PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Missile Defense scrapped for Poland


***SPRAYER
09-17-2009, 05:31 AM
B.O. bends over and grabs his ankles for Putin:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eastern_europe_missile_defense

HonestChieffan
09-17-2009, 06:48 AM
And people wonder why our allies are a bit un easy with this guy in the Whitehouse?

Amnorix
09-17-2009, 07:13 AM
I'm infinitely more concerned about Iranian nukes than about some kind of Russian attack on Poland and/or Czechoslovakia.


"NATO's new chief hailed the move as "a positive step" and a Russian analyst said Obama's decision will increase the chances that Russia will cooperate more closely with the United States in the dispute over Iran's nuclear program."

***SPRAYER
09-17-2009, 07:16 AM
I'm infinitely more concerned about Iranian nukes than about some kind of Russian attack on Poland and/or Czechoslovakia.


"NATO's new chief hailed the move as "a positive step" and a Russian analyst said Obama's decision will increase the chances that Russia will cooperate more closely with the United States in the dispute over Iran's nuclear program."

Right because Russia and Iran have nothing to do with each other.

***SPRAYER
09-17-2009, 07:29 AM
Reports that US President Barack Obama is to scrap plans to deploy a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic have provoked anger in Europe. The Wall Street Journal reported that the US is to shelve the plan, which was first mooted by the Bush administration and has been a source of friction with Russia ever since. The move would be a cause of celebration in Moscow but of real concern to Eastern European countries which have looked to Washington for support against their former imperial master Russia. The US has said the shield is to guard against...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6201128/Anger-in-Europe-as-Barack-Obama-scraps-missile-defence-shield.html

petegz28
09-17-2009, 07:32 AM
Obama is soft.......I just jope to God our CIA and FBI are on top of things because it is just a matter of time before he gets tried by a terrorist group.

***SPRAYER
09-17-2009, 07:39 AM
Obama is soft.......I just jope to God our CIA and FBI are on top of things because it is just a matter of time before he gets tried by a terrorist group.

He's gonna get us all killed.

Amnorix
09-17-2009, 07:39 AM
First, it's not at all clear to me who is paying for this. If it's the US taxpayer, then f'n forget about it. We can't afford all this.


The cost of building the complexes in Poland and the Czech Republic could increase to more than $1 billion from $837 million, according to the Government Accountability Office (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/government_accountability_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org), which published a report this month on preparations to deploy the system.
The cost estimates do not include support at the sites or the development, testing and procurement costs. The overall cost of establishing a modest ballistic missile system in Europe would exceed $4 billion through 2015, according to the G.A.O. report. Even at that, it said, “Congress does not have accurate information on the full investment required for ballistic missile defenses in Europe.”
The Bush administration strongly advocated a missile shield. Mr. Obama has been more skeptical, saying he will proceed only if it is financially and technically feasible. He has also told the Russians that the system would not be needed if they used their leverage to persuade Iran to drop its suspected nuclear weapons (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/atomic_weapons/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) programs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/world/europe/29missile.html

Second, I love how self-centered Americans are. We go nuts when the Russians put nukes in Cuba, but when we put missiles right next door to Russia, we're SOFT if we don't do it no matter what Russia says.

And putting all that aside, again, I'd rather have Russian help isolating Iran on nukes than piss them off for little or no benefit.

Amnorix
09-17-2009, 07:40 AM
He's gonna get us all killed.

Why, because he's not spending all this time invading random OTHER countries instead of the people who actually attacked us?

petegz28
09-17-2009, 07:41 AM
First, it's not at all clear to me who is paying for this. If it's the US taxpayer, then f'n forget about it. We can't afford all this.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/world/europe/29missile.html

Second, I love how self-centered Americans are. We go nuts when the Russians put nukes in Cuba, but when we put missiles right next door to Russia, we're SOFT if we don't do it no matter what Russia says.

And putting all that aside, again, I'd rather have Russian help isolating Iran on nukes than piss them off for little or no benefit.


Hate to be the bearer of bad news...but it is the obligation of the Fed Gov to protect us from our enemies. It is not their obligation to bail out banks and provide health care to all and continue to fund services for illegal immigrants.

petegz28
09-17-2009, 07:42 AM
He's gonna get us all killed.

I won't go that far. But he is setting the stage for an attack on us because he has demonstrated he is soft.

petegz28
09-17-2009, 07:43 AM
Why, because he's not spending all this time invading random OTHER countries instead of the people who actually attacked us?

Ok, here is the problem with your argument; Al-Qaeda attacked us, not Afghanistan. Therefore I guess you feel we should invade every country in which Al-Qaeda operates?

cookster50
09-17-2009, 07:45 AM
First, it's not at all clear to me who is paying for this. If it's the US taxpayer, then f'n forget about it. We can't afford all this.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/world/europe/29missile.html

Second, I love how self-centered Americans are. We go nuts when the Russians put nukes in Cuba, but when we put missiles right next door to Russia, we're SOFT if we don't do it no matter what Russia says.

It's missile DEFENSE, not nukes.

mikey23545
09-17-2009, 07:45 AM
<b>The cost of building the complexes in Poland and the Czech Republic could increase to more than $1 billion from $837 million, according to the Government Accountability Office, which published a report this month on preparations to deploy the system.</b>

Oh, we can't afford this, but <b>ONE F#CKING TRILLION dollars</b> for socialized government-controlled health care is affordable...

I understand perfectly now, you retarded tool...

***SPRAYER
09-17-2009, 07:50 AM
Why, because he's not spending all this time invading random OTHER countries instead of the people who actually attacked us?

I thought it was a law enforcement issue? Make up my mind.

BigRedChief
09-17-2009, 08:00 AM
WTf do we need a missle defense at a cost of a trillion $ in Poland? Seems like BS cold war crap to me. We need to be fighting Al-Quaeda and protecting the homeland not Europe from an Iranian or Al-Quaeda controlled missle. Let them build their own.

The best way to prevent this is not let the Iranians posess the capability to start with, not deal with it after the fact.

jiveturkey
09-17-2009, 08:02 AM
Was this shield really designed to protect the US? I thought that it was a NATO thing.

If it is for us does it stop missiles that are coming from the Eastern Russia or from subs in the Atlantic?

