not impact other countries at all) should be allowed. Chemical/Biological weapons or preemptive war are more questionable defensive measures.




RE: How is Missile Defense a Threat?
By Woobagong on 2/10/2010 12:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
How this is a threat? Has Russia built some defensive missile systems in front of the door of the us? Not that I know of...

A defensive system can also be used to prevent retaliation in case of a (theoretical) attack. This is a strategic advantage that has been added. It's not relevant against what the defense is directed. The existence is enough for russia to feel threatened. The balance has shifted, no doubt, no matter how noble the intentions behind are meant.

It's somewhat far fetched but I think a part of the old school russian military understands it this way. Still stuck in cold war. Or has it been reawakened by this?


RE: How is Missile Defense a Threat?
By cmdrdredd on 2/10/2010 6:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
Balance shifted lol.

See the ONLY reason Russia doesn't have something similar is because they supply terrorists and know that they won't be attacked by the nukes they helped build.

There is not a damn thing stopping Russia from building a Defense system similarly. It just happens that the US has more friends than they do. Care to explain why?


By Woobagong on 2/11/2010 4:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
No this is not the only reason. Attacking russia with nukes is a bad idea. They won't need any defensive systems as long as everybody fears their massive offensive power.

Concerning support for terrorism... every country that deals with weapons supports terrorism directly or indirectly. You can't deal weapons without getting dirty hands. When you instruct some people to defend themselves, they can turn against you later, hence you have again supported terrorism indirectly. They just use anything you may have against you. Thats in the nature of terrorism.

Then again, direct support would be intentional support. I'm not sure if russia does this kind of thing. Are there any good sources that confirm this?


If you wish for peace, prepare for war.
By jamesbond007 on 2/10/2010 8:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
Si vis pacem, para bellum.




By OccamsAftershave on 2/10/2010 9:56:25 AM , Rating: 5
Si vis bellum, factum ut douchebag.


Hey Russia - No frakkin' Duh!
By iFX on 2/10/2010 9:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
Of course the missile shield a threat, that's the entire point of the darn thing. We are threatening to shoot down anything that may get launched out of your corrupt country. For you to perceive the shield as having any other purpose is ludicrous. It's not for shooting off fire crackers, it's to keep you from nuking us which you have promised in the past to do!




RE: Hey Russia - No frakkin' Duh!
By michaelklachko on 2/10/2010 3:18:16 PM , Rating: 1
hey, the Cold War is over, didn't you get the memo?


RE: Hey Russia - No frakkin' Duh!
By Davelo on 2/10/2010 6:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
Great comment!

It seems the Russians wish to live in the past. Their leaders must enjoy the paranoia. Only extremely paranoid people would see a defensive shield as a threat. Maybe their people will force them to realize we mean them no harm. One would think after all these years they'd get it.


RE: Hey Russia - No frakkin' Duh!
By maven81 on 2/10/2010 9:07:12 PM , Rating: 1
This gets at the root of the stupidity of American foreign policy. God forbid we should make an effort to see something from someone else's point of view. No we must force them to see everything from our point of view. Why can't they just trust us!


If you believe anything Russia says, you're naive
By Beenthere on 2/10/2010 10:07:32 AM , Rating: 1
You'd be a damn fool to believe anything Russia says.




By praktik on 2/10/2010 10:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
I dont think its wise to take ANY official statements at face-value, even from nations like the UK and the US. Politics and PR always makes official statements questionable. One must inspect beneath the printed word to suss out the underlying intentions and be informed on the wider context behind the issue at stake.

That being said, if you discount everything Russia says you are just as ignorant as one who believes everything they say.


By roykahn on 2/11/2010 2:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
Brilliantly put. Most people posting comments here would just think the Russians are crazy and yet believe what their own military and goverment says. We are all being stooged by the world's elite.


Positive news...
By jonmcc33 on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Positive news...
By shaidorsai on 2/10/2010 9:38:35 AM , Rating: 2
LOL....uh, what? Might want to take your med's this morning...


RE: Positive news...
By iFX on 2/10/2010 10:48:50 AM , Rating: 2
People under the age of 18 should not be allowed to post on this site. Hell, let's make it 25.


