Russia threatened by US missile installations in Europe, page 2

Originally posted by crisko
So why don't us all a favor and move there. You are siding with communism, socialism, and dictatorship.

I don't owe anyone here any favors, and for your information I am from Russia, and have lived there most of my life, including a period under communism.

I am not siding with communism or socialism. In this post I have not eluded to the era of USSR in any way, and I am talking about Russia today. And even if I was siding with communism I could hardly take advice from Americans who have little to no knowledge of true communism, and have biased opionions about it. I do not with to sidetrack this post to talk about communism however.

Neither am I siding with dictatorship. What dictatorship are you talking about? Russia and nearly all of Eastern Europe is a democracy, and if you will start comparing Putin to a dictator I can write you a full dissertation on Bush.

Oh and don't tell me US today is siding with "Democracy" and is improving the said Democracy. That farce of a statement can hardly motivate even the most patriotic Americans now.

Originally posted by crisko
You really need to do better research before you make such posts - Russia - AS A GOVERMNET - has sold nuclear fuel, helped build nuclear facilities andhas sold dangerous weapons to Iran.

They sold nuclear technology- officially for peaceful purposes- that is true. What Iran chooses to do with that technology is between it and the UN/US/whoever. Was it a right move by Russia? Depends on how dangerous you consider Iran. If you view Iran as just another dictatorship , than it's not much different from Pakistan, which received its nuclear tech from the West. Some view Iran as a bunch of fanatics waiting to cause some havoc. It depends on your views, and so far there is no single opinion on Iran around the world.

As far as dangerous weapons go- I have no idea what you are talking about. What weapons would that be? For dangerous I assume those weapons that possess long range offensive capabilities (such as ballistic missiles), or chemical/biological agents.

Originally posted by crisko
Don't you get it man? They are not our friend, they are forming alliances with nations that want to see us dead.

So why don't you take your disinformation elsewhere.

I do believe my home country is "my friend", as for "your friend"- that is solely up to you. If you have a certain predisposition, I won't change your opinion or stance on Russia. Nor do I know for 100% certainty what the goal of Russian foreign policy is. I can say for certain however that the Russian government is not fanatical, and just like US plans its startegies around what is best for it.

And by the way, who is "your friend"? UK? France? Israel? Latin American countries (guess Chavez will have to disagree)? Pakistan? Poland? How do you know they are your friends? How do you know what their personal strategy is? Are those that choose to fight your crusade on terror your friends? If so you can kick France and Turkey out the door. I wouldn't be quick to call any nation your friend, because when the times get tough everyone will care about themselves first and foremost.

As for disinformation- you call anyone stating a minority opinion as spreading disinformation. In fact you can call any voiced point of view and corresponding facts as disinformation.

Originally posted by crisko
There was a war in the region not to long ago, maybe you heard of it? If not google it.

A war in Eastern Europe? I assume you mean the Yugoslavian wars (which is not technically in Eastern Europe). It was not a "war" (although Americans think it was), but a series of wars lasting about 8 years. I have read alot about those wars and in no way can they be as quickly summarized as saying- Serbians are bad; Croatians and Albanians are good. If ever there was a recent war with less distinct aggressors and victims- that was it.

Again the American media was extremely biased through the whole affair, much more so than even Western European media, and even lmore so than Eastern European media (some of which was biased the opposite way). For every dead civilian Albanian or Croatian, there was a dead civilian Serb. There were aggressors on all 3 sides, and victims on all 3 sides. NATO simply chose to dismantle Serbia to pursue its own agenda for Eastern and Southern Europe. There no good guys and no bad guys. It was a full scale civil strife in a crumbling federation of several united countries- and the ensuing fight for the division of land that was commonly shared between them.

If you really go to the source of the problem, it was the many centuries of Turkish occupation, and then the Nazi (Ustashi Croatian) occupation during WWII. And after the war instead of supporting the partisans who fought againts the Nazis, US and the West shunned Tito and his possible successors.

Originally posted by crisko
This helps prevent it from happening again, and should that fail - counter it.

Muslim's played a huge part in that war, and we were on THEIR side. The war on terrorism does not imply a war on Muslims as you so think.
[edit on 29-1-2007 by crisko]

How does this help prevent it? Is the US gonna silence minorities who call for independence (Transniester, Crimea, among many others in the rest of Europe). Or is it gonna grant everyone who wants it sovereignty, splitting up countries left and right? This is not kindergarten. You can't place the opposing sides in the corners and punish them. If a civil conflict arises NATO or US would only make it worse by supporting one of the sides over the other.

Muslims did play a part in the Yugoslav wars. But US didn't support the Muslims. It supported ethnic Slovenians, Croatians, and Albanians throughout the war. So in reality US was fighting Serbians, rather than supporting any one group. And for your information- Albanians in Kosovo were getting help from who else- Al Quida. Yep- the same Albanians who US came to "save". Good bet there!

Not to mention that the Bombing and subsequent interference in Kosovo was a direct violation of NATO's own rules, and was for the lack of better terms- illegal. It was an internal conflict, and in no way threatened safety or stability of NATO members.