Poland Will Host American Missile Shield

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7223568.stm


Poland 'agrees' to host US shield

Poland's neighbour Russia is opposed to the US shield

Poland and the US have reached an agreement in principle to install a controversial American missile defence system on Polish soil.

In return for hosting part of the shield, the US has said it will help bolster Poland's air defences.

The US wants to install interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic.

Russia is opposed to the project, claiming it would seriously destabilise global security.

In October, Russian President Vladimir Putin compared the plans to the Cuban missile crisis of the 1960s, which saw the US and Soviet Union go to the brink of nuclear war.

Russia has threatened to point missiles at Europe if the US positions elements of the new missile shield near its borders.

In response to this threat, Poland says it wants help to upgrade its air defences.

Speaking in Washington, Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorsky said he was satisfied that the security concerns Poland had raised would be dealt with.

"There is still a great deal of work for our experts... But yes, I am satisfied that the principles that we have argued for have been accepted," he said.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: "We understand that there is a desire for defence modernisation in Poland and particularly for air defence modernisation in Poland. This is something that we support because it will make our ally, Poland, more capable."

America wants to install 10 interceptor missiles to protect against possible attack by what it calls rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea.

The Czech government aims to submit a draft accord on the radar base to parliament in April.

I think Russia has every right to complain. A missile shield being placed there clearly shows a mistrust of Russia that is unwarranted. As a European, Russia pointing missiles to Europe would be a valid diplomatic response. This is not the Cold War, so America should not be doing this.

[Caius]

America can do this, so you can't complaint. The whole truth.

[Lord Winter]

Well any missle defence shiled would be useless if it ignored the worlds biggest owner of the bomb.

[RabidGibbon]

To talk about the article what are are the technicalites of a missile shield in Poland to deflect Iranian/North Korean Missiles?

I dont know how much warning these missiles need to launch effectively, but Poland seems a little out of the way. To protect Europe from Iran, Greece seems like the frontline country for interceptor misiles, as a NATO country surely no one can complain about missiles stationed their? and to protect USA mainland from North Korea, Hawai or the Aleutians?

Anyway, no expert talking here, just a few thoughts.

[Zim]

Given that it's entirely defensive technology (we already have missiles sites in Turkey), and it doesn't even work well, I'm not sure the Russians have much to worry about. It's mostly likely really an attempt to intimidate countries like Iran and North Korea, and try to weaken their diplomatic leverage (particularly North Korea, which has a leader who is using the threat of developing nuclear weapons to try to get unwarranted concessions). Poland was probably the first country to say yes, and we have good relations with many of the Eastern European countries that were once under Soviet domination.

I support the development of technology to prevent attack by nuclear missiles. The fear of mutually assured destruction only works until someone crazy enough to press the button comes to power.

Still, Poland seems a poor choice diplomatically, both on Russia's doorstep and a country under what it considers its sphere of influence for centuries now. I wonder if there's a less controversial place they could do this?

Edit: RabidGibbon, Greece does seem like a much better choice, if they were ok with it. :yes:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, it is defensive technology for sure, but the location, as RabidGibbon says, is a bit out of the way. The location of this project seems to me like it was chosen to intimidate Russia or the Eastern European countries such as Belarus.



America can do this, so you can't complaint. The whole truth.

America, and indeed any nation, can do a lot of things, that doesn't mean they should necessarily have a free hand to do so. :inquisitive:

[Ice]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7223568.stm



I think Russia has every right to complain. A missile shield being placed there clearly shows a mistrust of Russia that is unwarranted. As a European, Russia pointing missiles to Europe would be a valid diplomatic response. This is not the Cold War, so America should not be doing this.

Really?

Last time I checked, Russia had a few thousand nuclear missiles. I doubt a few interceptors would do anything.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Really?

Last time I checked, Russia had a few thousand nuclear missiles. I doubt a few interceptors would do anything.

Yes, but will Russia use those nuclear missiles? I doubt it, and there doesn't really seem to be a threat from that region.

[Ice]

Yes, but will Russia use those nuclear missiles? I doubt it, and there doesn't really seem to be a threat from that region.

That's not the point.

The interceptors pose absolutely not threat to Russia. They are to counter a possible missile attack from a lesser developed country.

Personally, I think it's an idiotic idea and the interceptors should be put on American soil near other interceptors where their efficiently can be maximized. Let Europe worry about Europe's missile protection.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Personally, I think it's an idiotic idea and the interceptors should be put on American soil near other interceptors where their efficiently can be maximized. Let Europe worry about Europe's missile protection.

That's what I think. It just seems to me that this shows a certain lack of diplomatic trust, and Russia is right to be a little indignant. The missile shield is out of the way of these lesser states you speak of, being Iran and North Korea namely, only one of which may even have nuclear weapons.

Then again, if they're doing this against Russia, you'd think they'd have more interceptor missiles. The three scenarios are, as I see it:

A) They really haven't thought this through - Poland is out of the way of a missile attack from Iran or NK.
B) They really haven't thought this through - It'll take more than ten to stop Russian missiles.
C) It is an act to intimidate and deter Russia, though obviously a feint.

[Papewaio]

I thought a missile from North Korea aimed at Germany or UK would fly over Poland...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I thought a missile from North Korea aimed at Germany or UK would fly over Poland...

I think North Korea would much prefer to attack America with a missile attack over the Pacific. Besides, the missile would have to go over Russia, and the Russians would shoot it down instantly.

[Zim]

How would the Russians shoot it down? I didn't think they'd been bothering with this kind of stuff yet.

I've been a bit out of the loop regarding international politics so I may be exposing my ignorance here. I knew there are worries about increasing authoritarianism in Russia, but hasn't the Bush administration tended to emphasize cooperation with Russia on the "war on terror"? If it is meant to intimidate them (and I really hope my government isn't stupid enough to try to do so with 10 interceptor missiles) wouldn't it be bad timing when we want their help on issues like terrorism and the North Korea situation?

[Tribesman]

How much is it worth to Poland , can the payments be made in cash to an account in the Caymans , if so can Ireland have one too ?

[cegorach]

Recently I have litte desire to post in the Backroom - the level of certain responses is below everything I have seen except from some most ignorant trolls in the web.


Because I am lazy I will simply re-post what I have written in the TWC. THank you.:book:




I can describe the other side of the story.

Russian 'bullying' has little to do with that.

