Are we facing a new Cold War?

[Hobgoblin]

This is a spin off to the Russia invades Georgia thread. Hopefully this thread will be used more to discuss American/Russian relations, specifically.

I have heard that the two countries are headed towards a new Cold War. Do you think this is true? What are your reasons?

Personally, I think the relations have certainly gotten chillier, but this is very different from the Cold War. Russia may be exerting more influence on Europe (I heard Lou Dobbs say that Europe gets 50% of its energy from Russia, thus the tepid response to the Georgia War from Germany, France and Britain) but I cant see us nearly being so eye to eye as we were in the 60's.

I think there is a lot of "fear mongering" going on in the media. We in the US still see Russia as the enemy (and Putin may well be) and as soon as they do anything, we get jumpy.

Some reading:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/13/us.russia.diplomacy/index.html

[The Senator]

Wouldn't surprise me a bit. In fact, I'm looking forward to nuclear holocaust. I've read "The Road," so I should be thoroughly prepared.

[Symbiotic]

I sure hope not.

[hippie_hunter]

Wouldn't surprise me a bit. In fact, I'm looking forward to nuclear holocaust. I've read "The Road," so I should be thoroughly prepared.

You sound like a liberal homosexual version of my conservative homophobic friend Ben :csad:

[Spidey-Bat]

Seems like it but we'll have to wait and see how countries respond to this.

[Matt]

No. Putin wants more power in the reigon, but he is also smart enough to know Russia is not economically capable of maintaining an empire or picking a fight with any of the super powers (the US, EU, or China).

[SuBe]

I think it is happening, and has been happening for quite some time. The only difference this time it we didn't know it, and it's over energy instead of weapons. I know this makes me sound like Mayor of Crazy Town, but I think that is the Main Reason they didn't support us in the Iraqi War, because Russia was apart of the Oil for Food Program with the UN, and they where Staged to see a lot of Oil, but the US came along and disrupted the whole thing. Then over the last few years, you hear about Venezuala and Iran meeting with Putin. I believe that Russia attacked, invaded, whatever, into Georiga to gain control of the Pipeline that runs through it. Hopeing to use the PeaceKeepers as an excuse on the International Media. I think they know that there is going to be a shortage of energy someday, and they want to be prepared for it. They are stockpiling their Resourse, and know that their Blend of Capitalism that they enjoy over there is dependant on Oil.

[Fading]

Edit - I've been playing catch up trying to follow this. However I'm putting my vote in the no hat. I'm sure Russia is still powerful, but I'm not sure it's powerful enough to go toe to toe with other Superpowers. China, and several other places have stepped their game up since the last cold war.

I can see there being an unerving tension, but not a full blown in your face stand off.

[Shoegazer]

Considering the fact that Russia has just now threatened to nuke Poland over their planned missile shield, it pretty much confirms we're already in a new Cold War.

[Hobgoblin]

Considering the fact that Russia has just now threatened to nuke Poland over their planned missile shield, it pretty much confirms we're already in a new Cold War.

True, there is also the new weapons defense shield that Russia is against. They also threatened a military response if the system goes online. I dont know if they would really do that though. It seems like a bluff to me. Any "military response" into Poland would start WW3.

[Darthphere]

Russia, you so crazy!

[The Chairman]

No. Putin wants more power in the reigon, but he is also smart enough to know Russia is not economically capable of maintaining an empire or picking a fight with any of the super powers (the US, EU, or China).

I pray to God you're right. I hope the U.S. stays out of this.

[chamber-music]

The head of the British secret service has said they are having trouble dealing with terrorism because Russians are still operating like they are in the cold war. They estimate there are a number of russian spies still operating in britain.

This seems pretty obvious after the Alexander Litvinenko fiasco in London two years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko

[Hobgoblin]

This video isnt very interesting until the last ten seconds. Supposedly Cheney said that the Russian aggression will not go unanswered. Whatever that means.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgmihSiPFK4&feature=related

[The Chairman]

Cheney needs to get his head out of his arse if he thinks we need to get involved. We need to keep our noses out of this mess. Iraq is still happening.

[kainedamo]

McCain has been doing a lot of sabre rattiling over this, which just convinces me more that he's the wrong man to be leading the free world.

[Spidey-Bat]

McCain has been doing a lot of sabre rattiling over this, which just convinces me more that he's the wrong man to be leading the free world.

He'd be better equipped to handle this than black Jimmy Carter.

[luke1234]

This is all overblown, i dont appreciate the media bringing fear of a new cold war into this situation. Its completely different, no world power is dumb enough to start a war between world powers. The only way a nuke will go off is if its in the hand of a terrorist not a world leader. What i wanna know is where Is Russia's president and how does he feel about this situation, its clearly that he has taken a back seat to Putins plans but he still is the president. What the U. S needs to do is have our European Allies back us up on this situation to scare Russias aspirations away.

[kainedamo]

Mr. "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" war hungry McCain? On what basis?

[StorminNorman]

Cheney needs to get his head out of his arse if he thinks we need to get involved. We need to keep our noses out of this mess. Iraq is still happening.

Can we afford to let an ally get slaughtered as we stand by and do nothing?

Wouldn't that pretty much destroy the bond of trust that any nation that faces the pressures of Russia, Iran or any problematic larger country? Letting Georgia be destroyed by Russia would do far more damage to American Diplomacy than every combined diplomatic mishap handled by Bush and Clinton.

[StorminNorman]

No. Putin wants more power in the reigon, but he is also smart enough to know Russia is not economically capable of maintaining an empire or picking a fight with any of the super powers (the US, EU, or China).

I think basing anything purely on the logic of Putin is a scary notion.

[Überlibran]

He'd be better equipped to handle this than black Jimmy Carter.Oh my god, oh my god! Black Jimmy Carter! Ah hahahahahah! Ooh hehehehe! Black Jimmy... Ha haha! My sides, they are splitting! Bwa hahaha oh hohohoho. You owe me a new keyboard/laptop/monitor/CPU/Palm Pilot! Tee hee hee! Heh heh heh! Black Jimmy Carter! :dry: :dry: :whatever:

[luke1234]

The Cease Fire is in place now right?

[kainedamo]

The Russians signed the ceasefire agreement but last I saw on the news Russian tanks are still in Georgia.

[kainedamo]

Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_missile_defense

What the hell is going to come of all of these tensions.

[bullets]

I don't think it will be long before Bush takes action against Russia . At least that is where i see this heading . I don't think we will stand by (even though we kinda want to).

[kainedamo]

No, I don't think its that bad yet. Russia probably just wants to show they're still a big player, show they got some bite. There is a lot of international pressure over their invasion of Georgia and they already signed a ceasefire agreement, so they may yet just chill the **** out.

[Hobgoblin]

One thing is for sure: Russia's been talking a lot of smack lately. First Georgia, then threatening Poland and the US? Maybe there wont be a new Cold War but Russia has got to be expecting some major backlash from all of this posturing. We'll see how they react to that.

[Alex The Great]

*hopes Canada doesn't get involved*

[Hobgoblin]

I think Canada is a little too stoned to get involved.:oldrazz:

Hopefully, even W isnt stupid enough to escalate matters.

[The Chairman]

Can we afford to let an ally get slaughtered as we stand by and do nothing?

Wouldn't that pretty much destroy the bond of trust that any nation that faces the pressures of Russia, Iran or any problematic larger country? Letting Georgia be destroyed by Russia would do far more damage to American Diplomacy than every combined diplomatic mishap handled by Bush and Clinton.

It's none of our business to get involved. It's their conflict, not ours. Why haven't we declared war on the Darfur region, if that's the case? The Russia / Georgia does not concern us, nor did Iran or Iraq. We went into Iraq under false pretenses (the WMD nonsense) and look at what it cost us.

Let Russia and Georgia sit this one out. It's a purely political / regional situation that we have no business being involved in.

He'd be better equipped to handle this than black Jimmy Carter.

Wow, you're hilarious. :whatever:

[The Senator]

Well you see, we can say "screw off" to the African nations because they are poor and will never have any sort of power in the world. Russia, though, is still a very powerful force in the world, and we must abide by the promises of the Great Reagan to keep it a Democracy, even though democracy has been all but obliterated there.

Or something like that :huh:

I personally think we need to keep our asses out of any more unnecessary wars. We're already deadlocked in the middle of one, possibly on the way to another (Iran), and we certainly don't need a third-- especially since the third nation has the ability to wipe us off the map with a push of a button.

[Hobgoblin]

Well you see, we can say "screw off" to the African nations because they are poor and will never have any sort of power in the world. Russia, though, is still a very powerful force in the world, and we must abide by the promises of the Great Reagan to keep it a Democracy, even though democracy has been all but obliterated there.

Or something like that :huh:

I personally think we need to keep our asses out of any more unnecessary wars. We're already deadlocked in the middle of one, possibly on the way to another (Iran), and we certainly don't need a third-- especially since the third nation has the ability to wipe us off the map with a push of a button.

BINGO. Give the man his prize.

[kytrigger]

Well you see, we can say "screw off" to the African nations because they are poor and will never have any sort of power in the world. Russia, though, is still a very powerful force in the world, and we must abide by the promises of the Great Reagan to keep it a Democracy, even though democracy has been all but obliterated there.

Or something like that :huh:

I personally think we need to keep our asses out of any more unnecessary wars. We're already deadlocked in the middle of one, possibly on the way to another (Iran), and we certainly don't need a third-- especially since the third nation has the ability to wipe us off the map with a push of a button.
While I'll in no way advocate going to war against Russia, the idea that we shouldn't go to war because of Iraq (and possibly Iran) is flawed IMO. While Iraq has lasted for years now and cost us trillions, it's a completely different type of war than what we would enter in with Russia, mainly because we would actually see Russia as a threat. Iraq was, for the most part, not a problem for us at all when it came to a traditional "tier 3" battle situation. This was when we basically destroyed them and their infrastructure. It's been the rebuilding and hunting of small enemy groups that's been a pain in our ass there.

With Russia, I highly doubt we would even wory about this, simply because we know if we were to **** around too much, we would suffer major losses. If we were to go to war against Russia, we would not hold back (save for nukes).

One thing that OIF/OEF has helped the US military with is advancement in war technology, something which right now, it looks as if Russia is defintely lagging behind in. There's been a few reports showing how while most are looking at the Georgia conflict as Russia showing off their might, it has actually showed off some major flaws in their military. Flaws that don't really hurt them against someone like Georgia, bu would definately be exposed in a major war against a superpower. (I don't have any of the articles on me right now, but I can look them up and post them if anyone is interested later on).

[Kelly]

I feel like the US has come to this party extremely late. The fact that France voted strongly against Georgia being accepted into NATO, tells me they knew that Russia was planning an invasion, and if Georgia was a part of NATO, they would have to automatically become involved. I think its just another example of France and others, saying...."oh yeah.....yeah......that was wrong, bad Russia, BAD Russia......" yet standing WAY BEHIND the US, saying "we got your back, US......" waaaaaaaaaaaay back here. The US cannot stand up to this without the rest of Europe standing next to them, not behind them. Sorry, but I don't see that happening, not because they don't believe that Russia was wrong in doing this, but because they get a hell of alot of oil from Russia and it runs right through that pipeline that goes through Georgia.....


And I'm sorry, but Russian troops in Georgia......ARE NOT PEACEKEEPING TROOPS......send UN peacekeeping troops, and the Georgian governement needs to get their armies in this area under ****ing control.....the fact that they are shooting damn news reporters is ridiculous.......they want help from the West? then stop pointing the damn guns at us.....

[Darthphere]

They use the Johnny Rico mentality over there "Kill them! Kill them all!"

[Kelly]

They use the Johnny Rico mentality over there "Kill them! Kill them all!"


It sure as hell looks that way....lol

[Kelly]

I think what really needs to be watched, is the future of NATO......




And I don't see that this is actually a Cold War foreign policy from Russia......this is actually a Czarist form of foreign policy, and it needs to be seen as that, and dealt with in that manner.


This is Catherine The Great mentality, wanting to gain territory, yet still be a part of the European style of living.

Russia is an extraction country.......and it needs to be dealt with that way.

[StorminNorman]

It's none of our business to get involved. It's their conflict, not ours. Why haven't we declared war on the Darfur region, if that's the case? The Russia / Georgia does not concern us, nor did Iran or Iraq. We went into Iraq under false pretenses (the WMD nonsense) and look at what it cost us.

This is such a naive perspective. Of course its our business - you have a nuclear armed power that has begun an aggressive and brutal policy of attacking its democratic neighbors - that has America painted all over it. Look at Kuwait.

We don't declare war on Darfur because Darfur is a situation that caused no threat to global security - to try to compare a poor African country to Russia is insane.

Again, even if Russia wasn't the global threat it is, we can not allow a close, honored American ally be destroyed by doing nothing. That would risk all of our alliances with former soviet countires and any country that has a hostile neighbor.

[Cosmic]

Re: Are we facing a new Cold War?

It's not a new war. The world powers are competing for resources and political and economic power. The old Soviet Union collapsed almost 20 years ago, but the ideology didn't just disappear. They didn't simply stop competing as a result of losing their standing in the world. This was like a bold move in a long chess match that caught the spectators by surprise. But in reality, there were signs of something like this happening all along.

[jaguarr]

I'd call it more of a Big Chill at this point. I don't think we're headed towards the levels things were at in the 80's.

jag

[Fading]

Glad they signed a cease fire, but the threat of attack on Poland is a move right back in the wrong direction. I can understand not wanting missles near their country, but that's why you go to the negotiating tables and let them know you will attack if they keep going thru with it, you don't threaten them in the where the whole world can hear.

Obviously I hope this settles down. ATM we're stretched very thin, if Russia brought about a conflict that needed military intervention then we'd have to take time to withdraw our troops. In fact I think that'd be a key telling point, since Bush has been against pulling troops out, if he started to before he left office I'd say he knows something we don't.

[Kelly]

Glad they signed a cease fire, but the threat of attack on Poland is a move right back in the wrong direction. I can understand not wanting missles near their country, but that's why you go to the negotiating tables and let them know you will attack if they keep going thru with it, you don't threaten them in the where the whole world can hear.

Obviously I hope this settles down. ATM we're stretched very thin, if Russia brought about a conflict that needed military intervention then we'd have to take time to withdraw our troops. In fact I think that'd be a key telling point, since Bush has been against pulling troops out, if he started to before he left office I'd say he knows something we don't.


Actually Bush is not against pulling troops out, and has been talking about a slow pull out for a couple of months now. We would work with a coalition (much like that for Kosovo, with much fewer US troops) if something like that was needed. Europe would have to pony up most of the troops.

[Arkady Rossovich]

There is nothing to worry about. Russia and America are not heading into another Cold War.

[Ocramed]

The "Russia Today" media is calling this "new era" a "Cold Peace".

And Russia is not going to attack Poland. Unlike Georgia, Poland IS a member of NATO. Most likely, they will exert economic pressure on Poland. But the irony of the invasion is that Poland would not have signed the missile deal, if the Russians had not made its move.

The good thing about all this that NATO states will push ahead towards energy independence. And when THAT happens, Russia will revert to its previous status as a poor nation.

D. Wynne

[kainedamo]

This is such a naive perspective. Of course its our business - you have a nuclear armed power that has begun an aggressive and brutal policy of attacking its democratic neighbors - that has America painted all over it. Look at Kuwait.

We don't declare war on Darfur because Darfur is a situation that caused no threat to global security - to try to compare a poor African country to Russia is insane.

Again, even if Russia wasn't the global threat it is, we can not allow a close, honored American ally be destroyed by doing nothing. That would risk all of our alliances with former soviet countires and any country that has a hostile neighbor.

Well Norman, looking at your posts on the topic, it seems to me if it were up to you there would already be a coalition of troops over there.

There isn't any need to be so gung-ho about it.

The President of France has been in contact with the Prez of Russia, the international community has applied pressure, and Russia and Georgia have signed a ceasefire agreement.

Yesterday, I read that the Russian troops were supposed to pull out today. Haven't watched the news yet today, so I'll see what's going on.

You're calling some guy naive, which I think is ironic. How do you suggest exactly that the international community goes about starting a war with Russia? Especially America, considering how spread thin the American military is already. And financially, can America afford a long and bloody war with Russia? There are always options before going to war.

[StorminNorman]

Well Norman, looking at your posts on the topic, it seems to me if it were up to you there would already be a coalition of troops over there.

There isn't any need to be so gung-ho about it.

If you looked at my first post on the subject - you would see that I advocated the EU, NATO and the UN to be the leaders in handling this conflict. The UN has, as it always does, to prove inept, insufficient and simply silly.

I am not advocating American troop presence in Georgia at the present. We must allow Russia the ability to honor the various agreements made - we cannot, however, rule out American military presence in the area should Russia not live up to its promises. It should not be simply American military presence either, but a fully equipped international force similar to the one that came to the aid of Kuwait and South Korea.

The President of France has been in contact with the Prez of Russia, the international community has applied pressure, and Russia and Georgia have signed a ceasefire agreement.

Again - I have never said that nothing is being done. My stance has simply been that America cannot sit on its hands should the conflict be escalated. America cannot let the Georgian government fall.

Yesterday, I read that the Russian troops were supposed to pull out today. Haven't watched the news yet today, so I'll see what's going on.

You're calling some guy naive, which I think is ironic. How do you suggest exactly that the international community goes about starting a war with Russia? Especially America, considering how spread thin the American military is already. And financially, can America afford a long and bloody war with Russia? There are always options before going to war.

The idea that Russia invading Georgia is not an American issue is naive - its simple as that.

The international community is greater than Russia. Again - I have never advocated America to go in and invade Russia. There must be an international force coming to Russia's aid. America's greatest asset in this conflict would be its Air Force, a military branch that is not spread too thin and who has vast superiority over every country in the world. It should be up to Europe, who has Democratic, free countries should feel obligated to help Georgia, to provide on the ground troops.

Plus you ignore the obvious way to deal with Russia that does not involve a single military officer: economic sanctions. Should Russia continue its act of brutal aggression, Russia should face major consequences in the areas of trade and diplomacy.

[jaguarr]

The "Russia Today" media is calling this "new era" a "Cold Peace".

And Russia is not going to attack Poland. Unlike Georgia, Poland IS a member of NATO. Most likely, they will exert economic pressure on Poland. But the irony of the invasion is that Poland would not have signed the missile deal, if the Russians had not made its move.

