Is Vladimir Putin a Democrat or Republican?

[Ecomike]

Opinions?

For some reference material here is a google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Rli&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Russian+putin&spell=1

This turned up in my search to, first I have heard of this!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2400345.ece

"
The RAF scrambled to intercept eight Russian nuclear bombers heading for Britain yesterday in the biggest aerial confrontation between the two countries since the end of the Cold War.
The Tupolev-95 Bear bombers were approaching in formation when they were met by four Tornado F3 fighter jets. Defence sources said that the Russian pilots turned away as soon as they spotted the approaching Tornados and did not enter British airspace.
Norway had earlier sent four F16 jets to shadow the Russians as they neared its airspace in what Moscow insisted was a training mission. The bombers had flown over international waters from the Barents Sea to the Atlantic before heading for Britain.
Russian Bears flying in pairs have triggered several alerts this year as they neared the 12-mile British airspace zone, but this was the first time that so many bombers had simultaneously tested British air defences....."

[IslanderOffRoad]

Putin is a douchebag.

[Root Moose]

It's just posturing to show the Soviets are back and they're pissed!

Things were so much simpler/stabler during the Cold War.

[fscrig75]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_missile_defense

Who knows what that douche is.

Our government hasn't always done the smartest thing but we haven't threaten nuclear war in awhile I believe.

[Darky]

What's your point? Trying to stir something up?

[Kittrell]

Is Communist an option?

[red91]

Is Communist an option?

It's either that or dumba$$.

They both would work.

[Ecomike]

Is Communist an option?

I don't think so, wasn't he elected by the people of Russia in a free election?

[red91]

I don't think so, wasn't he elected by the people of Russia in a free election?

Define a government controlled "free" election.

[Ecomike]

What's your point? Trying to stir something up?


I think the Geogrians, Russians, Iranians, and the USA ....Et. al., are doing a good enough job of stirring the pot, they probably don't need my help!:rolleyes:

I did not want to prejudice the answers of others with my initial thoughts, just yet! :gag:

[Ecomike]

Define a government controlled "free" election.

Didn't our own government and the UN and the world recognize it as a free democratic election in Russia, in fact I think they have been since about 1992.

[Ecomike]

Putin is a douchebag.

If he is he about a 45 billion dollar "douchebag" at last count. But douchebag does not answer the question. Unless your answer is neither of the above?

[red91]

Didn't our own government and the UN and the world recognize it as a free democratic election in Russia, in fact I think they have been since about 1992.

You actually "trust" the UN and our Government?

You do know they want their sickle and hammer back, right?

Time to go and clean the garage.

[Kittrell]

I don't think so, wasn't he elected by the people of Russia in a free election?

http://eternallycool.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/torino-sheep-2.jpg

[Ecomike]

Just curious but did anyone look at the second link I posted?

September 7, 2007
RAF intercepts eight Russian bombers as Putin provokes West (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2400345.ece)

[scottmcneal]

Oh hell i'll say Democrat..... Just because i / we think this way

[red91]

http://eternallycool.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/torino-sheep-2.jpg



They got you doing "sheep" patrol" out there on the base?

:D

They all look a little nervous...

[Ecomike]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_missile_defense

Who knows what that douche is.

Our government hasn't always done the smartest thing but we haven't threaten nuclear war in awhile I believe.

You beat me to posting that! No fare, LOL. They certianly do sound pissed!


I think Bush repeatedly and vocally left the nuclear option open for attacking Iran, Iraq and N. Korea, ever since 9/11, even as a pre-emptive strike option!

I could dig up references and proof of his statements if any one thinks I need to?

[Ecomike]

You actually "trust" the UN and our Government?



Good point!

[Kittrell]

"Russian and Chinese special forces are currently on joint counter-terrorism exercises, further evidence of their growing military relationship"

Communist what?

[Kittrell]

They got you doing "sheep" patrol" out there on the base?

:D

They all look a little nervous...

They better be nervous, I'll effin drop some of them to make an example if they don't do what we want.

[Bradlybob]

MMMMMMMMMMMMM Lamb Chops.

[Darky]

I think the Geogrians, Russians, Iranians, and the USA ....Et. al., are doing a good enough job of stirring the pot, they probably don't need my help!:rolleyes: WHat are they doing on NAXJA? BTW I don't think the Georgians had any say in the matter...

I did not want to prejudice the answers of others with my initial thoughts, just yet! :gag:
Don't worry we don't pay attention to your thoughts on politics anymore...;)
I think Bush repeatedly and vocally left the nuclear option open for attacking Iran, Iraq and N. Korea, ever since 9/11, even as a pre-emptive strike option!

I could dig up references and proof of his statements if any one thinks I need to?
Yes, I think you should

[BIgDaddyChia]

Seriously, Who uses prop planes to drop bombs.

[IslanderOffRoad]

Seriously, Who uses prop planes to drop bombs.

losers who can't afford jets, lolz

[souske]

[quote=91 Jeep Project]Is Communist an option?[/quote


Is Vladimir Putin a Democrat or Republican?]

I believe that was an option:explosion

[TRNDRVR]

Putin is a douchebag.
Imagine that, so is Bush.

I guess the answer then is Vladimir Putin is a Republican.

That was easy...........:conceited

[BIgDaddyChia]

Imagine that, so is Bush.

I guess the answer then is Vladimir Putin is a Republican.

That was easy...........:conceited

But that cant be true. Your a deuchebag and ur not a republican.

[TRNDRVR]

But that cant be true. Your a deuchebag and ur not a republican.There are exceptions to every rule.

And what exactly is a "deuchebag"? Oh I see, you're from Texas. Never mind.

[JohnJohn]

Is Communist an option?

Duh. He said democrat was an option.

Putin would be happy with a Socialist Dictatorship.

[Ecomike]

There are exceptions to every rule.

And what exactly is a "deuchebag"? Oh I see, you're from Texas. Never mind.

Easy there now, speaking of exceptions, the Texas Democrats are about take back the great state of Texas this November.. It will be a surprize attack, :laugh3: they won't even see it coming. :D

:peace:

[BIgDaddyChia]

Easy there now, speaking of exceptions, the Texas Democrats are about take back the great state of Texas this November.. It will be a surprize attack, :laugh3: they won't even see it coming. :D

:peace:

Fat chance on that happening. Rick Perry For President.

[Ecomike]

Did any one notice that it said the Russians were test firing Cruise missiles over the Airctic? I was wondering when and how the Russians got cruise missiles.

[Ecomike]

"Russian and Chinese special forces are currently on joint counter-terrorism exercises, further evidence of their growing military relationship"

Communist what?

The US was scheduled this week for the same joint counter-terrorism exercises with the Russians, but we cancelled.

[red91]

Did any one notice that it said the Russians were test firing Cruise missiles over the Airctic? I was wondering when and how the Russians got cruise missiles.


They've sent in 1 bazillion box tops and redeemed their prize.

[Ecomike]

This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Cold War"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2238243.ece

Chilling thought! But then global warming should chill things out a bit, but wait, global warming is hoax!:eek: Or is it?

[XJEEPER]

None of the above, he's KGB.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/greens-protest-at-russian-embassy-over-assassinations-64022.html

Russia is in a great position right now. The EU relies heavily (25% ave, some as high as 90%) on Russia for oil and natural gas, supplied by Gazprom, the goverment run supplier. Kind of puts many of our NATO "allies" in a very compromising position.

Zoom out to 100,000 feet and connect the dots..............

Muslim Extremist focus on the destruction of the US and all who are our friends.
Europe becomes reliant on Russia for petroleum. Iran is buying nuclear material from Russia. Iran commits to erase Isreal from the face of the Earth and jump start Armegeddon. China and Russia have aligned themselves economically and militarily. Russia supplies the majority of China's energy. Russia makes another large arms deal with Venezuala and negotiates an exclusive oil exploration deal for Venezualan reserves. Chavez commits to "put an end to the dollar".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/2446112/Russia-and-Venezuela-in-deal-to-counter-'US-aggression'.html
Mexican invaders are allowed to take residence in the US and drain our resources. US government turns a blind eye to the invasion. Mexico is the 2nd largest importer of oil to the US. The forces of evil that are in control of these countries rule with blood and horror, oppress and exploit their own citizens for increased power and wealth.

Socialists (enviro-terrorists) have been successful in lobbying (bribing) our Legislative branch to prevent the exploration of US oil reserves, coal and nuclear energy expansion and now the latest target is wind power.

The United States of America has a target on it and is being attacked both externally and from within.

It's pretty simple, we either wake up and take back our country from the government and the Socialist movement or just sit back and watch the pieces fall into place.........

[fscrig75]

I think Bush repeatedly and vocally left the nuclear option open for attacking Iran, Iraq and N. Korea, ever since 9/11, even as a pre-emptive strike option!

I know there have been speeches where he said he would use every weapon available, but I can't find anything where he actually said he would use nuclear weapons.

Putin is a commie, that dude was KGB. He was part of the 5th Directorate, which was responsible for dealing with political dissents.:hang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB#The_Directorates

Anyone else notice that with Russia hunkered down in Georgia that it gives that an straight shot into Iran? All that stands between them and thier Persian allies are Armenia.
"In its 2008 Nations in Transit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nations_in_Transit&action=edit&redlink=1) report, Freedom House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House) categorized Armenia as a "Semi-consolidated Authoritarian Regime" (along with Moldova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova), Kosovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo), Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan), andRussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)) and ranked Armenia 20th among 29 nations, with a "Democracy Score" of 5.21 out of 7 (with 7 having the lowest democratic progress)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia#Government_and_politics

Seems Armenia is pals with Russia, and they don't like Turkey, to the West, and Azerbaijan, to the East, which are both considered US allies.

I think Russia is getting a little paranoid that we are going to attack Iran.

I do find it pretty interesting that Russia was out flying those crop dusters so close to everyones airspace. If the Norweigians felt they needed to throw up so F16s to watch them it must've been a bit more worrysome. Hell the Brits put up an AWACS, and a refueler.
But not to worry we got some missiles that can take those POS down pretty quickly.

[Ecomike]

Some more interesting background on Putin and the isues:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bush-dodges-bullet-in-rush-to-blame-putin-for-the-big-chill-at-g8-summit-692718.html

"Why is hostility to the West so popular in Russia? Let us try to look at the West through Russian eyes. Despite all the past sentimental rhetoric of Western politicians describing Russia as a friend and "strategic partner", US and European behaviour has consistently treated Russia more as an enemy than an ally.
Russia has been told it could never join Nato or the EU and Mr Putin's invitation to G8 summits is scant consolation for the denial of WTO (http://www.independent.ie/topics/World+Trade+Organization) membership and the continuation of US trade sanctions dating back to the Cold War.
On human rights and extrajudicial assassinations, Russia's record may be deplorable, but its abuses pale in comparison with those of Western friends such as Saudi Arabia (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Saudi+Arabia) and China, not to mention President Bush's "boil them in oil" ally, Uzbekistan (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Uzbekistan).
But far more serious from the Russian standpoint than any diplomatic conflicts is what the West has done to their country's territorial integrity. Ever since the first Bush Administration undermined Mikhail Gorbachev (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Mikhail+Gorbachev) by denying him the financial assistance of the International Monetary Fund (http://www.independent.ie/topics/International+Monetary+Fund) and then encouraged the dissolution of the Soviet Union (http://www.independent.ie/topics/U.S.S.R.) under Boris Yeltsin (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Boris+Yeltsin), the West has appeared, at least from Moscow (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Moscow)'s standpoint, to seize every opportunity to weaken, isolate and encircle Russia.
Not only has Russia lost its Eastern European satellites, but the homeland itself has been dismembered. No reasonable Russian could object to the independence of Poland, Hungary (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Hungary) and even the Baltic states (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Baltic+States), which were forcibly annexed into the Soviet Union after the Second World War. But the loss of The Ukraine (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Ukraine), Belarus (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Belarus), the Caucasus (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Caucasus) and central Asia (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Asia) are a different matter. These areas - or at least large swaths of them - were integral parts of the Russian "motherland" long before Texas (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Texas) and California (http://www.independent.ie/topics/California) belonged to the United States (http://www.independent.ie/topics/United+States). For Russians, the separation with Ukraine and Belarus in particular is at least as emotionally wrenching as Basque secession would be to Spain (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Spain).
While Westerners see Russian resentment about these territorial losses as a throwback to 19th-century imperialist thinking, what Russians see a powerful and wealthy empire expanding steadily on their Western border and swallowing all the intervening countries, first into the EU's economic and political arrangements and then into the Nato military structure.
Embraces
Is it so very unreasonable to view this EU-Nato juggernaut as the world's last remaining expansionist empire, or even the natural successor to previous German and French expansions that were considerably less benign?
Western politicians may ridicule such fantasies as Russian nationalist paranoia. But why shouldn't the Russians worry about Western armies and missiles on their borders, when these contribute to a process of territorial encroachment similar to what Napoleon and Hitler (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Adolf+Hitler) failed to achieve by cruder means?
America and Europe, regardless of their warm words about Russia, are treating it as an enemy, taking every opportunity to cut it down to size."


http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia/now-china-and-russia-see-eye-to-eye-on-us-policies-108847.html


