Back To The Eighties
By Mitch Berg
Reading this is like a trip down memory lane:
A top Russian general said Friday that Poland’s agreement to accept a U.S. missile defense battery exposes ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported.
The statement by Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn is the strongest threat that Russia has issued against the plans to put missile defense elements in former Soviet satellite nations.
Ah, just like high school; the Russians perceive a “threat”, they respond with bluster and threats.
Of course, when I was in high school, the president was someone who caved in to those threats; who acquiesced to Communist expansionism around the globe; someone for whom audacity and hope were more important than security.
Twenty years ago, calling the Soviet bluff caused the house of cards to collapse.
Of course, the Soviets offered nothing to the west but a threat. The Russians – while presiding over a crumbled, failing nation – have oil and natural gas as well as tanks and missiles. They’re also not only institutionally paranoid about invasion (having been the stomping ground for invaders from Greeks and Huns through the Mongols and Germans), but they’re now surrounded by independent nations – Poland, Mongolia, Georgia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria – that hate the Russians with a ferocity that can only come from centuries of history.
So are our kids going to have to live through another Cold War? Is the the Russia/Third World axis of the Sixties and Seventies going to recap itself with the Islamofascists – possible in reverse, with Islamists using Russia as a conventional proxy?
Is our next president going to be a Carter or a Reagan?
August 15th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
> Is our next president going to be a Carter or a Reagan?
He’s gonna be a Maverick!
Lock and load, Wolverines, Maverick says it’s time to defend Georgian control of Russian enclaves in South Ossetia. We’re putting country first!
It’s the first international crisis since the Cold War, and Maverick’s got his finger on the button!
/jc
August 15th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“they respond with bluster and threats”
Seems like McCain, Bush, Shaakwhatever are doing most of the above.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Seems like McCain, Bush, Shaakwhatever are doing most of the above.
And Obarter’s response differs … how? Other than being even less constructive and encouraging even more adventurism? Other than advocating for even less military strength and spending?
We don’t have a good response in Georgia other than letting our displeasure be known, but simply rolling over for it feels like the old “lie back and enjoy it” advice, which is Obama’s strategy for dealing with the situation.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Actually, Mitch, this has huge similarities to the issue of the Pershing II missiles — deploying missiles to stop missiles, except now we’re trying to stop them directly rather than through MADD.
And something else we’ve seen many times before: Russian threat, US response, lefties b*tch, moan, and try to preemptively surrender.
Yeah, back to the 80s. But I doubt we’ll see another Reagan.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
And Obarter’s response differs … how?
By body surfing. Carter never did that.
Slash, your lack of comprehension is, as always truly monumental.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
nerdbert:
“and Obarter’s response differs … how?”
a. no bluster and empty threats.
b. not calling it “the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War” or anything else equally stupid.
“this has huge similarities to the issue of the Pershing II missiles”
Really, which part of the PII drama is hugely similar to Georgia attacking Russian troops in violation of their own agreements.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Rick, think Poland. Then get some history books.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“think Poland”
Poland did invade Ukraine in 1920 (prompting a Soviet invasion of Poland followed by a Polish counter-offensive), but there were no agreements between the Polish Republic or the Soviet Union since neither had been in existence for more than a few years.
Now Germany did clearly invade Poland in 1939 and did so in violation of German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 (unilaterally abrogated by Hitler in April 1939).
So is Georgia like Germany?
August 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Perhaps Rick should talk to someone who lived in Poland during the cold war. Someone who lives there now as Russia ramps back up. I find it simply astounding that Russia invades her neighbor, blows off the cease fire, deliberately and obviously making sure everyone knows that Georgia is now her bitch and if that isn’t enough, one of Russia’s generals comes right out and threatens nuclear war on Poland should Poland defend herself. And who do you blame? Well McCain and Bush, of course. I want to see another one of those “which country is most dangerous to the planet” surveys and see how far ahead the US is. It is truly a bizzaro world out there.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Rick, go back another hundred years and Russia, Prussia and Austria were slicing up Poland after Napolean. What you miss is Russia’s sense of entitlement to Eastern Europe. Putin does not.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I do have to agree with RatioRick on one point – US and the west are backing the wrong horse in the Ossetia conflict. Saakashvilli decided to get cute and got his ass handed to him. While in Asia, I had access to non-US news sources, and there were a LOT of Georgians on camera (BBC camera crews who have no love lost for Russians and who were in Tbilisi, so I suspect very little tampering or bias in this particular reporting) who blamed Saak for the whole mess. I doubt he will survive the next election.
It may be politically expedient to blame Russia for everything and support anti-Russian regimes, but in his case, this is not kosher. Funny how nobody talks about Georgia invading Russia to start this particular phase of the conflict.
However, on the issue of Cold War, I agree with nerdbert. If Russia is intent on showing muscle and talk tough, somebody has to be step and show some balls. Eu? – no balls, just pretty words! UN? – you gotta be kidding! US, however, already knows what works and what doesn’t – well, those of us who remember actual and not revisionist history as fed by Rats and MSM. It is interesting, though, that it was Poland that will receive the first battery and not Czech’s. I must’of missed a bit of stuff during my travels.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Rick:
“a. no bluster and empty threats.
b. not calling it “the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War” or anything else equally stupid.”
That’s right, as usual he has spoke many words but actually said nothing at all. Apparently that comforts you. Wait, he did congratulate Sarkosy for negotiating a cease-fire agreement… which the Russians smiled, signed & then used it for target practice.
Hmmm, Russia, run by KGB agents, invading it’s neighbors, threatening possible nuclear attack if the west dares to defend itself, especially a former eastern bloc nation… yup totally stupid to even think that this is one bit like the cold war. Duh! No wonder you think Obama is so great!
August 16th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I suppose Rick is one of those folks who, upon seeing a bully roughing up a friend, either blames the victim or just says that the victim should talk sincerely with the bully.
Given his reaction, and the world’s reaction, perhaps the next time Mexican troops cross our borders (which happens pretty much like clockwork) we should invade, drive to within 30 miles of Mexico City and take over all their oil production.
August 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
When did Georgia invade Russia? They made a military move in Ossetia – which was Georgian territory even though Russia had been trying to destabilize the area.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:07 am
NW, you are correct – South Ossetia is in Georgia, but is hotly contested by Russia, with scores of Russians living there, and Russian “peacekeepers” a plenty. Saak made a huge tactical blunder by attacking Russians there, provoked or not – very much akin to, I hate to say, Sadam going after Kurds, trying to wipe them out. Saak may be pro-western, but it appears he does not know how to play politics. He is extremely naive to think US and NATO will come to his aid and clean up the messes he either inherited or started. That, and his inability, or lack of desire, to clean up Pankisi Gorge does not bode well for Georgia.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Mr. Shirt:
You really ought to read more carefully. Russia is not “threatening possible nuclear attack if the west dares to defend itself”. Russia is not threatening to nuke Poland if they accept the interceptors or build them.
The Russian general merely pointed out that under current Russian doctrine and basic common sense, in the event of nuclear war with the U.S., Russia would use its nukes to attack countries with “elements of strategic deterrence systems”. If Poland accepts some of those elements, they put a target on their country.
Nerdbert:
“Rick is one of those folks who, upon seeing a bully roughing up a friend, either blames the victim or just says that the victim should talk sincerely with the bully.”
Except that in this case my friend walked into a bar and hit a bigger tougher guy after I told him not to.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
If Poland accepts some of those elements, they put a target on their country.
Which is Russian saber-rattling which I suspect is purely intended to rattle Western liberals, since being a member of NATO makes Poland a target, too.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
“purely intended to rattle Western liberals”
It is your side of the aisle with all the damp trousers. Oh no its Munich 1938 again or the start of the Cold War again.
“since being a member of NATO makes Poland a target, too”
I don’t think so. The Russians are pretty specific that in a U.S. nuclear strike, they would also ““elements of strategic deterrence systems”. That would seem to leave NATO countries without said systems in the clear. Which makes sense. A. Why waste the warheads on Belgium and Bulgaria when there is so many targets in the U.S. B. Detaching NATO countries from the U.S. has always been a top Russia strategic priority. Offering them nuclear immunity in the U.S-Russia exchange would be their best card to achieve this.
In the event of war, an offer of immunity would be their best chance to prevent NATO countries from acting on their treaty obligation to go to war with Russia.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
It is your side of the aisle with all the damp trousers. Oh no its Munich 1938 again or the start of the Cold War again.
What can we say? Liberals from Chamberlain to Carter pollyanna’ed their way into a bunch of wars; they did their damnedest to abdicated to the last bunch of Russian dictators (perhaps because of the ideological affinity?). Experience is a good teacher. And for those of us who took the last cold war seriously, it’s still pretty fresh.
I don’t think so. The Russians are pretty specific that in a U.S. nuclear strike, they would also ““elements of strategic deterrence systems”.
Not sure if you got that from their press release or what, but that’s myopic as hell. Their doctrine has always been to use nukes as the big club – going after leadership, communication and command and control. Indeed, all those are part of “strategic deterrence”, since it’s where the “strategic deterrence” is controlled. And NATO has at least one major headquarters at Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Also, “strategic deterrence” targets can include airfields – and Poland’s airfields make dandy staging points for raids into Russia, being, y’know, close and all.
That would seem to leave NATO countries without said systems in the clear. Which makes sense.
Only if you are completely ignorant.
>o? A. Why waste the warheads on Belgium and Bulgaria when there is so many targets in the U.S.
Brussels is Nato’s headquarters.
B. Detaching NATO countries from the U.S. has always been a top Russia strategic priority. Offering them nuclear immunity in the U.S-Russia exchange would be their best card to achieve this.
A fair point.
In the event of war, an offer of immunity would be their best chance to prevent NATO countries from acting on their treaty obligation to go to war with Russia.
And NATO’s political and military weakness (thanks again, liberal pollyannas!) makes that a legitimate scenario.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Mitch:
Chamberlain was a Conservative and a pretty serious anti-Communist. Kind of like Jean Kirkpatrick, wanted to make nice with Hitler to better join forces against Stalin.
“if you got that from their press release or what”
It is from the article you cited.
“Their doctrine has always been to use nukes as the big club – going after leadership, communication and command and control. Indeed, all those are part of “strategic deterrence”, since it’s where the “strategic deterrence” is controlled.”
Your confusing what Russia would attack if they attacked the Euro countries with what they would attack if they were just hitting the U.S. I think the Russians have always been very explicit in saying they would not nuke the Euros if they sat out a U.S. – Russia war. But by introducing the ABM sites, the Poles add a target Russia feels it would have to attack automatically from the start of the war with the U.S.
Any NATO country that rolled forces towards Moscow would certainly get hit with nukes, but the Russians would probably wait to see what happened first. But since the ABM sites would be taking out their U.S. bound nukes, they would not have the luxury of waiting. They would have to hit them in Poland to assure the safety of their U.S. bound warheads. NATO HQs in Europe are not a threat to their warheads.
(Of course this is all at the level of planning theory. Realistically, if the ballon went up very soon everyone would hit everyone else. Just like in all those great ‘War Games’ variations JOSHUA played out.)
“And NATO’s political and military weakness (thanks again, liberal pollyannas!) makes that a legitimate scenario.”
Well if you feel that way, we probably should not be extending such useless protection to Georgia. They might get the wrong idea.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I don’t think so. The Russians are pretty specific that in a U.S. nuclear strike, they would also ““elements of strategic deterrence systems”. That would seem to leave NATO countries without said systems in the clear. Which makes sense. A. Why waste the warheads on Belgium and Bulgaria when there is so many targets in the U.S. B. Detaching NATO countries from the U.S. has always been a top Russia strategic priority. Offering them nuclear immunity in the U.S-Russia exchange would be their best card to achieve this.
yup totally stupid to even think that this is one bit like the cold war. Duh!
I get it. It’s not the Cold War.
It’s Cold War II.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Yeah, Rick… Keep talking yourself in circles man. I think you are getting a little hypoxic from holding your noggin in the sand for far too long. Fact is you are wrong, foolishly wrong. BHO is right there with you.
The fact is that the Russians said a NUCLEAR ATTACK is possible, if Poland dare to let the WEST install a DEFENSIVE nuclear shield.
