OK kids,, you like war?? Here comes the draft!!

[Tech_Esq]

Since you two know everything there isn't much point in answering because you can't see beyond the end of your own stereotypical view.

Please defend your point of view, whatever it is. I didn't say I knew what it was, I just said I had a feeling. It would be far more informative if you and your fellow travelers just answered the question I posed and enlightened us all.

 

[Ravi]

Please defend your point of view, whatever it is. I didn't say I knew what it was, I just said I had a feeling. It would be far more informative if you and your fellow travelers just answered the question I posed and enlightened us all.

I had this discussion already with one of the board's conservatives. It was quite civil and the outcome was agreeable to both. If you wish, you may look for the thread. Or you can become a RGS clone. I'm not going to repeat myself.

 

[Tech_Esq]

no chance of moving westward beyond old Soviet borders.....

Why? Because Europe grew balls sometime recently and didn't tell anyone?

I don't feel comfortable just moving stuff off the table with Russia. I'm fairly certain they will not attack China or Afghanistan. Outside of that, I think everything is on the table.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I had this discussion already with one of the board's conservatives. It was quite civil and the outcome was agreeable to both. If you wish, you may look for the thread. Or you can become a RGS clone. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Fine, you can let bobo speak for your side. Makes no diff to me.

 

[KGB]

Why? Because Europe grew balls sometime recently and didn't tell anyone?

I don't feel comfortable just moving stuff off the table with Russia. I'm fairly certain they will not attack China or Afghanistan. Outside of that, I think everything is on the table.

Poland is in NATO, that's where the demarcation line exists.....plus, empires are expensive, much better for the Russians to sell oil/gas to Europe at market value....

 

[Paulie]

There will not be a draft in this country without a catalyzer to spark enough of a willingness of the people. We'd need some kind of event worse than 9/11 to get the public behind the idea of forcing citizens into war. Especially during today's times, where it seems most people aren't exactly happy about the wars we're already involved in.

I would think that otherwise, it would probably spark mass chaos and an armed rebellion. But who knows. Perhaps that's what Uncle Sam WANTS.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Poland is in NATO, that's where the demarcation line exists.....plus, empires are expensive, much better for the Russians to sell oil/gas to Europe at market value....

While I agree with you that empires are expensive, Russia has never been ultra intellectual about its expansionist tendencies. These are driven by Russia's emotional and xenophobic responses to the way it sees the world. We make economic decisions, but that's not what Russia does.

Ummm....So what about Poland. France and Britain had a mutual protection pact directly with Czechoslovakia and stood by and watched as it was pummeled by Germany. If Russia attacked Poland with 125 Motorized Rifle Divisions next April, do you really think Europe would roll tanks to its aid? Do you think the US would? I have severe doubts.

 

[CSM]

There will not be a draft in this country without a catalyzer to spark enough of a willingness of the people. We'd need some kind of event worse than 9/11 to get the public behind the idea of forcing citizens into war. Especially during today's times, where it seems most people aren't exactly happy about the wars we're already involved in.

I would think that otherwise, it would probably spark mass chaos and an armed rebellion. But who knows. Perhaps that's what Uncle Sam WANTS.

I am not so sure that a draft will ever be acceptable in this country ever again. There would have to be one heck of a catastrophic event (IMO) to make such a consideration palatable to the citizens and if the event was that catastrophic perhaps a draft would not be necessary anyway.


barring WW III, I just don't see it happening.

 

[Tech_Esq]

There will not be a draft in this country without a catalyzer to spark enough of a willingness of the people. We'd need some kind of event worse than 9/11 to get the public behind the idea of forcing citizens into war. Especially during today's times, where it seems most people aren't exactly happy about the wars we're already involved in.

I would think that otherwise, it would probably spark mass chaos and an armed rebellion. But who knows. Perhaps that's what Uncle Sam WANTS.

9/11 could have been enough. The opportunity was squandered. Bush at his worst as a leader. The entire world behind him willing to support a righteous vengeful roar by the US and he squeaks. We should have mobilized 32 million men and went after these bastards. We should have impressed the entire civilian populace like never since WWII and made them part of the fight. But, instead, he squeaked.

It would need a new catalyst today, but it could happen. If we had a strong, dynamic leader with vision and good communication skills....we could do it. Oh, but look who's running. ACK!! never mind.....

 

[Paulie]

9/11 could have been enough. The opportunity was squandered. Bush at his worst as a leader. The entire world behind him willing to support a righteous vengeful roar by the US and he squeaks. We should have mobilized 32 million men and went after these bastards. We should have impressed the entire civilian populace like never since WWII and made them part of the fight. But, instead, he squeaked.

It would need a new catalyst today, but it could happen. If we had a strong, dynamic leader with vision and good communication skills....we could do it. Oh, but look who's running. ACK!! never mind.....

32 million men to go after WHO?

How do you fight a successful war against an IDEA? Terrorism is not a country. It's not a cut and dry fight, where you have your intended targets, and you destroy them. You're talking about a TACTIC here, that exists in most countries of the world. How many countries are you willing to invade?

Terrorism will never stop. And it's certainly not limited to muslims strapping on bomb belts. It's in the hearts and minds of too many people to take it on. The best you can do is provoke your enemies as little as possible, arm yourself as best as possible, and defend your border. If or when your defense is breached, you take retaliatory action. We're the most powerful nation on earth militarily, there's no reason why we need to be out on a killing spree to "pre emptively" protect ourselves. No one's ever going to breach our defenses here at home, so long as they are adequately equipped and used in the right way. We are wide open as it is right now, with our best men SOMEWHERE ELSE. It's ridiculous.

 

[Annie]

Ah, Russia had all behind them with schoolhouse takeover/massacre about Chechnya. How's that working out today?

 

[CSM]

Ah, Russia had all behind them with schoolhouse takeover/massacre about Chechnya. How's that working out today?

That just shows that the US has not cornered the market on making mistakes.

 

[KGB]

While I agree with you that empires are expensive, Russia has never been ultra intellectual about its expansionist tendencies. These are driven by Russia's emotional and xenophobic responses to the way it sees the world. We make economic decisions, but that's not what Russia does.

Russia has always been at a crossroads as to what type of country they truly are....Asiatic or European....their expansionist policies of the past were driven by ideology....this one is being driven by oil.....that falls squarely in the economic category.....

Ummm....So what about Poland. France and Britain had a mutual protection pact directly with Czechoslovakia and stood by and watched as it was pummeled by Germany. If Russia attacked Poland with 125 Motorized Rifle Divisions next April, do you really think Europe would roll tanks to its aid? Do you think the US would? I have severe doubts.

Russia doesn't have 5 working motorized rifle divisions, let alone 125....so please leave out the old Red Army motiff....the Russian Army today is not the Red Army of WW2....not even close.....

that being said, Poland is in NATO & Article 5 would be triggered....we know it, & the Russians know it.....plus, there are no real resource reasons for the Russians to go west unless they want access to the Black Sea (ala Ukraine). Nothing exists for them in Poland & socialist fraternity is no longer applicable....this is business for them now & they are not about to piss off potential customers (at least not too much) by knocking on Poland's door....

 

[Tech_Esq]

32 million men to go after WHO?

How do you fight a successful war against an IDEA? Terrorism is not a country. It's not a cut and dry fight, where you have your intended targets, and you destroy them. You're talking about a TACTIC here, that exists in most countries of the world. How many countries are you willing to invade?

Terrorism will never stop. And it's certainly not limited to muslims strapping on bomb belts. It's in the hearts and minds of too many people to take it on. The best you can do is provoke your enemies as little as possible, arm yourself as best as possible, and defend your border. If or when your defense is breached, you take retaliatory action. We're the most powerful nation on earth militarily, there's no reason why we need to be out on a killing spree to "pre emptively" protect ourselves. No one's ever going to breach our defenses here at home, so long as they are adequately equipped and used in the right way. We are wide open as it is right now, with our best men SOMEWHERE ELSE. It's ridiculous.

That's silly. I mean seriously. You can't conceptualize AQ? Really? You can't figure out how Hezballah works? Really? This world must be a big mystery to you.

Preemptive nothing, we've been attacked by AQ and Hezballah. We get to defend ourselves. Bush actually laid out what the deal was but didn't back it up. If you have AQ in your country, either you get them or we will. That's how it works. How many countries are we willing to invade in the process? Well, what's our current record? Do you know? How many countries did we invade to chase the fascists around the world?