We haven't learned a thing
By psenechal on 2/10/2010 1:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's been obvious reading all these posts that we as human beings haven't learned a thing. Everyone is blaming someone else as a reason for their actions and everyone is accusing someone else for the problems.

I have a simple solution...why don't we make the technology public so that EVERYONE can defend against everyone else's missiles. Then we can just make missiles useless across the globe and move on to something else that actually makes a difference in people's lives like famine and disease.




RE: We haven't learned a thing
By roykahn on 2/12/2010 5:14:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
why don't we make the technology public so that EVERYONE can defend against everyone else's missiles.


Assuming that was even possible, you'd still have situations where the defense systems and/or staff are attacked. Then you'd have to have a second defense system for the defense system, but that could also be attacked in order to attack the first defense system :) Not so simple, my friend. Besides, missiles aren't the only way we destroy each other. We were doing it quite well before missiles were invented.


ungrateful bastards
By narddogg81 on 2/15/2010 11:14:29 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, since the US is so evil and is always throwing its own weight around I have a few ideas to get us out of your hair, militarily. First, you Europeans can start by paying back the Marshall Plan, with 65 years of interest. We wont be needing that in a lump sum, monthly payments will be fine. That should probably get us out of debt with the Chinese, so that's a plus. Second, you can start paying for and maintaining your own national defense systems. We will remove all our bases from your countries and redirect them to securing our own borders, where they belong. I'm sure you can now rely on the goodwill of the Russians and Chinese, Iranians, etc...to do the right thing. They're pretty good guys, to hear all you pompous socialistic parasites talk about it. I just hope your ridiculous communism-light economies dont crumble under the weight of having to actually defend yourselves for a change. Might have to start working 35 hours a week. Finally, you can move the UN out of New York and pay the parking tickets your classy diplomats have been racking up for the last 65 years. We could have a nice big budget surplus from that alone. Also, we will stop funding the majority of that extremely corrupt puppet and sounding board for terrorist states and quislings. Don't worry, when we withdraw you can fill our role on the human rights committee with Sudan or someone else in keeping with the current direction of that institution.




RE: ungrateful bastards
By roykahn on 2/15/2010 9:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. Are you sure you haven't got a narrow-minded view of the world and the part America plays? Are you sure you're not speaking more from your heart than your head?

Your comments don't really relate to the main article, but here we go...

You should realize that no government helps another country if it isn't going to get some benefit from it. The same applies for America. You mention the Marshall Plan but the average person doesn't know much of the details. A major part of that plan was to shift European energy consumption away from coal to American controlled oil. There's a couple billion right there. A lot of the "aid" money was for the supply of American weapons to European countries for attacking communist countries/groups. A prime example is France. A lot the the "aid" money just went back to American hands.

You also mention American military bases. Do you honestly think that their existence is purely for the benefit of the population in which they reside? Really? Do you think that America is just trying to protect its little friends from big bullies? You might want to open your eyes to the hostile environment that these bases have created all over the world. Iraq is a good example.

The UN diplomats free parking is an amusing story, but I think they removed or modified that policy. Yes, it was abused, so you have a point there. However, please have a look at the money that is owed by the US to the United Nations - especially compared to other countries' UN debts. Not looking so good now, are you?

You shouldn't kid yourself by thinking that America is playing a reluctant guardian role around the globe. The continuation of the American "we know best" attitude is leading the world into ruin.


wwwcd
By wwwcd on 2/10/2010 8:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
2012 nuclear ^^^BOOM^^^




Russia...
By ianweck on 2/10/2010 10:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
Won't help us with Iran, and expect us NOT to come up with some other solution.




I have a question
By FPP on 2/14/2010 11:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
How do people rationalize that a purely defensive weapon system, designed to protect large population centers from nuclear annialation, is somehow, evil and should be terminated? What other, more important role does the US military have than protecting the nations population centers from a nuclear strike? Imagine Hurrican Katrina, except for incinerated cities nuclear fallout, the complete inability to reach millions of injured people, etc. Why does a rational human being object to something that has a change of stopping that?




Blind American
By Kyzo on 2/15/2010 4:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
U american that waging war all over the world




we dont need a missle defense
By supergarr on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007











botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki