Here's an interesting read on the situation in the Caucasus, from Asia Times Online:
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 232 reads
PoliticalLore.com
© 2008 - BreakTheMatrix.com
Here's an interesting read on the situation in the Caucasus, from Asia Times Online:
"It's kind of silly to use the word "defense" when it's located on a country that isn't even on our continent"
Nice! That should be a bumper sticker and a t-shirt. Good one, Adam.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Pete
It seems silly to have a defense that can only deter inside the borders. A nuclear strike on Canada affects our northern border. If our shield merely bounces the missle into Canada, it isn't worth much. It needs to destroy the incoming as it is over the arctic, or Russia, or Brazil. That requires missl sites on other countries.
Little chance of them helpig if we do not protect them, also.
Of course, you'll survive anything in your little cave.
THat China, Russia, and Iran should be able to build missile defense systems in Mexico and Canada as well, correct?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
in other countries. We could put missile destroying platforms in space. If we did that, we could avoid the current debate and international political wrangling. Though the international community would flip that we are deploying "star wars" weapons, that would be much more to the advantage of the U.S. then having to buy off international gangsters for their transient support. We would get the full use of the technology and we wouldn't owe anyone anything for it.
> the international community would flip that we are deploying "star wars" weapons
< "flip"? no flipping needed, it is what it is. you state this so casually that we deploy weapons in space and nobody should be irritated by it. how would you feel if china had started deploying missile platforms in space, right above the US? you'd start singing a different song i'm sure.
I never said we would have to have missiles looming over every country on the planet. We could use space, jet, floating platform, or ship based laser systems. I don't care what you use, just make sure that America can defend itself from ballistic missiles without placing missile bases in the blinking ex-Eastern block. The important part here is not to get involved in European political struggles and not to make pay offs to scum bag European politicians--while at the same time staying on the cutting edge of effective, defensive technology. Since the Chinese have demonstrated their ability to shoot down satellites, then it might make sense to use a combination of systems.
If we weren't the world's bully, few would feel threatened if we had such technology. Since we are the world's bully, we better darned well be able to keep those who have the capability of hurting us from being able to do so--in a manner that is in accord with the Constitution.
I have no problem with the Chinese deploying missile defense systems in space. We should do the same.
really? you'd be comfortable knowing that hundreds of missiles are hovering right above you pointed at you all the time? that's sort of a contradictory view to what you were expressing before as far as threats go. iran which has absolutely no weapons you say we should fear, china deploying missiles in space above the US, now that's cool, there's nothing to be afraid of there. so you fear people that can't harm you, and you're completely content with having missiles pointed at you all the time.
>>you'd be comfortable knowing that hundreds of missiles are hovering right above you pointed at you all the time?
I thought missile defense systems were only capable of detonating enemy missiles before they hit their target, rendering them useless. To my knowledge, the charges on the defense missiles are not capable of causing much damage by themselves. Of course I object to being targeted by missiles in orbit over the U.S. What I don't object to is China having the means to stop nuclear missiles aimed at their shores, whether the missiles are coming from us or from anywhere else.
Having said that, many countries consider missile defense to be an indirect threat, because it diminishes the target country's deterrent and retaliatory capability. How do you feel about this?
> I thought missile defense systems were only capable of detonating enemy missiles before they hit their target
< every weapon is defensive.
missile defence systems are meant to destroy weapons.
mines are meant to destroy weapons.
rpgs are meant to destroy weapons. etc.
every single weapon is defensive.
>What I don't object to is China having the means to stop nuclear missiles aimed at their shores, whether the missiles are coming from us or from anywhere else.
< if china sets up a nuclear missile defence system then that is tantamount to them being the only country possessing nuclear weapons. this doesn't concern you at all? i wouldn't consider that a threat but it would certainly be of some concern.
Even a build up of defensive capabilities can result in a security dilemma. If the weapons that you have are no longer enough to guarantee that you can hurt your enemy, then you feel less secure. If your enemy can absorb everything that you can throw at them without having to pay much, then they are on top of the security heap and you will feel threatened by them.
The biggest problem that Awesomo has is that they believe that we all ought to just disarm--and that everyone will follow right along. Not having a techno defense capability makes the U.S. vulnerable to attack at the same time we are generating hostility towards us. That is why it is a dilemma. Just because we don't like the dilemma doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to protect ourselves. Not protecting ourselves would be foolish--if not suicidal. We have to build up our defensive capability to help increase U.S. security, but we don't have to do it right in Russia's backyard, or by regime change in Iran. Building up defensive capability is one thing, intentionally provoking other nations is another.
>>We have to build up our defensive capability to help increase U.S. security, but we don't have to do it right in Russia's backyard
I thought the proposed missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe were to defend Europe from a Russian nuclear attack. You are saying they are meant to increase U.S.security? How?
By the way, I love the idea of building space based missile defense "walls" around America. Is it really feasible, though? How effective would a space-based missile defense system be? How expensive? and how long would it take to build?
Of course. none of this would prevent a nuclear bomb from being smuggled in to the country by land or sea, especially since there will be no accounting for all the weapons that will be manufactured as a result of nuclear non-proliferation treaties being revoked and all countries being allowed to build nuclear weapons, as many people here would like to see happen.
One answer to the problem of a terrorist-type nuclear attack would be to try and prevent it by improving our intelligence gathering capabilities-- of course that is not a popular option here at BTM, for obvious reasons. How about if we only spied on non-Americans abroad, would that be okay?
Just wondering how libertarians here would like to see an ideal government protect the security of the U.S.
Is there a plan for defense that would protect our security and still be legal under the constitution, is the idea to just practice non-intervention and hope that that will protect us from the ill-will of others, or must we just accept that we may have to sacrifice one or two cities to a first strike -- that being the price we have all decided to pay for obeying the constitution and not fighting until we have been hit first?
I'm not being facetious here. I really want to know where you all stand on this.
> The biggest problem that Awesomo has is that they believe that we all ought to just disarm--and that everyone will follow right along.
< the biggest problem you have is not being able to comprehend what you read. where did i say anybody should disarm? i have frequently pressed that every country should have a nuclear weapon. does that sound like disarming to you? get with the program and start reading what people write instead of conjuring up unsubstantiated points that you can argue against.
> That is why it is a dilemma.
< there is no dilemma. every country is responsible for its own defense. where is the dilemma? being defensive and prepared means standing your ground and being ready to retaliate if attacked. it doesn't mean invading countries and setting up missile bases all over the globe. that's called aggression.
can become an offensive weapon. You can kill a man with a sword shield.
Do you mind if there are missile defense systems there? South America? Mexico? Canada (if they agreed?)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
>>Do you mind if there are missile defense systems [in Cuba]? South America? Mexico? Canada (if they agreed?)
Do you mean Chinese missile defense systems?
Claire, these fools want perfection. And if you are not perfect, you are wasting their time.
WHICH IS THE ONLY MID EAST COUNTRY TO POSSES NUKES?
WHICH COUNTRY REFUSES TO SIGN THE NO-NUKE TREATY?
WHICH COUNTRY REFUSES INT.INSPECTORS ACCESS TO ITS NUKE-SITES?
WHICH COUNTRY OCUPIES FORIEGN LAND?
WHICH COUNTRY HAS VIOLETED MORE U.N.RESOLUTIONS THAN ANY OTHER?
WHICH COUNTRY HAS BEEN LED BY TERRORIST WITH A PRICE ON THERE HEADS?
WHICH COUNTRY OPENLY EMPLOYS ASSINATION OF POLITICAL ENEMIES?
i could go on and on but the answer to all these questions is ISRAEL
I want to be supportive, but here you are again, expressing yourself intelligently no doubt, yet conveying a message that is in perfect alignment with a mindless cheerleader at Fox news.
"When are they going to learn that people want freedom?" you ask. Please, remember how you started off with a certain view on terrorism, and some hundreds of comments later you altered your views a bit., please don't insist on undergoing that torturous process for every single topic that is raised.
Please look into the Georgia situation a bit. Please look at the spontaneous little protest, coup, etc. that occurred there. Please see the glaringly obvious work of our own CIA in the picture. Please, please, realize that Georgia is a tiny little pawn on the border with Russia -- a tiny little pawn on a big international chess board. The miniature little pieces of that pawn (the people of Georgia) don't really have any say in the matter. We're fighting over the state with Russia because the Cold War is still ongoing in many areas. We want a missile system pointed at Russia in one of those newly "free" former satellite states.
