exactly. but there is no way you are going to convince people around here of that.
Because most people (not everyone) don't think for themselves. I can't speak for anyone here, but most people I know personally, just regurgitate what the media wants them to think. They were pro war when things looked good, and anti war when things looked bad.
The world is not black and white. We can't have 100% peace and love, and we can't have the "kill them all" mentality. The world is a complicated place, things can't be solved with an easy answer.
Because most people (not everyone) don't think for themselves. I can't speak for anyone here, but most people I know personally, just regurgitate what the media wants them to think. They were pro war when things looked good, and anti war when things looked bad.
The world is not black and white. We can't have 100% peace and love, and we can't have the "kill them all" mentality. The world is a complicated place, things can't be solved with an easy answer.
The Patriot Missile is a defensive weapon only. They are already in Germany, if you read the artical, they are moving whats already in Germany to Poland. Its the same mission in Germany, to defend Western Europe from any Air threat. We had them around the base I was stationed at in Germany a couple years ago. They are not an offensive weapon, meaning the US can't just fire them into Russia, thats not what they are designed for. We just sold Poland a bunch of new F-16s, they are looking to update their military. Russia doesn't have a great history with Poland, they invaded the country 4 times in the last 100 years.
Then you should know the missile defense shield is about more than a bunch of Patriot Missile batteries to be setup throughout Poland. What about the radar shield in the Czech Republic? Russia's reaction could be due to the fact that this system will be able to not only detect, but to knock down any Russian ICBM during launch. This is also a way to get around the number of ABM launchers under the 1972 ABM Treaty. We are trying to make Russia inept with this missile defense shield and nothing good comes from backing an angry opponent in the corner.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
its probably no big deal that Russia threatened Poland with nukes right?
...
Correct me if I'm wrong... but, didn't Russia threaten Poland because Poland agreed to allow us to place a missile defense system on their soil?
I have a feeling that should the Russians agree with Cuba to place Russian missile defense systems near Havana... we would level our sights onto Cuba because Cuba has exposed themselves as a threat to us with their agreement.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Correct me if I'm wrong... but, didn't Russia threaten Poland because Poland agreed to allow us to place a missile defense system on their soil?
I have a feeling that should the Russians agree with Cuba to place Russian missile defense systems near Havana... we would level our sights onto Cuba because Cuba has exposed themselves as a threat to us with their agreement.
why would russia need a missle defense system in cuba?
and I'm not military weapons expert but there is a different between a defensive and offensive system right?
regardless, threaten with nukes is much different then threatening without nukes.
Russia used to be a strong ally. What happened? Why would you plant a missile defense shield right next to the border of your ally?
The Bush administration has their heads up their asses.
Russia is on the right track - they're nationalistic and they're not going to take crap from anyone. They don't invade a nation when it's not in their interest - South Ossetia and Abkhazia are in their interest. Iraq was not in our interest.
Vladimir Putin is wildly popular in Russia because his policies have exploded the Russian economy. He's a Russian Orthodox Christian and a brilliant leader - Russia is on the move. We would be well advised to stay out of their way.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
why would russia need a missle defense system in cuba?
and I'm not military weapons expert but there is a different between a defensive and offensive system right?
regardless, threaten with nukes is much different then threatening without nukes.
...
There is great mistrust between Russia and the U.S., dispite the break-up of the former Soviet Union. We can say.. and really mean.... that the missles in Poland are to fend off an Iranian threat. But, that does not mean they believe us, right?
It'd be the same thing if we were being told by the Russians that missiles in Cuba were there to fend off a Canadian threat. We wouldn't... and shouldn't... buy that at face value.
...
And yes.. there is a difference. But, when you look at military strategy, you want to take out any early warning systems and defensive positions first. Placing a defense system in your front yard will expose you as a threat in a First Strike offensive.
Will the U.S. launch a first strike against Russia? We don't believe that. But, they are not as sure as we are. Sort of like if the Russians assured us that they would never launch a First Strike at us... should we believe them?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Russia used to be a strong ally. What happened? Why would you plant a missile defense shield right next to the border of your ally?
The Bush administration has their heads up their asses.
Russia is on the right track - they're nationalistic and they're not going to take crap from anyone. They don't invade a nation when it's not in their interest - South Ossetia and Abkhazia are in their interest. Iraq was not in our interest.
Vladimir Putin is wildly popular in Russia because his policies have exploded the Russian economy. He's a Russian Orthodox Christian and a brilliant leader - Russia is on the move. We would be well advised to stay out of their way.
Russia used to be a strong ally. What happened? Why would you plant a missile defense shield right next to the border of your ally?
The Bush administration has their heads up their asses.
Russia is on the right track - they're nationalistic and they're not going to take crap from anyone. They don't invade a nation when it's not in their interest - South Ossetia and Abkhazia are in their interest. Iraq was not in our interest.
Vladimir Putin is wildly popular in Russia because his policies have exploded the Russian economy. He's a Russian Orthodox Christian and a brilliant leader - Russia is on the move. We would be well advised to stay out of their way.
since when was russia a stong ally? maybe appeared that way with some friendly press conferences but I dont think that was ever the case
since when was russia a stong ally? maybe appeared that way with some friendly press conferences but I dont think that was ever the case
During Yeltsin's presidency, relations couldn't have been better. Reagan was buddy buddy with Gorbachev, walked through Red square with him.
Even Bush was good friends with Putin. Putin explained to Bush in 2001 how his mother kept her Russian Orthodox faith during the USSR's oppression, even though his father was a militant atheist. She gave her son Vladimir a cross and he's worn it ever since. The story brought a tear to Bush's eye.
Relations with Russia were good until we decided that we have to invite former Russian republics into NATO, set up a missile defense shield on their front porch, and insult their democratic principles.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
During Yeltsin's presidency, relations couldn't have been better. Reagan was buddy buddy with Gorbachev, walked through Red square with him.
Even Bush was good friends with Putin. Putin explained to Bush in 2001 how his mother kept her Russian Orthodox faith during the USSR's oppression, even though his father was a militant atheist. She gave her son Vladimir a cross and he's worn it ever since. The story brought a tear to Bush's eye.
Relations with Russia were good until we decided that we have to invite former Russian republics into NATO, set up a missile defense shield on their front porch, and insult their democratic principles.
ha insult their democratic principles u must be joking. why is inviting former russian republics into NATO a bad thing?
Then you should know the missile defense shield is about more than a bunch of Patriot Missile batteries to be setup throughout Poland. What about the radar shield in the Czech Republic? Russia's reaction could be due to the fact that this system will be able to not only detect, but to knock down any Russian ICBM during launch. This is also a way to get around the number of ABM launchers under the 1972 ABM Treaty. We are trying to make Russia inept with this missile defense shield and nothing good comes from backing an angry opponent in the corner.
A Patriot Missile will not be able to shoot down an ICBM fired from Russian soil. They have them for local threats, with in Poland's Airspace. As far as the Czech Republic, they are entitled host an early warning system as well, even if the US supports it.
So what do you suggest to solve this problem? I think its a good idea that each country has the means to protect itself, is there a way to achive that in Europe given the current threat? How can you go about protecting Europe with out offending Russian interest?
ha insult their democratic principles u must be joking.
Not everyone can exude the democratic ideals we wish to bless the world with (i.e. warrantless wire taps, speech codes on college campuses, false intelligence leading to war). We need to realize that some nations don't have a problem with an authoritarian dictator, and they'd be worse off if they had a real democracy.
I mean, look at nearly every middle eastern nation. When they do get a democratic election, the Palestinians vote for terrorist organizations. That's all you need to know. Iraq needed an authoritarian named Saddam Hussein to keep the Shi'ites in check - they're cutting peoples' heads off right now for goodness' sake. I'm not saying I put a stamp of approval on the guy, but shit, these people are fuckin' nuts anyway and we ain't gonna fix them.
why is inviting former russian republics into NATO a bad thing?
I'm glad you asked that, because unlike a lot of the left wing nutjobs on this board, I will admit that NATO helped defeat the Reds and I am glad it was created. But, we defeated the USSR. NATO's purpose has been fulfilled.
An attack on one NATO country is an attack on them all. This was designed to signal to the USSR: "If you attack any other nations, you're going to have to deal with the entire civilized world."
So, had Georgia been in NATO (and the USA gotten want it wanted), we'd be at war with a nuclear armed Russia right now.
Tell me: is it worth it? If South Ossetia and Abkhazia go to Russia, does that really impact any vital US interest? Should we go to war over that and risk the future of this nation over a couple pipelines?
Not to mention the fact that the Ossetians and Abkhazians have always wanted to become a part of Russia. If you gave them the choice, they'd do it right now.
I thought we believed in self-determination.
Any real right-winger believes that the South had every right to secede from the North. There was nothing unconstitutional about secession, and there shouldn't have been. The union was agreed upon voluntarily and should have been seceded from voluntarily.
So, I believe South Ossetia and Abkhazia have the right to secede from Georgia if they want.
More importantly, I do not believe that their decision to do so impacts the vital interests of the USA at all.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
all good points whore but if nations want to become part of NATO to better themselves and become more relevant on the world stage, we should support that. and, maybe it would help deter russia from bullying them.
this is relevant for almost all the former republics except gerogia. from what I've read south ossentias do want to be part of russia. why they arent, I dont know.
Yes I know. What I was hoping for were reactions from Europeans on this subject (besides making a 2nd thread on such a subject is harmless considering the number of Obama threads on this forum).
The Patriot Missile is a defensive weapon only. They are already in Germany, if you read the artical, they are moving whats already in Germany to Poland. Its the same mission in Germany, to defend Western Europe from any Air threat. We had them around the base I was stationed at in Germany a couple years ago. They are not an offensive weapon, meaning the US can't just fire them into Russia, thats not what they are designed for. We just sold Poland a bunch of new F-16s, they are looking to update their military. Russia doesn't have a great history with Poland, they invaded the country 4 times in the last 100 years.
The patriot missile may already be in Germany, the missile shield is something quite new, if you read the article you'll see it'll be in place in 2012. And if you remember well, Russians already disapproved of this project a few months ago.
And imagine we both have guns but I decide to buy bulletproof vest, "just in case", wouldn't you feel threatened?
Finally this move is in nobody's best interest. Europe's best interest is in reducing the numbers of warheads in neighbouring countries.
I'm glad you asked that, because unlike a lot of the left wing nutjobs on this board, I will admit that NATO helped defeat the Reds and I am glad it was created. But, we defeated the USSR. NATO's purpose has been fulfilled.
An attack on one NATO country is an attack on them all. This was designed to signal to the USSR: "If you attack any other nations, you're going to have to deal with the entire civilized world."
So, had Georgia been in NATO (and the USA gotten want it wanted), we'd be at war with a nuclear armed Russia right now.
Tell me: is it worth it? If South Ossetia and Abkhazia go to Russia, does that really impact any vital US interest? Should we go to war over that and risk the future of this nation over a couple pipelines?
Not to mention the fact that the Ossetians and Abkhazians have always wanted to become a part of Russia. If you gave them the choice, they'd do it right now.
I thought we believed in self-determination.
Any real right-winger believes that the South had every right to secede from the North. There was nothing unconstitutional about secession, and there shouldn't have been. The union was agreed upon voluntarily and should have been seceded from voluntarily.
So, I believe South Ossetia and Abkhazia have the right to secede from Georgia if they want.
More importantly, I do not believe that their decision to do so impacts the vital interests of the USA at all.
in theory this is correct. though this is often what most people assume, it does not however necessarily mean military intervention. the obligation is there to respond when a fellow NATO country is attacked but the response is discretionary.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yes I know. What I was hoping for were reactions from Europeans on this subject (besides making a 2nd thread on such a subject is harmless considering the number of Obama threads on this forum).
The patriot missile may already be in Germany, the missile shield is something quite new, if you read the article you'll see it'll be in place in 2012. And if you remember well, Russians already disapproved of this project a few months ago.
And imagine we both have guns but I decide to buy bulletproof vest, "just in case", wouldn't you feel threatened?
Finally this move is in nobody's best interest. Europe's best interest is in reducing the numbers of warheads in neighbouring countries.
Russia disproves a US presence in Eastern Europe, the missile problem just gives them a reason. The missile shield is old news, no matter how the media spins it. Same weapon, same mission, just a different country. Poland and other countries like Romania have invited a US presence into their country. They want our cooperation, they want out technology, and they want our money. Countries like Germany and Italy have become too costly to operate in.
I've said this before in other threads. The military is like insurance, something you don't want to use, but its there just incase. We have measures like this on US soil, but you don't hear Canada and Mexico bitching. The politcal parties have changed, but the fight for economical control is still the same. Russia wants to regain its superpower status, but the only way it knows how is by force. I know what some of you already think about the US, but its real power is in corperations, not military force. Any one of the developing Eastern bloc countries would kill for American Investments. They had 50+ years of a Soviet style economy, they want to join the west.
One more opinion about the Iraq war......we weren't the only country on the face of the earth that wanted a change in Iraq, and I'm not talking about that "coalition of the willing" bullshit.......Most of the Middle East is looking to modernize and they don't want trouble in their own back yard. So to end my long point, money is the reason behind all of this, you can see it as a bad thing or a good thing, but make no mistake, people will do what they have to do to get it, even if that means throwing peace and love to the side. Thats my take, but its just an opinion.
I know what some of you already think about the US, but its real power is in corperations, not military force. Any one of the developing Eastern bloc countries would kill for American Investments. They had 50+ years of a Soviet style economy, they want to join the west./quote]
Good¨point. But I just never understood why these "new" east european countries want to join Nato so badly instead of just searching for economic or other civil alliances (on issues as education, help to build up social security, stabilize democracy, effectiveness of administration or the legal system). In this respect there's still a lot to do for these countries and Nato won't help a bit.
I'm a little worried about this military "I show you what I got"-game between east and west. It's winding up to a second cold war and it still makes me sick when I think of the times of the last cold war. I grew up with stupid paroles such as "we'll be better off dead than red"!
So, had Georgia been in NATO (and the USA gotten want it wanted), we'd be at war with a nuclear armed Russia right now.
Not to mention the fact that the Ossetians and Abkhazians have always wanted to become a part of Russia. If you gave them the choice, they'd do it right now.
In order to join NATO a nation has to meet certain conditions, one of them is that a nation cannot have onstanding disputes with neighbours. The disputes with South-Ossetia and Abkhazia form an obstacle for Georgia to join NATO. Saakashvili made a promise to the Georgian people that he would restore Georgia, create a united Georgia again i.e. taking back these self-declared independant states (with US aid, of course). Saakashvili tried speed up the process so Georgia could join NATO so he ordered to take back South-Ossetia with extreme violence. This would of cours end the outstanding disputes... But Russia responded.
This whole situation isn't exactly working out as Saakashvili had expected. But it's still working out in his advantage. He's getting support from countless Western nations partly due to Russia's hard and strong stance. The image Saakashvili created is believed by the Western world and perpetuated by the Western media; he is defending his democratic nation against the savage Russians, he is fighting for democracy... The fact that he started this brutal war, this slaughter of Ossetians is being pushed to the background...
Good¨point. But I just never understood why these "new" east european countries want to join Nato so badly instead of just searching for economic or other civil alliances (on issues as education, help to build up social security, stabilize democracy, effectiveness of administration or the legal system). In this respect there's still a lot to do for these countries and Nato won't help a bit.
I'm a little worried about this military "I show you what I got"-game between east and west. It's winding up to a second cold war and it still makes me sick when I think of the times of the last cold war. I grew up with stupid paroles such as "we'll be better off dead than red"!
I think in some ways the cold war never ended, Russia just had a set back with the change in political parties. The whole world wants to cooperate and make money, some just think they can bully their way into an economic superpower instead of cooperating.
all good points whore but if nations want to become part of NATO to better themselves and become more relevant on the world stage, we should support that.
I'm not a big fan of globalism. I tend not to support entangling alliances that merely serve to burden the USA with military obligations to small nations. A small nation would be better off protecting its economy from foreign speculation instead of becoming relevant on the world stage.
I can understand why Georgia would want to join NATO: they live next to Russia. Beyond that, I don't see how it benefits them or anyone else though. If it were up to me, I'd leave NATO and any foreign conglomerate...
and, maybe it would help deter russia from bullying them.
Perhaps, but at what cost to us? I'm proud to say that we've been bullying South America and Mexico for over a hundred years now. That's our sphere of influence. Why not let Russia have theirs'?
this is relevant for almost all the former republics except gerogia. from what I've read south ossentias do want to be part of russia. why they arent, I dont know.
There's no doubt Russias been meddling around the former soviet republics, but I would prefer to have nothing to do with them right now.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
In order to join NATO a nation has to meet certain conditions, one of them is that a nation cannot have onstanding disputes with neighbours.
Well, nonetheless, Bush pressed to get Georgia included in NATO. Europe shut that down, luckily.
The disputes with South-Ossetia and Abkhazia form an obstacle for Georgia to join NATO. Saakashvili made a promise to the Georgian people that he would restore Georgia, create a united Georgia again i.e. taking back these self-declared independant states (with US aid, of course). Saakashvili tried speed up the process so Georgia could join NATO so he ordered to take back South-Ossetia with extreme violence. This would of cours end the outstanding disputes... But Russia responded.
This whole situation isn't exactly working out as Saakashvili had expected. But it's still working out in his advantage. He's getting support from countless Western nations partly due to Russia's hard and strong stance. The image Saakashvili created is believed by the Western world and perpetuated by the Western media; he is defending his democratic nation against the savage Russians, he is fighting for democracy... The fact that he started this brutal war, this slaughter of Ossetians is being pushed to the background...
Saakashvili has certainly been wrongly portrayed as the victim in all of this. His left-wing politics aside, he bombed his "own people" in South Ossetia. What president does that, other than Abe Lincoln?
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Comments
Because most people (not everyone) don't think for themselves. I can't speak for anyone here, but most people I know personally, just regurgitate what the media wants them to think. They were pro war when things looked good, and anti war when things looked bad.
The world is not black and white. We can't have 100% peace and love, and we can't have the "kill them all" mentality. The world is a complicated place, things can't be solved with an easy answer.
Then you should know the missile defense shield is about more than a bunch of Patriot Missile batteries to be setup throughout Poland. What about the radar shield in the Czech Republic? Russia's reaction could be due to the fact that this system will be able to not only detect, but to knock down any Russian ICBM during launch. This is also a way to get around the number of ABM launchers under the 1972 ABM Treaty. We are trying to make Russia inept with this missile defense shield and nothing good comes from backing an angry opponent in the corner.
Correct me if I'm wrong... but, didn't Russia threaten Poland because Poland agreed to allow us to place a missile defense system on their soil?
I have a feeling that should the Russians agree with Cuba to place Russian missile defense systems near Havana... we would level our sights onto Cuba because Cuba has exposed themselves as a threat to us with their agreement.
Hail, Hail!!!
why would russia need a missle defense system in cuba?
and I'm not military weapons expert but there is a different between a defensive and offensive system right?
regardless, threaten with nukes is much different then threatening without nukes.
The Bush administration has their heads up their asses.
Russia is on the right track - they're nationalistic and they're not going to take crap from anyone. They don't invade a nation when it's not in their interest - South Ossetia and Abkhazia are in their interest. Iraq was not in our interest.
Vladimir Putin is wildly popular in Russia because his policies have exploded the Russian economy. He's a Russian Orthodox Christian and a brilliant leader - Russia is on the move. We would be well advised to stay out of their way.
-Enoch Powell
LOL!
There is great mistrust between Russia and the U.S., dispite the break-up of the former Soviet Union. We can say.. and really mean.... that the missles in Poland are to fend off an Iranian threat. But, that does not mean they believe us, right?
It'd be the same thing if we were being told by the Russians that missiles in Cuba were there to fend off a Canadian threat. We wouldn't... and shouldn't... buy that at face value.
...
And yes.. there is a difference. But, when you look at military strategy, you want to take out any early warning systems and defensive positions first. Placing a defense system in your front yard will expose you as a threat in a First Strike offensive.
Will the U.S. launch a first strike against Russia? We don't believe that. But, they are not as sure as we are. Sort of like if the Russians assured us that they would never launch a First Strike at us... should we believe them?
Hail, Hail!!!
wise words. very well put.
since when was russia a stong ally? maybe appeared that way with some friendly press conferences but I dont think that was ever the case
During Yeltsin's presidency, relations couldn't have been better. Reagan was buddy buddy with Gorbachev, walked through Red square with him.
Even Bush was good friends with Putin. Putin explained to Bush in 2001 how his mother kept her Russian Orthodox faith during the USSR's oppression, even though his father was a militant atheist. She gave her son Vladimir a cross and he's worn it ever since. The story brought a tear to Bush's eye.
Relations with Russia were good until we decided that we have to invite former Russian republics into NATO, set up a missile defense shield on their front porch, and insult their democratic principles.
-Enoch Powell
ha insult their democratic principles u must be joking. why is inviting former russian republics into NATO a bad thing?
A Patriot Missile will not be able to shoot down an ICBM fired from Russian soil. They have them for local threats, with in Poland's Airspace. As far as the Czech Republic, they are entitled host an early warning system as well, even if the US supports it.
So what do you suggest to solve this problem? I think its a good idea that each country has the means to protect itself, is there a way to achive that in Europe given the current threat? How can you go about protecting Europe with out offending Russian interest?
I think that mistrust has more to do with economical territory then anything else.
Not everyone can exude the democratic ideals we wish to bless the world with (i.e. warrantless wire taps, speech codes on college campuses, false intelligence leading to war). We need to realize that some nations don't have a problem with an authoritarian dictator, and they'd be worse off if they had a real democracy.
I mean, look at nearly every middle eastern nation. When they do get a democratic election, the Palestinians vote for terrorist organizations. That's all you need to know. Iraq needed an authoritarian named Saddam Hussein to keep the Shi'ites in check - they're cutting peoples' heads off right now for goodness' sake. I'm not saying I put a stamp of approval on the guy, but shit, these people are fuckin' nuts anyway and we ain't gonna fix them.
I'm glad you asked that, because unlike a lot of the left wing nutjobs on this board, I will admit that NATO helped defeat the Reds and I am glad it was created. But, we defeated the USSR. NATO's purpose has been fulfilled.
An attack on one NATO country is an attack on them all. This was designed to signal to the USSR: "If you attack any other nations, you're going to have to deal with the entire civilized world."
So, had Georgia been in NATO (and the USA gotten want it wanted), we'd be at war with a nuclear armed Russia right now.
Tell me: is it worth it? If South Ossetia and Abkhazia go to Russia, does that really impact any vital US interest? Should we go to war over that and risk the future of this nation over a couple pipelines?
Not to mention the fact that the Ossetians and Abkhazians have always wanted to become a part of Russia. If you gave them the choice, they'd do it right now.
I thought we believed in self-determination.
Any real right-winger believes that the South had every right to secede from the North. There was nothing unconstitutional about secession, and there shouldn't have been. The union was agreed upon voluntarily and should have been seceded from voluntarily.
So, I believe South Ossetia and Abkhazia have the right to secede from Georgia if they want.
More importantly, I do not believe that their decision to do so impacts the vital interests of the USA at all.
-Enoch Powell
this is relevant for almost all the former republics except gerogia. from what I've read south ossentias do want to be part of russia. why they arent, I dont know.
