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

Quote :

"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. "

8/20/2008 2:33:36 PM

wars with an enemy with a proper uniform! how we've missed you!

8/20/2008 2:35:08 PM

Quote :

""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.""

what a bad-ass statement

so... the war between the powers never really was over, huh?

just a major shake up of one of the players causing a massive lose of influence over a huge swath of territory

I can see why Russia is upset...

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2008 2:43:28 PM

honestly, i thought wars between nation-states were a thing of the past.

Cold War Part Deux, here we come.

8/20/2008 2:45:07 PM

not nation-states

EMPIRES

...

but no, war will never go away, EVER

people who think that live in a dream world created by temporary peace and stability

...

the next serious war will be nuclear, and it will kill a lot of people (not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it even a "new thing", I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the nuclear conflict kills ~ the same percentage of people as WWII)

did the calculation, wiki gives % WW II dead at 3.71%

so .0371 * 6,602,224,175 (world pop July 2007 est via google) = 244,942,517

245 Million people dead

good reasonable number for a nuclear conflict I'll bet

and the good thing is that I think humanity will survive and flourish afterwards

the best news I've heard about the possibility of surviving a nuclear conflict come from observations after the Chernobly accident

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2008 2:51:56 PM

^^ I thought the same thing, but since we invaded Iraq, things with Russia have been tenser than normal. Russia has been helping out the mid-east countries for a while, and now were stomping on their economic opportunities.

Considering we agreed to put patriot missiles in Poland too, I can't blame russia for being upset.

Obama '08

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2008 2:52:27 PM

The funny thing about this though is that we have the Russians to thank for getting the interceptors set up in Poland. Originally, the Poles were rather hesitant about placing missile interceptors in their nation in large part because they didn't want to provoke the Russians. As a result, the talks we were engaged in with them were being slowed if not stalled.

However, thanks to the Russians beating the snot out of the Georgians, the Poles have taken a renewed interest in missile defense, fast tracking negotiations. So I suppose that this is part of the political price that Russia pays for reasserting itself across the Caucuses.

Or so "I heard it on NPR"...

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2008 3:01:44 PM

^^^ 245 million would be a reasonable number for full out nuclear war between a newly stockpiled Iran and the USA+allies.

For a full blown Russia-USA nuclear exchange, a reasonable estimate would be more like > 6 billion.

8/20/2008 3:46:36 PM

Quote :

"General: Mr. President, it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless distinguishable, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed. President: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war! General: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops.... Uh, depending on the breaks. "

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration,
Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the
international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify
all of our precious bodily fluids.






[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2008 3:49:19 PM

^^

not true, there are a whole lot of people that live in zones that have mostly nothing to do with the US or Russia

China, Indonesia, South America, Africa etc...

the casualty rate will not be 6 billion, i bet 1-2 billion TOPS, probably much less

that being said, if 6 billion people did die, it would be OK

it would just roll back the population clock about 100 years

...

ps: Iran ONLY HAS a population of 65,397,521 (July 2007 est. via google)

when you think about this problem you need to look at the numbers at hand

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2008 3:54:40 PM

^ listen to yourself: you're a nut.





[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ^ clarify]

8/20/2008 3:56:51 PM

I do live in a tree.

8/20/2008 3:57:16 PM

You have to wonder if Russia wouldn't be a little less forceful if the US wasn't already tied down in so much foreign conflict.

8/20/2008 4:03:55 PM

Quote :

" Breaking: Norway: Russia to cut all military ties with NATO Aug 20 02:38 PM US/Eastern OSLO, Norway (AP) - Norway's Defense Ministry says Russia has informed it that it plans to cut all military ties with NATO. Ministry spokeswoman Heidi Langvik-Hansen says the country's embassy received a telephone call from Russia's Defense Ministry on Wednesday, saying Moscow plans "to freeze all military cooperation with NATO and allied countries." Norway was told in the telephone call a written note about this would be sent out shortly. Russian officials were not immediately available to confirm the information and officials at NATO headquarters said they have not been informed of any such moves. NATO foreign ministers Tuesday suspended formal contacts with Russia as punishment for sending troops into Georgia. "

OK, their rhetoric is pushing up way too fast now; soon they'll have to do something or risk major face on the world stage....either way what the fuck is going on over there?

