Russia Declares Latitude on Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes

[Don Corleone]

On the grounds that they have the right to defend themselves from any perceived threat, Russia is developing and will issue a defense policy which authorizes themselves to pre-emptive nuclear strikes (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BAUJ680&show_article=1).

Oddly, while citing examples such as perceived intent by a third party to intervene in what Russia considers to be a local matter, Russian defense ministers left the wording of what constitutes a threat sufficiently vague that apparently a trade dispute could trigger a volley of ICBM's.

I understand that this is probably Putin:

1) hinting that downgrading the terms of the missile shield is not enough, it must be scrapped completely

2) not so subtly telling the world to let him seize Tblisi and reintegrate Georgia or else... (hence the language on local conflicts)...

but in light of his recent statements indicating that he would in no way support sanctions against Iran and hinted strongly that he wouldn't mind a nuclear armed Iran, is anybody else getting pretty nervous about what our friends in Moscow are up to these days? :skull:

[Strike For The South]

Just one more reason why Iran can't have nukes. I was origanlly happy about scraping the missle defense sheild as I felt that there was no reason to be so provactive in Russias backyard so to speak.

Maybe this is Putins way of trying to make us bluff so he can scoop up all those little ethnic Russian enclaves. Maybe it's something more.

You can take the Russian out of the Soviet but not the Soviet out of the Russian.

[Centurion1]

just Russia try to enforce their rule on obama, whom they perceive as weak and accommodating. Appeasement never works look at ww2. You have to draw a line somewhere

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On the grounds that they have the right to defend themselves from any perceived threat, Russia is developing and will issue a defense policy which authorizes themselves to pre-emptive nuclear strikes (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BAUJ680&show_article=1).

Oddly, while citing examples such as perceived intent by a third party to intervene in what Russia considers to be a local matter, Russian defense ministers left the wording of what constitutes a threat sufficiently vague that apparently a trade dispute could trigger a volley of ICBM's.

I understand that this is probably Putin:

1) hinting that downgrading the terms of the missile shield is not enough, it must be scrapped completely

2) not so subtly telling the world to let him seize Tblisi and reintegrate Georgia or else... (hence the language on local conflicts)...

but in light of his recent statements indicating that he would in no way support sanctions against Iran and hinted strongly that he wouldn't mind a nuclear armed Iran, is anybody else getting pretty nervous about what our friends in Moscow are up to these days? :skull:

There are situations wherein any international actor will pre-empt another. One would hope that such situations would be restricted to in extremis, but we shall see. Humanity doesn't have a great track record of NOT using weapons it has. While the language used was vague, I think you're correct that this is mostly sabre-rattling/posturing during the negotiations. The Obama administration is far less likely to "go cowboy" or walk out based on such statements, so it makes sense for Russian officials to play that card a time or two to see if it can engender a few concessions.

[Louis VI the Fat]

On the grounds that they have the right to defend themselves from any perceived threat, America is developing and will issue a defense policy which authorizes themselves to pre-emptive strikes.

Oddly, while citing examples such as perceived intent by a third party to intervene in what America considers to be a local matter, American defense ministers left the wording of what constitutes a threat sufficiently vague that apparently a trade dispute could trigger a war.

I understand that this is probably Bush:

1) not so subtly telling the world to let him seize Baghdad and reintegrate Afghanistan or else... (hence the language on local conflicts)...

but in light of his recent statements indicating that he would in no way support sanctions against Israel and hinted strongly that he wouldn't mind a nuclear armed Israel, is anybody else getting pretty nervous about what our friends in Washington are up to these days? :skull:Right or wrong, the above is how Russia sees the world. And it doesn't even include yet NATO's encroachment on Russia's traditional spheres of influence.
Hence, Moscow feels completely entitled to what it sees as a reaction against American aggression.

[Aemilius Paulus]

just Russia try to enforce their rule on obama, whom they perceive as weak and accommodating.
Hehe, how true. Putin is taking advantage of Obama's willingness to actually conduct something called "diplomacy" - a word unknown to President Bush, who always thought it meant "Us telling them what to do"


Appeasement never works look at ww2. You have to draw a line somewhere
Hehe, no. For the second time you sound like someone who is parroting some other source... You cannot make such a mind-boggling comparison. You can generalise characteristics of groups of people, with mixed success, but to generalise historical lessons, and apply them to other events is an abomination. Your statement inflames me with its acute absolutism and short-sightedness.

Now, I realise that you merely wrote a forum post, just as anyone else would, and all of our posts contain inaccuracies and most likely, overtly rapid jumps to conclusions - especially true of me. That is the problem with all forum posts quite a bit of times.

But seriously, what do you view as "appeasement"? You did not seem to fully grasp its meaning there. Appeasement is merely another term for "giving ground in an argument". Appeasement is meant to indicate an extreme of conceding to demands, but in practicality, no one definitely, precisely knows where the extremes lie. Diplomacy is all about giving and taking. For example, Cuban Missile Crisis: Russia gives US the assurance that the Soviet missiles will be removed from Cuba and in return takes the assurance that the American missiles will be removed from Turkey. There is diplomacy for you. I know this may be annoying, but I had the impression you missed the essence of appeasement.

"Appeasement" is the opinion that too much is given with too little return. Go figure how to apply that to the current situation... Your categorical post assertion that 'appeasement simply never works' can be incensing. The reader may perceive the post as a mark of an history-undereducated child, which is most certainly not you. in general, I try to avoid categorical statements, especially ones with such dubious parallels :sweatdrop:.

[Ice]

Nuclear weapons in this day in age would almost always equate to the end of the world and the destruction of most of humanity. Pure sabre rattling and the Russians know it.

[Don Corleone]

Sabre-rattling, sure, but with regards to what? What is Putin telling the rest of the world to backoff on?

I seriously think he's going to invade and re-annex Georgia this winter.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Pure sabre rattling and the Russians know it.
Indeed, none of us deny it. So what? I would rather have sabre-rattling than the US style sabre-slashes, in the form of their military invasions. Granted, that is on a different level, but vague, seemingly undirected threats are preferable to outright armed attacks.

[Centurion1]

yes i did not mean all appeasement is a failure merely that in some cases you have to call your opponents bluff.

I wouldn't consider cuba really appeasement though as the Russians got the removal of missile bases from turkey. Really a convenient diplomatic solution. The two powers both received promises of equal value to the other.

one of the reasons Putin thinks obama is weak is because he is most likely going to scrap his plans to build missile shields in poland. He may have been more diplomatically accomadating but we wont ever know that because obama merely gave into him without receiving anything. good will gestures won't really mean anything to putin. He merely sees it as having his way

[Ice]

Indeed, none of us deny it. So what? I would rather have sabre-rattling than the US style sabre-slashes, in the form of their military invasions. Granted, that is on a different level, but vague, seemingly undirected threats are preferable to outright armed attacks.

What do you mean "So what?" I wasn't implying that military invasions were better than sabre rattling.


Sabre-rattling, sure, but with regards to what? What is Putin telling the rest of the world to backoff on?

I seriously think he's going to invade and re-annex Georgia this winter.

This wouldn't bother me in the least. Honestly, go ahead and have Georgia.

[Kadagar_AV]

The more Russia can do to keep the worlds no. 1 enemy at bay, the better.

And yes, I am talking about the country that has the most WMD, who tries to assassinate democraticly elected leaders of other nations, who is waging an almost constant aggressive warfare...

The list can go on.

[Centurion1]

I dare say sir you are wrong.

RUSSIA OWNS ALMOST TWICE AS MANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS AS THE US.

you are obviously a stringent supporter of anything anti-US. Such as kim jong il, ahmandenijad, or osama bin laden, by reading your latest post.


Oh and i happen to think there are other nations out there who are severly worse for the world than america. many of which are in your beloved Europe.

PS unlike many nations on earth we have NOT waged a Total war since WW2.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The more Russia can do to keep the worlds no. 1 enemy at bay, the better.

And yes, I am talking about the country that has the most WMD, who tries to assassinate democraticly elected leaders of other nations, who is waging an almost constant aggressive warfare...

The list can go on.

The USA? Stop kidding yourself.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The USA? Stop kidding yourself.
Yeah, honestly guys, the world would be better with US global dominance than with Russian. Confucius say. You would think that is a no-brainer... Hey, I am a nationalist Putin minion, but that does nto stop me from spotting the faults.

That said, Kadgar is right in the sense that there must be checks and balances in this world as whole, and not just in each individual governments. If I had to create a new world and a choice in picking countries to go in it, if I ever picked US, I would be sure to pick Russia and China along with it. US may be better than Russia, but not by a mile. US undisputed, unchecked world dominance will cause Americans to go far out of bounds - it is inevitable.

Seriously guys, just imagine. Obama is so-so. But imagine a Republican President... They would force the whole world to submit if the could. There is no limit to the bounds of stupidity-infused jingoism. Not to mention, far from all Democrats are amicable in their foreign diplomacy. In fact, most are not, and have history of interventions just as long as the Republican Presidents.


To sum it up, if forced to choose one from US and Russia, I would choose US, but if I had full freedom of choice, I would choose both, so that one balances out the other.

[Centurion1]

hey i am a republican and i dont feel like crushing the world under my heel, maybe flicking the world the finger if it doesn't like me but no not crushing it.....

and now you have fallen into the trap of making a categorical assumption about a group of people :laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not to mention the fairly decently sized isolationist wing in the Republican party.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Not to mention the fairly decently sized isolationist wing in the Republican party.
Oh yeah? I have not heard anything from them since 1930s... And the Dems were in power back then.


Hehe, jk, but you get the point. I do not care what Republicans have and have not. I care about the result. And the result is that they are one helluva militaristic-jingoistic group. Not that I particularly disapprove of either quality though...

[Centurion1]

Ap you are making a very broad assumption that borders on liberal elitism. i understand that you are making a joke but it is very stereotypical. You assume that because republicans supported the war we are war mongers. Not necessarily so.

Do you think that woodrow wilson is a jingoistic war monger, because he didn't HAVE to enter WW1 and cause all that death. Is Harry truman a war monger he didn't have to enter korea?

You are making a blanket statement and while i understand the joke you should not make statements like that, especially if you want to appear fair and not an obvious democrat. And i thought you identified with no particular party?

[Husar]

Do you think that woodrow wilson is a jingoistic war monger, because he didn't HAVE to enter WW1 and cause all that death.

Yes, he is, we almost had them... :furious3:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hehe, jk, but you get the point. I do not care what Republicans have and have not. I care about the result. And the result is that they are one helluva militaristic-jingoistic group. Not that I particularly disapprove of either quality though...

Interventionalism, even hawkishness, and jingoism aren't the same thing. They are protecting the interests of themselves and their allies abroad, and while that occasionally involves war, it is remarkably peaceful all things considered.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Ap you are making a very broad assumption that borders on liberal elitism. i understand that you are making a joke but it is very stereotypical. You assume that because republicans supported the war we are war mongers. Not necessarily so.

For one, I am closer to Republicans than to Democrats. I simply dislike the Republican's social stances and their ties to religion. If not for that, I would be a Republican. Secondly, I am not at all assuming, in fact, pointed out that I am not generalising anyone because I am not evaluating the make up of the party. All I look at is the result. And the result is that the Republicans have been the warmongers, along with some of the Democrats as well.

There is absolutely no generalising in the overview of the results. Bush went to Iraq and Afghanistan. The vast majority, if not all Republicans, and even Democrats supported him. So the result was that the Republicans decided to go with war, regardless of their make-up.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Rather tellingly, what started as a discussion of Russian policy has immediately devolved into an argument about the United States. :beam:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Rather tellingly, what started as a discussion of Russian policy has immediately devolved into an argument about the United States. :beam:
What can you say, I am rather skilled at directing the outrage aimed at my motherland and re-channelling it into Yankee-bashing :P Dear Russia escaped almost unscathed form this thread so far :beam:

:clown:

[Furunculus]

Seriously guys, just imagine. Obama is so-so. But imagine a Republican President... They would force the whole world to submit if the could. There is no limit to the bounds of stupidity-infused jingoism. Not to mention, far from all Democrats are amicable in their foreign diplomacy. In fact, most are not, and have history of interventions just as long as the Republican Presidents.


you underestimate the realpolitic of the american political establishment in general, and overestimate the evilness of the republican party.

america has aims, america parties in government achieve those aims, little changes.

[Centurion1]

True no american president can make all the changes they want in four-8 years. The largest changes ever made by a president was FDR and he had nigh on 16 years. American party politics move the country in small increments and it has been mainly left in the last 200 odd years....

[Louis VI the Fat]

So Russia had local elections yesterday.

Needless to say, dictator-for-life Putin won with overwhelming margins. The opposition complained bitterly about 'irregularites'.

Mind, that this isn't even the real opposition. These are bogus opposition parties, paid for by Putin to keep up some semblance of democracy. The real opposition is in jail, or dead.


Edit: but let that not deter us from discussing the world's greatest danger to world peace and democracy: the United Sates.
Or the show trials Russia's buddy Iran is currently giving those who protested against Iran's rigged elections.
Nor the death penalties China gave yesterday to the 'insurgents' from Uigur.

[Vladimir]

That's strange, I haven't commented yet. :thinking:

But yea. It's an interesting Russian twist on 43's preemptive strike grandstanding. It's not that I disagree but the presentation and forethought were lacking.

[Hax]

because republicans supported the war we are war mongers.

Heh.


Do you think that woodrow wilson is a jingoistic war monger, because he didn't HAVE to enter WW1 and cause all that death. Is Harry truman a war monger he didn't have to enter korea?

If we'd look at Iraq and WWI in the same way, we'd be shooting little girls for stealing candy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Do you think that woodrow wilson is a jingoistic war monger, because he didn't HAVE to enter WW1 and cause all that death?...

After the publication of the Zimmerman telegram (Kudos to the British for making it happen!), war with Germany was inevitable. Wilson could have refused to ask for a DoW and Congress would have passed one anyway. Wilson could have vetoed it, only to have the veto over-ridden and see himself impeached (and quite probably convicted). The only way Wilson could have NOT led us into WW1 was by resigning from or removed from office. In which case, Thomas Marshall would have become CinC and he would have signed off on the DoW. Effectively, pacifist or not, Wilson did HAVE to enter WW1.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Needless to say, dictator-for-life Putin won with overwhelming margins. The opposition complained bitterly about 'irregularites'.

Mind, that this isn't even the real opposition. These are bogus opposition parties, paid for by Putin to keep up some semblance of democracy. The real opposition is in jail, or dead.

Russia always seems to have a bigger supply of Tsars than of Kerenskys.

[Vladimir]

Russia always seems to have a bigger supply of Tsars than of Kerenskys.

I think Obama's topped Russia by now.

[Centurion1]

Actually obama has more czars than the romanov dynasty. The longest lasting i believe.

And i bow to the fault of my Wilson example, but how about Korea??

[Tribesman]

Given that it is established that a pre-emptive strike is Ok because if you don't do it someone might get nukes and use them one day.
Then considering that it is known that some countries already have nukes which means that they could already use them anyday
The only conclusion must be that pre emptive strikes using nukes has got to be OK

[Vuk]

Given that it is established that a pre-emptive strike is Ok because if you don't do it someone might get nukes and use them one day.
Then considering that it is known that some countries already have nukes which means that they could already use them anyday
The only conclusion must be that pre emptive strikes using nukes has got to be OK

...
:help:

[Whacker]

@ OP

Don, do you really think this matters one whit? Honestly?

Basically all they're doing is publically announcing what is standard policy. If you're going to strike; strike first, strike fast, and strike hard. It's not if it ever did come down to it, they'd light the fuses and then 10 minutes later pick up the red phone, "Many presents headed your way komrade!!!"

Second, let's all face reality. Nukes = MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Everyone knows this. The second one goes off, everyone else lights theirs up and the whole world suddenly goes back to the age of the dinosaurs. It'd take a real, serious group of madmen to do this. As powerful as Putin is, I don't think he's remotely stupid, nor do I think there's enough people who'd support him popping off a nuke or two or thirty or three hundred. He'd probably get assassinated before it got that far, or there'd be a coup, it'd be stopped in some way. If anything, worry about Pakistan. They'd love nothing more than to piss on India's shoes.

I do think you are right though, about point two. This is just more political flailing, with some particular purpose in mind.

[Kadagar_AV]

Whacker, you havent seen many disclosed strategical plans, have you?

Some countries, including Poland, has now gone official with the Soviet plan for "defense". The meaning of defense in this case of course meaning aggression.

Basicly, nukes would be used against western Germany and against Denmark... They would then halt the invasion at the border of France.

Now, the reasoning behind this was, if you dont nuke France and England, you can wage diplomacy not to get hit by nukes yourself, or limit the retaliation from NATO.

Of course, this plan was kind of sad for the first assault wave, as they calculated on 50% casualties from their own nukes alone, not really counting battle casualties in that number.

Of course it's a whacked plan, but it's not like any military organization is very sane.

[Husar]

Whacker, you havent seen many disclosed strategical plans, have you?

Some countries, including Poland, has now gone official with the Soviet plan for "defense". The meaning of defense in this case of course meaning aggression.

Basicly, nukes would be used against western Germany and against Denmark... They would then halt the invasion at the border of France.

Now, the reasoning behind this was, if you dont nuke France and England, you can wage diplomacy not to get hit by nukes yourself, or limit the retaliation from NATO.

Of course, this plan was kind of sad for the first assault wave, as they calculated on 50% casualties from their own nukes alone, not really counting battle casualties in that number.

Of course it's a whacked plan, but it's not like any military organization is very sane.

That sounds a lot like some cold war plan, you have to wonder why Russia(which is rather bankrupt btw) would nuke all those countries that are paying them millions for gas and other things. :inquisitive:
It's like putting a firecracker into your own wallet...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That sounds a lot like some cold war plan, you have to wonder why Russia(which is rather bankrupt btw) would nuke all those countries that are paying them millions for gas and other things. :inquisitive:
It's like putting a firecracker into your own wallet...

He's talking about the Cold War plan, which is why Poland had it.:inquisitive:

[Don Corleone]

MAD is one thing, right? Telling somebody "we'll know you've launched at us before the impact and if you do, we'll hit you with everything we have so we'll all be gone"... that has certain level of graveyard logic that most people can understand.

Telling people "if you pose a threat, we reserve the right to pre-emptively nuke you", that's another matter entirely. Of course I don't think the Russians mean it literally, I'm much more interested in their motivation for making such a statement. I don't believe it, and you don't believe it, but the question is whether Obama's security team will take it seriously enough to allow Russia latitude in ways they might otherwise not.

As I said, I believe they're planning something big, and my guess is that either Ukraine or Georgia, possibly both, are going to have a very long, very hard winter, and by springtime, their target will be back in the fold.

[Sarmatian]

As I said, I believe they're planning something big

It's either conquest of China or winter olympics in Sochi...

[Aemilius Paulus]

That sounds a lot like some cold war plan, you have to wonder why Russia(which is rather bankrupt btw)
Eh? The private sector was hit hard by the recession, but Russia is doing reasonably well, or the government that is. On the contrary, the Western counties are more bankrupt, as their stimulus packages sunk them deep in debt. And yes, I am looking at US.


It's either conquest of China or winter olympics in Sochi...
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Gah, I find it stunning how ridiculously paranoid yet unrealistic some people are... Invasion of Ukraine? Nah. It is madness, as the Ukrainians are not exactly weak, militarily speaking, and this problem can easily be resolved by other means. Yuschenko is soon to step down, and all the other candidates are much friendlier towards Russia.

[Ice]

Eh? The private sector was hit hard by the recession, but Russia is doing reasonably well, or the government that is. On the contrary, the Western counties are more bankrupt, as their stimulus packages sunk them deep in debt. And yes, I am looking at US.


Since you always ask for sources, I'll do the same in this case. IIRC, Russia recently was rather close on defaulting a portion of its debt much like it did during the 90s financial crisis. Their economy is also closely linked the prices of natural resources which really isn't a good thing.

Edit:

Here's a brief overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russian_financial_crisis



In February 2009, Fitch Ratings downgraded Russia's Long-term foreign and local currency Issuer Default ratings (IDR) to 'BBB' from 'BBB+', the Short-term foreign currency IDR to 'F3' from 'F2' and the Country Ceiling to 'BBB+' from 'A-' (A minus).

So not as closely as I thought, but still a downgrade.

I'd like to know your reasoning behind Russia's current economic superiority, as everything I have seen suggests the opposite.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I'd like to know your reasoning behind Russia's current economic superiority, as everything I have seen suggests the opposite.
I never said that... Russia is faring worse in general than many other nations, but it is not going as far as bankrupt, which is what I was pointing out.

[Husar]

I don't believe it, and you don't believe it, but the question is whether Obama's security team will take it seriously enough to allow Russia latitude in ways they might otherwise not.

So you think the President of the United States of America and his staff are a bunch of morons who can't figure out what everybody in this forum can figure out? Or did I misunderstand something here? :inquisitive:

And AP, it might have been a while ago but I remember reading(text), hearing(video, audio) or seeing(video) that Russia was letting millionaires fly into space etc. to help pay for their military as they apparently had problems doing so. Maybe the situation changed and they're swimming in cas now that they nationalized all the oil and gas companies, but I never got across a bit of info saying that, I still think they can use our money though.

[Ice]

I never said that... Russia is faring worse in general than many other nations, but it is not going as far as bankrupt, which is what I was pointing out.

By looking at pure Debt to GDP statistics you are correct. However, there are many more factors to take into consideration such as the ease of obtaining credit (people purchasing your government bonds) and the faith consumers have in such instruments. I highly doubt Russia, after its near 90s financial system collapse, would be able to gain anywhere near the financing the USA would.

[Sarmatian]

So you think the President of the United States of America and his staff are a bunch of morons who can't figure out what everybody in this forum can figure out? Or did I misunderstand something here? :inquisitive:

And AP, it might have been a while ago but I remember reading(text), hearing(video, audio) or seeing(video) that Russia was letting millionaires fly into space etc. to help pay for their military as they apparently had problems doing so. Maybe the situation changed and they're swimming in cas now that they nationalized all the oil and gas companies, but I never got across a bit of info saying that, I still think they can use our money though.

Depends when you read it. Before the crisis, Russia had significant GDP growth for a few years and got a lot of hard currency with oil and gas exports, which improved a lot the situation with the army. Still, Russian army is in poor condition compared to most western armies.

Russia is still very much dependent of western markets, no doubt about that. Most of investments come from the west and most of Russian exports go there. Only an idiot would endanger that. Even if for some people Putin is this great dictator, a cross between Ivan Grozniy and Stalin, most would agree he is not an idiot. What works to Russian advantage are the growing consumer markets of India and China. They need more and more goods, resources and energy, but they're very far away from most of the Russian industry. This creates even bigger problems with energy. Building pipelines that would reach China or India is extremely expensive and time consuming enterprise. It's safe to say that western Europe (Germany most notably) would remain most important trading partner of Russia for some time.

Also, keep in mind, oil and gas companies weren't nationalized, they were bought. For more than a fair price, I might add, since the way they usually went into private hands was of highly questionable legality, not to mention the various shady ways most of those private owners used to maximize their profits, avoid tax and so on.

