Russia threatens to 'strike' Poland in wake of U.S. missile plan

quote:

---

A Russian general says the recently negotiated deal to allow the United States to place a missile interceptor base in Poland "cannot go unpunished."

Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian general staff, made the comment to reporters on Friday.

Nogovitsyn was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying Poland was risking attack by agreeing to the deal.

"Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike —100 per cent," he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
This Russian general should get a lot of support in the West. He sounds like John F. Kennedy

---

The real story is that the Poles got themselves a better deal after the US client in Georgia took such a well-deserved drubbing from the Russians. The Americans wanted all their missiles ducks in a row after that, and needed to bring their other clients in Europe, such as they are, together for pro-imperial "solidarity". As it is, the key states like France, Germany, even Italy, Japan, China, Turkey, ... told the US where to get off. The Americans had to call all their favors to make things look good.

I know it will cause some heads to explode here but I say good for the Poles. If the Americans are going to use Polish territory for war preparations then at least the Polish military should get something out of it. They can always get rid of the NMDs at a later date and keep the Patriot missiles (compliments of the Americans) for their own security. Who said Poles were dumb?

ONE OTHER POINT: the Russian General might have been suckered by the journalists present. It might be useful to go over the press conference with a fine tooth comb and get the whole thing, from start to finish, and see if my suspicions have any merit. I'm only speculating on a hypothesis right now.

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

The Cuban missles were offensive missles. Doesn't the current USA-Poland agreement relate to defensive installations (missle interceptors)?

---

Am not so sure I believe that the Polish got a better deal than they would have otherwise, but rather may "also" have been strong armed in some other way.

And I am not so sure these events can be dissepatate from the Georgian actiuvities, as was this signing already in the books before last week, or came about after last week?

Moreover, how soon is Poland supposed to get these missles?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
The Cuban missles were offensive missles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Yes, apparently the missiles are intended as a defense against Iranian offensive missiles carrying nukes. There are three problems with that: 1) The Iranians don't have nukes. 2) Iran doesn't have missiles with such a reach (the Western corporate media made much with allegations that Iranian missile tests were faked and even those wouldn't reach Poland). 3) The people making all of the claims are proven liars. Russia would be nuts to take the word of any of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Yes, and that all being said, what's happening in Poland (defensive missiles) is not analogous to what happened in Cuba--the stationing of offensive nuclear weapons in Cuba).

---

It’s going to be a dangerous game.

Also, I think this will damage Russian-USA cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation initiatives and other matters of interest to both countries (and to the world generally).

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Could we have your links to the intelligence reports where this is confirmed? So you have absolute proof that Poland is not being given nukes? Wow I am impressed because you know it is really hard to keep the facts straight when America talks about who has and who doesn't have WMD. Israel doesn't officially have nukes either right?

---

You're right. I can't prove that the Americans are not installing offensive nuclear weapons in Poland (I can't prove a negative).

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
What is the difference between "defensive" missles and "offensive" missles, other than propaganda spin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
What is the difference between "defensive" missles and "offensive" missles, other than propaganda spin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

You're right. I can't prove that the Americans are not installing offensive nuclear weapons in Poland (I can't prove a negative).

So, why don't you show us intelligence reports that prove that the Americans are installing offenseive nuclear weapons in Poland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by popfro:
Patriot missiles are defensive in nature, they are meant to shoot down incoming missiles. They are not effective against a full scale nuclear strike (as anyone who ever played Missile Command can attest to), however they may be useful against a very limited strike, just the kind that someone mentioned in Russia's military doctrine.

---

defensive missiles according to wikipedia. They are a part of an air defense system. A defensive missile would not be used to blow up a ground target. There are dozens of these types of defensive missile systems in the world. For example, the Hawk and SAM missile systems.

Therefore, it allows NATO to operate in a conventional environment with added nuclear capability, and such conventional capability can be applied offensively or defensively, regardless.

Lots of analysis on this, much of it from the Pentagon, and the War College. Sorry none of that is covered in the game Missile Command.

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Sven, your point about offensive vs. defensive missle systems is weak, for reasons going back to the beginning of the use of fortified structures.