After the new government ( conservative-liberal Civic Platform) took power the main issue was to put Poland back on stage after two years of impotent and incompetent stupidity of conservative (now nationalist- populist since they lost the center definetely) Law and Justice.

So the basic was to use the old fashioned thing called diplomacy instead of shouting to normalise relationship with Germany, the rest of the EU, the USA and Russia.

The missile shield project is supported by ALL Polish parties except some which are not in the parliament anymore, but there are some differences here.

Law and Justice tried to strenghten the alliance with the USA at the cost of other affairs and was going to push as much as possible, even PAYING for the installations if necessary.
The current Foreign Minister of Poland Radek Sikorski was the Minister of Defence in that governemtn, but while Law and Justice was sliding towards open populism and the abbyss of utter stupidity he resigned, partly due to the incorrect approach to the negotiations with the USA about the shield.
He was given the proposal to join the Civic Platform which he accepted - nothig unusual since currently most of Polsh parties include people from the former anti-communist opposition (pre 1989) and the Solidarity itself - and became the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Civic Platform supports the shiled, but wanted to exploit the opportunity to modernise our AA defences and generally to bargain to get as much as possible.
In addition it wanted to eliminate any fears in the EU, Polish society and even Russia.
Of course to a degree, but well organised diplomacy is all what was necessary.

Left and Democrats - i.e center-left coalition of social-democratic parties and liberals was agian IN FAVOUR of the project, but toyed with the idea to call for a referendum.




Now, after the elections won by the Civic Platform - Law and Justice is pretty much impotent, but will support the project anyway and Left and Democrats are not capable to convince anyone to start the referendum even if they really wanted.


Since the new governemnt took power in November Poland got pretty much almost everything we could want - there is no problem with the Eu about the entire idea and EVEN RUSSIA OFFICIALLY spoken that it has NO RIGHT to oppose the Polish decision here.
It was after some careful diplomatic moves from our and other sides, but the main thing is that there is NOONE who can protest now anymore.

In other words a success.

Now the main thing is to negotiate as much as possible for our army which will happen around March this year.
Apparently during the foreign trip of our PM Donald Tusk to the USA.


So my question is - what has changed except the fact that we again have competent government and people who know what they are doing and how which couldn't be spoke about the previous governement.

The answer - nothing really - the principes are the same - all political forces are in FAVOUR and ALL WHICH OPPOSED the idea are off the parliament in a political garbage dump scoring about 4,5 % if added together ( syndicalist PPP, ultra-conservative LPR, radical populist SO and other even less serious).


The missile shield wasn't an issue really, but the way we get it and what for clearly was.




EDIT And about the NATO base - it is nothing we are pushing really hard, but it is seen from 1989 as a good idea, so why not - I have heard much about such ideas for long years already, but mostly after we joined the war against Iraq in 2003 (yes, I mean war - not the action after that).



EDIT TWO I think I know why Sikorski proposed to relocate a NATO base of some importance - this might have something to do with the plan to sign a bilateral agreement directly with the USA. So it is eaither something to compensate for lack of such agreement or to prepare for such agreement in the future which I would see as more probable - at least from our side. After all Bush will be off soon and we need to have something to start with the new administration.










RabidGibbon


To talk about the article what are are the technicalites of a missile shield in Poland to deflect Iranian/North Korean Missiles?

I dont know how much warning these missiles need to launch effectively, but Poland seems a little out of the way. To protect Europe from Iran, Greece seems like the frontline country for interceptor misiles, as a NATO country surely no one can complain about missiles stationed their? and to protect USA mainland from North Korea, Hawai or the Aleutians?


Greeks wouldn't agree for sure - just look at the level of anti-Americanism out there.

Northern Korean threat is neutralised by the shield in ALASKA.









Tribesman

How much is it worth to Poland , can the payments be made in cash to an account in the Caymans , if so can Ireland have one too ?

THe details are negotiated right now and it will take months to agree about the exactl amounts and equipment we will get.

The main idea is to streneghten our importance to the NATO and especially the USA - the only ally we could trust despite numerous doubts about their commitment if there is a dangerous situation.

The second thing is of course to acquire more material help for our army, especilly air defences - anti-missile systems, future fighter planes.


And Russia ? Who gives a damn ! After all only recently they have spoken they have no right to oppose our decision (Lawrov's own words) - no doubt in hope to slow the negotiation process down, but all they will receive is some kind words about 'empathy', 'concern about their opinion' and other diplomatic blah, blah, blah.

In other words we are back on stage - we need to get rid of our PR merchandise called the president in the next elections (unless impeachment will be used).

[Fragony]

Bad idea when there is an actual attack all the copper wires will be gone

[cegorach]

Bad idea when there is an actual attack all the copper wires will be gone

Nice to see the Backroom is so much as before.

Still there is a comfort in that when I think nobody can be any more below certain people elewhere there are always guys in the ORG who prove they CAN.

Time to write to Sèvres maybe they will need someone to serve as a measurement standard in the future ... of the certain, known in the world wide web kind of course.:2thumbsup:

[Fragony]

http://www.vanoosten.nl/beet

[cegorach]

Neat...

But I need no bait - honestly I enjoy that so thank you for the excuse.:yes:




Now. Hopefully there will be someone to discuss the topic, though I have little desire to talk what the shield is for, what is its supposed danger etc - it was discussed a dozen times already and personally I don't like to repeat something like this too often. It is boring.

[Fragony]

That was the bait, the excuse.

[macsen rufus]

Gah! The best defence against a North Korean nuclear strike is the quality of their rockets... and Iran is just a joke. Let's all go get our security blankets and hide under the bed, the bogeyman's coming :skull:

[KrooK]

First of all someone have forgotten about something.

1) Missiles will be there IF POLISH GOVERNMENT AGREE - otherwise - no way.
2) Poland is independent country and has same international position as Russia - we can build even atomic missile lauchers on our territory if we want.
3) Who like who but Germans with their love to Russians will not be talking what we should do or shouldn't do. Go build your gas pipe and be pround.
4) Missiles we are talking about are part of defense system. DEFENSE. They will be against agressors and If Russia is not agressor and does not want attack USA and EU, should not be afraid. Otherwise - you should rather thank Poland for protecting your asses my EU friends.
5) It will be long negotiations before we agree (or not) on missile lauchers. If USA want lauchers, they will have to pay really much.

[KukriKhan]

How much is it worth to Poland , can the payments be made in cash to an account in the Caymans , if so can Ireland have one too ?

