Putin accuses U.S., NATO of reviving an 'arms race'

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Westcoast there is not democracy in Iraq or Afganistan what you have is a puppet regime put in place by the US

read between the lines, it is what is now called a democracy. that is, a government which is holding elections (a mere formality, it turns out) and getting its orders from the West, whatever that means exactly. the EU states are alledgedly souvereign, but if US interests demand personal data sets of all air travellers, they'll receive it all in aheartbeat, no questions asked. if US intersets want surveillance in place, they get it and the required laws are passed within days. normally passing legislation would take at least months, but they're lighting fast if they want to screw you and secretive to boot.

all of these nations are called domocracies and the core traits are as i described above. i'll make it clear though, that a century ago, you could replace 'US' with 'great Britain' and still use the same description. within a few decades, it might be an Asian block, or noone at all, because if the globalists and world gov't proponents aren't effectively barred from power, the entire world will be in shambles, but that won't keep a few remaining warlords from proclaiming dominance. as if it mattered by then.

with all these pessimistic scenarios well outlines, let me ask what do you think a world in which these warmongers are defeated would look like? realistically, that's the only think we should concern ourselves with, seeng as our survival depends on exactly that happening, ie. planning for failure is irrelevant.

It is not an accusation its true... we withdrew from long standing arms treaties and we are working on new generation nukes... besides that we are the largest arms dealer in the world... despite the rhetoric, our nation is not the force for peace that it professes to be... refusal to back treaties banning land mines and cluster bombs... refusing to honor our obligations in regards to treaties already signed etc. the list goes on and on.

Its sad and I am ashamed of what this country has become. I love her dearly but that does not mean I am blind to the truth.

Originally posted by kerontehe

Je suis en désaccord. The Spanish completely exterminated the Caribe natives during their conquest of the new world. The "invading force" of Europeans into this part of North America have been pretty successful keeping the original inhabitants from taking it back.

these two situations are completely un-alike. the Europeans in this case had two weapons that natives couldnt defend against, disease being the best weapon, and guns being the second.

Originally posted by West Coast
The nuke option will be obsolete soon enough.

If it isn't already you mean? Why are the Russian federation deploying new types?

With advancements in US anti missile defense systems,

Which the USSR/RF have been operating since the 60's while the US dismantled it's own...

along with space forces such as FALCON and SUSTAIN, kinetic strike platforms orbiting space, with the capability to take out deeply buried targets anywhere in the world with in mere minutes, russias military along with chinas, will be obsolete when compared to americas forces.

You mean that i have changed your mind in that they are not already 'obsolete'? Who said you can't change people's minds! Why do you believe that the Russian developments in the same area could not be reactivated or deployed in tandem? How many munitions would it required to sustain a effective campaign against the tens of thousands of buried or hardened targets in Russia?

This could trigger an altercation between russian, china, against the US before russia and chinas conventional forces become obsolete.

The only country that will go to war because the end is approaching would be the USA as the Russia is still prepared to absorb incredible volumes of punishment without too many civilian casualties and China just does not pose the type of credible threat which could allow the US to allocate many warheads to it. To take on both Russia and China ( and it's allies) would be a futile exercise for a country that can not muster the public support and willpower to even defeat Iraq or Serbia.

And the nuclear option for russia will more then likely become obsolete within a decade, if it isnt already..

Why are Russian nuclear forces any more obsolete than American or French one's?

Just look at what DARPA and the pentagon have lined out for US forces.

Google Video Link

link in case the video doesnt work.
video.google.com...

If only the US government had funds to actually pay for any of that...

Further more, I am by no means advocating war with russia.

Because few people that are in any way informed would advocate such knowing the likely result that would have on a completely defenseless American public...

Stellar

Originally posted by West Coast

I know this was not directed at me, but it appears we have ignorance on both sides of the aisles.

Ditto...

This is rather...interesting, of you to say. Perhaps you can tell me where US forces were beat down by pajama wearing people in the mangled jungles of vietnam?

It wont be the first time that a occupation has to be given up without suffering any 'defeats' so even that argument does not hold up. Isn't war just the extension of politics by other means and doesn't that mean that the only way you can lose a war is by not reaching your political objectives? Does military victories even matter in such a war? Do you have to win any battles if the enemy country is sufficiently smaller and will be reduced to zero population long before they can inflict proportional casualties? How did Vietnam ever stand a chance with a population that were three to four times smaller at the time?

Politics lost the US that war. Not lack of intestinal fortitude of the soldiers there, or the weapons they were supplied with.

The fact is the US armed forces were completely uninterested in fighting that type of war and the fact that they managed to keep up appearences for so long says much more of the high levels of professionalism than it does about 'intestinal fortitude'. You do know that it's in Vietnam where the US armed forces got addicted to the drugs it has failed to eradicate since? What does that say about intestinal fortitude and why would anyone want to killed fighting the salt of the Earth?