If it's not for us then why would righties want to protect socialist Europe?

***SPRAYER
09-17-2009, 08:05 AM
Obama Cancels Missile Shield, Tosses Our Allies Under the Bus Again

In what could probably be considered an unsurprising turn of events, Chairman Obama's White House has decided to officially shelve the Bush administration's plans for building a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Czech Interim Prime Minister learned this from a midnight call - better, perhaps, than learning from WSJ.com:

The U.S. will base its decision on a determination that Iran's long-range missile program hasn't progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals, according to current and former U.S. officials.

The writing was on the wall just a few weeks ago, but now it's official. As we already know, The One has determined that the War on Terror no longer exists, it's all just one big grumpy misunderstanding. By extension, the Obama administration presumably feels that it's safe to toss two of its staunchest European allies under the next suicide bomber bus.

The Obama administration's move was confirmed by the Czech Republic interim prime minister. "Just after midnight I was informed in a telephone call by President Barack Obama that [his] administration has decided to pull out from the plan missile defense shield installations" in the Czech Republic and Poland, said Jan Fischer said at a press conference Thursday.

The Polish government doesn't plan to make an immediate statement on its Thursday meeting with U.S. officials on the missile shield, Foreign Ministry spokesman Piotr Paszkowski said.

This is fabulous news for both the home-grown and international "Blame America First" crowds, who know that Terrorism - er - "Anti-Islamic Activity" - is more about simply understanding the poor oppressed radical fundamental Islamic murders than it is about saving Industrialized Western lives. It fits nicely with predictions that the Bush anti-missile defense program would be scrapped soon after Obama was sworn in.

Chairman O will, of course need every dime he can muster to pay for his pet projects. Imagine how far cuts in military spending could go toward patching financial holes in ObamaCare.

Indeed, the biggest savings in health care could be gained by simply allowing the aggrieved Muslim freedom fighters to annihilate Westerners, both here and abroad. In fact, they've already shown that they don't even need long-range ballistic missiles.

http://www.moonbattery.com

stevieray
09-17-2009, 08:09 AM
If it's not for us then why would righties want to protect socialist Europe?


righties? why is everything always reduced to party?

Americans are being played by the political system.

BigRedChief
09-17-2009, 08:12 AM
Was this shield really designed to protect the US? I thought that it was a NATO thing.

If it is for us does it stop missiles that are coming from the Eastern Russia or from subs in the Atlantic?

If it's not for us then why would righties want to protect socialist Europe?
curious myself....:hmmm:
Why should we spend a $1,000,000,000,000 for a missle defense of Europe? They want access to our technology and pay for it themselves, fine. But, why should we foot the bill?

HonestChieffan
09-17-2009, 08:34 AM
So much for the idea of friends, allies, and being a global participant.

***SPRAYER
09-17-2009, 08:35 AM
So much for the idea of friends, allies, and being a global participant.

At least Hugo Chavez likes us now.

RINGLEADER
09-17-2009, 08:36 AM
I'm infinitely more concerned about Iranian nukes than about some kind of Russian attack on Poland and/or Czechoslovakia.

"NATO's new chief hailed the move as "a positive step" and a Russian analyst said Obama's decision will increase the chances that Russia will cooperate more closely with the United States in the dispute over Iran's nuclear program."


Not sure why any eastern European allies would ever do business with the US again on issues like this.

But chances are the US already had an understanding in place with Russia regarding what form the cooperation with Russia would be going forward. At least you hope so. Who knows with Obama.

dirk digler
09-17-2009, 08:36 AM
Looks like the military has a better idea.

Without giving specifics, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the plan is being changed in part because the U.S. has concluded that Iran is less focused on developing the kind of long-range missiles for which the system was originally developed. "While the Iranian threat has developed, so too has our technology," Morrell said.

"We have made a major adjustment and enhancement to our European missile defense system that will better protect our forces deployed in Europe and our allies there from Iranian short- and medium-range missiles," Morrell said.

RINGLEADER
09-17-2009, 08:38 AM
WTf do we need a missle defense at a cost of a trillion $ in Poland? Seems like BS cold war crap to me. We need to be fighting Al-Quaeda and protecting the homeland not Europe from an Iranian or Al-Quaeda controlled missle. Let them build their own.

The best way to prevent this is not let the Iranians posess the capability to start with, not deal with it after the fact.


Agree with your second point, but the diplomats aren't going to act.

TFG
09-17-2009, 08:40 AM
B.O. bends over and grabs his ankles for Putin:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eastern_europe_missile_defense



What did W do for Putin?

"I looked him in the eye" and concluded Vlad had a "good soul." Socialists of a feather, imperialist socialists both.

When Vlad the Invader Putin invaded Georgia, W... let him keep it, but sent Condi to tell him that was "naughty not nice."

TFG
09-17-2009, 08:43 AM
WTf do we need a missle defense at a cost of a trillion $ in Poland? Seems like BS cold war crap to me. We need to be fighting Al-Quaeda and protecting the homeland not Europe from an Iranian or Al-Quaeda controlled missle. Let them build their own.

The best way to prevent this is not let the Iranians posess the capability to start with, not deal with it after the fact.



No, the best way was not to flip off Iran under Rafsanjani by putting them on the BS "Axis of Evil." Ahmad defeated Raf in 2005 because of that and endless Iranian media coverage of Iraqi Sunnis blowing up Iraqi Shia mosques while our troops couldn't stop it and told the Shias they could not arm themselves to stop it either. That is when the Iraqi Shias we "liberated" became "insurgents armed by Iran," and why Iran went back to radical Ahmad in 2005 after three peaceful terms under Raf.

***SPRAYER
09-17-2009, 08:43 AM
What did W do for Putin?

"I looked him in the eye" and concluded Vlad had a "good soul." Socialists of a feather, imperialist socialists both.

When Vlad the Invader Putin invaded Georgia, W... let him keep it, but sent Condi to tell him that was "naughty not nice."

Why do you keep impugning Bush in all this? Oh thats right, you can't make a point without first creating a strawman.

BigRedChief
09-17-2009, 08:44 AM
Agree with your second point, but the diplomats aren't going to act.
Diplomats? Fuk that, let the Israeli's take it out like they did Saddam's nuclear site back in the 80's.