Article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/15/news/shield.php) from the Intl Herald Tribune from March 2007, cites $180 Billion already spent by that time - this to emplace installations not fully operational until 2011. So a pretty hefty chunk of change, with the usual benefit/damage to economies local to the actual base sites.

"Course this was all predicated on Iran's being nuke-capable around 2015 - a prediction poo-poohed later last year by the US's CIA.

So. If it's not aimed to defend against Russia, and Iran is not gonna be nuke capable when predicted... what's it for?

cegorach seems to believe it's to increase the reputation and military capability of Poland (and presumeable Czech Rep) - if I may be so boring as to summarize his TWC piece into one sentence.

That seems a worthy goal... sort of 'payback' for helping us out in Iraq. Although, one might think they'd rather have a few hundred billion dollars of tanks and planes instead.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The missiles are a defense system, and Russia have a right to set up a similar system. Surely some views of morality hold that taking precautions against someone or not hiding lack of trust for a person is an offense, but I think it's also important to strengthen the basis for trust by simply accepting all changes that will decrease the amount of benefit that could be gained from unprovoked offense, and increase the difficulties/costs of mounting such unprovoked offense. Trust is not just a matter of social interaction and moral views, but also one of working to make sure that offense becomes less beneficial.

Failing to take both aspects into account usually causes destruction of everything positive the trust was capable of building up. If you fail the social interaction part of trust, people will not be satisfied with any precaution treaties and you have a early 1900 situation (pre-ww1 scenario). On the other hand, if you fail the precaution treaties party of trust, you eventually have a greedy part who sees the possibility to make some short term gains by element of surprise. So, both aspects must be taken into account, and the defense system is therefore a positive thing.

[Conqueror]

I think the real concern to Russians is not the missiles in Poland but rather the Czech radar station potentially used to spy on them.

Anyway, does anyone know what would actually happen if some "rogue-state" missile would be shot down by this system? Would all the radioactive stuff from it come crashing down on Europeans?

[Fragony]

Anyway, does anyone know what would actually happen if some "rogue-state" missile would be shot down by this system? Would all the radioactive stuff from it come crashing down on Europeans?

With an atomic bomb no, with a dirty bomb yes. It's a pretty useless thing anyway, the patriot system's succesrate is about 50% nothing is going to stop a full nuclair attack, it's a prestige project.

[Pannonian]

Nice to see the Backroom is so much as before.

Still there is a comfort in that when I think nobody can be any more below certain people elewhere there are always guys in the ORG who prove they CAN.

Utter balls. There are plenty in the Mudpit who can trump the worst the Backroom can offer.

[Tribesman]

So. If it's not aimed to defend against Russia, and Iran is not gonna be nuke capable when predicted... what's it for?
Good question , considering the package there is an easy answer .
Jobs .
It has to be put somewhere or there would be no need to build it , if there was no need to build it the people working on it would lose their jobs , plus of course add the package to Poland/Czech Republic which keeps people employed in the defence industry in America producing the missiles , radar and planes .

Don't think of it as a strategic defence program , just a domestic job creation one(funded by the American taxpayers of course) .:2thumbsup:

[KukriKhan]

I think the real concern to Russians is not the missiles in Poland but rather the Czech radar station potentially used to spy on them.

Anyway, does anyone know what would actually happen if some "rogue-state" missile would be shot down by this system? Would all the radioactive stuff from it come crashing down on Europeans?

THIS (http://science.howstuffworks.com/missile-defense2.htm) old-ish "how stuff works" article says that the system that covers the US mainland would engage and destroy incoming missiles 120 miles up in the atmosphere. Debris is not mentioned (although, presumeably, any debris that didn't burn up would fall into the ocean). So, if the same system was in-place in Poland, shooting down an Iranian missile, any debris might fall on...Turkey, Romania, Austria?

[Zim]

I have to agree with this. However other countries may worry, or even have a right to worry, about this deal, in the end it is up to the United States and Poland, and nobody else. Poland has every right to have such a defensive missile site located in their territory, without undue Russian (or American) pressure. Cegorach's post even seems to show general agreement among all of Poland's majr parties on the issue.

As for the backroom, I haven't been around it long but I find it a refreshing change after the political sections of most of the forums I've been to. The people here are generally intelligent and think out their statements before making them, and represent a diverse number of viewpoints without dipping too much into the useless partisan bickering I've seen elsewhere.



First of all someone have forgotten about something.

1) Missiles will be there IF POLISH GOVERNMENT AGREE - otherwise - no way.
2) Poland is independent country and has same international position as Russia - we can build even atomic missile lauchers on our territory if we want.
3) Who like who but Germans with their love to Russians will not be talking what we should do or shouldn't do. Go build your gas pipe and be pround.
4) Missiles we are talking about are part of defense system. DEFENSE. They will be against agressors and If Russia is not agressor and does not want attack USA and EU, should not be afraid. Otherwise - you should rather thank Poland for protecting your asses my EU friends.
5) It will be long negotiations before we agree (or not) on missile lauchers. If USA want lauchers, they will have to pay really much.

[Fragony]

Utter balls. There are plenty in the Mudpit who can trump the worst the Backroom can offer.

Oh common at least give me that. I am not nearly as cosmopolitan as your average polish plumber begging you to actually pay them but I never find myselve in such exquisite company such as Cecorach gracing us with his infinite wisdom we so desperatily need here in the civilised world. A shame he gets bored so quikly because their is a wealth of knowledge to be had there, all the test-subjects drinking my homebrew die.

[Kagemusha]

I guess its business between Poland and US. ultimately If Europeans should thank someone, it would be US tax payers, not Poland, since they are the ones paying the bill.
About the real role of this system. With the few launchers, it could be that the system is just a forward defending position of the future US mainland missile shield. The missile shield itself is bit of a mystery, because it have successfully intercepted traditional cruise missiles in tests, but when it comes to delivering nuke´s the russians have already next generation ICBM´s deployed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topol_M

My personal opinion is that creating missile shields that could effectively block nuclear attacks, could be a terrible mistake. MAD has prevented large scale conventional war between great powers after WWII and if the fear of it is removed, these wars may come back as viable options as continuoity of politcs of the great powers, because it is highly unlike that US will have an monopoly in this technology for long.

