Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldwater View Post
    I mean that Europe is the richest continent in the world, and the US borrows money from them to protect them.
    I think Asia is the richest continent in the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Moscow’s Sinister Brilliance:Who wants to die for Tbilisi?

    Lost amid all the controversies surrounding the Georgian tragedy is

    the sheer diabolic brilliance of the long-planned Russia invasion. :eek:

    Let us count the ways in which it is a win/win situation for Russia.

    The Home Front
    The long-suffering Russian people resent the loss of global influence and empire, but not necessarily the Soviet Union and its gulags that once ensured such stature. The invasion restores a sense of Russian nationalism and power to its populace without the stink of Stalinism, and is indeed cloaked as a sort of humanitarian intervention on behalf of beleaguered Ossetians.

    There will be no Russian demonstrations about an “illegal war,” much less nonsense about “blood for oil,” but instead rejoicing at the payback of an uppity former province that felt its Western credentials somehow trumped Russian tanks. How ironic that the Western heartthrob, the old Marxist Mikhail Gorbachev, is now both lamenting Western encouragement of Georgian “aggression,” while simultaneously gloating over the return of Russian military daring.

    Sinister Timing
    Russia’s only worry is the United States, which currently has a lame-duck president with low approval ratings, and is exhausted after Afghanistan and Iraq.

    But more importantly, America’s attention is preoccupied with a presidential race, in which “world citizen” Barack Obama has mesmerized Europe as the presumptive new president and soon-to-be disciple of European soft power.

    Better yet for Russia, instead of speaking with one voice, America is all over the map with three reactions from Bush, McCain, and Obama — all of them mutually contradictory, at least initially. Meanwhile, the world’s televisions are turned toward the Olympics in Beijing. The autocratic Chinese, busy jailing reporters and dissidents, are not about to say an unkind word about Russian intervention. If anything, the pageantry at their grandiose stadiums provides welcome distractions for those embarrassed over the ease with which Russia smothered Georgia.

    Comeuppance
    Most importantly, Putin and Medvedev have called the West’s bluff.

    We are sort of stuck in a time-warp of the 1990s, seemingly eons ago in which a once-earnest weak post-Soviet Russia sought Western economic help and political mentoring. But those days are long gone, and diplomacy hasn’t caught up with the new realities. Russia is flush with billions. It serves as a rallying point and arms supplier to thugs the world over that want leverage in their anti-Western agendas. For the last five years, its foreign policy can be reduced to “Whatever the United States is for, we are against.”

    The geopolitical message is clear to both the West and the former Soviet Republics: don’t consider NATO membership (i.e., do the Georgians really think that, should they have been NATO members, any succor would have been forthcoming?).


    Together with the dismal NATO performance in Afghanistan, the Georgian incursion reveals the weakness of the Atlantic Alliance.

    The tragic irony is unmistakable. NATO was given a gift in not having made Georgia a member, since otherwise an empty ritual of evoking Article V’s promise of mutual assistance in time of war would have effectively destroyed the Potemkin alliance.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...JlOTA0Y2MxYjg=
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Maybe I am confused with something else...but wasn't opposing Russia the reason NATO was created?!?!?
    You're correct....however, Georgia isn't a member of NATO. IF a NATO member is attacked, then all of NATO is attacked (in theory). Personally, I don't see the EU or NATO doing anything on Russia because (1.) Russia provides 25% of natural gas and oil to EU countries and EU loves stability and money more than freedom (eastern Europe excluded) and (2.) as much bitching that Europe does about the imperialist US and all the war mongering that the US does, they will sit back and demand and expect the United States to defend their countries and economies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by ReaganForRus View Post
    You're correct....however, Georgia isn't a member of NATO. IF a NATO member is attacked, then all of NATO is attacked (in theory). Personally, I don't see the EU or NATO doing anything on Russia because (1.) Russia provides 25% of natural gas and oil to EU countries and EU loves stability and money more than freedom (eastern Europe excluded) and (2.) as much bitching that Europe does about the imperialist US and all the war mongering that the US does, they will sit back and demand and expect the United States to defend their countries and economies.
    You're right, of course, but my point about Russia and NATO was based on the Germans saying "that it would be wrong to offer membership [to Georgia] for fear of provoking Russia."

    NATO, being Western Europe's answer to the Warsaw Pact, should not cave to Russian demands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Maybe I am confused with something else...but wasn't opposing Russia the reason NATO was created?!?!?
    No. It was created for the Soviet empire threat...which disappeared almost two decades ago before some here were born.
    NATO has been used to expand U.S. "security" into a sphere we have no business in... Eastern Europe and S.W. Asia
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    NATO has been used to expand U.S. "security" into a sphere we have no business in... Eastern Europe and S.W. Asia
    So intervention in Western Europe, good. Intervention in Eastern Europe and S.W. Asia, bad.

    What exactly is the rationale for the distinction?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    So intervention in Western Europe, good. Intervention in Eastern Europe and S.W. Asia, bad.

    What exactly is the rationale for the distinction?
    Sure... there is a tremendous difference between limited and international multilateral organizations. Neither is a good thing, but if your going to have one...as NATO, you don't keep expanding it. Especially when the threat it was created for does not exist.
    In other words if cancer is cured, you believe the Cancer society should continue?

    Maybe my history is a little off, but the Soviet Union did end ...Right? Who exactly is the threat now? How far do you suggest we go? Are we going to offer every little podunk piss ant nation a guaranteed security?

    Are you familiar with the type of security dilema this creates for the region. Are you aware of the term Zero sum game in international politics?

    Put yourself in the place of the Russian federation. Few that think that NATO expansion is a keen idea actually do this, but if Russia had defeated us in the cold war and was expanding the warsaw pact into W. Europe and central America, we would protest.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Sure... there is a tremendous difference between limited and international multilateral organizations. Neither is a good thing, but if your going to have one...as NATO, you don't keep expanding it. Especially when the threat it was created for does not exist.
    In other words if cancer is cured, you believe the Cancer society should continue?
    The problem is that Russia is proving that there is a need for NATO. They are threatening their former satellites and beginning military action to gather resource rich areas. And if you look at some of their internals, they are slipping back towards the Soviet style. Only this time they're not calling it Communism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Maybe my history is a little off, but the Soviet Union did end ...Right? Who exactly is the threat now? How far do you suggest we go? Are we going to offer every little podunk piss ant nation a guaranteed security?

    Are you familiar with the type of security dilema this creates for the region. Are you aware of the term Zero sum game in international politics?
    I think that NATO provides a strong link to the west that surpasses a mere military alliance. If NATO were only a military alliance, you would have a good point. But joining NATO now means prosperity, Democracy, and freedom. It is very appealing to Eastern European countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Put yourself in the place of the Russian federation. Few that think that NATO expansion is a keen idea actually do this, but if Russia had defeated us in the cold war and was expanding the warsaw pact into W. Europe and central America, we would protest.
    I doubt that, because if Russia had defeated us, then we would have official party media telling us we should be electing a Marxist leader...

    hm.

    Well, at least you and I would already be in reeducation camps. Fortunately, we've got until January or February until that happens. Hooray for winning the Cold War!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member NonConformist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    232
    If they had been a member of NATO I seriously doubt Russia would have attacked, they dont want to provoke us.

    IMO NATO wont work anymore, too many members are in the EU and they are working on their own joint Military, or have the desire to do so

    The only countries that would muster would be us and England and MAYBE(but not likely) Germany
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt




    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    The problem is that Russia is proving that there is a need for NATO. They are threatening their former satellites and beginning military action to gather resource rich areas. And if you look at some of their internals, they are slipping back towards the Soviet style. Only this time they're not calling it Communism.

    I think that NATO provides a strong link to the west that surpasses a mere military alliance. If NATO were only a military alliance, you would have a good point. But joining NATO now means prosperity, Democracy, and freedom. It is very appealing to Eastern European countries.
    I don't know if they type of government going on in Georgia and some of those places is exactly what i would call prosperity and democracy. Let's not forget who's economic advice Asia listened to that lead to it's 1997 collapse.

    I guess then that every place on earth is of vital security interests to the U.S.
    and now encroaching on this new supossed "soviet threat" is a good thing.
    But that's the nature of today's Practical politics...it's about keeping the populace alarmed at numerous threats so they can lead us to safety.

    What did the founders say? Avoid entangling alliances? Well... NATO and the UN are two.
    I think those "dead white guys" had alot more wisdom than we give them credit for. We tend to act enlightened...Yet I know few in power postions who's recent decisions and policies I would compare to the founders.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •