Article 15
Dr. House slayer
- Jul 4, 2008
- 24,673
- 4,917
- 183
Unfortunately, what you are saying doesn't jive with what the Administration is feeding the public.
Oh Ya? Or What?
- Thread starter Orange_Juice
- Start date
Unfortunately, what you are saying doesn't jive with what the Administration is feeding the public.
I am of the opinion that this dance of threat and counter threat is a return to cold war sensibilities.
Those of you who do not trust Russia are, I believe, quite reasonable for not doing so.
Likewise, those of you who are objecting to our the way Bush is handling this more aggressive Russia, and who have issues with Bush's timing may have a point, too.
The thing is that none of us are privy to the behind the scenes communications between Russia and this administration.
In foreign policy, typically, there are two sets of stories happening at once.
There are the public stories that we read about in the papers...a combination of events as they unfold and the official for-public-comsumption reactions by both governments.
Those are what we are all reacting to, right now. Those public communications tend to be more bellicose than the nations probably really are. Those are designed to manipulate US, to gain support at home.
Then there are the sub rosa communications happening between those two nations, and those the public is not privy to.
Those negotiations tend to be more nuanced and less aggressive since those are the real sentiments of each government and are designed to find solitions and compromises.
Now, I have absolutely no doubt that such sub rosa communications are happening right now.
Consider...
Russia is still stinging from the collapse of the Soviet regime.
Russia's power is revitalizing thanks to capital coming in from oil.
Russia is feeling threatened (and really is being threatened, too) by this rush to include former Soviet block nations in NATO, and even more threatened by the introduction of ABM tecnology in those nations.
I do not think that the above are enough to push the Russians or the Americans to launch nuclear missles, and frankly I doubt either Russia or the USA are really concerned about that.
But the motus vivendi that Russia and the USA had achived post the Fall of the Soviet empire is strained and now outdated, too, and we are all going to have to get used to the fact that Russia is no longer that crippled giant it was for the last decade.
Now, were America not been bogged down in two land wars in Asia, I doubt the Russians would be so bold as they are, now, and perhaps our encircling of the Russian bear by NATO would have gone off more smoothly.
But we are bogged down and broke, and Russia knows it. Hence it can take a more aggressive position.
I expect that we'll see Russia and the USA reach some compromise positions whereby each gets something and gives up something.
So the question is what must we have, and what must Russia have to save face and to feel comfortable, too?
I expect that we are going to allow Russia to become a protectorate of Ossetia, and in doing so, to end up keeping control of that oil.
Russia really wants control of a port in the Black sea, too.
They want control over the Caspian sea pipeline, too.
What does America really want? Missles in Poland and CZ?
Maybe, but somehow I serously doubt that.
Right now, I am having difficulty seeing what exactly America's primary motive is here.
It might be the oil, and if it is that, then I expect that the move to include Soviet Block nations in NATO and including them in some sort of ABM unbrella are the chips America cede to Russia.
If that is the case what will Russia give up?
Some sort of security promise for Georgia, perhaps, or perhaps some compromise about the oil and natural gas coming from the Caspian region.
Then too, if we are really motivated by events in the MidEAst, there's the possibility that Russia may stay clear of interferrring with us in the MidEast, which might manifest by Russia not supporting Syria.
Again, without knowing what is on the REAL agenda in these governments, one cannot really know, one can only hypothisize.
What America should really want though, as far as I can see, is the promise from Russia that they won't interfere with our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and Isreal.
Let's remember, shall we, that we broke the back of the Soviets by arming Islamic terrorists (only then, those Islamic terrorists were Afghanistan freedom fighters) in Afghanistan.
Russia can do the same thing to us, now, folks. That is a distinct threat to us.
They have clients states which could arm Afghanistan or Iraqi terrorists, just like we armed terrorists in Afghanistan.
So I expect some agreement, possible some compromise behind the scenes, possibly even involving some things we will never really hear about, between Russia and the USA, is in the works.
We are, once again working out sphere's of influence, folks.
That is what I THINK is the real agenda here.
To establish who has control over what as it regards the Balkans, and central Asia.
Those of you who do not trust Russia are, I believe, quite reasonable for not doing so.
Likewise, those of you who are objecting to our the way Bush is handling this more aggressive Russia, and who have issues with Bush's timing may have a point, too.
The thing is that none of us are privy to the behind the scenes communications between Russia and this administration.
