Russia To Discuss Missile Shield With Iran, China

Russia To Discuss Missile Shield With Iran, China

www.eurasiareview.com

Russia has announced plans to pursue talks with Iran and China about a global missile shield.

Ria Novosti reports that Russia’s representative to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin, will travel to China and Iran in mid-January to discuss the subject.

Rogozin told the members of the Russian Duma: “I would like to inform you that, as dictated by the mission from the president, we will soon travel to China and Iran to examine issues regarding global missile shields in these countries.”

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has told his country’s armed forces to consider possible measures to counte

(visit the link for the full news article)

Yikes. Seems the politicians are playing a global pissing contest. Seems like a pretty dangerous game. I'm sick of having to waste billions on building up our arsenals. Can't we just agree to mutually assured destruction and leave it at that? I remember a Simpsons episode where aliens took over after all the weapons were destroyed. They were chased off by a guy with a nail in a board. 'They will keep building bigger boards with bigger nails until one day it destroys them all!' said one of the aliens as they were fleeing.

Stage is seeming more and more set for a massive global conflict. NATO and the US having all these issues with Iran, China and Russia is troubling to say the least. Are we heading for another cold war? Worse?

www.eurasiareview.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It is better to have two opposing forces as opposed to just one super power..

It's fair now . Europe has a shield , Russia , Iran and China will have a shield too .

There were Three super-powers at war with each other in 1984 ya know.

Those illuminati elites have to have 3... they are sticklers for numbers...

Originally posted by Domo1


Yikes. Seems the politicians are playing a global pissing contest. Seems like a pretty dangerous game.

You know what really sucks about all of this? We the people are the ones who end up getting pissed on.

I've spoken with several people from around the world, even from russia and Iran, and you know what? They're just like us here in America and they're just like my friends from Europe. People are just people, and sure we may disagree on some stuff, but really... It's the governments that seem to cause the biggest problems!

reply to post by Domo1


Pissing contest indeed. But given the escalating financial crisis, the lack of jobs, and the NCD Pandemic that's killing off more people than all other causes combined - well, a distraction is almost mandatory.

Plus, a war would get all those protesters off the streets.

OP can i link your thread to 1 of mine

Originally posted by purplemer
It is better to have two opposing forces as opposed to just one super power..

If history has taught us anything it's that a Mulit-Polar world is actually more dangerous. Sooner or later one side or the other will want to prove they are the bigger dog. That's usually when Millions start dying.

Just saying is all

Caveat Emptor

reply to post by alchemist2012


Certainly.

So why can't countries get along? Why the lack of trust? Can't you just share the damn planet without worrying about who is going to attack who?

reply to post by SLAYER69

If history has taught us anything it's that a Mulit-Polar world is actually more dangerous. Sooner or later one side or the other will want to prove they are the bigger dog. That's usually when Millions start dying.

I agree with that. These massive buildups of power with itchy trigger fingers seem far more dangerous then one dominant super power. Instead of having one pitbull and a few poodles you've got three pitbulls locked in a cage.

Ha, just wait till Putin takes back over. They'll have that missile shield up in no time. Aww, poor, poor NATO. I feel so sorry for you that you cannot just waltz in to Putin's turf, and tell him how it's gonna be. Russian strategists are working overtime, but the midnight oil is bearing fruit in the form of some pretty bold moves here lately. Good. Step up. Come to bat. And knock the cover off that ball.

reply to post by SLAYER69



I remember when I was a kid. Watching the fall of the Berlin Wall. I was really happy because I thought now that Russia was falling the world would be safer place and that there would be less wars....

I was wrong since its fall the US along with the collation forces have been given a blank cheque to take out any smaller countries they want. It did not make the world a safer place. Millions died so that the banking elite could gain more control over the worlds energy sources and install their central banks.

So now I am hoping that with a balancing superpower things might be kept in check.. I could be wrong. I was wrong last time..

k)

reply to post by purplemer


I was a bit older when the Berlin wall came down and I too was optimistic. But I was also an adult during the periods preceding that event. The world was more dangerous not less.

Seeing those periods through the present state of mind does not do the context of the period justice. There is no right or wrong here just opinions, conjecture and theories.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Ha, just wait till Putin takes back over. They'll have that missile shield up in no time. Aww, poor, poor NATO. I feel so sorry for you that you cannot just waltz in to Putin's turf, and tell him how it's gonna be. Russian strategists are working overtime, but the midnight oil is bearing fruit in the form of some pretty bold moves here lately. Good. Step up. Come to bat. And knock the cover off that ball.

Russia itself cannot afford an ABM. They gave up that endeavor and focused on upgrading their nuclear deterrent capabilities. This is posturing though...Will the chinese take the bate? As for the Iranians, dont make me laugh.

And Putin himself is a funny little man. At 5'5" tall, he is obviously suffering from a Napoleon complex. Democracy has died in Russia. Despite what you might think Russia is not better off with Putin.

reply to post by Domo1




I hear ya but..

It's not a popular stance. That doesn't mean it isn't the truth. Time will tell as they always say. Look at the multiple world powers preceding WW-I or WW-II not to mention all of the wars fought between Empires before the 20th century.

All trying to be the bigger dog.

reply to post by SLAYER69

It's not a popular stance.

I have a tendency to avoid those.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Sounds like you prefer fascism or some kind of 'benevolent' dictatorship.

....Does your theory fly if you remove the financier-manipulators from the equation?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
If history has taught us anything it's that a Mulit-Polar world is actually more dangerous. Sooner or later one side or the other will want to prove they are the bigger dog. That's usually when Millions start dying.
Just saying is all
Caveat Emptor

Slayer, six times as many people died at the hand of their own governments during the 20th century than in all the century's wars combined. Governments (excluding war) in the 20th century killed more than the total world population at the time of Christ. So I have to disagree and point out that millions die at the hand of their own governments regardless of war or "sides". There could be world peace and market planners and absolutist governments would still be killing tens of millions due to famine and genocide.

For example, Soviet Russia and China killed 84,500,000 of their own citizens from 1918-1953. During that same time period the two WORLD WARS combined killed 24,000,000 people. In other words the governments of communist Russia and China killed 252 percent more people through genocide than all deaths that occurred in both world wars.

There is no doubt that a unipolar world would inevitably breed absolutism and exacerbate genocide; which is now, and has historically been, humanities biggest killer.

www.hawaii.edu...