About saying that Political mudpitt on certain other TW forum is more mature place then backroom, atleast gave me a good laugh.:laugh4:

[Fragony]

The MAD dillema is a thing of the past since baby-nukes and conventional weapons that are equally potent. I don't think we will ever see a full nuclair attack and if we do none of all this matters anyway because we would all be dead. The MAD dillema is especially gone since we lost the 'rational' argument with terrorism, get rid of these things they have served their purpose. Belgium or the Netherlands have the potential to completily destroy europe, that is wrong, and Russia would be smart to look for China ambition instead, but these 'things' still exist gone with them rules have changed.

[Kagemusha]

The MAD dillema is a thing of the past since baby-nukes and conventional weapons that are equally potent. I don't think we will ever see a full nuclair attack and if we do none of all this matters anyway because we would all be dead. The MAD dillema is especially gone since we lost the 'rational' argument with terrorism, get rid of these things they have served their purpose. Belgium or the Netherlands have the potential to completily destroy europe, that is wrong, and Russia would be smart to look for China ambition instead, but these 'things' still exist gone with them rules have changed.

please elaborate how you can create MAD with conventional weapons, without engaging in large conventional war? The positive scenario about MAD is that it pretty much prevents full scale conventional wars between nuclear powers. now if we create a missile defense system that eliminates the threat, step to large conventional war is lot more easy to take. Im happy to disagree with you and believe that MAD is still an active threat and im happy about it, if the alternative is that in couple decades, few large powers can shield themselves from Nuclear attacks and also with that advantage, threaten and launch nuclear attacks against other countries, without fearing consequences.
To build this kind of systems against terrorist attacks would be absurd. Missile defense system like the US one is clearly aimed against an attack from a a nuclear power in its conventional meaning. My personal opinion is that the current system is waist of money, since each time there is new defensive measures deployed, soon there will be more advanced methods of offense. In this case the offensive measures already exist, before full deployment of the new defensive measures.

[Fragony]

please elaborate how you can create MAD with conventional weapons, without engaging in large conventional war?

Conventional boms are much stronger then they used to be,

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/306608/the_mother_of_all_bombs/

The idea of MAD is the blackmail that is mutual destruction, with babynukes and conventional WMD that political part of it is gone. The MAD dillemma never was a military one just political. And politics have changed, NGO's is where it's at nowadays it's a whole new game.

[Kagemusha]

Conventional boms are much stronger then they used to be,

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/306608/the_mother_of_all_bombs/

The idea of MAD is the blackmail that is mutual destruction, with babynukes and conventional WMD that political part of it is gone. The MAD dillemma never was a military one just political. And politics have changed, NGO's is where it's at nowadays it's a whole new game.

Oh i know there are conventional weapons that create large destruction, but nowhere near the scale of large Nukes. the fact is that you cant wipe out a nation completely unless you are using Nukes or hunt them down individually and kill off, which requires conventional war, even chemical and biologigal weapons would have problems in that and also those are very hard to control.
Mad wasnt a military problem? Are not the military personnel human?MAD touches everyone just like death. NGO´s like Al Gaida are nothing else then minor players, which are easy to feed the fear of people in order to gain certain political goals. there will be crazy men always, but the hype and terrorism hysteria is blown out of its proportion completely. Its a choice for everyone to make, whether people should live in fear and let that control their lives or not. in world there are lot more pressing problems then global terrorism.

[Brenus]

“ultimately If Europeans should thank someone”: France has it own nuclear gadgets, so why we should thank for something which will be the first target in case of "the Soviets, Return of The vengeance III"…?

Now, just few thought. In case of war from Russia, this shield will be effective only if the former Reds launch immediately a nuclear attack.
Now, in this case some would think that the first target would be the shield itself. Being at the immediate vicinity of the potential aggressor doesn’t look a good idea to me.
The first target of the mobile tactical Nuclear Missile (SS 20, long time ago) would be these targets. I don’t know the actual Russian Doctrine, but at the time of the Soviet, the nuclear option was at the level of the Corps d’Armée… The launcher will be place at around one minute’s flight (and they have the right to do it following Cegorach speech, their own territory, bla bla bla)

In caser of rogue State, the answer is even clearer. They have to develop Nuclear Launcher, mobile or submarine, mobile in term of “one man one (small) bomb”.
It look the US project didn’t learn from Iraq: The enemy doesn’t play the rules. An Abraham is too good to be attack and too expensive to built an opponent, so road bombs will do the job… The shield, if it ever work (unlike the Star War System) will have the same effect.

[Kagemusha]

“ultimately If Europeans should thank someone”: France has it own nuclear gadgets, so why we should thank for something which will be the first target in case of "the Soviets, Return of The vengeance III"…?

Now, just few thought. In case of war from Russia, this shield will be effective only if the former Reds launch immediately a nuclear attack.
Now, in this case some would think that the first target would be the shield itself. Being at the immediate vicinity of the potential aggressor doesn’t look a good idea to me.
The first target of the mobile tactical Nuclear Missile (SS 20, long time ago) would be these targets. I don’t know the actual Russian Doctrine, but at the time of the Soviet, the nuclear option was at the level of the Corps d’Armée… The launcher will be place at around one minute’s flight (and they have the right to do it following Cegorach speech, their own territory, bla bla bla)

In caser of rogue State, the answer is even clearer. They have to develop Nuclear Launcher, mobile or submarine, mobile in term of “one man one (small) bomb”.
It look the US project didn’t learn from Iraq: The enemy doesn’t play the rules. An Abraham is too good to be attack and too expensive to built an opponent, so road bombs will do the job… The shield, if it ever work (unlike the Star War System) will have the same effect.

Well that sentence was just sarcasm. i dont seriously think that Europeans should thank anyone about the US missile shield.Its not like we have asked one here. For example where i live in Helsinki, we are situated about 300km from St. Petersburgh and in case of nuclear war, it would be the western missiles that would kill us.:skull:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In agreement with Brenus and Kagemusha, my point is that this shield just doesn't make sense to be deployed in this region. It should've been thought through a little better.

[Husar]

Ehm, AFAIK the shield is there to get missiles in mid-flight, probably because they may not be detected immediately after they start and/or because an interceptor missile close to their starting position may not be able to catch up with them, thus you launch one in the ICBMs flightpath etc blabla. Having the shield in the US itself means you intercept it shortly before it impact or in other words, likely too late. I'm not a missile eggspert but I remember reading/hearing about Europe being a good location for a reason.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Having the shield in the US itself means you intercept it shortly before it impact or in other words, likely too late. I'm not a missile eggspert but I remember reading/hearing about Europe being a good location for a reason.

North Korean missiles would have to go over the Pacific, otherwise the Russians would be right pissed off. Iranian missiles, and I really can't see Iran launching one (their leadership may disagree with America, but they aren't stupid), may carve over Europe, but it doesn't really matter - Iran only has missiles of a range of about 3000km maximum, whereas it's quite a ways more than that to America. That being said, Iran will eventually develop longer-ranged missiles, but I still really don't see them being a threat to America.

[Fragony]

Oh i know there are conventional weapons that create large destruction, but nowhere near the scale of large Nukes.

That is what makes them and pocketnukes all the more dangerous, they could actually be used.

[Slyspy]

I'd like to thank Poland and the US for intercepting maybe 40% of a nuclear missile strike launched through central Europe (if the conditions, technology levels and sheer number of weapons versus interceptor sites allow for such a generous percentage).

[KrooK]

As I wrote before missile lauchers are only polish-american business (ok polish-american-czech business) and other countries may speak with us about it but they can't decide. Poland with its terrible geopolitical situation needs trustable allies - history shows us that European allies are generally not trustable. So that we need others.

Anyway its interesting how anti american is now western europe. People would rather like Russia then USA - despite that 25 years ago Russia had serious plan to invande Europe and clear half of it with atomic bomb.

[Pannonian]

As I wrote before missile lauchers are only polish-american business (ok polish-american-czech business) and other countries may speak with us about it but they can't decide. Poland with its terrible geopolitical situation needs trustable allies - history shows us that European allies are generally not trustable. So that we need others.

Anyway its interesting how anti american is now western europe. People would rather like Russia then USA - despite that 25 years ago Russia had serious plan to invande Europe and clear half of it with atomic bomb.
People in western Europe would rather not risk annoying the Russians because they supply goodness knows how much of our energy needs. We don't fear the Russians attacking us, we fear them cutting off our gas and selling to other markets instead. Even upping the price screws us more than we can afford.

[Tribesman]

history shows us that European allies are generally not trustable.
History shows that allies all round the world can be not trustable .
In the case of your history Britain and America sold out on the alliance in Casablanca , then again in Yalta and then refused to recognise the Polish government that they had become allied with .

[CrossLOPER]

As I wrote before missile lauchers are only polish-american business (ok polish-american-czech business) and other countries may speak with us about it but they can't decide. Poland with its terrible geopolitical situation needs trustable allies - history shows us that European allies are generally not trustable. So that we need others.

Anyway its interesting how anti american is now western europe. People would rather like Russia then USA - despite that 25 years ago Russia had serious plan to invande Europe and clear half of it with atomic bomb.
No one wants Poland anymore. :thinking:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Poland with its terrible geopolitical situation needs trustable allies - history shows us that European allies are generally not trustable. So that we need others.

History has also shown us that Mongolia can take over all of Asia. Will that happen again? It's doubtful. Likewise, Poland's European allies are, in the modern day, very reliable. It seems to be Poland's previous government that was stirring the pot. Claiming more votes on the basis that if those killed during WWII were still alive, you'd have more people? Come on, if Poland wants to have the trust of it's European allies, it has to be reasonable to it's European allies.




Anyway its interesting how anti american is now western europe. People would rather like Russia then USA - despite that 25 years ago Russia had serious plan to invande Europe and clear half of it with atomic bomb.

It was a battle for political influence, which America won. By the way, America also had a plan for nuking Russia and it's satellite states.


In short, the world has changed, so update.

[rory_20_uk]

America has built or will build relatively large facilities which are top secret. There will be at least extremely capable radar and probably a lot more besides - signal interception for example. This allows America to have a much better view about what is going on in the area. I'd say that the stated tasks are secondary.

~:smoking:

[Marshal Murat]

As I've said (in my Modest proposal) the best way to solve this problem would be to

1. Remove the missile shield from Poland
2. Place said missile shield beside Russian missile sites

It removes the missile shield from Poland (good), as many of you have called for; and places them by the Russian silos (good). In the case of a missile launch, the missile shield missiles will know immediately and will respond within seconds, taking out the 'human element'.

[Vladimir]

I know I'm late but for the unenlightened, or those who think the world should conform to their individual opinion, MAD was policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction).

Whether MAD was the officially accepted doctrine of the United States military during the Cold War is largely a matter of interpretation. The term MAD was not coined by the military but was, however, based on the policy of "Assured Destruction" advocated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara during the 1960s. The United States Air Force, for example, has retrospectively contended that it never advocated MAD and that this form of deterrence was seen as one of numerous options in U.S. nuclear policy. Former officers have emphasized that they never felt as limited by the logic of MAD (and were prepared to use nuclear weapons in smaller scale situations than "Assured Destruction" allowed), and did not deliberately target civilian cities (though they acknowledge that the result of a "purely military" attack would certainly devastate the cities as well). MAD was implied in several U.S. policies and used in the political rhetoric of leaders in both the U.S. and the USSR during many periods of the Cold War.

There are some really funny quips about the, um, rationality of MAD.

[Kagemusha]

I know I'm late but for the unenlightened, or those who think the world should conform to their individual opinion, MAD was policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction).

Whether MAD was the officially accepted doctrine of the United States military during the Cold War is largely a matter of interpretation. The term MAD was not coined by the military but was, however, based on the policy of "Assured Destruction" advocated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara during the 1960s. The United States Air Force, for example, has retrospectively contended that it never advocated MAD and that this form of deterrence was seen as one of numerous options in U.S. nuclear policy. Former officers have emphasized that they never felt as limited by the logic of MAD (and were prepared to use nuclear weapons in smaller scale situations than "Assured Destruction" allowed), and did not deliberately target civilian cities (though they acknowledge that the result of a "purely military" attack would certainly devastate the cities as well). MAD was implied in several U.S. policies and used in the political rhetoric of leaders in both the U.S. and the USSR during many periods of the Cold War.

There are some really funny quips about the, um, rationality of MAD.

So what new does your quote from wiki tell us that havent been mentioned? Firstly if you read the whole article, you can see MAD was not a policy, but MAD is a policy. Just look at the post cold war section of the article and read from there. MAD as a concept is still relevant, although fundamentally terrible option.

[Vladimir]

Among many things that have changed from THE 60'S, MAD was an implied policy decision to deter the use of nuclear weapons between the US and USSR.

Read the section on Official Policy: "Whether MAD was the officially accepted doctrine of the United States military during the Cold War is largely a matter of interpretation."