8/20/2008 4:05:05 PM

^^

I imagine that has very little to do with it.

They want respect. They want to be looked at in the same light as in the Soviet Era.

...

what needs to happen now is a very frank discussion between Bush and Putten to hammer out some kind of understanding that will allow all parties to be happy.

perhaps the US can give concessions to halt it's appearance of antagonizing Russia (like not putting up the Polish "missile shield")

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2008 4:06:22 PM

i miss the days when W would look into Putin's eyes and see the soul of the Russian people


[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2008 4:14:01 PM

Quote :

"nastoute : a very frank discussion between Bush and Putten"

go on, keep underscoring the fact that you dont know what the fuck you're talking about, okay?

thanks.



[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2008 4:18:43 PM

This will help McCain, and hurt the world.

8/20/2008 4:22:46 PM

Quote :

"wars with an enemy with a proper uniform! how we've missed you!"

marko

LOL!

Mine would be:

I was in Cold War I and all I got was this lousy certificate!

8/20/2008 4:24:33 PM

This helps McCain.

People will get scared and they'll go with the military guy.


It would be nice to have an election based on issues, without fear playing a deciding factor. Hopefully this shit will simmah down.

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM. Reason : 2]

8/20/2008 4:25:37 PM

In soviet Russia, diplomacy goes beyond you?

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 4:28 PM. Reason : I've really shit on TSB today. Sorry.]

8/20/2008 4:28:03 PM

this will in no way help mccain unless he magically makes it go away. if he acts with the same impotency as i suspect barak obama will then he stands to gain nothing.

bush cannot solve this issue. not because his administration is too incompetent, but because they are too proud and uncompromising.

8/20/2008 4:33:18 PM

Bush doesn't have any intention to "solve" the issue. He intends to put his missile defense package in Poland, and call Russia's bluff.

And frankly, McCain, who is viewed as more capable in defense and security, benefits greatly if there is a threat of WWIII going into this election.

8/20/2008 4:38:11 PM

^^ You're an idiot. Of course this will help McCain. We are talking about how the average American voter decides to cast their vote. This conflict will sway people to vote for the veteran, obviously.

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 4:40 PM. Reason : -]

8/20/2008 4:40:15 PM

Quote :

"(like not putting up the Polish "missile shield")"

god i hope you are joking

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2008 4:40:39 PM

I don't think the USA can "solve" this issue. The powers that be in Russia are calling the shots right now and we are just responding. If Russia didn't want the missile shield in Poland/Czechia they probably shouldn't have, oh I dunno, invaded Georgia. If anything they are just making all the Eastern European countries move even closer to the West. They have probably only disrupted plans in Central Asia that the USA had, that's about it.

Russia could have been part of the West if they so chose, instead they have become a kleptocratic authoritarian pseudo-democracy. Oh well.

8/20/2008 4:47:32 PM

UN: Impotent

EU: Impotent

G7: Impotent

NATO: We'll see

Rest of the world to the United States (except Sarkozy the American): You cowboys handle the Georgia-Russia situation--we don't have the balls. HELP US, COWBOYS!!!1

8/20/2008 4:52:43 PM

while that is often times true, it also tends to correlate with messes we helped create or escalate, to be fair.

8/20/2008 5:01:05 PM

Quote :

"ps: Iran ONLY HAS a population of 65,397,521 (July 2007 est. via google) when you think about this problem you need to look at the numbers at hand"

I'm not so stupid as to grossly miss the mark for the population of a country like Iran. 245 M probably won't ever happen in such a situation, of course. But we can't say with any certainty what number is accurate.

Even if you assume they fully develop their nuclear and missile capabilities, it's hard to think they could even succeed in a preemptive nuclear strike. And one way or the other, they would be lunatic to think they could launch any nuclear weapon and expect to keep the existing regime in power. This generally results in the conclusion that they won't do it, but by that same argument, if their leaders were crazy enough to do it, then who knows what they would try to hit (after Israel) - it seems like a complete wild card. Jerusalem + Tehran -> 8 million dead would be generous. Even a balls-to-the-wall US response shouldn't tally much more than their military population, which doesn't approach the numbers we're interested in.

The only thing I can possibly see giving numbers of 100s of millions is someone executing a "kill as many as we can" strategy. But with population densities of the modern world, you could many millions with even a single nuke.