Amnorix
09-17-2009, 08:50 AM
Not sure why any eastern European allies would ever do business with the US again on issues like this.

Because their choices are limited, because we're not abandoning them completely, because they're part of the European community, because they have less to fear from us than Russia, because our technology is superior to that of anyone else in the world, because we're under no obligation to do this, and because most grown-up countries understand that a change in political leadership can result in changes in policies.

Other than that, plus whatever else I didn't think of, you're right. No reason int eh world.

But chances are the US already had an understanding in place with Russia regarding what form the cooperation with Russia would be going forward. At least you hope so. Who knows with Obama.

Yes, I hope so. Let's just say that by the end I had zero confidence in Bush's diplomacy skillz, so just about anything is an improvement from that.

Amnorix
09-17-2009, 08:52 AM
Looks like the military has a better idea.




Forget what the military thinks. Obama is SOFT! Rant!! RAVE!!! DROOOOL!!!!!!

Donger
09-17-2009, 08:53 AM
Meh, I'm not that concerned about this. I doubt that we're completely abandoning them anyway.

Amnorix
09-17-2009, 08:54 AM
So much for the idea of friends, allies, and being a global participant.

I'm not aware of any President who always did what our allies wanted or preferred. Are you? Would you respect him if he did?

Is the President's main concern the US's geostrategic interests, or that of Poland and/or Czechoslovakia.

Frankly, unless the need was pressing I'd scotch the deal on cost alone, unless the US isn't footing any of that cost. We need to curtail all types of foreign aid unless it's directly in furtherance of our geopolitical strategies.

WE ARE F***ING BROKE!!!!!!

Amnorix
09-17-2009, 08:54 AM
Meh, I'm not that concerned about this. I doubt that we're completely abandoning them anyway.

A rational voice on the right. Nice to hear.

wild1
09-17-2009, 09:00 AM
Iran could have a delivery system that could reach continental Europe. That's not even in question, is it?

It's ironic to me that after spending like a drunken sailor, the justification would be "We can't afford this." It's convenient that fiscal responsibility is now some kind of an issue for him, isn't it?

dirk digler
09-17-2009, 09:04 AM
Forget what the military thinks. Obama is SOFT! Rant!! RAVE!!! DROOOOL!!!!!!

well honestchieffan hates the military so he doesn't care

Amnorix
09-17-2009, 09:06 AM
Iran could have a delivery system that could reach continental Europe. That's not even in question, is it?

It's ironic to me that after spending like a drunken sailor, the justification would be "We can't afford this." It's convenient that fiscal responsibility is now some kind of an issue for him, isn't it?

First, it doesn't seem to be the grounds the WH is using. It's the grounds **I** am using. While it's a pathetic scoop of water out of the vast ocean of debt, we must start somewhere, and the sooner and the more aggressively the better (subject to not throwing hte country back into recession).

Second, I fail to see what advantage in the Great Game Iran would get by threats to launch missiles against random third parties. That's like us threatening to blow up Cuba when we were at war over Vietnam. Makes little sense.

Third, if Iran blows up Poland, then Iran dies. I'm sure even those fundamentalist whackos running the show over there know that.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2009, 09:30 AM
I'm glad it's ditched. Although I understand, at least from my Polish neighbor who is in Poland visiting her family right now, that the Pole's wanted it. It was creating too much tension and antagonizing, needlessly imo, another country.

Don't forget NATO was for the Cold War to keep Russians out. It's no longer needed and should be disbanded.

Radar Chief
09-17-2009, 09:37 AM
Leaving politics aside for a moment, there are at least a few reasons for deploying a system in the center of East Europe.
First you have to realize that SDI isnít a single system, itís an incorporation of several layers of protection and by placing a ground based portion of the system in Poland we increase our network.
From an engineering stand point this is similar to a Beta Test in which an almost production ready system is sent to a friendly customer that will provide honest and accurate feedback for field-testing.
From a strategic standpoint putting a system in Poland would give us a very strong advantage in determining what flies and what doesnít, and thatís Russiaís real problem here. Itís not necessarily that they want to be able to attack Europe with impunity, itís that with this system weíre making a major play for control of that air space and just because a system is designed to take out fast movers like in bound ballistic missiles doesnít mean it canít be used for other things like imposing an aerial blockade where we donít allow flights into or out of whatever country weíre not getting along with at the moment.

Chiefshrink
09-17-2009, 09:39 AM
We will pay a dear price for this definitely in the long term if not in the near future.

Idealogue Liberal Pu**y!!

wild1
09-17-2009, 09:42 AM
Leaving politics aside for a moment, there are at least a few reasons for deploying a system in the center of East Europe.
First you have to realize that SDI isnít a single system, itís an incorporation of several layers of protection and by placing a ground based portion of the system in Poland we increase our network.
From an engineering stand point this is similar to a Beta Test in which an almost production ready system is sent to a friendly customer that will provide honest and accurate feedback for field-testing.
From a strategic standpoint putting a system in Poland would give us a very strong advantage in determining what flies and what doesnít, and thatís Russiaís real problem here. Itís not necessarily that they want to be able to attack Europe with impunity, itís that with this system weíre making a major play for control of that air space and just because a system is designed to take out fast movers like in bound ballistic missiles doesnít mean it canít be used for other things like imposing an aerial blockade where we donít allow flights into or out of whatever country weíre not getting along with at the moment.

Sensible take...

Diplomacy is a poker game, and they just folded this hand to Putin.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-17-2009, 09:45 AM
Who wants WW III? Brzezinski's plan for the missile shield has stalled because Russia called us out on it. Does anyone realise that Russia is no longer communist?

Chiefshrink
09-17-2009, 09:46 AM
Leaving politics aside for a moment, there are at least a few reasons for deploying a system in the center of East Europe.
First you have to realize that SDI isnít a single system, itís an incorporation of several layers of protection and by placing a ground based portion of the system in Poland we increase our network.
From an engineering stand point this is similar to a Beta Test in which an almost production ready system is sent to a friendly customer that will provide honest and accurate feedback for field-testing.
From a strategic standpoint putting a system in Poland would give us a very strong advantage in determining what flies and what doesnít, and thatís Russiaís real problem here. Itís not necessarily that they want to be able to attack Europe with impunity, itís that with this system weíre making a major play for control of that air space and just because a system is designed to take out fast movers like in bound ballistic missiles doesnít mean it canít be used for other things like imposing an aerial blockade where we donít allow flights into or out of whatever country weíre not getting along with at the moment.

Precisely:thumb: Great post. Russia is still the old Soviet Union who just gives lip service to so-called Democracy. As I stated earlier we will pay a dear price for this.

Donger
09-17-2009, 09:56 AM
However, doing so on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland seems a little, well, tacky.

HC_Chief
09-17-2009, 09:59 AM
However, doing so on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland seems a little, well, tacky.

...or historically ignorant.

talastan
09-17-2009, 10:17 AM
First, it doesn't seem to be the grounds the WH is using. It's the grounds **I** am using. While it's a pathetic scoop of water out of the vast ocean of debt, we must start somewhere, and the sooner and the more aggressively the better (subject to not throwing hte country back into recession).

Second, I fail to see what advantage in the Great Game Iran would get by threats to launch missiles against random third parties. That's like us threatening to blow up Cuba when we were at war over Vietnam. Makes little sense.

Third, if Iran blows up Poland, then Iran dies. I'm sure even those fundamentalist whackos running the show over there know that.

The problem with this is that Iran isn't a normal government. They are a theocracy that values martyrdom (sp?). Several key officials including the Ayotollah, and Aimanutjob are willing to sacrifice theirs, and others lives in order to bring about global chaos that will; according to their beliefs, usher in a global caliphate. Here is the hypocrisy of the left; spend a trillion on a healthcare reform that has been repeatedly proven won't work and that the majority of Americans don't want, while saving a billion at the expense of another nation or two.

Iran is at war with everyone in the west, America, Europe, etc. So yes they would attack anyone that they felt would further their global cause of bringing in the Islamic messiah.

Brock
09-17-2009, 10:24 AM
Several key officials including the Ayotollah, and Aimanutjob are willing to sacrifice theirs, and others lives in order to bring about global chaos that will; according to their beliefs, usher in a global caliphate.

You believe that BS? They're willing to sacrifice others, sure, but not themselves, no sir.

talastan
09-17-2009, 10:27 AM
You believe that BS? They're willing to sacrifice others, sure, but not themselves, no sir.

Whether they sacrifice themselves or not, they'll sacrifice their fellow countrymen in order to further their agenda. Sure the leadership might be in a bunker somewhere when it all goes down, but the end result will not change. Iran will order an attack if they believe that is what Allah requires of them.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2009, 10:28 AM
Russia is not the old soviet union. That's propaganda brought to you by the empire builders in our govt who want to scare you into thinking imposition of American hegemony on the world is the right thing so we have to continue to police the world.

Meanwhile, the purpose of staying in Afghanistan, taking down Iran, moving into the Caucausus is to encircle Russia. They know it and don't like it.

We need to get back to a sane FP not based on exaggerated threats. The Cold War is over. That mentality is no longer useful.
Who cares what kind of govt Iran has. It really isn't a threat to the west either. Read The Thousand Year War and see what the west has been doing to the ME for a better understanding of matters.

mlyonsd
09-17-2009, 10:36 AM
I'm busy today so can someone give me the short version of what we got in return?

Brock
09-17-2009, 10:37 AM
I'm busy today so can someone give me the short version of what we got in return?

We got to keep the money.

Chocolate Hog
09-17-2009, 12:31 PM
So shtsprayer is aginst government spending but for spending money on a missle shield. Talk out of one side of your mouth.

BigRedChief
09-17-2009, 01:14 PM
We got to keep the money. A trillion $'s. Pays for health care or the stimulus or the bank bailouts. Or most beneficial....doesn't increase the deficit.

Brock
09-17-2009, 01:15 PM
A trillion $'s. Pays for health care or the stimulus or the bank bailouts. Or most beneficial....doesn't increase the deficit.

Or just don't spend it on anything at all. How bout that?

Brock
09-17-2009, 02:05 PM
President Obama on April 5, 2009: "So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. (Applause.) If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed."

KILLER_CLOWN
09-17-2009, 02:08 PM
A trillion $'s. Pays for health care or the stimulus or the bank bailouts. Or most beneficial....doesn't increase the deficit.

Bank Bailouts? SEriously?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=214366

BigRedChief
09-17-2009, 03:10 PM
Or just don't spend it on anything at all. How bout that?uhhh thats what I said. most beneficial...don't increase the deficit.

Brock
09-17-2009, 03:23 PM
uhhh thats what I said. most beneficial...don't increase the deficit.

What you said was "pay for health care". You may as well just flush it down the toilet.

Chiefshrink
09-17-2009, 11:49 PM
Russia is not the old soviet union. That's propaganda brought to you by the empire builders in our govt who want to scare you into thinking imposition of American hegemony on the world is the right thing so we have to continue to police the world.

Meanwhile, the purpose of staying in Afghanistan, taking down Iran, moving into the Caucausus is to encircle Russia. They know it and don't like it.

We need to get back to a sane FP not based on exaggerated threats. The Cold War is over. That mentality is no longer useful.
Who cares what kind of govt Iran has. It really isn't a threat to the west either. Read The Thousand Year War and see what the west has been doing to the ME for a better understanding of matters.

Hmmmmm.....It was announced earlier today that Iran now has nuclear bomb capability and are looking for missile technology to deliver these nuclear bombs at about the same time Obama announces to scale back the missile defense shield in Poland on the 70th anniversary date of the invasion of Poland. Such ironic timing:rolleyes:

Respectfully disagree Buc

petegz28
09-17-2009, 11:55 PM
A trillion $'s. Pays for health care or the stimulus or the bank bailouts. Or most beneficial....doesn't increase the deficit.

None of which the Fed Gov had\have any business doing in the first place.

Chiefshrink
09-17-2009, 11:57 PM
I'm busy today so can someone give me the short version of what we got in return?

NOT a DAMN THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:banghead::#:banghead::#:banghead::#

And why would we get anything in return when we have an anti-American WH apologizing to the whole world . In their naive thinking they really believe all these apologies to the world are somehow going to make the world a safer place; when in reality our WH(Obama) looks like a weak pussy who can be manipulated due to naive idealogue thinking while at the same time we as a country are getting our throats slit by the very enemy we apologized to.:shake::shake:

Direckshun
09-18-2009, 12:04 AM
Didn't see this topic. Haven't read it, either, so I apologize for any reposts.

My understanding of the situation is that this is good for several reasons:

1. It's needlessly provocative of Russia, with whom we're starting to rebuild a thriving trade relationship and overall positive diplomacy.

2. This was more of a concern over Russia becoming powerful once again, more than it was anything regarding the Middle East, which we can handle with short-range missile ranges we'll be building instead of long-rangers in Poland. Expanding trade and improving diplomacy with Russia will do more on that front anyway.

4. Involving Poland or the Czech in our disputes with Iran may not be the brightest idea.

5. There will be substitute programs put in place like Aegis that will do the trick anyway.

Oh, and there's the whole thing involving us wasting a shitload of money on the whole ordeal.

Chiefshrink
09-18-2009, 12:31 AM
Didn't see this topic. Haven't read it, either, so I apologize for any reposts.

My understanding of the situation is that this is good for several reasons:

1. It's needlessly provocative of Russia, with whom we're starting to rebuild a thriving trade relationship and overall positive diplomacy.

2. This was more of a concern over Russia becoming powerful once again, more than it was anything regarding the Middle East, which we can handle with short-range missile ranges we'll be building instead of long-rangers in Poland. Expanding trade and improving diplomacy with Russia will do more on that front anyway.

4. Involving Poland or the Czech in our disputes with Iran may not be the brightest idea.

5. There will be substitute programs put in place like Aegis that will do the trick anyway.

Oh, and there's the whole thing involving us wasting a shitload of money on the whole ordeal.

1 and 2. Who cares what Russia and Putin feel about our missile defense system. The fact that Putin doesn't like it is all the reason I DO like it! It was a brilliant move to install in such a strategic place to hold accountable at best a pseudo democracy in Russia and Putin and the mideast who have not been above board and have not shown to be trustworthy in their diplomatic word. Naivete

3. You didn't have a number 3.

4. I wonder how these countries feel about America and especially PeeBO now after being such loyal allies? Iran-pleeeeeeeeeease!

5. Code word for squirt gun ability and if Russia agreed to this then you know it only has squirt gun capability.

6. Wasting$$ on our and the world's protection with show of superior force?
But you have no problem with the stimulus bills, the trillion$$ healthscare bill and cap and trade taxes that will be into the trillions as well?

Taco John
09-18-2009, 12:31 AM
I'm busy today so can someone give me the short version of what we got in return?


Less money going out of American pockets to provide for European socialists.

Chiefshrink
09-18-2009, 12:37 AM
Less money going out of American pockets to provide for European socialists.

It's for our protection as well as our allies and is a huge diplomatic leverage tool but now we have lessened our leverage. Not good.:shake:

Taco John
09-18-2009, 01:52 AM
It's for our protection as well as our allies and is a huge diplomatic leverage tool but now we have lessened our leverage. Not good.:shake:


*shrug*

I guess we're doomed then. Let me know where the party is at, and I'll show up with at least a 6'er. What are we looking at? Two weeks?

Taco John
09-18-2009, 01:57 AM
This is one of those "Thank God McCain didn't win" moments for me. Not only would we have some half assed healthcare plan that Republicans could sign off on, but we'd also have this moronic missile shield draining our economy and inciting Russia. I'm all for a missile shield in, oh I don't know - Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. Throw another one along the east coast - sure.

If our allies want one, they can pay for it themselves.

BucEyedPea
09-18-2009, 07:57 AM
Hmmmmm.....It was announced earlier today that Iran now has nuclear bomb capability and are looking for missile technology to deliver these nuclear bombs at about the same time Obama announces to scale back the missile defense shield in Poland on the 70th anniversary date of the invasion of Poland. Such ironic timing:rolleyes:

Respectfully disagree Buc

By whom was it announced? The same sources that claimed Iraq had WMD. Israel being a major one to beat those war drums. Don't forget a lot of people thought that about Iraq too. This stems from the same NCs who are in both parties. Think Rahm Emanuel whose probably pushing it too in the WH. I put a link up from Newsweek countering that there was contrary facts.

Intel Agencies Say No New Nukes in Iran (http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529)

IAEA: No Proof Iran Has a Nuclear Weapon (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/17/iaea-no-concrete-proof-iran-has-nuclear-weapons-program/)

pikesome
09-18-2009, 09:40 AM
The biggest promise with this is creditability. The US promises something and then turns right around and changes it's mind. I used to work with a Polish immigrant and he said that there is still a sizable feeling of betrayal over the US's and UK's handling of Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe, after WWII. And this current development probably looks eerily similar in their eyes.

I would think that Russia would worry more people here. They are a large, still relatively powerful country with a small, powerful leadership and wounded pride. That is a recipe for serious problems. Not completely unlike Nazi Germany or even Stalin era USSR.

And with regards to not spending money, it might be debatable whether this is a good expenditure but this sort of thing is most definitely the kind of thing our Fed should be doing. Bailouts, public health care, college loans, these are all things that Fed involvement in is questionable based on how our country is set up.

Chiefshrink
09-18-2009, 09:59 AM
The biggest promise with this is creditability. The US promises something and then turns right around and changes it's mind. I used to work with a Polish immigrant and he said that there is still a sizable feeling of betrayal over the US's and UK's handling of Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe, after WWII. And this current development probably looks eerily similar in their eyes.

I would think that Russia would worry more people here. They are a large, still relatively powerful country with a small, powerful leadership and wounded pride. That is a recipe for serious problems. Not completely unlike Nazi Germany or even Stalin era USSR.

And with regards to not spending money, it might be debatable whether this is a good expenditure but this sort of thing is most definitely the kind of thing our Fed should be doing. Bailouts, public health care, college loans, these are all things that Fed involvement in is questionable based on how our country is set up.

Precisely!

BucEyedPea
09-18-2009, 10:03 AM
The biggest promise with this is creditability. The US promises something and then turns right around and changes it's mind. I used to work with a Polish immigrant and he said that there is still a sizable feeling of betrayal over the US's and UK's handling of Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe, after WWII. And this current development probably looks eerily similar in their eyes.

