Is the War on Terror too vague for you? And does the War in Afghanistan bug ya because it turns out we never really beat the Taliban? Kinda makes you miss the good old days of the Cold War when we knew who the enemy was: the Russians. Well don't worry because it looks like the Cold War is back!
The increasingly belligerent charges and countercharges by officials and in the media on both sides, "Cold-War-style rhetoric and threats," as the Associated Press recently reported, read like a replay of the American-Soviet discourse of the 1970s and early 1980s.
Unless US policy-makers and opinion-makers recognize how bad the relationship has become, we risk losing not only the historic opportunity for an American-Russian partnership created in the late 1980s by Gorbachev, Reagan and the first President Bush, and which is even more essential for our real national security today; we also risk a prolonged cold war even more dangerous than was the last one.
The most recent wrinkle in US-Russian relations involves the Bush-proposed missile shield to be built in Poland and the Czech Republic. Not long ago such a proposal would be considered illegal because of the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty but Bush unilaterally withdrew the US from the ABM treaty in 2002. Putin objected to the new Eastern Europe anti-missile plan and made a surprise counter-offer:
Russia said on Saturday its offer to the United States of joint use of a radar it controls in Azerbaijan made a planned American missile shield in central Europe unnecessary.It stressed its offer was still open, despite Washington's signal it will press ahead with the plan to base radar and missile interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter the threat of a nuclear attack from "rogue" states like Iran.
It's important here to note that Iran has no such weapon capable of reaching Europe, much less the US. Also, the technology behind the proposed missile shield is far from being perfected. So what we're talking about here is shooting down non-existent ballistic missiles with non-existent anti-ballistic missiles. Maybe these guys are getting the real world confused with a video game (that happens a lot these days). So what's really going on here?
Keep in mind that Russia is in serious trouble. While surging world oil prices has brought them a large increase of revenue, the Russian population is declining, major portions of the infrastructure are in collapse, and despite the high-priced designer tastes of the Moscow elite, most of the people in the country are extremely poor. Epidemics of AIDS and other diseases, a huge military that is increasingly unstable thanks to lack of funds and general discontent, and the civil war in Chechnya all add up to an extremely serious crisis within Mother Russia.
US policies since "winning" the Cold War haven't helped stabilize things. Can anyone imagine what the US response would be if Alaska left the Union and then joined a military alliance with Russia? Well, that's exactly what's been happening to Russia since the Clinton administration. Former Warsaw pact members like Poland and the Czech Republic are now joining NATO. There are US military bases in former Soviet Republics. The US is quite obviously surrounding Russia. From the Russian perspective these are not the policies of friendship and cooperation, rather its a winner-take-all approach that is in danger of pushing Russia, a country with thousand of nuclear weapons, into a corner.
During the Cold War, the US policy of containment and confrontation with the Soviet Union was seen as a strategy in the war to defeat communism. Today communism is pretty much dead in Russia so why is the US still acting like there's a war on?
I really wish Bush Sr would of Won in 92, he would of pushed his agenda further and stabilize relationships with Russia and even Europe. Even though Clinton did good by focusing on domestic affairs. I just wonder how Bush's new world order plan would of unraveled; he did a great job in dismantling the Soviet Union.
I hope we don't have to live thru the fear of a nuclear war from what I have been told it's not fun.
Nothing to worry about here, it's just the usual political hot air. The Russians, despite Putin being a reactionary hard liner, don't want relations to take a step backwards. Anyway, Russia has a stranglehold over Europe's fossil fuels so they have an ace up their sleeve if needed.
As for 'pointing the missiles at Europe'. They're already pointing at us anyway, what are they going to do, blindfold the missiles, spin them round 3 times then ask them to locate Europe again?
Mind you, they could point one at Tony B.Liar and do us all a favour. Mind you, the guy is so fake, he could probably survive a nuclear blast - sorta like a cockroach, but without the charm, wit and intelligence.
pssst! If you want to worry about nukes, worry about the North Koreans. They could hit East Coast US and London (although getting rid of London might be fun), but we're not supposed to know...shhhhhh
Since the US has such a hard on for oil, hence our relationships in the middle east, it would probably makes sense to make friends with Russia.
They could be a very valuable ally and when the middle east oil starts to dry up Russia is going to be sitting back and laughing.
Of course we should just be friends with them aside from the oil. (thats crazy talk)
therisen said:
Nothing to worry about here, it's just the usual political hot air. The Russians, despite Putin being a reactionary hard liner, don't want relations to take a step backwards. Anyway, Russia has a stranglehold over Europe's fossil fuels so they have an ace up their sleeve if needed.
As for 'pointing the missiles at Europe'. They're already pointing at us anyway, what are they going to do, blindfold the missiles, spin them round 3 times then ask them to locate Europe again?
Mind you, they could point one at Tony B.Liar and do us all a favour. Mind you, the guy is so fake, he could probably survive a nuclear blast - sorta like a cockroach, but without the charm, wit and intelligence.
pssst! If you want to worry about nukes, worry about the North Koreans. They could hit East Coast US and London (although getting rid of London might be fun), but we're not supposed to know...shhhhhh
Do you have the vaguest clue how far London is from North Korea?
Ha-ha; so much bullshit from so few men.
Two, in fact.
Bush and Putin really need to get a room.
I can imagine them both as angsty teenagers sitting in fields with Natalie Portman and a badly aminated pig-creature, developing their political outlooks.
At the end of the day you don't need a war if you have a nuclear warhead pointing at your rival's face.
Which is fortunate because America tend to lose wars.
Whoever made up this 'rogue states' shit must be making a mint.
therisen said:
Nothing to worry about here, it's just the usual political hot air. The Russians, despite Putin being a reactionary hard liner, don't want relations to take a step backwards. Anyway, Russia has a stranglehold over Europe's fossil fuels so they have an ace up their sleeve if needed.
As for 'pointing the missiles at Europe'. They're already pointing at us anyway, what are they going to do, blindfold the missiles, spin them round 3 times then ask them to locate Europe again?
Mind you, they could point one at Tony B.Liar and do us all a favour. Mind you, the guy is so fake, he could probably survive a nuclear blast - sorta like a cockroach, but without the charm, wit and intelligence.
pssst! If you want to worry about nukes, worry about the North Koreans. They could hit East Coast US and London (although getting rid of London might be fun), but we're not supposed to know...shhhhhh
Do you have the vaguest clue how far London is from North Korea?
I don't think he has the vaguest clue about anything.
It's important here to note that Iran has no such weapon capable of reaching Europe, much less the US, yet. If I were Iran, due to America's behaviour I'd be exploring the options. I think the plan is to keep America rich and Russia poor so it would be easy to conqour them if the urge ever arises. It probably will.
I wish people would stop making money out of endeavours such as what Bush is proposing. Perhaps I should be glad all the corrupt Portuguese politicians want to build is a second airport and a fast train between Lisbon and Porto.
Nokturn said:
Ha-ha; so much bullshit from so few men.
Two, in fact.
Bush and Putin really need to get a room.
I can imagine them both as angsty teenagers sitting in fields with Natalie Portman and a badly aminated pig-creature, developing their political outlooks.
At the end of the day you don't need a war if you have a nuclear warhead pointing at your rival's face.
Which is fortunate because America tend to lose wars.
Whoever made up this 'rogue states' shit must be making a mint.
I usually am not the verbally patriotic type, but when you say something like "America tend to lose wars", I'm left with no choice. I do have to say there are at least 4 wars that the UK and US have been involved in together, so here is a quick history lesson.
We had that little Revolutionary War thing with you guys... we won. Then we had that little War of 1812 thing (you just couldn't stop pressing our sailors into service)... we won that too. Then we had that World War 1 thing, in which we helped you guys out... all of us won that one. Then we had the follow up, that World War 2 thing... and guess what, thanks to our sailors, soldiers, marines, industries, working women, and bond drives.... we all won that one too. Our biggest problem since then is that we have a tendancy to jump into wars in places where we simply CANT win. You cant change fanatical people's minds and yet we seem to throw ourselves between groups of fanatical people. We have been participating in other people's civil wars and sometimes you just have to leave people alone and let them figure their own thing out.
As to rogue states...Rogue States have existed for thousands for years. Hell the Spartans, the original romans, eventually the Goths and Visigoths, the Vandels.... and thats just early history...
Bush is a fucking dick and idiot for thinking that this wouldn't insult the Russians. Putin is trying to play the world sympathy role by saying that we are being assholes to them (and it IS true). Thats kind of a whiney pussy type of thing to do. So both are sort of dicks. Lots-o-schmucks all around.
therisen said:
pssst! If you want to worry about nukes, worry about the North Koreans. They could hit East Coast US and London (although getting rid of London might be fun), but we're not supposed to know...shhhhhh
Trahern said:
S, yet. If I were Iran, due to America's behaviour I'd be exploring the options.
I hope I'm not misunderstanding you, but I hope you're not implying that America deserves to have missiles fired at it by Iran, whose behaviour on the international scene has been more than slightly sad and petulant. Okay, so the American government has been interfering and greedy, but I find it hard to consider one better than the other.
Anyway...um...Yeah, Putin's such a rockin' diplomat (EDIT: I know Bush is hardly a beacon too). It's just silly watching America and Russia play one upmanship in the international playground. It's even worse to consider that Putin thought it would be a good idea to say anything of what he said about pointing missiles at Europe. Good way to improve relations, dickhead. We gotta trust the guy, he's ex KGB.
pssst! If you want to worry about nukes, worry about the North Koreans. They could hit East Coast US and London (although getting rid of London might be fun), but we're not supposed to know...shhhhhh
Do you have the vaguest clue how far London is from North Korea?