Iraq, well we know what happened there, the total decimation of the iraqi military within a weeks time of fighting.

The massive majority of the Iraq armed forces never came into contact with the US armed forces in 2003 and it's personal simply took their rifle's/mortars/machine guns/Rpg's ( they had enough to fire off and hit one Challenger 2 70 times) home and have been using it sporadically ever since.

The war is over, the conflict is not. We are there at the request and disposal of the Iraqis.

They Iraqi's have never asked for the US presence and there has never been a serious poll that indicated that they are happy with the occupation of their country. If you need any further evidence ask the thirty of forty thousand wounded American soldiers...

And you conveniently left out Afghanistan. Regardless of what you think, there are two new democracy's in the ME.

Ahahaahah, ahahaha. I don't know what to say to something so ludicrous.

Gone are the days where saddam terrorized his people.

With the US national security state's support...

Gone are the days where the taliban was free to rule with a primitive "iron fist".

The Taliban barely ruled at all and they are doing as much of it now as they did in 2000. Nothing has changed but the fact that a few thousand American soldiers, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Afghan dead, have been wounded or killed in the creation of the new power structure.

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. Lets keep the facts straight though.

I have started introducing some and i hope you will follow my example.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
If it isn't already you mean? Why are the Russian federation deploying new types? Which the USSR/RF have been operating since the 60's while the US dismantled it's own...

The US never stopped as well. And perhaps you missed the small "tid bit" below from the original article...

He repeated old complaints that NATO took advantage of Moscow's weakness in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union to expand the alliance to Russia's borders and to boost spending on missile defense systems and other programs despite the end of the Cold War.

What does that seem to elude to Mr. X?

Why do you believe that the Russian developments in the same area could not be reactivated or deployed in tandem? How many munitions would it required to sustain a effective campaign against the tens of thousands of buried or hardened targets in Russia?

I think we both can agree that that would take quite a bit. Are we talking about kinetic strike platforms? Or anti ballistic missile shields?

Also, it becomes a bit problematic when certain underground sites are located underneath massive cities (Moscow).

The only country that will go to war because the end is approaching would be the USA as the Russia is still prepared to absorb incredible volumes of punishment without too many civilian casualties and China just does not pose the type of credible threat which could allow the US to allocate many warheads to it.

I wasn't necessarily referring to nuclear warfare, however, I see how it could elude to that.

Russia is absolutely massive, you are right, it could take a pounding.

To take on both Russia and China ( and it's allies) would be a futile exercise for a country that can not muster the public support and willpower to even defeat Iraq or Serbia.

I cant help but sense a biased tone with you. The US would take on quite a few casualties, However, if Russia or china, were to attack the American forces, the American people would be 100% behind their government. Pearl harbor taught us that, 911 taught us that..

Why are Russian nuclear forces any more obsolete than American or French one's?

As of right now, to my knowledge, they are not. This taking into account, russias deteriorating nuclear stockpile.

If only the US government had funds to actually pay for any of that...

A military budget that rounds out roughly to about 600 billion dollars maybe?

Defense spending in the US is on a steady increase, this is a part of Future Combat Systems (FCS).




[edit on 10-2-2008 by West Coast]

Originally posted by StellarX
Ditto...

I can see that you agree with me?

It wont be the first time that a occupation has to be given up without suffering any 'defeats' so even that argument does not hold up. Isn't war just the extension of politics by other means and doesn't that mean that the only way you can lose a war is by not reaching your political objectives?

Ask the soldiers who are on the front lines if they give a damn about politics.

Does military victories even matter in such a war? Do you have to win any battles if the enemy country is sufficiently smaller and will be reduced to zero population long before they can inflict proportional casualties? How did Vietnam ever stand a chance with a population that were three to four times smaller at the time?

In the never ending "pissing contest", yes. It does matter. However, questioning the intestinal fortitude of the people over there, or that have been over there, and implying that they are getting there ass kicked, is not factual, but a biased opinion. As Ive said time and time again, I am accepting of all views, though I happen to think many are wrong.

The fact is the US armed forces were completely uninterested in fighting that type of war and the fact that they managed to keep up appearences for so long says much more of the high levels of professionalism than it does about 'intestinal fortitude'. You do know that it's in Vietnam where the US armed forces got addicted to the drugs it has failed to eradicate since? What does that say about intestinal fortitude and why would anyone want to killed fighting the salt of the Earth?

You just keep picking and choosing those cherrys...

The massive majority of the Iraq armed forces never came into contact with the US armed forces in 2003 and it's personal simply took their rifle's/mortars/machine guns/Rpg's ( they had enough to fire off and hit one Challenger 2 70 times) home and have been using it sporadically ever since.

The vast majority? Where are you getting those figures from? I know that many gave up, rather then trying to take on the US. Hell, the Iraqi air force didn't even attempt to fly.