[Kadagar_AV]

That sounds a lot like some cold war plan, you have to wonder why Russia(which is rather bankrupt btw) would nuke all those countries that are paying them millions for gas and other things. :inquisitive:
It's like putting a firecracker into your own wallet...


That sounds "a lot like some cold war plan"?

A <- for reading comprehension and historical knowledge. You nailed it, Sherlock.



My point however was, that there has existed, and will exist, a belief (or maybe a hope) that nukes can be used without retal.

Or any way in a beneficial way.

[Aemilius Paulus]

And AP, it might have been a while ago but I remember reading(text), hearing(video, audio) or seeing(video) that Russia was letting millionaires fly into space etc. to help pay for their military as they apparently had problems doing so. Maybe the situation changed and they're swimming in cas now that they nationalized all the oil and gas companies, but I never got across a bit of info saying that, I still think they can use our money though.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You are so adorably funny, Husar! When can any country have enough money?? :laugh4::laugh4: Of course we have problems. We want crap, and we do not have money. Just as every human being and corporate/governmental entity on this planet. Putin is rearming Russia. He wants money. So he raises it. Space tourism is profitable as hell when you do it in conjunction with the normal missions.


I highly doubt Russia, after its near 90s financial system collapse, would be able to gain anywhere near the financing the USA would.
Yes, I do not debate that, you are absolutely correct. That is not what I was speaking of initially though... Now you are mentioning too many factors... It is entirely surprising Russia cannot borrow as much as US. Russia still has a long way to go. That is why I was comparing those "pure" factors.

[Centurion1]

Putin is simply trying to strongarm the world like the old soviet union did. As other people have stated i would not be surprised if he tried to blitz Georgia on some fabricated lie this winter.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Putin is simply trying to strongarm the world like the old soviet union did. As other people have stated i would not be surprised if he tried to blitz Georgia on some fabricated lie this winter.
Is it just me, or do I fail to see how this is different from US? Oh, wait, that is right, US already blitzed Iraq on a fabricated lie :laugh4:

And Georgia brought the last war on themselves, much to the glee of Putin, who was waiting for the opportunity. :2thumbsup:


Hey, do whatever you wish, but do not castigate others for doing the exact same as you.

[Brenus]

"So you think the President of the United States of America and his staff are a bunch of morons who can't figure out what everybody in this forum can figure out?"
I don't know. What I do know is that "the President of the United States of America and his staff " of the last administration were "a bunch of morons who can't figure out what everybody in this forum can figure out" for Irak...:laugh4:

[Centurion1]

^ and maybe brenus, i think that the current administration are idealistic fools who cannot grasp the concept that everyone is not our friend :yes:


AP no one ever said i disagreed. you have to admit the taking down of Saddam Hussein wasn't all bad even if it was based on false assumptions and created a power vacuum. The Georgians however? OOh there really sadistic.... If there were no nukes i would even applaud some intervention. make it a little more even however. And that is probably why i consider Nuclear weapons one of the greatest deterrents on earth.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Is it just me, or do I fail to see how this is different from US? Oh, wait, that is right, US already blitzed Iraq on a fabricated lie :laugh4:

Now, I supported Russia in the whole South Ossetia issue, but Iraq and Georgia were two totally different states. Whatever the lies that were told in the leadup to the invasion, Saddam Hussein had to go. Georgia is not a dictatorship which kills citizens en masse. A corrupt state, yes, but not an evil one.

[Prince Cobra]

I am rare in the Backroom but this one sounds intriguing. Generally speaking, I think 'rattling' describes perfectly this move the Russians but it aims not only keeping the shield away from Russia, it's also against a potential separatist movements within Russia. I agree with that. But I doubt Russia will attempt to annex Georgia. The Russians will succeed in making military basis in the strategic lands that separated from Georgia after the war, and maybe Georgia will not become a NATO member. Brutally attacking it for a second time which create more tension than the Russians wish.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Now, I supported Russia in the whole South Ossetia issue,
:inquisitive::dizzy2: :help:

but Iraq and Georgia were two totally different states. Whatever the lies that were told in the leadup to the invasion, Saddam Hussein had to go. Georgia is not a dictatorship which kills citizens en masse. A corrupt state, yes, but not an evil one.
Yes, I agree that Georgia is vastly different form Iraq. No one in their right mind would disagree. The Russian invasion of Georgia was an imperialist action, with no justification but a legal/diplomatic one.

But "Saddam Hussein had to go"? No, I doubt it. Sure, he had to go, but not at this cost. Not with so much blood spilled on the Iraqi side. Not with such instability in Iraq. Not with so much American money and lives poured down the drain. No. Saddam could never massacre enough Kurds to equal the current butchery. And Kurds are bit one group. Now everyone loses in Iraq...

[Meneldil]

"So you think the President of the United States of America and his staff are a bunch of morons who can't figure out what everybody in this forum can figure out?"
I don't know. What I do know is that "the President of the United States of America and his staff " of the last administration were "a bunch of morons who can't figure out what everybody in this forum can figure out" for Irak...:laugh4:

Back then a lot of people here were supporting the invasion.

[Ice]

Yes, I do not debate that, you are absolutely correct. That is not what I was speaking of initially though... Now you are mentioning too many factors... It is entirely surprising Russia cannot borrow as much as US. Russia still has a long way to go. That is why I was comparing those "pure" factors.

Alright, I just pointing out the reason as to why. Statistics often only a explain a portion of the situation.

[Husar]

That sounds "a lot like some cold war plan"?

A <- for reading comprehension and historical knowledge. You nailed it, Sherlock.

My point however was, that there has existed, and will exist, a belief (or maybe a hope) that nukes can be used without retal.
Thanks, I get your point now, it just wasn't clear to me what a cold war plan would have to do with this thread.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You are so adorably funny, Husar! When can any country have enough money?? :laugh4::laugh4: Of course we have problems. We want crap, and we do not have money. Just as every human being and corporate/governmental entity on this planet. Putin is rearming Russia. He wants money. So he raises it. Space tourism is profitable as hell when you do it in conjunction with the normal missions.