I would think that Russia would worry more people here. They are a large, still relatively powerful country with a small, powerful leadership and wounded pride. That is a recipe for serious problems. Not completely unlike Nazi Germany or even Stalin era USSR.

And with regards to not spending money, it might be debatable whether this is a good expenditure but this sort of thing is most definitely the kind of thing our Fed should be doing. Bailouts, public health care, college loans, these are all things that Fed involvement in is questionable based on how our country is set up.

Credibility my arse! Other govts should know what form of govt we have here which can bring in changes.

They can stop sucking off the teat of the American taxpayers.

pikesome
09-18-2009, 10:22 AM
Credibility my arse! Other govts should know what form of govt we have here which can bring in changes.

Why must we act like flaky, petulant children in our international dealings? I would submit that our inability to even attempt a consistent foreign policy has caused us far more problems than taking the "wrong" one would have.

The US can't just sit around and pretend that if we ignore the rest of the world they'll leave us alone. If nothing else somebody will start treating us the same way we have teated others.

I don't want this country to turn into post-war England. And between the Mad Spenders in Congress and the head-in-the-sand isolationists it sure looks like that's our next stop.

BigChiefFan
09-18-2009, 10:27 AM
What part of building a less expense, BETTER missle system don't you get?

BucEyedPea
09-18-2009, 10:29 AM
Why must we act like flaky, petulant children in our international dealings?
Pure subjective opinion. I'd say that applies to your side but I'd add delusional paranoia to it. :D

Donger, you and your likes are the biggest scaredy cats.

pikesome
09-18-2009, 10:44 AM
Pure subjective opinion. I'd say that applies to your side but I'd add delusional paranoia to it. :D

When did you turn into such a petty poster? You did nothing but insult me personally. You didn't even comment on my points.

My side? What is "my side"? This isn't a sporting event.

Is it possible for you to comment on the topic instead of slinging invective? Don't agree with me? How am I wrong? What should we do? How do we deal with the negative factors of what you'd like?

pikesome
09-18-2009, 10:52 AM
What part of building a less expense, BETTER missle system don't you get?

Is this directed at me?

I get it. Would love it. My brother is actually working on it in the Army.

We didn't need to publicly walk away if cost was all that was wrong. The way we handled this is my biggest problem. There could have been talks with the Poles about cutting the scope or lengthening the time frame. But the way we handled this appears to be a Chamberlain-like move. Are the Russians the Nazis? No, but it causes problems for us if we ever get in a situation where we need to stand firm on something. And it guarantees that the Poles won't trust us.

BigRedChief
09-18-2009, 12:41 PM
What part of building a less expense, BETTER missle system don't you get?
THIS!

Chocolate Hog
09-18-2009, 12:58 PM
Is this directed at me?

I get it. Would love it. My brother is actually working on it in the Army.

We didn't need to publicly walk away if cost was all that was wrong. The way we handled this is my biggest problem. There could have been talks with the Poles about cutting the scope or lengthening the time frame. But the way we handled this appears to be a Chamberlain-like move. Are the Russians the Nazis? No, but it causes problems for us if we ever get in a situation where we need to stand firm on something. And it guarantees that the Poles won't trust us.

So you want to reinvent the cold war? awesome.

Chocolate Hog
09-18-2009, 12:59 PM
This is one of those "Thank God McCain didn't win" moments for me. Not only would we have some half assed healthcare plan that Republicans could sign off on, but we'd also have this moronic missile shield draining our economy and inciting Russia. I'm all for a missile shield in, oh I don't know - Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. Throw another one along the east coast - sure.

If our allies want one, they can pay for it themselves.

But if McCain won we wouldn't have socailism. Spending money on Americans is socailism, spending money on Iraqis,Afgahns, and Europeans isn't socailism.

Direckshun
09-18-2009, 01:32 PM
The biggest promise with this is creditability. The US promises something and then turns right around and changes it's mind. I used to work with a Polish immigrant and he said that there is still a sizable feeling of betrayal over the US's and UK's handling of Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe, after WWII. And this current development probably looks eerily similar in their eyes.

I would think that Russia would worry more people here. They are a large, still relatively powerful country with a small, powerful leadership and wounded pride. That is a recipe for serious problems. Not completely unlike Nazi Germany or even Stalin era USSR.

And with regards to not spending money, it might be debatable whether this is a good expenditure but this sort of thing is most definitely the kind of thing our Fed should be doing. Bailouts, public health care, college loans, these are all things that Fed involvement in is questionable based on how our country is set up.

Cracks me up how people think NOT building these defense systems in Poland is somehow an indictment of Poland. I'll avoid the traditional Pollack jokes that will come with this, but it isn't easy given the lack of intelligence surrounding that claim.

The missile defense system in Poland would have not protected Poland AT ALL. Period. It would have been used for us. The only property in Poland that those missile defense systems would have been protecting would be the very ground they're planted on. If anything, the defense system makes Poland more of a target, so this claim is nonsense.

The best way to handle Russia in this day and age is not to outgun them, but to moderate them. And you do that with engaged diplomacy and more importantly, increased trade. We can make a shitload off of Russia and vice versa, and this will stop any war between us. We're at an uneasy relationship with China right now, at LEAST as uneasy as our relationship with Russia, but nobody's talking about strikes. There's a reason for that.

The last point about spending is fair. But honestly, medium-to-short-range missiles set up elsewhere will do exactly much help to protect us as these long-rangers will, and they'll cost less. And cause less extraneous agitation internationally.

BucEyedPea
09-18-2009, 03:09 PM
...but your man in the White House could be a move toward war with Iran.
Meet the new boss....same as the old boss.



The countries previously in the Soviet satellite (and currently in the US satellite) may be sycophantic but they’re not stupid. Though the US administration had insisted for years that placing missiles on Czech and Polish soil was all about Iran, had nothing to do with Russia, and that only a paranoid Russian nationalist would suggest otherwise, the Poles knew better. Upon President Obama’s announcement that the Polish and Czech deal was off, these two NATO “allies” screamed: “Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back.” Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski, himself the product of spooky US and British think-tanks like the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, wagged a finger at his handlers back in the US and called the timing of the announcement “clumsy.” Why clumsy? Because it came on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet occupation of parts of Poland!