I don't know if Wiki has an Elvish translation (sorry ~;p) but the details are very important.

Note that this MADness doesn't apply to the current times where multiple states can conceivably launch small scale ballistic strikes against other continents.

[Kagemusha]

Among many things that have changed from THE 60'S, MAD was an implied policy decision to deter the use of nuclear weapons between the US and USSR.

Read the section on Official Policy: "Whether MAD was the officially accepted doctrine of the United States military during the Cold War is largely a matter of interpretation."

I don't know if Wiki has an Elvish translation (sorry ~;p) but the details are very important.

Note that this MADness doesn't apply to the current times where multiple states can conceivably launch small scale ballistic strikes against other continents.

Well when did we talked about 60´s MAD? It seems Vlad my friend, you have some psychic talents, since you are assuming things without any base for your assumptions.
Also what does it matter if MAD was officially accepted doctrine to US or not? All that matters to prove MAD as real phenomena is a simple logic, that if you launch at me, i will launch also against you. Tactical nukes have been around for ages, but it doesnt change the fact that if you launch a nuclear attack against a nuclear power, they will retaliate.
If a certain power gains technology to block that nuclear retaliation capability, it changes the rules, its simple as that. It doesnt matter if i launch ICBM from silo inside the borders of a certain country or park a submarine next to New York and launch a tactical Nuke from near as possible. So please elaborate how tactical nukes and for example dirty bombs have changed this equation and what does placing part of US missile shield to Poland has to do with it?
Ofcourse as it seems, no country has the ability to block a full scale nuclear attack at the moment and it would be good if they couldnt do that in future also. If this missile shield is build against countries like North Korea or Iran. I cant seem to but wonder, does US government think that these states want to commit suicide by attacking US with nuclear weapons?

[Pannonian]

If this missile shield is build against countries like North Korea or Iran. I cant seem to but wonder, does US government think that these states want to commit suicide by attacking US with nuclear weapons?
I think the standard answer is that these countries are unpredictably lunatic and might do anything. Or have they given up that catch-all claim now?

[KrooK]

Heres latest news.
Russian "Kommiersant" ghazette made official reply on polish-american negociations into Washington. Journalist tried to prove that not Russians but Germans murdered Polish POWs into Katyń.
Typical for Russia. I feel sure now that we need not only shield, maybe some real missiles :)

[Fragony]

ghazette's are cool they can run just as fast as cheetah's

[Pannonian]

ghazette's are cool they can run just as fast as cheetah's
You're thinking of gazelles. Gahzettes are more likely to stop and argue with the cheetah about gun control, abortion, and the war in Iraq.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Russian "Kommiersant" ghazette made official reply on polish-american negociations into Washington. Journalist tried to prove that not Russians but Germans murdered Polish POWs into Katyń.
Typical for Russia. I feel sure now that we need not only shield, maybe some real missiles :)

Do you have a link to the original article? I believe you, but I want to see how he tried to connect Katyn and the missile shield.

[CrossLOPER]

Typical for Russia. I feel sure now that we need not only shield, maybe some real missiles :)
You realize that that would make it a missile magnet in the worst of cases, right?

[KukriKhan]

You're thinking of gazelles. Gahzettes are more likely to stop and argue with the cheetah about gun control, abortion, and the war in Iraq.

Priceless.

[Fragony]

You're thinking of gazelles.

Thank you Pannonian, all the time.

[JR-]

I think Russia has every right to complain. A missile shield being placed there clearly shows a mistrust of Russia that is unwarranted. As a European, Russia pointing missiles to Europe would be a valid diplomatic response. This is not the Cold War, so America should not be doing this.
Speaking as a person that resides within the geographic expanse of europe I am utterly, totally, and unambiguously FOR my government and its allies setting in place defensive measures against non-aligned and hostile nation states.

The missiles are a defensive armament.
Russian missiles aimed at the US will be fired from siberia over the North Pole.

If you choose to go jelly-kneed at the Ruskie's belligerence that is your choice, I for one welcome our new Star-Wars overlords.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Speaking as a person that resides within the geographic expanse of europe I am utterly, totally, and unambiguously FOR my government and its allies setting in place defensive measures against non-aligned and hostile nation states.

The missiles are a defensive armament.
Russian missiles aimed at the US will be fired from siberia over the North Pole.

If you choose to go jelly-kneed at the Ruskie's belligerence that is your choice, I for one welcome our new Star-Wars overlords.

1) I only said it would be a valid diplomatic response - not that I want a missile pointed at me, thank you very much.

2) Them pointing missiles at us if the shield goes up would mean that they have very few now.

3) This is not the Cold War. I don't think Russia wants to invade or bomb Europe. Remember, we represent a lot of their trade. Therefore, I don't see Russia as necessarily hostile.

4) If Russia turns missiles to Europe against the shield, that is a RESPONSE. Therefore, somebody had to do the initial action that REQUIRED the RESPONSE. That makes me see the host of the missile shield as more of the belligerent than the ones the shield is obviously directed at.

[MiniMe]

As long as we (RF) and US possess enough nukes to destroy the world we live in and then again, this is a total DEAD-END situation
and it has nothing to do with some kind of cultures/civilization/ideology conflict.
what matters is that both of us have enough nukes. Therefore, we are mutual threat.
Therefore, more is to follow, cause me has some serious doubts that two nations with nuke arsenal like we both have would one fine day stop consider each other a threat.

US is trying to get out of MAD (BTW radar in Czechia, not missiles in Poland is the keypoint here).
Well, I would be the last one to blame them for that.
In fact, if my government finds some way to overcome MAD, that would be good news for me. At least my government, as corrupt and ineffective and lacking_style as they are, are not using Orwellian 1984 novoyaz as their official language.

However, MAD is not to overcome so easily. There are possible effective counter-measures to every action that RF or US can take
The problem is - with every such move we move further to the dangerous edge
More tension to follow. sooner or later

And Poles involvement in this matter is irrelevant. If somebody manages to make money out of it - good for them.
Still, for doing so they better go find explanation that make sense (would do good for diplomacy and trade and all that)
Considering RF a threat to Poland is somewhat ridiculous.
What is it what they have that we might want to take from them?

Cheers

[Banquo's Ghost]

Considering RF a threat to Poland is somewhat ridiculous.
What is it what they have that we might want to take from them?

Poles, like we Irish, have long memories. As romantic peoples, we tend to let those memories colour our present - not always an attractive or useful feature, but part of our cultures nonetheless.

