18 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by smw6869A anti-missile system based in Eastern Europe makes it MORE likely those countries will be attacked by the Russians as they are doing something which threatens Russian security. That is the whole point of the remarks of General Nogovitsyn quoted in the OP.
Russia is already on the boarders of Euro nations. Why shouldn't the Euros be afraid. Why the hell does the US think they have to help protect Europe anyway? They can take care of themselves. If missles we in Canada and Mexico ...it would be a matter of who blinks first. We need a good negotiator. Is Chamberlain still around?
GRANNY.
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThreatens Russian security or threatens Russia's ability to attack its neighors? The shield is a purely defensive system, not an offensive system. In any case, no one is interested in invading Russia. If the Russian government falls, it will be as a result of civil unrest.
A anti-missile system based in Eastern Europe makes it MORE likely those countries will be attacked by the Russians as they are doing something which threatens Russian security. That is the whole point of the remarks of General Nogovitsyn quoted in the OP.
Russians are more interested in invading other countries and exerting conrol over those countries. It has been the Russian model since WWII and it looks as of late as if Russia is back to its traditional mode of 'foreign policy'.
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're forgetting Cuba again. It is the perfect candidate to station missiles aiming at the US.
An anti-IBM system which threatens your nuclear deterrent is hardly "defensive". If such a system was reliable (it isn't) it would threaten the balance between the US and Russian nuclear arsenals making the Russians more vulnerable to a US first strike. Of course, the Russians are alarmed by the prospect of such a system on their borders; the US would be no less alarmed by a Russian ABM system being built in Canada and Mexico.
18 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder... and you surrender graciously as a result of his overt threats.
A anti-missile system based in Eastern Europe makes it MORE likely those countries will be attacked by the Russians as they are doing something which threatens Russian security. That is the whole point of the remarks of General Nogovitsyn quoted in the OP.
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by EladarParanoid delusions. In case you've forgotten, Russia voluntarily withdrew from Poland and the other Eastern European countries and allowed the breakup of the USSR which led to independence for many other countries. Strange behavior for a country so intent on "exerting control over those countries".
Threatens Russian security or threatens Russia's ability to attack its neighors? The shield is a purely defensive system, not an offensive system. In any case, no one is interested in invading Russia. If the Russian government falls, it will be as a result of civil unrest.
Russians are more interested in invading other countries and exerting conrol over ...[text shortened]... WII and it looks as of late as if Russia is back to its traditional mode of 'foreign policy'.
18 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderRussia did not "voluntarily withdrew", as a matter of fact Russia never "voluntarily withdraws".
Paranoid delusions. In case you've forgotten, Russia voluntarily withdrew from Poland and the other Eastern European countries and allowed the breakup of the USSR which led to independence for many other countries. Strange behavior for a country so intent on "exerting control over those countries".
They withdrew from Eastern Europe because they needed their militairy forces, or what was left of them, to prevent the total collapse of Russia after the Sowjet Union broke down. The tanks that were moved from Eastern Germany went straight to Chechnia for instance. They did not withdraw from eastern Europa because of charity reasons you know.
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeLast I checked, no missiles have hit Poland from Russia or "its ally"(?) Iran. Neither would have any reason to target Poland for a nuclear attack - Russia because they are no threat (until they start threatening Russia's nuclear deterrent) and Iran for many reasons - the foremost being that Iran has no nuclear weapons.
You oppose the missile shield in Poland against missiles coming from Russia or its ally Iran. That's were you surrender.
You seem to be anxious for war, Ivanhoe; why exactly is that?
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's complete nonsense.
Russia did not "voluntarily withdrew", as a matter of fact Russia never "voluntarily withdraws".
They withdrew from Eastern Europe because they needed their militairy forces, or what was left of them, to prevent the total collapse of Russia after the Sowjet Union broke down. The tanks that were moved from Eastern Germany went straight to Chechnia for instance. They did not withdrew because of charity reasons you know.
18 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderHa ha ha 😀 ..... Old Marauder strikes again.
Last I checked, no missiles have hit Poland from Russia or "its ally"(?) Iran. Neither would have any reason to target Poland for a nuclear attack - Russia because they are no threat (until they start threatening Russia's nuclear deterrent) and Iran for many reasons - the foremost being that Iran has no nuclear weapons.
You seem to be anxious for war, Ivanhoe; why exactly is that?
How come you always agree with the stances Russia and Iran take ?
I'll answer the question: Because you look upon the enemy of your enemy ( ... the US government) as your friend.
I wonder how you are going to twist things in case Russia decides to station a "missile shield" on Cuba. Any ideas yet ?
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't "always agree" with anybody on anything. I think that stationing an ABM system near Russia is a provocative act not justified by the situation. And I think it is more likely to cause war than to avoid war.
Ha ha ha 😀 ..... Old Marauder strikes again.
How come you always agree with the stances Russia and Iran take ?
I'll answer the question: Because you look upon the enemy of your enemy ( ... the US government) as your friend.
I wonder how you'are going to twist things in case Russia decides to station a "missile shield" on Cuba ?
Perhaps you should address those points instead of heading off into personal attacks.
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeMany in Russia did, as many in Russia thought Russia itself should become a free and democratic state. The people making the decision determined it was in Russia's best interest to withdraw. They could have stayed and there is little anybody could have done about it.
Sure, Marauder. They withdrew because they wanted their satellite states become independent, free and democratic states. Right ?
18 Aug 08
Russia voluntarily withdrew from Poland and the other Eastern European countries and allowed the breakup of the USSR which led to independence for many other countries
Russia was about bankrupt back then and Putin's people were not in charge. Now that Putin and his people are back in charge, they are trying to return to the way the Soviet Union used to be. That's why I said they are returning to their old ways.