Raising the white flag with the terrorists? We can never stop them. Really? I'll agree we can never stop every single last one of them, but we can and MUST break the will of the organized international terror organizations. Most especially, we must break the ones that are just bare instruments of state power (Iran and Hezballah). Once upon a time piracy was the scourge of the world. People said the same thing about that. It's extranational, we can never get rid of it. They were wrong and so are you. We can reduce it to the point that it isn't that important.

Maybe you didn't have the smoke from the burning bodies filling your nostrils on 9/11, but standing on a hill by the Pentagon, I did. I purposely inhaled that smoke so that the image and the feeling would be burned into my soul forever. So I would never forget. You want to talk about our actions making them terrorists, guess what? It works both ways and we have bigger guns, sorry 'bout that, but there it is.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Russia doesn't have 5 working motorized rifle divisions, let alone 125....so please leave out the old Red Army motiff....the Russian Army today is not the Red Army of WW2....not even close.....

that being said, Poland is in NATO & Article 5 would be triggered....we know it, & the Russians know it.....plus, there are no real resource reasons for the Russians to go west unless they want access to the Black Sea (ala Ukraine). Nothing exists for them in Poland & socialist fraternity is no longer applicable....this is business for them now & they are not about to piss off potential customers (at least not too much) by knocking on Poland's door....

I know what would be triggered and all that. Seriously, duh. The point is not whether collective security agreements would be triggered, but whether they would be lived up to. My point isn't the number of troops Russia could muster or whether treaty obligations would be triggered, it's whether the countries who have those obligations would send their armies to fight and die in Poland next year. It isn't like Article 5 gets triggered and automatically the armies of NATO appear. Money has to be spent, orders have to be given. Etc. I just don't see 100,000 NATO troops rolling into Poland to stop Putin's armies.

And, by the way, 5 MRR Divisions....please, they have more than that in Georgia now. Troops has never been something Russia was short of.

Ideologically driven? Huh? Are you limiting your analysis to post 1917 Russia or do you think I am. Either way, history didn't start their, their xenophobia didn't start there and their expansionist tendencies didn't start there. You need to come back with some more depth to your arguments.

Nothing exists for them in Poland? Uh yeah except 1,000 years of hate. No reason to go west? Yeah, except they fear the eastward expansion of perceived threat that their history tells them they must have a buffer to prevent. To play for time fighting delaying actions until they can get their shit together and fight back. A NATO army sitting Ukraine scares the Russian bear shit out of them.

If you think this is about oil, you need to go back to school.

 

[KGB]

I know what would be triggered and all that. Seriously, duh. The point is not whether collective security agreements would be triggered, but whether they would be lived up to. My point isn't the number of troops Russia could muster or whether treaty obligations would be triggered, it's whether the countries who have those obligations would send their armies to fight and die in Poland next year. It isn't like Article 5 gets triggered and automatically the armies of NATO appear. Money has to be spent, orders have to be given. Etc. I just don't see 100,000 NATO troops rolling into Poland to stop Putin's armies.

And, by the way, 5 MRR Divisions....please, they have more than that in Georgia now. Troops has never been something Russia was short of.

non-working equipment & underpaid conscripts do not get you very far....

Ideologically driven? Huh? Are you limiting your analysis to post 1917 Russia or do you think I am. Either way, history didn't start their, their xenophobia didn't start there and their expansionist tendencies didn't start there. You need to come back with some more depth to your arguments.

I am very familiar with Russian history all the way back to the Mongol invasions, but a message board isn't really a place for a dissertation....the Russians are very xenophobic, always have been, but expansion occurs for a reason....we've taken out ideological & there are no economic reasons to go west unless you are talking about Ukraine.....

Nothing exists for them in Poland? Uh yeah except 1,000 years of hate. No reason to go west? Yeah, except they fear the eastward expansion of perceived threat that their history tells them they must have a buffer to prevent. To play for time fighting delaying actions until they can get their shit together and fight back. A NATO army sitting Ukraine scares the Russian bear shit out of them.

of course it scares the shit out of them, but that reality doesn't exist....you are aware of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE)? It sort of limits what we can have & what they can have in the theater you are referring to...

If you think this is about oil, you need to go back to school.

this is about oil & natural resources.....ideology doesn't put bread or vodka on the table, but securing pipelines & resource fields sure does...Plus, I assume you are aware of the Union between Belarus & Russia? Notice how that supposed state never really got off the ground beyond the paper document signed? Even Kazakhstan tried to get in on the act, but it went nowhere....

the fact of the matter is, Russia has no reason (political, ideological or economic) to go west. South is a different matter & a big reason why it is occuring....not to mention, they don't have the forces or the equipment to take us on....

 

[Tech_Esq]

this is about oil & natural resources.....ideology doesn't put bread or vodka on the table, but securing pipelines & resource fields sure does...Plus, I assume you are aware of the Union between Belarus & Russia? Notice how that supposed state never really got off the ground beyond the paper document signed? Even Kazakhstan tried to get in on the act, but it went nowhere....

the fact of the matter is, Russia has no reason (political, ideological or economic) to go west. South is a different matter & a big reason why it is occuring....not to mention, they don't have the forces or the equipment to take us on....

Just to clarify the position of South Ossetia, before we go on (since I did the research), South Ossetia has never been separate from Georgia except for this most recent period. While the people are ethnically distinguishable from other Georgians, that is hardly important in this mixing bowl of a region. The ethnic group that forms the majority of South Ossetia has been there since they ran from the Mongols and sought the protection of the Prince there. South Ossetia and Georgia were absorbed into the Russian Empire in 1801. Since you are so informed about Russian history, you can tell us about the political ideology of Czar Alexander I and why he absorbed Georgia into his empire.

To your point about the condition of the Russian military. I've never found that optimism or overconfidence relative to a potential adversary has served anyone particularly well. It's best to assume the Russians are capable of more than might be apparent.

Going west. Yes, well it's hard to get to Poland from Russia without going through Ukraine. I would say Putin has had his eyes on the Ukraine for sometime now, wouldn't you? I further think that Russia feels naked without the Ukraine protecting it from the west.

Ok, I was being somewhat figurative. Not a literal tank army but think of what we are doing there. A missile shield and who knows what will come next? What the Russians see is their western front being encircled with potentially hostile forces. Imagine we send a fleet into the Baltic, we transit the sixth fleet into the Black Sea. We have land bases in Georgia. How long to get rail loaded tanks from Poland through a friendly Ukraine? Further airbases in Ukraine. Suddenly Moscow doesn't feel so safe, secure and remote does it?

Finally, if they wanted Georgian oil, why didn't they take the damned pipeline? What they don't like is the US hanging out in places like Georgia and Turkmenistan. They don't like big potential adversaries like us crawling up their butts. That's what this is about. Russia has a lots of oil. Sure, it's always nice to have more, but this is more about geo-politics than natural resources. Don't get me wrong, they'll take them and the payments they would return, this is about Russian hegemony over what they perceive is their sphere of influence. If Russia wanted to hang out in Mexico, you'd see something similar from us.

As I've shown, Russia has a huge reason to go west. Russia has always gone west for hundreds of years, repeatedly. This goes far beyond any ideology. In fact, if you are a student of Russian history and politics, you know that political ideology never satisfactorily explained Russia's geo-political actions. It was only when you looked at Russians as Russians and not Communists that you begin to see the pattern. Russia plays out these same themes over and over in its history. There is little reason to suspect that Putin would not return to these same themes that are so familiar to the Russian people. Russia has always traded space for time in war. Therefore, Russia desires space now. Russia's largest perceived external threat is in the west. Therefore, they need space in the west. That's not to say they will try it next week, but Putin is not done. He's not done with Georgia and he isn't done with an expansionist, adventurous and militarily resurgent Russian foreign policy.

 

[Working Man]

Working man

for this sentence alone...it shows your true colors....you are a sexist rearend, to put it politely.

How many times do you see women collecting the shopping carts and pushing them to their storage area. How many times do you see women hoisting garbage bags into a dump truck??

Women on the front line is not new. It is perhaps one of the few things I agree with the Israelis on.

As far as calling me an ASS.. I don't mind, it is one of the first things I check out on a woman.