"But while they are in agreement over major international issues, their economic ambitions are causing increasing friction.
Mr Putin made a preliminary agreement for a gas pipeline from Russia to China, but offered only a feasibility study for an oil pipeline, which is China's real priority.
Economic
Beijing wants a commitment from Russia to build a pipeline into China guaranteeing it the oil supplies on which it is more and more dependent to feed its economic boom. Russia has delayed a decision for two years, torn between China's demands and the blandishments and money of Japan (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Japan), which also wants access to Russian energy.
China's leaders will be pleased to see Mr Putin has brought with him his energy minister, resources minister, the heads of the state oil and gas firms Rosneft (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Rosneft+Oil+Company) and Gazprom (http://www.independent.ie/topics/OAO+Gazprom), and the head of its nuclear power programme.
Meanwhile, Russia is critical of China for its failure to reciprocate with investment in Russia, and accused China's businessmen of "numerous violations of customs, tax, currency laws and the passport-visa regime".
Jin Canrong (http://www.independent.ie/topics/Jin+Canrong), professor of international relations at Beijing's People's University, warned against over-reacting to the tactical alliance of the two leaders.
"Now that China considers itself to be a member of the international community, it has more regular dialogue with the main countries in the world," he said. "I don't think it's necessary [for the United States] to be concerned." (©Daily Telegraph, London (http://www.independent.ie/topics/London))

[Ecomike]

I know there have been speeches where he said he would use every weapon available, but I can't find anything where he actually said he would use nuclear weapons.


I do believe "every available weapon" includes the worlds largest Nuclear arsenal. It was Bush Jr's refusal to take a first strike option off the table that concerned me too. That leaves the world thinking we are willing to take a first strike nuclear option as a serious option for us. Then you add in our almost unilateral attack on Iraq and its no wonder the Russians are pissed off. Seems we made many promises to the Russians in the early 90s that we have reniged on. Its also no wonder the Iranians are pissed off and scared enough to be seeking their own nukes, besides the fact that they hate Israel and want to see it glow it the dark.

Putin is a commie, that dude was KGB. He was part of the 5th Directorate, which was responsible for dealing with political dissents.:hang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB#The_Directorates



Ding Ding Ding! You are correct! But then again President Bush Sr. was the head of the CIA, Bush Jr's father.

Don't get me wrong, I just know that we need to look at both or all sides of the issue, to truely understand what is going on, who is on first, what is second and so on.

Anyone else notice that with Russia hunkered down in Georgia that it gives that an straight shot into Iran? All that stands between them and thier Persian allies are Armenia.
"In its 2008 Nations in Transit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nations_in_Transit&action=edit&redlink=1) report, Freedom House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House) categorized Armenia as a "Semi-consolidated Authoritarian Regime" (along with Moldova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova), Kosovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo), Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan), andRussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)) and ranked Armenia 20th among 29 nations, with a "Democracy Score" of 5.21 out of 7 (with 7 having the lowest democratic progress)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia#Government_and_politics

Seems Armenia is pals with Russia, and they don't like Turkey, to the West, and Azerbaijan, to the East, which are both considered US allies.

I will read up on that shortly, thanks for the post. Turkey has been treading water with everyone since before the Iraq invasion. I was wondering at one point, since Russia says it does not want a nuke armed Iran, if the US and Russia weren't pretending to be on opposite sides while Russia moved closer to Iran through Georgia, but what I have read recently indicates that there have been multiple antagonistic treaty and arms sale deals in the last few years by Russia and the US that seemed to be aimed at pissing each other off. One upmanship over control of oil, and local sphere of influence back stabbing.

Did you know that Russia applied for membership in NATO and was turned down? They also applied for WTO membership and were turned down.

I think Russia is getting a little paranoid that we are going to attack Iran.

You think? They are not the only ones that are paranoid about it. Iran is the worlds second largest oil exporter. A war in Iran right now would destabilize the entire world and the world economy.

I do find it pretty interesting that Russia was out flying those crop dusters so close to everyones airspace. If the Norweigians felt they needed to throw up so F16s to watch them it must've been a bit more worrysome. Hell the Brits put up an AWACS, and a refueler.
But not to worry we got some missiles that can take those POS down pretty quickly.

I am guessing they were just out out on crop dusting manuvers!:fuse:

All it takes is one nuke to get through to make a hell of a mess.

[JohnJohn]

It was Bush Jr's refusal to take a first strike option off the table that concerned me too.

No one's gonna nuke anyone. I prefer that our enemies be scared of us. Maybe even think we are bunch a "crazy MF'rs".

I remember back when I was in high school. My buddy and I would drag around in his POS 71 Chevy Nova. There was one time when some guys in another car started harassing us...looking for a fight. They followed us for an hour or so. Finally we stopped in a well lit parking lot. I looked at my buddy and said:

When you get out, act like the meanest, craziest out of control white guy you have ever seen. Bang the roof of your car and and start walking really fast towards them...before they even get out. Shout C'mon, bring it. Iv'e been waitin for this. Yell some crap like that. I'll do the same.

Needless to say those two dudes turned the wheel of their car and high tailed it right out of there.

Our bark was worse than our bite, believe me we would have gotten our butts kicked.

I prefer our enemies, or anyone who wants to side with our enemies, think about it long and hard before they try something. Thinking that we might strike first might just deter...or maybe even open there mind enough to understand our point of view.

Have you even been caught in a violent situation...maybe a fight in grade school. Where you avoided a situation with reason or humor? Ironically in most of those situations the bully ends up being your friend in the end. Communication lines are open after such an incident. However it took that bully showing you his strength to make you understand his point, and how better to get along with him.

[fosforito_one]

Putin Is a commi/socialist and there will not be a nuke attack on any front because of what it would mean. Every crountry in the word is terrified of what would happen if some one was stupid enough to actaully launch a nuecular assult. The Mass Assured Distruction, and it would be assured, would be devistating because it wouldn't just be a simple counter attack it would be the compelte distruction of what ever nation initated it.

Russia like us is trying to protect their current and future interest. However UNLIKE Russia the US does not just invade another country and suck the life out of it like a leach. Dont try using the Iraq argument saying that we are plundering the country for oil, I have been there and seen it with my own eyes. What is going on there is not the same as what Russia is doing in Georgia.

While I dont neci-sillyly agree with everything out goverment says I still believe that we are doing whats right.

Hopefully peacfull communication will prevail before hostial communication is needed.

So like JohnJohn said we can just bark for now but still reserve the right to bite. (I know thats not exactly how you ment it JohnJohn but it had a certain poetic ring to it I couldn't leave out)

[buschwhaked]

Putin Is a commi/socialist and there will not be a nuke attack on any front because of what it would mean. Every crountry in the word is terrified of what would happen if some one was stupid enough to actaully launch a nuecular assult. The Mass Assured Distruction, and it would be assured, would be devistating because it wouldn't just be a simple counter attack it would be the compelte distruction of what ever nation initated it.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). And you're right, a nuclear war would be bad.



Russia like us is trying to protect their current and future interest. However UNLIKE Russia the US does not just invade another country and suck the life out of it like a leach. Dont try using the Iraq argument saying that we are plundering the country for oil, I have been there and seen it with my own eyes. What is going on there is not the same as what Russia is doing in Georgia.

You're right about them protecting their interests. However, we DO unilaterally invade other countries in wars of aggression. Our credibility took a real hit when we invaded Iraq and us talking down to Russia sounds hypocritical. We have no moral leverage left on that issue now. Great job Bush. And are you so sure we're not going to get a lot of oil out of Iraq for dirt cheap as 'repayment' for our reconstruction efforts? Are you aware the only Iraqi ministry building we bothered to secure at the onset of the invasion was the Ministry of Oil? Bush is a zealot, but not stupid. He's just buying time till later to start getting the oil.



While I dont neci-sillyly agree with everything out goverment says I still believe that we are doing whats right.

Hopefully peacfull communication will prevail before hostial communication is needed.

So like JohnJohn said we can just bark for now but still reserve the right to bite. (I know thats not exactly how you ment it JohnJohn but it had a certain poetic ring to it I couldn't leave out)



I sure hope that we don't have to 'bite.' We're bogged down in two intense occupations and despite the drawdown in Iraq, we're not equipped to fight a manuever fight anymore. And everyone knows it. But that's besides the point, we'll never go toe to toe with Russia. Too much to lose on both sides.

Putin is simply trying to rebuild the old USSR, just w/o the distraction of the philosophical differences between democracy and communism. He's targeted Georgia in an attempt to "punish" them. To remind them that though they made the US an ally Russia can still smack them...hard. And then there is the oil. Though Georgia has no natural reserves to write home about, they are in a key location for oil and natural gas coming out of Azerbaijan (sp?). BP actually shut down their pipeline running through Georgia because of this conflict. And the interesting thing about this oil is the fact that it's not Russian or OPEC oil that is running through it. It's independant. If Russia controls the pipeline, they can control the flow.

Bush has handled Russia with the finesse of a bull. He's ignored multiple international treaties and laws, aggressively pursued policies that piss Russia off, and ignored any input they might have outright. But now Russia has manuevered themselves as the main supplier of oil to the EU. They've used to proceeds to rebuild their military in the hopes of expanding their energy output. They know that the only country that had the moral and international standing to stop their expansion was the US, but looky looky, we're doing the same thing, at least in the eyes of the international community, whether truthful or not. Awesome.

[buschwhaked]

Oh, and considering Putin's affinity for Black Gold, I'd say he a Republican, oh, and a facist...still Republican IMO. Damn, I feel fiesty today. :geek:

[JohnJohn]

Oh, and considering Putin's affinity for Black Gold, I'd say he a Republican, oh, and a facist...still Republican IMO. Damn, I feel fiesty today. :geek:

I disagree with the relation your trying to make. Hugo Chavez is hot for Black Gold too. I wouldn't call him a Republican. Socialist Dictator < Republican

[Darky]

Bush has handled Russia with the finesse of a bull. He's ignored multiple international treaties and laws, aggressively pursued policies that piss Russia off, and ignored any input they might have outright.
What's funny here is that the main one (in the news, at least) is the missile defense shield in Czechoslovakia and Poland. Russia has no basis to be mad over this unless they plan on launching some missiles at people. A missile defense shield isn't an offensive weapon, and we got a lot of people in that side of the world worth keeping an eye on.

[buschwhaked]

What's funny here is that the main one (in the news, at least) is the missile defense shield in Czechoslovakia and Poland. Russia has no basis to be mad over this unless they plan on launching some missiles at people. A missile defense shield isn't an offensive weapon, and we got a lot of people in that side of the world worth keeping an eye on.

True, but Bush handled it really poorly. Instead of working with the Russians to renegotiate the treaty or even give a heads up, he just walked out of the White House and announced it. No "hey heads up you rooskies" or "oh yeah, BTW..." just screw you, we do what we want when we want. From their POV they just lost their first strike capability and we still have ours. No more MAD. Dictatorships are naturally paranoid, so losing their ability to strike first much less retaliate tends to set some things out of balance.

Also, instead of working towards further nuclear disarmament and countering nuclear proliferation, Bush just invested more and more money into the military industrial complex. Now, we have a pissed off Russia unilateraly invading our ally nations with more inadequatly secured nukes all over the place and even more motivation to do whatever they can to counter efforts of western nations. Bush should be worried about his legacy.

[buschwhaked]

I disagree with the relation your trying to make. Hugo Chavez is hot for Black Gold too. I wouldn't call him a Republican. Socialist Dictator < Republican

Chavez hasn't unilaterally invaded another country in pursuit of the control of energy.

[Darky]

True, but Bush handled it really poorly. Instead of working with the Russians to renegotiate the treaty or even give a heads up, he just walked out of the White House and announced it. No "hey heads up you rooskies" or "oh yeah, BTW..." just screw you, we do what we want when we want. From their POV they just lost their first strike capability and we still have ours. No more MAD. Dictatorships are naturally paranoid, so losing their ability to strike first much less retaliate tends to set some things out of balance.

Also, instead of working towards further nuclear disarmament and countering nuclear proliferation, Bush just invested more and more money into the military industrial complex. Now, we have a pissed off Russia unilateraly invading our ally nations with more inadequatly secured nukes all over the place and even more motivation to do whatever they can to counter efforts of western nations. Bush should be worried about his legacy.
I could care less if a dictator is mad because he no longer has first strike capabilities against us. Wanna know why? Because I like not being bombed. There's no need to ask, "Oh, hey, would you mind if we put up some missile defenses in case you or Iran, or even North Korea decide to lob a nuke or bio/chem missile at us? Oh you would mind, I'm sorry, we'll keep our defenses down then."

No that's stupid and I think if Russia is seriously that mad that we would put up defenses near them, maybe we oughtta reconsider how much attn we pay to their wants. Again, the only to fear a well-defended nation is if that nation is an enemy.

Bush's legacy will look a lot better if the turds hit the fan and the missile defense system he so foolishly erected stops us from getting nuked...

[buschwhaked]

Bush handled it in a dismal way. Good idea or bad idea, I don't know, but it's done so what can we do? Nevertheless, he should have used the tools of diplomacy instead of just shooting from the hip. There were much better ways to get a missile defense system up than the way he did it. Now the result is we have a half completed system and a reinvigorated (sp?) Russia.

[JohnJohn]

Chavez hasn't unilaterally invaded another country in pursuit of the control of energy.

Nope he'd just trying to invade his own country.

EDIT: add below

Hugo knocking out the competition: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h3bAcMjmrfwcjYF0JgIaTGEvgYfAD92H5FJ00

More Hugo take over talk: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/columnists/story/641326.html

No right wing spin here either. First one is from the AP, the second from the Miami Herald.

[fscrig75]

The arguement about what is different between Iraq and Georgia is that Iraq was a dictatorship where Georgia is an elected government. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just that that is the arguement.

As for the missile shield we've been trying for awhile now to get Poland to let us put it in, and while they did want to do it, they had been putting it off because they didn't want to pissoff Russia.

But then on the 8th Russia up and rolled into Georgia, getting all of those former Soviet Satellite nervous. And in 1 week, 15 Aug, Poland was signing the agreement to install this missile shield. IMO Poland was probably begging us to put it in once Russia rolled into Georgia.

As for the nukes I don't think that Russia or the US would every be the first to use one, Iran on the other hand would IMO be more than happy to launch one as soon as they get one.

Bush and his cabinet my not be the best at diplomicy but it was Russias action that lead Poland to do what they did.

[fosforito_one]

The arguement about what is different between Iraq and Georgia is that Iraq was a dictatorship where Georgia is an elected government.

Its the manner of the occupation and the motives behind it. Russia's movement against Georgia was not provoked beyond reasons to display that they could. Yes, yes, I know the occupation of Iraq and Afganistan. No matter what way you try and dicect it they are still not the same.

BushWhacked I will never disagree with anyone when they say that we are there for the oil. I believe that is part of it and that is what I ment when I said "like we look out for our current and future interest." What I dissagree with is when people try and make it seem that we (the US Goverment) are trying to take the oil by force. "We" have dumped billions of dollars into the "reconstructoin" of Iraq (how they have used it is another issue) and are still paying a premium price for their oil, who knows if they will ever sell it to us for cheap or not.

This thread was started to create a debate instead of a solution. Who cares what party Putin would belong to if he were part of our democratic system, him being a rep or dem is not important. The important issues are the ones that have come out throughout this converstation such as energy for the future (short and long term), Global politics / diplomacy (perhaps the most important because it would insure energy and ecconomic stability) and of course all these tie into US involvement in Iraq (personally I think its time we start to get out).

But that's just my .02

[Ecomike]

What I dissagree with is when people try and make it seem that we (the US Goverment) are trying to take the oil by force. "We" have dumped billions of dollars into the "reconstructoin" of Iraq (how they have used it is another issue) and are still paying a premium price for their oil, who knows if they will ever sell it to us for cheap or not.



Well we took Iraq by force and the oil is in Iraq, but I have no idea where people got the idea we took the oil by force.:looney:

Regarding the billions we spent rebuilding IRaq, I keep hearing of missing billions and little or no visible reconstruction after all these years. Curious but I do believe that we are the ones that flattened their entire infrastructure.

[Ecomike]

The arguement about what is different between Iraq and Georgia is that Iraq was a dictatorship where Georgia is an elected government. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just that that is the arguement.

As for the missile shield we've been trying for awhile now to get Poland to let us put it in, and while they did want to do it, they had been putting it off because they didn't want to pissoff Russia.

But then on the 8th Russia up and rolled into Georgia, getting all of those former Soviet Satellite nervous. And in 1 week, 15 Aug, Poland was signing the agreement to install this missile shield. IMO Poland was probably begging us to put it in once Russia rolled into Georgia.

As for the nukes I don't think that Russia or the US would every be the first to use one, Iran on the other hand would IMO be more than happy to launch one as soon as they get one.

Bush and his cabinet my not be the best at diplomicy but it was Russias action that lead Poland to do what they did.

So its OK to attack a country with a 25 year old dictatorship like Iraq, but not one with a 2 year elected president? I wonder why we never attacked Stallin in Russia, hell Stallin made S. Hussien and Hitler look like pansies.

Now you have me wondering if Bush proded Georgia into starting the skermish, knowing they would get their buts kicked just to scare Poland into accepting the missile defense system.

The problem some of you fail to see is that the Russians (Soviets) and the USA had a policy called MAD that kept a balance of power in place for about 50 years, that assured neither side would be the first to use nukes, but a missile defense system was viewed to disturb that balance by giving the side with a missile defense system an advantage that made it more likely that the side with a missile defense system would use nukes in a first strike in the hopes of wiping out the other sides nukes to the point of the missile defense system being able to stop the remaing nukes. Therefore, the side with out the missle defense system is forced to strike first, before the missile defense system is completed by the other side.

Basicaly what Russia said is stop building the missle defense system in Poland or we will take it out with nukes before it is completed.

By the way, the last WW started over the German invasion of Poland.

[Darky]

Mike, you're sounding like someone who is pressing an agenda even against logic. If you recall, Georgia didn't start the "skirmish". It was started when Russia rolled into their country. I still see no intelligence behind leaving yourself undefended in hopes that nothing bad will happen. Again, Cold War is over. The only reason Russia has to fear our defense system is if they have any thoughts of launching a nuke at us.

As far as oil, we're still paying for oil from them, where's the force?

[Tom R.]

Mike, you're sounding like someone who is pressing an agenda even against logic.
Understatement of the year!

[TRNDRVR]

!!!1


Didn't we already determine that he's a Republican because he's "deuchebag" just like Bush???

[Ecomike]

Mike, you're sounding like someone who is pressing an agenda even against logic. If you recall, Georgia didn't start the "skirmish". It was started when Russia rolled into their country. I still see no intelligence behind leaving yourself undefended in hopes that nothing bad will happen. Again, Cold War is over. The only reason Russia has to fear our defense system is if they have any thoughts of launching a nuke at us.

As far as oil, we're still paying for oil from them, where's the force?

Not correct. Many sources have reported and admitted that Georgian troops fired on and killed many Russian peacekepers in South Osetia (sp?) before the Russians moved into Georgia proper.

The point is if the Russians mean business, and at the moment it seems they do, then we are risking WW III at this time if we install the missile defense system in Poland. The Russians have made it pretty plain that they will attack with nukes if we install the missile defense system in Poland. If it is a bluff, I don't it is worth the risk to call their bluff.

Israel has basically told Iran that it will attack Iran with deadly force if they continue building a nuke(s). I don't think the Israelies are bluffing either.

I might add that I don't see the US offering a missile defense system to Russia. There was a time IIRC when Ronald Reagan offered the Star Wars missile defense system (in the R & D stages at the time) to the Soviets to help put an end the MAD.

I don't see where we have offered the Poland system to the Russians.

All I am saying, is that Russia is still the largest potential military threat to the US that we have, and if we are not careful we could end up in a real war or another cold war with Russia, which no wants, and the world can not afford.

Why is that you think Poland needs a missile defense system all of a sudden, badly enough to risk WW III?

[Ecomike]

!!!1


Didn't we already determine that he's a Republican because he's "deuchebag" just like Bush???

I knew I could count on you to pour some oil on the :flame:.

:D

[DrMoab]

Didn't we already determine that he's a Republican because he's "deuchebag" just like Bush???
Using that logic about 85% of NAXJA would have to call you a republican too.

[VanillaGorilla]

...no comment.

[VanillaGorilla]

...no comment.

[scottmcneal]

SNAP

[Darky]

We haven't offered a missile defense system to France, Britain, Iran, North or South Korea, Japan, or Luxembourg either. What's your point?

I doubt Russia would use a nuke so swiftly. Before the defense shield is in place, MAD is still in effect. Afterward, we gain the advantage. But again, unless they have intentions of using them on us or our allies, what's the worry? They gotta know we won't be using ours anytime soon.

[Ecomike]

The more I read about this the more it looks like we are about to step into another Iraq, Afganistan or Vietnam, except this time it would be in the middle of a very old battle between Georgia and Russia that has been going on for 2 centuries. The difference this time being that the Russians have nukes, unlike Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afganistan.

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=15137653

" Marshall Goldman, a leading Russia scholar, argues in a recent book that Putin has established a "petrostate," in which oil and gas are strategically deployed as punishments, rewards and threats. The author details the lengths to which Putin has gone to retain control over the delivery of natural gas from Central Asia to the West. A proposed alternative pipeline would skirt Russia and run through Georgia, as an oil pipeline now does. "If Georgia collapses in turmoil," Goldman notes, "investors will not put up the money for a bypass pipeline." And so, he concludes, Putin has done his best to destabilize the Saakashvili regime.

But economic considerations alone scarcely account for what appears to be an obsession with Georgia. The "color revolutions" that swept across Ukraine, the Balkans and the Caucasus in the first years of the new century plainly unnerved Putin, who has denounced America's policy of "democracy promotion" and stifled foreign organizations seeking to promote human rights in Russia. Georgia, with its open embrace of the West, thus represents a threat to the legitimacy of Russia's authoritarian model. And this challenge is immensely compounded by Georgia's fervent aspiration to join NATO, one of Russia's red lines. Russian officials frequently recall that President Bill Clinton promised Boris Yeltsin that NATO would not expand beyond Eastern Europe. Of course NATO is no longer an anti-Soviet alliance, and the fact that Russia views NATO's eastward expansion as a threat to its security is a vivid sign of the deep-rooted cold war mentality of Putin and his circle.
Still, they seem to mean it. Both Putin and his successor as president, Dmitri Medvedev, have reserved their starkest rhetoric for this subject. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has threatened that Georgia's ambition to join NATO "will lead to renewed bloodshed," adding, as if that weren't enough, "we will do anything not to allow Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO."
After Saakashvili, then 37, became president, Putin made no attempt to court him, and Saakashvili, made a point of showing the regional hegemon no deference. The open struggle began in late 2005 and early 2006, when Russia imposed an embargo on Georgia's agricultural products, then on wine and mineral water — virtually Georgia's entire export market. After Georgia very publicly and dramatically expelled Russian diplomats accused of espionage, Putin cut off all land, sea, air and rail links to Georgia, as well as postal service. And then, for good measure, he cut off natural gas supplies in the dead of winter."



"Georgia is a polygot nation, and views both regions as historically, and inextricably, Georgian. Each, however, had its own language, culture, timeless history and separatist aspirations. When the Soviet Union collapsed, both regions sought to separate themselves from Georgia in bloody conflicts — South Ossetia in 1990-1, Abkhazia in 1992-4. Both wars ended with cease-fires that were negotiated by Russia and policed by peacekeeping forces under the aegis of the recently established Commonwealth of Independent States. Over time, the stalemates hardened into "frozen conflicts," like that over Cyprus.
But the Georgians are intensely nationalistic, and viewed these de facto states on their border as an intolerable violation of sovereignty. Saakashvili cashed in on this deep sense of grievance, vowing to restore Georgia's "territorial integrity." Soon after taking office, he succeeded in regaining Georgian control over the southwestern province of Ajara. Then, in the summer of 2004, citing growing banditry and chaos, he sent Interior Ministry troops into South Ossetia. After a series of inconclusive clashes, the troops were forced to make a humiliating withdrawal.
Still, this violation of the status quo infuriated the Russians, and Saakashvili, for once listening to his few dovish advisors, agreed to seek a negotiated settlement in Abkhazia. By late 2005, a Georgian mediator had initialed an agreement: Georgia would not use force, and the Abkhaz would allow the gradual return of 200,000-plus ethnic Georgians who had fled the violence. But the agreement collapsed in early 2006, done in by hardliners on both sides. This chapter has been all but effaced from the history one hears in Georgia."



"his brief interval of talk came to an abrupt end two summers ago, when Saakashvili sent troops to retake the Kodori Valley in Abkhazia — in order, once again, to curb banditry (of which there was, in fact, a great deal). Both the Abkhaz and the Russians took this as a sign that Georgia was prepared to fight to regain its former province. Indeed, last year Saakashvili traveled to the Abkhaz border and promised a crowd of Georgian refugees that they would be back home within a year.
The breakaway regions were thus a stick of dynamite waiting to be lit. And Putin struck a match. Although Russia, as the peacekeeping power, was charged with preserving an international consensus that recognized Georgia's claims over Abkhazia, Russia lifted sanctions on Abkhazia last March. This had nothing to do with local events: Putin had tried for years to prevent Kosovo from declaring its independence from Serbia, and when the Kosovars went ahead, with strong American and European support, last February, Putin responded by leveling a blow at America's Caucasus darling.
Soon afterward, the Russian Duma held hearings on recognition of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, a pro-Russian breakaway republic in Moldova. Moscow argued that the West's logic on Kosovo should apply as well to these ethnic communities seeking to free themselves from the control of a hostile state. And then, in mid-April, Putin held out the possibility of recognition for the breakaway republics.
Now things began to degenerate rapidly. On April 21, Saakashvili called the Russian leader to demand that he reverse the decision. He reminded Putin that the West had taken Georgia's side in the dispute. And Putin, according to several of Saakashvili's associates, shot back with a suggestion about where they could put their statements. Saakashvili, prudent for once, shied from uttering the exact wording, but said that Putin had used "extremely offensive language," and had repeated the expression several times."



"

The atmosphere during the early spring was electric with tension. Georgia accused Russia of shooting down a drone aircraft over Abkhazia; a United Nations report later confirmed the claim. Russia loudly insisted that Georgia was preparing for war; the Georgians had, indeed, mobilized troops and prepared fuel dumps.
Russia responded to the apparent Georgian preparations by dispatching 400 paratroopers and a battery of howitzers to a staging area not far from the cease-fire line, provoking a strong protest from NATO. "At the end of the day, we were very close to war" on May 9, says Temuri Yacobashvili, the Georgian minister of reintegration and a Saakashvili confidant. In fact, diplomats in Georgia and elsewhere give somewhat more credence to the Russian claims than to Georgia's. State Department officials urged Saakashvili to calm down. Perhaps each side was trying to provoke the other into striking first, and thus losing the battle of public opinion. Of course, that's how wars often start."


