« Previous ·
Home
· Next »
Filed under: Russia
 Meet a classic Russian idiot.
Allow me to introduce Russian General Yuri Baluyevsky, who declared over the weekend on government-owned national television that "We do not intend to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons."
Apparently, this cretin thinks that by making this statement, he is indicating Russian strength and striking fear into the hearts of Russia's enemies. In fact, exactly the opposite is achieved.
As defense experts are quick to point out: "Baluyevsky's statement means that, as before, we cannot count on our conventional forces to counter aggression. It means that as before, the main factor in containing aggression against Russia is nuclear weapons." That's what Russian expert Alexander Golts says. His colleague Pavel Felgenhauer puts it this way: "We threaten the West that in any kind of serious conflict, we'll go nuclear almost immediately."
In other words, what this Russian general is actually saying (or perhaps admitting would be a better word) is that Russia's conventional military power is non-existent. Thanks for the info, comrade.
So Russia will "go nuclear" to defend itself? Ah, scary prospect. Except that this "general" doesn't seem to realize that Russia's enemies also have nuclear weapons, and won't hesitate to use them if Russia does so first. In that event, Russia would be erased from the face of the Earth. Is that what this so-called Russian patriot is saying? Is he saying that Russia would prefer to cease to exist than to be invaded and conquered, say by the evil forces of NATO? Has he asked the people of Russia about that? Is he quite sure they'd rather perish in a nuclear holocaust than join the European Union, destroying all Russian culture for all time in the process?
This is classic Soviethink. Just as Vladimir Putin thinks he shows "strength" by jailing or killing his political rivals (and by attempting to brutally crush Western cultural institutions like the British Council), this general thinks he too is demonstrating Russian power and courage. In fact, both reveal the exact opposite -- the fundamental weakness of a crude bully who knows he is surrounded by civilized people and who has only barbaric violence to fall back upon, no other resources.
The irony, of course, is that while these statements are designed to encourage respect for Russia, they achieve the opposite, actually making it more likely that the world will move against Russia, fearing it is governed by a clan of feral lunatics who are fundamentally weak and cannot be trusted to wield power in a responsible manner. Certainly, it can only cause Russia's words to be utterly discounted in any diplomatic context, fundamentally undermining its international clout on issues Russia is obsessed with, like Kosovo independence for example. How can Russian complaints about U.S. "unilateralism" possibly be taken seriously when a top general is so irresponsible in talking about nuclear weapons, or when Russia behaves with abject unilateralism in dealing with nations like Ukraine and Georgia?
Indeed, hearing bellicose unprovoked rhetoric like this, how can the leaders of Ukraine and Georgia do other than scramble to seek NATO admission? How can NATO itself do other than gear up for a new cold war, including an arms race that will surely break the Russian economy, and now can the EU even think of relying on Russia as an civilized energy partner? As British columnist Martin Ivens puts it:
By the law of unintended consequences, Russia's hardmen are at last revealing their true selves to peaceable folk in Europe. After cutting off gas to Ukraine, who would now rely on Moscow as sole supplier for its energy needs? Germany and France, under new and more realistic leadership, are wary of Putin. However late in the day, the European Union is beginning to learn that it must be more supportive of Russia's democratic neighbours.
As always, by far the worst enemy Russia has it itself.
Social Bookmarking:
 del.icio.us |  digg |  technorati |  stumble upon |  furl |  reddit
Comments
Artfldgr says:
USA has her military doctrine, allowing her to strike preventivly, using means of her choice. The USA has proven the doctrine is real by going for unprovoked war in Iraq. Why Russia may not have the same kind of military doctrine?
Because its not the same doctrine… US leaders do not have the “means of their choice”, they do have to answer to a public that Russian leaders do not have to do. they also have to answer to a world in which they owe a lot of money, and so they don’t have freedom to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively.
A democratic republic has no means of holding on to another state against its will. Oil is more expsnsive now than before, and no one is stealing the oil and sending it someplace as spoils. So you’re a moron if you think things are equivalent.
The doctrine that the US has is only allowed to pre-empt a nuclear attack with a nuclear attack… that is if someone decided to fire a nuke, THEN the us can fire… which combined with the new Russian doctrine, with no such limitation, means that if Russia starts firing, then the us can preempt and attack EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT THE OBJECT OF ATTACK, which would make the attack pre-emptive.
However the US isn’t the country building up their nuclear stuff, we have been paring it down…
Yamentau mountain, care to give us a good explanation as to why they decided to take billions that could help their people integrate in the world market and make their use of nuclear weapons akin to shooting themselves? nope, they took the monies and upgraded underground nuclear cities with capacities over a hundred thousand people. Now they are calling for pre-emptive rights.
The US has no such protections… none… so which is more likely to actually use the weapons? The country that has many protections for their people and leaders, or the country that has none? This is what makes you an idiot.
Then how about the new Russian nuclear bomb? The US hasn’t created new nuclear weapons, but Russia has… and it took that money from its people as well…
Then how about nuclear secrets? Russia has sold them to Syria, Iran, Korea, India, Pakistan, China, and more…
How about the fact that Russia has violated EVERY nuclear treaty while the USA has followed treaties it never even signed or ratified!!!
So while America has been dismantling, Russia has been making new ones, testing new ones, and being bellicose about the will to use them (as china did about Taiwan). Here is a list of much of their nuclear toys… many are new or newly upgraded.
Some were made after the 90s… the US hasn’t created a new missile since the early 80s. though it has upgraded current systems!!