I must have had my captain obvious day, I can agree on being adorable though.
So if he wants money why would he nuke his customers? That was the point I was trying to make after all...yes, it's aactually a rhetoric question and has a question mark instead of a point, due to being rhetoric it can make a point though, it's magic... :juggle2:

[Furunculus]

"So you think the President of the United States of America and his staff are a bunch of morons who can't figure out what everybody in this forum can figure out?"
I don't know. What I do know is that "the President of the United States of America and his staff " of the last administration were "a bunch of morons who can't figure out what everybody in this forum can figure out" for Irak...:laugh4:

i still think US/UK interests will be best served by the removal of saddam, and i believe in ten years time the consensus in iraq will be that the price was worth it too.

[Sarmatian]

i still think US/UK interests will be best served by the removal of saddam, and i believe in ten years time the consensus in iraq will be that the price was worth it too.

Depends which price, the one paid by the Americans or the one paid by the Iraqis...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Note that we still aren't sure exactly how many Iraqis were killed, and the latest estimates by the Iraqi government (which include unidentified bodies) are actually relatively low.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Note that we still aren't sure exactly how many Iraqis were killed, and the latest estimates by the Iraqi government (which include unidentified bodies) are actually relatively low.
Sure, the invasion is definitely justified if only 100,000 people died, instead of 300,000. Seriously, EMFM, trusting the Iraqi gov't to take objective estimates is like trusting the USSR to reveal the number of Chornobyl death count... The Iraqi governments always publishes the lowest casualty figures that no-one but them accept. Is it just a coincidence that out of all the major efforts to tally casualties the official Iraqi ones are always the lowest?

BTW, the same Iraqi government of yours reported in 2007 a total of five million orphans. Undoubtedly they understated the figure. Undoubtedly, since then the number increased, as we are nearing 2010. Five million is about half the Iraqi children. And you can bet they receive the best care available if you read about the Al-Hanan orphanage (you guessed it right; I am being sarcastic - orphans were shown on photos lying on the floor naked, with no food for weeks, sick and nearly dying).

As we all know, many children from orphanages grow up mentally unstable or deficient (low IQ) due to the lack of care they received. Most go straight to crime after getting out. Bright future for Iraq, eh? And if five million children are orphans (probably six by now), my bet it that the Iraq gov't figure of 92,000-100,000 people dead is preposterously low.

Just think about it. Out of those 100,000, how many are too old or too young to have children? How many are single or already childless before the war? How many out of the 100,000 were parents? And both of the parents have to be dead for a child to be classified as an orphan. So if out of the 100,000 total, 40-50k were parents, then what are the chances that both of the child's parents died?

Therefore, there is no way 92,000-100,000 dead correlate with 5-6 million (at least) orphans. Simple logic. Even with non-war-related orphans, that many orphans are not explainable or supported by the Iraqi war casualties.



I would like to see you justify the invasion with this in mind, EMFM. If you are as old as you claim, why do you then dismiss the casualties with such typically teenage manner? Usually, adults are incredibly squeamish when dealing with dead people. For a good reason perhaps. Look at Don Corleone reacting to Kadgar_AV's remark about that burned boy. That reaction was typical, the same as my parents, and all the other normal adults I have seen and heard, would say.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That only further emphasizes the point that we have no idea how many Iraqis were killed, how many were killed at the hands of Americans, and how many more were killed at the hands of other Iraqis and so-called "freedom fighters." No, we don't know yet if Iraq was worth it, and we won't know until we know how many casualties there were and until we know if Iraq can become a stable democracy. I believe it can. Therefore, I believe that the Iraq War - perhaps not in terms of financial cost, but in terms of morality - was a necessary and positive thing.


If you are as old as you claim, why do you then dismiss the casualties with such typically teenage manner?

I didn't say how old I was, and I did not dismiss the casualties. When one discusses war, one must discuss casualties as part of the cost:benefit ratio. While every individual death is a tragedy - you joined this forum too late to have seen some of my older posts on the matter, especially when dealing with the Second World War - war is also a reality, and yes, it can occasionally be "worth it."

[Papewaio]

Average number of children per mother in Iraq is 3.86

So 5 million kids would require 1.3 million mums. And another 1.3 million dads (assuming 1 wife per husband).

With orphans requiring both parents to be dead (or missing) there would have to be at least 2.6 million dead or MIA parents.

+ extended families
+ single parent survivors

Would all add more to the mix.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yep. And what is that for? What has US and "Coalition" achieved? How is all this blood better than the days of Saddam? Let me use the same cost:benefit principle against you, EMFM: According to Human Rights Watch, the Kurds lost between 50,000 and 100,000 people (http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1993/iraqanfal/). Compare that to the whole country devastated, destabilised, orphaned, and polluted.

And unlike the story with the Kurds, everyone is dying, and not just some separatist minorities with a penchant for violent, unjustified terrorism - PKK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKK)(not just in Iraq either - they love clobbering Turkey as well). Not to mention, we all know former President Bush did not invade Iraq to save the Kurds. If he was that well-intentioned, he could have invaded Sudan and at the same time destroy the terrorist nest breeding there. Which Iraq did not have, as Saddam both hated and feared such extremist organisations, especially Bin Laden, with whom he had personal scores.

Honestly, how many Iraqis would rather endure the invasion as opposed to enduring Saddam? I bet the vast majority would go with Saddam. Easier for you to say, EMFM, as you have not felt the fires of Western wrath on your skin.

[Vladimir]

Honestly, how many Iraqis would rather endure the invasion as opposed to enduring Saddam? I bet the vast majority would go with Saddam. Easier for you to say, EMFM, as you have not felt the fires of Western wrath on your skin.

Somebody misses the CCCP.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Somebody misses the CCCP.
Bah, only its power. Why would I want a broken economy based on central planning?

[Sarmatian]

Somebody misses the CCCP.

United States the most I believe. So much easier going on rampage around the world when there's a bigger bogeyman you can point your finger at.