"

Talking to the Georgians about Abkhazia, and the Abkhaz about Georgia, was like shuttling between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Georgians said that they were "always there," that Abkhazia was a Georgian kingdom, and that only by expelling the ethnic Georgians at the end of the war did the Abkhaz make themselves a majority in the province. The Abkhaz said that they are the descendants of a "1,000-year-old kingdom," that they were the victims of a massive campaign of Russian deportation in the 1860s, and then that Stalin forced them into the Georgian yoke. The Abkhaz talk about the Georgians pretty much the same way that the Georgians talk about the Russians. On that point, the Abkhaz share much with the South Ossetians. For them, as for the Ossetians, Georgia is the neighborhood bully.
It's a pretty safe bet that Georgia and Abkhazia will not resolve their conflict on their own. Both breakaway regions are quite willing to live with the Russian-enforced status quo, but even relatively moderate Georgian officials consider that status quo utterly unacceptable. When I asked Temuri Yacobashvili, a cultivated man who is one of the country's leading art patrons, why Georgia couldn't focus on the threat from Russia and let the Abkhaz have their de facto state, he said, "These are not two different things, because it's not amputating hand, it's amputating head, or heart. No Georgian president could survive if he gave up on Abkhazia." And, he added, "if the international community by its inaction will not leave any other option for Georgia, then we have to make decision."
If the West, that is, won't induce Russia to stop using the border region as a pawn, Georgia will be left with no choice save war."

"The situation in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia took yet another turn down the spiral of confrontation in July, when mysterious acts of violence plagued both regions. There were bombings in Abkhazia. There were shootings in South Ossetia. Who was behind the string of attacks? Criminal gangs? Provocateurs? Georgian secret agents? No one knew, but that didn't stop the accusations from flying. Abkhazia closed the cease-fire line, then cut all ties with Georgia. On July 8, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about to visit Georgia, Russia sent fighter jets over South Ossetia. Georgian Interior Ministry forces squared off against civilians in South Ossetia. The pot was boiling. And then, last week, the lid blew in South Ossetia, for reasons that remain unclear. Diplomats are now laboring mightily to prevent the war from spreading, though hostilities may serve too many different interests to be easily contained."

[Darky]

So, long story short, Russia doesn't want Georgia to succeed away from them. They've cut off Georgia's supply lines for export, thus hurting their economy; cut off the gas in the middle of winter, most likely, causing many deaths from exposure; made multiple threats to keep Georgia from seeking friendships with countries not threatening them with death, etc etc. Sounds like somebody we really want to appease...

[Kejtar]

I don't think so, wasn't he elected by the people of Russia in a free election?
Oh boy....... please tell me that you don't actually believe that...

[Kejtar]

Why is that you think Poland needs a missile defense system all of a sudden, badly enough to risk WW III?
Ummm ummmmm I think you're really slightly missing some of the points. The missile defense system installed in Poland is there to intercept as soon as possible missiles that are going towards the older NATO territories.....

But to summarize: in essence you're saying that if someone wants to do something in conjunctino with another party if Russians say: we don't want you to do it, you're going to not do it and listen to them?

[TRNDRVR]

Using that logic about 85% of NAXJA would have to call you a republican too.That's why November can't come soon enough!!!

[fscrig75]

So its OK to attack a country with a 25 year old dictatorship like Iraq, but not one with a 2 year elected president? I wonder why we never attacked Stallin in Russia, hell Stallin made S. Hussien and Hitler look like pansies.

IMO yes I think it was ok to go into Iraq. I do also wonder why we never went after Stallin, Gen Patton wanted and its hard to argue with that guy.


The problem some of you fail to see is that the Russians (Soviets) and the USA had a policy called MAD that kept a balance of power in place for about 50 years, that assured neither side would be the first to use nukes, but a missile defense system was viewed to disturb that balance by giving the side with a missile defense system an advantage that made it more likely that the side with a missile defense system would use nukes in a first strike in the hopes of wiping out the other sides nukes to the point of the missile defense system being able to stop the remaing nukes. Therefore, the side with out the missle defense system is forced to strike first, before the missile defense system is completed by the other side.

Yes we all know about MAD, but what I think your failing to see is that we already have a missile defense shield for America. Its been up and running for awhile now, and I don't remember hearing Russia b*itching about that, do you? Oh Russia has had a missile defense system too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system
Russia believes that this system can be for offensive purposes, I'm sure there is some gee wiz engineer that could reprogram the thing, and yes we probably have looked into that, but as it stands right now they don't do that. Yes missiles can be reconfigured but theres a lot more to it than just pointing and shooting. On this system the radar that is tracking the incoming missile also guides the outbound missile. Offensive missiles work on GPS that are built into the missile. Then you have to get into the minimum/maximum distance the the interceptor can fly. Its not easy to reconfigure the missiles.
Here is some light reading about our systems. Neither is exactly what they want to put in Europe but the operation idea is about the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THAAD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile
And it isn't just the US that is pushing for this system its our allies, NATO, that wants it installed too.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/03/nato.members/index.html



Not correct. Many sources have reported and admitted that Georgian troops fired on and killed many Russian peacekepers in South Osetia (sp?) before the Russians moved into Georgia proper.

Wops, actually they went into South Osetia trying to find local guerrillas, that have been using South Osetia has their base of operations. Though they probably did have the support of the Russians.


Israel has basically told Iran that it will attack Iran with deadly force if they continue building a nuke(s). I don't think the Israelies are bluffing either.

Can you blame them, the Iranian president tells the world every chance he gets that he will wipe Israel off the map if he gets the chance. And I believe he will do it.
:cheers:

[fosforito_one]

IMO yes I think it was ok to go into Iraq. I do also wonder why we never went after Stallin, Gen Patton wanted and its hard to argue with that guy.




Yes we all know about MAD, but what I think your failing to see is that we already have a missile defense shield for America. Its been up and running for awhile now, and I don't remember hearing Russia b*itching about that, do you? Oh Russia has had a missile defense system too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system
Russia believes that this system can be for offensive purposes, I'm sure there is some gee wiz engineer that could reprogram the thing, and yes we probably have looked into that, but as it stands right now they don't do that. Yes missiles can be reconfigured but theres a lot more to it than just pointing and shooting. On this system the radar that is tracking the incoming missile also guides the outbound missile. Offensive missiles work on GPS that are built into the missile. Then you have to get into the minimum/maximum distance the the interceptor can fly. Its not easy to reconfigure the missiles.
Here is some light reading about our systems. Neither is exactly what they want to put in Europe but the operation idea is about the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THAAD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile
And it isn't just the US that is pushing for this system its our allies, NATO, that wants it installed too.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/03/nato.members/index.html





Wops, actually they went into South Osetia trying to find local guerrillas, that have been using South Osetia has their base of operations. Though they probably did have the support of the Russians.




