Obama shows sense of realism

[Eki]

He understands that Iran doesn't have the technology to threaten Europe, let alone the US, even if they wanted to (which I doubt). It's more beneficial to the US to have a good relationship with Russia than a bad relationship with Iran:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/missile.defense.shield/index.html

[BDunnell]

I agree — while I am in no way in favour of pandering to the Russians, given the appalling nature of the regime there nowadays, this isn't an example of that. It's a good move. Quite apart from Iran not having the capabilities that some feared, Russia doesn't have the military capabilities to pose a threat to the NATO countries, and shows no signs of obtaining them. Its armed forces and defence industry are still in a parlous state.

[anthonyvop]

Why am I not surprised by the reaction of our resident euro-weenies?

Of course those of us here in the U.S. who understand what Obama has done are cringing with with embarrassment.

Welcome back Carter.

[Eki]

cringing with with embarrassment.

You should have done that already during the Bush administration.

[Eki]

Why am I not surprised by the reaction of our resident euro-weenies?

Weenies? Who in fact is a weenie, the ones who are afraid of Iran or those who aren't. Americans (not all of them) are sh!tting in their pants worrying about Iran.

[BDunnell]

Weenies? Who in fact is a weenie, the ones who are afraid of Iran or those who aren't. Americans (not all of them) are sh!tting in their pants worrying about Iran.

Exactly right.

[Cooper_S]

I see the thread has divided early into partisan groups...

The way I see it the threat has been re-evaluated and given the pressure on military spending at the moment a rational decision to scale back the original plan was made. we are not talking complete disarmament here... and an alternative solution involving ship based missiles rather than land based ones is on the table..

Every decision does not have to be a victory or defeat for opposing views.

[BDunnell]

I see the thread has divided early into partisan groups...

The way I see it the threat has been re-evaluated and given the pressure on military spending at the moment a rational decision to scale back the original plan was made. we are not talking complete disarmament here... and an alternative solution involving ship based missiles rather than land based ones is on the table..

Every decision does not have to be a victory or defeat for opposing views.

That is all correct too, and in fact what I was getting at earlier. It is not a pathetic climb-down towards Russia and Iran.

[anthonyvop]

That is all correct too, and in fact what I was getting at earlier. It is not a pathetic climb-down towards Russia and Iran.


It is pure appeasement. There is no argument that can change that fact.

Once again a left winger has cowardly thrown our allies under the bus. Neville Chamberlain would be proud.

Welcome back Carter

[Eki]

Once again a left winger has cowardly thrown our allies under the bus.
Which "allies" are you referring to?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well the Allies Eki are the Czechs and the Polish, who ARE afraid of Putin's little puppet. Personally, I don't think Iran is a big threat with their missles but pandering to Putin with the removal of a DEFENSIVE system is just wrong. That said, this is more symbolic no matter how you look at it.

If you are in favour of this, you think this is good, but really, it just is a symbol of the Americans maybe not being as agressive on defense. Guarding Europe from Defense shouldn't HAVE to be the American's duty, but apparently some in Europe did want this system. For them, this is a symbol Obama really would rather listen to Putin.\

I have a rule of thumb. If it bothers Vlad Putin, it cant be a bad thing.

[Eki]

Well the Allies Eki are the Czechs and the Polish, who ARE afraid of Putin's little puppet.
According to a poll, most Czechs and Poles didn't want that system on their soil. Wouldn't it have been undemocratic if they had built it?

[BDunnell]

Well the Allies Eki are the Czechs and the Polish, who ARE afraid of Putin's little puppet. Personally, I don't think Iran is a big threat with their missles but pandering to Putin with the removal of a DEFENSIVE system is just wrong. That said, this is more symbolic no matter how you look at it.

If you are in favour of this, you think this is good, but really, it just is a symbol of the Americans maybe not being as agressive on defense. Guarding Europe from Defense shouldn't HAVE to be the American's duty, but apparently some in Europe did want this system. For them, this is a symbol Obama really would rather listen to Putin.\

I have a rule of thumb. If it bothers Vlad Putin, it cant be a bad thing.

Don't forget that the Polish government has changed during this period to one less likely to suck up to the US, so other local political factors are at play too. And why should one specific system be the sole response to Russian 'aggression' that is deemed acceptably tough?

Let's consider the facts. The Iranian nuclear threat is negligible. Russia's armed forces remain in a parlous state compared with those of the US and there is little sign of this changing. If one thinks otherwise, one has been taken in by Russian propaganda, pure and simple. There is very little to be afraid of.

[Mark]

Well the likes of a full scale attack on the west using missiles is rather fanciful at the moment. NATO isn't about to be militarily defeated by Russia or Iran.

However; That doesn't mean either of them can't inflict large amounts of damage using terrorist attacks.

[Eki]

Personally, I don't think Iran is a big threat with their missles but pandering to Putin with the removal of a DEFENSIVE system is just wrong.
Better defensive lowers the threshold of offensive. You will attack more easily if you know your opponent can't strike back.

[Mark]

It's all about the balance of power isn't it.

The plan is to have two vast opposing armies, that way, there can never be a war....

[Cooper_S]

It's all about the balance of power isn't it.

The plan is to have two vast opposing armies, that way, there can never be a war....


but there was one flaw.... :D

[anthonyvop]

It's all about the balance of power isn't it.

The plan is to have two vast opposing armies, that way, there can never be a war....
Really?

Explain WW2 to me then.
You remember WW2 don't you?
That is where the 2nd largest Military in the world attacked the Biggest Millitary.

[anthonyvop]

Don't forget that the Polish government has changed during this period to one less likely to suck up to the US, so other local political factors are at play too. And why should one specific system be the sole response to Russian 'aggression' that is deemed acceptably tough?

Well it seems that the Polish president is worried.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eastern_europe_missile_defense_22


Let's consider the facts. The Iranian nuclear threat is negligible. Russia's armed forces remain in a parlous state compared with those of the US and there is little sign of this changing. If one thinks otherwise, one has been taken in by Russian propaganda, pure and simple. There is very little to be afraid of.
So you are sure that Iran isn't a threat? On what do you base it on? The "Lets all get along" study or the "Group hug" effect?
As for Russia are you advocating that we lower our guard to more closely match their capabilities?
BTW Putin still has his finger on the button of a lot of ICBMs and MRBMs.

[Cooper_S]

Really?

Explain WW2 to me then.
You remember WW2 don't you?
That is where the 2nd largest Military in the world attacked the Biggest Millitary.


I believe he is referring to the scene in Blackadder goes Forth where set in the WW1 trenches Cpt. Blackadder tries to explain why they where at war... he explains that the plan was to have two opposing armies so there could never be a war... pvt. Baldrick says 2but this is a kind of a war" to which Blackadder replies... "Indeed there was a flaw... the plan was complete Bollox"

at least that is what I thought Mark was referring too...

[Eki]

Really?

Explain WW2 to me then.
You remember WW2 don't you?
That is where the 2nd largest Military in the world attacked the Biggest Millitary.
WW2 started when Germany attacked Poland. I didn't know Poland had the biggest military.

[Eki]

So you are sure that Iran isn't a threat? On what do you base it on? The "Lets all get along" study or the "Group hug" effect?

Didn't Obama say the US has some new intelligence? Well, the American intelligence failed in Iraq and has proven to be unreliable before, so I can understand if you have doubts.

[DexDexter]

Really?

Explain WW2 to me then.
You remember WW2 don't you?
That is where the 2nd largest Military in the world attacked the Biggest Millitary.

This lack of knowledge from many of the posters from your side of the pond is just sad. It's scary actually.

[Tomi]

Well it seems that the Polish president is worried.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eastern_europe_missile_defense_22

Amusing guy this Lech Kaczynski, wonder wich one is thicker he or his twin brother, first he try to sell the polish for years that the missiles are against threat from Iran, and now when there wont be any, he pulls he Russian card.

[Roamy]

Which "allies" are you referring to?

Exactly !!! Close all our bases and bring our guys home. Screw you guys - take care of yourselves. We have enough places to put missile shields so we don't need you guys including asia. It is about time for you to spend some money on defense or just do what comes natural "surrender"

[Dave B]

Didn't Obama say the US has some new intelligence? Well, the American intelligence failed in Iraq and has proven to be unreliable before, so I can understand if you have doubts.
At least us Brits had enough sense to copy our intelligence from a student's essay. That way, when we were spectacularly wrong we were only out of pocket by a few pence photocopying charges. Not sure what the US excuse was :p

[Roamy]

yes Dave you are right on. We need to get the hell out of there and leave the EU's intelligence where it belongs - With the TIREs. Plus think of how much money we could save and apply to Obama Care!

[anthonyvop]

WW2 started when Germany attacked Poland. I didn't know Poland had the biggest military.
Eki,

I know you went to Public School but come on.

Germany later invaded Russia.
All of Russia's Military might didn't stop the Germans.
The Non-Aggression Pact didn't stop the Germans.

Japan attacked the US and it's giant industrial complex.
Germany Declared war on the US a few days later.

Might doesn't always prevent war. Might does prevent loosing a war.

[Eki]

Eki,

I know you went to Public School but come on.

Germany later invaded Russia.

That was in June 1941, almost two years after the WW2 had started on September the 1st 1939. You should ask your money back from your private schools. Obviously they taught you nothing on history.

On this secret recording from 1942, Hitler confesses to Mannerheim that he would have hesitated to invade the Soviet Union if he had known how tough opponent the SU really was. He underestimated the Soviets, so the balance of fear obviously wasn't there:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Mannerheim/recording_040642_dt.html

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Mannerheim/Hitler_Mannerheim_1942.wma



Hitler: ...a very serious danger, perhaps the most serious one - it's whole extent we can only now judge. We did not ourselves understand - just how strong this state [the USSR] was armed.

Mannerheim: No, we hadn't thought of this.

Hitler: No, I too, no.

Mannerheim: During the Winter War - during the Winter War we had not even thought of this. Of course...

Hitler: (Interrupting) Yes.

Mannerheim: But so, how they - in reality - and now there is no doubt all they had - what they had in their stocks!

Hitler: Absolutely, This is - they had the most immense armaments that, uh, people could imagine. Well - if somebody had told me that a country - with...(Hitler is interrupted by the sound of a door opening and closing.) If somebody had told me a nation could start with 35,000 tanks, then I'd have said: "You are crazy!"

Mannerheim: Thirty-five?

Hitler: Thirty-five thousand tanks.

Another Voice In Background: Thirty-five thousand! Yes!

Hitler: We have destroyed - right now - more than 34,000 tanks. If someone had told me this, I'd have said: "You!" If you are one of my generals had stated that any nation has 35,000 tanks I'd have said: "You, my good sir, you see everything twice or ten times. You are crazy; you see ghosts." This I would have deemed possible. I told you earlier we found factories, one of them at Kramatorskaja, for example, Two years ago there were just a couple hundred [tanks]. We didn't know anything. Today, there is a tank plant, where - during the first shift a little more than 30,000, and 'round the clock a little more than 60,000, workers would have labored - a single tank plant! A gigantic factory! Masses of workers who certainly, lived like animals and...

Another Voice In Background: (Interrupting) In the Donets area?

Hitler: In the Donets area. (Background noises from the rattling of cups and plates over the exchange.)

Mannerheim: Well, if you keep in mind they had almost 20 years, almost 25 years of - freedom to arm themselves...

Hitler: (Interrupting quietly) It was unbelievable.

Mannerheim: And everything - everything spent on armament.

Hitler: Only on armament.

Mannerheim: Only on armament!

Hitler: (Sighs) Only - well, it is - as I told your president [Ryte] before - I had no idea of it. If I had an idea - then I would have been even more difficult for me, but I would have taken the decision [to invade] anyhow, because - there was no other possibility. It was - certain, already in the winter of '39/ '40, that the war had to begin. I had only this nightmare - but there is even more! Because a war on two fronts - would have been impossible - that would have broken us. Today, we see more clearly - than we saw at that time - it would have broken us. And my whole - I originally wanted to - already in the fall of '39 I wanted to conduct the campaign in the west - on the continuously bad weather we experienced hindered us.

