Missiles In Poland-Cold War II (Iran, Iraq, wages, Afghanistan)

[rbryant]

I think we can all agree that this has been a tense period in Russia-US relations. First, the invasion of Georgia and now Russia's threat to attack future ABM installations in Poland. To me, the threat is far more ominous than the situation in Georgia. Russia could stay in Georgia for the long term and the US would not respond militarily. However, a preemptive strike on Poland would be the flashpoint for a major European war, possibly going nuclear. So, my first question, does the threat mean that Russia will target Poland and its ABMs in the event of war, or will they launch a preemptive strike? Also, are we on the path to an eventual confrontation with Russia or will things quiet down after awhile? The past several years we have seen NATO expansion, Russian bomber flights near NATO countries and virtually no progress on nuclear arms treaties.

[sanspeur]

I seem to remember that the US got pretty upset when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba in the 60s, so I can understand why Russia sees it as a threat....Why put them in Poland?

[rbryant]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

I seem to remember that the US got pretty upset when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba in the 60s, so I can understand why Russia sees it as a threat....Why put them in Poland?

Point taken..however, Russia's missiles were offensive. The missiles in Poland are anti-ballistic, defensive missiles. Russia could easily swamp the system in the event of a nuclear exchange. I don't think this compares to the Cuban missile crisis, but given the current state of tension, I think this could have waited until the crisis abated in Georgia-South Ossetia.

[NewToCA]

Why wait, and include the Czech Republic in the mix too.

Also, need to keep the G-8 down to the G-7, the difference being the exclusion of Russia.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel should publicly announce a revoking of her invitation to Russia concerning expansion of the EU-Russia partnership.

And last but not least, an emergency NATO meeting to discuss the issue, with a specific invitation to Ukraine.

[LML]

Originally Posted by rbryant

I think we can all agree that this has been a tense period in Russia-US relations. First, the invasion of Georgia and now Russia's threat to attack future ABM installations in Poland. To me, the threat is far more ominous than the situation in Georgia. Russia could stay in Georgia for the long term and the US would not respond militarily. However, a preemptive strike on Poland would be the flashpoint for a major European war, possibly going nuclear. So, my first question, does the threat mean that Russia will target Poland and its ABMs in the event of war, or will they launch a preemptive strike? Also, are we on the path to an eventual confrontation with Russia or will things quiet down after awhile? The past several years we have seen NATO expansion, Russian bomber flights near NATO countries and virtually no progress on nuclear arms treaties.

Does it not strike anyone as passing strange that we look upon the time when we stood up to the USSR to force them to remove missiles from Cuba as a time of courage that saved our nation and yet we are outraged that Russia would act in a like manner because we have missiles on their backporch? Why is it that when we do something it is assumed that we do so to protect our country. When other countries do the exact same things it is assumed that they do so from nefarious purposes. Our we the only nation that can feel love for the country we call home?

[LML]

Originally Posted by rbryant

Point taken..however, Russia's missiles were offensive. The missiles in Poland are anti-ballistic, defensive missiles. .

And we expect Russia to take our word for this why? I personally don't know anyone who believes this so why should they?

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

I seem to remember that the US got pretty upset when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba in the 60s, so I can understand why Russia sees it as a threat....

You're a wonderful liar.

If you're going to tell a story, you should at least have the courtesy to start at the beginning of the story, instead of jumping in at the middle of the story.

Intentionally omitting critical information which would alter a person's view of historical events is academically dishonest.

The beginning of our story starts when the hostile, aggressive and incompetent President Kennedy put Jupiter missiles in Turkey right on the border of the Soviet Union which threatened the security of the Soviet Union.

Rather than launch a nuclear attack and kill millions, the Soviets simply responded by placing missiles in Cuba to counter the US threat.

If the US annihilates Moscow, the Soviets can annihilate Washington DC, thus the Soviets achieve parity with the US.

The Soviets were able to put missiles in Cuba because:

1) Kennedy was incompetent as Commander-in-Chief

2) Kennedy was incompetent as Chief Diplomat

3) Kennedy was too young and inexperienced to be president

4) Kennedy lacked the foresight required to be the leader of the US

5) Kennedy failed to halt the Jupiter missile deployments to Turkey (which did not occur until several months after Kennedy took office).

6) Kennedy failed to take the necessary actions to neutralize Cuba by either overthrowing Castro (not a permanent resolution) or by resolving differences with Cuba over back taxes owed by US corporations and wages for unskilled sugar cane workers (a permanent resolution and the reason why Castro expropriated US corporate assets).

As a result, the Soviets defeated the US in the Cuban Missile Crisis because:

a) the Soviets secured the withdrawal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, and in fact, all Jupiter missiles were withdrawn from Turkey before the first Soviet missiles were withdrawn from Cuba, and the last Soviet missiles were withdrawn in 1967, almost 4 years after Kennedy died. Thus, the Soviets once again achieved parity with the US.

b) the Soviets secured public statements made by Kennedy before the UN and the world that the US would neither invade Cuba nor attempt to murder Castro.

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Why put them in Poland?

It's part of the US geo-strategy for the last 30 odd years. The goal is to gain control of the oil, natural gas, coal, timber, mineral and agricultural rich eastern Russian republics.

To do that, the US has continually been fighting a war with Russia on two fronts: the Eastern Front and the Southern Front.

The strategy for the Eastern Front is simple: strip away Russia's buffer states that provide it security from ground attack by absorbing the former East Bloc and Soviet territories and pushing NATO right to the border of Russia.

The US has accomplished that thanks to George the Elder and Billary. All that remains is Belarus and Ukraine. George the Elder publicly stated that the US would not back the independence of Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia, but behind closed doors, the US was supporting and arming them for independence. Clinton and his neo-con national security advisor Tony Lake (who is Obama's campaign foreign policy advisor) then spent $500 Million to $800 Million of your tax dollars to buy weapons and munitions from Iran in violation of US laws and UN Security Council Resolutions to arm Bosnia, and later Kosovo by shipping the weapons and munitions through Albania with the help of al-Qaida (see Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Select Subcommittee to Investigate the United States Role in Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia and Bosnia).

The plan there was to destroy Russia's last remaining ally in Europe (Serbia). Clinton then succeeded in suckering the Romanians and Bulgarians into accepting US naval, air and ground bases.

The Southern Front is more complex. The US must use Iraq as a base to invade Iran and gain control. Then the US can force its hegemony into the Central Asian states and gain control. Once that's done, you'll see a repeat of Yugoslavia. The US will publicly state that it does not support the independence of Buryatia, Altai, Tuva, Khakassia, Yakutia, Tatarstan, Chechnya, Bashkortostan, Altai, or Kalmykia, but behind the scenes it will be arming them.


Then the US will claim that the Russians are massacring people (the 1992 "Breadline Massacre," the 1994 Markale "Market Massacre," and 1995 "Second Market Massacre" were all bogus being perpetrated by Bosniaks, not Bosnia Croats or Bosnian Serbs, as reported in the European media but not the US media), then NATO will start bombing.


If the US can't invade Iran or overthrow its government, it will stab Pakistan in the back and support the independence of Baluchistan so the US can have access from the Indian Ocean/Arabian sea to the Central Asian states via western Afghanistan.

If the Russians and Iranians come to terms on a naval base in the Persian Gulf before the US has a chance to invade Iran or overthrow the government, the US will be forced to back Baluchistan, or its entire strategy will fail (and so will the US).

[BigJon3475]

Just so you it's been stated freedom doesn't fail...neither will the US.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Mircea

You're a wonderful liar.

If you're going to tell a story, you should at least have the courtesy to start at the beginning of the story, instead of jumping in at the middle of the story.

Intentionally omitting critical information which would alter a person's view of historical events is academically dishonest.

The beginning of our story starts when the hostile, aggressive and incompetent President Kennedy put Jupiter missiles in Turkey right on the border of the Soviet Union which threatened the security of the Soviet Union.

Rather than launch a nuclear attack and kill millions, the Soviets simply responded by placing missiles in Cuba to counter the US threat.

If the US annihilates Moscow, the Soviets can annihilate Washington DC, thus the Soviets achieve parity with the US.

The Soviets were able to put missiles in Cuba because:

1) Kennedy was incompetent as Commander-in-Chief

2) Kennedy was incompetent as Chief Diplomat

3) Kennedy was too young and inexperienced to be president

4) Kennedy lacked the foresight required to be the leader of the US

5) Kennedy failed to halt the Jupiter missile deployments to Turkey (which did not occur until several months after Kennedy took office).

6) Kennedy failed to take the necessary actions to neutralize Cuba by either overthrowing Castro (not a permanent resolution) or by resolving differences with Cuba over back taxes owed by US corporations and wages for unskilled sugar cane workers (a permanent resolution and the reason why Castro expropriated US corporate assets).

As a result, the Soviets defeated the US in the Cuban Missile Crisis because:

a) the Soviets secured the withdrawal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, and in fact, all Jupiter missiles were withdrawn from Turkey before the first Soviet missiles were withdrawn from Cuba, and the last Soviet missiles were withdrawn in 1967, almost 4 years after Kennedy died. Thus, the Soviets once again achieved parity with the US.

b) the Soviets secured public statements made by Kennedy before the UN and the world that the US would neither invade Cuba nor attempt to murder Castro.



It's part of the US geo-strategy for the last 30 odd years. The goal is to gain control of the oil, natural gas, coal, timber, mineral and agricultural rich eastern Russian republics.

To do that, the US has continually been fighting a war with Russia on two fronts: the Eastern Front and the Southern Front.

The strategy for the Eastern Front is simple: strip away Russia's buffer states that provide it security from ground attack by absorbing the former East Bloc and Soviet territories and pushing NATO right to the border of Russia.

The US has accomplished that thanks to George the Elder and Billary. All that remains is Belarus and Ukraine. George the Elder publicly stated that the US would not back the independence of Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia, but behind closed doors, the US was supporting and arming them for independence. Clinton and his neo-con national security advisor Tony Lake (who is Obama's campaign foreign policy advisor) then spent $500 Million to $800 Million of your tax dollars to buy weapons and munitions from Iran in violation of US laws and UN Security Council Resolutions to arm Bosnia, and later Kosovo by shipping the weapons and munitions through Albania with the help of al-Qaida (see Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Select Subcommittee to Investigate the United States Role in Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia and Bosnia).

The plan there was to destroy Russia's last remaining ally in Europe (Serbia). Clinton then succeeded in suckering the Romanians and Bulgarians into accepting US naval, air and ground bases.

The Southern Front is more complex. The US must use Iraq as a base to invade Iran and gain control. Then the US can force its hegemony into the Central Asian states and gain control. Once that's done, you'll see a repeat of Yugoslavia. The US will publicly state that it does not support the independence of Buryatia, Altai, Tuva, Khakassia, Yakutia, Tatarstan, Chechnya, Bashkortostan, Altai, or Kalmykia, but behind the scenes it will be arming them.


Then the US will claim that the Russians are massacring people (the 1992 "Breadline Massacre," the 1994 Markale "Market Massacre," and 1995 "Second Market Massacre" were all bogus being perpetrated by Bosniaks, not Bosnia Croats or Bosnian Serbs, as reported in the European media but not the US media), then NATO will start bombing.


If the US can't invade Iran or overthrow its government, it will stab Pakistan in the back and support the independence of Baluchistan so the US can have access from the Indian Ocean/Arabian sea to the Central Asian states via western Afghanistan.

If the Russians and Iranians come to terms on a naval base in the Persian Gulf before the US has a chance to invade Iran or overthrow the government, the US will be forced to back Baluchistan, or its entire strategy will fail (and so will the US).

Really nice...Me a liar? Not so...The information I omitted was unknown to me, after all I am not from the US.

[Dangerous-Boy]

wonder what's going to happen to the intenational space station....