Can you blame them, the Iranian president tells the world every chance he gets that he will wipe Israel off the map if he gets the chance. And I believe he will do it.
:cheers:

AMEN!!! I couldn't have said it better myself! :party:

That was interesting about the reprograming of their missil defence system. That never occured to me and it was the first I had heard of it.

[DrMoab]

That's why November can't come soon enough!!!
Polls are tied 50/50. There is a very good chance we will get another Republican in office.

[TRNDRVR]

Polls are tied 50/50. There is a very good chance we will get another Republican in office.That wasn't what I was talking about.......:huh:

[fscrig75]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/20/poland.us.missile/index.html

Well its a done deal. Looks like the ball is in Russia's court.

[Ecomike]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/20/poland.us.missile/index.html

Well its a done deal. Looks like the ball is in Russia's court.
Hopefully they won't lob an explosive ball back to our court.

I hear Rice called Putins threats pathetic today. Nothing like tossing fuel on the fire.

[Ecomike]

IMO yes I think it was ok to go into Iraq. I do also wonder why we never went after Stallin, Gen Patton wanted and its hard to argue with that guy.




Yes we all know about MAD, but what I think your failing to see is that we already have a missile defense shield for America. Its been up and running for awhile now, and I don't remember hearing Russia b*itching about that, do you? Oh Russia has had a missile defense system too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system
Russia believes that this system can be for offensive purposes, I'm sure there is some gee wiz engineer that could reprogram the thing, and yes we probably have looked into that, but as it stands right now they don't do that. Yes missiles can be reconfigured but theres a lot more to it than just pointing and shooting. On this system the radar that is tracking the incoming missile also guides the outbound missile. Offensive missiles work on GPS that are built into the missile. Then you have to get into the minimum/maximum distance the the interceptor can fly. Its not easy to reconfigure the missiles.
Here is some light reading about our systems. Neither is exactly what they want to put in Europe but the operation idea is about the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THAAD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile
And it isn't just the US that is pushing for this system its our allies, NATO, that wants it installed too.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/03/nato.members/index.html





Wops, actually they went into South Osetia trying to find local guerrillas, that have been using South Osetia has their base of operations. Though they probably did have the support of the Russians.




Can you blame them, the Iranian president tells the world every chance he gets that he will wipe Israel off the map if he gets the chance. And I believe he will do it.
:cheers:
Been reading those links and found this!

"
The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and 40%. However, when President George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush) traveled to Raytheon's Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts during the Gulf War, he declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!"[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile#cite_note-7) The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97% during the war.
On April 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_7), 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992) Theodore Postol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Postol) of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology), and Reuven Pedatzur (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reuven_Pedatzur&action=edit&redlink=1) of Tel Aviv University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv_University) testified before a House Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_of_Representatives) stating that, according to their independent analyses, the Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero success rate. In response to this testimony and other evidence, the staff of the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security reported, "The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. The public and the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and Raytheon representatives during and after the war."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile#cite_note-8)"

[fscrig75]

I hear Rice called Putins threats pathetic today. Nothing like tossing fuel on the fire.

That girl's got fire. But actually it was the NATO Secretary General that orginally called the threats pathetic, she just repeated what he said. But since she is American she will get all the blame.

I'd vote Rice for prez any day of the week!

[fscrig75]

The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and 40%. However, when President George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush) traveled to Raytheon's Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts during the Gulf War, he declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!"[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile#cite_note-7) The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97% during the war.
On April 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_7), 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992) Theodore Postol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Postol) of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology), and Reuven Pedatzur (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reuven_Pedatzur&action=edit&redlink=1) of Tel Aviv University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv_University) testified before a House Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_of_Representatives) stating that, according to their independent analyses, the Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero success rate. In response to this testimony and other evidence, the staff of the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security reported, "The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. The public and the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and Raytheon representatives during and after the war."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile#cite_note-8)"

The only thing I know about the Persian Gulf War, is that the Patriot system was initially designed for ABT(Air Breathing Threat, Airplanes). When the Gulf war came around all anyone was worried about was Sadams Scuds. They did some computer reprogramming and decided to try the system against inbound TBM (Tactical Ballistic Missile). Was the system perfect at that time, no it was being tested under fire. Was it the only system that we had yes. And trust me we have learned a lot since then!

One of the reasons the success rate is so low is the system does not engage every missile that is fired. These systems are not area defense, but point, large points.
So lets say that 10 missiles are fired Vegas, the radar and computer make a determination of where they will land. If only 1 in 10 are going to hit Vegas, then only that missile will be engaged. The other 9 will be allowed to impact where ever.
So in the end we've only killed 10% of the missiles fired at us, but we killed 100% of the missiles that was going to impact in our defended area.

[XJEEPER]

That girl's got fire. But actually it was the NATO Secretary General that orginally called the threats pathetic, she just repeated what he said. But since she is American she will get all the blame.

I'd vote Rice for prez any day of the week!

Now wouldn't that just one-up the DNC........an intelligent black woman President!

Also explains why she would never run for President.

[JNickel101]

I didnt read this whole thread yet, but before I forget....(it may have already been mentioned)

We routinely "intercept" or deter those Bear bombers flying close to Alaska....pretty much the whole reason we have fighters up there at our two AFBs in AK. And the reason for the radar site at Clear....

I'm not really sure what to think of Russia at this point....but I know I dont trust them.

[Darky]

I didnt read this whole thread yet, but before I forget....(it may have already been mentioned)

We routinely "intercept" or deter those Bear bombers flying close to Alaska....pretty much the whole reason we have fighters up there at our two AFBs in AK. And the reason for the radar site at Clear....

I'm not really sure what to think of Russia at this point....but I know I dont trust them.
I think Russia's up to no good. If they stick around in GA, it's not too far to Iran, and I know they're cahooting. Russia's got extra nukes, Russia's mad at us, Iran hates us, Iran wants nukes...Threatening to attack Poland just because of the missile defense system that won't even be aimed at them. I'm all for fortifying stuff slowly in that sector of the world, even if its just sending an extra MEU and/or battle group over to the waters near there so they can get there quick if need be. There's enough over there that we can say it's a deterrent to Iran or support for Iraq, whatever yet still have more troops near Russia.

[XJEEPER]

Hypothetically speaking, let's say Russia clears a path thru Georgia, then it's smooth sailing to Iran and Syria and then it's easy hop to Isreal. Isreal is bristling because they've seen the pieces line up like this before............

Yes, I like to play "Konnekt the Skumbags" and speculate on their motives........here's another name for the global game...."The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Secret combinations have been around for centuries and are nothing new, we've got them in our midst. We need to focus on the details.