You don't convince a "free" country to make itself a military target by allowing it to freely decide matters. You coax and bribe and murder those who stand in your way -- aka our foreign policy. Please Claire, wake up!!!!
>>"We want a missile system pointed at Russia in one of those newly "free" former satellite states."
It's a missile DEFENSE system we want. I think it's supposed to go in Poland and the Czech republic, and as far as I know the Europeans want it very badly too. The Russians dead set against this though. Have you done your research, Adam?
>>"The miniature little pieces of that pawn (the people of Georgia) don't really have any say in the matter."
Within Georgia, there is a group that wants political power, and they are using their alliance with Russia to attain that goal. They are using Russia every bit as much as Russia is using them. 250 000 Georgian refugees had to leave Abkhazia in the 1990's when the region turned violent as a result of the breakup of the USSR. These are the victims, here, these people who just want to get their homes back, and who are being prevented from doing so by this Russian-backed group. Check it out yourself.
Do you remember the party in East Germany when the Berlin wall came down? Was that fake? What about the Poles? All the accounts I have read and the videos I have seen tell me that the Poles are very happy to be rid of the Soviets. Remember Solidarity and Lech Walesa, or was he a CIA plant as well? People in the Soviet block countries HATED the USSR, and I'm sure they have no love for Russia. On the other hand, of all the Europeans, the Poles seem to be the most enamored of America.
We may not be perfect, but we are far, far better friends than the Russians. Don't believe me? Just ask any European.
Russia??
I do know that the Soviet's are gaining in power and have developed an enormous amount of wealth over the past decade-- while we have sunk into bankruptcy and spread our military across the world
We sponsored Georgia breaking away from the Soviet's -- it didn't happen on it's own ---
Anyhoo, I wasn't speaking on whether or not the USA is better than the Soviets. I wouldn't say otherwise -- I'm not sure how you somehow managed to twist things around to that angle -- but it is certainly a distorted angle
It's kind of silly to use the word "defense" when it's located on a country that isn't even on our continent
My point is this -- that Georgia's breaking away from the republic was as much if not more about our desire and means to make it happen -- than the generalization that the inhabitants just preferred freedom...
>>I wasn't speaking on whether or not the USA is better than the Soviets. I wouldn't say otherwise -- I'm not sure how you somehow managed to twist things around to that angle -- but it is certainly a distorted angle
You implied that siding with Western Europe and the U.S. isn't what the Georgians really want, and I was pointing out the reasons I believe that you are wrong about that.
I said that the U.S. is a better friend than Russia. Maybe "friend" is overstating things. Maybe we are only the lesser of two evils, but don't think for a minute that the citizens of former Soviet block countries would rather we had stayed out of their affairs. I bet you anything that if you polled the Poles (or the Georgians) you would find out I am correct.
That being said, I think we need to stop supporting Europe militarily and let the Europeans fend for themselves. The E.U. is strong enough to take care of its own member states, and it is up to the E.U. either to admit or refuse membership to states like Georgia. But we must stay out of it. Until it can be proven that our military presence in Europe is vital to our national security, there can be no justification for remaining there.
We shouldn't be to jolly about this, though. Before we withdraw our support from Georgia, we must realize that if we do this, and if the E.U. doesn't step in, life will be far worse for the Georgians. Then we must go ahead and do it anyway.
>>"The underlying issue is the fact that since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, one after the other former members as well as former states of the USSR have been coaxed and in many cases bribed with false promises by Washington into joining the counter organization, NATO."
Soviet block countries in eastern Europe couldn't wait to distance themselves from the former USSR; they didn't need any "coaxing". 1991 was a great year of liberation for these countries. The Russian government should leave Georgia and the other former Soviet block countries alone, and accept that they lost the cold war and that the USSR is gone for good. When are they going to learn that people want freedom, and that oppressing your citizens ultimately leads to ruin?
They have not realized freedom is not only important, but necessary. Ah, but our government has more in common with the Soviets than they do with America's founding fathers.