Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NO! It is none of the united states buisness, but knowing the idiots we have in power they will attack russia, which in turn will destroy the pathetic military the u.s has, seeing how the u.s is already stretched thin in the occupations of iraq and afghanistan, and are stop lossing soldiers illegally, i hope and would actually pray that russia beats the u.s, the u.s is like a bully that has gotten to big for there britches and needs to be taken down quite a few notches.
I still think NATO, the United Nations and the European Union must take the lead on this.
I hate to parse issues, because it seems like indecisive rationalization. However, this subject requires a more nuanced response.
First off, we need to understand exactly what is meant by Russia threatening Poland. If it isn't an attack, then military action seems a bit excessive. Second, NATO isn't appropriately balanced right now, many of our european partners haven't really been adequately funding their military sufficiently to be proactive military partners. Also, I think you will find NATO unable to establish a concensus, due to the dependency on oil and gas from Russia.
Having stated this, I think responses are appropriate should Russia actually militarily threaten any NATO member.
Hopefully, this action by Russia will be a wakeup call for all of the NATO nations to take their military obligations seriously, and hold up their end of the deal. I would also hope it accelerates plans for complete energy independence from Russia, so they can more objectively deal with their potential threats.
Fortunately, with the political will and drive these objectives aren't that far away from being achieved.
Big difference between a missile DEFENSE that would be put in Poland, and ICBM's that the former Soviet Union placed in Cuba back during the missile crisis.
Stop trying to spin.
Practice what you preach, spin-master.
The Soviet Union made no missile deployments, yet Eisenhower authorized the deployment of Thor missiles (a primitive cruise missile) to the UK, and Jupiters (an intermediate range ballistic missile) to Italy and Turkey.
In spite of the fact that Eisenhower repeatedly warned Kennedy to resolve the situation in Cuba before going forward with the deployment of Jupiters in Turkey, which could strike Moscow, Kennedy ignored Eisenhower and deployed the Jupiters to Turkey in late 1961.
The Soviets responded to this unprovoked and blatantly hostile US act by putting intermediate range missiles in Cuba.
Your claim that there were Soviet ICBMs in Cuba is unsupported by facts and contradicts the official records of the US and Soviet governments, as well as the physical evidence.
First off, we need to understand exactly what is meant by Russia threatening Poland.
There is no need to understand. The Russians never telegraph their intentions. If they intend to do something, they simply do it without any fanfare and without any prior warning.
If the Russians claimed they will attack Poland, it means they will not, and there is over 80 years of history to support that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Hopefully, this action by Russia will be a wakeup call for all of the NATO nations to take their military obligations seriously, and hold up their end of the deal.
Russia is not a threat to NATO and never has been. If it had been the goal of Russia to take western Europe, it certainly could have, and it had numerous opportunities to do so. In fact, between 1965 and 1985, the Russians could have forced a NATO surrender in less than 60 days. That's easy it would have been, if they had wanted to do so.
Americans are ignorant of Russian security concerns, always have been, and always will be, since there has never been a forum in the US to discuss Russian security concerns. Even at the university level, Russian security concerns are never addressed or even of issue, and there is nothing in the way of translated publications from Russia available to Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
I would also hope it accelerates plans for complete energy independence from Russia, so they can more objectively deal with their potential threats.
Europe can never have "energy" dependence from Russia. It needs natural gas for fertilizers and other products, and oil for life-style products.
You obviously know nothing about the current state of the Russian military. Their basically a paper tiger.
Their troops are suffering from low moral, most of them not even getting paid. Their air force is old technology, using aricraft 30+ years old; most of which our F16's would take to task. Lets not even mention the abiltities of our F18's, F22's, and the F35JSF.
Their armor and small arms armament is laughable. AK's, while being the most popular small arm of the world, is inferior to our M16's. Their tanks are a joke.
Oh, and their navy:
We have less than 25% of our total military assets in the middle east theater.
Money, well, we'll keep borrowing it from China, like we did with the stimulus checks everyone wanted, and the mortgage bail out the liberals want to ram down our throats.
Well then I'm am obviously misinformed. I appreciate you putting it all in perspective for me.
However, if Russia has such junk weaponry and in a state of disrepair, then why does everyone have their panties in a bunch? Why is everyone freaking out and talking about retaliation, sanctions, repercussions, etc... when Russia, as indicated by your observations isn't capable of invading, say... Togo, or Guiana?
Well then I'm am obviously misinformed. I appreciate you putting it all in perspective for me.
However, if Russia has such junk weaponry and in a state of disrepair, then why does everyone have their panties in a bunch? Why is everyone freaking out and talking about retaliation, sanctions, repercussions, etc... when Russia, as indicated by your observations isn't capable of invading, say... Togo, or Guiana?
There is no need to understand. The Russians never telegraph their intentions. If they intend to do something, they simply do it without any fanfare and without any prior warning.
If the Russians claimed they will attack Poland, it means they will not, and there is over 80 years of history to support that.
Russia is not a threat to NATO and never has been. If it had been the goal of Russia to take western Europe, it certainly could have, and it had numerous opportunities to do so. In fact, between 1965 and 1985, the Russians could have forced a NATO surrender in less than 60 days. That's easy it would have been, if they had wanted to do so.
Americans are ignorant of Russian security concerns, always have been, and always will be, since there has never been a forum in the US to discuss Russian security concerns. Even at the university level, Russian security concerns are never addressed or even of issue, and there is nothing in the way of translated publications from Russia available to Americans.
Europe can never have "energy" dependence from Russia. It needs natural gas for fertilizers and other products, and oil for life-style products.
Agree and disagree with some of your points. First, the US, despite having diplomats with *knowledge* of Russian affairs, have very little understanding of Moscow's obsession with foreign invasion. However, after repeated invasions, the last being the German Wermacht, who could blame the Russians for being wary of foreign alliances? It gets down to the argument that I've made countering NATO's expansion, if the USSR emerged victorious from the Cold war, and attempted to expand into Latin America, the US would feel threatened as well. For all the accusations of appeasement and cowardice, I'm thankful that countries such as Germany and France understand the recklessness of signing mutual defense treaties with unstable, former USSR republics with leaders itching to fight Moscow.
Second, I agree with your assessment of Russian's expansion. It's not, and never has been, in Russia's interest to seize western Europe. The Russians are making a killing from the sell of oil and natural gas to the west. So, if anything, there is a mutual dependence on one another. My opinion is that Russia wants to keep its former satellite states, such as Ukraine,Belarus, Georgia and the southern "stans" in an informal "sphere of influence." Much like the US prefers to have friendly administrations in Canada, Mexico and Central America.
The only disagreement I have is the claim that Russia could have taken Western europe in a short time. *If* the war were to remain conventional, I think a stalemate would have been accomplished by the time they reached far western Germany/eastern France. I think that US/NATO forces would have eventually checked their advance. However, it's fairly likely that one side would have used tactical nuclear weapons, and at that point all hell would have broken loose. The Russians and the Americans knew this, and that's why their remained a tense, but peaceful standoff for nearly fifty years.
I hate to parse issues, because it seems like indecisive rationalization. However, this subject requires a more nuanced response.
First off, we need to understand exactly what is meant by Russia threatening Poland. If it isn't an attack, then military action seems a bit excessive. Second, NATO isn't appropriately balanced right now, many of our european partners haven't really been adequately funding their military sufficiently to be proactive military partners. Also, I think you will find NATO unable to establish a concensus, due to the dependency on oil and gas from Russia.
Having stated this, I think responses are appropriate should Russia actually militarily threaten any NATO member.
Hopefully, this action by Russia will be a wakeup call for all of the NATO nations to take their military obligations seriously, and hold up their end of the deal. I would also hope it accelerates plans for complete energy independence from Russia, so they can more objectively deal with their potential threats.
Fortunately, with the political will and drive these objectives aren't that far away from being achieved.
The executive leaders of the three countries have weighed in on the missile defense system. Now comes the legislative/parliament votes. We have discussed parliament in Poland and the Czech Republic. We have not disscussed congress. Will congress approve the funding for the system? I believe the last estimates were 60 billion. Without funding it should become moot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