The patriot missile may already be in Germany, the missile shield is something quite new, if you read the article you'll see it'll be in place in 2012. And if you remember well, Russians already disapproved of this project a few months ago.
And imagine we both have guns but I decide to buy bulletproof vest, "just in case", wouldn't you feel threatened?
Finally this move is in nobody's best interest. Europe's best interest is in reducing the numbers of warheads in neighbouring countries.
in theory this is correct. though this is often what most people assume, it does not however necessarily mean military intervention. the obligation is there to respond when a fellow NATO country is attacked but the response is discretionary.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Russia disproves a US presence in Eastern Europe, the missile problem just gives them a reason. The missile shield is old news, no matter how the media spins it. Same weapon, same mission, just a different country. Poland and other countries like Romania have invited a US presence into their country. They want our cooperation, they want out technology, and they want our money. Countries like Germany and Italy have become too costly to operate in.
I've said this before in other threads. The military is like insurance, something you don't want to use, but its there just incase. We have measures like this on US soil, but you don't hear Canada and Mexico bitching. The politcal parties have changed, but the fight for economical control is still the same. Russia wants to regain its superpower status, but the only way it knows how is by force. I know what some of you already think about the US, but its real power is in corperations, not military force. Any one of the developing Eastern bloc countries would kill for American Investments. They had 50+ years of a Soviet style economy, they want to join the west.
One more opinion about the Iraq war......we weren't the only country on the face of the earth that wanted a change in Iraq, and I'm not talking about that "coalition of the willing" bullshit.......Most of the Middle East is looking to modernize and they don't want trouble in their own back yard. So to end my long point, money is the reason behind all of this, you can see it as a bad thing or a good thing, but make no mistake, people will do what they have to do to get it, even if that means throwing peace and love to the side. Thats my take, but its just an opinion.
but Japan did send playstations
In order to join NATO a nation has to meet certain conditions, one of them is that a nation cannot have onstanding disputes with neighbours. The disputes with South-Ossetia and Abkhazia form an obstacle for Georgia to join NATO. Saakashvili made a promise to the Georgian people that he would restore Georgia, create a united Georgia again i.e. taking back these self-declared independant states (with US aid, of course). Saakashvili tried speed up the process so Georgia could join NATO so he ordered to take back South-Ossetia with extreme violence. This would of cours end the outstanding disputes... But Russia responded.
This whole situation isn't exactly working out as Saakashvili had expected. But it's still working out in his advantage. He's getting support from countless Western nations partly due to Russia's hard and strong stance. The image Saakashvili created is believed by the Western world and perpetuated by the Western media; he is defending his democratic nation against the savage Russians, he is fighting for democracy... The fact that he started this brutal war, this slaughter of Ossetians is being pushed to the background...
naděje umírá poslední
I think in some ways the cold war never ended, Russia just had a set back with the change in political parties. The whole world wants to cooperate and make money, some just think they can bully their way into an economic superpower instead of cooperating.
I'm not a big fan of globalism. I tend not to support entangling alliances that merely serve to burden the USA with military obligations to small nations. A small nation would be better off protecting its economy from foreign speculation instead of becoming relevant on the world stage.
I can understand why Georgia would want to join NATO: they live next to Russia. Beyond that, I don't see how it benefits them or anyone else though. If it were up to me, I'd leave NATO and any foreign conglomerate...
Perhaps, but at what cost to us? I'm proud to say that we've been bullying South America and Mexico for over a hundred years now. That's our sphere of influence. Why not let Russia have theirs'?
There's no doubt Russias been meddling around the former soviet republics, but I would prefer to have nothing to do with them right now.
-Enoch Powell
Well, nonetheless, Bush pressed to get Georgia included in NATO. Europe shut that down, luckily.
Saakashvili has certainly been wrongly portrayed as the victim in all of this. His left-wing politics aside, he bombed his "own people" in South Ossetia. What president does that, other than Abe Lincoln?
-Enoch Powell