Defensive positions are not passive. They weren't when Henry the whatever was building strongholds along the Welch border, and they're certainly not in Europe today. A good defensive postion is one from which an offence may be mounted with impunity. Iran's nukes being used as an excuse is spurious. This is pure cold war provocative sabre rattling. It's just the sort of dick waving that contributed to the Franco Prussian war and WWI.

---

quote:

---

Lots of analysis on this, much of it from the Pentagon, and the War College. Sorry none of that is covered in the game Missile Command.

---

Wikipedia apparently backs the real-world applicability of Missile Command:

quote:

---

Missile Command is considered one of the great classic video games from the Golden Age of Arcade Games. The game is also interesting in its manifestation of the Cold War's effects on popular culture, in that the game features an implementation of National Missile Defense and parallels real life nuclear war.

---

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:
Good for Poland, they held out for a "better deal" on their missiles; now they will have plenty of American supplied military equipment around for the Russians to destroy when they attack to take out the missiles... As we've seen this past week US military aid is a unbeatable guarantee that Russia will be afraid to attack you

---

Do you think Russia is stupid enough to attack a NATO country?

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Actually Sven, I said your point was weak.

BTW, know much about chess? Bush for sure doesn't, but some of the people working for him do. Pity the Russians tend to be better at it.

---

My "point" was that the distinctions between offensive and defensive missile systems are significant.

So, persumably, by saying that my "point" was weak, you are disagreeing with the substance of my "point" (that the distinctions between offensive and defensive missile systems are weak).

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:
Well the were "stupid" enough to attack Georgia... in your opinion that was stupid wasn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

My "point" was that the distinctions between offensive and defensive missile systems are significant.

So, persumably, by saying that my "point" was weak, you are disagreeing with the substance of my "point" (that the distinctions between offensive and defensive missile systems are weak).

Am I missing something?

---

Yes, objectivity, knowledge and intelligence.

There is no substance to your point. Defence and offence have a symbiotic relationship, as OG pointed out. For example, the defensive zone in the Saar known as the Siegfried line, a line of classic fortifications, trenches, tank traps, and gun emplacements, was an essential component of the German strategy that allowed them to invade Poland the Benalux and France in 1939/1940, without them Germany could have been directly invaded by French army when Germany declared war on Poland.

But you know shit, so...

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Well, if the distinctions between offensive and defensive missile systems are "weak", then presumably the Russians wouldn't care if we put offensive nuclear missiles in Poland instead of defensive interceptor missiles, correct?

---

Russian generals have said the proposed ABM shields for Poland and Czechia represents an offensive maneuver for which any text book on military strategy states will necessitate a counter manouver. It's obvious that since dissolution of the USSR, NATO has moved to encircle Russia(and China) with military bases, attacked and bombed Yugoslavia, a long-time Russian ally, and with what has been constant military and geopolitical aggression on that side of the world.

quote:

---

Am I missing something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Russian generals have said the proposed ABM shields for Poland and Czechia represents an offensive maneuver for which any text book on military strategy states will necessitate a counter manouver. It's obvious that since dissolution of the USSR, NATO has moved to encircle Russia(and China) with military bases, attacked and bombed Yugoslavia, a long-time Russian ally, and with what has been constant military and geopolitical aggression on that side of the world.

---

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Russia is welcome to implement a "counter manouver" and put in its own missile defense systems. We've never objected to that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Doesn't the current USA-Poland agreement relate to defensive installations (missle interceptors)?

---

So-called 'missile defence' systems are not purely defensive: they are offence-enablers.

A Rand study puts it this way:

quote:

---

...in the face of utter defeat by U.S. conventional forces, an enemy regime could threaten such an attack in order to deter the United States--and conceivably carry out the threat if the United States were not deterred. An unprovoked attack is far-fetched; a coercion scenario is not. Perhaps such a threat would backfire, producing even greater American fury in response to it. However, the United States might be paralyzed if so threatened, especially if it thought the adversary might be desperate enough to make good on the threat.

So ballistic missile defense is not simply a shield but an enabler of U.S. action. Although the United States presumably would not be deterred by a rogue's missile threat from intervening abroad to protect literally vital U.S. interests, the inability to act in defense of less-than-vital interests would severely undermine the U.S. international role and the peace and security that depend on that role.

---

So, they argue, Russia should not be concerned by expansion of the US anti-missile system into Poland (or elsewhere): it's aimed at 'rogues,' not at Russia.

Unfortunately for such BMD-boosters, claims that an anti-missile system poses no threat to Russia have been undermined quite recently:

quote:

---

Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
This last passage is taken from the website of a certain American Senator, one John McCain, and is unlikely to reassure the Russian government about American claims that the anti-missile system, the grandchild of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars plan, is purely defensive and not aimed at Russia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I suppose hawks wouldn't mind if ABM was extended to Cuba? Venezuela? When does this thing end, Sven?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Russia is welcome to implement a "counter manouver" and put in its own missile defense systems. We've never objected to that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I'm not sure that it would matter if Cuba or Venezuela put in ABMs. It would probably be a waste of money for them, but have at it.

---

Or, why would Russians not feel the need to build more nuclear weapons to counter this new offensive threat? There are still more than 730 U.S. military bases around the world. U.S. is the only nuclear power with missiles on foreign soil and roaming the seven seas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
LOL I tried to type something in response but this was just too funny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Russia’s actions and the responses to those actions that will come from Washington (and other countries) will likely have long-term detrimental effects.

---

From The New York Times:

quote:

---

Those fears [of past Russian aggressions towards its neighbors] were codified to some degree in what Polish and American officials characterized as unusual aspects of the final deal: that at least temporarily American soldiers would staff air defense sites in Poland oriented toward Russia, and that the United States would be obliged to defend Poland in case of an attack with greater speed than required under NATO, of which Poland is a member.

Polish officials said the agreement would strengthen the mutual commitment of the United States to defend Poland, and vice versa. “Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later — it is no good when assistance comes to dead people,” the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Polish television.

[snip]

“It is this kind of agreement, not the split between Russia and United States over the problem of South Ossetia, that may have a greater impact on the growth in tensions in Russian-American relations,” Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Russian Parliament, told the Interfax news agency on Thursday in Moscow.

---

Now, if there was “ethnic cleansing” going on in the two Georgian provinces (and the ground reports are far from clear on that subject) and if Russia had, in a limited manner, stepped in to stop that, I think the escalation of this to a crisis might have been avoided.

But, where Georgia likely miscalculated in its initial actions in the provinces, Russia has obviously miscalculated by driving deep into Georgia—far in excess of what would have been necessary to stop any “ethnic cleansing”.

All they need to do now is sit with their military fist shoved up the Saakashvili's ass, and carry endless negotiations (ala Israel) that will go nowhere, and will amount to nothing for long enough for the Georgians to get tired of Saakashvili, and remove him. All talk of Georgia becoming part of NATO will cease as of now.

You played, you lost. Try a new game.

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Now, if there was “ethnic cleansing” going on in the two Georgian provinces (and the ground reports are far from clear on that subject) and if Russia had, in a limited manner, stepped in to stop that, I think the escalation of this to a crisis might have been avoided.

---

2000 civilians and ten Russian peacekeepers were just murdered after a U.S. proxy launched rocket attacks on the capital of Ossetia. 30 thousand Ossetes have fled to Russia. Saakashvili's U.S.-trained and armed soldiers outfitted in Nazi paratrooper-like garb, fled the scene of the crime after the Russians did intervene. "Ein Volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer" is being perpetrated by U.S. stooge Saakasvili as surely as the U.S. supported cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo and Croatia.

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Now, if there was “ethnic cleansing” going on in the two Georgian provinces (and the ground reports are far from clear on that subject)

---

quote:

---

So, the cycle of escalation has begun.

---

quote:

---

And, if anyone is gleeful about it, their glee is misplaced and naïve.

---

It is a nasty word today, and another one turned on its other side, to be used to denigrate progressives who are speaking out against USA hegemony and their inciting the world into war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Nice try, no cigar, at framing conceptions towards a notion that Georgia was not ethnic cleansing when it attacked South Ossetia, and the ground reports ARE quite clear that the Georgians did so.

