Gorbachev: United States Targeting Russia, Not Iran - Page 9

StarryStarrySkies · #81 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bushfan

The premise of the Opening Post is absurd on its face.

The offensive means of the Missile systems which will be installed is no-existent. Who cares if Russia attacks? The surge into the Balkins will do the 'Democratic Socialists' there some good. The noisiest generation will get a taste of that which their Fathers and Grand Father knew but apparently failed to adequately teach them; and perhaps when they're free again, they will have taught their children the truth, that it is socialism which is evil, in all of its forms and they won't be so eager to let it slip through their fingers by appeasing socialists, just to shut them up.

They won't be free they'll be dead. So you actually want these people to die? You want socialists to die? Do you have any concept of war?

Bushfan · #82 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarryStarrySkies

They won't be free they'll be dead. So you actually want these people to die? You want socialists to die? Do you have any concept of war?

I can find no down side to those who appease socialist losing their life because of their idiocy. That is natures way. It was their right to appease the socialist who killed them and their deaths have them taking the full measure of responsibility for having exercised that right.

But your attempt to assign responsibility for their deaths to me, a person who rejects socialists and those who appease them; a person who spends a great deal of their time arguing that appeasing socialist is suicidal, is laughable.

I have a full and complete understanding of evil and I have no remorse for those who entertain it, then find themselves reaping the only certain result of having done so. So spare me the disingenuous indignity.

sunnyside · #83 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 09:12 PM

On the Iran thing. First of all they're working on extending their range wiht missiles they're working on.

Plus Russia or China could always just sell them a long range missile. May have already done so as far as anyone really knows.

Iran would certainly want to target things like the US base in Germany.

But it is quite possibly the missiles are there to defend against Russia as much as anything. However that isn't entirely unwarrented

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22743091/

Quote:

Russia's military chief of staff said Saturday that Moscow could use nuclear weapons in preventive strikes to protect itself and its allies,

Quote:

Moscow-based military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said Russia plays up its nuclear deterrent because of its weakness in terms of conventional arms. "We threaten the West that in any kind of serious conflict, we'll go nuclear almost immediately," he said.

Can you blame the West for not liking the sound of that?

I think this is particularily relevant due to the current culture of the United States. If Russia sent a swarm of nukes at the US than of course it's just the old M.A.D. game, and the intercepters would only be able to help a little.

But what if Russia just fired a single or small number of lower yeild nukes at military targets? Does anyone see Obama declaring a full scale nuclear strike in response? If anything this is what we're defending against when we put ten intercepters in a country.

And at any rate there isn't any threat to Russia. It would more be about the "allies" thing if Russia decides to threaten the use of nukes if we go after Iran or some such.

f100supersabr · #84 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnyside

On the Iran thing. First of all they're working on extending their range wiht missiles they're working on.

Plus Russia or China could always just sell them a long range missile. May have already done so as far as anyone really knows.

Iran would certainly want to target things like the US base in Germany.

But it is quite possibly the missiles are there to defend against Russia as much as anything. However that isn't entirely unwarrented

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22743091/

Can you blame the West for not liking the sound of that?

I think this is particularily relevant due to the current culture of the United States. If Russia sent a swarm of nukes at the US than of course it's just the old M.A.D. game, and the intercepters would only be able to help a little.

But what if Russia just fired a single or small number of lower yeild nukes at military targets? Does anyone see Obama declaring a full scale nuclear strike in response? If anything this is what we're defending against when we put ten intercepters in a country.

And at any rate there isn't any threat to Russia. It would more be about the "allies" thing if Russia decides to threaten the use of nukes if we go after Iran or some such.

Well stated Boychick !!!

Sadistic-Savior · #85 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 08:53 AM

What exactly is Russia going to do to stop us from installing those radar stations and missile bases? Just curious.

Because they are going in either way. Russia is not going to commit suicide simply to stop us from doing this. If they want to be pouting crybabies about it, let them.

Quote:

I think this is particularily relevant due to the current culture of the United States. If Russia sent a swarm of nukes at the US than of course it's just the old M.A.D. game, and the intercepters would only be able to help a little.

Russia could overwhelm the interceptors easily if they wanted to. Which is why I dont think this has anything to do with a "threat". It has to do with Russia not liking their new position as a has-been military power. They are pouting. This is about ego for them, not defense or threat.

sunnyside · #86 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

Russia could overwhelm the interceptors easily if they wanted to. Which is why I dont think this has anything to do with a "threat".

Like I said in regard to Russia what it takes off the table is the ability to send out a small barage of tacnukes or, quite possibly more likely, some conventional missiles, in defense of Iran against, say, Israel.

It doesn't just affect their ability to go after the US. Those missiles could make life hard for them if they decided to put the hammer down in regards to the situations in Ukraine/Crimea or Georgia/Azerbaijan/South Ossetia. And those situations could potentially make a difference in Russian naval bases in Crimea and oil pipelines in Azerbaijan.

And if we get some missile defence in Georgia we might be able to potentially shield Chechnya if a later president decides to pull a Kosovo over there.

I don't know about the other chunks of Russia. But the Jewish Autonomous Oblast sounds like the kinda place schenanigans could go down. And how are things over in the Chukotka and Kamchatka? I think there was some stuff going on there last year.

Now that's getting increasingly hypothetical. But Russia can't like any of it.

Sadistic-Savior · #87 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Like I said in regard to Russia what it takes off the table is the ability to send out a small barage of tacnukes or, quite possibly more likely, some conventional missiles, in defense of Iran against, say, Israel.

The chances of Russia doing that are so close to zero they might has well be zero.

Russia cares about Russia. Ultimately, they have no real allies for this reason. Russia will never expose itself to nuclear retaliation to save someone else.

That is one of the nice things about pragmatist ideologies...they are predictable.

Quote:

It doesn't just affect their ability to go after the US. Those missiles could make life hard for them if they decided to put the hammer down in regards to the situations in Ukraine/Crimea or Georgia/Azerbaijan/South Ossetia.

US involvement already does that. Withness their failure to come to Serbia's aid even after we liberated Kosovo. If they are not willing to defend their "Slavic Brothers" against us, what makes you think they will defend the Iranians?

No, they will only do what they have always done...give lip service. Because lip service costs them nothing and doesnt expose them.

The worst they will do is maybe sell Iran weapons or technology. But they wont interfere directly IMO.

Quote:

Now that's getting increasingly hypothetical. But Russia can't like any of it.

I agree, but for different reasons. Russia is not a superpower anymore, but they still have a superpower's ego. They want to be taken seriously again.

AmusedToDeath · #88 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

Russia could overwhelm the interceptors easily if they wanted to. Which is why I dont think this has anything to do with a "threat". It has to do with Russia not liking their new position as a has-been military power. They are pouting. This is about ego for them, not defense or threat.

It's much more of an EGO thing for you

StarryStarrySkies · #89 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bushfan

I can find no down side to those who appease socialist losing their life because of their idiocy. That is natures way. It was their right to appease the socialist who killed them and their deaths have them taking the full measure of responsibility for having exercised that right.

But your attempt to assign responsibility for their deaths to me, a person who rejects socialists and those who appease them; a person who spends a great deal of their time arguing that appeasing socialist is suicidal, is laughable.

I have a full and complete understanding of evil and I have no remorse for those who entertain it, then find themselves reaping the only certain result of having done so. So spare me the disingenuous indignity.

You talk about it like you enjoy the deaths of these evil socialists, which is unenlightened and outright ridiculous. Human life is human life and hate is hate whether you hate your neighbor for stealing your newspapers or the socialist peoples of a far away country. I pinned nothing on you, I only commented that you come off as enjoying the fact that these people may, in fact, die.

StarryStarrySkies · #90 (**permalink**) 07-11-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bushfan

I can find no down side to those who appease socialist losing their life because of their idiocy. That is natures way. It was their right to appease the socialist who killed them and their deaths have them taking the full measure of responsibility for having exercised that right.

But your attempt to assign responsibility for their deaths to me, a person who rejects socialists and those who appease them; a person who spends a great deal of their time arguing that appeasing socialist is suicidal, is laughable.

I have a full and complete understanding of evil and I have no remorse for those who entertain it, then find themselves reaping the only certain result of having done so. So spare me the disingenuous indignity.

In retrospect I misunderstood your post and I take back what I said. Sorry!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Midday Open Thread: The United States, Palestinian Aid and the United Nations	SeminalBlog	Political Blogs	2	05-03-2008 12:41 PM
United States	-Locke-	Nuclear, Chemical & Biological Weapons	5	12-07-2006 05:48 AM
Congrats United States!	africanhope	Current Events	0	10-13-2006 12:14 AM
The United States and the United Nations	ForceoftheTruth	Opinion POLLS	32	04-16-2006 10:53 AM
United States Assassins	lonerider103	Current Events	19	10-07-2004 02:17 PM