[Bacardi4206]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, for anyone who supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq--resulting in a war that has killed somewhere between 100,000 and one million people and has created an estimated four million refugees--or that has supported various neo-conservatives initatives such as torture and arbitrary detainment, it's realy a little rich to hear you complaining of Russian "aggression."

Seeing how this is a topic about Russian Argression, why would I complain about U.S. agression? That makes no sense. Re-think your post.

[romanP]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

romanP romanP:

Demian_164 Demian_164:

i never said they didnt work did i? The russians question whether it really is a missile defense system or if it is targeted at them. Like i said, they dont trust the stated intentions of the program-they dont believe it is strictly missile defense-which is why they are upset.

Either way, anyone who's ever played Risk knows that the second you start building anything that looks like war, whether it's defensive or offensive, you open yourself to attack.

In risk doesn't leaving a country undefended leave yourself open for attack as well?

Yes, it does. But in the case of nuclear weapons, if you're going to be attacked, especially with the counter-defenses built into them, you're better off dead if someone attacks you with them. If the explosion doesn't kill you, the radiation will.

Of course, if we were playing Risk 2210, I'd just pull out my Frequency Jam card on the guy with the most nukes and then he wouldn't be able to do anything

[roger-roger]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Nukes are a dangerous weapon, and a waste of space of a invention.

So all the technologial advances made by/and from research into nuclear weapons should be scrapped at well then eh?

[Zipperfish]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, for anyone who supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq--resulting in a war that has killed somewhere between 100,000 and one million people and has created an estimated four million refugees--or that has supported various neo-conservatives initatives such as torture and arbitrary detainment, it's realy a little rich to hear you complaining of Russian "aggression."

Seeing how this is a topic about Russian Argression, why would I complain about U.S. agression? That makes no sense. Re-think your post.

It makes sense to me, and to at least one other person who's commented. The idea is that one should apply the same precepts and draw applicable parallels between the two to come up with appropriate policy responses to both situations.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, for anyone who supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq--resulting in a war that has killed somewhere between 100,000 and one million people and has created an estimated four million refugees--or that has supported various neo-conservatives initatives such as torture and arbitrary detainment, it's realy a little rich to hear you complaining of Russian "aggression."

Seeing how this is a topic about Russian Argression, why would I complain about U.S. agression? That makes no sense. Re-think your post.

It makes sense to me, and to at least one other person who's commented. The idea is that one should apply the same precepts and draw applicable parallels between the two to come up with appropriate policy responses to both situations.

Ahhh...but if a few nations that can be targeted by Russian aggression decide not to wait around and twiddle their thumbs, and willingly sign up for a plan that at least would tell Russia they aren't their bitch anymore...you complain. So, if Iran makes a nuclear weapon, its okay because America the aggressor might attack it and it's purely defensive. So when Poland decides to join a US proposal to create a PURELY defensive weapon, with zero offensive capability...you complain because they're protecting themselves against Russian aggression? OOOH or is it because they're siding with the "evil" Americans?

The Poles created policy responses through signing on to an American program to counter possible Russian policy that seems more apparent now.

[roger-roger]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Ahhh...but if a few nations that can be targeted by Russian aggression decide not to wait around and twiddle their thumbs, and willingly sign up for a plan that at least would tell Russia they aren't their bitch anymore...you complain. So, if Iran makes a nuclear weapon, its okay because America the aggressor might attack it and it's purely defensive. So when Poland decides to join a US proposal to create a PURELY defensive weapon, with zero offensive capability...you complain because they're protecting themselves against Russian aggression? OOOH or is it because they're siding with the "evil" Americans?

The Poles created policy responses through signing on to an American program to counter possible Russian policy that seems more apparent now.

No I think he is saying if you are all gung ho about invading Iraq and are all for regime change, you are a hypocrite to say Russia is being a big bully and shouldn’t be starting wars.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Ahhh...but if a few nations that can be targeted by Russian aggression decide not to wait around and twiddle their thumbs, and willingly sign up for a plan that at least would tell Russia they aren't their bitch anymore...you complain. So, if Iran makes a nuclear weapon, its okay because America the aggressor might attack it and it's purely defensive. So when Poland decides to join a US proposal to create a PURELY defensive weapon, with zero offensive capability...you complain because they're protecting themselves against Russian aggression? OOOH or is it because they're siding with the "evil" Americans?

The Poles created policy responses through signing on to an American program to counter possible Russian policy that seems more apparent now.

No, you miss the point. As usual, I might add. I don't really subscribe to the notions of "good" and "evil" except as they apply to individuals. So, I don't see the America as good or evil. I see them as trying to further their interests by increasing their power. They do this in much the same way the Russians are doing it.

Iran would do well for itself to get a nuclear weapon--at least I'm sure that's the way Iran sees it. It wouldn't be good for the world or for Canada, but the cases of North Korea and Pakistan have demonstrated that it least seems to remove the option of invasion by the US. Or, how did you so poetically put it--to make Iran America's "bitch."

I don't recall "complaining" about the missile defence option the US is proposing for Poland either--go back and read my posts in this thread on the topic.

My solution is typically liberal and very out of vogue: more use mulilateral institutions and international forums.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

No, you miss the point. As usual, I might add.

Actually, no, you made no point, as usual. I just keep making the mistaken assumption that you had one. Looking over your posts you have two "points": One about how nuclear weapons will bring humanity to a close just as quick.

Your second point is that people who supported the Iraq war are being hypocritical and another post defending that stance.

You never posted your solution, or even anything really about the Poland missile defense shield, just one thing about nuclear weapons in general and another about the hypocritical stance between those who support the US with Iraq and who are opposed to Russia.

$1:

I don't really subscribe to the notions of "good" and "evil" except as they apply to individuals. So, I don't see the America as good or evil. I see them as trying to further their interests by increasing their power. They do this in much the same way the Russians are doing it.

Oh but the United States is furthering its power by using defence treaties and other things of that sort with Eastern European powers, and yet a good number of this thread has an issue with it for one reason or another. It doesn't work, it angers Russia, it helps the USA, blah blah blah.

So you see absolutely no issue with what the US is doing in Poland or the Czech Republic? Yes or no, make it simple instead of going on a tangent.

$1:

Iran would do well for itself to get a nuclear weapon--at least I'm sure that's the way Iran sees it. It wouldn't be good for the world or for Canada, but the cases of North Korea and Pakistan have demonstrated that it least seems to remove the option of invasion by the US. Or, how did you so poetically put it--to make Iran America's "bitch."

Did I ever say that? Hmm, guess I'm enjoying Hawaii too much to bother remembering. Anyway, first, Pakistan has nuclear weapons not to counter a possibility of an US invasion, but to counter India's nuclear weapon program. I'll assume this was a mistake made in jest or a sign of your political bias against the United States.

Second, pray tell, outside of the Axis of Evil speech, when did Iran become an issue? Hmm...was it after they elected an anti American leader who supplied insurgents in Iraq, and started a nuclear program that can be used to create a nuclear weapon?

$1:

I don't recall "complaining" about the missile defence option the US is proposing for Poland either--go back and read my posts in this thread on the topic.

You're right, you didn't make any post truly applicable to the point at hand. So my apologies if I thought you can stay on topic without bringing up Iraq.

$1:

My solution is typically liberal and very out of vogue: more use mulilateral institutions and international forums.

Which was never brought up in this thread.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Actually, no, you made no point, as usual. I just keep making the mistaken assumption that you had one.

Well I'm glad you've admitted your error.

$1:

Oh but the United States is furthering its power by using defence treaties and other things of that sort with Eastern European powers, and yet a good number of this thread has an issue with it for one reason or another. It doesn't work, it angers Russia, it helps the USA, blah blah blah.

So you see absolutely no issue with what the US is doing in Poland or the Czech Republic? Yes or no, make it simple instead of going on a tangent.

No. No issue. I believe you said that I was "complaining" about Poland's ambitions here. I said that I had not complained and referred you to the thread thus far, which, as I said, shows that I have not complained. Capiche?

$1:

Anyway, first, Pakistan has nuclear weapons not to counter a possibility of an US invasion, but to counter India's nuclear weapon program. I'll assume this was a mistake made in jest or a sign of your political bias against the United States.

OK you're wandering off here. You brought up Iran, and specifically whether I was "OK" with them getting a nuclear weapon. I said that Iran would do well to get one becasue it would, in my opinion, deter an invasion by the US. I'm not "OK" with it, but I understand their motives to get one.

$1:

Second, pray tell, outside of the Axis of Evil speech, when did Iran become an issue? Hmm...was it after they elected an anti American leader who supplied insurgents in Iraq, and started a nuclear program that can be used to create a nuclear weapon?

Iran has been an issue for a long, long time. Like most neo-cons, unfortunately, your memory doesn't seem to go back more than a few months. But that, also, is an aside.

$1:

You're right, you didn't make any post truly applicable to the point at hand. So my apologies if I thought you can stay on topic without bringing up Iraq.

Apology accepted.

$1:

Which was never brought up in this thread.

So you take me task for not "proposing a solution" and when I propose one you say it's off topic? Focus, commanderkai, focus! must be that Hawaiian sun.

[Scape]

Putin: WTO We don't feel or see any advantages from membership, if they exist at all.

Well there goes that leverage...

A new Cold War between Russia and the West grew steadily closer yesterday after the Kremlin gave a warning about “direct confrontation” between American and Russian warships in the Black Sea.

Ok, now things are getting hairy.

America and Russia deploy warships in Black Sea

Cheney slams "unjustified assault" on Georgia

Sarkozy on the phone with Georgia, Russia leaders

[herbie]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

I thought Russia was already getting lippy with Poland and the Ukraine for wanting to join NATO. Russia wasnt threatening to nuke them like now, but they still were not the best of buds and never really have been since they broke off from the warsaw pact.

They can be as lippy as they like to each other. Pointing missiles is an action, not gum flapping, and I ain't talking Russia.
This was a stupid, ill thought decision of the Polish Parliament and actually delivering the weapons would be the stupidest move the USA ever made.

[Scape]

This is the Cuban Missile crisis in reverse.

[Tman1]

So basically the U.S chickened out? On the deployment I mean. Poti is a Georgian port. No official declaration of war, Russians shouldn't be there.

[Tman1]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Nuclear weapons are the greatest mistake humans have ever invented, they serve no purpose other then mass destruction, and giving pussy nations the will to threaten others. Because without there nukes, they aren't anything.

They brought WWII to a close pretty quick.

It also brought greater and more threatening problems which unfotunately hasn't been 'solved' quick.

[herbie]

One of which is how 65 years later some people still don't understand that you can have as many nukes as you want you just can't use any or we're ALL completely fucked.