Our whole armament - you know, was - is a pure good weather armament. It is very capable, very good, but it is unfortunately just a good-weather armament. We have seen this in the war. Our weapons naturally were made for the west, and we all thought, and this was true 'till that time, uh, it was the opinion from the earliest times: you cannot wage war in winter. And we too, have, the German tanks, they weren't tested, for example, to prepare them for winter war. Instead we conducted trials to prove it was impossible to wage war in winter. That is a different starting point [than the Soviet's]. In the fall of 1939 we always faced the question. I desperately wanted to attack, and I firmly believed we could finish France in six weeks.

However, we faced the question of whether we could move at all - it was raining continuously. And I know the French area myself very well and I too could not ignore the opinions, of many of my generals that, we - probably - would not have had the élan, that our tank arm would not have been, effective, that our air force could not been effective from our airfields because of the rain.

I know northern France myself. You know, I served in the Great War for four years. And - so the delay happened. If I had in '39 eliminated France, then world history would have changed. But I had to wait 'till 1940, and unfortunately it wasn't possible before May. Only on the 10th of May was the first nice day - and on the 10th of May I immediately attacked. I gave the order to attack on the 10th on the 8th. And - then we had to, conduct this huge transfer of our divisions from the west to the east.

First the occupation of - then we had the task in Norway - at the same time we faced - I can frankly say it today - a grave misfortune, namely the - weakness of, Italy. Because of - first, the situation in North Africa, then, second, because of the situation in Albania and Greece - a very big misfortune. We had to help. This meant for us, with one small stoke, first - the splitting of our air force, splitting our tank force, while at the same time we were preparing, the, tank arm in the east. We had to hand over - with one stroke, two divisions, two whole divisions and a third was then added - and we had to replace continuous, very severe, losses there. It was - bloody fighting in the desert.

This all naturally was inevitable, you see. I had a conversation with Molotov [Soviet Minister] at that time, and it was absolutely certain that Molotov departed with the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed him with the decision to - impossible, to forestall him. There was - this was the only - because the demands that man brought up were clearly aimed to rule, Europe in the end. (Practically whispering here.) Then I have him - not publicly...(fades out).

Already in the fall of 1940 we continuously faced the question, uh: shall we, consider a break up [in relations with the USSR]? At that time, I advised the Finnish government, to - negotiate and, to gain time and, to act dilatory in this matter - because I always feared - that Russia suddenly would attack Romania in the late fall - and occupy the petroleum wells, and we would have not been ready in the late fall of 1940. If Russia indeed had taken Romanian petroleum wells, than Germany would have been lost. It would have required - just 60 Russian divisions to handle that matter.

In Romania we had of course - at that time - no major units. The Romanian government had turned to us only recently - and what we did have there was laughable. They only had to occupy the petroleum wells. Of course, with our weapons I could not start a, war in September or October. That was out of the question. Naturally, the transfer to the east wasn't that far advanced yet. Of course, the units first had to reconsolidate in the west. First the armaments had to be taken care of because we too had - yes, we also had losses in our campaign in the west. It would have been impossible to attack - before the spring of 19, 41. And if the Russians at that time - in the fall of 1940 - had occupied Romania - taken the petroleum wells, then we would have been, helpless in 1941.

Another Voice In Background: Without petroleum...

Hitler: (Interrupting) We had huge German production: however, the demands of the air force, our Panzer divisions - they are really huge. It is level of consumption that surpasses the imagination. And without the addition of four to five million tons of Romanian petroleum, we could not have fought the war - and would have had to let it be - and that was my big worry. Therefore I aspired to, bridge the period of negotiations 'till we would be strong enough to, counter those extortive demands [from Moscow] because - those demands were simply naked extortion's. They were extortion's. The Russians knew we were tied up in the west. They could really extort everything from us. Only when Molotov visited - then - I told him frankly that the demands, their numerous demands, weren't acceptable to us. With that the negotiations came to an abrupt end that same morning.

There were four topics. The one topic that, involved Finland was, the, freedom to protect themselves from the Finnish threat, he said. [I said] You do not want to tell me Finland threatens you! But he said: "In Finland it is - they who take action against the, friends, of the Soviet Union. They would [take action] against [our] society, against us - they would continuously, persecute us and, a great power cannot be threatened by a minor country."

I said: "Your, existence isn't threatened by Finland! That is, you don't mean to tell me..."

Mannerheim: (Interrupting) Laughable!

[steve_spackman]

Why am I not surprised by the reaction of our resident euro-weenies?

Of course those of us here in the U.S. who understand what Obama has done are cringing with with embarrassment.

Welcome back Carter.



"This is a huge victory for common sense over fantasy, and for responsible defense budgeting. This project had no function other than to serve the pecuniary interest of the missile defense industry, and to sate the ideological lust of conservatives infatuated with St Reagan."

[Cooper_S]

could be worse.... anyone still remember The Strategic Defense Initiative proposal by U.S. President Reagan...Star Wars indeed, we all survived the non deployment of that little gem... and I have the fullest confidence we shall survive the non deployment if these missiles.

I can't believe the extremes on this... the USA is in no more risk today because of that announcement than it was last week before the announcement...

[BDunnell]

Really?

Explain WW2 to me then.
You remember WW2 don't you?
That is where the 2nd largest Military in the world attacked the Biggest Millitary.

You seem to have forgotten the Cold War.

[BDunnell]

So you are sure that Iran isn't a threat? On what do you base it on? The "Lets all get along" study or the "Group hug" effect?
As for Russia are you advocating that we lower our guard to more closely match their capabilities?
BTW Putin still has his finger on the button of a lot of ICBMs and MRBMs.

Every indication seems to be that Iran isn't a threat. And say what you like, but Russia's military capabilities are seriously lacking. The country's long-distance missile forces are not a patch on those of the US, and its air arms are in a parlous state; for instance, its strategic bombers are able to conduct missions for show when it suits the country's aims but little else. Make no mistake, Russia's armed forces are no match for those of the US, and add in the rest of NATO and it would have no ability to sustain operations against allied forces. There is little sign of this changing at present, no matter what wealth Russia may possess.

[BDunnell]

Exactly !!! Close all our bases and bring our guys home. Screw you guys - take care of yourselves. We have enough places to put missile shields so we don't need you guys including asia. It is about time for you to spend some money on defense or just do what comes natural "surrender"

Given that it is no practical to, for instance, launch all US Air Force bomber missions from US territory, hence the use of bases in the UK and Diego Garcia, I would suggest that it is strategically very important for the US to have bases in other locations than its own. Thankfully those charged with such aspects of defence policy take into consideration wider strategic necessities. Overseas bases, including those in Europe, remain necessary.

[BDunnell]

could be worse.... anyone still remember The Strategic Defense Initiative proposal by U.S. President Reagan...Star Wars indeed, we all survived the non deployment of that little gem... and I have the fullest confidence we shall survive the non deployment if these missiles.

I was just about to ask those who are hostile to the cancellation of the missile defence programme about SDI. In what sense do they deem its abandonment, in its original form, acceptable while considering the abandonment of the East European missile defence shield to present a mortal danger?

[anthonyvop]

You seem to have forgotten the Cold War.
Forgotten?
It has never really ended.

[anthonyvop]

I was just about to ask those who are hostile to the cancellation of the missile defence programme about SDI. In what sense do they deem its abandonment, in its original form, acceptable while considering the abandonment of the East European missile defence shield to present a mortal danger?
I don't

I was against abandonment of SDI.

[steve_spackman]

I don't

I was against abandonment of SDI.


Why were you against the abandonment of SDI?

[Hondo]

This isn't news. I told everybody months ago the missle defense system would be cancelled. Of course, once again I was dismissed as an idiot but, gee whizz, here we are! It has nothing to do with new intelligence or reassessments. Obama couldn't assess his butt with both hands if is life depended on it. This is the original deal going into play. The US needs a staging area to have a Iran Invasion option available as a credible threat. That area is Afghanistan. To do that, the US needs to bail out of Iraq quickly; done. The US needs to start raising force levels in Afghanistan; started. To make this work, the US needs to be able to use Russian friendly states to provide logistic supply routes to Afghanistan and have the Russians look the other way if the US does go into Iran. Mr. Putin needed the missle defence stuff out of Europe and A US agreement to look the other way when Putin settles the Georgia issue, which we will do.

Just business as usual.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Better defensive lowers the threshold of offensive. You will attack more easily if you know your opponent can't strike back.'

yes...Iran or Russia could STRIKE because of a lessor system. I don't think either will happen but they sure as heck were LESS likely to attack with missles with an upgraded missle defense system. I go around with you on these arguments all the time Eki, better to be prepared for war and NOT go then to be without any defense with irrational people attacking you. Now I know you will say the US is irrational, but last time I looked, Obama wasn't pledging to wipe a country off the map like Iran's leadership does.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Every indication seems to be that Iran isn't a threat. And say what you like, but Russia's military capabilities are seriously lacking. The country's long-distance missile forces are not a patch on those of the US, and its air arms are in a parlous state; for instance, its strategic bombers are able to conduct missions for show when it suits the country's aims but little else. Make no mistake, Russia's armed forces are no match for those of the US, and add in the rest of NATO and it would have no ability to sustain operations against allied forces. There is little sign of this changing at present, no matter what wealth Russia may possess.

Would you want to be President and be WRONG on that assessment? THat is the issue any American leader must assess. The last thing a US leader can be seen to his own people is weak. It took Jimmy Carter's presidency right down the toilet. God knows his inept handling of the economy had him down in the polls but his mishandling Iran and the hostage crisis was the nails in his coffin.

Your assessment of the Russians I don't disagree with on paper, but the will to fight or cause trouble in any case is a lot more valid on the side of the Russians and the Iranians. Iran's leadership keeps making noises about attacking Israel just because, and the Russians in their handlling of Chechnya or Georgia have proven they are very willing to flex their muscles, and unlike the US, there is no vigourous opposition holding them in check at home.

I don't think this drawdown is as bad as Tony fears, for Secretary Gates signed off on it and he had the same job for Bush, so unlike most of Obama's appointments, this guy isn't a weak kneed liberal on defense. I do think an effective short range missle system for defense still has value and that is what they have. That said, there was no reason to do this except to give into Putin's whining. As for the talking to the Iranians, they will talk all day, but they will do what they are going to do. Anyone believing otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

As for Poland and the Czechs being against this, I have no idea if the populations at large there are against it as much or not, but I do know this much. If the Russians attacked either tomorrow, who is most likely to be there to put a stop to it or at least come to their aid? It wont be the French, Germans or Italians, it will be the US. There is a reason the Americans resent the NATO nations of Europe not taking a vigourous role in Afghanistan and the like, since it shows an apathy about the defense of NATO members. Poland and the Czechs were a little more onside with the US in the last decade or so....

[Roamy]

We have to quit playing the World's Policeman. We are wasting money. You people have no respect and won't help us. We have enough to blow up the entire world so why should we care. Also Israel has enough to blow up all of Europe and Asia so there is nothing we can do.. Do you think if they are attacked with a nuke by Iran that they will spare anyone. There are what 8 million of them in a country the size of Rhode Island. Go figure!! You TIREs have elected to let rogue nations have nukes - So let it happen!! We don't need to be spending any money on bases around the world. We don't need to spend any money on foreign aid other that to Latin America out neighbors. The Islams will sacrifice a queen for queen as they believe the best in in another life. So I guess if you guys are good with it we should be as well. I am for saving the money. So Russia and China should worry about N Korea taking over S Korea. We should revoke the ban on defense for Japan and let them enter the fray as well. Unfortunately our next problem could be Hugo. I am sad for all of Latin America because of this idiot.

In the end we need a tough leader who will repair capitalism and stop the give away program. But to do this we need a third party comprised of upstanding tough Americans. We need to oust all of congress down to the last lewinski. But it won't happen in my lifetime so I just imagine we will continue down the same path to where people who believe in death over life will control or eliminate the world. You guys are F____ in about 10 years so you may as well start convincing the Taliban that they should field a F1 car and a Ferrari is really nicer than a Camel with a hot poker up its ass.

[steve_spackman]

We have to quit playing the World's Policeman. We are wasting money. You people have no respect and won't help us. We have enough to blow up the entire world so why should we care. Also Israel has enough to blow up all of Europe and Asia so there is nothing we can do.. Do you think if they are attacked with a nuke by Iran that they will spare anyone. There are what 8 million of them in a country the size of Rhode Island. Go figure!! You TIREs have elected to let rogue nations have nukes - So let it happen!! We don't need to be spending any money on bases around the world. We don't need to spend any money on foreign aid other that to Latin America out neighbors. The Islams will sacrifice a queen for queen as they believe the best in in another life. So I guess if you guys are good with it we should be as well. I am for saving the money. So Russia and China should worry about N Korea taking over S Korea. We should revoke the ban on defense for Japan and let them enter the fray as well. Unfortunately our next problem could be Hugo. I am sad for all of Latin America because of this idiot. \

Go for it. Truth be told we dont need your help anyway. Its not that you are the 'worlds policeman' its more along the lines of YOU poke your nose into other peoples business. Why should others repsect the US, when truth be told they have NO RESPECT for other countries. You go around thinking your the bees knees and i find it funny to sit back and watch you guys flatter yourselves.

[steve_spackman]

Its these kind of comments Fousto, that make people think the way they do about the US. There are some agendas that i do agree with you about, but sometimes you just take it too far..

[Roamy]

yes Spackman if I could just pull the plug you can count on the fact I would in a micro second. The vapor from my ass leaving would give you a cold shower !!

[steve_spackman]

Thankfully however, not all people in the US think the way you and all the other right wing loonies do. You and your right wing buddies seem to have fear and hatred towards everything and everyone that dont agree with you and dont cater to your every whim!

"We have enough to blow up the entire world so why should we care. Also Israel has enough to blow up all of Europe and Asia so there is nothing we can do."

blah blah blah

Stop moaning about it and just blow yourselves up and put yourselves out of your misery!

[Roamy]

blah blah you have a big mouth until we start packing up and leaving you to fend for yourself. But that day is coming and coming soon Check the news more and more people are thinking like me. Capitalism and a strong defense is what we are going back to and moving ahead with. Matter of fact I don't think the left wing gaycorp will make it through the next election with a majority.

[steve_spackman]

blah blah you have a big mouth until we start packing up and leaving you to fend for yourself. But that day is coming and coming soon Check the news more and more people are thinking like me. Capitalism and a strong defense is what we are going back to and moving ahead with. Matter of fact I don't think the left wing gaycorp will make it through the next election with a majority.

Yes and when that day comes, the world will be a more dangerous place, having a right wing nut thinking they can dictate to the world...The same thing that happened when Mr Bush was in office. You invaded Iraq because Saddam wouldnt do what you wanted him to do, then you had the nerve to put the leader of that country to death....

Shame on you!!!


blah blah you have a big mouth until we start packing up and leaving you to fend for yourself.

Not at all.

Go work for Fox news. You would fit right in with all the other right wing loonies.

[Dave B]

America as a country likes to think of itself as the world's policeman but the sad truth is it's more like the world's PCSO: sticking its nose in where it's not wanted, causing resentment and mistrust, but not actually having the clout to make a difference.

[Eki]

'
better to be prepared for war and NOT go then to be without any defense with irrational people attacking you.
That's what Russia is doing when it opposes the missile defense system in Europe. They don't trust the US and the NATO, even if you do.

[Eki]

As for Poland and the Czechs being against this, I have no idea if the populations at large there are against it as much or not, but I do know this much. If the Russians attacked either tomorrow, who is most likely to be there to put a stop to it or at least come to their aid? It wont be the French, Germans or Italians, it will be the US. There is a reason the Americans resent the NATO nations of Europe not taking a vigourous role in Afghanistan and the like, since it shows an apathy about the defense of NATO members. Poland and the Czechs were a little more onside with the US in the last decade or so....
The Polish and Czechs opposing the system probably know it would give Russia an excuse to attack them. If a war between Russia and the US/NATO started, where would Russian bombers and special forces head first? Yep, to Poland and Czech Republic to take those systems down.

[DexDexter]

Exactly !!! Close all our bases and bring our guys home. Screw you guys - take care of yourselves. We have enough places to put missile shields so we don't need you guys including asia. It is about time for you to spend some money on defense or just do what comes natural "surrender"

Who are "we"? Europeans? There is no such thing, there are Finns, Germans, Swedish etc. And by they way, we Finns have never surrendered to anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_war

[BDunnell]

Who are "we"? Europeans? There is no such thing, there are Finns, Germans, Swedish etc.

Quite right. But I wouldn't let it bother you, as offensive as such comments are, given the nature of the person making them.

[Malbec]

The Polish and Czechs opposing the system probably know it would give Russia an excuse to attack them. If a war between Russia and the US/NATO started, where would Russian bombers and special forces head first? Yep, to Poland and Czech Republic to take those systems down.

Its a lot more complex than that.

The missile defence radars that were to be built in East Europe weren't there to defend Poland or the Czech Republic, the system wouldn't operate quickly enough to defend them. It was there to defend the US and possibly Western Europe only.

The only reason Poland and the Czech Republic signed up was because they had pro-American administrations in at the time. Signing up to missile defence and sending troops to Iraq would tie them closer to Washington who would then be keener to defend them against possible Russian aggression.

It doesn't suit them any more because they've learnt that the Americans will do whatever they want whether under Republican or Democratic leadership, and won't always remember past favours when choosing what they do in the future.

Anyway Russia can't attack anyone significant, even if its military were capable it would lose so much foreign investment and an exodus of capital it would be bankrupted instantaneously. Thats what globalisation does to you.

[BDunnell]

Anyway Russia can't attack anyone significant, even if its military were capable it would lose so much foreign investment and an exodus of capital it would be bankrupted instantaneously.

Precisely. This is not a risk they are willing to take, despite all the posturing. In addition, the Russian leadership has made no more than token efforts to shore up the country's arms industry, so that posturing seems increasingly empty, and certainly little for the outside world to be concerned about.

[Roamy]

Yes Spackman we were pretty smart putting Saddam down for the count but we spent too much money. The same thing we are doing in Afghanistan.

[Roamy]

You TIREs need to get active in your Government and kick our ass out of there. I want to see Yankee go Home everywhere I watch the news. Send the message to Obama NOW !! He will listen. Get the Koreans and Japanese on board too. We need to relax and play more golf. We need 6 weeks a year holiday like you guys so we can help out Latin America with our tourist dollars.

[Eki]

You TIREs need to get active in your Government and kick our ass out of there. I want to see Yankee go Home everywhere I watch the news. Send the message to Obama NOW !! He will listen. Get the Koreans and Japanese on board too. We need to relax and play more golf. We need 6 weeks a year holiday like you guys so we can help out Latin America with our tourist dollars.
Sounds like a plan :up:

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Polish and Czechs opposing the system probably know it would give Russia an excuse to attack them. If a war between Russia and the US/NATO started, where would Russian bombers and special forces head first? Yep, to Poland and Czech Republic to take those systems down.

If having a missle defense system is a reason for the Russians to attack, I would start looking for the Russian Army on the border because Obama didn't pull the missles out, just changed the range on the defense system.

The Russians are going to do whatever they can without starting a war. They are going to agitate and make life ugly for Obama because somehow there is some part of the Russian mind that just loves stirring up Sh!t for the Yanks.

The Polish and Czechs were invaded by the Russians a few times before, but I cant recall the Americans ever invading these countries. mmmm I would still be more vigiliant about the Russians sorry. As a Finn, you Eki would be wise to see the Russians in the same light. They haven't changed all that much, not when the major political force in that country is a man who once ran the KGB and was a loyal member of the USSR's highest circles. A man who by the way has done much to stomp on the free press and any critics, right up to making sure certain political oppoenents end up either discredited or possibly dead. Yes...The Americans are the problem....Putin CAN be trusted? What a leap of logic THAT is.....

Obama downgrading the missles isn't the end of the world, but it is a symbol he is softer on the Russians than Bush was. THAT to me is a dangerous thing to set in the Russian mind.

[BDunnell]

The Russians are going to do whatever they can without starting a war.

In which case, a missile defence system is completely unnecessary, surely?


They haven't changed all that much, not when the major political force in that country is a man who once ran the KGB and was a loyal member of the USSR's highest circles.

But two things HAVE changed, and very significantly. Firstly, Russia's offensive capability now is seriously lacking, which it wasn't in the Cold War. Secondly, there is Russia's adoption — in its own way — of capitalism. As was stated earlier, this makes it unthinkable that Russia will launch any sort of military action against a NATO member, because to lose trading opportunities with the West would ruin it, to say nothing of the West's military superiority.



Obama downgrading the missles isn't the end of the world, but it is a symbol he is softer on the Russians than Bush was. THAT to me is a dangerous thing to set in the Russian mind.

Bush wasn't exactly 'hard' on the Russians, was he? What action, precisely, did he take against them concerning their human rights abuses, the killing of Litvinenko, and so on? I don't remember much. And what goes into the 'Russian mind' is, to a great extent, neither here nor there. They do not have the capabilities to pose a serious military threat — which is what the missile defence programme was designed to counter, let's not forget, rather than any efforts to cut oil supplies or anything of that order — nor the will to launch the sort of attacks that those missiles were intended to guard against. Putin and Medvedev may be totalitarian and deeply unpleasant, but they are not stupid.

[race aficionado]

Sounds like a plan :up:

Sign me in too.

:s mokin:

[DonJippo]

As for Poland and the Czechs being against this, I have no idea if the populations at large there are against it as much or not

Many Poles support U.S. move to scrap shield (Reuters)


The survey published in the daily Rzeczpospolita by polling firm GFK showed 48 percent of Poles believed the decision was good for Poland, while 31 percent had the opposite view.

A total of 58 percent said the move would have no impact on Poland's security.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE58I0FP20090919

[airshifter]

Yes and when that day comes, the world will be a more dangerous place, having a right wing nut thinking they can dictate to the world...The same thing that happened when Mr Bush was in office. You invaded Iraq because Saddam wouldnt do what you wanted him to do, then you had the nerve to put the leader of that country to death....

Shame on you!!!





Don't let any facts get in the way of your usual anti US driveling rants. Which US Courts convicted and executed the nice guy Saddam?

[steve_spackman]

Don't let any facts get in the way of your usual anti US driveling rants. Which US Courts convicted and executed the nice guy Saddam?

your usual anti US driveling rants?? When people dont agree with things the US does, you lot cry the anti American tune... :rolleyes:

I am not anti American..Its just that i dont AGREE with alot of their silly adventures, but i would suggest that your fellow American Fousto put a halt to his anti everyone who isnt American drivel...But no that wont happen, as for some bizzare reason You lot think that you are allowed to insult and slam others, yet expect nothing in return which i find rather odd?

The Iraqi government during the illegal invasion of Iraq was a puppet regime put in place by Bush. Saddam was escorted to the gallows by US soldiers...

[Camelopard]

I am not anti American..Its just that i dont AGREE with alot of their silly adventures, but i would suggest that your fellow American Fousto put a halt to his anti everyone who isnt American drivel...But no that wont happen, as for some bizzare reason You lot think that you are allowed to insult and slam others, yet expect nothing in return which i find rather odd?


Yep agree completely and we have on his very forum a member who openly admits to meeting a mass murderer/terrorist, no criticism from you lot about that. Not only has this member met this piece of scum, he speaks openly of his admiration for him!

Double standards? That's ok if it's 'your country right or wrong'! :rolleyes:

[Eki]

there is some part of the Russian mind that just loves stirring up Sh!t for the Yanks.

I'm sure that feeling is mutual.

[Eki]

As a Finn, you Eki would be wise to see the Russians in the same light.
Finland have lived in peace with Russia for over 60 years, I don't see any signs why that would suddenly change. Russia doesn't see Finland as a security threat anymore.

[DexDexter]

Finland have lived in peace with Russia for over 60 years, I don't see any signs why that would suddenly change. Russia doesn't see Finland as a security threat anymore.

With all due respect to Mark, I think we Finns know lot more about the Russians than the guys over there do.

[airshifter]

your usual anti US driveling rants?? When people dont agree with things the US does, you lot cry the anti American tune... :rolleyes:

I am not anti American..Its just that i dont AGREE with alot of their silly adventures, but i would suggest that your fellow American Fousto put a halt to his anti everyone who isnt American drivel...But no that wont happen, as for some bizzare reason You lot think that you are allowed to insult and slam others, yet expect nothing in return which i find rather odd?

The Iraqi government during the illegal invasion of Iraq was a puppet regime put in place by Bush. Saddam was escorted to the gallows by US soldiers...

Firstly, neither myself or any other Americans that I know of support Fousto in his views, though personally I think he does it intentionally in an extremist fashion just to get his point across and get under the thin skin of some of the other forum members. Fousto probably golfs with normal everyday Muslims, but even he has clarified that it's the extremists that cause the issues.

Saddam was tried by an Iraqi tribunal, and executed according to Iraqi law. US courts were involved only to attempt appeals which were not allowed, and even to at least delay his execution.

If you feel insulted by facts, maybe you shouldn't speak ill of the US while voicing lies about the actions of the US or Bush.


The last I checked, a number of other countries also joined us in Iraq. None of the trials for war crimes has ever taken place against any of these nations, because there was no crime taking place in invading a country when UN Resolutions gave authority of them to do so.


I know you would much rather ignore the fact that Saddam was a mass murdering tyrant who deserved to die, but the people from Iraq obviously didn't agree.

[Malbec]

because there was no crime taking place in invading a country when UN Resolutions gave authority of them to do so.

There were no UN resolutions sanctioning the invasion of Iraq. You're getting confused I presume with the invasion of Afghanistan.

[BDunnell]

I know you would much rather ignore the fact that Saddam was a mass murdering tyrant who deserved to die, but the people from Iraq obviously didn't agree.

So much for the US and its allies putting an end to the sort of primitive brutality that besets the cause of human rights in numerous countries in that region...

[Mark in Oshawa]

There were no UN resolutions sanctioning the invasion of Iraq. You're getting confused I presume with the invasion of Afghanistan.

Me thinks you ignore the first 12 resolutions ending the first Gulf War after the invasion of Kuwait. I believe the alternative to Saddam NOT following UN dictates on those 12 resolutions ending that conflict was a resumation of the war. THAT my friend is the legal pretext that Bush was pointing to. Either UN resolutions are enforced, or are meaningless platitudes. It seems some of you guys are quite willing to watch the UN make these resolutions but if there is no enforcment or consequences to breaking them, then really, is there a point to the UN at all?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Finland have lived in peace with Russia for over 60 years, I don't see any signs why that would suddenly change. Russia doesn't see Finland as a security threat anymore.

You guys were not a security threat to Russia in 1939 but that didn't stop Stalin did it? Is Georgia a security threat? It was invaded a year or so ago.

As for Dex's feeling you understand the Russians better than those of us in the US and Canada, maybe on some level you do. The point is, from a far, the Russians had about a 10 year window where they took on true democratic ideals and tried them on for size. Then Putin came along...and people who question him end up dead. People who assumed the mantle of a free and open press. Any time you show me a leader who will manipulate and oppress free speech, I show you a tyrant in the making, and those people, I would be REAL careful about trusting...

[Mark in Oshawa]

So much for the US and its allies putting an end to the sort of primitive brutality that besets the cause of human rights in numerous countries in that region...

Funny...I heard nothing but people criticizing the Americans for imposing their value system on other nations. So if they TRIED to stop the Iraqi's from putting Saddam to death, that is ok, but if if they sanction capital punishment for one of the most heinous men in the last 30 years, that's wrong? Funny....I don't normally agree with capital punishment, but only an idiot would assume Saddam wasn't guilty of mass killings on a nation wide level and widespread human rights abuses. I make an exception for him....

[Eki]

You guys were not a security threat to Russia in 1939 but that didn't stop Stalin did it?
That's not what the Soviets believed in 1939. It's not any more laughable than the US believing North Korea and Iran are threats to herself:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Mannerheim/recording_040642_dt.html


Hitler: (Interrupting) We had huge German production: however, the demands of the air force, our Panzer divisions - they are really huge. It is level of consumption that surpasses the imagination. And without the addition of four to five million tons of Romanian petroleum, we could not have fought the war - and would have had to let it be - and that was my big worry. Therefore I aspired to, bridge the period of negotiations 'till we would be strong enough to, counter those extortive demands [from Moscow] because - those demands were simply naked extortion's. They were extortion's. The Russians knew we were tied up in the west. They could really extort everything from us. Only when Molotov visited - then - I told him frankly that the demands, their numerous demands, weren't acceptable to us. With that the negotiations came to an abrupt end that same morning.

There were four topics. The one topic that, involved Finland was, the, freedom to protect themselves from the Finnish threat, he said. [I said] You do not want to tell me Finland threatens you! But he said: "In Finland it is - they who take action against the, friends, of the Soviet Union. They would [take action] against [our] society, against us - they would continuously, persecute us and, a great power cannot be threatened by a minor country."

I said: "Your, existence isn't threatened by Finland! That is, you don't mean to tell me..."

Mannerheim: (Interrupting) Laughable!

Hitler: "...that your existence is threatened by Finland?" Well [he said] there was a moral - threat being made against a great power, and what Finland was doing, that was a moral - a threat to their moral existence.

The fear wasn't totally baseless. The Communist Party in Finland was forbidden, active communists were imprisoned, and the will to eradicate communism was strong among many. Finnish volunteers had also been fighting and stirring up war of independence in the Soviet Karelia in 1918 to 1922.




Is Georgia a security threat? It was invaded a year or so ago.


Georgia had at least 50% of the blame for that. They were a security threat to the ethnic Russians in Ossetia.

[BDunnell]

Funny...I heard nothing but people criticizing the Americans for imposing their value system on other nations.

I agree with that criticism. I was merely pointing out the fact that the US has obviously failed in so doing, despite its efforts.

[BDunnell]

As for Dex's feeling you understand the Russians better than those of us in the US and Canada, maybe on some level you do. The point is, from a far, the Russians had about a 10 year window where they took on true democratic ideals and tried them on for size. Then Putin came along...and people who question him end up dead. People who assumed the mantle of a free and open press. Any time you show me a leader who will manipulate and oppress free speech, I show you a tyrant in the making, and those people, I would be REAL careful about trusting...

I don't think Russian democracy — nor indeed Russian capitalism, come to that — ever took a form that we would recognise in the West, even before Putin.

[steve_spackman]

Funny...I heard nothing but people criticizing the Americans for imposing their value system on other nations. So if they TRIED to stop the Iraqi's from putting Saddam to death, that is ok, but if if they sanction capital punishment for one of the most heinous men in the last 30 years, that's wrong? Funny....I don't normally agree with capital punishment, but only an idiot would assume Saddam wasn't guilty of mass killings on a nation wide level and widespread human rights abuses. I make an exception for him....

Yes he was guilty of killing on a nation wide level, but still didnt give the US or us Brits the right to invade the country...


Funny...I heard nothing but people criticizing the Americans for imposing their value system on other nations.

Havent done a great job of imposing their value system have they? I dont see what right they have on trying to impose their value system on others???

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's not what the Soviets believed in 1939. It's not any more laughable than the US believing North Korea and Iran are threats to herself:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Mannerheim/recording_040642_dt.html



The fear wasn't totally baseless. The Communist Party in Finland was forbidden, active communists were imprisoned, and the will to eradicate communism was strong among many. Finnish volunteers had also been fighting and stirring up war of independence in the Soviet Karelia in 1918 to 1922.



Georgia had at least 50% of the blame for that. They were a security threat to the ethnic Russians in Ossetia.

Eki...Finland was how big? 4 million people back then? The USSR was HOW BIG??? I agree it wasn't all simple, but you keep advocating diplomacy for all the world's ills when you see a war you dont'like, but you almost give Stalin justification for the invasion of 1939.

Georgia was to blame? Right...just like the hooker who gets killed or raped was asking for it because she wore a short skirt. Oh wait...that wasn't a hooker, just a girl coming home from the pub.

Georgia wasn't a security threat enough that they deserved the Russian army to flatten half the country. Diplomacy Eki...condemen the Russians the way you did the Yanks....c'mon, be a little consistent for once.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't think Russian democracy — nor indeed Russian capitalism, come to that — ever took a form that we would recognise in the West, even before Putin.

It never got off the ground Ben. Yeltsin was lacking in keeping control of the people stealing from the state, the gangs and corruption. Putin came along to solve those issues, but really, he used their power base TO get elected.

Russia isn't the old USSR, but by god that isn't a good thing either. Putin is far more efficient, and the Russian economy actually is far more efficient than the USSR was too. Used to create havoc, that is a bad thing.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes he was guilty of killing on a nation wide level, but still didnt give the US or us Brits the right to invade the country...

UN resolutions ending the Gulf War in 1991 basically said that the combantants on the UN/Allied side were to enforce the resolutions until further notice. Full and open inspection of all facilities for chemical production, arms and military bases was part of that. When Saddam refused based on the idea he didn't want the rest of the Arab world to know he didn't have all of what he hinted at, that is where Bush got his legal pretext. I know this hurts your wee mind Steve, but Blair is a lawyer. I think he knew what he was supporting was legal or NOT legal and he won an election after all this started did he not?




Havent done a great job of imposing their value system have they? I dont see what right they have on trying to impose their value system on others...

No..they didn't impose their value system outside of the idea of a multiparty democracy and trying to educate the Iraqí's on how to balance human rights and maintain security. The Iraqi's have for the most part not always followed these ideas, but I don't think all of that should be put on the heads of the yanks.

[Malbec]

Me thinks you ignore the first 12 resolutions ending the first Gulf War after the invasion of Kuwait. I believe the alternative to Saddam NOT following UN dictates on those 12 resolutions ending that conflict was a resumation of the war. THAT my friend is the legal pretext that Bush was pointing to. Either UN resolutions are enforced, or are meaningless platitudes. It seems some of you guys are quite willing to watch the UN make these resolutions but if there is no enforcment or consequences to breaking them, then really, is there a point to the UN at all?

There was no specific resolution permitting the invasion of Iraq in 2003 in stark contrast to the first Gulf War and you know it. The resolutions you speak of did not specifically allow invasion of a sovereign state. Kofi Annan even described the invasion as being illegal for those reasons.

The UN resolutions WERE enforced with embargos and the occasional use of force. Missile strikes and annexing huge chunks of Iraqi airspace was pretty major.

Presumably though if you're so upset about UN resolutions not being enforced you'll want Israel to be invaded pretty sharpish right? After all Israel is the single biggest violator of UN resolutions on the planet. Got to treat all countries equally eh? Or do UN resolutions only need to be enforced by invasion when it suits you?

[Malbec]

When Saddam refused based on the idea he didn't want the rest of the Arab world to know he didn't have all of what he hinted at, that is where Bush got his legal pretext. I know this hurts your wee mind Steve, but Blair is a lawyer. I think he knew what he was supporting was legal or NOT legal and he won an election after all this started did he not?

Mark, do not attempt to condescend others when your argument is very thin. You often do this and I'm afraid it reflects rather poorly on your understanding of events.

The interpretation of the legal pretext you refer to was shared by very few people, including the British military. I attended a talk by the British chief of staff in London prior to the invasion where he was asked about the level of intelligence and the legality of the war. As a good military bod he was giving a good pitch for the war and went on to discuss how the intelligence regarding WMD was pretty good but the legality? He couldn't answer that question and refused to go into details. If one of the chief architects of the war couldn't declare the war legal how on earth can you?

Oh btw your lawyer Blair also broke the law several other times while he was PM particularly when it came to taking cash for perks (commonly known as bribes I believe). I wouldn't have as much confidence in his adherence to legal activities as you seem to have.

[Mark]

Really?

Explain WW2 to me then.
You remember WW2 don't you?
That is where the 2nd largest Military in the world attacked the Biggest Millitary.

Well there was a small flaw in their plan...

Really, someone who has never watched Blackadder! Amazing.

[Eki]

Eki...Finland was how big? 4 million people back then? The USSR was HOW BIG???
North Korea is how big and rich? The US is how big, rich and close to the US?


Georgia wasn't a security threat enough that they deserved the Russian army to flatten half the country.
Neither was Iraq to the US in 2003. Or Lebanon to Israel in 2006.

[Roamy]

your usual anti US driveling rants?? When people dont agree with things the US does, you lot cry the anti American tune... :rolleyes:

I am not anti American..Its just that i dont AGREE with alot of their silly adventures, but i would suggest that your fellow American Fousto put a halt to his anti everyone who isnt American drivel...But no that wont happen, as for some bizzare reason You lot think that you are allowed to insult and slam others, yet expect nothing in return which i find rather odd?

The Iraqi government during the illegal invasion of Iraq was a puppet regime put in place by Bush. Saddam was escorted to the gallows by US soldiers...

Hey Spack I am a equal opportunity Hater - I Hate many Americans too.

[Eki]

I agree it wasn't all simple, but you keep advocating diplomacy for all the world's ills when you see a war you dont'like, but you almost give Stalin justification for the invasion of 1939.

The fact that I acknowledge his motives doesn't mean I personally accept and agree with them.

[chuck34]

Kofi Annan even described the invasion as being illegal for those reasons.

The UN resolutions WERE enforced with embargos and the occasional use of force.

And Kofi Annan had no reason to defend the status quo anti? No reason to continue the embargos?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090701646.html#

[BDunnell]

It never got off the ground Ben. Yeltsin was lacking in keeping control of the people stealing from the state, the gangs and corruption. Putin came along to solve those issues, but really, he used their power base TO get elected.

Russia isn't the old USSR, but by god that isn't a good thing either. Putin is far more efficient, and the Russian economy actually is far more efficient than the USSR was too. Used to create havoc, that is a bad thing.

OK, so why hasn't this borne any fruit at all? The funding just doesn't seem to be reaching the military. For example, the Russian government has just had to get a bank to pay for the start of production of some new fighter aircraft (and hardly any of them at that), having received no export orders. It is a token gesture of military modernisation at best.

[Mark in Oshawa]

OK, so why hasn't this borne any fruit at all? The funding just doesn't seem to be reaching the military. For example, the Russian government has just had to get a bank to pay for the start of production of some new fighter aircraft (and hardly any of them at that), having received no export orders. It is a token gesture of military modernisation at best.

They are being more careful with their cash and not going into debt to do what they want to do. I think Putin is also wary about giving the military too much...they may take him out if they have too much...

Their economy tho is more realistic...this is the real economy that the country has and that is the level it can fund its military. The USSR went broke trying to be something it wasn't. Reagan was the man who cottoned on to that...

[Mark in Oshawa]

There was no specific resolution permitting the invasion of Iraq in 2003 in stark contrast to the first Gulf War and you know it. The resolutions you speak of did not specifically allow invasion of a sovereign state. Kofi Annan even described the invasion as being illegal for those reasons.

The UN resolutions WERE enforced with embargos and the occasional use of force. Missile strikes and annexing huge chunks of Iraqi airspace was pretty major.

Presumably though if you're so upset about UN resolutions not being enforced you'll want Israel to be invaded pretty sharpish right? After all Israel is the single biggest violator of UN resolutions on the planet. Got to treat all countries equally eh? Or do UN resolutions only need to be enforced by invasion when it suits you?

Kofi Annan was corrupt, his son was up to his ears in the oil for food scam. So anything he says on Iraq I would have to say is invalid due to his obvious conflict of interest.

The UN resolutions should have been enforced by the embargo if there was proof it was working and Iraq was getting out of the WMD business, but it was clear he wanted everyone to think he was up so something; but with Bush looking for possibilities with regimes with WMD's and sympathy for Al Quaida, playing poker with nothing in your hand was a bad strategy. I will point out I think that the Gulf War in hindsight was not the best way to have dealt with Iraq, BUT that is hindsight.

As for the resolutions passed by the UN, many make no sense or are pushed by agenda's that are not pure. The resolutions against Israel are drawn up by the Arab states and somehow given validity by countries purely making trouble. The resolutions of the UN often are NOT enforced, but here we had two major powers ready to enforce them or go back to war with Iraq as a continuation of the first gulf war. Saddam agreed to those 12 to end that war and then was renegging 11 years later because he didn't want to look weak. The resolutions that ended that war basically said you agree or the cease fire is off. That Clinton chose not to go to war with Iraq was his call, but if you remember in 1997 there was a lot of talk of reopening the hostilities over this then and a lot of it was from the very same people decrying it in the US Congress when Bush did it.

Listen, I follow geo politics from a layman's point of view based on what I can read and learn in the media. I do know this much tho. This constant anti US carping is a bit of a joke, because despite their flaws, they have never been a legitimate threat to any democratic, free nation. They may play bullying games economically, and their popular culture has kind of overrun some places, but the US isn't the world's bad guy.

AS for your Brit military friend, he couldn't give you the justification in legal terms. He is a military man, they make decisions based on military logic. Legality they leave to their political masters. Was Blair clean? Maybe not...but I can also tell you Tony Blair would have no desire to end up in the Hague as a war criminal, and unlike the US, you have to know he would have to consider that possiblity. Americans wont accept a outside body dictating their domestic laws or politicians. Americans rule americans. Blair wouldn't be protected that way if certain groups in the UK felt he had committed a war crime.

[Mark in Oshawa]

North Korea is how big and rich? The US is how big, rich and close to the US?


Neither was Iraq to the US in 2003. Or Lebanon to Israel in 2006.

North Korea has been threatening to invade the south, where 30000 American troops have been a trip wire for years. Using nukes on them isn't a threat?

Lebanon wasn't a threat? The Nation state of Lebanon wasn't, but they couldn't stop Hezbollah from attacking Israeli settlements with rocket attacks. After about a year or so of this nonsense, Israel could very well claim Lebanon was a failed state and you would have to go a long way to say Lebanon was in control of its borders. Sorry, Israel was heavy handed but justified on many levels for wanting to stop terrorist attacks on its civilians. THAT is why a country has an army...to defend its territory.

AS for Iraq to the Americans, you are partially right. Iraq or just about all but a few nations are no direct threat to the Americans. Americans tho, and their military are often drawn into conflicts because of the geopolictical implications of their non-involvement. Only an idiot would not see the US involved in the Arab world as being about anything other than oil. That said, the protection of the oil producing states in the Persian Gulf is a imperative for the developed world for the possiblity of the oil flow being shut off or manipulated could wreck the ecomomic system of the planet in ways the bankers of Wall St. couldn't touch. The US was there to put Kuwait back in Kuwaiti hands, and they stayed there to keep Saddam from making another grab for the oil states. Therefore, if they are going to be there, and they fought a war to put Saddam on his own side of the border, they would be the most logical people to enforce the UN resolutions ending that war. When Saddam didn't follow the dictates of this, Bush had his pretext. Bush also was of the theory that any regime with WMD's hostile to the West AND with possible connections to Bin Laden might be a threat (weak I know...but hey, the CIA, MI in Britain and SDECE all thought Iraq had WMD's, and Saddam wouldn't have any morals about selling them to people hostile to theUS)

[F1boat]

It is pure appeasement. There is no argument that can change that fact.

Once again a left winger has cowardly thrown our allies under the bus. Neville Chamberlain would be proud.

Welcome back Carter

anthonypop, surveys suggest that the majority of people in Poland and Checkh Republic are happy with Obama's decision. The only people under the buss are the christofascists who rule the GOP and want eternal war with Islam.

[F1boat]

The reason Obama is so popular among the liberals, who voted for him, and the countries around the world is that he is a Democrat. Democracy means - the People Rule. The majority of the people who elected him, maybe even the majority of Americans, approve his more peaceful way. The majority in Poland and the Check Republic also approve his decision. So it was the right decision - he proved himself as a true democrat. I have to remind people that, yes, the US will not have their high tech weapons in Poland and the Check Republic, but the Russia will also not install rockets in Kalinsgrad. Sounds nice to me. No weapons, no fighting.
But I am not surprised that conservatives are unhappy. Their ideology is "my way or the highway". To impose it they need bullying. So they are not very different to Putin as they would like to think. They are even homophobic and liberal-hating as him.

[chuck34]

The reason Obama is so popular among the liberals, who voted for him, and the countries around the world is that he is a Democrat. Democracy means - the People Rule. The majority of the people who elected him, maybe even the majority of Americans, approve his more peaceful way. The majority in Poland and the Check Republic also approve his decision. So it was the right decision - he proved himself as a true democrat. I have to remind people that, yes, the US will not have their high tech weapons in Poland and the Check Republic, but the Russia will also not install rockets in Kalinsgrad. Sounds nice to me. No weapons, no fighting.
But I am not surprised that conservatives are unhappy. Their ideology is "my way or the highway". To impose it they need bullying. So they are not very different to Putin as they would like to think. They are even homophobic and liberal-hating as him.

First, Democrat and democracy aren't the same thing. One is a political philosophy the other is a political party that may or may not have many of the tenents of the democratic philosophy.

Second, the one pole that I could find shows significant support in the US for the missle defense shield. It is a bit old, and I didn't do too much searching for a newer one, so maybe things have changed a bit.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=203835

Third, Obama doesn't have the overall support of the US anymore.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Fourth, Liberals do their fair share of bullying as well. Just look at how often people opposed to health care are called racists. For them it's "my way or you're a racist". I'm not saying that that justifies some of the things that are said on either side of the eisle, just that ALL of them do it. The "bullying" is not just a Conservative trait.

[BDunnell]

They are being more careful with their cash and not going into debt to do what they want to do. I think Putin is also wary about giving the military too much...they may take him out if they have too much...

Their economy tho is more realistic...this is the real economy that the country has and that is the level it can fund its military. The USSR went broke trying to be something it wasn't. Reagan was the man who cottoned on to that...

I think you are being unnecessarily paranoid about Russia's military capabilities. It seems to me that every important aspect of its defence industry and military is in tatters. The armed forces don't have sufficient resources, are generally ill-equipped and, by Western standards, ill-trained. And the defence industry there has singularly failed to adapt to the post-Cold War world in spite of many efforts aimed at countering this — there has been little proper funding for badly-needed new products because the Russian armed forces can't afford them, many important Russian companies have developed an extremely poor reputation in terms of the basic reliability and 'fitness for purpose' of their products, and they are thus seriously handicapped on the export market. It doesn't paint a very scary picture to me.

[BDunnell]

Second, the one pole that I could find...

A Freudian slip if ever I saw one.

[BDunnell]

Was Blair clean? Maybe not...but I can also tell you Tony Blair would have no desire to end up in the Hague as a war criminal, and unlike the US, you have to know he would have to consider that possiblity.

Given that there was simply no way in reality that Blair or Bush was ever likely to go up in front of a war crimes trial, I would doubt that he lost a moment's sleep over it.

[F1boat]

First, Democrat and democracy aren't the same thing. One is a political philosophy the other is a political party that may or may not have many of the tenents of the democratic philosophy.

Second, the one pole that I could find shows significant support in the US for the missle defense shield. It is a bit old, and I didn't do too much searching for a newer one, so maybe things have changed a bit.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=203835

Third, Obama doesn't have the overall support of the US anymore.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Fourth, Liberals do their fair share of bullying as well. Just look at how often people opposed to health care are called racists. For them it's "my way or you're a racist". I'm not saying that that justifies some of the things that are said on either side of the eisle, just that ALL of them do it. The "bullying" is not just a Conservative trait.

chuck, it is true. Of course that the Dems and the liberals have some problems as well. But if you compare the ideas of the Dems, the GOP and United Russia you will be suprised to see how much the GOP and United Russia are similar in social issues for example, or the ideas about the role of the Fatherland in the world.

[Eki]

North Korea has been threatening to invade the south, where 30000 American troops have been a trip wire for years. Using nukes on them isn't a threat?

What are they doing in Korea? There's room enough for 30000 American troops in the mainland USA.

North Korea is how big and rich compared to South Korea?

[chuck34]

What are they doing in Korea? There's room enough for 30000 American troops in the mainland USA.

North Korea is how big and rich compared to South Korea?

So do all issues boil down to a size and economic power p!ssing match?

[Eki]

Lebanon wasn't a threat? The Nation state of Lebanon wasn't, but they couldn't stop Hezbollah from attacking Israeli settlements with rocket attacks. After about a year or so of this nonsense, Israel could very well claim Lebanon was a failed state and you would have to go a long way to say Lebanon was in control of its borders. Sorry, Israel was heavy handed but justified on many levels for wanting to stop terrorist attacks on its civilians. THAT is why a country has an army...to defend its territory.

Yep, that was Stalin's logic too in 1939. There had been 9000 voluntary Finnish fighters fighting against the Soviet Union less than two decades earlier and Leningrad was within artillery reach from the Finnish border:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat

Israel had even less patience. They invaded Lebanon after Hezbollah had snatched just two Israeli soldiers. You can't say Hezbollah or Hamas are threats to the existence of Israel. It's just like the Soviets said to Hitler "In Finland it is - they who take action against the, friends, of the Soviet Union. They would [take action] against [our] society, against us - they would continuously, persecute us and, a great power cannot be threatened by a minor country."

[Eki]

So do all issues boil down to a size and economic power p!ssing match?
Much of it is about pride, yes. For example, the US could have easily taken the 9/11 attacks and absorbed them, but their pride couldn't take them. That's why they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Turning the other cheek wasn't an option for them.

[chuck34]

Much of it is about pride, yes. For example, the US could have easily taken the 9/11 attacks and absorbed them, but their pride couldn't take them. That's why they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

What? You are suggesting that we should have let 9/11 happen without doing anything? You are off your rocker.

Are you seriously suggesting that had we not done anything after 9/11 that that would have been the end of it? You don't see ANY national security issues with that what-so-ever?

[Roamy]

Mark,

You have to realize that these TIREs have no defense from a powerful enemy. So they are forced to get along and watch their step in all political matters. In addition they have no natural resources so they are dependent on the rest or the world for survival. They envy our way of life and are always there to drag us in the direction of socialism and power reduction policies. LIke we try and force democracy down everyone's throats. Well sadly socialism in not for all and democracy is not for all. That is why I favor bringing our war machine home to rest. I want to sell Nato the equipment and just play more golf. Take Afghanistan - all we need to do is spray the poppy fields with agent orange and be done with it. Sh!t they sprayed in on me so it should be good enough for the Afghans.

[Eki]

You don't see ANY national security issues with that what-so-ever?
Of course you should have improved the national security within your country, like improving border control and airline security so it would have become more unlikely to happen again. Only fools don't learn from their mistakes.

[chuck34]

Of course you should have improved the national security within your country, like improving border control and airline security so it would have become more unlikely to happen again. Only fools don't learn from their mistakes.

Ah yes, of course. But if you advocate for border control you are labeled a racist against those poor downtroden Mexicans. And if you are for increased airline security you are called some sort of Nazi who wants to strip search grandma. It's no win.

Even at that, had all we done was tighten up security at the borders and air ports, do you really think that no one would have attacked us. The enemy we are facing is not dumb. They don't normally do things twice the same way. So we take steps to prevent the last attack and the next attack slips through our fingers. Then thousands more innocent civilians are murdered. No the only way to prevent another attack is to stop it at it's source.

Turning the other cheek only get's you slapped again. At some point you have to stop being a sucker.

[Roamy]

yes EKI you are right
a fool and his money are soon parted

NO MORE FOREIGN AID
NO MORE GLOBAL MILITARY BASES !!
BUY AMERICAN - F___ CHINA

At the rate we are going we are sure to be taken over by Portugal !!

[Eki]

Ah yes, of course. But if you advocate for border control you are labeled a racist against those poor downtroden Mexicans. And if you are for increased airline security you are called some sort of Nazi who wants to strip search grandma. It's no win.

Even at that, had all we done was tighten up security at the borders and air ports, do you really think that no one would have attacked us. The enemy we are facing is not dumb. They don't normally do things twice the same way. So we take steps to prevent the last attack and the next attack slips through our fingers. Then thousands more innocent civilians are murdered. No the only way to prevent another attack is to stop it at it's source.

Turning the other cheek only get's you slapped again. At some point you have to stop being a sucker.
Finland learnt from its mistakes, and now we have lived in peace with the Russians for over 60 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat


Finland had, for the two next decades, a relatively high citizen participation in nationalistic activities (e.g Karelianism and Finnicization of the country and its institutions). Only the strenuous five-year period 1939–45 of total war drained excess enthusiasm.

If you quit interfering in the Middle East and the Muslim world, I'm sure they'd leave you alone too.

[BDunnell]

Even at that, had all we done was tighten up security at the borders and air ports, do you really think that no one would have attacked us. The enemy we are facing is not dumb. They don't normally do things twice the same way.

Why, then, are we told constantly by governments that al-Qaida will at some point use airliners again for attacks?

[F1boat]

They envy our way of life

ROFL! I'd like to visit the USA, at it is a great country with great history, but to live there, no. If I have to leave my country, I'd try some country in which people, uh, can have some fun, not just work to eat and eat to work. :-)

[chuck34]

Why, then, are we told constantly by governments that al-Qaida will at some point use airliners again for attacks?

They could. I wouldn't rule anything out. They've used truck bombs before as well.

[chuck34]

Finland learnt from its mistakes, and now we have lived in peace with the Russians for over 60 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat



If you quit interfering in the Middle East and the Muslim world, I'm sure they'd leave you alone too.

Yep, everything's simple isn't it. Just roll over and take it and they'll leave us alone. All's well, just follow the Finnish model and it will lead to greatness.

[Roamy]

well it won't happen except for terror attacks. They know now that we will go down with the plane rather than to allow the plane to be used as in 911. The alarm is centered around the development of explosives in the form of concealable liquids. Everyone here has a gun for defense and soon every Islam will have a bomb for a offense. Should be a interesting world. Maybe the way the world is headed real estate may not be a very good investment.

[F1boat]

If you quit interfering in the Middle East and the Muslim world, I'm sure they'd leave you alone too.

Not so sure Eki. The radicals in these countries are like conservatives on steroids.

[BDunnell]

It remains clear, alas, that levels of terrorist-related paranoia — for that is what it is — are still unduly high in some quarters.

[Roamy]

ROFL! I'd like to visit the USA, at it is a great country with great history, but to live there, no. If I have to leave my country, I'd try some country in which people, uh, can have some fun, not just work to eat and eat to work. :-)

Hey I like that idea
how about italy spain or portugal?

[Eki]

Yep, everything's simple isn't it. Just roll over and take it and they'll leave us alone. All's well, just follow the Finnish model and it will lead to greatness.
Just roll over? No, first you should ask yourself if it's all worth it and what's in there for you. What is there really for the US in the Middle East and the Muslim world that makes all this worthwhile?

[chuck34]

It remains clear, alas, that levels of terrorist-related paranoia — for that is what it is — are still unduly high in some quarters.

Where's the line between what you define as paranoia, and due dilligence?

[F1boat]

Hey I like that idea
how about italy spain or portugal?

Yes. Exactly like that. Somewhere in which there is neither ultra right conservatism nor former communists-now-capitalists LOL :-)

[chuck34]

Just roll over? No, first you should ask yourself if it's all worth it and what's in there for you. What is there really for the US in the Middle East and the Muslim world that makes all this worthwhile?

As much of a distaste as it is for many, what makes it all worthwhile is oil. If the US pulls out of the region, an all too likely scenario would be that either widespread regional conflicts would erupt and/or fundamentalists would gain control of more countries. They would then be in a position to dictate oil prices to the world. And like it or not, that would send all of our economies into a tailspin that would make last year's financial crisis look tame.

[BDunnell]

Where's the line between what you define as paranoia, and due dilligence?

The Patriot Act is born of paranoia; the mass panic that set in during that Air Force One photoshoot was born of paranoia; measures such as not allowing people to take their own bags on to US military bases hosting open days are born of paranoia; attempts in the UK to extend the period for which terrorist suspects can be detained are born of paranoia; many of the measures aimed at improving airport security are born both of paranoia and an unwillingness to invest in sufficient infrastructure; the shooting dead of an innocent Brazilian electrician was born of paranoia; and so on, and so on.

[F1boat]

As much of a distaste as it is for many, what makes it all worthwhile is oil. If the US pulls out of the region, an all too likely scenario would be that either widespread regional conflicts would erupt and/or fundamentalists would gain control of more countries. They would then be in a position to dictate oil prices to the world. And like it or not, that would send all of our economies into a tailspin that would make last year's financial crisis look tame.

Another reason to develop more green technologies and cut our dependance from oil. Far better that more wars.

[Eki]

As much of a distaste as it is for many, what makes it all worthwhile is oil. If the US pulls out of the region, an all too likely scenario would be that either widespread regional conflicts would erupt and/or fundamentalists would gain control of more countries. They would then be in a position to dictate oil prices to the world. And like it or not, that would send all of our economies into a tailspin that would make last year's financial crisis look tame.
More likely they'd be willing to sell their oil for the market price, especially if there's enough competition. BTW, the war in Afghanistan has mainly lowered the price of opium and heroin, since the Taliban is not burning down the poppy fields anymore as much as they used to be.

[chuck34]

Another reason to develop more green technologies and cut our dependance from oil. Far better that more wars.

Sure I'm all for green tech. Unfortunately, none show much promise economically. If they did they would have taken off by now. If you can develop something that will generate as much, if not more, power than oil/coal, and do it just as reliably then you will be a very rich man. But nothing currently can do that other than nuke power, and that has a stigma placed on it that has so tainted it that I doubt we will ever fully expoit it's potential.

[chuck34]

More likely they'd be willing to sell their oil for the market price, especially if there's enough competition. BTW, the war in Afghanistan has mainly lowered the price of opium and heroin, since the Taliban is not burning down the poppy fields anymore as much as they used to be.

That's just it, they will pretty much control the market, and as such will be able to dictate prices.

Your heroin example is perfect. There is more supply of poppy now because no one is really controling it effectively. Therefore the laws of supply and demand work. But if fundamentalists control the oil fields, they will constrict supply, and drive up the price.

[Eki]

Sure I'm all for green tech. Unfortunately, none show much promise economically. If they did they would have taken off by now. If you can develop something that will generate as much, if not more, power than oil/coal, and do it just as reliably then you will be a very rich man. But nothing currently can do that other than nuke power, and that has a stigma placed on it that has so tainted it that I doubt we will ever fully expoit it's potential.
New technology cannot gather critical mass as long as old technology is much cheaper. But if it gets the critical mass, it'll get much cheaper and economically viable. Just look at how expensive digital electronics was 20 or 30 years ago and how cheap it is now.

[chuck34]

New technology cannot gather critical mass as long as old technology is much cheaper. But if it gets the critical mass, it'll get much cheaper and economically viable. Just look at how expensive digital electronics was 20 or 30 years ago and how cheap it is now.

Ok, but how long have we been working on green tech now? At least since the gas embargos back in the 70's on one level or another.

Like I said, I'm all for new green tech. It's just that it has yet to demonstrate the reliability or economic bennifit. The day I see something that looks promising is the day I jump on board with it.

[BDunnell]

But nothing currently can do that other than nuke power, and that has a stigma placed on it that has so tainted it that I doubt we will ever fully expoit it's potential.

And that, I believe, is a great shame. It is ridiculous that so many in the West — holding varied political views, too — base a large part of their opinion of nuclear power on an accident that occurred in the Soviet Union almost 25 years ago, involving technology and safety measures that bear no relation to those in place in the West today. Such are irrational fears.

[A.F.F.]

As for Dex's feeling you understand the Russians better than those of us in the US and Canada, maybe on some level you do. The point is, from a far, the Russians had about a 10 year window where they took on true democratic ideals and tried them on for size. Then Putin came along...and people who question him end up dead. People who assumed the mantle of a free and open press. Any time you show me a leader who will manipulate and oppress free speech, I show you a tyrant in the making, and those people, I would be REAL careful about trusting...

I think you understand this issue far better than most Finns. Or let's say better than our 200 members of parlament :up:

[chuck34]

And that, I believe, is a great shame. It is ridiculous that so many in the West — holding varied political views, too — base a large part of their opinion of nuclear power on an accident that occurred in the Soviet Union almost 25 years ago, involving technology and safety measures that bear no relation to those in place in the West today. Such are irrational fears.

100% agree on that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think you understand this issue far better than most Finns. Or let's say better than our 200 members of parlament :up:

You'd be the first Finn on this forum to agree with me. Eki seems to think the Russians are benign...but then again I have yet him to really get serious about condemning anyone but the US and George W Bush for anything...

[Mark in Oshawa]

And that, I believe, is a great shame. It is ridiculous that so many in the West — holding varied political views, too — base a large part of their opinion of nuclear power on an accident that occurred in the Soviet Union almost 25 years ago, involving technology and safety measures that bear no relation to those in place in the West today. Such are irrational fears.

VERY true...I can agree with this one.

[Eki]

You'd be the first Finn on this forum to agree with me. Eki seems to think the Russians are benign...but then again I have yet him to really get serious about condemning anyone but the US and George W Bush for anything...
But A.F.F. is an old fascist who still dreams about the Great Finland ;)

[Roamy]

But A.F.F. is an old fascist who still dreams about the Great Finland ;)

AFF has been in the Sauna too long

[F1boat]

But A.F.F. is an old fascist who still dreams about the Great Finland ;)

A country which has drivers like Hakkinen and Raikkonen is great in my opinion :-)

[Eki]

A country which has drivers like Hakkinen and Raikkonen is great in my opinion :-)
Yes, but I was talking about size, not quality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Finland


Greater Finland (Finnish: Suur-Suomi) was an idea which was born in some irredentist movements emphasizing pan-Finnicism and expressed a Finnish version of pre-World War II European nationalism. It was imagined to include Finland as well as territories inhabited by ethnically-related Finnic peoples: Finns, Karelians, Estonians, Ingrians, and Kvens. The Greater Finland idea gained dramatically in popularity and influence in 1917, and lost its ground and support after World War II and the Continuation War.
The most coined version of "Greater Finland" was thought to be limited by so-called natural borders encompassing the territories inhabited by Finns and Karelians, ranging from the White Sea to Lake Onega and along River Svir and River Neva – or, more modestly, River Sestra – to the Gulf of Finland. Some proponents also included Ingria, Estonia, northern Finnmark, and the Torne Valley.
In some utopian or humorous mind-sets the most extended Greater Finland included the entire area from the Gulf of Bothnia to the Ural Mountains and even beyond to the areas of western Siberia, where some Uralic speakers live also today.

[Mark]

And that, I believe, is a great shame. It is ridiculous that so many in the West — holding varied political views, too — base a large part of their opinion of nuclear power on an accident that occurred in the Soviet Union almost 25 years ago, involving technology and safety measures that bear no relation to those in place in the West today. Such are irrational fears.

That has been the story with many technologies down the years, initial problems leading to a complete abandonment when the principles are completely sound.

[A.F.F.]

But A.F.F. is an old fascist who still dreams about the Great Finland ;)

Very true. Finland to the Finns. I'd lock the borders. You may visit here but pretty please, and sugar on the top, don't stay too long.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That has been the story with many technologies down the years, initial problems leading to a complete abandonment when the principles are completely sound.


That was why people forgot about electric cars. Gasoline cars were much faster and more efficient, but the technology of electric cars was sound in that it was still worth more research than the auto industry gave it. That said, they gained a lot more with gas and diesel.....so I cant fault them really entirely...

[donKey jote]

Very true. Finland to the Finns. I'd lock the borders. You may visit here but pretty please, and sugar on the top, don't stay too long.

so spoketh Another Freekin Fousto :laugh: :laugh: :up:

[Malbec]

The UN resolutions should have been enforced by the embargo if there was proof it was working and Iraq was getting out of the WMD business, but it was clear he wanted everyone to think he was up so something; but with Bush looking for possibilities with regimes with WMD's and sympathy for Al Quaida, playing poker with nothing in your hand was a bad strategy.

You know very well that there was a UN security council meeting to decide on further action on Iraq and its WMDs, the meeting that Colin Powell gave a speech at. An agreement then to go to war would have given the invasion legitimacy via the UN that you claim they had.

They didn't give the go ahead did they, remember?

The interpretation that actually, that resolution to go to war wasn't necessary was made retrospectively by Bush/Blair once the US and Britain failed to pass the resolution.

Rewriting history and then condescending those who remember the real version doesn't work very well Mark.

[Malbec]

And that, I believe, is a great shame. It is ridiculous that so many in the West — holding varied political views, too — base a large part of their opinion of nuclear power on an accident that occurred in the Soviet Union almost 25 years ago, involving technology and safety measures that bear no relation to those in place in the West today. Such are irrational fears.

Agreed, and thats part of the problem facing the UK at the moment, loads of nuclear and coal power stations are coming to the end of their lives and need to be replaced. Blair and Brown wanted to use more green sources until they realised the cost and reliability issues, stalled on nuclear till its too late so that any new ones can't be commissioned before the old ones go out of use. They can't use more coal for fear of being seen to perform a U-turn and gas isn't good because the Russians like to turn the tap off every once in a while. At least Brown has finally had the balls to give the green light to all those reactors last year.

[A.F.F.]

so spoketh Another Freekin Fousto :laugh: :laugh: :up:

Great minds think alike ;)

[airshifter]

What a fitting thread title, it seems to fit some of the sentiments Obama made clear to the U.N.

UNITED NATIONS — President Barack Obama bluntly prodded world leaders Wednesday to join the U.S. in solving pressing global problems, challenging them to move beyond "an almost reflexive anti-Americanism which, too often, has served as an excuse for collective inaction."

...and....

"Make no mistake: This cannot be solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone."


I can only assume the sense of realism that many others here saw will now be dismissed quickly. :laugh:

[Eki]

"Make no mistake: This cannot be solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone."

I have no problem with working together WITH America, as long as it doesn't mean working FOR America where America makes all the decisions and others do as America tells them to do. That was the attitude of the Bush administration and Bush put into nutshell in his brain fart "You're either with us or against us".

[BDunnell]

I have no problem with working together WITH America, as long as it doesn't mean working FOR America where America makes all the decisions and others do as America tells them to do. That was the attitude of the Bush administration and Bush put into nutshell in his brain fart "You're either with us or against us".

Absolutely right. The 'with us or against us' statement remains one of the most outrageous things said by the leader of a Western democracy in recent times.

[chuck34]

I have no problem with working together WITH America, as long as it doesn't mean working FOR America where America makes all the decisions and others do as America tells them to do. That was the attitude of the Bush administration and Bush put into nutshell in his brain fart "You're either with us or against us".

Your definitions of the words "with" and "for" seem to be quite fluid depending upon who the other party is. Soviets or Americans appear to have different motives in your eyes somehow.

[Eki]

Your definitions of the words "with" and "for" seem to be quite fluid depending upon who the other party is. Soviets or Americans appear to have different motives in your eyes somehow.
Not at all. I'm also willing to work with the Russians (or the Soviets in the past) but not work for them. I expect mutual benefits in any cooperation.

[chuck34]

Not at all. I'm also willing to work with the Russians (or the Soviets in the past) but not work for them. I expect mutual benefits in any cooperation.

See that's just it Eki. Some would say that the Russians (or Soviets) were dictating to Finland. Yet you seem to think you were working for them. It's the oposite with the US. For someone that is always talking about "seeing both sides" you sure don't seem to.

[Eki]

See that's just it Eki. Some would say that the Russians (or Soviets) were dictating to Finland.
Which one went bankrupt in 1991 and which one was one of the wealthiest countries in the world? Which one owed billions of dollars to the other one, so that Russia only few years ago managed to pay off the debt? I think it's safe to say that after WW2 Finland benefited more from the Soviet Union than the other way around.

Some might even say that the US was dictating Finland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIR_(submersible)


Production of the two MIR units was a prime example of Finnish-Soviet economic and technical co-operation during the Cold War. Bids from Canada, France and Sweden to construct the submarines had been retracted most likely due to political pressure. In a later interview with STT the then Rauma-Repola department head Peter Laxell said he believed that "Finland got the permit to deliver the crafts to the Soviets on the basis that the CoCom officials in the USA believed the project would be a failure . . . Once it became clear to them we actually had accomplished the engineering feat there was a huge uproar about how such technology could be sold to the Soviets, enough for many visits to the Pentagon.". [3]
Because of the CoCom restrictions, most of the technology used had to be developed in Finland. The electronics was developed by Hollming. The syntactic foam was produced in Finland by Exel Oyj, as 3M, the leading producer, refused to supply their product.[1]
The level of technology flowing into the Soviet Union raised concern in the USA and Rauma-Repola was privately threatened with economic sanctions. For example, one concern of the Pentagon was the possibility that the Soviet Union would manufacture a pioneer submarine fleet that could clear the ocean floor of U.S. deep sea listening equipment[1]. With the possibility of losing its lucrative offshore oil platforms market Rauma-Repola yielded, and submarine development ceased in Finland. One project that was abandoned was the development of a fuel cell based air-independent propulsion system.

[chuck34]

Which one went bankrupt in 1991 and which one was one of the wealthiest countries in the world? Which one owed billions of dollars to the other one, so that Russia only few years ago managed to pay off the debt? I think it's safe to say that after WW2 Finland benefited more from the Soviet Union than the other way around.

Some might even say that the US was dictating Finland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIR_(submersible)

Don't kid yourself (although I'm sure you will), there were strong arm tactics going both was Soviet-Finland and US-Finland. For a multitude of reasons Finland decided to "cave" to the Soviet demands. And yes Finland did benift from their arrangements. Do you think they wouldn't have benifited from an arangement with the US? Of course you won't ever be able to see that through your biased glasses.

[Eki]

For a multitude of reasons Finland decided to "cave" to the Soviet demands.
Finland also decided to "cave" to the US demands, as you can see from the example I gave.

[chuck34]

Finland also decided to "cave" to the US demands, as you can see from the example I gave.

Of course. Do you have a point? Other than your usual "the US is bad"?

[Roamy]

Actually the "with us or against us" statement I believe was directed at the axis of evil, which proves to be a pretty correct statement. I think we have usually been will to work with the EU on a bilateral basis.

[Eki]

Of course. Do you have a point? Other than your usual "the US is bad"?
Actually, it's "the US isn't as good as it pretends to be".

[Eki]

Actually the "with us or against us" statement I believe was directed at the axis of evil, which proves to be a pretty correct statement. I think we have usually been will to work with the EU on a bilateral basis.
I believe it was directed at everyone. Cheney personally threatened Hans Blix trying to push him to find something incriminating on Iraq, and the Bush administration threatened their allies to join the coalition:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/22/AR2008032201020.html


U.S. Pushed Allies on Iraq, Diplomat Writes
Chilean Envoy to U.N. Recounts Threats of Retaliation in Run-Up to Invasion

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 23, 2008

UNITED NATIONS -- In the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration threatened trade reprisals against friendly countries who withheld their support, spied on its allies, and pressed for the recall of U.N. envoys that resisted U.S. pressure to endorse the war, according to an upcoming book by a top Chilean diplomat.

The rough-and-tumble diplomatic strategy has generated lasting "bitterness" and "deep mistrust" in Washington's relations with allies in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, Heraldo Mu¿oz, Chile's ambassador to the United Nations, writes in his book "A Solitary War: A Diplomat's Chronicle of the Iraq War and Its Lessons," set for publication next month.

[Roamy]

Well based on those statements there is no reason to try and move forward. So bring home the troops - close the bases - cut all foreign aid - seal the borders and print more money!! Expel the UN from NY - close all embassies -


But better yet just look at our embarrassing president. Standing up in front of the world advocating a ban and disarmerment of all Nukes. When he knows full well that there is not way in hell you could ever police this. He should keep his mouth shut until he can provide the details of the solution. I will be surprised if this president makes it through his first term without getting thrown out. But I can tell you one thing. The elections in 2010 will get the white house back to the repubs.

[steve_spackman]

What a fitting thread title, it seems to fit some of the sentiments Obama made clear to the U.N.

UNITED NATIONS — President Barack Obama bluntly prodded world leaders Wednesday to join the U.S. in solving pressing global problems, challenging them to move beyond "an almost reflexive anti-Americanism which, too often, has served as an excuse for collective inaction."

...and....

"Make no mistake: This cannot be solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone."


I can only assume the sense of realism that many others here saw will now be dismissed quickly. :laugh:

America has never solved any of the worlds problems, so he needs to retract that statement..Mind you no country has ever solved any world problem, they seem to make it worse...

[steve_spackman]

But I can tell you one thing. The elections in 2010 will get the white house back to the repubs.

Yes will be good to have a right wing, bible thumping loony back in again :rolleyes:

[Eki]

Yes will be good to have a right wing, bible thumping loony back in again :rolleyes:
A Bible thumper is no better than a Koran thumper in my eyes. Neither is any other book thumper without his/her own thinking, be the book "Mein Kampf", "Das Kapital", Mao's little red book or any other book.

[steve_spackman]

A Bible thumper is no better than a Koran thumper in my eyes. Neither is any other book thumper without his/her own thinking, be the book "Mein Kampf", "Das Kapital", Mao's little red book or any other book.

Indeed very true. I feel that these people, no matter what country they are from are all as bad as eachother.

[BDunnell]

A Bible thumper is no better than a Koran thumper in my eyes. Neither is any other book thumper without his/her own thinking, be the book "Mein Kampf", "Das Kapital", Mao's little red book or any other book.

Quite right too.

[airshifter]

America has never solved any of the worlds problems, so he needs to retract that statement..Mind you no country has ever solved any world problem, they seem to make it worse...

Except for having a large hand in ending the World Wars that your side of the world couldn't control, I'd agree with you there. You're a prime example of what Obama had to say. You have nothing productive to say, so you lash out at the US. :laugh:

[steve_spackman]

I will say this though..Its good to see that Obama is not wanting to try and start bombing Iran and has insisted that Israel not bother aswell...

Except for having a large hand in ending the World Wars that your side of the world couldn't control, I'd agree with you there. You're a prime example of what Obama had to say. You have nothing productive to say, so you lash out at the US. :laugh: [/quote]

:rolleyes: I dont see the previous post as lashing out at the US....Maybe its you being too defensive?

Or maybe its me being too defensive and not see that that was just you making a small joke?? :confused:

[steve_spackman]

I will say this though..Its good to see that Obama is not wanting to try and start bombing Iran and has insisted that Israel not bother aswell...

[steve_spackman]

Except for having a large hand in ending the World Wars that your side of the world couldn't control, I'd agree with you there. You're a prime example of what Obama had to say. You have nothing productive to say, so you lash out at the US. :laugh:


:rolleyes: I dont see the previous post as lashing out at the US....Maybe its you being too defensive?

Or maybe its me being too defensive and not see that that was just you making a small joke?? :confused:

Obama has insisted that its not a good idea to be bombing Iran and has also told Israel its not a worthy cause...thats a sure sign of realismhttp://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=694857#post694857

[Roamy]

get over it spac - we are bombing and soon !!!

[steve_spackman]

get over it spac - we are bombing and soon !!!

Indeed when that happens welcome WW3, all because a few selfish people cant get there own way

[Roamy]

We what is the difference - Global Warming is going to get us- and just who is siding with the Iranians when the real bombs start falling.

[Roamy]

here is one for Obama.

I like it

DIVORCE AGREEMENT


THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists
and Obama supporters, et al:


We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce... I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.


Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.


We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.


You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).


We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot
Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood ..

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are
under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a
right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you..

P. S. S. And we won't have to press 1 for English.

[Eki]

Fousto got mail again.

This was a good one:


When our allies


Allies as in plural? Like any other than Israel could stomach them.

[steve_spackman]

Another right wing newsletter i see. :rolleyes:

[Roamy]

Another right wing news letter i see. :rolleyes:

what did you expect a Left Wing -
thats easy:
tax me
spend me
screw me

end of story

[steve_spackman]

what did you expect a Left Wing -
thats easy:
tax me
spend me
screw me

end of story

That newsletter just goes to show the complete ignorance of the Republican party. Nothing to be proud of i must say.

[Roamy]

hey spac from someone who needs the government to take care of them I would suggest you don't run around calling people ignorant. someone just may give you a "windowectomy" thats where they put a pane of glass in your stomach so you can see out cause you head is up you ass!!

[steve_spackman]

hey spac from someone who needs the government to take care of them

:rolleyes:

[steve_spackman]

hey spac from someone who needs the government to take care of them I would suggest you don't run around calling people ignorant. someone just may give you a "windowectomy" thats where they put a pane of glass in your stomach so you can see out cause you head is up you ass!!

:rolleyes:

[steve_spackman]

hey spac from someone who needs the government to take care of them I would suggest you don't run around calling people ignorant. someone just may give you a "windowectomy" thats where they put a pane of glass in your stomach so you can see out cause you head is up you ass!!

Truth hurts eh? ;)

[janvanvurpa]

here is one for Obama.

I like it

DIVORCE AGREEMENT


THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And we won't have to press 1 for English.

The problem for your side will be that the running of things from cars, to machines, factories, SYSTEMS, production, TRADE takes brains (not tons, but some), and and in the division it's pretty obvious that your side will end up with little to none and certainly no original thinkers. Never have before, and you all hate and are suspicious of anybody showing even a wisp of thinking, why would it be different now?

Who you gonna call to RUN THINGS? FIX THINGS? Make things?

Ha!

Who cooks up such staid 'poutin with lower lip stickin out like Il Duce' type crap ?

[Roamy]

Hey Jan Van you boy is on the clock to see how he does with Iran. So now we are talking which is what you all wanted. Hey if he pulls it off he get re-elected and you are golden for 8 years. Plus we shall see how the economy goes. I am just sitting back making smart ass remarks but I am supporting his effort in Iran. I hope he gets it done. Hell I hope he sends up a bunch of reasonably priced Cohibas. I am not seeing a lot of in country manufacturing and I am not hearing that our outgoing professional services are equaling our intake of foreign items. And after the tsunami today I hope you watch the fish bitch so she doesn't send billions to samoa

[Eki]

And after the tsunami today I hope you watch the fish bitch so she doesn't send billions to samoa
American Samoa got hit by the tsunami:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa


On September 29, 2009 at 17:48:11 UTC, an 8.0 magnitude earthquake struck 120 miles (190 km) off of the coast of American Samoa. The quake struck 11.2 miles (18.0 km) below the ocean floor and generated a tsunami. Four waves with heights from 15 feet (4.6 m) to 20 feet (6.1 m) high were reported to have reached up to one mile (1.6 km) inland on the island of Tutuila.[8] At least 111 people were reported to have been killed in American Samoa and Samoa with hundreds more injured.

Typical attitude of an American jingoist that you're more than willing to grab their land but not help them in need.

[anthonyvop]

American

Typical attitude of an American jingoist that you're more than willing to grab their land but not help them in need.

You are a sad person. You just spew anti-american venom without knowing what is really happening.

The only reason you aren't speaking Russian is because of the USA.

[Eki]

The only reason you aren't speaking Russian is because of the USA.
On the contrary. The US did its best that we would speak Russian. I'd rather thank the Germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War


The United States did not fight or declare war against either party, but sent substantial matériel to the Soviet Union for use in the war effort against Germany and its allies.


On 9 June 1944, the Soviet Union opened a major offensive against Finnish positions on the Karelian Isthmus and in the area of Lake Ladoga (it was timed to accompany D-Day[citation needed]). On the 21.7 km wide breakthrough point the Red Army had concentrated 2,851 45-mm guns and 130 50-mm guns. In some places, the concentration of artillery pieces exceeded 200 guns for each kilometer of the front (one for each 5m). On that day, Soviet artillery fired over 80,000 rounds along the front on the Karelian Isthmus. On the second day of the offensive, Soviet forces broke through the Finnish lines and, in the following days, made advances that appeared to threaten the survival of Finland, liberating Petrozavodsk on 28 June 1944. The retreating Finns delivered two weeks supply of food to the locals.[citation needed]

Finland especially lacked modern anti-tank weaponry, which could stop Soviet heavy tanks, and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop offered these in exchange for a guarantee that Finland would not seek a separate peace again. On 26 June, President Risto Ryti gave this guarantee as a personal undertaking, which he intended to last for the remainder of his presidency. In addition to material deliveries, Hitler sent some assault gun brigades and a Luftwaffe fighter-bomber unit to provide temporary support in the most threatened defence sectors.

With new supplies from Germany, the Finnish army was able to halt the Soviet advance in early July 1944. At this point, Finnish forces had retreated about one hundred kilometres bringing them to approximately the same line of defence they had held at the end of the Winter War.

[Dave B]

The only reason you aren't speaking Russian is because of the USA.
That old (and inaccurate) chestnut. Ok then: without the Europeans you'd probably be speaking Red Indian :p


And after the tsunami today I hope you watch the fish bitch so she doesn't send billions to samoa
American Samoa, which presumably you'll be handing back if you don't want to help them out.

[Eki]

That old (and inaccurate) chestnut. Ok then: without the Europeans you'd probably be speaking Red Indian :p

That's funny, because it's true.

[anthonyvop]

On the contrary. The US did its best that we would speak Russian. I'd rather thank the Germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

Hmmmmm..........I guess you just skipped over 1945-1990.

[Eki]

Hmmmmm..........I guess you just skipped over 1945-1990.

What about the years 1945 to 1990? Finland had good, friendly relationships with the Soviet Union that were beneficial to both. I can't see any reason why the Soviet Union would have invaded Finland again, even if the US had not existed. The US did nothing to help for example Estonia, so I don't believe they would have helped Finland either. We don't have any oil wells.

[anthonyvop]

What about the years 1945 to 1990? Finland had good, friendly relationships with the Soviet Union that were beneficial to both. I can't see any reason why the Soviet Union would have invaded Finland again, even if the US had not existed. The US did nothing to help for example Estonia, so I don't believe they would have helped Finland either. We don't have any oil wells.

HAHAHA

Good relations?

You had good relations because of the US's nuclear arsenal. The soviets stated many times their future was world domination through communism.

Your welcome.

[Eki]

The soviets stated many times their future was world domination through communism.

Your welcome.
Welcome about what? Do you have any sources about those alleged Soviet statements? If they did state that, they probably meant through local revolutions like in for example in Cuba, Vietnam, Korea and China, not any Soviet invasions to foreign countries without local support.

Lenin gave Finland independence in 1917, because he believed communism was such a good system that the Finns would like to join the Soviet Union voluntarily later. He was wrong. Finland didn't join any unions before it joined the European Union in 1995.

[A.F.F.]

And now Putin is about to fix things right....

[BDunnell]

What about the years 1945 to 1990? Finland had good, friendly relationships with the Soviet Union that were beneficial to both. I can't see any reason why the Soviet Union would have invaded Finland again, even if the US had not existed. The US did nothing to help for example Estonia, so I don't believe they would have helped Finland either. We don't have any oil wells.

It was hardly a very heroic stance to take on Finland's part, was it? I mean the mild acquiescence towards a regime that was behaving appallingly in the Eastern Bloc nations.

[Eki]

It was hardly a very heroic stance to take on Finland's part, was it? I mean the mild acquiescence towards a regime that was behaving appallingly in the Eastern Bloc nations.

It was a realistic stance. Let the Eastern Bloc nations take care of their own countries and we take care of our own. We have never claimed to have saved the whole world.