The good thing about all this that NATO states will push ahead towards energy independence. And when THAT happens, Russia will revert to its previous status as a poor nation.

D. Wynne


That right there is the big hammer EMEA has to deal with Russia when they act up like this. I've read that somewhere between 50% and 65% of the energy in EMEA countries is bought from Russia. It's Russia's primary export. If those countries start using a different source or generating their own, it will cripple Russia's economy.

jag

[Kelly]

That right there is the big hammer EMEA has to deal with Russia when they act up like this. I've read that somewhere between 50% and 65% of the energy in EMEA countries is bought from Russia. It's Russia's primary export. If those countries start using a different source or generating their own, it will cripple Russia's economy.

jag


Russia needs to back it down a few notches......they are an extraction country, nothing else.........pretty much a primary economic activity country. They offer few commodities to other countries in trade. Natural Gas is pretty much it................................................ .......they may screw up royally if they do not chill............



But I'll still stock my bar with their best Vodka.....:cwink:

[Arkady Rossovich]

To be honest,I am a bit concerned now..

[Tigerking]

Cold War my ass, now we know how the world felt when we invaded Iraq

[Gilpesh]

Too early to tell.

Depends on who gets elected into office in November.

[Kelly]

yeah....

[StorminNorman]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92M5GM81&show_article=1

Russia warns of response to US missile shield

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia says its response to the further development of a U.S. missile shield in Poland will go beyond diplomacy.

Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the U.S. missile shield plans are clearly aimed at weakening Russia.

The U.S. says the missile defense system is aimed at protecting the U.S. and Europe from future attacks from states like Iran.

The United States and Poland signed a deal Wednesday to place a U.S. missile defense base just 115 miles from Russia's westernmost fringe.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WARSAW, Poland (AP)—Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Polish counterpart signed a deal Wednesday to build a U.S. missile defense base in Poland, an agreement that prompted an infuriated Russia to warn of a possible attack against the former Soviet satellite.

Rice dismissed blustery comments from Russian leaders who say Warsaw's hosting of 10 U.S. interceptor missiles just 115 miles from Russia's westernmost frontier opens the country up to attack.

Such comments "border on the bizarre frankly," Rice said, speaking to reporters traveling with her in Warsaw.

"When you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988," Rice said. "It's 2008 and the United States has a ... firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland's territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it's probably not wise to throw these threats around."

The deal, which Washington sought as a way of defending the U.S. and Europe from a hypothetical threat of long-distance missiles from Iran, has strained relations between Moscow and the West. Those ties were already troubled by Russia's invasion of its former Soviet neighbor, U.S. ally Georgia, earlier this month.

Speaking to reporters traveling with her, Rice said, "the Russians are losing their credibility."

Rice and Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski signed the deal Wednesday morning.

"It is an agreement which will help us to respond to the threats of the 21st century," she said afterward.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the agreement came after tough but friendly negotiations.

"We have achieved our main goals, which means that our country and the United States will be more secure," he said.

After Warsaw and Washington announced the agreement on the deal last week, top Russian Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn warned that Poland is risking attack, and possibly a nuclear one, by deploying the American missile defense system, Russia's Interfax news agency reported.

Poles have been shaken by the threats, but NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop dismissed them Tuesday as "pathetic rhetoric."

"It is unhelpful and it leads nowhere," he told reporters at a NATO meeting in Brussels, Belgium.

Many Poles consider the agreement a form of protection at a time when Russia's invasion of Georgia has generated alarm throughout Eastern Europe. Poland is a member of the European Union and NATO, and the deal is expected to deepen its military partnership with Washington.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski also expressed "great satisfaction" at the outcome of the long months of negotiations.

Poland and the United States spent a year and a half negotiating, and talks recently had snagged on Poland's demands that the U.S. bolster Polish security with Patriot missiles in exchange for hosting the missile defense base.

Washington agreed to do so last week, as Poland invoked the Georgia conflict to strengthen its case.

The Patriots are meant to protect Poland from short-range missiles from neighbors—such as Russia.

The U.S. already has reached an agreement with the government in Prague to place the second component of the missile defense shield—a radar tracking system—in the Czech Republic, Poland's southwestern neighbor and another formerly communist country.

Approval is still needed the Czech and Polish parliaments.

No date has been set for the Polish parliament to consider the agreement, but it should face no difficulties in Warsaw, where it enjoys the support of the largest opposition party as well as the government.

[Symbiotic]

Good lord, they're dying to get into a war with us.

[Hobgoblin]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92M5GM81&show_article=1

Russia warns of response to US missile shield

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia says its response to the further development of a U.S. missile shield in Poland will go beyond diplomacy.

Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the U.S. missile shield plans are clearly aimed at weakening Russia.

The U.S. says the missile defense system is aimed at protecting the U.S. and Europe from future attacks from states like Iran.

The United States and Poland signed a deal Wednesday to place a U.S. missile defense base just 115 miles from Russia's westernmost fringe.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WARSAW, Poland (AP)—Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Polish counterpart signed a deal Wednesday to build a U.S. missile defense base in Poland, an agreement that prompted an infuriated Russia to warn of a possible attack against the former Soviet satellite.

Rice dismissed blustery comments from Russian leaders who say Warsaw's hosting of 10 U.S. interceptor missiles just 115 miles from Russia's westernmost frontier opens the country up to attack.

Such comments "border on the bizarre frankly," Rice said, speaking to reporters traveling with her in Warsaw.

"When you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988," Rice said. "It's 2008 and the United States has a ... firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland's territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it's probably not wise to throw these threats around."


Seriously, WTF? If the Russians back down, they look like chumps. If not...well, you know. I dont see how threats like that can do anyone any good. And if they back down, wont that just make them up their game "next time?"

[StorminNorman]

I have a feeling that the US will agree to give up the missile defense base in Poland in exchange for Russia leaving Georgia completely and a draft pick to be named later.

[SuBe]

I have a feeling that the US will agree to give up the missile defense base in Poland in exchange for Russia leaving Georgia completely and a draft pick to be named later.
It'll go like "Ok, we'll give you Poland, if you give us Iran"

[kainedamo]

Yeah whatever SupermanBeyond.

Anyway, man, the Russians would have to be pretty damn stupid to attack Poland. I don't think it would happen. The Russians are showing off. If the Russians attacked Poland, the Russians would have to answer to Europe and the US.

[SuBe]

Yeah whatever SupermanBeyond.

Anyway, man, the Russians would have to be pretty damn stupid to attack Poland. I don't think it would happen. The Russians are showing off. If the Russians attacked Poland, the Russians would have to answer to Europe and the US.
It was a joke. Maybe it went over your head, see, since Stormin said the Draft Pick part, I said what I said, and it was a JOKE. Heh, you said Whatever, you cute little bugger you.

[StorminNorman]

Yeah whatever SupermanBeyond.

Anyway, man, the Russians would have to be pretty damn stupid to attack Poland. I don't think it would happen. The Russians are showing off. If the Russians attacked Poland, the Russians would have to answer to Europe and the US.

You know what else was really stupid? Hitler attacking Russia. Yet it happened. You know what else was really stupid? The USSR attacking Afganistan - yet it happened.

Relying on the logic of rogue leaders is NOT exactly the best move.

[The Chairman]

You know what else is really stupid The fact that we ever got involved in world affairs in the first place. If only we listened to Washington on isolationism.

[Fading]

You have to know where that fine line ends tho. Eventually problems with other countries can come back to hit you even if you're not involved in the early process. Also something has to be said about taking a humanitarian approach, if some ruthless dictator decides to slaughter his citizens by the thousands daily, and is trying to get nukes, I can understand other countries getting involved.

However I'm not condoning things like Iraq, sticking our nose in the leadership of that country got our troops and Iraq civillians killed, and left Iraq in a mess. With our current rep with the world it wouldn't be a bad idea to set a few things out and let Europe step up and handle the Russia's aggressiveness. With the way the world thinks, if we became involved Russia would probably get sympathy even if they did attack Poland simply because we're the US.

IMO you can't completely cut yourself off from the world, but you have to know when to trust other countries to handle their own buisness.

[Tigerking]

Think of it from the Russian perspective, its kinda like the Cuban missile crisis for them

[StorminNorman]

You know what else is really stupid The fact that we ever got involved in world affairs in the first place. If only we listened to Washington on isolationism.

American Isolationism hasn't been viable for almost a century.

America's position is the world (saying nothing for the world itself) has changed a wee bit from the times of Washington.

[StorminNorman]

Think of it from the Russian perspective, its kinda like the Cuban missile crisis for them

Not quite.

[StorminNorman]

IMO you can't completely cut yourself off from the world, but you have to know when to trust other countries to handle their own buisness.
But attacking an ally IS American business - if it wasn't then there is NO point in any country becoming an American ally.

This is the point lost on anyone that believes that whatever happens in Georgia has no effect on America - it DOES, it very much DOES.

[kytrigger]

Think of it from the Russian perspective, its kinda like the Cuban missile crisis for them
Except that we won't have nuclear missiles aimed at Russia and Poland has even flat out invited Russia to do a complete inspection of the system to prove it is purely a defense system in no way specifically targeting Russia. Instead of taking Poland and the U.S. up on the offer, Russia just keeps threatening to kick Poland in the balls....diplomatically speaking.

[Kelly]

Think of it from the Russian perspective, its kinda like the Cuban missile crisis for them

*chokes on my chicken*



WTF????????:huh::huh::huh::huh:

[Kelly]

As far as isolationism goes......had we stayed out of WWI and WWII, yeah, we might could have kept that policy.....................but what would the world look like today, if that had happened? Don't know....and trying to go back to that policy is impossible.


Isolationism is a big "what if" now..................and we cannot live in a "what if" scenario.....

[Tigerking]

Well not exactly a Cuban missile crisis, but say taht Russia was buliding a misile shield with the USA, wouldnt the USA get a bit paranoid as the Rusians are now?

[The Senator]

As far as isolationism goes......had we stayed out of WWI and WWII, yeah, we might could have kept that policy.....................but what would the world look like today, if that had happened? Don't know....and trying to go back to that policy is impossible.


Isolationism is a big "what if" now..................and we cannot live in a "what if" scenario.....

I disagree. The Russia-Georgia conflict doesn't concern us, or at least it shouldn't. These two countries have a long, contorted history with one another and they were almost destined to fight each other in battle. What we should be doing, instead of trying to build a missile shield in Poland and self-righteously declaring our support for Georgia, is keeping our noses out of their business.

That's the same thing we should be doing with Iran, to tell you the truth, until there is evidence that they have nuclear weapons and it is clear that they want to attack Israel or its allies. We need to get out heads out of our asses and realize that these other countries are sovereign and they are capable of making their own decisions without our intervention. Moreover, we need to realize that our intervention only infuriates some of these nations more, and that if we don't stop acting like the world's police, we're going to end up severing our most important alliances and find ourselves all alone in the world one way or another.

Instead of lobbying for sanctions or taking provocative military measures, we should be sending diplomats to these countries and opening up talks on every single issue which faces the international community. From Iran's nuclear program to Russia's hostility, we shouldn't be making threats, we should sit down and talk things out like adults. Or, we should keep our nose out of their business and let these countries work out their problems by themselves.

I'm tired of our military being stretched to the limits in Iraq, I certainly don't want to see an entire generation drafted because we feel this need to have the bigger penis in the room by exercising our military might and diplomatic aggressiveness.

[Fading]

Not to be juvenile, but I originally read your quote as this -

*chokes my chicken*



WTF????????:huh::huh::huh::huh:

- and was very confused. I wondered if you just got off on politicial talk about isolationism or something heh.

[Kelly]

I disagree. The Russia-Georgia conflict doesn't concern us, or at least it shouldn't. These two countries have a long, contorted history with one another and they were almost destined to fight each other in battle. What we should be doing, instead of trying to build a missile shield in Poland and self-righteously declaring our support for Georgia, is keeping our noses out of their business.

That's the same thing we should be doing with Iran, to tell you the truth, until there is evidence that they have nuclear weapons and it is clear that they want to attack Israel or its allies. We need to get out heads out of our asses and realize that these other countries are sovereign and they are capable of making their own decisions without our intervention. Moreover, we need to realize that our intervention only infuriates some of these nations more, and that if we don't stop acting like the world's police, we're going to end up severing our most important alliances and find ourselves all alone in the world one way or another.

Instead of lobbying for sanctions or taking provocative military measures, we should be sending diplomats to these countries and opening up talks on every single issue which faces the international community. From Iran's nuclear program to Russia's hostility, we shouldn't be making threats, we should sit down and talk things out like adults. Or, we should keep our nose out of their business and let these countries work out their problems by themselves.

I'm tired of our military being stretched to the limits in Iraq, I certainly don't want to see an entire generation drafted because we feel this need to have the bigger penis in the room by exercising our military might and diplomatic aggressiveness.


Nor did I say we needed to be a part of that situation.........I was speaking in general terms.....

Isolationism does not mean just military action.......there are many, many, many more factors involved........

[Doug]

We never ended the cold war...

[Doug]

Isolation is what helped Germany to grow such hatred towards the rest of the world and thus....WWII

[kytrigger]

I disagree. The Russia-Georgia conflict doesn't concern us, or at least it shouldn't. These two countries have a long, contorted history with one another and they were almost destined to fight each other in battle. What we should be doing, instead of trying to build a missile shield in Poland and self-righteously declaring our support for Georgia, is keeping our noses out of their business.

That's the same thing we should be doing with Iran, to tell you the truth, until there is evidence that they have nuclear weapons and it is clear that they want to attack Israel or its allies. We need to get out heads out of our asses and realize that these other countries are sovereign and they are capable of making their own decisions without our intervention. Moreover, we need to realize that our intervention only infuriates some of these nations more, and that if we don't stop acting like the world's police, we're going to end up severing our most important alliances and find ourselves all alone in the world one way or another.

Instead of lobbying for sanctions or taking provocative military measures, we should be sending diplomats to these countries and opening up talks on every single issue which faces the international community. From Iran's nuclear program to Russia's hostility, we shouldn't be making threats, we should sit down and talk things out like adults. Or, we should keep our nose out of their business and let these countries work out their problems by themselves.

I'm tired of our military being stretched to the limits in Iraq, I certainly don't want to see an entire generation drafted because we feel this need to have the bigger penis in the room by exercising our military might and diplomatic aggressiveness.
While I agree with you to an extent the devil's advocate in me says that when we have proof of Iran's nuclear arsenal and their intentions to destroy Isreal/whoever, it'll be too late. Our definitave proof is the actual attack.

And as for our threats against Russia, I feel we are actually taking a step back from the smack talk. sure we have said how terrible it is, but the US seems content in letting NATO be the ones to officially declare anything, which is how it should be.

[Arkady Rossovich]

Cold War my ass, now we know how the world felt when we invaded Iraq

That wasn't fear,it was the US scrambling to show that it was still "the only superpower in the world". We all know how that was botched.

Bush ruined America's reputation,now George "dumba$$" Bush seeks to screw up the America-Russia relationship..something he should not even go near.

[Tigerking]

That was fear, the rest of the world was fearing what America would do next

[Doug]

I cannot believe that some of you argue that the Georgia (Democratic country) and the Russian conflict is similar to Iraq and US.

Sure in layman's eyes they might... I mean they both had one country enter another and people died... but that is it.

[Doug]

That was fear, the rest of the world was fearing what America would do next

The rest of the world knew what America was going to do...
We asked the world, got their support and went into battle with the rest of the world against Iraq.

[Kelly]

The rest of the world knew what America was going to do...
We asked the world, got their support and went into battle with the rest of the world against Iraq.



Wrong, and what we did tell them was not the truth.....

[Doug]

Wrong, and what we did tell them was not the truth.....

What that Iraq violated many UN resoluations?
What that Iraq did have Yellow Cake?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/07/about_that_500_tons_of_yellow.html
What that we did not ask the United Nations for their support?
Here is the support that the US had...
In 2003 Countries that favored the war:

Western Europe:
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Denmark
Netherlands
Iceland
Italy

Baltic States:
Estonia #
Latvia #
Lithuania #
Central Europe:
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia #
Hungary
Balkans:
Albania #
Macedonia #
Romania #
Bulgaria #
Turkey
Croatia #
Slovenia #

Eastern Europe
Ukraine

Japan
South Korea
Singapore
Philippines
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Georgia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Solomon Islands
Mongolia
Palau
Tonga

North America:
United States of America

South and Central America:
El Salvador
Colombia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Honduras

2004 - Countries that provided troops:
Western Europe:
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Denmark
Norway
Netherlands
Iceland
Italy

Baltic States:
Estonia #
Latvia #
Lithuania #
Central Europe:
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia #
Hungary
Balkans:
Albania #
Macedonia #
Romania #
Bulgaria #
Turkey
Croatia #
Slovenia #

Eastern Europe
Ukraine
Moldova

Japan
South Korea
Singapore
Philippines
Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Solomon Islands
Mongolia
Palau
Tonga
Thailand

North America:
United States of America

South and Central America:
El Salvador
Colombia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Honduras ANZ:
Australia
New Zealand

Middle East:
Kuwait

Africa:
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Uganda
Rwanda
Angola

Iraq Troop numbers March 2004
Country Troops Per 100000
population Per 1000
military
1 USA 130,000 47.7 94.8
2 United Kingdom 9,000 15.2 42.4
3 Italy 3,000 5.3 11.3
4 Poland 2,460 6.7 10.2
5 Ukraine 1,600 3.2 5.1
6 Spain * 1,300 3.3 7.0
7 Netherlands 1,100 7.0 19.5
8 Australia 800 4.3 14.5
9 Romania 700 3.1 3.4
10 Bulgaria 480 5.9 5.9
11 Thailand 440 0.7 1.4
12 Denmark 420 7.8 17.3
13 Honduras * 368 6.1 5.4
14 El Salvador 361 6.2 14.7
15 Dominican Republic 302 3.7 12.3
16 Hungary 300 2.9 6.9
17 Japan 240 0.2 1.0
18 Norway 179 4.0 5.8
19 Mongolia 160 6.1 17.6
20 Azerbaijan 150 1.9 2.1
21 Portugal 128 1.3 2.6
22 Latvia 120 5.1 20.9
23 Lithuania 118 3.3 9.7
24 Slovakia 102 1.9 2.3
25 Czech Republic 80 0.8 1.4
26 Philippines 80 0.1 0.7
27 Albania 70 2.1 7.0 **
28 Georgia 70 1.4 2.7
29 New Zealand 61 1.7 6.4
30 Moldova 50 1.1 4.7
31 Macedonia 37 1.8 2.3
32 Estonia 31 2.2 6.5
33 Canada ^ 31^
34 Kazakhstan 25 0.1 0.4
Sources: The Australian, 17th March 2004.

[Doug]

Wrong, and what we did tell them was not the truth.....

Who lied? Here are a list of quotes if you need help (do note Seven of these quotes were said before Bush took office).

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[Arc-Light]

Who lied? Here are a list of quotes if you need help (do note Seven of these quotes were said before Bush took office).

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd45/INBuckeye/epicfailqi1ig2.gif

There were no WMDs, we destroyed their ability to make them in the Golf war and the bombing in the late 90's, so save your breath.

[Doug]

Posted the link where Yellow Cake was found, and the US gave them a year to get rid of them before the US went it...

Love the seal... he did fail.

He failed with handling the war after the initial attack.
He failed even more without limiting his parties spending in Washington. This was a huge chance for Republicans to stand behind their core values... but that was lost many moons ago.

[kainedamo]

Doug, what you don't seem to understand is that before the Iraq war, there were many people from all positions, presenting facts that were saying Iraq did not have WMD, and probably didn't even have the capability to produce WMD.

The weapons inspectors that were actually over there, were just one group insistent upon the fact that there were no WMD.

The problem is, is that Bush and co were so set on getting into Iraq, that they only listened to people that presented "evidence" that agreed with their assessment that there were WMD.

[Doug]

Doug, what you don't seem to understand is that before the Iraq war, there were many people from all positions, presenting facts that were saying Iraq did not have WMD, and probably didn't even have the capability to produce WMD.

The weapons inspectors that were actually over there, were just one group insistent upon the fact that there were no WMD.

The problem is, is that Bush and co were so set on getting into Iraq, that they only listened to people that presented "evidence" that agreed with their assessment that there were WMD.

Not many positions... just a few, and they were getting cut backs from Iraq with money. Look at the oil for food scandal: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-07-un-oilforfood_x.htm?csp=34

Here is one quote from the article the barely touches the surface:
"Lax oversight allowed Saddam's regime to pocket $1.8 billion in kickbacks in the awarding of contracts during the program's operation from 1997-2003, the committee said." - and this was the same organization that went looking for WMD in his country. Little conspiracy no?

There was evidence from all Gov. intel from many countries that Saddam and Compamy were bad guys.

Again Bush failed with many things but taking out Saddam is not one of them. The argument could and should have been presented better. They should not have held so much weight on WMD, but there was a valid threat he did have them.

[StorminNorman]

Doug, what you don't seem to understand is that before the Iraq war, there were many people from all positions, presenting facts that were saying Iraq did not have WMD, and probably didn't even have the capability to produce WMD.

The weapons inspectors that were actually over there, were just one group insistent upon the fact that there were no WMD.

The problem is, is that Bush and co were so set on getting into Iraq, that they only listened to people that presented "evidence" that agreed with their assessment that there were WMD.

Yes - George Bush and Co.

The Co. being Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, etc. etc. etc.

[The Senator]

Yes - George Bush and Co.

The Co. being Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, etc. etc. etc.

These Congressmen and Senators went with the information that was given to them at the time. And the information given to them by the Bush administration said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They acted accordingly, based on the information they had. It wasn't their fault that it was manipulated by the Bush administration, and that the justification for war was a colorful fairy tale.

[Cinemaman]

I am sorry, but I am losing my patience.

First, Russia didn't attack Georgia. There is enough evidence that Saakashvili's army (I am saying Saakashvili's, because Georgians hate him and tried to rise against him several times this year) invaded South Ossetia and started mass killing of Russian citizenships during the Olympic games, when both Putin and Medvedev took a rest. Then, he called Western journalists to show how "Russia invades Georgia and kills people", what that was BS. Russia wanted to save its people and send its army against Georgians, who were killing not only men, but also women and children. Saakashvili again used it as a "proof" of "Russian invasion". The number of killings of South Ossetians reached 2,000. Considering the fact that there are only 700,000 Ossetians in the world (including those of North Ossetia), that's crazy.

What about the case with Poland, I think the fact that it puts Russia under the threat is enough to explain why Medvedev acts so.

[Kelly]

I am sorry, but I am losing my patience.

First, Russia didn't attack Georgia. There is enough evidence that Saakashvili's army (I am saying Saakashvili's, because Georgians hate him and tried to rise against him several times this year) invaded South Ossetia and started mass killing of Russian citizenships during the Olympic games, when both Putin and Medvedev took a rest. Then, he called Western journalists to show how "Russia invades Georgia and kills people", what that was BS. Russia wanted to save its people and send its army against Georgians, who were killing not only men, but also women and children. Saakashvili again used it as a "proof" of "Russian invasion". The number of killings of South Ossetians reached 2,000. Considering the fact that there are only 700,000 Ossetians in the world (including those of North Ossetia), that's crazy.

What about the case with Poland, I think the fact that it puts Russia under the threat is enough to explain why Medvedev acts so.

So....why didn't the Russian citizens that live in South Ossetia, (sovereign Georgian land) move to Russia....where they are citizens.

[Cinemaman]

So....why didn't the Russian citizens that live in South Ossetia, (sovereign Georgian land) move to Russia....where they are citizens.

Because South Ossetians ARE Russian citizens like the rest of North Caucasus, which is a part of Russian Federation.

[Doug]

These Congressmen and Senators went with the information that was given to them at the time. And the information given to them by the Bush administration said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They acted accordingly, based on the information they had. It wasn't their fault that it was manipulated by the Bush administration, and that the justification for war was a colorful fairy tale.

What man? Seven of those quotes were before Bush took office...

They all had the same intel... hell some of them had sat in and or lead releavant committees..

[Kelly]

Because South Ossetians ARE Russian citizens like the rest of North Caucasus, which is a part of Russian Federation.

But they live on sovereign Georgian land......

I have no problem with them wanting to be a part of Russia.....but just because you want to be Russian, and live in Russia doesn't mean you can take your land with you.....

[Cinemaman]

But they live on sovereign Georgian land......

I have no problem with them wanting to be a part of Russia.....but just because you want to be Russian, and live in Russia doesn't mean you can take your land with you.....

About 90% of people living in South Ossetia (including other nations of Caucasus) are Russian citizens, so killing them is equal to killing Russians, and that's one of the reasons why Russia had to fight against Georgians, as they simply started killing people for nothing (I am not even talking about hurting Russian peacetakers).

Now the land. As South Ossetians and Abkhaz people don't consider themselves as Georgians (and they actually aren't), they want to have their own republics united with Russia, because Georgia has been continuing the war with those two for more than ten years.

[The Senator]

What man? Seven of those quotes were before Bush took office...

They all had the same intel... hell some of them had sat in and or lead releavant committees..

Did I respond to your quotes?

No...

Which means that I don't deny that some of them had pre-existing opinions on Iraq...

[Kelly]

About 90% of people living in South Ossetia (including other nations of Caucasus) are Russian citizens, so killing them is equal to killing Russians, and that's one of the reasons why Russia had to fight against Georgians, as they simply started killing people for nothing (I am not even talking about hurting Russian peacetakers).

Now the land. As South Ossetians and Abkhaz people don't consider themselves as Georgians (and they actually aren't), they want to have their own republics united with Russia, because Georgia has been continuing the war with those two for more than ten years.

I understand exactly where you are coming from......and please I mean this as no disrespect.....BUT

That IS NOT their sovereign land.....it IS NOT sovereign Russian land.....as of right now, and according to NATO and the UN....it will remain sovereign land of Georgia.....

Did the Georgian government go extremely overboard......oh yes........ooooooh yes. But I'm sorry, peacekeeping troops are sent to areas via the UN, not because a country decides they need to send what they call peacekeepers into a sovereign country. Russia sent troops onto another countries land.....


And please don't say...."the US did as well with Iraq..." I agree......but that doesn't give Russia the right to do it, nor does it make it right.

Is the UN doing enough in this situation? NO, they dropped the ball like they usually do.....:o

[Cinemaman]

I understand exactly where you are coming from......and please I mean this as no disrespect.....BUT

That IS NOT their sovereign land.....it IS NOT sovereign Russian land.....as of right now, and according to NATO and the UN....it will remain sovereign land of Georgia.....

Did the Georgian government go extremely overboard......oh yes........ooooooh yes. But I'm sorry, peacekeeping troops are sent to areas via the UN, not because a country decides they need to send what they call peacekeepers into a sovereign country. Russia sent troops onto another countries land.....


And please don't say...."the US did as well with Iraq..." I agree......but that doesn't give Russia the right to do it, nor does it make it right.

Is the UN doing enough in this situation? NO, they dropped the ball like they usually do.....:o

The thing is that Saakashvili's army started killing people, who live in South Ossetia, and most of them are citizens of Russian Federation. If in any other country the same happened to US citizens, how would USA act in your opinion? I doubt US government would leave their people dying. That's the case. Besides, Russia remains a guarantor of peace on the land of Caucasus.

It was negotiated that there must be Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, where Georgians started attacking them.

I wasn't going to mention USA-Iraq as an example, because I think American government should answer for itself. And I think it's not America's problem to decide whether the another country is right or wrong. Russians saved their people, that's all.

What about the UN, they lost my trust. They approved the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, but they don't want to do the same with South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

[Kelly]

The thing is that Saakashvili's army started killing people, who live in South Ossetia, and most of them are citizens of Russian Federation. If in any other country the same happened to US citizens, how would USA act in your opinion? I doubt US government would leave their people dying. That's the case. Besides, Russia remains a guarantor of peace on the land of Caucasus.

It was negotiated that there must be Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, where Georgians started attacking them.

I wasn't going to mention USA-Iraq as an example, because I think American government should answer for itself. And I think it's not America's problem to decide whether the another country is right or wrong. Russians saved their people, that's all.

What about the UN, they lost my trust. They approved the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, but they don't want to do the same with South Ossetia and Abkhazia.


I think there are emotions on both sides......

And IMO, Russia needs to move its troops out....AND AT THE SAME TIME....the Georgian government needs to put a leash on it's troops.....

Kosovo had the backing of Europe, NATO, the UN etc.....I'm sorry, no matter how strongly you feel about this......Russians in South Ossetia and Abkhazia do not.....that is reality.

[TheGreenMeanie]

I think both countries are caught up in their egos and their need to flex their international muscles. Just look at the fact we are putting interceptors in Poland. If there was ever a strike Europe would be toast before we could even respond. Its all about letting Russia and the Middle East know that America is still here and closer than before. Which I think is insane since our military is already stretched to its limit with Afghanistan, Iraq, and all our other little projects. Imagine if Iran wanted to put "interceptors" in Mexico. We would flip!

Then you have Russia who just can't work on being a better nation for its people. They have to continue to show the world they're still as powerful as ever, and that means making sure all the former USSR nations remember that as well. This situation will not be as bad as the Cold War, but if people ever think tensions really died they're not thinking that well. We will always have problems with each other and there will be a lot that comes from this situation I'm sure. I do not think there will be a military conflict though.

Hey this kind of stuff is what happens when you have red necks and x kgb's running countries.

[Doug]

Those missles from what I have read can only be used as a defense... like shooting down other missles. They do not have long range capability and do not hold much power.

However thats what they say... so who knows.

[Doug]

Did I respond to your quotes?

No...

Which means that I don't deny that some of them had pre-existing opinions on Iraq...

Hey dude sorry for coming off like a dick on my post to you...

[TheGreenMeanie]

I believe the fact that American Missiles being in these countries back yards period is what upsets everyone and why I say we are trying to flex our muscles. It would be ignorant to not acknowledge what America gets out of this situation.

However, if you want to believe that there will only be defensive missiles there thats cool, but I don't trust any party in this matter, and could easily see otherwise.

[Doug]

No no no not saying I believe it... just saying what I have been reading...

I think it is quite a touchy subject...
I think Poland wants the missles there more than US...

[TheGreenMeanie]

I Know you weren't. That was kind of directed to anyone who takes that stance. I didn't do that great of a job at expressing that lol. Sorry.

[Cinemaman]

I think there are emotions on both sides......

And IMO, Russia needs to move its troops out....AND AT THE SAME TIME....the Georgian government needs to put a leash on it's troops.....

Kosovo had the backing of Europe, NATO, the UN etc.....I'm sorry, no matter how strongly you feel about this......Russians in South Ossetia and Abkhazia do not.....that is reality.

Your "emotions" may be only on the Western side, because the only thing which Russian troops had to do was to save people. And, during the post-Soviet era, Georgia refused to negotiate with South Ossetia and Abkhazia about its status, and then they started the war to get the land, not the republics. They care only about the land. What South Ossetia and Abkhazia want is to become independent from Georgia and unite with Russia.

Russia has already moved its troops, but they will need to get back, as Georgians are going to start backfiring again. And if you think that the Georgian government will do this, you're too naive, because they have become too barefaced to even care about what can Russia do to their country. And you know why? Because Bush supports Saakashvili.

Huh? You tell me what the reality is? My God! That's so clear that it's all about money. UN and NATO are headed by USA, and the AMerican givernment supports Saakashvili's crazy actions. He not only sent 18 years old kids to kill ordinary people, but also spitted at Russia and make it out like Russians were killing Georgians.

I think this argue makes no sense, because you don't really know so much about what is actually happenning in Caucasus, just like the American government.

[Cinemaman]

I think both countries are caught up in their egos and their need to flex their international muscles. Just look at the fact we are putting interceptors in Poland. If there was ever a strike Europe would be toast before we could even respond. Its all about letting Russia and the Middle East know that America is still here and closer than before. Which I think is insane since our military is already stretched to its limit with Afghanistan, Iraq, and all our other little projects. Imagine if Iran wanted to put "interceptors" in Mexico. We would flip!

Then you have Russia who just can't work on being a better nation for its people. They have to continue to show the world they're still as powerful as ever, and that means making sure all the former USSR nations remember that as well. This situation will not be as bad as the Cold War, but if people ever think tensions really died they're not thinking that well. We will always have problems with each other and there will be a lot that comes from this situation I'm sure. I do not think there will be a military conflict though.

Hey this kind of stuff is what happens when you have red necks and x kgb's running countries.

If you mean that Poland case, then you should be aware of the fact that American missles put Russia under the great menace, and that's why Russia doesn't like the whole idea.

Besides, don't forget that Russia has always had great influence on countries of Caucasus. It doesn't try to threat anybody, and it actually helps its post-Soviet republics such as North and South Ossetia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Adygea, Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkessia, and Ingushetia with economic problems, which they got as a result of independence.

[Tron5000]

Georgia did not start a war. Russia was arming and funding South Ossetian separatists, who attacked Georgian interests in South Ossetia (which is still a part of Georgia). Georgia responded by returning fire, and Russia said that Georgia provoked the entire thing.

The Georgian response was on Friday, and on Thursday, Russia had hacked into and shut down several Georgian government web sites, in preparation for the attacks. So if Russia started this on Thursday, and Georgia attacked on Friday, how exactly did Georgia start a war?

[Cinemaman]

Georgia did not start a war. Russia was arming and funding South Ossetian separatists, who attacked Georgian interests in South Ossetia (which is still a part of Georgia). Georgia responded by returning fire, and Russia said that Georgia provoked the entire thing.

The Georgian response was on Friday, and on Thursday, Russia had hacked into and shut down several Georgian government web sites, in preparation for the attacks. So if Russia started this on Thursday, and Georgia attacked on Friday, how exactly did Georgia start a war?

What? It's all wrong. Russia didn't do anything. First, Georgia started attacking South Ossetia and then killing people to get to Abkhazia. Then, the Russian government sent its troops to save people in South Ossetia, 90% of which consists Russian citizens. And then Georgia began all this mass media stuff to blame Russia in what it didn't do. They still continue working on their plan to reach Abkhazia and start mass killings there as well.

Now tell me, did you get all that BS from CNN or/and FOX?

[StorminNorman]

What? It's all wrong. Russia didn't do anything. First, Georgia started attacking South Ossetia and then killing people to get to Abkhazia. Then, the Russian government sent its troops to save people in South Ossetia, 90% of which consists Russian citizens. And then Georgia began all this mass media stuff to blame Russia in what it didn't do. They still continue working on their plan to reach Abkhazia and start mass killings there as well.

Now tell me, did you get all that BS from CNN or/and FOX?

If Russia was really Mr. Innocent - why won't they follow the cease fire they have agreed to?

[Tron5000]

What? It's all wrong. Russia didn't do anything. First, Georgia started attacking South Ossetia and then killing people to get to Abkhazia. Then, the Russian government sent its troops to save people in South Ossetia, 90% of which consists Russian citizens. And then Georgia began all this mass media stuff to blame Russia in what it didn't do. They still continue working on their plan to reach Abkhazia and start mass killings there as well.

Now tell me, did you get all that BS from CNN or/and FOX?

I get my news from various media outlets. I'm kind of a nerd, so I read a lot.

So tell me: If Russia started hacking into and attacking Georgian government web sites on Thursday (in preparation for an invasion), and Georgia attacked South Ossetia on Friday, do you not find that a bit odd?

Russia planned the entire thing to coincide with the opening of the Beijing Olympics, knowing that the world would be fixated on the games and the invasion of Georgia would be greatly overlooked. Russia had been arming and funding separatists for years in preparation for the attack. It was well executed, and even after Russia agreed to pull out (on more than one occasion), they still pressed further into Georgia until world powers (i.e. US) let it be known that their actions would no longer be tolerated.

Why on Earth would Georgia attack a province of its own country with the knowledge that it would bring about a response from the military and Communist power that is Russia? That just doesn't make any sense.

[SuBe]

If Russia was really Mr. Innocent - why won't they follow the cease fire they have agreed to?
Better Questions, why did they set Landmines and fire on Reporters?

[Cinemaman]

If Russia was really Mr. Innocent - why won't they follow the cease fire they have agreed to?

:dry: I said that its troops were coming back, but recently Georgian army took another village in South Ossetia, so Russian troops stayed there to protect ossetians.

Besides, 6 regulation items made by Medvedev and Sarkozy were suggested to UN, which didn't agree to recognize it.

[Cinemaman]

Better Questions, why did they set Landmines and fire on Reporters?

:eek: There were no foreign reporters in South Ossetia during the attack. They all were in Georgia, because Russia didn't call them. And they suffered because of Georgian soldiers, who are 18 years old teens.

[kytrigger]

What? It's all wrong. Russia didn't do anything. First, Georgia started attacking South Ossetia and then killing people to get to Abkhazia. Then, the Russian government sent its troops to save people in South Ossetia, 90% of which consists Russian citizens. And then Georgia began all this mass media stuff to blame Russia in what it didn't do. They still continue working on their plan to reach Abkhazia and start mass killings there as well.

Now tell me, did you get all that BS from CNN or/and FOX?
No, Georgian posts were being hit with Artillery fire the day before Georgia moved in and attacked. Now some are claiming the Russian peacekeepers fired (but there isn't any proof at all of this). Most likely though, the South Ossetians fired on them, but the Russian peacekeepers definately stood by and watched it happen.

And if Russia was only concerned about saving the Ossetian citizens, they definately wouldn't have hired out Chechens. I'm sure you're very well aware of the Chechen militants' reputation. They are considered to be one of the most brutal group in existence and tend to be described as having no morals whatsoever, and they love that they are classified that way (they would probably take this description as a compliment). You do not send Chechens into this fight without trying to make a very clear statement, one Putin knows very well.


As for the Poland thing, both the US and Poland have given numeros offers to Russia to actualyl inspect the defense system and show that it isn't an offensive weapon aimed at them. hell, they've even said Russia can demand certain terms they wish to be met while they inspect the missiles. They have done almost everything just short of actually giving Russia a PATRIOT missile and letting them reverse engineer it, and every single time, Russia has simply refused to even inspect the project.

[Cinemaman]

I get my news from various media outlets. I'm kind of a nerd, so I read a lot.

So tell me: If Russia started hacking into and attacking Georgian government web sites on Thursday (in preparation for an invasion), and Georgia attacked South Ossetia on Friday, do you not find that a bit odd?

Russia planned the entire thing to coincide with the opening of the Beijing Olympics, knowing that the world would be fixated on the games and the invasion of Georgia would be greatly overlooked. Russia had been arming and funding separatists for years in preparation for the attack. It was well executed, and even after Russia agreed to pull out (on more than one occasion), they still pressed further into Georgia until world powers (i.e. US) let it be known that their actions would no longer be tolerated.

Why on Earth would Georgia attack a province of its own country with the knowledge that it would bring about a response from the military and Communist power that is Russia? That just doesn't make any sense.

Again, RUSSIA DIDN'T BLOCk ANY WEB SITES. We didn't even know what was happenning in South Ossetia until Georgians started mass killings. And if you read a lot, then you should know that the Georgian government blocked regular access to the Internet.

I think you should really change your sources, because Russian troops got there after Georgians started killing people. They planned it to reach Abkhazia. Just think about it, why would Russia need to randomly begin killing people in Georgia? Georgia has been working on their plan for years, otherwise why would they require USA to supply them with foreign weapons made in Turkey, Israel and other countries?

AGAIN, neither South Ossetia nor Abkhazia are part of Georgia. In March'93, the Georgian government refused to negotiate with those two republics after receiving independence. Now they want land, not people. And 90% of people living in South Ossetia ARE RUSSIAN CITIZENS. SO why would Russia kill its own people? The problem is that people, who live in Western countries has never had any interest in what is going on in Caucasus.

Besides, Saakashvili thought USA will help him, as he is Bush's puppet.

[Cinemaman]

No, Georgian posts were being hit with Artillery fire the day before Georgia moved in and attacked. Now some are claiming the Russian peacekeepers fired (but there isn't any proof at all of this). Most likely though, the South Ossetians fired on them, but the Russian peacekeepers definately stood by and watched it happen.

And if Russia was only concerned about saving the Ossetian citizens, they definately wouldn't have hired out Chechens. I'm sure you're very well aware of the Chechen militants' reputation. They are considered to be one of the most brutal group in existence and tend to be described as having no morals whatsoever, and they love that they are classified that way (they would probably take this description as a compliment). You do not send Chechens into this fight without trying to make a very clear statement, one Putin knows very well.


As for the Poland thing, both the US and Poland have given numeros offers to Russia to actualyl inspect the defense system and show that it isn't an offensive weapon aimed at them. hell, they've even said Russia can demand certain terms they wish to be met while they inspect the missiles. They have done almost everything just short of actually giving Russia a PATRIOT missile and letting them reverse engineer it, and every single time, Russia has simply refused to even inspect the project.

How could South Ossetians do that, if they have no weapons, while Georgians ordered weapons from Tirkey and Israel? Huh?

And have you seen today's Tskhinvali? It's totally destroyed! And as for Chechens, their reoublic is a apart of Russia, therefore they are allowed to be hired by the Russian government. Yes, Russia needed them, because Georgians were about to start a genocide. They killed more than 2,000 people.

You don't get the point. Russia donesn't want Poland to have them, because it puts the country under a great menace, do you understand? It's like Russia would put its missles in Mexico.

[Tron5000]

Again, RUSSIA DIDN'T BLOCk ANY WEB SITES. We didn't even know what was happenning in South Ossetia until Georgians started mass killings. And if you read a lot, then you should know that the Georgian government blocked regular access to the Internet.

I think you should really change your sources, because Russian troops got there after Georgians started killing people. They planned it to reach Abkhazia. Just think about it, why would Russia need to randomly begin killing people in Georgia? Georgia has been working on their plan for years, otherwise why would they require USA to supply them with foreign weapons made in Turkey, Israel and other countries?

AGAIN, neither South Ossetia nor Abkhazia are part of Georgia. In March'93, the Georgian government refused to negotiate with those two republics after receiving independence. Now they want land, not people. And 90% of people living in South Ossetia ARE RUSSIAN CITIZENS. SO why would Russia kill its own people? The problem is that people, who live in Western countries has never had any interest in what is going on in Caucasus.

Besides, Saakashvili thought USA will help him, as he is Bush's puppet.

They are not part of Georgia? Take a look at a map.

"Why would Russia need to randomly begin killing people in Georgia"? Because they have been trying for years to absorb both South Ossetia and Abkhazia back into Russia, in order to reform the USSR. Putin is ex-KGB and seeks to restore the USSR to its former glory. This includes gaining back the outer states that once constituted the USSR. This has been going on for a long time. They have given citizens of Georgia that live in South Osssetia and Abkhazia Russian citizenship. Next, it will be the Ukraine.

[Tron5000]

Wow, Bush sure has a lot of "puppets." If he's such an idiot, as neolibs claim, how was he able to trick all these people into letting him put his hand up their arse and manipulate them? Useful idiot indeed.

[Cinemaman]

They are not part of Georgia? Take a look at a map.

"Why would Russia need to randomly begin killing people in Georgia"? Because they have been trying for years to absorb both South Ossetia and Abkhazia back into Russia, in order to reform the USSR. Putin is ex-KGB and seeks to restore the USSR to its former glory. This includes gaining back the outer states that once constituted the USSR. This has been going on for a long time. They have given citizens of Georgia that live in South Osssetia and Abkhazia Russian citizenship. Next, it will be the Ukraine.

They were Georgia's part. But again, after Georgia received its independence, it refused to negotiate with South Ossetia and Abkhazia about their status. So they started requiring to be recognized as independent republics as well. The Georgian government didn't like it, and they started the war.

Do you understand that South Ossetia and Abkhazia want this, not Russia. This was confirmed by their presidents several times. And Putin is nomore a president, and even if he is ex-KGB, this doesn't mean anything as long as McCain is a veteran of Vietnam war.

And Russia doesn't need Ukraine, they have enough territory. What Russia doesn't want is Ukraine to stop the partnership, which has been developing for years. Besides, Ukraine has enough in-house problems.

[Tron5000]

Putin is no longer president, but he is prime minister and is still calling all the shots in Russia.

You're telling me Russia doesn't want South Ossetia and Abkhazia? They're just arming and funding the separatists and giving them Russian citizenship out of the goodness of their heart 'cause they're such swell people? Come on, now. You can't really believe the things that you're typing, can you?

And what on God's green Earth does McCain's veteran status have to do with the fact that Putin was a KGB operative? KGB and US Navy are not in any way synonymous.

[StorminNorman]

Russia is a country being ran by a Former KGB Tyrant who is ruthless and evil. He is not above poisoning his enemies and certainly not above staging a crisis in order to regain Soviet land.

Putin has proved over and over again he does NOT deserve the benefit of the doubt in any situation and that, if for no other reason, is exactly why I support Georgia.

[Cinemaman]

Putin is no longer president, but he is prime minister and is still calling all the shots in Russia.

You're telling me Russia doesn't want South Ossetia and Abkhazia? They're just arming and funding the separatists and giving them Russian citizenship out of the goodness of their heart 'cause they're such swell people? Come on, now. You can't really believe the things that you're typing, can you?

So what? Did he do anything wrong, just because he doesn't agree with most of positions USA takes in the relationships between Russia and USA?

What I meant is that South Ossetia and Abkhazia want to be independent and at the same time unite with Russia, and Russia only helps them to achieve it.

As I said, Russia has had great influence on all countries of Caucasus for years, and it still has it. You can ask yourself, why then USA supply Georgia with weapons made in Turkey and Israel? For what? Maybe for the future war with Russia? Why did the American government became so interested in Georgia? Oil pipeline maybe?

And I thought here in America there is a freedom of word, right? Then why that f***ing Fox reporter stoped that Ossetian girl from telling the truth? Because the AMerican government doesn't want its people to know the truth.

[Tron5000]

So what? Did he do anything wrong, just because he doesn't agree with most of positions USA takes in the relationships between Russia and USA?

What I meant is that South Ossetia and Abkhazia want to be independent and at the same time unite with Russia, and Russia only helps them to achieve it.

As I said, Russia has had great influence on all countries of Caucasus for years, and it still has it. You can ask yourself, why then USA supplies Georgia with weapons made in Turkey and Israel? For what? Maybe for the future war with Russia?

And I thought here in America there is a freedom of word, right? Then why that f***ing Fox reporter stoped that Ossetian girl from telling the truth? Because the AMerican government doesn't want its people to know the truth.

The USA provides Georgia with weapons with which they can defend themselves from an attack, possibly from Russia (as happened a couple weeks ago). Georgia is a democratic, westernized nation that seeks NATO membership.

Are you really comparing the American government's aversion to "truth" with the Russian government's oppression of facts?

Yes, Georgia is against South Ossetia and Abkhazia breaking off and joining Russia. If Texas wanted to join Mexico, would we be cool with that? Doubtful.

[Cinemaman]

The USA provides Georgia with weapons with which they can defend themselves from an attack, possibly from Russia (as happened a couple weeks ago). Georgia is a democratic, westernized nation that seeks NATO membership.

Are you really comparing the American government's aversion to "truth" with the Russian government's oppression of facts?

Yes, Georgia is against South Ossetia and Abkhazia breaking off and joining Russia. If Texas wanted to join Mexico, would we be cool with that? Doubtful.

Oh c'mon, don't fool yourself. USA started supplying Georgia several months ago, way back before the attack done by Georgia, not Russia. And just because Russia was a Communism center, it doesn't mean it's not a democratic country today.

What I am saying is that Georgia started claiming that Russians began the attack, and gave the global mass media fake facts. There were no Western journalists in South Ossetia, so they couldn't see what had been happenening there days before Russians pulled Georgians back from South Ossetia.

Georgia was against South Ossetia and Abkhazia, because they wanted to separate from it. Now they are against Russia, because it was the only country, which didn't talk, but acted to save people. Russia still remains a guarantor of peace in Caucasus.

[Tron5000]

Why in the wide wide world of sports would Georgia pick a fight with Russia by attacking South Ossetia, knowing full well that Russia would retaliate with their Communist military might? Does that make any sense at all?

The US has been supplying arms to Georgia for far longer than a span of months. Georgia houses a vital oil pipeline that Russia wants, so we knew this day would come.

[Mr Sparkle]

Yes, Georgia is against South Ossetia and Abkhazia breaking off and joining Russia. If Texas wanted to join Mexico, would we be cool with that? Doubtful.

:huh: that's how you got Texas, because it declared independence and then joined the US.
you were cool with that back then (the national you, not the YOU you) why not now it see like the same thing.

[Cinemaman]

Why in the wide wide world of sports would Georgia pick a fight with Russia by attacking South Ossetia, knowing full well that Russia would retaliate with their Communist military might? Does that make any sense at all?

The US has been supplying arms to Georgia for far longer than a span of months. Georgia houses a vital oil pipeline that Russia wants, so we knew this day would come.

Russia has no Communist military. And Georgia wanted South Ossetia and Abkhazia just for the land. They expected Russia's response, but they also expected USA to protect Georgia and that is why they started that propaganda of how Georgia is so weak and Russia is so evil, as Saakashvili knew that would pull Russia-USA relations back to its Cold War status.

The fact that USA has been supplying Georgia for months only proves that Georgia has been working on its plan for years.

And Russia no way needs Georgia's pipeline as long as it has its own gas and oil. And this pipeline connects only Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey.

[The Senator]

Posters who don't know Tron should be aware that "Communism" is to his posts as "9/11" is to a Rudy Giuliani speech...

[Tron5000]

OK. So Russia is just being the good guy and trying to protect South Ossetia and Abkhazia from big bad bully Georgia? And they really wanted to pull out earlier (when they said they would), but they just couldn't get the message across to the military commanders?

This is RUSSIA. They poison dissidents (ever heard of a fella named Litvinenko?), they stifle information, they hold "elections" in which the president is replaced by a puppet while Putin becomes PM so he can still pull the strings...These are Soviet Cold War-era tactics.

Do you really think Saakashvili picked a fight with Russia expecting the US to bring down its might on Russia? Wouldn't he have first made a phone call to gauge our interest in such a matter? He just thought we'd send our military to back them up and start an East-West war? Not bloody likely.

[Tron5000]

Posters who don't know Tron should be aware that "Communism" is to his posts as "9/11" is to a Rudy Giuliani speech...

I'm also quite fond of tossing in a "socialism" or "neolib" every now and then.

[Cinemaman]

OK. So Russia is just being the good guy and trying to protect South Ossetia and Abkhazia from big bad bully Georgia? And they really wanted to pull out earlier (when they said they would), but they just couldn't get the message across to the military commanders?

This is RUSSIA. They poison dissidents (ever heard of a fella named Litvinenko?), they stifle information, they hold "elections" in which the president is replaced by a puppet while Putin becomes PM so he can still pull the strings...These are Soviet Cold War-era tactics.

Do you really think Saakashvili picked a fight with Russia expecting the US to bring down its might on Russia? Wouldn't he have first made a phone call to gauge our interest in such a matter? He just thought we'd send our military to back them up and start an East-West war? Not bloody likely.

I don't consider Russia as a good boy, but I think it was right to save people from what Georgians were doing. I doubt I understand what you mean here.

If you want to know, when Putin became a president, he didn't go with Yeltsin's direction. Instead, he chose his own. So your theory fails. And , do you think Georgians wnated Saakashvili to win again the elections? I highly doubt so, considering what is happenning now in Georgia. I know this, because most of my friends and some of my relatives are either Georgians or from Georgia. I don't blame all Georgians in mass killing of South Ossetians, I blame Saakashvili and his government.

Believe me, he does, especially considering his friendly relationships with Rice. He doesn't understand what he is doing, as he is trying to get two the most powerful countries in the world into the war, which nobody wants to happen. I have nothing against the American government except the fact that they support Georgia instead of staying neutral. WHat I don't want to see is the day when two sides will rather start fighting against each other than keep their partnership that has a lot of potential.

[Tron5000]

You're still avoiding the question:

Do you really think that it would make ANY SENSE AT ALL for Georgia to attack South Ossetia, knowing full well that they would be provoking a response from Russia, whose military might is a wee bit stronger than Georgia's? That would be like Puerto Rico attacking the US.

Do you really think Saakashvili made the decision to begin a conflagration that he KNEW would result in a war with Russia? How does that make any sense whatsoever?

[StorminNorman]

:huh: that's how you got Texas, because it declared independence and then joined the US.
you were cool with that back then (the national you, not the YOU you) why not now it see like the same thing.

We actually denied Texas membership into the Union our first go around. Also the American Government never supported Texas' civil war - which is the big difference here.

[Cinemaman]

You're still avoiding the question:

Do you really think that it would make ANY SENSE AT ALL for Georgia to attack South Ossetia, knowing full well that they would be provoking a response from Russia, whose military might is a wee bit stronger than Georgia's? That would be like Puerto Rico attacking the US.

Do you really think Saakashvili made the decision to begin a conflagration that he KNEW would result in a war with Russia? How does that make any sense whatsoever?

AGAIN, Saakashvili supposed that if he has USA's protection, then he can do whatever he wants. He decided to organize attacks in South Ossetia, kill there people and reach Abkhazia in one week during the Olympic games, when both Medvedev and Putin had a rest. This was his real intention. He thought USA would support Georgia's position and go on the war with Russia.

This would make a lot of sense, as first, there wouldn't be any power in Russia anymore (as USA would support Georgia, and Europe would support USA), and second, this would lead Georgia to conquering more territories.

[Tron5000]

Countries don't just go around all willy-nilly starting wars because they think the US will support them against a larger foe. Especially when our military is already engaged in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. That just doesn't make sense.

He really thought we'd send our military after Russia, starting an East-West war that would also involve Iran, China, Great Britain, Australia, France, and other world powers? Methinks not.

[Cinemaman]

Countries don't just go around all willy-nilly starting wars because they think the US will support them against a larger foe. Especially when our military is already engaged in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. That just doesn't make sense.

He really thought we'd send our military after Russia, starting an East-West war that would also involve Iran, China, Great Britain, Australia, France, and other world powers? Methinks not.

You see, everybody has his or her own crazy ideas. Is Saakashvili any different from Hitler? He started mass killings, he blames Russia for what HIS army did, and now he plans another invasion in Abkhazia.

You are too stubborn to even assume it can be true, because Russia is the only Eurasian country, which doesn't agree with anything what America does. So I just waste my time explaining you what you should have already known, but refuses to.

[Tron5000]

Thanks for wasting your time on me. I'm honored to have been enlightened.

[Cinemaman]

Thanks for wasting your time on me. I'm honored to have been enlightened.

Nice argument, you are so ignorant :p

[Tron5000]

Nice argument, you are so ignorant :p

And you're so nice and polite. Thanks again for educating me.

[Cinemaman]

And you're so nice and polite. Thanks again for educating me.

You're Welcome.