Surprisingly, we share that with another great people - the Russians. I can still wind my wife up like a top chatting casually about the benefits of the Tartar occupation, let alone events of the twentieth century. :bounce:

[MiniMe]

Well everyone has long memories.
Should we consider Poles a threat on a basis they were in Kremlin once?

Hmmm.. Looks like they are a threat after all. Them and French
:bounce:

[Vladimir]

Well everyone has long memories.
Should we consider Poles a threat on a basis they were in Kremlin once?

Hmmm.. Looks like they are a threat after all. Them and French
:bounce:

Swedes, don't forget the Swedes.

[CrossLOPER]

Swedes, don't forget the Swedes.
DON'T FORGET THE MONGOLS HOW CAN YOU FORGET MONGOLS?

EDIT: It's the Poles who are a threat.
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o273/CrossL/poland_world_eater.jpg

[MiniMe]

Swedes, don't forget the Swedes.
Damn those suspicious Swedes!
For three hundred years they ain't revealing themselves and trying to brainwash our youth with Astrid Lindgren propaganda. Who knows what's actually on their mind? Must be secretly preparing something really nasty all these years.
I say we strike first before they betray our trust and backstab us

[KrooK]

And Finns !!! Since beginning of their independence they tried to invade whole USSR.

[MiniMe]

Damn I feel completely surrounded
People, stop feeding my paranoia before I feel urgent need to offer you Mother Russia loving embrace if you know what mean :sneaky:

[Vladimir]

Damn I feel completely surrounded
People, stop feeding my paranoia before I feel urgent need to offer you Mother Russia loving embrace if you know what mean :sneaky:

:laugh4: True, feeding a Russian's paranoia isn't a good thing (they have enough already :grin: ).

[cegorach]

OK. I am back after a long break (damn useless conference...).

Since I will still need some time to finish some modding stuff now I will answer serious questions on Monday, perhaps earlier.



BTW Do not care about the idiotic speach of the Russian envoy to the NATO - he was sent there to remove him from Russian political scene and offend 'the Imperialists' - a double gain according to Kremlin.:inquisitive:
Besides more can be expected before the visit of our PM Donald Tusk to Moscow ...

[cegorach]

There are no replies (on topic at least) which interest me so I will simply do something else instead.



History has also shown us that Mongolia can take over all of Asia. Will that happen again? It's doubtful. Likewise, Poland's European allies are, in the modern day, very reliable. It seems to be Poland's previous government that was stirring the pot. Claiming more votes on the basis that if those killed during WWII were still alive, you'd have more people? Come on,

Our previous PM was ... well.. odd.. he was used to say things without thinking in radio/newspaper/TV interviews and still does - never again...

It was our domestic Chavizm/Putinism in its early stage.

But not only we have problems with spin doctored elections won by a small minority and odd coalition alliances which increase even the risk of such gaffes.





if Poland wants to have the trust of it's European allies, it has to be reasonable to it's European allies.

Actually on military level there was never any doubt - was there ?






Do you have a link to the original article? I believe you, but I want to see how he tried to connect Katyn and the missile shield.

Our PM's visit to Moscow and the Academy Award nomination for A.Wajda's 'Katyn' .:yes:
Second reason a minor one, but happened at the same time which has its consequences - Russian politics tend to have so many layers like in the Soviet Union, especially now under the spook rule.






Oh common at least give me that. I am not nearly as cosmopolitan as your average polish plumber begging you to actually pay them but I never find myselve in such exquisite company such as Cecorach gracing us with his infinite wisdom we so desperatily need here in the civilised world. A shame he gets bored so quikly because their is a wealth of knowledge to be had there, all the test-subjects drinking my homebrew die.

I am glad you have grown to appreciate it.

Besides I am immune to any poison of this kind, though I tend to lack spare time to sustain a discussion in areas which are not a priority to me for that I apologise.






Kagemusha


About saying that Political mudpitt on certain other TW forum is more mature place then backroom, atleast gave me a good laugh.

I tend to disagree, though not because of maturity out there, but because trolls are quickly under a siege - at least in topics which interest me which are not too numerous - just like here.:yes:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Our previous PM was ... well.. odd.. he was used to say things without thinking in radio/newspaper/TV interviews and still does - never again...

It was our domestic Chavizm/Putinism in its early stage.


Fair enough, it happens everywhere at some point.







Actually on military level there was never any doubt - was there ?


I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here?

[cegorach]

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here?


The only good thing I can say about the previous governement - it didn't break security agreements we have and outr reliability (militarywise) was not questioned.



Sometimes on the contrary for example the government ws accused for not bargaining when it was a normal thing (the shield) and for the terrible information policy which was a disgrace like the secrecy when not necessary or even unsuitable for a democratic country.

[cegorach]

Some details about the deal made between the Czechs and the Americans have been disclosed.

1. The agreement will include a separate statement that the shield is to protect NATO states and it will be partly integrated to other NATO defence systems.

2. Czechs will sign the deal in next few weeks and after that it will be ratified by their parliament - so no referendum as expected (recent polls give majority support for the projects ).

3. The installation will be built betwen 2010 and 2013.

4. Czech and US soldiers will work together in the base, but there will be no unified command structure.






It means that some of the demands made by the Polish government are included in the deal with the Czechs too.
This makes it considerably easier to sign the agreement between Poland and the USA in March this year during the visit of our PM D.Tusk on the 10th of March.

[Fragony]

I am glad you have grown to appreciate it.

Besides I am immune to any poison of this kind, though I tend to lack spare time to sustain a discussion in areas which are not a priority to me for that I apologise.

I can see how that came to be. Who needs a shield I can think of something they couldn't possibly miss.

[Kralizec]

Without bothering to read the entire thread, I'll say that I didn't understand why everybody cared so much about the Russians' objections anyway (in general, frankly). We're talking about Polish soil, and it's not as if clear passage for outgoing nuclear missiles is a sovereign right.

I'm a bit surprised though, I thought that Tusk was against the missile shield.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm a bit surprised though, I thought that Tusk was against the missile shield.

Me too. I'm glad that he's going along with it.

[CrossLOPER]

Without bothering to read the entire thread, I'll say that I didn't understand why everybody cared so much about the Russians' objections anyway (in general, frankly). We're talking about Polish soil...
Possibly because whenever Russia does anything or appears to have a remote connection to an event everyone starts shrieking at the top of their lungs.