They Iraqi's have never asked for the US presence and there has never been a serious poll that indicated that they are happy with the occupation of their country.If you need any further evidence ask the thirty of forty thousand wounded American soldiers...

Ive talked to plenty, Ive also talked with Iraqis, and by there account, though it isn't great over there, things are better then they were under Saddam. This coming directly from the horses mouth.

Ahahaahah, ahahaha. I don't know what to say to something so ludicrous.

So say nothing?.... That really helped your credibility.

The Taliban barely ruled at all and they are doing as much of it now as they did in 2000. Nothing has changed but the fact that a few thousand American soldiers, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Afghan dead, have been wounded or killed in the creation of the new power structure.

The taliban ruled village to village ruthlessly. Many native afghanis acknowledged this. And to them, they were not happy with it.

I have started introducing some and i hope you will follow my example.

Stellar

Oh please....

[edit on 10-2-2008 by West Coast]

[edit on 10-2-2008 by West Coast]

Westcoast, If Russia or China attacked the US with nukes there would be no one left to fight anybody, to use a well spouted phrase you would be nuked back to the stone age.

Even in a conventional war America simply lacks the numbers to take the aformentioned on this is already showing in the conflicts that the US is involved in at the moment. Advanced weaponry does not make up for the shortfall of troops on the ground and to even attempt some of the ambitions of PNAC the US would have to reintroduce the draft and double its defence budget.

To try and match Russia and China plus anyone else on the list of peopple some Ameicans dont like would spell financial ruin for the US and much reduced budgets for social care and structure. Very much what happened to Russia really, by trying to match the West they suffered greatly for it and the US is going the same way.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Westcoast, If Russia or China attacked the US with nukes there would be no one left to fight anybody, to use a well spouted phrase you would be nuked back to the stone age.

I wasn't talking about nukes. I was talking more along the lines of conventional forces participating in a conventional war scenario.

Even in a conventional war America simply lacks the numbers to take the aformentioned

Americas population is over 300 million strong. A draft could be reinstated and the US would have the man power, while simultaneously having technological superiority over said enemy's.

In regards to PNAC, the wheels for that have already been set into motion. And altogether, military-related expenses totaled approximately $626.1 billion for 2007. The spending has only increased.

To try and match Russia and China plus anyone else on the list of peopple some Ameicans dont like would spell financial ruin for the US and much reduced budgets for social care and structure. Very much what happened to Russia really, by trying to match the West they suffered greatly for it and the US is going the same way.

Its more the other way. Its along the lines of everyone else on the "list" trying to match America..

[edit on 11-2-2008 by West Coast]

Originally posted by West Coast
I wasn't talking about nukes. I was talking more along the lines of conventional forces participating in a conventional war scenario.

The US holds an edge in a conventional war scenario, which is why any confrontation with Russia and China is likely to go nuclear quickly.

They're going to have to, sooner or later, if they want to retain their sovereignty. The US isn't going to give them any choice.

Americas population is over 300 million strong. A draft could be reinstated and the US would have the man power, while simultaneously having technological superiority over said enemy's.

A draft is not politically doable in the US, this isn't WW2.
Do you honestly people are so keen on our pointless Empire in denial that they're just going to sign up? More likely they'll be shooting up recruiting offices...

Nobody needs an empire anymore, Viagra is a lot cheaper

Its more the other way. Its along the lines of everyone else on the "list" trying to match America..

Yes, because the US is currently leading in it's unilateral arms race with the rest of the species..

Sooner or later, the other 95% of the human population is going to catch up, and they're going to kill us all. I don't blame them one bit.

I wouldn't want to be a subject in anyone else's Empire either.

Originally posted by xmotex
The US holds an edge in a conventional war scenario, which is why any confrontation with Russia and China is likely to go nuclear quickly.

China alone is not a problem. Russia however would be.

They're going to have to, sooner or later, if they want to retain their sovereignty. The US isn't going to give them any choice.

A draft is not politically doable in the US, this isn't WW2.
Do you honestly people are so keen on our pointless Empire in denial that they're just going to sign up? More likely they'll be shooting up recruiting offices...

The whole point is, do not attack the US without knowing full well you piss off 300,000,000 of its people, its pretty simple logic..

Nobody needs an empire anymore, Viagra is a lot cheaper

Yes, because the US is currently leading in it's unilateral arms race with the rest of the species..

Sooner or later, the other 95% of the human population is going to catch up, and they're going to kill us all. I don't blame them one bit.

I wouldn't want to be a subject in anyone else's Empire either.

In your opinion, yes.

The US came out of no-where-in the history books, and stole the worlds political scene. Having a world empire can be good, as well as unhealthy. Much of the worlds research, in many areas, is done in the US. Much of the world benefits from a strong America. America is just doing what nations in the past have done, or would have done if they would have had it "their way". And in many more ways, the US is a much more benevolent "empire" when compared to empires of the past..

Denying this is denying simple logic. If the soviets had had it their way, the world would be ruled under an "Iron Fist", communist lifestyle, some would be ok with that, I, however, happen to think many would not.

Originally posted by West Coast
reply to post by wisefoolishness

 

As Chenney put it. "With the fall of the soviet union, no one can stop us, we are the new rome, thats the way it should be, and thats the way it ought to be."

Take that however you wish.

I personally dont believe in the NWO, atleast in the sense many on this site do. The US would not sacrifice itself for some other entity. IMO (sense I dont believe in the NWO) The "NWO" is PNAC (which stands for "Project for the New America Century).

Except US economy which is everyday 'stronger' and 'stronger'.

Originally posted by kyred
I think Putin protests too much. Concerning missle defenses in Poland and such, the Putinator has already said they aren't a match for Russia's military. Then what is the problem? The defense is no match for him so what is he concerned about? The U.S. already offered Russia the opportunity to be involved with this missle defense system design and operation and they refused. In my opinion, it is Russia making this into an arms race, trying to regain its once upon a time status as a world super power. Putin was a KGB agent and staff member before the fall of the USSR and most likely wants a return to those days. Until the fall of the USSR empire Russia ruled over the eastern part of Europe with a heavy hand. Sure, they have a reason to be paranoid because of their past behaviour.

USSR wasn't Russia nor vice versa.

Originally posted by kyred
Those Eastern European countries don't desire to be a part of the resurrected USSR. Hence their desire to be part of NATO.

Nobody talks about resurrection of USSR. Russia has right to avoid Poland and Baltic states with gas pipeline in the way to Germany, so they should ask USA to give supply them with gas.

Originally posted by Quazga
We must remove Russia, China, and Iran in order to have any hope for mankind.

Note to mods: feel free to issue a warning, but I need to say this -

the post above is a product of a sick mind.

Somehow, in the mind of a certain geopolitical genius "Quazga", the Chinese, Persians and Russians are subhuman and not a part of humanity. Quazga, in his sadistic fervor, insists that they must be all incinerated in order to make room for worthy nations (God knows what these are...).

Ethnic cleansing on a grand scale has been tried before. We all know the results.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Quazga
We must remove Russia, China, and Iran in order to have any hope for mankind.

Note to mods: feel free to issue a warning, but I need to say this -

the post above is a product of a sick mind.

Somehow, in the mind of a certain geopolitical genius "Quazga", the Chinese, Persians and Russians are subhuman and not a part of humanity. Quazga, in his sadistic fervor, insists that they must be all incinerated in order to make room for worthy nations (God knows what these are...).

Ethnic cleansing on a grand scale has been tried before. We all know the results.

I think you are throwing just a bit of a tangent. I do not agree with Quazaga, but he is entitled to his opinion.

And I don't think he was referring to the people of Russia, china, and Iran as being "sub human", he was merely stating his opinion on where he felt the governments, which govern those people, are the ones who need be dealt away with.

Originally posted by West Coast
I can see that you agree with me?

Only in that i am responding to a post that was not directed at me.

Ask the soldiers who are on the front lines if they give a damn about politics.

They do not care about politics as long as the cause seems at least somehow just. The fact that the occupation of Iraq is clearly illegal and against the will of it's people is slowly eroding the morale of American( as it would any other type) fighting men.

The PTSD cases often surface long after troops leave combat. The total of mental health cases among war veterans grew by 58%, from 63,767 on June 30, 2006, to 100,580 on June 30, 2007, according to VA records. The mental health issues include PTSD, drug and alcohol dependency, and depression. They involve troops who left the military and sought health care from the VA. Mental health is the second-largest area of illness for which Iraq and Afghanistan veterans seek treatment at VA hospitals and clinics. It follows orthopedic problems and is increasing at a faster rate. The department began responding in 2005 by gradually increasing from 7000 to nearly 11,000 the number of mental health specialists.

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

As you can see American soldiers are human too and the immoral things they are asked to are very much affecting them.

In the never ending "pissing contest", yes. It does matter. However, questioning the intestinal fortitude of the people over there, or that have been over there, and implying that they are getting there ass kicked, is not factual, but a biased opinion.

They are certainly doing more ass kicking than they are taking as can be seen with the one million Iraqi's that have died so far. I am not questing the fact that the American military machine can inflict casualties on innocent civilians but i am asking why you think anyone should have the intestinal fortitude to do that? Since American soldiers are just about mercenaries as it stands it's not unexpected that there are plenty of crazed killers amongst ( torture chambers and what not) them that can stand the strain and kill without worry.

She joined the Army Reserve in late July and leaves in about a week for boot camp to start her new life as a soldier. She’s getting a $20,000 signing bonus and is eligible for college money.