In foreign policy, typically, there are two sets of stories happening at once.
There are the public stories that we read about in the papers...a combination of events as they unfold and the official for-public-comsumption reactions by both governments.
Those are what we are all reacting to, right now. Those public communications tend to be more bellicose than the nations probably really are. Those are designed to manipulate US, to gain support at home.
Then there are the sub rosa communications happening between those two nations, and those the public is not privy to.
Those negotiations tend to be more nuanced and less aggressive since those are the real sentiments of each government and are designed to find solitions and compromises.
Now, I have absolutely no doubt that such sub rosa communications are happening right now.
Consider...
Russia is still stinging from the collapse of the Soviet regime.
Russia's power is revitalizing thanks to capital coming in from oil.
Russia is feeling threatened (and really is being threatened, too) by this rush to include former Soviet block nations in NATO, and even more threatened by the introduction of ABM tecnology in those nations.
I do not think that the above are enough to push the Russians or the Americans to launch nuclear missles, and frankly I doubt either Russia or the USA are really concerned about that.
But the motus vivendi that Russia and the USA had achived post the Fall of the Soviet empire is strained and now outdated, too, and we are all going to have to get used to the fact that Russia is no longer that crippled giant it was for the last decade.
Now, were America not been bogged down in two land wars in Asia, I doubt the Russians would be so bold as they are, now, and perhaps our encircling of the Russian bear by NATO would have gone off more smoothly.
But we are bogged down and broke, and Russia knows it. Hence it can take a more aggressive position.
I expect that we'll see Russia and the USA reach some compromise positions whereby each gets something and gives up something.
So the question is what must we have, and what must Russia have to save face and to feel comfortable, too?
I expect that we are going to allow Russia to become a protectorate of Ossetia, and in doing so, to end up keeping control of that oil.
Russia really wants control of a port in the Black sea, too.
They want control over the Caspian sea pipeline, too.
What does America really want? Missles in Poland and CZ?
Maybe, but somehow I serously doubt that.
Right now, I am having difficulty seeing what exactly America's primary motive is here.
It might be the oil, and if it is that, then I expect that the move to include Soviet Block nations in NATO and including them in some sort of ABM unbrella are the chips America cede to Russia.
If that is the case what will Russia give up?
Some sort of security promise for Georgia, perhaps, or perhaps some compromise about the oil and natural gas coming from the Caspian region.
Then too, if we are really motivated by events in the MidEAst, there's the possibility that Russia may stay clear of interferrring with us in the MidEast, which might manifest by Russia not supporting Syria.
Again, without knowing what is on the REAL agenda in these governments, one cannot really know, one can only hypothisize.
What America should really want though, as far as I can see, is the promise from Russia that they won't interfere with our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and Isreal.
Let's remember, shall we, that we broke the back of the Soviets by arming Islamic terrorists (only then, those Islamic terrorists were Afghanistan freedom fighters) in Afghanistan.
Russia can do the same thing to us, now, folks. That is a distinct threat to us.
They have clients states which could arm Afghanistan or Iraqi terrorists, just like we armed terrorists in Afghanistan.
So I expect some agreement, possible some compromise behind the scenes, possibly even involving some things we will never really hear about, between Russia and the USA, is in the works.
We are, once again working out sphere's of influence, folks.
That is what I THINK is the real agenda here.
To establish who has control over what as it regards the Balkans, and central Asia.
Gunny
Gold Member
I presented an option in opposition to the smarmy naysayer's beating the Iraq dead horse, pointing that we in fact DO have at least that option available to us.
I have advocated nothing. What I DO advocate is that if we are going to befriend, support and/or ally ourselves with a nation, then we need to honor any commitment made to that nation. If we aren't going to, then we need to not imply that we will, and not stand around flapping our gums in the press.
And the shitstains that think no commitment is worth honoring if it has a cost to it can kiss my ass. They're just lucky better men than they are provide them the freedom they have because Lord knows they wouldn't fight even for that. They just like ot sit in their living rooms on their asses and run their sucks like they're something special.
CA95380
USMB Member
Instead of Bush trying to show he still has some clout to Russia ... he needs to be concentrating on Osama bin Laden! It was probably Bin Laden that started the whole thing in Georgia to get Russia and the US in a new uproar
He knows that shortly the US will be out of Iraq and instead of sending those troops home they will be headed to Afghanistan to finish him off! Wishful thinking! 
We better get our noses out of Georgia and Russia's business before we find ourselves in an all out war! Nation & World | Russia blocks Georgia's main port city | Seattle Times Newspaper
Orange_Juice
Senior Member
- Jul 24, 2008
- 1,038
- 58
- 48
- Thread starter
- #45
Defensive shield that makes your offensive weapons the sole weapon. That is offensive in itself
Orange_Juice
Senior Member
- Jul 24, 2008
- 1,038
- 58
- 48
- Thread starter
- #46
Nice of Bush to try and draw a map on his own without the consent of the people that do not even want to be part of Georgia 
Bush says breakaway provinces are part of Georgia
President Bush, pushing back against claims by Russia, said Wednesday the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of pro-Western Georgia and that Washington will work with allies to insure Georgia's independence and territorial integrity.
Bush offered strong support for Georgia in a speech in Orlando, Fla., condemning Russia's brutal crackdown in the former Soviet republic.
"The United States of America will continue to support Georgia's democracy," the president said. "Our military will continue to provide needed humanitarian aid to the Georgia people."
"South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia," the president declared, drawing applause from his audience at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. The two Russian-backed separatist regions are trying to pull free of Georgian rule, while Bush and other Western leaders insist that Georgia maintain its current borders.
Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has said the question of Georgia's territorial integrity is a dead issue, a sign that Moscow could try to absorb the two separatist regions.
Bush says breakaway provinces are part of Georgia
President Bush, pushing back against claims by Russia, said Wednesday the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of pro-Western Georgia and that Washington will work with allies to insure Georgia's independence and territorial integrity.
Bush offered strong support for Georgia in a speech in Orlando, Fla., condemning Russia's brutal crackdown in the former Soviet republic.
"The United States of America will continue to support Georgia's democracy," the president said. "Our military will continue to provide needed humanitarian aid to the Georgia people."
"South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia," the president declared, drawing applause from his audience at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. The two Russian-backed separatist regions are trying to pull free of Georgian rule, while Bush and other Western leaders insist that Georgia maintain its current borders.
Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has said the question of Georgia's territorial integrity is a dead issue, a sign that Moscow could try to absorb the two separatist regions.
Denny Crane
Obama/Biden
Yup. Bush is sure no Vladimir Putin all right.
I don't want war with Russia but I'm not about bending over and grabbing ankles for every totalitarian thug on the planet either. It's just fascinating how many people live in partisan fantasy land and so quickly point their finger at the good guys just because they lose an election from time to time. Sheesh!
I'm not in favor of grabbing our ankles as you put it. What I am in favor of is not being in such a rush put these missle defense systems in place before we can convince the Russians that they don't pose as big a threat to them as they percieve them to be.
This is got nothing to do with an election.
dilloduck
Diamond Member
and if the Russians are never convinced ? You have no problem with Iran having an easier time hitting the US ? Defending ourselves can't be something that depends on other countries behind OK with it.
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
Russia is just full of hot air. Let them have their spat with Georgia. Putin is like a one of those African or South American dictators that likes to create international tension to ferment Russian nationalism which keeps the peoples' minds on other things other than how shitty their lives are. Russia has hardly been expansionist in the past, doubt it will be in the future. All this hullabaloo is much ado about nothing for the international world. The problem with the former Soviet republics like Georgia is a lot of them have large numbers of Russians living there due to them settling after the Bolshevik uprising. Stalin and his successors encouraged it. When the USSR split up, quite a few Russians moved back home. Some didn't as happened with the break away region in Georgia. Shit happens, but it doesn't stop right-wing Yanks - yet again - spoiling for a fight when it's none of their business...:O)
Denny Crane
Obama/Biden
I know enough to read the statements coming out of Russia, and recognize that because Bush is hell bent on policing the world, the cold war is being mentioned in every article on the subject. Are you saying that doesn't bother you?
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
So if New Zealand had allies are you saying that your country would have no business helping them if attacked? Just curious if your country is full of Cowards and fools now?
strollingbones
Diamond Member
Putin is a powerful, clever and evil man. I would not worry about nukes from him..he is much more selective in his killing.
watch the growth of china, it will reach a point where a war that would take out population but not much intrastructure would benefit them in th long run.
back to putin, i hope he holds to his word, i doubt he will.
watch the growth of china, it will reach a point where a war that would take out population but not much intrastructure would benefit them in th long run.
back to putin, i hope he holds to his word, i doubt he will.
strollingbones
Diamond Member
putin may not be interested in expansion but he is interested in controlling that pipeline that run east to west....i dont think anyone is "spoiling for a fight" looks like the fight is over
Red Dawn
Senior Member
You must either have a really tiny penis, or you must be about 5 foot four inches tall. You've got classic Short Man's syndrome. Why are you lusting for war with Russia, over a minor border skirmish that nobody on this board will remember ten years from now?
Denny Crane
Obama/Biden
Defending ourselves at what cost? Because we weren't willing to compromise on sharing the radar site in Gabala we chose to start another cold war? The foreign policy of "our way or no way" doesn't seem to be serving us well at the moment.
The negotiating team Bush has in place doesn't seem very effective to me.
Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Seriously, you have to realize what you are saying. Let's dissect this for a moment. The "Missile Defense Shield" as it is called will allow the defended countries to shoot down ICBMs. It has already been admitted that the system could readily be overwhelmed.
So for the Russians to be "threatened" by this, that must mean they are contemplating, somewhere in their plans, launching missiles at Europe. Please make the case for me why I or the US in general should want Russia to be able to have unfettered access to nuking Europe. Cuz, I just don't see it.
As mentioned above, it isn't even that they couldn't nuke Europe because the Russians have enough nukes to overwhelm the MDS, it would just make it less convenient for them. Given that the whole point of the shield is to protect against a potential missile coming from the Middle East, not from Russia and we've been willing to allow Russian inspection and permanent stationing of Russian officers at the facilities, I think Russia is completely over the line on this one. Which seems to be a growing and permanent condition for them.
Last edited:
Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
The "rush" is having them in place and tested prior to the Iran or other rogue state having the missile capability to reach Europe with or without a nuke tip on it. It seems to me, if Russia wants to slow down how fast we put the defense in, then they can have a DIRECT influence on how quickly Iran can get those capabilities that are driving the need for the shield. So far, instead of doing that, they have done what they can to thwart efforts to slow Iran.
Looks like they need to face the consequences of their foreign policy decisions. You need to understand the US does not drive everything. You are so US focused, you think all decisions revolve around what we do. They don't. Some decisions we make about foreign policy have to do with decisions other countries make without regard to us. If they cross our interest in one place it may lead to consequences they don't like someplace else. What may seem unrelated, never is.
Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Nice of Bush to try and draw a map on his own without the consent of the people that do not even want to be part of Georgia
Bush says breakaway provinces are part of Georgia
President Bush, pushing back against claims by Russia, said Wednesday the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of pro-Western Georgia and that Washington will work with allies to insure Georgia's independence and territorial integrity.
Bush offered strong support for Georgia in a speech in Orlando, Fla., condemning Russia's brutal crackdown in the former Soviet republic.
"The United States of America will continue to support Georgia's democracy," the president said. "Our military will continue to provide needed humanitarian aid to the Georgia people."
"South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia," the president declared, drawing applause from his audience at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. The two Russian-backed separatist regions are trying to pull free of Georgian rule, while Bush and other Western leaders insist that Georgia maintain its current borders.
Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has said the question of Georgia's territorial integrity is a dead issue, a sign that Moscow could try to absorb the two separatist regions.
Could you research the issue before you post please? Bush didn't redraw anything. He merely stated a fact that has been true for over 400 years.
mightypeon
Active Member
Russia is more worried about the Radar accompanying the Missle Defense shield. This radar can easily peek in areas the Russians consider as private, they claim the rocket threat because a "rocket threat" sounds more aggresive than a "radar threat" to the masses.
I think the whole ABM issue is one that is being shoved down our throats as Russia's objection, personally.
I DO suspect that Russia is feeling put upon as their former buffer zone states become the borders between them and the West, though.
Russia feels that its spehere of influence is beset by Western forces.
Given that we are getting involved in Georgia, there can be little doubt that they are right about that.
Regardless of how any of us feel about Russia, pretending that they don't have a point takes putting on blinders that few thinking people on this board are willing to wear, I suspect.
This Georgian emboglio is pretty typical of the sort of ways that the Soviets and America messed with each other, folks.
I think this is the cold war v 2.0, to be honest.
Similar threads