Not to worry, Sikorski assures his current countrymen, where the American Empire closes a door somewhere else it opens a window: the agreement with the US for Patriot missiles to be deployed in Poland would go ahead, with American troops on Polish soil to operate the system. Polish Radio reports: “’[T]he American side assured us that the Patriot missiles will be fully armed,’ said Sikorski, referring to the original agreement which only mentioned ‘training warheads’ to be placed on the Patriots.”

The warmongering Washington Post lustfully suggests this “backdown” from confrontation with Russia over the missiles may be the bait to goad Russia into a more cooperative position toward the US/Israeli steady move to war on Iran. As the Post notes, there is no reason for those opposed to Obama’s Bushian foreign policy of aggression and military confrontation to cheer this announcement: The new missiles will be “based on the Navy’s Aegis system will be geographically closer to Iran, will be deployed sooner and will be more cost-effective than the land-based system put forward by the Bush administration. ” So Obama is doing war even better than Bush, and the Washington Post cheers!

Most likely, this US move was delayed payment for Russia agreeing to allow trans-shipment of US military equipment through Russia to Afghanistan. Nothing is free and there has not yet been any evidence of US payment for this “favor.”

Despite the nuclear watchdog IAEA’s insistence that there is no proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, and despite the fact that the “secret documents” discovered proving an Iranian covert program were most likely cooked up in the offices of the lunatic terrorist group MeK and delivered to the US by Israeli sources, the Obama administration is determined to finish what the neo-conservatives started under the Clinton administration: US invasion and forced “democratization” of the entire Middle East. Next step will be “crippling sanctions” — a blockade — that Congress may pass as soon as this month. Buckle your seatbelts


http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/036463.html

Direckshun
09-18-2009, 03:19 PM
Hate to break it to you Direckshun...

...but your man in the White House could be a move toward war with Iran.
Meet the new boss....same as the old boss.

Man, I will eat my blood-stained words when that happens.

But I would bet anything that barring something unexpected, a third American war in the Middle East will not occur during the Obama administration.

It simply can't happen. Lew Rockwell be damned.

BucEyedPea
09-18-2009, 03:23 PM
Man, I will eat my blood-stained words when that happens.

But I would bet anything that barring something unexpected, a third American war in the Middle East will not occur during the Obama administration.

It simply can't happen. Lew Rockwell be damned.

Two words: Rahm Emanuel

He's a NeoCon and he's Obama's Chief of Staff!

BucEyedPea
09-18-2009, 03:25 PM
What's with typing in the color of money Direckshun are you getting a bailout too?

Direckshun
09-18-2009, 03:30 PM
Two words: Rahm Emanuel

He's a NeoCon and he's Obama's Chief of Staff!

I've got 18 words for you:

We're engaged in two wars and enmeshed in the most intense recession we've seen in nearly 80 years.

What's with typing in the color of money Direckshun are you getting a bailout too?

Solidarity with today's Iranian protest.

It's hokey, but I'm inspired. I'll be back to normal tomorrow.

BucEyedPea
09-18-2009, 03:43 PM
I've got 18 words for you:

We're engaged in two wars and enmeshed in the most intense recession we've seen in nearly 80 years.
Captain Obvious. Another war is just the thing to distract us from our domestic economic woes.

Solidarity with today's Iranian protest.

It's hokey, but I'm inspired. I'll be back to normal tomorrow.

I see. I thought maybe you had an artistic streak.

Reaper16
09-18-2009, 06:20 PM
Eh. That missile defense system in Poland idea just seemed like a bunch of Russophobic sabre-rattling anyway.

WilliamTheIrish
09-19-2009, 11:21 AM
Hate to be the bearer of bad news...but it is the obligation of the Fed Gov to protect us from our enemies. It is not their obligation to bail out banks and provide health care to all and continue to fund services for illegal immigrants.

How does a missile in Poland save me from the Russians? Or the Iranians? Or the North Koreans?

The entire "Missile Shield" is a boondoggle that is rivaled only by The Big Dig. And if the damn thing is essential, and can really take a out a warhead by another warhead, than put it on line here.

The articles I've read about it are still mixed - though there does seem to be some promising technology involved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6720153.stm

WilliamTheIrish
09-19-2009, 11:27 AM
It's really a shame that raging paranoia isn't a defense shield. We'd be covered in spades. And what can the Poles do for this country in economic terms? Turnips? Kettle chips? Bratwurst? They have a bunch of cheap oil? No.

As unlikely as this next statement will be for popularity, I'd rather be a friendly trading partner of the Russians than the Poles. JMHO.

WilliamTheIrish
09-19-2009, 11:41 AM
Not sure why any eastern European allies would ever do business with the US again on issues like this.

But chances are the US already had an understanding in place with Russia regarding what form the cooperation with Russia would be going forward. At least you hope so. Who knows with Obama.

I'll tell you why they will deal with the US: This country has graciously given them an umbrella of defense for 30 years at a cost of ton of money. It's no longer Cold War thinking that will see this country through.

Also, it appears the general Czech populace was not in agreement on the deployment of this system. I mean it is still okay for countries to determine if they want this defense deployed, right?

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2009/09/more_on_the_missile_shield_why.html


Below is a graph of Czech public opinion showing that over the past three years, a nearly unchanged two-thirds of the public has been opposed to construction of the radar and an even higher percentage has desired a referendum on the issue (presumably in order to vote against it;

JohnnyV13
09-19-2009, 12:55 PM
A polish missile shield?

Sounds like a set up for a series of "polack" jokes to me.

BucEyedPea
09-19-2009, 02:40 PM
Obama stops building anti-missile weapons in Eastern Europe, and Russia responds (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26093407-2703,00.html)by dismantling its missiles.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2009, 02:41 PM
Clearly a foolish step that has only weakened America.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-19-2009, 03:11 PM
Clearly a foolish step that has only weakened America.

ROFL

Captain Obvious
09-19-2009, 03:27 PM
Captain Obvious. Another war is just the thing to distract us from our domestic economic woes.

Um...ok. Thanks for the info.