SS-18 Satan (RS-20)
SS-19 Stiletto (RS-18)
SS-24 Scalpel (RS-22 Molodets)
SS-25 Sickle (RS-12 Topol)
SS-27 RT-2UTTH (Topol-M)
SS-N-18 Stingray SLBM Mod 1 (RSM-50)
SS-N-20 Sturgeon (RSM-52)
SS-N-23 Skiff (RSM-54)
AS-15 Kent ALCM (Kh-55 or RKV-500)
AS-16 Kickback SRAM (Kh-15P)
SH-08 Gazelle ABM (UR-96)
SH-11 Gorgon ABM (UR-96)
SA5-B Gammon SAM (S-200 Volga)
SA-10 Grumble SAM (S-300)
AS-4 Kitchen ASM (Kh-22 Burya)
Gravity Bombs // 1,700
SS-N-9 Siren SLCM (Malachit 4K85)
SS-N-12 Sandbox SLCM (Bazalt 4K80)
SS-N-19 Shipwreck SLCM (P700 Grant)
SS-N-21 Sampson SLCM
SS-N-22 Sunburn SLCM
SS-N-15 Starfish ASW
SS-N-16 Stallion ASW (Vodopod)
Torpedoes (Type 53-68 HWT / Type 65 HWT)
Also an unknown number of Nuclear Depth Charges
And this doesn’t include the weapons that are sitting around waiting to be destroyed. They claim they cant afford to destroy them!! so while they treaty says they have 5000, there is another 15000 laying around that are still usable, that they are taking their time getting rid of. Note that they do have enough money for new planes, submarines, tanks, nuclear missiles, torpedoes, and on and on… but not enough to take apart the weapons that everyone thinks are gone!
"Russia is currently estimated to have about 5,000 strategic nuclear warheads plus 3,400 tactical nuclear weapons. It should be noted, however, that estimates of Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal vary widely, ranging upwards to 10,000-15,000 when estimates include weapons waiting dismantlement."
Russia: Strategic Nuclear Weapons: 5,000 (active)
Non-strategic (tactical) Nuclear Weapons: ~3,400 (active)
Total Nuclear Weapons: ~8,400 (active)
Total Reserve Forces (stockpiled and not mated to delivery vehicles): ~11,000+
(the exact number is unknown, although most of these weapons are non-strategic)
US: Strategic Nuclear Weapons: 8,855 (7,000 active, 1,855 inactive)
Non-strategic (tactical) Nuclear Weapons: 1,600 (800 active, 800 inactive)
Total Nuclear Weapons: 10,455
The US arsenal covers the US, Canada, UK, Europe, Japans, and more…
Russias covers only russia…
Russia favors fewer large scale deterrent missiles…and have huge quantities of tactical nuclear weapons as they are not tracked in treaties as much…
here read an assesment... with numbers
In 1988 military spending was a single line item in the Soviet state budget, totaling 21 billion rubles, or about US$33 billion. Given the size of the military establishment, however, the actual figure was at least ten times higher. Western experts concluded that the 21 billion ruble figure reflected only operations and maintenance costs. The amount spent on Soviet weapons research and development was an especially well-guarded state secret, and other military spending, including training, military construction, and arms production, was concealed within the budgets of all-union ministries and state committees. Apart from considerations of state secrecy, this allocation of military spending to ministries other than the Ministry of Defense reflected the Soviet approach to managing resource allocation. Weapons produced by agencies such as the Ministry of General Machinebuilding [missiles] or the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry [ships] were essentially provided as "free goods" to the Ministry of Defense.
By the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union devoted between 15 and 17 percent of its annual gross national product to military spending, according to United States government sources. Until the early 1980s, Soviet defense expenditures rose between 4 and 7 percent per year. Subsequently, they slowed as the yearly growth in Soviet GNP slipped to about 3 percent. In 1987 Gorbachev and other party officials discussed the extension of glasnost' to military affairs through the publication of a detailed Soviet defense budget. In early 1989, Gorbachev announced a military budget of 77.3 billion rubles, but Western authorities estimated the budget to be about twice that.
With the end of the Cold War, the combined military expenditure of Russia and other successor states of the USSR fell dramatically. In 1997 it was around one-tenth of that of the USSR in 1988. Between 1988 and 1993 weapons production in Russia fell by at least 50% for virtually every major weapons system. Weapons spending in 1992 was approximately 75% less than in 1988. Almost all of Russia's arms production is for sales to foreign governments, and procurement of major end items by the Russian military had all but stopped. By 1999 Russia had dramatically downsized its military and was no longer channeling one fifth of its national resources into maintaining it. In 1997 Russian military spending was only 1/7 of its Soviet era peak in 1988 and 2/5 of its level in 1992.
By 2006 Russia spent about 2.7 percent of its GDP on defense, about that of advanced European countries. Military leaderss protested that this was far too little to achieve foreign policy professed goals, while civilian leaders resisted militarizing the federal budget or economy as in Soviet times.
By 2007 the Russian defense budget had almost quadrupled to $31 billion over the previous six years. In 2005 Russian defense spending rose 22 percent, 27 percent in 2006 and analysts estimate that in 2007 it could increase by an additional 30 percent. In 2007 the Russian Government approved a re-armament program through the year 2015 with a $240 billion budget.
and america is disarming more... so what do you think this will do for the direction of the movement of such?
Russian media sources have reported large increases in military procurement since the year 2000 - a 25 percent increase in 2000 compared with 1999; a 20 percent increase in 2001 over 2000; and whopping 40 percent increase in 2002 compared to 2001.
so much for not enough money to take apart missles and reduce what they have to match the US...
The Military Balance, 2000-2001 by the International Institute for Strategic Studies set Russian military expenditures at $56 billion.