[rvg]

United States the most I believe. So much easier going on rampage around the world when there's a bigger bogeyman you can point your finger at.

Amen to that. Bipolar world was much easier to manage.

[Vladimir]

United States the most I believe. So much easier going on rampage around the world when there's a bigger bogeyman you can point your finger at.

Screw that. I'm quite qualified to speak for the country on this. If you want to learn about rampages, read the Mitrokhin archives.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Amen to that. Bipolar world was much easier to manage.
Who can argue with that??

Why did you not think of this before, Reagan (not that he had much effect on the USSR collapse in any case)?? Some WWI-era politics of extreme balance of power could have helped - balance is relatively simple to attain with only two parties.

[Centurion1]

i think it was the constant fear of nuclear annihilation based off the trigger fingers of sometimes egocentric men that made people want to leave the cold war era behind.

and AP what about the morals of removing saddam from power. Maybe it killed more people but morally it was the correct thing to do. americans (the vast majority) do not want iraqis to die.

[Ice]

and AP what about the morals of removing saddam from power. Maybe it killed more people but morally it was the correct thing to do. americans (the vast majority) do not want iraqis to die.

Could you expand on that logic?


Bah, only its power. Why would I want a broken economy based on central planning?

It could be argued that there was a higher standard of living under the former Soviet economy even if it was inefficient.

[Centurion1]

Could you expand on that logic?

that it would be wrong to allow someone like Saddam who unquestionably committed crimes against humanity and as such he had to be removed from power.

What if in WW2 the Japanese had not attacked us and we had never retaliated. would this have been okay even though the Japanese commited such atrocities in areas like China? Perhaps in the long term it would have saved lives. Would it have been morally correct.

AP is a logical person and would probably rebut my comment with an argument of ethics and that if less people die in one scenario than it is always better to go with the less costly price to human life.

I am simply saying that occaisonally ethics fail and what is morally (not ethically) correct is the proper course of action to take.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sure, the Iraq War was a correct thing to do. But that is poppycock. Bollox. Balderdash. No one justifies actions with "in the beginning it was the right thing to do". For one, there is a rationale behind the quote "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Secondly, simply a good causus belli does not justify the war itself. War can start in any manner and it can be carried out equally unpredictably. Since I frankly do not have enough time nor enthusiasm to go off into history, logic, or politics, I will simply say this:

Do the Iraqis want it? You cannot simply start a war in a sovereign country for no good reason and call it just simply because you "wanted to improve Iraq". Which US never did. George Bush, for all he cared, could have wiped his rear with the reports on Iraqi welfare. He did not wish to improve Iraq. Well, not for Iraqis. He wanted to improve Iraq for US, in a manner that would benefit US, and not Iraq. Not that President Bush was a lousy President. Every other modern President did practically the same thing, regardless of their party. Some had better excuses, some worse.

Iraq is suffering. More than they would ever under Saddam. They do not want the US. No state in the Middle East wanted US in Iraq, not even Iran, despite their hate of Iraq. Kuwait was likely to have been the only truly content party in this enterprise.

Ugh, people always sicken me when they justify Iraq War. Nothing personal, Centurion, I am speaking about the (mainly non-far left) population in general - it is just that those people are usually Americans or Western Europeans, who have never felt the slightest hardship - and by hardship I mean hardship by World definition, and not by US/Western Europe definition. I am no hippy, in fact I am a war hawk. But I do not even imagine that the current wars are just. They are loads of manure, and all they result in is human suffering. That is all.

Westerners, especially Americans never felt a war. Neither have I. But I do not strut around proclaiming interventionist wars are just. Even if they are just, that is no reason to support them. How can you speak of human beings as numbers when one will defecate and urinate over one self’s pants at the mere sound of a bomb detonating? When one faints over the sight of blood and goes into a depression when a close relative peacefully des of old age?? How dare does the West justify the misery that a fraction of which they would never endure themselves? Six million orphans and a couple of more million dead? Yeah, sure, why not - look what Iraq got now - and (instable) Democracy!!! Yayyyy!

Too bad the Iraqi democracy is not worth the paper the ballots used to elect it are printed on… If US pulls out completely, like certain selfish, cowardly Americans now want (hey, I am all for non-involvement in Iraq, but once you step into the manure, you have to clean it up… - which is why I so passionately dislike the Americans who wanted the war in the beginning but now advocate rapid timetables for withdrawal) , Iraqi government will either collapse or continue on as a crony democracy, mired with more corruption than the all the years of Saddam put together. That form of government is so commonplace that it has become the standard of democracy by now…



EDIT: and no, I did not support the Georgian War from the moral point of view either, before someone screams "Bloody murder: a hypocrite!!!1!"

[Banquo's Ghost]

Aemilius old chap, I don't want to rain on your bombast, but there are several members of this very forum who are veterans from a number of wars. At least one has a son serving in a war theatre.

Some might speak for the war in Iraq, some are implacably against. But they speak with some authority on war and its impact.

Just a word to the wise. :bow:

[Furunculus]

George Bush, for all he cared, could have wiped his rear with the reports on Iraqi welfare. He did not wish to improve Iraq. Well, not for Iraqis. He wanted to improve Iraq for US, in a manner that would benefit US, and not Iraq. Not that President Bush was a lousy President. Every other modern President did practically the same thing, regardless of their party. Some had better excuses, some worse.

Iraq is suffering. More than they would ever under Saddam. They do not want the US. No state in the Middle East wanted US in Iraq, not even Iran, despite their hate of Iraq. Kuwait was likely to have been the only truly content party in this enterprise.