It has nothing to do with aiming the missiles. Only lunk-headed libs think that where they are “aimed” matters one bit. Everything is computerized! Sure the computer may not be currently programmed to fire the missile at Warsaw, but in under 10 seconds, the operator can drop in the coordinates & fire the thing wherever the hell he’s told.
That is, of course, unless they use Windows based machine. In that case, they will have to add another 3 minutes to reboot the thing.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
“Why waste the warheads on Belgium and Bulgaria when there is so many targets in the U.S.”
Yup, 17,000 Russian warheads just isn’t enough to go around these days.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:43 am
JRoosh:
If the Cold War = Russia having plans for what to do in case of nuclear war, then I suppose the Cold War never ended. Most people think there was more to the Cold War than Russia and the U.S. engaging in simple and obvious plans for the contingency of attack.
Mr. Shirt:
“The fact is that the Russians said a NUCLEAR ATTACK is possible, if Poland dare to let the WEST install a DEFENSIVE nuclear shield.”
Either this is just trivially true because anything is ‘possible’ or just completely wrong. Go read the article. Russia is clearly not threatening a nuclear attack on Poland to prevent the installation of the sites. Since they are clearly talking about attacking the sites after they exist, they are conceding that they will let Poland build them.
The Russians are not talking about aiming their nukes, they are talking about their military plans in the event of war.
“17,000 Russian warheads just isn’t enough to go around these days”
Actually it is something like 6,000 strategic weapons and maybe another 6,000 tactical warheads. Given that the U.S. has a similar number and more accurate better maintained missles, Russia would need every single missle to have any hope of an equal exchange.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Rick, What article are you reading? The one TASS put out? Or maybe your daily marching orders from Soros? In all your blustering about how Russia is not to blame for anything, you have not cited one article!
There is ALOT of B.S. info floating around out there, & you exhibit the essential characteristics of it’s audience. So point us to the source of your top notch info.
An the Russians have an estimated 17,000 warheads with approximately 7,000 mounted on ICBMs.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Rick,
Excerpts From The Economist:
“Yet it was not until America’s George Bush delivered a stark warning to Russia late on August 13th that Russia began to pull back all its forces. Mr Bush sent his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to Georgia and told his defence secretary, Robert Gates, to organise a humanitarian-aid operation. The first American aircraft landed at Tbilisi airport soon afterwards.”
[Apparently “bluster & threats” work, while holding hands & talking things out BHO style, does not]
“So what was all this about? Clearly, more than the two separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as Russia claimed. It was also about more than simply punishing Georgia for its aspirations to join NATO, or even trying to displace Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s hot-headed president, who has irritated Russia ever since he came to power in the “rose revolution” in 2003. It is about Russia, resurgent and nationalistic, pushing its way back into the Caucasus and chasing others out, and reversing the losses Russia feels it has suffered since the end of the cold war.
The fact that Georgia is backed by the West made it a particularly appealing target. In fighting Georgia, Russia fought a proxy war with the West—especially with America (which had upgraded the Georgian army). All this was a payback for the humiliation that Russia suffered in the 1990s, and its answer to NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999 and to America’s invasion of Iraq. “If you can do it, so can we,” was the logic.”
NOTHING LIKE THE COLD WAR, EH RICK? So let’s review with this paragraph:
The results of the metrosexual “hold me now” approach of BHO:
“The ceasefire is signed, but it still needs to be implemented. The early signs were not good with looting, killing and rapes in villages in both Georgia and South Ossetia.”
And the results of “Bluster & Threats”:
“On August 13th the Americans announced that they would send military aircraft and naval forces to deliver humanitarian aid to the Georgians. This seemed to make more impression on the Russians, who soon began to withdraw, than the agreement in principle by the European Union to send monitors to supervise the ceasefire. A NATO meeting has also been called to reassess relations with Russia.”
Read it all: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11920992
August 18th, 2008 at 10:55 am
More for Rick, this time about Poland:
From Austrailia:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24193291-401,00.html
“But Moscow is convinced the base is aimed at Russia’s missile force.
“Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike; 100 per cent,” General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff of Russia’s armed forces, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.
He added that Russia’s military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons “against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons, if they in some way help them”. General Nogovitsyn also said that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems.
President Dmitry Medvedev said the deal “absolutely, clearly demonstrates what we had said earlier: the deployment has the Russian Federation as its target”. ”
From the UK Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2566005/Russia-threatens-nuclear-attack-on-Poland-over-US-missile-shield-deal.html
“Only 24 hours after the weapons agreement was signed Russia’s deputy chief of staff warned Poland “is exposing itself to a strike 100 per cent”.
General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said that any new US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack with his forces targeting “the allies of countries having nuclear weapons”.
He told Russia’s Interfax news agency: “By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority.”
Russia’s nuclear rhetoric marks an intense new phase in the war of words over Georgia. The Caucasus conflict has spiralled into a Cold War style confrontation between Moscow and Washington in less than a week.”
OOOHHH, that one even mentioned “COLD WAR style confrontation.” They must be stoopid too?
Here’s what Putin said on Feb. 17 2008 about the situation, then aimed at Ukraine… Again from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578444/Russia-threatens-nuclear-attack-on-Ukraine.html
“Russia fears the shield will threaten its national security and tip strategic military balance in Europe.
“The goal [of the missile shield] is to neutralise our nuclear capabilities,” said Mr Putin.
“This would prompt Russia to take retaliatory action.””
SO Rick, it seems that, in the minds of the Russians, the installation of the missile shield IS a first attack on Russia, & therefore they will “take retaliatory action” & that may be with nuclear weapons.
Quit doing the mental contortions it takes to make BHO look smart & statesman like. At best, he is an empty suit… unfortunately he is likely worse than that.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:02 am
More for Rick, this time about Poland:
From Austrailia:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24193291-401,00.html
“But Moscow is convinced the base is aimed at Russia’s missile force.
“Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike; 100 per cent,” General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff of Russia’s armed forces, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.
He added that Russia’s military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons “against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons, if they in some way help them”. General Nogovitsyn also said that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems.
President Dmitry Medvedev said the deal “absolutely, clearly demonstrates what we had said earlier: the deployment has the Russian Federation as its target”. ”
From the UK Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2566005/
Russia-threatens-nuclear-attack-on-Poland-over-US-missile-shield-deal
“Only 24 hours after the weapons agreement was signed Russia’s deputy chief of staff warned Poland “is exposing itself to a strike 100 per cent”.
General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said that any new US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack with his forces targeting “the allies of countries having nuclear weapons”.
He told Russia’s Interfax news agency: “By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority.”
Russia’s nuclear rhetoric marks an intense new phase in the war of words over Georgia. The Caucasus conflict has spiralled into a Cold War style confrontation between Moscow and Washington in less than a week.”
OOOHHH, that one even mentioned “COLD WAR style confrontation.” They must be stoopid too?
Here’s what Putin said on Feb. 17 2008 about the situation, then aimed at Ukraine… Again from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578444/
Russia-threatens-nuclear-attack-on-Ukraine.html
“Russia fears the shield will threaten its national security and tip strategic military balance in Europe.
“The goal [of the missile shield] is to neutralise our nuclear capabilities,” said Mr Putin.
“This would prompt Russia to take retaliatory action.””
SO Rick, it seems that, in the minds of the Russians, the installation of the missile shield IS a first attack on Russia, & therefore they will “take retaliatory action” & that may be with nuclear weapons.
Quit doing the mental contortions it takes to make BHO look smart & statesman like. At best, he is an empty suit… unfortunately he is likely worse than that.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I’m afraid that (heaven forfend) on Inauguration Day, BHO will be the worst president of my lifetime, and it’ll go downhill from there.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Mr. Shirt:
“The results of the metrosexual “hold me now” approach of BHO”
“And the results of “Bluster & Threats”:”
In case you have not noticed, George Bush is still President, so both approaches are his. Providing humanitarian assistance is a fairly non-controversial act, not an example of McCain’s wild threats like kicking Russia out of the G-8. (Which, of course, would make Iran happy).
“Rick, it seems that, in the minds of the Russians, the installation of the missile shield IS a first attack on Russia, & therefore they will “take retaliatory action” & that may be with nuclear weapons.”
Unlike you, generals and diplomats choose their words very carefully. The Russians did not say it was a “first attack”, they said it would “tip strategic military balance in Europe”. When they say they will ““take retaliatory action” they mean any of the variou standard diplomatic responses, not a specific nuclear threat. Of course, it is always possible that they will uncork a nuke, but they were very careful to confine that threat of nuclear attack to the specific case of a US-Russia exchange.
Don’t you think if the Russians intended to nuke Poland to stop the sites, they would get pretty specific about the threat. They know the Poles may ore careful attention to this stuff than you.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Rick,
Keep dreaming. Your lord & savior, BHO rightly gave credit for the “cease fire agreement” to French President Sarkozi. It wasn’t until the Bush administration put some “bluster” behind the paper that anything real happened.
Secondly, you STILL have not linked or even cited your source of information. I have provided 3, none of which say what you claim.
You stated that no real threat was made against Poland, & that the Soviets (uh, I mean Russians) were only stating that IF the US attacked first, THEN Poland MAY be targeted for nuclear attack first. Nothing of the sort has been stated.
In the articles above, Putin clearly stated that the missile shield’s purpose was to “neutralise our nuclear capabilities”. And “General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said that ANY NEW US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack with his forces targeting “the allies of countries having nuclear weapons”.”
Speaking of choosing words carefully & deliberately, what does it mean for one nation to “neutralize” another nation’s military capacity? That’s rhetorical by the way, I’m assuming I do not have to explain.
They most certainly threatened two countries with the potential nuclear attack if they host this anti missile system. Not some wishy-washy, under some possible circumstance, we might, maybe, think about doing it. they said, straight up, “[Poland] is exposing itself to a strike 100 per cent”.
Does it mean that they will attack? Probably not. They are merely trying to bully smaller nations into doing as they wish… just like they are doing in Georgia.
But this will not matter to you, your hopes & dreams that the “former” Soviets are the benevolents in this situation, and the US is only a bellicose aggressor that is causing all the world’s problems clearly can not be shaken.
I’d just like to end with a quote from the most intelligent, enlightened man to ever run for office, the one that Nancy Pelosy claims is “a gift from God to our country”:
“Well, I uhhh, it’s ummm a ahhhh very uhhh compli-complicated ahh situation… uhh sooo I ahhh…”
August 18th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Secondly, you STILL have not linked or even cited your source of information. I have provided 3, none of which say what you claim.
Dude, are you really ready for an onslaught of wikipedia citations? That’s all our resident expert scientist, lawyer, and now it appears a diplomat, RatioRick knows where to get info from.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I’m starting to notice that there is an odd absence of peevish on the postings that RickDFL comments on.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Mr. Shirt:
“Secondly, you STILL have not linked or even cited your source of information. I have provided 3, none of which say what you claim.”
a. As I pointed out, my source is the article cited and linked to by the 2nd word of Mitch’s f-in post.
b. When you yourself then cite reprints of the same article with exactly the language I quoted, I felt it rather excessive to provide yet another link.
“You stated that no real threat was made against Poland, & that the Soviets (uh, I mean Russians) were only stating that IF the US attacked first, THEN Poland MAY be targeted for nuclear attack first.”
a. I stated Russia made a very real and very specific threat against Poland, just not the one you say.
b. I said in the event of any U.S.-Russia nuclear war, started by either side, Russia would 100% use nuclear weapons to attack the sites in Poland.
“Not some wishy-washy, under some possible circumstance, we might, maybe, think about doing it. they said, straight up, “[Poland] is exposing itself to a strike 100 per cent”.”
I agree, the threat was clear about exactly what circumstances would cause Russia to nuke Poland i.e. any U.S. – Russia nuclear exchange. Plus, the Russians were specific that in those circumstances a Polish strike would not be an option they consider, but a basic part of their war plan.
But none of that is a threat to a. attack Poland with nukes prior to the construction of the cites, nor a threat to attack Poland with nukes in any situation other than a U.S. -Russian nuclear exchange.
I agree the Russians are blustering, but they are simply pointing out the rather obvious. In the event of a nuclear war, they will attack ABM cites. If Poland has ABM cites, Poland will get attacked.