Originally posted by john124
If you gladly pay attention to the Russian policy:
What’s more, Patrushev said, Russia is revising the rules for the employment of nukes to repel conventionally armed attackers, “not only in
large-scale, but also in a regional and even a local war.”
This doesn't restrict a nuclear first-strike to targets with WMDs.
On the other hand, the American policy states:
The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
That's quite a big difference isn't it!
Both are ambiguous enough to allow a wide range of interpretations. For example - what does "known enemy stockpiles mean"? The US seemed assured
that Iraq had WMD's before the war, so theoretically it could launch a preemptive nuclear strike on Iraq, despite it having no WMD in reality. Very
same thing could happen if the future. The "known stockpiles" can very easily be invented just like they were before the Iraq War.
Also you very conveniently didn't post the other allowable application of nuclear weapons in the US doctrine: to prevent terrorist attacks. Well if
that isn't ambiguous I don't know what it.
So stop kidding yourself. Fact is that both US and Russia have doctrines that allow preemptive strikes, and leave the reasons for flexible
interpretation.
Originally posted by john124
Exactly, and Russia is a threat to Georgia and Ukraine because they want to join NATO, and Russia have openly stated they won't allow
this.
For one thing, nobody in the right mind will let Georgia join NATO. The US vote in favor of them joining is not enough, and no NATO member in Europe
will agree to this.
And you still haven't demonstrated how Russia is a military threat to Ukraine. Do explain why Ukraine should feel threatened militarily by Russia.
All that bullcrap about raising gas prices is an invalid arguement - thats called capitalism and weening Ukraine off Soviet-era subsidies gas
prices.
Originally posted by john124
But what if anyone decides to fight back against the Russian's and defeat them conventionally.
Good one. I'll leave the question of why they would be fighting back against Russia alone, or why Russia would be fighting them (but do answer it if
you wish). But please do explain how Georgia could defeat Russia conventionally?
Originally posted by john124
Putin now has his policy to order the generals to destroy the world rather than surrender.
Who would they be surrendering to? Georgia?
Originally posted by john124
If Russia cannot be defeated conventionally, then why the necessity of the first-strike policy?
Why does US have the necessity of the first-strike policy? Russia's reasons are likely pretty much the same. Or do you think that US is the only
nation in the world "threated" by terrorists and "evil" despotic regimes?
Originally posted by john124
If any more aggression against Georgia or even Ukraine now is what the Kremlin wants, then Russian interference will be ordered to ensure troops can
be used again under the guise of peacekeeping duties.
Are you so naive as to think that US has any moral right to even comment on Russia's military actions against other nations. The US didn't even
need the guise of peacekeepers to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and start military campaigns which would result in hundreds of thousands of civilian
deaths.
Really? You want to go into this arguement?
Originally posted by john124
If anyone fights back, then Russia knows that we know they'll go nuclear, or at least have that option openly available. So, it's another
preventative measure against countries being able to defend themselves from Russian aggression.
Substitute "US" for "Russia". Pot calling keetle black? Enough said.
Originally posted by john124
How many illegal bases are Russia building in S.Ossetia and Abkhazia now?!
Far less than the number of illegal bases US has in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Originally posted by john124
I think it's a little late for the Russian's to complain about a coup d'etat regime that killed peaceful protesters, that they've backed and
supported for so long.
Really? Because no US-backed regime came to power through a coup and killed protestors and opposition? Are you serious?
If you honestly want to criticize Russia for the things you mentioned, then throw in the US there as well. Russia's moves are reactionary, while US
initiates much of this momentum.
Originally posted by john124
Oh and do I need to mention the silly Kremlin's accusations that georgia supports Al-Qaeda? Haha!!
Do I need to mention the WMDs in.... oh never mind you catch my drift.
Originally posted by john124
Undercover reporters from Britain inside Ingushetia showed the levels of corruption, murder of innocent civilians all under the guise of
anti-terrorism.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, CIA prisons abroad, waterboarding.... Oh this can be a fun moral debate.
My point in this thread was to show that Russia's changes to the nuclear doctrine was a reaction by similar moves by the US. What the hell does this
have to with amoral political actions and other irrelevant foreign policy sins?
Originally posted by john124
Accidental killings of civilians are another matter, such as what happens in Afghanistan occassionally.
Accidental? When you drop 5,000 bombs and fire missiles on civilian villages because a few Taliban happen to be holding a meeting there, its hardly
accidental - incidental maybe. You want to talk numbers? Look at civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Originally posted by john124
But in the N. Caucasus regions inside the Russian Federation, indiscriminant killings along with corruption are a major source of the problems.
When US does it its "accidental"; when Russia or someone else does it its "idiscriminant".
Originally posted by john124
Ukranian elections are in Jan 2010, and the Russian's will eye a new man in charge who is pro-Russian. If a pro-western leader who wants to join
NATO wins the election
Do you know anything about Ukrainian politics? Who among candidates is this NATO-inclined person? Yuschenko is done - that is a fact, just look at
his support numbers in recent statistics (below 6% - and thats by Western European source).
Originally posted by john124
The Kremlin never stop moaning. Even when a radar system that may be implemented in Ukraine that won't even be pointing towards Russia, then the
Kremlin whinges over it like a stupid child.
And US never moans or whines like a child. It moans and whines like a grown up. Right?