---

I'm reserving judgment for the moment regarding whether or not there was "ethnic cleansing".

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Yep, and all started by your country and your leaders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Of course you do. It's the Unified Theory of Babble hard at work...and as reliable as ever!!

---

It's starting to sound like a blame the victim mentality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Somehow that has failed to be reported on, got any links?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Of course you do.

---

quote:

---

It's the Unified Theory of Babble hard at work...and as reliable as ever!!

---

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

And, HeywoodFloyd, not just run-of-the-mill links either, but “links to the intelligence reports where this is confirmed”!!

---

What do people think of my view that the United States should keep its dirty hands off Europe?

And that Russia should keep its dirty hands off its neighbours?

That includes no treaties and "mutual defence" frauds of the kind which produced two world wars.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
If you've been listening to right-wing US radio and the "Liberal" news media, Russia has just attacked Georgia for no apparent reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
What do people think of my view that the United States should keep its dirty hands off Europe?

And that Russia should keep its dirty hands off its neighbours?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:

That's not true anymore. I've noticed a remarkable change in reporting in just the last 24 hours. Georgia is being noted as the initial aggressor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the "conventional" news sources but I've had this impression as well. It's an interesting development. I wonder if the whole thing is just so blazingly obvious they could no longer deny it? Or if there's a kind of developing consensus that it's in American (and surely European) interests to acknowledge this.

---

I think the media are beginning to conclude:

■ Georgia used military force first and was not legitimately provoked to do so.

■ That it’s unclear whether Georgia was engaged in “ethnic cleansing”

quote:

---

Russia's ambassador to NATO has compared the U.S. missile defense system to "a dead cat," since its effectiveness can only be verified as a result of reciprocal thermonuclear missile strikes.

"The Europeans have received a 'dead cat' from the Americans," Dmitry Rogozin said, commenting on the U.S.-Polish missile-defense deal, signed Thursday.

He said that if the threat really came from Iran, as the U.S. says it does, it would be more "logical to deploy U.S. missile defense elements on NATO's southern flanks - in Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania."

---

This means that the Americans have overplayed their hand.

quote:

---

Rogozin said that by signing the agreement with the United States, Poland has effectively confirmed that Russia is the focus of the missile shield.

"The Poles should be thanked for helping reveal the strategic goal of the U.S. missile defense plan," Dmitry Rogozin said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

---

Those clever, clever Poles. Even the Russian bear is praising them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:

Good idea. Does anyone have a pair of rose coloured glasses I can borrow to I enjoy this scenario?

---

I didn't suggest it would happen. I'm suggesting what stand Canada should take. Something like:

- Canada out of NATO and NORAD.
- U.S. out of Europe.
- Russia stop threatening its neighbours.
- Abrogation of all bilateral or multilateral military treaties, except as may be sanctioned by the U.N.
- No country attacks another except in self-defence, and then only long enough to ward off the attack and have the matter dealt with by the Security Council.

I think there's a thread around here somewhere about Canada's defence or foreign policy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the "conventional" news sources but I've had this impression as well. It's an interesting development. I wonder if the whole thing is just so blazingly obvious they could no longer deny it? Or if there's a kind of developing consensus that it's in American (and surely European) interests to acknowledge this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
You forgot the reform of the security council so that the Big Powers Club doesn't control the agenda anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Sorry Sven I will try not to dream of peace and how it might look. In the future I will, like you, just accept that the US and other big powers can never be reined in. Yes as well I will not worry about poverty because the poor will always be with us. Anything else that I've missed that would be ridiculous to contemplate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

As long as the USA, Russia and China have vastly disproportionate military power relative to the rest of the world, it won’t matter who is on or off the Security Council. Those three countries respond to real politik, not the U.N. bureaucratic structures.

---

The other alternative, although it is highly improbable, would be for the big powers to voluntary cede military power to the rest of the world.

Military Spending Comparisons You see I have hope that some day the Us will develop a true democracy and that its leasers will stop the out of control arms race with themselves.

