Posted on 08/20/2008 10:34:32 AM PDT by illiac
That’s easy, Obama will give them everything they demand and make “peace”...
At that time, we were thumbing our noses at each other across the gap and there were occasional incursions into NATO storage bunkers by spy types.
It looks to me like it's all back to normal now.
The tactic is as old as beer, maybe older but I think hookers came first.
I think I gotta borrow that for a tagline
I’m not answering your questions. LOL
You never answered any of mine.
Don’t play games, yes, it was “superficial” because I really don’t have time to give history lessons in detail. I’ve got too many other things going on to worry about one person who doesn’t want to take the time to LEARN on his or her own.
Why don’t you do your own research and stop PARROTING Russia crap?
I’ll give you one piece of information, I have an exact count of countries “in my head” because it concerns my job and I have to know those sorts of things. We’ll leave it at that, suffice it to say that it’s a pretty important aspect of what I do and why I “know” what I “know”. Just accept the fact that I know these things. By the way, I’ll bet you money that EVERYONE on this board can tell you EXACTLY how many countries they’ve been in.... (But not you? Interesting)
Don’t bother me again unless you’re willing to answer MY questions first. You’re NOT going to sit there and put me on the “defensive” because I’m right, and you’re completely wrong. Have a nice day.
Russia’s Nuclear Threat Is More Than Words
By GABRIEL SCHOENFELD
August 21, 2008; Page A11
What lies behind Moscow’s willingness to crush Georgia with overwhelming force? Analysts have highlighted Russia’s newfound economic confidence, its determination to undo its humiliation of the 1990s, and its grievances over Kosovo, U.S. missile-defense plans involving Poland and the Czech Republic, and the eastward expansion of NATO.
But there may be another major, overlooked element: Has a shift in the nuclear balance between the U.S. and Russia helped embolden the bear?
Under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which went into force in 1994, both the U.S. and the USSR made radical cuts in their strategic nuclear arsenals — that is, in weapons of intercontinental range. The 2002 Moscow Treaty pushed the numbers down even further, until each side’s strategic nuclear umbrella was pocket-size.
Yet matters are very different at the tactical, or short-range, level. Here, the U.S., acting unilaterally and with virtually no fanfare, sharply cut back its stockpile of nonstrategic nuclear warheads. As far back as 1991, the U.S. began to retire all of its nuclear warheads for short-range ballistic missiles, artillery and antisubmarine warfare. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, not one of these weapons exists today. The same authoritative publication estimates that the number of tactical warheads in the U.S. arsenal has dwindled from thousands to approximately 500.
Russia has also reduced the size of its tactical nuclear arsenal, but starting from much higher levels and at a slower pace, leaving it with an estimated 5,000 such devices — 10 times the number of tactical weapons held by the U.S. Such a disparity would be one thing if we were contending with a stable, postcommunist regime moving in the direction of democracy and integration with the West. That was the Russia we anticipated when we began our nuclear build-down. But it is not the Russia we are facing today.
Not only has Russia retained a sizable nuclear arsenal, its military and political leaders regularly engage in aggressive bluster about expanded deployment and possible use, and sometimes they go beyond bluster. Six months ago, Russia began sending cruise missile-capable Bear H bombers on sallies along the coast of Alaska.
As recently as July, the newspaper Izvestia floated the idea that Moscow would station nuclear weapons in Cuba if the U.S. went ahead with the deployment of an antiballistic missile radar in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland. Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, chief of Russia’s strategic missile command, has openly spoken about aiming nuclear-tipped missiles at those two countries. Vladimir Putin has warned Ukraine that if it were to join NATO, “Russia will have to point its warheads at Ukrainian territory.” Not long before that, Mr. Putin cheerfully described a series of ballistic-missile flight tests as “pleasant and spectacular holiday fireworks.”
Such cavalier language stands in striking contrast to the restrained approach of American leaders. “I am committed to achieving a credible deterrent with the lowest possible number of nuclear weapons consistent with our national security needs,” said President George W. Bush in 2001, in one of his rare pronouncements on the subject. “My goal is to move quickly to reduce nuclear forces.” Mr. Bush has kept his word and moved quickly. But has he moved wisely? And given the pugnacious Russia that has suddenly emerged, what is the strategic legacy that he will leave for his successor?
The Russians are steadily acquiring economic and military power, and are not afraid to use threats and force to get their way. Even as they abide by the terms of various treaties, while we are standing still they are finding ways to develop new and highly advanced ground- and submarine-based intercontinental missiles, along with modern submarines to carry and launch them.
As in the Cold War, nuclear weapons are central to the Russian geopolitical calculus. “The weak are not loved and not heard, they are insulted, and when we have [nuclear] parity they will talk to us in a different way.” These words are not from the dark days of communist yore. Rather, they were uttered last year by Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, and they perfectly capture the mentality we and Russia’s neighbors are up against.
IRAN ?
OUBSSAMA will play the tough guy....for the show!
Demokrats perfectly know that he is lying to look stronger than he is on foreign policy
Can anyone explain why Rush wants to refer to Saddleback as Saddlesore? I don’t get it, is he trying to equate it to Brokeback Mtn.?
The ones threatened, in reality or in perception, are still the Russians, I would have to say.
It seems to me that the concept of fungibility applies to missiles, too.
If Russia feels that it has to counter even defensive-style missiles, then it is being antagonized, in reality or in perception. And perception of a slight has started many a war, probably most of them. Condi must know that. The Poles certainly know that they are trying to pick a fight—they count on us bailing them out.
WoofDog123, did you understand that confused incoherent, Mumbo Jumbo Rick.Donaldson just babbled?
I didn’t...because it was all babble.
This Rick.Donaldson sounds like he/she has a lot of screws out of place.
Oh My!!!
Am I impressed! Russian no less!
How is it going in Georgia with you and your little pathetic Russian friends?
I’m not in Russia :)
I don’t have any Russian friends. You’ve not actually been following the conversation very closely here, have ya sonny?
LOL
“Mr. Ka-shing owns the company that runs the Panama Canal. His company is located in Hong Kong. Hong Kong BELONGS to the Chinese. Therefore... by default the Chinese Government HAS CONTROL IF IT SO WISHES OVER THE PANAMA CANAL.”
And you are full of fancy yammer with no knowledge of what is happening in Panama.
How long have you lived here?
I was born in the Canal Zone and have lived here most of my life.
And quit your condisending attitude. It does not fly with me.
You are full of it.
Talk about a lot of misinformation on your part.
So you and Woof are both Panamanians then?
I’m not “full of it”.
You’re the one with the condescending attitude. lol
I’ve stated some things that are based on facts.
Your buddy you seem to keep pinging for assistance was asked two questions. He never responded and has continued to quiz me.
I’m not playing that game with either of you. Now why don’t you go back to living in the dark with your buddy and stop interrupting folks who were trying to have a conversation.
The material I posted IS FACTUAL, and TRUE. You and anyone else in the world can verify it. Your problem is, son, you don’t want to verify it. I’m finished with you and your buddy.
Again, Yammer Mouth, did you ever live in Panama?
Waiting for an answer.
Oh, I forgot the obligatory “LOL.”
Respond, Motor Mouth...what was your short time in Panama if true?
Those who visit Panama are experts in 3 days.
If they stay 4 days they write a book.
In what category do you fit?
By the way, what is Red Tank?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.