Gorbachev: U.S. Missile defense shield in Central Europe to target Russia, not Iran!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I think Poland ans Czech will do just fine

Too bad the Polish and the Czech people disagree.

Originally posted by maloy
Too bad the Polish and the Czech people disagree.

Well they elected their own governments and now will have to own up to that. That's only fair.

reply to post by maloy


Germany will go back to her old ways soon as predicted. They will partner up with Russia and China. You would think they would have learned their lesson last time. Turkey may do the same, They are not the great U.S. ally they used to be. Thats why we want the system in the newer NATO member countries.
Years ago I thought the U.S. and Russia would become great allies. I guess I was just dreaming. One day it will happen but not until the two bully's on the block go a round or two and then shake hands.

reply to post by maloy


I believe it was tried and Turkey denied them the base.

It was my understanding that RUSSIA rejected the abj. Site, they even refused to do the abj. Site WITH RUSSIAN military presence-i.e., run that one site together.

As was posted, certainly, one would want to have interceptors as close as possible to launch sites.

That said, the total amount of missiles at that one base means it is absolutely no threat to Russia.

HMM, besides, IS Russia thinking of firing 5-10 missiles @ the US???????

Also, I believe that Russia has (interceptor) missile sites around military and political complexes.


Lets all see this for what it is, Russia trying it's best to prevent the West (US) from being able to protect Israel from Russia's M.E. buddies.

EVeryone bags russia because they wont let us deploy interceptors at their borders.

well... fair a'farken nuff

We've totally angered the middle east to the point we fear missiles being lobbed, maybe we should change our stance towards nations and go for a more 'friendly' attitude???


Regardless...

The USA has NO RIGHT to demand russia to accept our missiles on its doorsteps.. NO MATTER WHAT REASON.

Because,

The USA would not allow Russia to deploy any sort of missile in cuba... would it.

IF youd liek to compare gorbachev to bush..

both are complete morons true..

but to my knowledged, bush is the only collosal mistake western civilisation has ever produced.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
EVeryone bags russia because they wont let us deploy interceptors at their borders.

well... fair a'farken nuff

We've totally angered the middle east to the point we fear missiles being lobbed, maybe we should change our stance towards nations and go for a more 'friendly' attitude???

So would that alternative be appeasement? History has shown that the Winston Churchill model is superior to the Neville Chamberlain model when dealing with threats.

Thats a very flawed way of thinking.
Comparing Winston Churchill to Bush?

Im a GREAT Admirer of Churchill, i can listen to his speaches turned up full volume in my living room and just feeeeeel the spirit.

I believe he would be turning in his grave and cursing your WICKED WAYS in just saying that!

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
It was my understanding that RUSSIA rejected the abj. Site, they even refused to do the abj. Site WITH RUSSIAN military presence-i.e., run that one site together.

Russia was the one that offered Azerbaijan as the site, because there already Russian/Soviet satellite installations there. U.S. sort of accepted, but said it will still develop ABM in Poland in Czech Republic. So Russia's natural response was to tell the U.S. to **** off in Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan is still Russia's sphere of influence military wise.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
As was posted, certainly, one would want to have interceptors as close as possible to launch sites.

Yeah - close to Russian launch sites.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
That said, the total amount of missiles at that one base means it is absolutely no threat to Russia.

Correct. Nor does it have any bearing on Iran, since Iran is not even close to developing an ICBM capable of hitting anything beyond the desert. So why does the U.S. need it so much. There is a deeper agenda for this ABM, and I think it has nothing to do with nuclear missiles. This is a political tool.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Also, I believe that Russia has (interceptor) missile sites around military and political complexes.

Yes it does - on its own soil. Nobody minds in U.S. decides to surround Washington DC with ABM batteries. Hell, Russia wouldn't care that much if U.S. decided to place in traditional NATO countries. And who really knows what the U.S. will be placing there with the ABM missiles. What are the radar installations going to be for? What alternative capabilities will the ABM have? Are they going to be monitored by international agenciencies?

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Lets all see this for what it is, Russia trying it's best to prevent the West (US) from being able to protect Israel from Russia's M.E. buddies.

Protect Israel? The only way AMB installations in North Eastern Europe are going to protect Israel, is if the missile strike comes from the North Pole. Look at the map. If Iran launches a missile at Israel, it would hit the target before the ABM has even a remote chance of intercepting it. If U.S. cares about its Middle Eastern lap dog so much, then why didn't Israel host the installations? Not to mention that Israel hardly needs anyone to protect it. It has better capabilities to protect itself than U.S. can offer.

And Russia does not have any "buddies" in Middle East, unlike the U.S. It has short term agreements with the enemies of its enemy. The only reason why Russia's help to Iran is being increased, is because America's actions around the world are stimulating alliences of necessity. Because the U.S. created such points of contention as the ABM shield, Georgia, Ukraine, and Kosovo, Russia responded with help to Iran and Syria.


As I said - I do not think this is really about any nukes. The person who benefits most from this in my opinion is Putin. And U.S. knew perfectly well that he would benefit from a contention with the West. So U.S., indirectly through its actions is helping to create a powerful centralized regime in Russia. And the harder the U.S. pushes Russia, the more Putin and his successor are going to seem like dictators. The atmosphere the U.S. has been creating around Russia since 2001 can hardly be called fertile for democracy.

Originally posted by GT100FV
So would that alternative be appeasement? History has shown that the Winston Churchill model is superior to the Neville Chamberlain model when dealing with threats.

You are right. The world right now is adhering to the "Chamberlain model" by appeasing the U.S. Uh oh - don't stand in the way of America's War on Terror. The U.S. is hunting its terrorists anywhere and everywhere (but mostly wherever there is oil). Too bad many of the "terrorists" it's hunting are but hallucinations.

I agree with you - the world should adopt more of a "Churchill model" in dealing with the U.S.

How dare someone set up a defense! Why, that will just make me try to overcome those defenses with a more offensive system. Damn it! You're forcing me to become more offensive!

reply to post by kyred


You don't set up a "defense" for your self in someone else's house. It no longer becomes defense but something else.