48% of the world's military spending is done by the US. Europe sits at 20& and China at 8% and Russia at 5%. NATO seems to be spending two thirds of the while amount.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
If only those three countries were on the Security Council, the US would be out-voted nine times out of ten in matters where the US wants military action on their side of the world.

---

So, you think the U.K. and France would voluntarily step down and give that power to Russia and China?

quote:

---

“Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 percent” certain, Russia’s Interfax news agency quoted General Anatoly Nogovitsyn as saying.

“It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority,” Gen Nogovitsy was quoted as saying.

He added that Russia’s military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons “against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them,” Interfax said.

---

Russian general says Poland a nuclear 'target'

Clearly the general is saying that in the event of a nuclear war Poland's missile system will be a primary target, not that they will attack Poland if it installs the system.

quote:

---

The deal is still to be approved by the two countries' governments and Poland's parliament.

---

We will see how smart the Poles are if they sign it, considering:

quote:

---

Russian officials earlier said Moscow could deploy its Iskander tactical missiles and strategic bombers in Belarus and Russia's westernmost exclave of Kaliningrad if Washington succeeded in its missile shield plans in Europe. Moscow also warned it could target its missiles on Poland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

So, you think the U.K. and France would voluntarily step down and give that power to Russia and China?

Not likely.

---

quote:

---

Russian officials earlier said Moscow could deploy its Iskander tactical missiles and strategic bombers in Belarus and Russia's westernmost exclave of Kaliningrad if Washington succeeded in its missile shield plans in Europe. Moscow also warned it could target its missiles on Poland.

---

It totally slipped my notice that Russia hung on to Kallingrad after Lithuania seperated. Kallingrad, formerly Memel, has alternately been a Lithuanian and a German province over the last 500 years or so. Just prior to Lithuania being annexed by the USSR in 1940, the German force Lithuania to cede the province to them just before WW2 began.

It is not the first time in this conflict that phrases by Russian public figures have been used, by isolated quotes or mis-quotes, to produce a misleading impression.

The remark about Georgian territorial integrity being "out of the question" by the Russian Foreign Minister turns out to be an interpretation of his remarks to the effect that the Ossetians and Abkhazians will never trust the Georgians again enough to be absorbed into the Georgian state. Some media reports spun the Minister's remarks to mean that Georgia itself, proper, not including the two regions, was going to be permanently occupied by the Russians and that that was what the Minister said or implied.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

So, you think the U.K. and France would voluntarily step down and give that power to Russia and China?

Not likely.

---

The UNSC, IMF, WTO North-western hemispheric setup is not a democracy as it is, Sven. A handful of rich countries dictate economic agendas by military force to a vast and disproportionate majority of human beings currently suffer dictates of a western cabal of banksters, UNSC and criminal leaders of NATO countries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Thanks for that little bit of investigation Cueball.

---

Yes, its pretty clear that he is saying that Poland will be taken into account as part of any nuclear strike or counter strike contingency plan, a fact that should be bleeding obvious to the people installing the system. He is emphasizing this point, for political effect at this point in time, not saying anything provocatively threatening at all really.

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Those three countries respond to real politik, not the U.N. bureaucratic structures.

---

If Canada and other countries refuse to recognize their dictate, neither the U.S. nor Russia will go far. As it is, the U.S. can't win a war. Never underestimate their need to build "coalitions".

Ukraine vows to implement orders on Russia fleet

quote:

---

Under a 1997 agreement, Ukraine agreed to lease harbour space in the Crimea peninsula base of Sevastopol until 2017.

Yushchenko and other officials say Ukraine has no intention of extending the lease and have called for negotiations to ensure for an orderly departure of the fleet by 2017 -- a position strongly criticised by the Kremlin.

Nationalist Russian politicians regularly suggest that Moscow should reclaim Sevastopol -- or even all of Crimea -- as its own territory.

Crimea, part of Russia from the late 18th century, was handed to Soviet Ukraine by Kremlin leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1954 when the collapse of communism was unthinkable. It reverted to independent Ukraine when Soviet rule collapsed in 1991. (Writing by Ron Popeski; Editing by Caroline Drees)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The Cuban missles were offensive missles. Doesn't the current USA-Poland agreement relate to defensive installations (missle interceptors)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Kallingrad, formerly Memel, has alternately been a Lithuanian and a German province over the last 500 years or so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Krago:
What is "Gladio-style fear" and how does it differ from say, ZANU-PF-style fear?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The Cuban missles were offensive missles. Doesn't the current USA-Poland agreement relate to defensive installations (missle interceptors)?

---

Cutting to the chase: no question that placing the missle shield in Poland is part of the encirclement of Russia.

Said encirclement added to the ferocity of Russia's iron fist in Georgia. Which in turn gets US to speed up, not rethink, placing of the encircling missles.

Next up...

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

As to Kallingrad- it is far west territory of Russia. Maybe they can even afford to subsidize it now. Last I heard- before the petrodollars started rolling in, hard times had hit there much harder than the rest of Russia.

---

Did you know that in 2006, life expectancy for black American males was lower than that for males in Iran, Colombia, and Sri Lanka? Perhaps a good shallacking of Iran will take care of such troubling statistics as it did for Iraqis whose national health was constantly improving before the ten year-long U.S.-led medieval siege and then shock and appall over Baghdad.

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Meanwhile the majority of Poles were opposed to offensive U.S. missiles proposed for their country one year ago.

And the majority of Czechs are opposed to offensive radar installations in their country. A national referendum was proposed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Obviously those who are most likely to suffer from the effects of a general European war, are also those who respect the idea that there can be a neutral buffer zone between NATO and Russia.

---

That's a very good point.

eta: A Lou Dobbs commentator says European leaders also realize where 30% of their oil and 50% of natural gas comes from, which would be Russia.

I still think Cueball makes a salient point. War is the ultimate failure of leadership. WW I was profitable but led to collapse of Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, German, and Russian empires, and gave birth to the Soviet Union. As well, the failure of capitalism and terrible war had the effect of martyring millions of people and paving the way for social democracy around the western world.

WW II was profitable but led to the end of Japanese empire as well as the third reich, and Britain and France were weakened to second-rank powers. War on Europe's doorsteps, in Russia and China, propelled the U.S. to premier world economic power as well as aggressive military-driven empire. The Soviets were trying to build socialism in one country when western aggression against the revolution part two occurred. The only country which might possibly benefit from megadeath-type conflict is the same country and its capitalists which profited most from the last terrible world war.

[ 16 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

"Russia is not going to launch nuclear missiles at anybody," Defense Secretary Gates said on ABC News' "This Week." "The Poles know that. We know it."

---

U.S.' Gates Scoffs at Russian Warnings to Poland

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Pretty soon the whole US will be believing that the Russians just threatened to attack Poland, when they did no such thing.

---

Bill Engdahl says the US is maneuvering toward colder war and full spectrum domination:

Missile Defense: Washington and Poland just moved the World closer to War said

quote:

---

Now, despite repeated diplomatic attempts by Russia to come to an agreement with Washington, the Bush Administration, in the wake of a humiliating US defeat in Georgia, has pressured the Government of Poland to finally sign the pact. The consequences could be unthinkable for Europe and the planet.

---

Russian generals are said to have been frightened over the swiftness with which the US military invaded Iraq. They nuked up as a result. And now the US is pushing the boundaries, slowly but surely.

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You seem to be missing the point. Anatoly Nogovitsyn did not say they were going to attack Poland if they installed the US weapons system. What he said was that because the system was there, Poland would be added to the list of targets in the event of a Nuclear confrontation.

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

I didn't miss it. And I don't believe the Russians threatened Poland with military attack. And I know what I read about a Russian military general's comment on NATO's proposed ABM missile shield representing a threat to Russia's own missile defence(or offensive ability, take your pick)

And sometimes there are just too many crucial variables surrounding them to make them useful.

[And whether or not they are deliberate red herrings is another of those endlessly punning loops.]

ETA: "punning loops". Sometimes my endlessly running dislexic typos are funny.

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]