Ugh, people always sicken me when they justify Iraq War. Nothing personal, Centurion, I am speaking about the (mainly non-far left) population in general - it is just that those people are usually Americans or Western Europeans, who have never felt the slightest hardship - and by hardship I mean hardship by World definition, and not by US/Western Europe definition. I am no hippy, in fact I am a war hawk. But I do not even imagine that the current wars are just. They are loads of manure, and all they result in is human suffering. That is all.


actually he did, but not for the iraqi's themselves, but rather american foriegn policy. the one thing american foriegn policy want above all else is long-term political and social stability in the region of the world that controls the future of sustained US growth.
a stable nation of the size of iraq in the heart of the middle middle east where social tensions can be released via politics rather than exported as aggressive nationalism will inevitably improve the condition of the region, maintaining more stable petroleum prices and thus enabling long term US growth free from dangerous petroleum shocks to its economy.

that is tough nuts for iraq, they are a small nation at the heart of a region with the ability to destabilise the future of american economic growth, a nation that was part of the cause of the problem by the nationalist belligerence to its neighbours.
iraq was chosen because it was determined that:
1. it was a nation where long term stabilising change could be effected to the benefit of the US
2. it was a nation that was generally hostile to the US and its allies
3. it was a nation that provided the sympathetic excuse of internal tyranny
4. it was a nation that provided the legal excuse of illegal WMD programs
5. it was a secular arab nation where the US could publicly fight and crush islamic extremism
of the above only 1 and 5 matter, they were convergent aims that were pleasingly bolstered by 2 3 and 4.

Ugh, people who always write-off the value of a free iraq always sicken me, but maybe that's because i have lived in a dictatorship where people could be dragged off and killed at the whim of the government, and have had family friends suffer this fate.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ugh, people who always write-off the value of a free iraq always sicken me, but maybe that's because i have lived in a dictatorship where people could be dragged off and killed at the whim of the government, and have had family friends suffer this fate.

I understand your point, but most opponents of the war don't really have a problem with the value of a free Iraq. The main issues tend to be:

Freeing Iraq from dictatorship was not the reason given to the electorates and parliaments of the countries asked to sacrifice their sons and daughters. Apart from leaders knowing full well that regime change is illegal, would those parliaments have backed a war for such a reason? Most unlikely.

For most of Iraqis to date, they have merely exchanged one relatively predictable and dangerous environment for a newly unpredictable and dangerous environment. This is getting slightly better under a significant occupation, but it would be rather optimistic to predict that it will continue to improve once the coalition leaves.

The noble cause of dictatorship removal appears to be very selective. Saddam was Our Dictator of the Month several years running when he brutalised his people in fighting Iran. Then we went off him when he invaded another bunch of favoured dictators. The truth is, there are plenty of dictatorships current that make Saddam look like a Disney baddie, but they we befriend or ignore for assorted reasons.

Claiming national interest, realpolitik or other base but understandable reasons for starting the war is a perfectly intelligent stance to take. Pretending it was ever the principled removal of a dictator is as disingenuous as the WMD claim.

[Furunculus]

1. Freeing Iraq from dictatorship was not the reason given to the electorates and parliaments of the countries asked to sacrifice their sons and daughters. Apart from leaders knowing full well that regime change is illegal, would those parliaments have backed a war for such a reason? Most unlikely.

2. For most of Iraqis to date, they have merely exchanged one relatively predictable and dangerous environment for a newly unpredictable and dangerous environment. This is getting slightly better under a significant occupation, but it would be rather optimistic to predict that it will continue to improve once the coalition leaves.

3. The noble cause of dictatorship removal appears to be very selective. Saddam was Our Dictator of the Month several years running when he brutalised his people in fighting Iran. Then we went off him when he invaded another bunch of favoured dictators. The truth is, there are plenty of dictatorships current that make Saddam look like a Disney baddie, but they we befriend or ignore for assorted reasons.

4. Claiming national interest, realpolitik or other base but understandable reasons for starting the war is a perfectly intelligent stance to take. Pretending it was ever the principled removal of a dictator is as disingenuous as the WMD claim.
1. no, but i was happy to see it done, and would have been happy to see it argued on the basis of real-politic, particularly given that the fringe benefit was the removal of tyranny.

2. true, and we certainly made an utter balls up of the occupation (starting with calling it a liberation) that nearly put paid to sympathetic excuse of improving lives, however i disagree that the country will not maintain an upward trend post occupation.

3. correct, but i have no problem with that, why should we expend blood and treasure sorting out someone else's problems unless they relate to our own, or there is some pay-off?

4. quite, as you can see above i have not deviated from the argument that it was done for reasons of national interest, the negative impact of which was to be tempered by the humanitarian fringe benefits. for the sake of self honesty, and not having to contort ones self after the fact, i wish they had argued on this basis in the first place rather than over emphasize WMD's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

on a separate note; Der Spiegel has a very good article that deals with the Non Proliferation Treaty and some of the myths that surround it:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,656171,00.html


well worth a read.

[Centurion1]

As you said AP the thing i find most disgraceful about this whole conflict is not the war itself (be it made up causes or not) but the people who want to retreat in defeat after such short term goals. Personally i thought that Iraq was a much easier war to win compared to Afghanistan so if we HAD to leave one i would elect Afghanistan. Besides being more important the populace is more similar to ours and because they are more technologically advanced and most of the populace lives in one area (between the rivers) it would be easier to control the area.

As to not understanding war i think i have had a pretty deep impact on it. 2 of my cousins are marines and fighting in Afghanistan another cousin just returned from being a navy medic in Iraq. My father was a commander in the navy and flew jets and flew missions during desert storm. I myself am probably going to attend the USMA (West Point). since i was very young i have wanted to be a military officer. i also live in a military town and see men get deployed all the time. My friends father just returned from Iraq after an entire year. Another family friends son a lance corporal in the marine corp just died. The woman down the streets fiance a sergeant in the army was killed by insurgents in Iraq. My great uncle died in Vietnam and my grandfather lost the tips of his fingers a paratrooper in WW2. I have a proud military tradition on both sides of my family and want to join myself. Maybe i haven't seen my home blown up but i HAVE known men killed in war whom i knew personally.

What have you experienced about war????

[Vladimir]

One thing I’ve always advocated about Iraq is that it’s the better of the two to affect our long-term strategic goals. This statement by the Russians is more of a near-to short-term attempt to do the same thing.