Under the plan, men and women who enlist could pick from a “buffet” of incentives, including up to $45,000 tax-free that they accrue during their career to help buy a home or build a business. Other options would include money for college and to pay off student loans.

www.militarytimes.com...

As to the 'ass kicked' part what else would you call it?

"Reluctance in even defining the situation . . . is perhaps the most telling indicator of a collective cognitive dissidence on part of the U.S. Army to recognize a war of rebellion, a people's war, even when they were fighting it," he comments.

Because of this failure, Wilson concludes, the U.S. military remains "perhaps in peril of losing the 'war,' even after supposedly winning it."

Overall, he grades the U.S. military performance in Iraq as "mediocre."

www.washingtonpost.com...

So if he says it don't you think i can easily get away with saying 'asses kicked' if i cared to talk about peoples lives in that way?

As Ive said time and time again, I am accepting of all views, though I happen to think many are wrong.

I don't have much time for BS myself...

You just keep picking and choosing those cherrys...

So why did the US armed forces pick up a drug habit in Vietnam? Do you think they started using drugs because they were able to cope with the situation? Should we expect that any human being could cope with such strain and stress based on so many lies?

The vast majority? Where are you getting those figures from? I know that many gave up, rather then trying to take on the US. Hell, the Iraqi air force didn't even attempt to fly.

Yes, the vast majority of the Iraqi armed forces were never in contact with American forces and simply abandoned whatever they could not hide in peacetime. Do you realise that Iraqi soldiers were allowed to take their rifles home?

The Iraqi Army suffered from poor morale, even amongst the elite Republican Guard. Entire units disbanded into the crowds upon the approach of invading troops, or actually sought out U.S. and UK forces out to surrender. In one case, a force of roughly 20-30 Iraqis attempted to surrender to a two-man vehicle repair and recovery team, invoking similar instances of Iraqis surrendering to news crews during the Persian Gulf War. Other Iraqi Army officers were bribed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or coerced into surrendering. Worse, the Iraqi Army had incompetent leadership - reports state that Qusay Hussein, charged with the defense of Baghdad, dramatically shifted the positions of the two main divisions protecting Baghdad several times in the days before the arrival of U.S. forces, and as a result the units within were both confused and further demoralized when U.S. Marine and British forces attacked. By no means did the invasion force see the entire Iraqi military thrown against it; U.S. and UK units had orders to move to and seize objective target-points rather than seek engagements with Iraqi units. This resulted in most regular Iraqi military units emerging from the war fully intact and without ever having been engaged by U.S. forces, especially in southern Iraq. It is assumed that most units disintegrated to either join the growing Iraqi insurgency or returned to their homes.

en.wikipedia.org...

I had another source and i suppose i will go look for it if you don't want to believe the wiki author.

Ive talked to plenty, Ive also talked with Iraqis, and by there account, though it isn't great over there, things are better then they were under Saddam. This coming directly from the horses mouth.

Your talking to the wrong type of Iraqi's and i suggest you actually find Iraqi's who are STILL in Iraq and not those who had the means to run away when things got out of hand.

'They could go out' under Saddam
"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi's life," Annan said.

"If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again?'" he said.

"And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control. The society needs security and a secure environment for it to get on — without security not much can be done — not recovery or reconstruction," Annan added.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

And for some specifics...

newstandardnews.net...

Living standards in 2005 had declined compared to those even under the genocidal sanctions of the 90's and things have only gotten worse since.

More than six in 10 Iraqis now say that their lives are going badly -- double the percentage who said so in late 2005 -- and about half say that increasing U.S. forces in the country will make the security situation worse, according to a poll of more than 2,200 Iraqis conducted for ABC News and other media organizations.

The survey, released Monday, shows that Iraqis' assessments of the quality of their lives and the future of the country have plunged in comparison with similar polling done in November 2005 and February 2004.

Fifty-one percent said they thought it was "acceptable" for "other people" to attack coalition forces. In the 2004 survey, 17 percent said such attacks were acceptable.

www.washingtonpost.com...

And it's no surprise then that more US soldiers died in 2007 than did in 2004...

And can you clarify why things should ONLY be better than under SH when he was dictator who killed those who opposed his control of that country? Why on earth should Iraq ONLY be better than that now that it has been 'liberated' by the bringers of freedom and all things supposedly wonderful?

+9/
-\ say nothing?....

That really helped your credibility.

The mere suggestion that the elections in either of those countries were remotely democratic is such a joke and obvious lie that i do not even know how to deal with people who know so little about recent history.

Continued

GEORGE GALLOWAY: They’re a farce. They’re rigged. An election held under foreign military occupation is always, by definition, utterly flawed. But one which is held in the kind of conditions in which this one is being held is flawed beyond redemption. The facts are that it is simply impossible to hold an election when there is a full-scale war going on between the occupying armies and the resistance forces. The Sunni Muslim population, which if you add the Sunni Kurds and the Sunni Arabs together, is some 40% of the population, are deeply anxious about the way in which the occupying forces are deliberately trying to divide the country along confessional lines. The Sunni Arab population has boycotted the election almost in their entirety. The Iraqis living outside for whom security was not an issue, three quarters of them have voted with their feet and boycotted the election. Less than a quarter of the eligible voters have registered to vote and fewer still have cast their votes. So, this is a festival, a farce that’s been held to validate the American-British invasion and occupation of Iraq. But it will not validate it, neither in the eyes of the world opinion, nor, more importantly, in the eyes of those Iraqis who are resisting the foreign occupation and the war will go on, I’m sorry to say.

www.democracynow.org...

www.zmag.org...

globalresearch.ca...

www.commondreams.org...

www.countercurrents.org...

That is Iraq and what happened in Afghanistan were even more of a farce.

The taliban ruled village to village ruthlessly. Many native afghanis acknowledged this. And to them, they were not happy with it.

And while it was bad for Afghans what's happening now is not better for them while it's costing American lives and dollars in the process. Why not spend the same money on shutting down the CIA funded madrassas in Pakistan that allowed for the creation and continued persistence of the Taliban as a organizational entity.

Originally posted by West Coast
The US never stopped as well. And perhaps you missed the small "tid bit" below from the original article...

So when last did the US deploy anything remotely like a new ICBM? Why did it retire it's most modern land based missile while the USSR deploys new types?

He repeated old complaints that NATO took advantage of Moscow's weakness in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union to expand the alliance to Russia's borders and to boost spending on missile defense systems and other programs despite the end of the Cold War.

What does that seem to elude to Mr. X?

That the people who are supposed to represent the American are not and will keep right on lying till 9-11 starts looking like a good day in the empire...

You say that the US have spent so much on missile defense but on closer inspection that's clearly not true.

Washington, D.C.): Today's Wall Street Journal features an extraordinarily timely column by the newspaper's highly respected Assistant Editorial Page Editor, Melanie Kirkpatrick. Thanks to Ms. Kirkpatrick, a dirty little secret is now in the public domain: Even as Russian President Vladimir Putin goes to great lengths to denounce President Bush's commitment to defend the American people against ballistic missile attack, railing about the threat thus posed to the sacrosanct 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and seeking to divide United States from its allies, Russia is maintaining a national missile defense of its own that is clearly inconsistent with the terms of the ABM Treaty.

This revelation demands several responses: 1) President Bush should task his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board or some other independent blue-ribbon group to perform an immediate and rigorous assessment of former Defense Intelligence Officer William Lee's work on the Soviet/Russian NMD system and the classified official analyses that have, to date, minimized its strategic capabilities and significance. 2) Present the findings of such a study to the American people and U.S. allies. And 3) end the official U.S. practice inherited by Mr. Bush of allowing the United States to be the only nation whose missile defense programs are encumbered by the outdated and increasingly dangerous ABM Treaty, thereby clearing the way for deployment as soon as possible of effective anti-missile protection for this country, as well as Russia.

www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org...

Mr. Lee's analysis is complex. To vastly simplify, he says he has evidence that Russia's surface-to-air interceptor missiles carry nuclear warheads and therefore are capable of bringing down long-range ballistic missiles, not just aircraft and shorter-range missiles, which is their stated purpose. Russia has 8,000 of these missiles scattered around the country, and Mr. Lee says he has found numerous Russian sources that describe how successive generations of SAMs were in fact designed with the express intention of shooting down ballistic missiles, which is illegal under the treaty.

www.opinionjournal.com...

Can't find the specific quote but basically some defense analyst is pointing out how while the Russian navy and army went without funds there always seemed to have been some for the air defense forces which continued to upgrade and buy new systems throughout the 90's. As may or may not be obvious you do not really need your army or a navy in great shape when you can blunt a enemy nuclear attack and retaliate as and when you like against any conventional force concentrations...

I think we both can agree that that would take quite a bit. Are we talking about kinetic strike platforms? Or anti ballistic missile shields?

We are talking FOBS and similar systems which may or may not be as 'deactivated' as the US chemical and biological research labs.

Also, it becomes a bit problematic when certain underground sites are located underneath massive cities (Moscow).

It's only problematic when when the primary DEW ( both countries have some which may or may not be entirely or very effective against ICBMs) fails and the secondary Sa-10 variety of ABMs can't aid the Moscow specific ABM defense system fails. If all of those fails then certainly the underground shelters are in more danger but since SLBM warheads are not large enough and ICBMs 20 or more minutes out the few senior officials that are still left in Moscow and Washington DC can be sacrificed. What i feel i should point out is that according to most sources Washington lacks any of those defenses...

I wasn't necessarily referring to nuclear warfare, however, I see how it could elude to that.

Russia is absolutely massive, you are right, it could take a pounding.

Well the Russians are not going to go to war with the US ( The Russian population , to say nothing of the army, did not support ot want to fight in Chechnya) but i believe that they might respond with quite overwhelming force if and when the US national security state people eventually sees a opening in Russian defenses.

I cant help but sense a biased tone with you. The US would take on quite a few casualties, However, if Russia or china, were to attack the American forces, the American people would be 100% behind their government. Pearl harbor taught us that, 911 taught us that..

The Russian government, to say nothing of the Chinese, has in my opinion little credibility with it's people when it comes to matters of such importance and they will be sure to organize themselves into widely perceiving victims to ever muster the force to attempt taking on the US. I just do not see either of those countries leaders risking open warfare without the US leaders being the obvious ( at least to the rest of the world) instigators of the trouble. I believe that Afghanistan and Iraq may well be part and parcel of such a plan to ensure that the US is marginalized if certainly feared.

As of right now, to my knowledge, they are not. This taking into account, russias deteriorating nuclear stockpile.

Which does not mean a damn thing in the bigger picture where we actually attempt to count what they can and do operate today. Unless you know something these , and many other defense/intelligence specialist do not know i suggest you give up on the 'rotting nuke's' mythology.

thebulletin.metapress.com...

A military budget that rounds out roughly to about 600 billion dollars maybe?

Sure but that's ALL deficit spending presuming that health care and other vital federal accounts are settled first.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The record $3.1 trillion budget proposed by President Bush on Monday is almost sure to produce eyepopping federal deficits, despite his attempts to impose politically wrenching curbs on Medicare and eliminate scores of popular domestic programs.

The Pentagon would receive a $36 billion, 8 percent boost for the 2009 budget year beginning Oct. 1, even as programs aimed at the poor would be cut back or eliminated. Half of domestic Cabinet departments would see their budgets cut outright.

Slumping revenues and the cost of an economic rescue package will combine to produce a huge jump in the deficit to $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, the White House says, just shy of the record $413 billion set four years ago.

ap.google.com...

Continued

[edit on 15-2-2008 by StellarX]

Military outlays grow as Medicare spending is cut in a $3.1-trillion plan already taking fire in an election year.
By Peter G. Gosselin, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 5, 2008
WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Monday submitted a $3.1-trillion budget for the next fiscal year that reflected his strategy for dealing with a costly war and a troubled economy: substantially boost military expenditures, rein in domestic spending -- including for Medicare -- and more than double the deficit.

www.latimes.com...

But actually the US ( and a large number of other countries) can not afford to spend a sent on the armed forces!

The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

The Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, which sets federal accounting standards, is considering requiring the government to adopt accounting rules similar to those for corporations. The change would move Social Security and Medicare onto the government's income statement and balance sheet, instead of keeping them separate.

The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them.

www.usatoday.com...

Luckily you can see that the White House already have a handy 'sollution' if the problem becomes too serious later on!

So the US national security state bankrupts Americans to fund their exploits in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Defense spending in the US is on a steady increase, this is a part of Future Combat Systems (FCS).

Sure it is but with who's money? Who has so far funded the war in Iraq with investments in the US economy?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Because of this failure, Wilson concludes, the U.S. military remains "perhaps in peril of losing the 'war,' even after supposedly winning it."

Overall, he grades the U.S. military performance in Iraq as "mediocre."

He is entitled to his opinion. But let us not forget, it is an opinion that isn’t well corroborated.

Iraq currently, is experiencing the fastest growing Economy in the world per Brookings report.

So why did the US armed forces pick up a drug habit in Vietnam? Do you think they started using drugs because they were able to cope with the situation? Should we expect that any human being could cope with such strain and stress based on so many lies?

Why does this matter? I’m not sure, exactly what you are trying to get at. I’m questioning the integrity of the post in general.

Yes, the vast majority of the Iraqi armed forces were never in contact with American forces and simply abandoned whatever they could not hide in peacetime. Do you realise that Iraqi soldiers were allowed to take their rifles home?

So are these the same fanatics who blow themselves up, killing innocent men, women, and children, in hopes of destabilizing their own country?

Your talking to the wrong type of Iraqi's and i suggest you actually find Iraqi's who are STILL in Iraq and not those who had the means to run away when things got out of hand.

I talked to an Iraqi girl who lives in Iraq. She has helped US forces out by giving them valuable Intel. Despite the conflict, she believes Iraq has a brighter future with the fall of the Saddam Regime.

And what do you make of the fact that 77% are glad Saddam is gone (96% of Shiites and Kurds)?

Living standards in 2005 had declined compared to those even under the genocidal sanctions of the 90's and things have only gotten worse since.

Well that’s uninformed at its best.