1) So far, all of North Korea's missile tests have been duds. If they ever get it right, then:
2) Look at a Polar Gnomonic Projection map to find the shortest route between North Korea and anywhere else.
therisen said:
pssst! If you want to worry about nukes, worry about the North Koreans. They could hit East Coast US and London (although getting rid of London might be fun), but we're not supposed to know...shhhhhh
Do you have the vaguest clue how far London is from North Korea?
1) So far, all of North Korea's missile tests have been duds. If they ever get it right, then:
2) Look at a Polar Gnomonic Projection map to find the shortest route between North Korea and anywhere else.
I'm pretty sure he's actually getting his information on North Korea from Team America.
therisen said:
Nothing to worry about here, it's just the usual political hot air. The Russians, despite Putin being a reactionary hard liner, don't want relations to take a step backwards. Anyway, Russia has a stranglehold over Europe's fossil fuels so they have an ace up their sleeve if needed.
As for 'pointing the missiles at Europe'. They're already pointing at us anyway, what are they going to do, blindfold the missiles, spin them round 3 times then ask them to locate Europe again?
Mind you, they could point one at Tony B.Liar and do us all a favour. Mind you, the guy is so fake, he could probably survive a nuclear blast - sorta like a cockroach, but without the charm, wit and intelligence.
pssst! If you want to worry about nukes, worry about the North Koreans. They could hit East Coast US and London (although getting rid of London might be fun), but we're not supposed to know...shhhhhh
if its all the same i would rather london not get destroyed
thatoneguy23 said:
Our biggest problem since then is that we have a tendancy to jump into wars in places where we simply CANT win. You cant change fanatical people's minds and yet we seem to throw ourselves between groups of fanatical people. We have been participating in other people's civil wars and sometimes you just have to leave people alone and let them figure their own thing out.
We've been creating a lot of "civil" wars in the past 50 years, too. You know, overthrowing elected governments and all. Depending on how you define "we," we haven't lost a war yet.
The oligarchs, the elites, the war-profiteers, the mercenaries, the big corporations that benefit from forced privitazation of public resources--they win no matter what. Always have.
If you've followed the news about how the Russians bumped off a dissident in London - a British citizen - using State manufactured polonium 210, and are now refusing to extradite the 'former' KGB operative believed to be responsible, you'll understand why many people don't trust them. Putin is undoing democratic reforms, and behaving as though the Cold War never ended. The West have turned a blind eye to much of what's been happening - because Putin is an 'ally' in the 'War on Terror' - but now we're having to take notice.
Not convinced that the missile shield is a good idea, but Putin is definitely bad news. Lets hope there's some kind of Velvet Revolution in Russia soon.
23
Zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
JUN 12, 2007 02:52 PM
ron said:
If you've followed the news about how the Russians bumped off a dissident in London - a British citizen - using State manufactured polonium 210, and are now refusing to extradite the 'former' KGB operative believed to be responsible, you'll understand why many people don't trust them. Putin is undoing democratic reforms, and behaving as though the Cold War never ended. The West have turned a blind eye to much of what's been happening - because Putin is an 'ally' in the 'War on Terror' - but now we're having to take notice.
Not convinced that the missile shield is a good idea, but Putin is definitely bad news. Lets hope there's some kind of Velvet Revolution in Russia soon.
No-one serious would dispute that Putin is a violent authoritarian - moreso than Bush, frankly, if only because Bush isn't ordering hits on the Op-Ed contributors to The Nation, yet (unless I've missed something).
But this isn't about Russia's domestic policies - it's about disrupting the balance of of power in Eastern Europe, and overextending ourselves in a vain and almost certainly pointless effort to rollback Russia's historic influence and interests there.
thatoneguy23 said:
Then we had the follow up, that World War 2 thing... and guess what, thanks to our sailors, soldiers, marines, industries, working women, and bond drives.... we all won that one too. .
You know, I don't think the British Empire won that one; a draw, perhaps. The only "winner" there was the USA. Every other state lost. France? Germany? Japan? Italy? The USSR? All losers in that war.
thatoneguy23 said:
Then we had the follow up, that World War 2 thing... and guess what, thanks to our sailors, soldiers, marines, industries, working women, and bond drives.... we all won that one too. .
You know, I don't think the British Empire won that one; a draw, perhaps. The only "winner" there was the USA. Every other state lost. France? Germany? Japan? Italy? The USSR? All losers in that war.
I love these arguments as to whether Americans or Brits can piss farther - I really do. They're so interesting and productive.
IPOD
RADIO
loading your activity feed...
evanharos
I'm lost
May 2007
JUN 11, 2007 05:21 PM