Historical precedent is the most likely and best answer I can give.

[cegorach]

Without bothering to read the entire thread, I'll say that I didn't understand why everybody cared so much about the Russians' objections anyway (in general, frankly). We're talking about Polish soil, and it's not as if clear passage for outgoing nuclear missiles is a sovereign right.

I'm a bit surprised though, I thought that Tusk was against the missile shield.

Actually no serious party in Poland against it and certainly NOT D.Tusk. I know him as a politician since the early 1990s and I am sure it would be against his ideas.

It was always about FOR HOW MUCH and on what terms - the former government was utterly incompetent that it almost looked like they are trying to sabotage our foreign policy and ths project too - especially thanks to their psychotic (des)information policy and secrecy.

I was actually suprized that some media thought so - it only proves their journalists do really lousy job in Poland and should be fired.

Another proof how much damage can do roughly two years of lousy government in our times, because suddenly now normal negotiations look like anti-americanism or God knows what to some people.
They should have longer memory than the last two years anyway - they are paid by their bloody agencies to do so after all...

[Kralizec]

Actually no serious party in Poland against it and certainly NOT D.Tusk.

It was always about FOR HOW MUCH and on what terms - the former government was utterly incompetent that it almost looked like they are trying to sabotage our foreign policy and ths project too - especially thanks to their psychotic (des)information policy and secrecy.

I was actually suprized that some media thought so - it only proves their journalists do really lousy job in Poland and should be fired.

Another proof how much damage can do roughly two years of lousy government in our times.


Easy on the caps.

I don't know much about Polish politics, I just remembered that when Tusk was freshly elected he said that he'd reconsider the whole deal and that he's generally more sceptical than the twins when it comes to foreign relations (in this case, with America)

And that, coincidentally, the Russians lifted their meat embargo immediately afterwards.

[cegorach]

Easy on the caps.

Sorry, that was for confort of the reader not to express anything.



I don't know much about Polish politics, I just remembered that when Tusk was freshly elected he said that he'd reconsider the whole deal and that he's generally more sceptical than the twins when it comes to foreign relations (in this case, with America)

True - repeating something the Civic Platform called for for last years - bad information policy or lack of it actually made that even more obvious - the negotiations had to be concluded in professional way and the appointed by Tusk ministers Sikorski ( Foreign) and Klich (Defence) were supposed to analyse what was done and what should be done.

The speech was a part of the new negotiation policy.



And that, coincidentally, the Russians lifted their meat embargo immediately afterwards.

Which was directly after Poland lifted our veto to the opening of Russian negotiations with OECD (not the other one about energy negotiations) - the veto which...noone knew we actually used such 'transparent' was policy of the previous government and their 'side kick' the puppet president.:yes:

[cegorach]

Tusk is in Moscow right now and at this very moment he is answering questions also about the shiled.

He just spoke to Putin - after the meetings with his puppets.

[cegorach]

Here is what he said


17.28. - Z prezydentem Putinem długo rozmawialiśmy o tarczy antyrakietowej. Nie jest on entuzjastą tego rozwiązania, ale rozumie prawo Polski do decydowania o tym - podkreśla Tusk. Jak dodaje, kwestia monitoringu czy inspekcji rosyjskiej (która udowodniłaby Rosji, że tarcza nie jest wymierzona w nią) to kwestia konsultacji i rozmów.

17.32. - ale głównym rozmówcą Polski ws. tarczy są Stany Zjednoczone. to, jak wyglądać będzie instalacja tarczy, ustalane będzie najpierw w Polsce, potem - ze Stanami - mówi Tusk. O sprawie inspekcji rosyjskiej: - Jakaś przestrzeń, która rozładowałaby napięcie jest. ale nasze rozmowy nie dotyczyły dziś sprawy inspekcji. Rząd polski nie zakłada trwałej obecności wojsk trzecich na terenie baz. Czy jest jakaś formuła, która zadowoliłaby obie strony? Nie wykluczam, że tak.

17.28 - We discussed the question of the missile shield for a long time with president Putin. He is not too enthusiastic about the project, but understand the right of Poland to decide about it. The question of possible monitoring of the installation by a Russian inspection (which would prove that the shield is not prepared against it) will be discussed.

17.32. but about the shield we will talk to the United States - how the installation will look like we will decide first in Poland, next with the USA.
About the Russian inspection - there is some space to relieve the tension, but we didn't discussed that question together.
Our government doesn't assume that there will be any third side forces present in those bases. If there is a possible solution which will accomodate both sides - I don't say there is not.

[Rameusb5]

Didn't read the entire thread, so appologies if this has already been mentioned.

My theory is this has EVERYTHING to do with Defense contract spending and not much else. Back in 2000 we started to hear about this right after the president was elected.

This year, the statement was made that "they were going to build it but not use it," which pretty much screams "Hey, I've got buddies in the defense industry that will make millions off of this."

This has everything to do with making friends of the administration money and zero to do with national defense. Russia is as big a threat to our country as France or Israel.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This could be escalating a little more than necessary:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7234817.stm

[MiniMe]

after the meetings with his puppets.
Dear cegorach
I believe your terminology to be unappropriate
I would never allow myself to give any kind of names to Your government and officials.
Neither would media or representatives of my country (me knows only one Russian journalist who has foul mouth and I'm embarrassed he is Russian)
Whatever is your opinion on my country or my people, please, do abstain from using such words as mentioned above for the sake of ye own cause this may somehow undermine your argumentation

Cheers

[cegorach]

Fair enough - I will use more neutral terminology.

I am hardly much forgiving to our governement too - we don't have a president, but a brother of the former PM for example - if that is any excuse, of course.

BTW Good point with the remarks in the TWC Mudpit - those Russians are real extremists for sure - there are maybe 2-3 sensible people who post rarely unfortunatelly. Activate your reputation on TWC - you will surely receive some points in no time.:2thumbsup:

[MiniMe]

BTW Good point with the remarks in the TWC Mudpit - those Russians are real extremists for sure - there are maybe 2-3 sensible people who post rarely unfortunatelly. Activate your reputation on TWC - you will surely receive some points in no time.:2thumbsup:
That was my last post there :laugh4:
The problem with mudpit debates is they are completely mudpitish
twc moderation policy is a complete mystery to me as I see people throwing insults to each other in almost every post there and nothing else.
not exactly my type of conversation

and, of course, I feel unable to side with Zee .Czar even though I think he is exactly what majority of his opponents deserve :laugh4: