Options

Biden was right, Obama will be tested: Russia deploys missiles

pjalive21pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
edited November 2008 in A Moving Train
Medvedev: Russia to Deploy Missiles in Response to U.S. Missile Shield

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

AP
ADVERTISEMENT

MOSCOW —
Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.

Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia's war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.

He said he hoped the next U.S. administration would act to improve relations. In a separate telegram, he congratulated Barack Obama on his election victory and said he was hoping for "constructive dialogue" with the incoming U.S. president.

Medvedev also proposed increasing the Russian presidential term to six years from the current four, a major constitutional change that would further increase the power of the head of state and could deepen Western concern over democracy in Russia.

Click here for photos.

The president said the Iskander missiles will be deployed to Russia's Kaliningrad region, which lies between Poland and the ex-Soviet republic of Lithuania on the Baltic Sea, but did not say how many would be used. Equipment to electronically hamper the operation of prospective U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic will be deployed, he said.

He did not say whether the short-range Iskander missiles would be fitted with nuclear warheads and it was not clear exactly when the missiles would be deployed.

"Mechanisms must be created to block mistaken, egoistical and sometimes simply dangerous decisions of certain members of the international community," he said shortly after starting the 85-minute speech, making it clear he was referring to the United States.

The president said Georgia sparked the August war on its territory with what he called "barbaric aggression" against Russian-backed South Ossetia. The conflict "was, among other things, the result of the arrogant course of the American administration, which did not tolerate criticism and preferred unilateral decisions."

Medvedev also painted Russia as a country threatened by growing Western military might.

"From what we have seen in recent years, the creation of a missile defense system, the encirclement of Russia with military bases, the relentless expansion of NATO, we have gotten the clear impression that they are testing our strength," Medvedev said.

He announced deployment of the short-range missiles as a military response to U.S. plans to deploy missile-defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic — former Soviet satellites that are now NATO members.

Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. — not the Kremlin — to seek to improve relations.

"I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia," Medvedev said.

Tension in Russian-American relations has been driven to a post-Cold War high by Moscow's war with U.S. ally Georgia.

On the financial crisis, Medvedev said overconfidence in American dominance after the collapse of the Soviet Union "led the U.S. authorities to major mistakes in the economic sphere." The administration ignored warnings and harmed itself and others by "blowing up a money bubble to stimulate its own growth," he said.

Medvedev said the president's tenure should be lengthened to six years to enable the government to more effectively implement reforms. He said the term of the parliament also should be extended by a year to five years, and that parliament's power must be increased by requiring the Cabinet to report to lawmakers regularly.

The proposals were Medvedev's first major initiative to amend the constitution since he was elected in March to succeed his longtime mentor Vladimir Putin.

Putin, who is now prime minister and has not ruled out a return to the Kremlin in the future, has favored increasing the presidential term.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Options
    I'm lost. Isn't GWB still president for another 70-some-odd days? I realize Obama is going to inherit this mess, but how is this currently a test for Obama when it's still a Bush administration? The article doesn't even say when the missiles are being deployed.
  • Options
    The bad thing about promoting democracy and capitalism overseas is that we eventually find out that war can stimulate their economy just like it does ours.
    the Minions
  • Options
    pjalive21pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    I'm lost. Isn't GWB still president for another 70-some-odd days? I realize Obama is going to inherit this mess, but how is this currently a test for Obama when it's still a Bush administration? The article doesn't even say when the missiles are being deployed.

    in the article Medvedev directly refers to Obama...Bush is a lame duck president right now
  • Options
    CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,219
    pjalive21 wrote:
    in the article Medvedev directly refers to Obama...Bush is a lame duck president right now
    ...
    But, Bush is still in office... he is STILL the President. Lame Duck means he can no longer try to formulate agenda items, such as Social Security reform... but, it does not mean he can shirk his sworn duties as President of the United States.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Options
    mca47mca47 Posts: 13,255
    pjalive21 wrote:
    in the article Medvedev directly refers to Obama...Bush is a lame duck president right now

    Yeah, he mentions Obama but Bush is and has full control of the presidency for a few more months. There is little at this point Obama could do even if he wanted to other than vote in the senate.
  • Options
    digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    He didn't mention Obama in his speech regarding the new missile defense system. The article I read regarding the situation earlier today made a point of saying that. He mentioned his congratulations later in a separate manner.
  • Options
    pjalive21pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    mca47 wrote:
    Yeah, he mentions Obama but Bush is and has full control of the presidency for a few more months. There is little at this point Obama could do even if he wanted to other than vote in the senate.

    i understand Bush is still in control, but i dont think anything major is going to happen until Obama holds office

    talks, actions, yadda yadda
  • Options
    catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    i smell putin.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Options
    CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,219
    pjalive21 wrote:
    i understand Bush is still in control, but i dont think anything major is going to happen until Obama holds office

    talks, actions, yadda yadda
    ...
    This is the Cuban Missile Crisis... in reverse. instead of Russin putting their missiles in our backyard... the U.S. is putting our missiles in their backyard. We didn't like it when they did that to us in 1960... why is it okay for us to do it to them in 2008?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Options
    catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    This is the Cuban Missile Crisis... in reverse. instead of Russin putting their missiles in our backyard... the U.S. is putting our missiles in their backyard. We didn't like it when they did that to us in 1960... why is it okay for us to do it to them in 2008?

    ummm... you did have missiles pointed at them from turkey back then. they were very quietly removed after the cuban missile crisis.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Options
    CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,219
    ummm... you did have missiles pointed at them from turkey back then. they were very quietly removed after the cuban missile crisis.
    ...
    That's the point. If we don't want the Russians to counter our move by placing their missiles in Eastern Europe... then, we shouldn't place our missiles in Eastern Europe to begin with.... right?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Options
    CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    That's the point. If we don't want the Russians to counter our move by placing their missiles in Eastern Europe... then, we shouldn't place our missiles in Eastern Europe to begin with.... right?
    I think that was the point of having Georgia invade Osetia. The US was counting on a Russian response, to which they could then justify putting a missile defense (or even nukes) in eastern europe.
  • Options
    catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    That's the point. If we don't want the Russians to counter our move by placing their missiles in Eastern Europe... then, we shouldn't place our missiles in Eastern Europe to begin with.... right?

    true.

    though i suspect the russians would do it anyway. just to stir shit up and beat their chests.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Options
    CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,219
    true.

    though i suspect the russians would do it anyway. just to stir shit up and beat their chests.
    ...
    If the Russians did that... then, the correct action for the U.S. to take would, ironically, be... the same thing Medvedev is doing.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Options
    catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    If the Russians did that... then, the correct action for the U.S. to take would, ironically, be... the same thing Medvedev is doing.

    sometimes the best course of action is no action at all.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Options
    stickfig13stickfig13 Posts: 1,532
    I've never been a guys who says the Cold War was a bad thing....A bipolar world is easier to deal with.


    Let it begin...
    Sacramento 10-30-00, Bridge School 10-20 and 10-21-01, Bridge School 10-25 and 10-26-01, Irvine 06-02-03, Irvine 06-03-03, San Diego 06-05-03, San Diego 07-07-06, Los Angeles 07-09-06, Santa Barbara 07-13-06, London UK 06-18-07, San Diego 10-9-09, San Diego 2013, LA 1 2013
  • Options
    CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    stickfig13 wrote:
    I've never been a guys who says the Cold War was a bad thing....A bipolar world is easier to deal with.


    Let it begin...
    easier to deal with than what?
  • Options
    catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    stickfig13 wrote:
    I've never been a guys who says the Cold War was a bad thing....A bipolar world is easier to deal with.


    Let it begin...

    really? you ever dealt with bipolarity before?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Options
    stickfig13stickfig13 Posts: 1,532
    Commy wrote:
    easier to deal with than what?


    A world full of states with no allegiance.
    Sacramento 10-30-00, Bridge School 10-20 and 10-21-01, Bridge School 10-25 and 10-26-01, Irvine 06-02-03, Irvine 06-03-03, San Diego 06-05-03, San Diego 07-07-06, Los Angeles 07-09-06, Santa Barbara 07-13-06, London UK 06-18-07, San Diego 10-9-09, San Diego 2013, LA 1 2013
  • Options
    stickfig13stickfig13 Posts: 1,532
    really? you ever dealt with bipolarity before?


    Bipolar meaning two sources of power (Ex. USA vs USSR)
    Sacramento 10-30-00, Bridge School 10-20 and 10-21-01, Bridge School 10-25 and 10-26-01, Irvine 06-02-03, Irvine 06-03-03, San Diego 06-05-03, San Diego 07-07-06, Los Angeles 07-09-06, Santa Barbara 07-13-06, London UK 06-18-07, San Diego 10-9-09, San Diego 2013, LA 1 2013
  • Options
    catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    stickfig13 wrote:
    Bipolar meaning two sources of power (Ex. USA vs USSR)

    i understand that. but having two powers push and pull and jostle for supremacy isnt as clear as you seem to think. i dont want to be some idiots play thing. i dont want to have to declare my allegiance to one over the other. i remember the last cold war and how warm it really was.

    youre either with us or against us? fuck that bullshit.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Options
    CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    stickfig13 wrote:
    A world full of states with no allegiance.
    I think US chickenhawks would agree with you...having the world on the brink of nuclear a holocaust is a perfect excuse to get involved in any corner of the world. They sold Panama as a threat to the national security of the US during the cold war and the people bought it, that's how deep the fear goes. with that cloud of fear hanging over everyone its easy to get involved anywhere in the world, in the name of national security.


    first it was communism, it was drugs for a while, now its terrorism. maybe they'll go back through the list again.
  • Options
    catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Commy wrote:
    ...
    first it was communism, it was drugs for a while, now its terrorism. maybe they'll go back through the list again.



    1... 2... 3... 4... i declare a thumb war. :D:D


    i think whats really needed is a war on idiocy.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Options
    stickfig13stickfig13 Posts: 1,532
    Commy wrote:
    I think US chickenhawks would agree with you...having the world on the brink of nuclear a holocaust is a perfect excuse to get involved in any corner of the world. They sold Panama as a threat to the national security of the US during the cold war and the people bought it, that's how deep the fear goes. with that cloud of fear hanging over everyone its easy to get involved anywhere in the world, in the name of national security.


    first it was communism, it was drugs for a while, now its terrorism. maybe they'll go back through the list again.


    I guess my point is that I would rather be on the point of nuclear holocaust with a country like Russia than trying to battle every country that says they have nuclear ambitions or terror ties.

    I guess I assume Russia to be slightly more rational....
    Sacramento 10-30-00, Bridge School 10-20 and 10-21-01, Bridge School 10-25 and 10-26-01, Irvine 06-02-03, Irvine 06-03-03, San Diego 06-05-03, San Diego 07-07-06, Los Angeles 07-09-06, Santa Barbara 07-13-06, London UK 06-18-07, San Diego 10-9-09, San Diego 2013, LA 1 2013
  • Options
    catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    stickfig13 wrote:
    I guess my point is that I would rather be on the point of nuclear holocaust with a country like Russia than trying to battle every country that says they have nuclear ambitions or terror ties.

    I guess I assume Russia to be slightly more rational....

    how rational does one have to be to NOT drop nuclear bombs on people?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Options
    CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    how rational does one have to be to NOT drop nuclear bombs on people?
    good point.
  • Options
    gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    This is the Cuban Missile Crisis... in reverse. instead of Russin putting their missiles in our backyard... the U.S. is putting our missiles in their backyard. We didn't like it when they did that to us in 1960... why is it okay for us to do it to them in 2008?

    But there is a difference between missile for defense and tactical nuclear missiles.
  • Options
    catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    gabers wrote:
    But there is a difference between missile for defense and tactical nuclear missiles.


    two batteries of armed deadly end game weapons pointed at each other. whats the difference??
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Options
    gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    two batteries of armed deadly end game weapons pointed at each other. whats the difference??

    Okay, maybe I'm confused, but aren't the missiles in Poland non-nuclear? I thought they were only ballistic missiles designed for the sole intent of destroying ICBMs.
  • Options
    catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    gabers wrote:
    Okay, maybe I'm confused, but aren't the missiles in Poland non-nuclear? I thought they were only ballistic missiles designed for the sole intent of destroying ICBMs.

    nope youre not confused. i was just being alarmist as i tend to be in these situations cause i can see how escalating such posturing can be.

    and for soemone the firing of these missiles will bring death. thats the nature of the beast.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
Sign In or Register to comment.