GDP growth data in the Brookings report has Iraq as one of the fastest growing economies in the world. In 2006 It grew nearly 17%, while in 2007 it was projected to grow at nearly 14%.

In any event, Iraq is already more prosperous than at any point since Saddam's war with Iran (beginning 1980). Please be sure you are blaming Saddam in addition to the sanctions against him.

The mere suggestion that the elections in either of those countries were remotely democratic is such a joke and obvious lie that i do not even know how to deal with people who know so little about recent history.

Iraq is a democracy, all be it a young, struggling democracy. Is this somehow coming off as news to you?

Regardless of your anti American rhetoric, there were elections held, there were Iraqis, as well as Afghanis (which saw record turnouts) who voted for their representatives.

That is Iraq and what happened in Afghanistan were even more of a farce.

It doesn’t change the SIMPLE fact that it is STILL considered a democracy! They are free to do as they wish, to buy whatever they want, etc. Why you continue to ignore the obvious is beyond me.

So when last did the US deploy anything remotely like a new ICBM?

Ask the Pentagon..

Perhaps the US doesn’t feel the need to continue to waste money on something they feel is obsolete.

You say that the US have spent so much on missile defense but on closer inspection that's clearly not true.

First of all, the link does not work, and how did you come to the terms of it being “not true”. Please do feel free to provide credible sources that actually validate your claims, ones that actually work..

Can't find the specific quote but basically some defense analyst is pointing out how while the Russian navy and army went without funds there always seemed to have been some for the air defense forces which continued to upgrade and buy new systems throughout the 90's. As may or may not be obvious you do not really need your army or a navy in great shape when you can blunt a enemy nuclear attack and retaliate as and when you like against any conventional force concentrations...

That is interesting. It seems that Russia (understandably so) chose to go the nuclear way, because they knew they could not hope to keep up with US conventional forces. But relying solely on that nuclear option is dangerous.

I do agree, with your assessment to a degree, stellar. Under Clinton, he did favor sticking with the treaties, this, however, has all changed under GW Bush. Space based defenses are what America is and has been working on, in the form of an ABM for the bare minimum of the past 8-9 years. Missile defense also receives loads of money in the form of funding.

The nuclear window is closing for Russia however. With breakthroughs advancements in US missile defense systems, and spaces forces such as FALCON and SUSTAIN, it is only a matter of time till the nuclear option, in itself, becomes obsolete for the “mother land” (along with the rest of its conventional forces).

Which does not mean a damn thing in the bigger picture where we actually attempt to count what they can and do operate today. Unless you know something these , and many other defense/intelligence specialist do not know i suggest you give up on the 'rotting nuke's' mythology.

So its just made up? Then why has the US spent billions of dollars to help aid russias wasting away nuclear stockpile?

Sure but that's ALL deficit spending presuming that health care and other vital federal accounts are settled first.

As if the two are exclusive? Regardless, it is being spent, and as it is the US who is the one doing it, it hardly matters. Or do we need to understand how economics in today’s world works?

America gets away with having such a deficit because others buy up its debt, they do this so the American consumer can continue to buy their items, thus making them more money. Without the American consumer buying all their crap, they aren’t experiencing
the same GDP growth. We can also do what so many other countries have done and that is just nationalize all foreign investments and disregard any foreign debts for it all to disappear over night. The world needs America, but America does not need the world. The world is purely just a convenience to America since it is America that is the breadbasket of the world…





[edit on 15-2-2008 by West Coast]

reply to post by West Coast


Oh wow, you're calling him an anti-american, just as I've mention in other posts, that you've clearly have a paranoya when ever someone isn't agreeing with you, you call them anti-american. SAD , just proves my credebility.

You know, you haven't shown any proof that US conventional forces can beat Russians, it is a joke and bs. No country in the world! has ever defeated Russia on their own soil, it is a FACT, not Napoleon, not Nazis, no one. With such territory, US forces will freeze to death, I guarantee you, and any plane that goes near russian border will become a pile of junk.
Heard of Tesla? well time to rething tactics, who do you think got all the blueprints?
besides, Abrams can't compare to t-90, so what is the talk? Abrams were not created for the mother nature in Russia. We all saw how poor tactics of US did NOTHING in SERBIA, 90% of serbian air-force is intact.

I loved the part especially where US were bombing tank decoys in serbia
You cannot win in Iraq or Afganistan and you're talking about full conventional victory over Russia with little casulties, please, wake up. that is the most dumbest thing I ever heard in my life, might want to check for dcp syndrome, I recommend you. too many BS you have, LOTS OF BS

Seems like most people here forget that Putin is KGB trained and has his own plans of domination. He is playing the game to keep his powerbase by using the old standby of hating America to cause fear to keep power. Russia's problem is completely internal. Once their failed form of Govt. collapsed, they were taken over by criminals who made their way running the black market during the oppression of the USSR.