WilliamTheIrish
09-19-2009, 08:47 PM
Obama stops building anti-missile weapons in Eastern Europe, and Russia responds (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26093407-2703,00.html)by dismantling its missiles.

Good find BEP.

You know I can see why the Eastern Europeans would be upset about this. Only it has nothing to do with a missile shield. It has to do with the date of the announcement.

September 17, 1939 was the date of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Obama has some really poor historians on his staff for that to happen.

BucEyedPea
09-19-2009, 09:09 PM
Good find BEP.

You know I can see why the Eastern Europeans would be upset about this. Only it has nothing to do with a missile shield. It has to do with the date of the announcement.

September 17, 1939 was the date of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Obama has some really poor historians on his staff for that to happen.

Yeah it was bad timing. I've a Polish neighbor who grew up under Martial Law who is very unhappy about it as well as her family in Poland.

But y'a know, when JFK removed our missiles from Turkey on the Russian border which allowed the Russians to remove theirs from Cuba, the Turks weren't happy about it either.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 01:12 AM
Captain Obvious. Another war is just the thing to distract us from our domestic economic woes.

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 01:14 AM
Polls out of Poland suggest, by the way, that this is a popular move in Poland.

Rack up another point for reality...

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 01:29 AM
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
It makes perfect sense if you know history and how the state behaves.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 01:30 AM
Polls out of Poland suggest, by the way, that this is a popular move in Poland.

Rack up another point for reality...

Link? My neighbor is from Poland and is going to Poland next week....according to her they're upset. It still the right move though, imo.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 01:41 AM
Link?

One (http://english.people.com.cn/200704/24/eng20070424_369061.html).

Two (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106614&sectionid=351020605).

Three (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/But_the_Polish_public_likes_it.html?showall):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20120a5814f45970b-800wi

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 01:43 AM
Interesting Thank You. Her family must be in the other percent.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 01:49 AM
Interesting Thank You. Her family must be in the other percent.

I would imagine so.

My question is -- why would she feel that way?

What suggests to them that this shield was intended to benefit or protect them in any way? There is zero guarantee for that. It's a bald-faced effort to sabre-rattle Russia. That's it. Not to protect our friends in Poland.

Although...

http://www.youforgotpoland.org/mjames/yfp/slides/youforgotpolandBush01.jpg

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 02:01 AM
I would imagine so.

My question is -- why would she feel that way?

What suggests to them that this shield was intended to benefit or protect them in any way? There is zero guarantee for that. It's a bald-faced effort to sabre-rattle Russia. That's it. Not to protect our friends in Poland.

Although...

I wouldn't have a clue about why her family thinks that. I know they liked Obama though and not Bush. ( They also still like Communism per her husband) She voted for Obama but now isn't crazy about him. But her husband, American, is an NRA right-winger who conceals and carries.

All did ask her why in general regarding the Polish, and she said they can't afford their own. Must be why her family still likes communism — because we have to pay for their defense shield. She also told me about how the Russians wrote their history books which stated that they came to help the Polish. Sound familiar?

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 02:31 AM
That's just silly that they'd assume we're building that sheild for them.

The allure of Pollack jokes are strong, let's just say.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 02:33 AM
The allure of Pollack jokes are strong, let's just say.

You sound like her husband now! :)

BucEyedPea
09-22-2009, 11:04 AM
bump

KCWolfman
09-22-2009, 11:46 AM
bump

Thanks.

Again, my points hold, according to China Daily, there are mixed signals from Russia.

The POTUS picked the most ironic day in Polish history to make his announcement.

Russia has illegally invaded Georgia.

If this is a ploy to have Putin finally go against Iran, it won't happen. I can think of no other logical reason to take such action.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2009, 11:56 AM
Thanks.

Again, my points hold, according to China Daily, there are mixed signals from Russia.

The POTUS picked the most ironic day in Polish history to make his announcement.

Russia has illegally invaded Georgia.

If this is a ploy to have Putin finally go against Iran, it won't happen. I can think of no other logical reason to take such action.
Georgia illegally invaded Ossetia
The US illegally invaded Iraq. Nothing new to see here.

Ossetia was mostly Russian and wanted to be aligned with the Russians more. Nothing we wouldn't do in our own backyard.

There's always mixed signals from any govt or country because there's factions so there's never 100% agreement. And don't mistake the people for their govt—including here in America.

KCWolfman
09-22-2009, 12:18 PM
Georgia illegally invaded Ossetia
The US illegally invaded Iraq. Nothing new to see here.

Ossetia was mostly Russian and wanted to be aligned with the Russians more. Nothing we wouldn't do in our own backyard.

There's always mixed signals from any govt or country because there's factions so there's never 100% agreement. And don't mistake the people for their govt—including here in America.

Georgia didn't invade. I agree they shot missiles into Ossetia that were unwarranted but within 5 days, small exploratory groups were expelled. During those 5 days, the Ossetians (HEAVILY backed by Russian arms AND troops) illegally occupied the Georgia cities of Poti and Gori. The UN negotiated mediation and Russia, er I mean Ossetia left Georgia excluding checkpoints in Poti, Perevi, and Senaki.

Russia, not Ossetia, has been increasing troops in Abkhazia over the last 2 years, unabated. Ossetia sent in spy planes and gave the footage to the BBC showing heavy military buildup in Abkhazia. It was ignored by most, as Russia is the big voice in the UN.

While Georgia was an initial aggressor and sent missiles willy nilly during a regime changeover, they saw the err of their ways. They paid for it with Russian occupation mandated by the UN. Talk about putting the Rat in charge of the Cheese.
Russia knows it will not survive as it is now over the next century, especially with China looming on SuperPower status.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2009, 01:41 PM
Okay...but they attacked. It's been awhile since I read up on that.

Basically, it's none of our business....and the US and Israel were being busybodies in Georgia with advisors before it happened too.

KCWolfman
09-22-2009, 01:44 PM
Okay...but they attacked. It's been awhile since I read up on that.

Basically, it's none of our business....and the US and Israel were being busybodies in Georgia with advisors before it happened too.

It's none of our business????

So Korea is none of our business, nor Iran, nor Czechoslovakia, nor Afghanistan.....

Yet, we are involved in all of the above.

What you are saying does not make sense.