8/20/2008 5:43:40 PM

Both sides are kind of stupid in this situation. How, exactly, does a missile shield in Poland protect the US from attack by Iran? It might protect Europe, but not much, frankly.

Likewise, Russia, has little leg to stand on to say that people should be allowed to have a freaking missile defense. Offensive missiles, I could understand. Defensive? Get the fuck out of here.

8/20/2008 6:17:43 PM

With respect to the missile defense shield, it's all cold war-esque strategic positioning, and everybody knows it.

The missile defense shield would weaken Russia's (largely military-driven) influence on former Soviet bloc states including Poland and Georgia and bring them more fully into NATO. Russia objects to this further isolation and weakening of their influence, and is willing to fight (or at least bluff) to maintain it's power and influence in the region.

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 6:31 PM. Reason : 2]

8/20/2008 6:28:45 PM

lol good...i hope they keep bluffing and then get themselves into some shit they cant get out of

8/20/2008 6:32:38 PM

Quote :

"get themselves into some shit they cant get out of"

That would be a pre-emptive war with Poland that drags most of Europe and the US into a war with the once mighty Russian Bear.

Lets hope to god that doesn't happen.

8/20/2008 6:36:18 PM

Quote :

"the next serious war will be nuclear"

Why do you assume this? Well first off, I'd argue all wars are serious, but that aside . . .

Nation-states are the least likely of entities to start wars, there is too much at stake for the responsible leaders and they are rarely motivated by the sort of ideology which could drive a fanatic to set off a nuclear device in NYC or LA, or Moscow for that reason.

8/20/2008 6:40:30 PM

seems like if russia nuked poland like they claim they might do, it would turn like most of the world against them

8/20/2008 6:41:15 PM

Exactly. It would be suicide. Russia is bluffing with the nuclear threat.

They can't exactly blitzkrieg through there the way they did with Georgia, since Ukraine and Belarus are in the way. But they could launch some missiles and make things very crazy, since the US and NATO have already stated that they will defend Poland in the event of an attack.

8/20/2008 7:06:31 PM

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/193668.php

funny

Quote :

"August 19, 2008 European Pussies Or so the Russians think. And for once, the Russians are right: The Russian Ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, dismissed the impact of the emergency meeting in Brussels, Belgium: "The mountain gave birth to a mouse." Yes, they actually are laughing at NATO. Pretty lengthy post below. You really should go read Allah Pundit's commentary on Pat Buchanan's latest piece calling for American isolationism. It's dead on in its criticism of Buchanan who with each passing day begins to sound more and more like a paranoid Illuminati conspiracy theorist. Also dead on in taking the middle ground between complete failure to support Georgia and declaring war on Russia. One thing I would note is that I think Buchanan is right in that admitting the Ukraine into NATO with its present borders would be problematic, to say the least. Buchanan is rather inelegant in referring to Yalta as the "vacation resort of the czars". The point he was trying to make, I think, is that certain areas of the traditional Russian homeland were only ceded to the Ukraine during Stalin's reign. The Crimea was always considered Russia and its people Russian. See for instance this pre-WWII map. I have some friends in Sevastopol (that's on the Crimean peninsula). They consider themselves Russian, and not Ukrainian. They blame Stalin for giving the Crimea to the Ukraine. Since it was an integral part of the Soviet Union the notion of "giving" the Crimea to the Ukraine seemed laughable at the time. But now? Not so much. Parenthetically, and I'm sure many of you already know this, but can you name Joseph Stalin's nationality? No, he wasn't Russian, he was Georgian. What does that have to do with the present conflict in Georgia? Nothing, but it does have everything to do with potential future conflicts with Russia. For even though Stalin was born Georgian, he was really the first homo-sovieticus: Soviet Man. The communists were anti-nationalist. Stalin, being a true believer, also believed that communism would transform the citizens of the Soviet Union from Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Turks, etc into something completely new: Soviets. It seems laughable to us today. We tend to take the cynical view of Stalin that it was all about his personal ego. I don't think so. The crimes of the Soviet Union were the crimes of communism. If anything, communism became less severe in later years because the communist rulers are guilty of that which we impose on Stalin's character: cynics who really didn't believe. They just didn't believe in communism enough to let a few million murders get in its way. To paraphrase all of my high school coaches: they just didn't want it bad enough. Digressing? Not really. Because the present make up of many Eastern European countries were imposed during an era when it was thought that national boundaries no longer mattered. Does any one really believe that now? I don't think so. The point being that most Russians believe, and with good reason, that certain areas of the Ukraine should be Russia proper. If not for Stalin's insane notions about the new "Soviet man" places like the Crimea would be Russia, not the Ukraine. The reverse holds true, of course: there are many areas of Russia proper that probably shouldn't be if the locals had any say in the matter. This isn't an argument for breaking up Russia or the Ukraine. It's not. What it is is an argument against considering the Ukraine for inclusion in NATO. At least not now. It's also just a little history lesson to make sure that the rhetoric stemming from analogy doesn't overstep the limits of the analogy. This isn't Mexico demanding Arizona back. Or Canada demanding -- okay, sorry, can't continue with that analogy since it's "unpossible" to imagine Canada demanding anything. Those issues were settled by America's awesomeness at assimilation in conquest. When we speak of the former countries of the Soviet Union, we are speaking of boundaries created by Czars and dictators. Boundaries I for one am not comfortable shedding American blood over. Which is exactly what NATO membership would mean. If that was Buchanan's main point, I think it probably got lost in his increasingly odd rhetoric and Chomskyesque logic of blame-America for all the ills of the world. But I tend to agree that European problems should best be left to the Europeans. If Europe feels threatened by Russia's moves against its neighbors, shouldn't they step up to the plate? I think so. But they won't. Why? Because as noted in the title of this post: they're pussies.* More than just pussies: they're pussies who don't have to spend an appropriate amount of GDP on their own defenses so long as they are under the American security umbrella. *My apologies to all the Europeans who are disgusted by their governments' collective pussytude. "

8/20/2008 7:08:39 PM

Quote :

"And frankly, McCain, who is viewed as more capable in defense and security, benefits greatly if there is a threat of WWIII going into this election."

I'm going to have to disagree with you, and have you refer back to what it was that I said. I suggested if McCain were to do nothing, much as I suspect that he will. If he acts just as idly as Obama does in this circumstance then his "expertise" in this arena will prove to be a facade and actually lower his credibility, in some ways.

8/20/2008 7:17:33 PM

The deer is georgia

The car is georgia actin a fool

8/20/2008 7:21:36 PM

Quote :

"I suggested if McCain were to do nothing, much as I suspect that he will. If he acts just as idly as Obama does in this circumstance then his "expertise" in this arena will prove to be a facade and actually lower his credibility, in some ways."

What the fuck can either candidate do between now and November? Talk? They aren't in a position to do anything except make promises.

Sounds like a lot of wistful thinking on your part. McCain is not gonna lose his image of being a more qualified wartime president no matter what he does (or doesn't do).

8/20/2008 8:31:26 PM

Russia knows that they can't afford to go to war with Poland and alienate the world, and they should have the wisdom to know that everyone else sees that also. It's true that their oil production gives them leverage, but not enough to override the effects of something like this.

8/20/2008 9:41:59 PM

Quote :

"while that is often times true, it also tends to correlate with messes we helped create or escalate, to be fair."

IRSeriousCat

Fair? Your post is nothing of the sort. If fact, it's the same type of moral relativism that Obama stepped in with his initial statement concerning the invasion in question--he, of course, later modified/adjusted/clarified/flip-flopped his position.

Russia was looking for any excuse to flex its muscle as a regional hegemon and to assert itself once more on the world stage. Ex-KGB agent Putin is not our friend, and he simply does not want pro-Western countries in the region--nor does he want these neighbors of Russia's in NATO.

Russia was the aggressor here--plain and simple. Any statement to the contrary is nothing more than equivocation--no matter what the democratically elected government of Georgia may have done.

Quote :

"lol good...i hope they keep bluffing and then get themselves into some shit they cant get out of"

drunknloaded

Be careful what you wish for. If "some shit" happens with this--some real shit--you will probably be drafted into the military. You understand this, right?

[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 11:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2008 11:20:33 PM

i'm an only child cuz...from what i was told thats an automatic get out of draft free card

8/20/2008 11:22:05 PM

^ You were told wrong.

"Only Sons" and the draft

Quote :

"Contrary to popular belief, 'only sons,' 'the last son to carry the family name,' and 'sole surviving sons' must register and they can be drafted. However, they may be entitled to a peacetime deferment if there is a military death in the immediate family."

http://www.sss.gov/FSsurviv.htm

http://www.sss.gov/FSpostdefer.htm

PS: You'd better transfer to Bible college, dnl!



[Edited on August 20, 2008 at 11:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2008 11:32:34 PM

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Russia knows its not going to start WWIII and attack Poland for putting in defensive weapons, particularly at the same time when its selling similar weapons to the Syrians.

8/20/2008 11:35:41 PM

Given McCain's age and temperament, this should work against him. Unfortunately his temperament isn't especially well-known outside of D.C. circles and would be beneath Barack Obama's routine level of rhetoric, so it won't. I certainly wouldn't trust the man with his finger near the button regardless of his veteran status.

Russia's dramatic re-assertion of powers will tilt the polls more in McCain's favor leading up to the Democratic convention. Whether the tide lasts into November will depend largely on the level of force with which Russia's intentions are exercised, and the speed.

Given the continued stress on our forces caused by their concentration in Iraq, we can only hope that Russia's intentions aren't more ambitious.

Quote :

"(or at least bluff)"

Remains to be seen.

8/21/2008 12:00:53 AM

I try to see the silver lining. Society is so PC now the only group that you're allowed to truly vilify in movies nowadays are the Nazis. Nazis are so played out that even the Indiana Jones movies are starting to move away from them. At this rate we'll be back to eradicating those evil, evil reds in no time.

8/21/2008 8:24:34 AM

Quote :

"Fair? Your post is nothing of the sort. If fact, it's the same type of moral relativism that Obama stepped in with his initial statement concerning the invasion in question--he, of course, later modified/adjusted/clarified/flip-flopped his position."

My comment was nothing but fair. While I didn't say we are responsible for all the evils in the world- and i've said many times that i do not believe that we are- i can acknowledge that there are times in which we create or escalate a situation due to our rhetoric, and as the situation gets worse we are then responsible for clean up. Almost anything can be seen as morally relative, but that does not take away from the TRUTH that lines my statement.

Quote :

"and he simply does not want pro-Western countries in the region--nor does he want these neighbors of Russia's in NATO. "

Can you blame him? honestly, think about that for a moment. Putin is, and rightfully so, afraid of the intentions of the US. NATO was founded to secure against the soviet threat and the United States continues to lobby to increase the size and formation of NATO by including all of the former soviet satellites which would leave the russia surrounded by seemingly aggressive parties. On top of this the united states has also been pushing for a missile defense system in those states. If a country were to do that in mexico or canada we would using ever more aggressive tones by the minute. One cannot be situationally unbiased and contend that Russia has no reason to be suspicious when its clear the US would be equally so if the roles were reversed.

8/21/2008 8:59:54 AM

Who are these "seemingly aggressive parties" that you speak of? Russia is the only aggressor in the region.

And no, I couldn't see the US being too concerned about Mexico or Canada employing a missile defense system as part of an agreement with, say, China. But then again, we don't have a (recent) history of wielding the threat of our military as a way of exerting our influence on our neighbors.

[Edited on August 21, 2008 at 10:36 AM. Reason : 2]

8/21/2008 10:32:33 AM

Quote :

"Who are these "seemingly aggressive parties" that you speak of? Russia is the only aggressor in the region."

The countries associated with NATO, seeing as how its an organization established with the principle that Russia is the enemy. Thats why I used seemingly. I never said parties that have attacked Russia, but its clear that Russia is looking at these nations as potential threats and feel their security is being threatened, as any country would in this situation.

Quote :

"And no, I couldn't see the US being too concerned about Mexico or Canada employing a missile defense system as part of an agreement with, say, China. But then again, we don't have a (recent) history of wielding the threat of our military as a way of exerting our influence on our neighbors."

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that in the slightest. If China wanted to put up a missile defense station along our borders and was part of a union established for the sole purpose of defending against America, we, as a nation would exhibit concern. "recent" and "neighbors" can be considered relative but i'll assume you mean <10 years and immediate neighbors, and in that case you're correct. For the most part we don't shit where we sleep, however, we do have a very recent history of threat of military as a way of exerting our influence to foreign nations that have not aggressed us.

8/21/2008 10:46:05 AM