===============
In January 2002 the Cabinet approved a plan to boost spending on arms, upgrades and research in 2002. The procurement plan topped the previous year's expenditures by nearly 40 percent. In 2001 Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin had indicated that the 2002 procurement budget would likely increase by 27 billion to 79 billion rubles ($850 million to $2.5 billion). The entire 2002 national defense budget is 284.18 billion rubles. The the major priorities are developing a next-generation fighter and new nuclear submarine, as well as new technologies in communications and conventional weapons.
==========
When Sergei Ivanov spoke to deputies on 11 September 2002, he said that in 2003 defense expenditures would amount almost to 380 billion rubles [which would be one-third more than in 2002]. The conclusion of the Duma Defense Committee on the draft budget for 2003 signed by chair of the committee, Andrei Nikolaev, mentioned quite different figures for the military budget for 2003, namely 345.7 billion rubles, which corresponded to its increase by 20.3% in comparison to 2002. As of December 2002, according to the Duma Defense Committee, defense spending in 2003 would account for 2.6 percent of GDP, or 14.6 percent of total budget expenditure.
========
In July 2003 Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov stated that the Russian government had cut the funding for its planned transition to a mostly professional army by more than 40 percent, or US$2 billion over the next four years. Ivanov said that funding until 2008 for military reform was cut from 138 billion rubles (US$4.6 billion) to 79.1 billion rubles (US$2.6 billion). Almost half of the country's soldiers would remain conscripts after the first phase of the reform ended in 2008. A total of 147,500 soldiers and sergeants would be recruited as contract servicemen in 2004-2007.
============
Defense appropriations emerged as the top priority in the draft budget approved 23 August 2004 by the Russian cabinet. Military spending is due to rise to 528 billion rubles ($18 billion - $1 is about 29 rubles) in 2005, up 28 percent from last year's 411 billion rubles ($14 billion). The nominal defense budget stays at a level of 2.6% to 2.7% of GDP. Years of neglect and under-funding have left the Russian forces in desperate need of extra funds. For 2005 the military was supposed to spend 146 billion rubles [$5 billion] for modernization.
A specific feature of the 2005 budget was a significant increase in defense spending (by 27.7% compared with this year), and in spending on national security and law-enforcement activities (by 26%). Without any problems, the 2005 budget was approved by deputies in its fourth and final reading and then submitted to the Federation Council, which supported the budget at a special session on 10 December 2004. Although the Russian military remains at a fraction of its former strength, training rates and defense spending were increasing.
================
2006 Budget
Russia's military budget for 2006 rose to approximately 578 billion rubles, or US$22.3 billion. This number is equivalent to a 23.8% increase from the 2005 budget, which totalled US$18 billion. Nearly a quarter of the funds were dedicated towards health services, education, and housing of military personnel. The main allocation of resources, however, was devoted to the purchasing of arms and equipment and research and development. In fact, 237 billion rubles (US$ 8.8 billion) was set aside for attaining military arms and equipment in 2006, as compared with 183 billion rubles (US$ 6.7 billion) the previous year. Furthermore, in response to the United States planned strategy to implement a new missile system in Poland and Czechoslovakia, Russia countered and assigned a further 54 billion rubles (US$ 2 billion) to augment the nation's missile defense and air defense systems.
The most substantial policy decision concerning the immediate future of the Russian military came at a meeting of the Military Industrial Commission on 2 June, 2006. During that meeting a new state armaments program, which will span 2007-2015, was agreed upon for an estimated 4.9 trillion rubles (US$186 billion). 63% is to be allocated for the procurement of modern weapons and euipment and 27% towards defense research and development.
so things have been increasing by huge amounts every year while the people rot... you didnt read this in the NEWS and so you think that the US has been increasing while russia and others habe been doing nothing much.
well russia has been creating brand new missiles, and now has moved out from the treaty that prevents it from invading coutnries, and has called that it will use nuclear weapons, of which it has thousands of more tactical ones that can be used in invasions and things than anyone else.
oh... and dont forget that some think that chernoble ended up as an experiment letting them know how much real damage would be done by conflicts.. and most of the damage was a lot less than anyone ever thought.
The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, "Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts," released Monday by the Chernobyl Forum.
Members of the Forum, including representatives of the three most affected governments - Belarus, Russia and Ukraine - are meeting today and tomorrow in Vienna at an unprecedented gathering of the world’s experts on Chernobyl, radiation effects and protection, to consider these findings and recommendations.
The report’s estimate for the eventual number of deaths is far lower than earlier, well publicized speculations that radiation exposure would claim tens of thousands of lives.
But the 4,000 figure is not far different from estimates made in 1986 by Soviet scientists, according to Dr. Mikhail Balonov, a radiation expert with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, who was a scientist in the former Soviet Union at the time of the accident.
As for environmental impact, the scientific assessments show that, except for the still closed, highly contaminated 30 kilometer area surrounding the reactor, and some closed lakes and restricted forests, radiation levels have mostly returned to acceptable levels.
"In most areas the problems are economic and psychological, not health or environmental," reports Balonov, the scientific secretary of the Chernobyl Forum effort who has been involved with Chernobyl recovery since the disaster occurred.
and that one of the points of the operations in the west was to convince the west that you cant have a nucelar war, and fight it.
but what does all that tell you above?
anyone want to read the old articles of hitler building up the military? people basicaly make excuses and so forth till someone rolls in.
imperialists take the countries AROUND them first, not far away ones... (makes no sense to grab iraq, when there is all of south america to grab, thats easier, and cant be supplied, etc).
russia wants its satellites back, and it wants to preserve the land bridge for its 20-30 billin in military equipment its selling to anyone that has the cash..
Yamantau
Beloretsk-15
Beloretsk-16
Alkino-2
know about them? (there are many more)
The exact location of this large facility is uncertain, and given its reported size it may span as much as an entire degree of latitude and longitude. It is apparently located near the the Zlatoust-36/Yuryuzan nuclear weapons production plant and the Yuryuzan national-level nuclear weapons storage facility. The Yaman-Tau Gory [mountains] range is centered at 52°25'N 56°45'E, while the peak of Yamantau Gora [mountain] is at 54°15'19"N 58°06'11"E. The town of Beloretsk is located at 53°58'N 58°24'E, though NIMA does not include a listing for Mezhgorye. This facility may be synonymous with "Alkino-2" since the town of Al'kino is nearby at 55°05'N 58°04'E.
========
On April 16, 1996, the New York Times reported on a mysterious military base being constructed in Russia: "In a secret project reminiscent of the chilliest days of the Cold War, Russia is building a mammoth underground military complex in the Ural Mountains, Western officials and Russian witnesses say. Hidden inside Yamantau mountain in the Beloretsk area of the southern Urals, the project involved the creation of a huge complex, served by a railroad, a highway, and thousands of workers."
=========
It is now known that the Soviet Union used secret underground bases in Eastern Europe to conceal nuclear missiles at the end of the Cold War, as an integral part of its nuclear war-fighting strategy. In all, some 73 SS-23 missiles, packing a nuclear punch 365 times the bomb that detonated over Hiroshima, were hidden by the Soviets in violation of the INF Treaty, which went into force in 1988. If war had broken out those missiles would have given the Soviets overwhelming strategic advantage against the United States, allowing them to decimate NATO forces in Europe in a surprise attack.
Today, Russia may be conducting nuclear deception on a far vaster scale beneath Yamantau Mountain, where it has dug out a gigantic underground military complex designed to withstand a sustained nuclear assault. A U.S. intelligence source was quoted as saying that the Yamantau complex is BUT ONE OF SOME 200 SECRET DEEP UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR-WAR FIGHTING SITES IN RUSSIA, many of which have been significantly upgraded over the past six years at a cost of billions of dollars.
Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, U.S. intelligence sources believe the Russian government has pumped more than $6 billion into Yamantau alone, to construct a sprawling underground complex that spans some 400 square miles! In 1998, in a rare public comment, then-Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) Gen. Eugene Habiner, called Yamantau: "A very large complex – we estimate that it has millions of square feet available for underground facilities. We don’t have a clue as to what they’re doing there."
It is believed to be large enough to house 60,000 persons, with a special air filtration system designed to withstand a nuclear, chemical or biological attack. Enough food and water is believed to be stored at the site to sustain the entire underground population for months on end.
"The only potential use for this site is post-nuclear war," says U.S. Representative Roscoe Bartlett. Bartlett is one of the handful of members of Congress who has closely followed the Yamantau Project.
The Yamantau Mountain complex is located close to one of Russia’s remaining nuclear weapons labs, Chelyabinsk-70, giving rise to speculation it could house either a nuclear warhead storage site, a missile base, a secret nuclear weapons production center, a directed energy laboratory or a buried command post. Whatever it is, Yamantau was designed to survive a nuclear war.
In response to repeated U.S. inquiries, the Russian government has provided no fewer than 12 separate and contradictory explanations for the site, none of them believed to be credible.
Artfldgr says:
entering puberty:
Your whole diatribe is a leftist rant that has no bearing on reality. Where are your links, your proofs? Your whole post is full of blind assertions in absolutist language that is trying to make me sound bad by saying I am saying things that are not in the posts!!
one: Vietnam war
how long did it take to stop the Vietnam war?
Interesting that you brought that up, if you know the history, you would know that that would not be a good example to bring up.
First of all, the war started way back in the early 50s with the FRENCH.
The US lost 50,000 soldiers, and 8 women nurses. About the same amount that died and were injured in one battle in the US Civil War.
The US is regarded to have won the war in Vietnam, but walked off the battle field. The war was arbitrarily stopped, and would you like to point out what the communists did AFTER the US citizens left.
But since you bring it up, lets look at the aftermath. Your so happy that the US lost (walked off, etc), so that means your happy with the results that came after.
After the US left… more than 100,000 south Vietnamese officials, were sent off to “education camps”, otherwise affectionately known as gulags.
Two million people were displaced from their ancestral home trying to flee the khmer rouge.
One million of these people drowned at sea. whole families, fathers, grandparents, mothers, grandmothers, children, all forced to float till they starved or drowned.
Then in 1978, the khmer rouge invaded Cambodia… after all, communists are not imperialists… right? They are liberators, who put the liberated in work camps and slaughter them in numbers that makes a statistic out of the tragedies.
Then the Vietnamese attempted to exterminate the Chinese. In case you didn’t know, the Chinese are the Jews of the east. Outside their own country, exterminations and other bad things are regularly visited upon them, and the khmer rouge were no different.
This then caused another boat people incident where thousands more starved or drwoned.
Then the Chinese communists invaded to attack their own political kind to save their own racial kind.
So far.. I am wondering how you can consider that to be better. We do have an alternative model for when the US won. South Korea. Millions were not killed, like in the north. No one was starved. There was no mass exodus that caused deaths of thousands of children.
But hey! You like it when America loses, and so you HAVE TO LIKE THE RESULTS
This is the problem with useful idiots. As they follow the ‘party line’ and lay down weapons and give up, the communists then flood in and take over.
THEN misery, torture, starvation, deprivation, and lots more becomes a way of life for everyone accept the party.
Its sad to read the report on it…
The dire predictions of a generation did not come to fruition. Since Thailand and other South East Asian nations did not fall to systematic Vietnamese aggression, the Domino Theory, so widely trumpeted, was said to have been an illusion. Vietnam, without the presence of the United States, showed itself to be of little economic or strategic value to anyone.
Americans knew it had no “strategic value”… unlike the russiand and the Chinese and the other communists… we actually stepped in after the French left because we knew what would happen to the people.
When our own fellow travelers, useful idkiots, and such got us to walk away, as they are doing in Iraq, they committed those people to the outcome that the Maoists, and others would have for them.
The leftists who caused America to leave the war after the Vietnamese were done for, have the blood of more than 1 million people on their hands for that, for that’s one estimate of the toll after we left.
So far, you’re for the murder, and imprisonment of all these peoples. You’re also for the invasion of Cambodia, and those people being killed, as well as the Chinese who died also after that. ALL OF THAT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF THE US DID NOT LEAVE.
You cant have it both ways.
End of pt 1
Artfldgr says:
entering puberty:
You think if democratic republic drops the bombs, it is very good for the ones on whom the bombs are dropped? Ask the Iraqi boy whose family of 11 was killed and whose own arms were blown off when a smart American bomb hit his house.
Interesting argument.
The democratic republic uses its money to develop highly targeted weapons. The point being that they don’t want to create firestorms like Dresden, or as happened in Japan.
But you’re too stupid to examine your own argument.
In the past, everyone’s idea of fair was to level entire cities, to start a fire that would create a conflagration that would devour the whole thing.
We free people of a democratic republic decided that that was too horrible. So we spent millions of our own money, to develop new smarter weapons so that we can just slam the people who are fighting.
We then spent billions modifying our entire arsenal, rather than doing what the Russians do, which is sell it to third world despots for destabilization.
Now each bomb costs a lot, but we can put them where we want them within three feet or less.
But smart is a misnomer, it’s a relative term. It doesn’t mean sentient, it means more smart than a rock falling from the sky at 30,000 feet, and more accurate. It doesn’t mean that it can tell whats in a building, and so forth.
What I wonder is why you don’t blame the soldiers who, like the Vietnamese dress in civilian clothes so that they draw fire down on their own people?
If the combatants didn’t try to pose as civilians, such errors would not occur. But your assertion is VERY disingenuous, as again, in the same paragraphs, you think its ok for your side to set 1 million families out on the ocean to drown
But think that accidentally killing a family, and removing the arms of a boy by accident, when the combatants are posing like civilians, and hiding in homes…
No wonder that you can’t see differences…
The khmer intended to kill the families and politicians. It was no accident. they drew up lists, went door to door… pulled people out of their homes… put them in cars and sent them to the torture camps.
But that’s ok…because America is more horrible… why? because they made weapons more perfect than any other that ever has existed in human history. Weapons that have saved the lives of literally thousands of civilians. And they are damned for one family.
Then I guess stalin was right… they kill a million, with malice and forethought and sadistic intent, and your tiny mind cant get around it, so it has no response.
But because you can get your tiny mind around one family, that is a trajedy.
And America is bad… why? because they made smart bombs that were not as smart as god.
That’s a false argument… its argument from the point of unreachable perfection. Since nothing can be perfect to those standards, then you win the argument till we get cartoon missiles that stop, knock on the door, take finger prints, and then blow up.
Big useful idiot, with tiny mind, sums you up to a tee.
End part IV
Artfldgr says:
You also listed such Russian weapons like "ship to ship" rockets and air defense (SAMs). Well, what it has to do with nuclear arsenals? Why didn't you listed RPGs then?
yup, that i did
want to guess why?
those are nuclear versions of those things.
i only have access to whats public, so here is a public version.
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1687&catid=263
SS-N-22 Sunburn / Kh-41 (ASM-MSS) Moskit
Type: Air -to- Surface, anti-ship
Year: 1993
meaning they spent the money during the years that the people were suffering, and the time that you said they couldnt.
go down a bit more.. read warhead..
Warhead
320 kg HE semi-armor piercing or 200 kT nuclear
So just to let you know.. Russia has nuclear versions of air to air missles, sams, etc.
as to your point as to number of missiles.
i put up TACTICAL and STRATEGIC
you focused on strategic and took it out of context.
doing this is ingenous and expects someeone to not realize WHY the mix is different.
please note that the tactical weapons in some cases exceed the bombs we use as examples. the strategic weapons are many more times that size.
strategic missiles would be what would be used between the US and Russia...
TACTICAL weapons would be what would have to be used against europe, as using the strategic ones wouldnt leave much left of europe to fight over.
in the 80s Russia planned to invade europe, but alas, Reagan upped the ante each time that they thought they had it, and they toppled over in the wallet.
however only people like you are stupid enough not to realize that the way they have their system, having money doesnt matter when a war breaks out. in a state that has such overwhelming power over its subjects, and they having no power, the state just abolishes currency, and does what it wants.
this is a flexibility that the west does not have since the people in the west own the property. see how that works? there is no real way to compel them the way that they can be just ordered in an authoritarian state.
what we all forget is that just because a mean person is nice now, doesnt mean that they wont be mean again, true to their nature. nothing is meaner than murdering your own people to get results refusing to find a way around that (and refusing all help too).
in the west, there have been very few incidents of state meanness. no state is perfect, and the argument that holds us to a higher standard than russia has ever met in its state history is also disingenous.
and to claim that the US wants russia gone... but not know that we give nearly a trillion dollars a year.. 800 plus million for the police forces and such so that the russian public could have SOME protection instead of NO protection, is also disingenous.
if we didnt give that 800 million, then putin couldnt take 800 million out of the police force and use it for weapons that he threatens us with.
in the west thats called biting the hand that feeds you. what would happen if the security and police lost 800 million for next year?
kind of says something about who cares more for the russian people.
Artfldgr says:
My posting was not about the Vietnam war as such…
Your post was throwing everything but the kitchen sink, don’t think that its not possible to page upwards and actually pull out what you said. You gave absolutely no distinction to anything on that subject, nor in context does it lead to what your claiming now. you have revision the history already. duh
The victims do not care how democratic the warmongers are.
Care to ask the 1 million dead families? Oh yeah, unlike the democratic republics actions, the people that would complain and grouse the way your talking are conveniently dead.
You, buddy, had listened too many of senator Joseph McCarthy' speeches in 50’s
Really? Well why don’t you compare what we knew then to what we know now? I am VERY glad you brought McCarthy up.
Why? because thanks to defectors, decoded Venona transcripts, the Mitroken archive, and kgb files that were opened for a short while, that McCarthy was RIGHT!
That rather then it being a “witch hunt”, an act in which people chase after something we know is not real, it was a real hunt. While there are no real witches (in the sense we are talking about), there ARE subversives, illegal’s, fellow travelers, fronts, and useful idiots.
Remember Whittaker Chambers?
i doubt it… I doubt that you know anything but the main stream medias propaganda that mccarthy was after innocent people.
Well it was Whittaker Chambers, who was a communist, that changed sides and provided lists to Adolph Berle (then undersecretary of state). Roosevelt and Truman both chose to ignore it.
Time to open your eyes up again…
From 1943 until 1980, unbeknownst to virtually everyone, the National Security Agency intercepted every Soviet message going from or to the United States. It was not until 1994 that their existence was even acknowledged, and 1995 when the first 1,400 of 240,000 intercepts were released to the public. Their content was damning and supportive of the contentions of not only McCarthy but Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, Hoover, and others.
Yes that’s right. Even though we couldn’t read just under 40 years of messages, we saved them all. and unlike in russia, or in the main stream media, we in America, can ignore the propaganda, and go to the archives!! We can accept the line we are given, as you did, or we can explore and find out the truth for ourselves.
So what happens when something like this gets decoded? The assumptions of history get corrected. and so the cover that was the destruction of McCarthy by the communists, turned out to be much different than the socialist press here let everyone know (hey, they did the same with Margret sanger, betty Freidan, Margret meade, albert Kinsey, and more!)
The information you have is based on a he said she said argument that went back and forth for 40 odd years, and since there was no hard evidence, the communists just kept pressing the propaganda
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, followed two primary rules when brainwashing the German public. The first was to tell a big lie loud enough and long enough so that people would eventually start to believe it. The second rule was to always accuse your enemy of your own worst crime.
So if you understand this, and understand that the radical left socialist communists have the loudest voice, what they are yelling is the stuff they want you to believe, because they want your behavior to be as if that information is true.
However, the information is not true, and if you knew that, you would act differently. So the battle for hearts and minds is not an honest battle on their side, they don’t care whether you know or don’t know.
When you ride a horse, you don’t care what the horse thinks, do you? you only care that its material actions are what you need them to be in order to accomplish what you want. In this formula, you are the horse, and you come from a mental assumption that they are going to steer you with valid information and so its always correct to follow the mass line.
However, its hard to get people and horses to walk off a cliff. So they lie. They learned from their FRIENDS (Molotov ribbendorph agreement), the Nazies, who were ALSO socialists.
Anyway… I didn’t have to listen McCarthies speeches, as he didn’t really do that. he wasn’t a radcial socialist who took the podium and tried to mobilize the public into a religious fervor towards a socialist revolution or even towards what they should have done. which is remove those people who wish to harm the very country they are a part of.
Lets take a short trip and lets see who turned to really be spies… and not mere nothings.
[aren’t you glad you brought McCarthy up? I am!]
Alger Hiss who had been the number three man at State behind Dean Acheson and Dean Rusk, and who, most assuredly, at some point, would have eventually been Secretary of State.
So the number three man in the whitehouse was a spy… how nice.
Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who purposely withheld allocated funding for the Chinese Nationalists, during their Civil War, that destroyed their currency and, thus, their efforts against Mao's Communists.
Assistant secretary of the treasury was a communist spy… and look what they did, they helped mao, which resulted in the deaths of more than 30 million people. lovely.
remember, this is the side your fighting on. these are YOUR people. these are the people and the ideas YOU support. You belittle me and make fun of me and make me out to be MUCH older than I am… the reason is that that makes me out to be an old man who can be ignored, rather than an erudite young man. McCarthy was decades before I was born. I just got a better education than you!!! whats amazig is that you also cant discern the qualitative difference between the two sides, and that you constantly keep bringing up something that you think is real and of substance, and throw it. like McCarthy, and your side didn’t hace the decency to let you in on the lies and propaganda so that you don’t step on these land mines and make yourself out to be a total idiot
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been conduits for even more damaging information than the atom bomb, for which they were executed
Lauchlin Currie, Special Assistant to F.D.R.
Samuel Dickstein, member of the House of Representatives from Brooklyn.
William and Martha Dodd, son and daughter of the U.S. ambassador to Germany
Lawrence Duggan, State Department Director of Latin American Affairs
Harold Ickes, Sr., father of Clinton's impeachment flack, who was Secretary of the Interior.
William Weisband, U.S. Army Signal Security Agency
NONE of these ended up being expose by McCarthy because of the leftist and communists in the press and colleges and the arguments. The SAME argyuments that people like you perpetuate years and years later as truth…
[Bout the only real thing we DID do was contain them in jobs that no longer were useful]
Recent archive releases (like in the past year) put out a list of 12,000 people in the state who were confirmed by decoded transcripts to be spies.
Lattimore was a McCarthy "coup". Lattimore was the individual who coined the term "McCarthyism" in response to and defense of the charges brought against him. In a feeble attempt to attack the messenger, Lattimore went so far as to write a book declaring his innocence while, at the same time, attacking McCarthy.
So your spouting the defense stuff of one of the leaders of over 40 other spies and front organizations!
For all those rushing to put pen to paper to denounce any of the above, you'd be best advised to first do your "homework". Read "Venona" (Yale University Press); "The Secret World Of American Communism" (Yale University Press); "The Haunted Wood" (Random House); "The Venona Secrets" (Regnery); "The Secret History Of the KGB" (Basic Books); "Whittaker Chambers: A Biography" (Modern Library); and "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the life and legacy of America's most hated Senator" (Free Press). If at first you haven't read the above, then you are coming unarmed for a battle of wits.
As I have said… you’re coming to a gunfight with a penknife.
I don’t have to be old… I can READ… and I don’t just read to confirm my ego, which is what your doing… you even prmote disinformation in an effort to preserve that fragile ego.
Your so sure of the facts that you know.. that your throwing them out as if lies are truth and mean something. Your not even smart enough to research your OWN assumptions!!!
I would not be surprized to have known that you lived as long ago as during the First Red Scare too.
Nope, much much younger.. that would be my grandfather, and my dad as a young lad….
And your link on mccarthy doesn cover the decoded transcripts and the full history. (if you take the time, wiki has a page that will tell you who corrected the page and such. very interesting to look at that too)
Your information on McCarthy is off… and you never asked the qyestion if he was right. You accepted the testimony of the guilty over the truthful. Lattimore was guilty.
You were so sure it was a ‘scare’ which denotes false information, that you never wanted to think of the implications that it wasn’t a scare and what THAT means.
Think of that. that your protecting your ego from having to conceive of such nastiness, and that protective reflex, makes you protect the people that are doing that, while pretending and denying that truth!
PRIOR to the decoding of the transcripts by modern computers, the complete truthful history was a matter of who could shout the loudest.
So contrary to me being old and backwards, it’s you, whose information is woefully incomplete, out of date, and not even wrong!
Given recent revelations from Soviet-era archives and new thinking about the Cold War, this biography was probably inevitable. Readers can therefore be thankful that Herman, a historian at George Mason University, has given us an occasionally strained but generally fair study of McCarthy rather than a one-sided defense or assault on him. The book will surely be controversial and subject to attack from all sides, for its author insists that we must hold McCarthy's enemies and victims to the same standards to which we hold him.
And another author
McCarthy stopped the highly organized, intellectual and productive Marxist movement and diverted its PATH from taking over in the USA internally; it never truly gained momentum afterwards. What Joseph McCarthy failed to realize was the breath and depth of the communist character and soul. The harshness and brutality of the attacks on McCarthy and co. were (in essence) a disclosure of an evil and misguided (but determined) will. Welded on an abnormal dogma of vicious misconceptions, SIMILAR IN CONCEPT ONLY TO NATIONAL SOCIALISM (...) IDEOLOGY, these attackers knew the game plan (all to well) of bombarding and destroying the enemy at all costs (another Lenin inclusion). Turning the tables as though J. McCarthy and co. were the "bad guys". If Joseph McCarthy, Roy Cohn and co. had been more well-read on material in the philosophical/political/psychological areas of communism, they would have been better prepared for the fight. Sizing up the situation as dealing with human beings - rational, reasonable, and of good-willed nature - was a big mistake. Because at the heart and core of the communist breeds the demon of illusion. As with the late actualized communistic State, the Soviet Union, they came out (in history) smelling like roses, when in reality, they had killed more innocent people than Nazi Germany. Only with the present day material, do we now have the truth of many misconceptions.
You experienced kinda strong emotions. They stay alive for the rest of the life...
Your way way off… my parents were flower children..
You’re an EGOIST… your spouts are LOGOREAH (diarrhea of the mouth). My PROOF comes from YOU.
and burried my brilliant post addressed
Whether it’s brilliant or not is not for you to decide you egotistical moron.
Once again… you have proved to argue from nothing but false arguments.
Ad hominem: old fart's
By authority: my brilliant post
Needling: calling me old when I am not
Straw Man: you caricatured my position and then attacked the caricature as if it was me
Special Pleading: using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against.
Burden of proof: your mccarthy thing (since he was right, not wrong)
Other things you have used and that don’t work with me are:
Argument By Question
Argument by Rhetorical Question (the tack you took in the Vietnam post)
Fallacy Of The General Rule
Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification):
Psychogenetic Fallacy: You experienced kinda strong emotions. They stay alive for the rest of the life...
Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients): snobbery that very old (or very young) arguments are superior.
Poisoning The Wells: a variation of Ad Hominem
Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People): (a big favorite)
Argument By Personal Charm
Cliche Thinking using as evidence a well-known wise saying, as if that is proven, or as if it has no exceptions. [mccarthyism. You also pulled Appeal To Widespread Belief too with this one]
Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology):
This is another favorite of yours… reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions.
Bad Analogy
Extended Analogy
Argument From Spurious Similarity another favorite of yours
Confusing Correlation And Causation
Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause)
Fallacy Of Composition
Complex Question (Tying):
Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness): refusing to accept something after everyone else thinks it is well enough proved. For example, McCarthy being an example of a false hunt, when its now proven that it wasn’t a false hunt.
Argument By Half Truth
Argument By Selective Observation another favorite of yours
Argument By Selective Reading
Argument By Generalization
Inconsistency another favorite of yours [kgb is great and superior, but there are rogues, etc]
Non Sequitur
Argument By Gibberish
Equivocation using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different
Euphemism
Weasel Wording
Error Of Fact for example, "No one knows how old the Pyramids of Egypt are." (Except, of course, for the historians who've read the records written by the ancient Egyptians themselves.) // everyone knows that McCarthy was chasing innocent people, except the people who have read and studied history and not receive their education from the public trough.
Hypothesis Contrary To Fact
Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis): [how did Vietnam get in here when it was a response to nuclear weapons]
Argument By Fast Talking if you go from one idea to the next quickly enough, the audience won't have time to think [doesn’t work with me, I think fast and know my subjects VERY well]
Ambiguous Assertion: you did this with the Vietnam thing.. shoved it in.. then later claimed that it was something else.
Outdated Information: information is given, but it is not the latest information on the subject. McCarthy.. your data was outdated…
Least Plausible Hypothesis
Argument By Scenario
Affirming The Consequent
Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection): if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.
Appeal To Complexity
Common Sense: [in your analysis of lugovoy, which is why you weren’t accepting the arguments I was giving since they were pointing out that this was your argument, and what you think is common sense may not be what someone else thinks]
Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion): the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect.
if you were rating your posts on subversive and fallacious arguing ability, then yeah.. it was brilliant..
As a debate, its GARBAGE..
your arguing stule is attempting to ‘win’ by anything BUT merit, while ignoring that winning by those means is cheating. Like giving food poisioning to all the other racers and never having to actually run the race and getting the title by default. Wining that way you can be a quadrapelegic against an olypic runner and win – so your not really winning, no matter how much your little mind and swollen ego thinks so
in connection with La Russophobe's article and response to my comment?
I think that you made a point, but not the center of the target you were hoping to hit. Want to know the difference. The key point that is different?
This was a document presented to people, a suggestion. A proposal
The Russian situation was their adopted plan…
ALSO the Russians statements were escalatory (and a veiled threat to use nukes for IRAQ), and were a response to “conventional forces”, not nuclear forces. While the NATO suggestion does not say that NATO will respond to conventional forces with nuclear weapons.
And lastly… the general with the big mouth from russia, is still in his office serving and commanding, the general your referring to is “the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff”, so he is a NATO leader, not a US leader.
Read the qualifying difference here
Naumann conceded that the plan's retention of the nuclear first strike option was "controversial" even among the five authors. Inge argued that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence".
Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the west's cold war strategy in defeating the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was a productive instrument to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate.
Basically russia has built up their missiles and military in the past 8 years like germany did… they have abandoned treaties unilaterally so that they can continue building up.
The twos behaviors are not the same at all..
All your doing is the exact thing that George Kennan said as to dissimulation… that your just grabing whatever facts discordant or not that seem or sound like they bolster your position. It works with idiots, but it doesn’t work with cogent informed educated people.
I suspect that if I didn’t open my mouth… you might actually lean towards “False Compromise” if one does not understand a debate, it must be "fair" to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.) Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of "balanced" coverage.
Artfldgr says:
My posting was not about the Vietnam war as such…
Your post was throwing everything but the kitchen sink, don’t think that its not possible to page upwards and actually pull out what you said. You gave absolutely no distinction to anything on that subject, nor in context does it lead to what your claiming now. you have revision the history already. duh
The victims do not care how democratic the warmongers are.
Care to ask the 1 million dead families? Oh yeah, unlike the democratic republics actions, the people that would complain and grouse the way your talking are conveniently dead.
You, buddy, had listened too many of senator Joseph McCarthy' speeches in 50’s
Really? Well why don’t you compare what we knew then to what we know now? I am VERY glad you brought McCarthy up.
Why? because thanks to defectors, decoded Venona transcripts, the Mitroken archive, and kgb files that were opened for a short while, that McCarthy was RIGHT!
That rather then it being a “witch hunt”, an act in which people chase after something we know is not real, it was a real hunt. While there are no real witches (in the sense we are talking about), there ARE subversives, illegal’s, fellow travelers, fronts, and useful idiots.
Remember Whittaker Chambers?
i doubt it… I doubt that you know anything but the main stream medias propaganda that mccarthy was after innocent people.
Well it was Whittaker Chambers, who was a communist, that changed sides and provided lists to Adolph Berle (then undersecretary of state). Roosevelt and Truman both chose to ignore it.
Time to open your eyes up again…
From 1943 until 1980, unbeknownst to virtually everyone, the National Security Agency intercepted every Soviet message going from or to the United States. It was not until 1994 that their existence was even acknowledged, and 1995 when the first 1,400 of 240,000 intercepts were released to the public. Their content was damning and supportive of the contentions of not only McCarthy but Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, Hoover, and others.
Yes that’s right. Even though we couldn’t read just under 40 years of messages, we saved them all. and unlike in russia, or in the main stream media, we in America, can ignore the propaganda, and go to the archives!! We can accept the line we are given, as you did, or we can explore and find out the truth for ourselves.
So what happens when something like this gets decoded? The assumptions of history get corrected. and so the cover that was the destruction of McCarthy by the communists, turned out to be much different than the socialist press here let everyone know (hey, they did the same with Margret sanger, betty Freidan, Margret meade, albert Kinsey, and more!)
The information you have is based on a he said she said argument that went back and forth for 40 odd years, and since there was no hard evidence, the communists just kept pressing the propaganda
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, followed two primary rules when brainwashing the German public. The first was to tell a big lie loud enough and long enough so that people would eventually start to believe it. The second rule was to always accuse your enemy of your own worst crime.
So if you understand this, and understand that the radical left socialist communists have the loudest voice, what they are yelling is the stuff they want you to believe, because they want your behavior to be as if that information is true.
However, the information is not true, and if you knew that, you would act differently. So the battle for hearts and minds is not an honest battle on their side, they don’t care whether you know or don’t know.
When you ride a horse, you don’t care what the horse thinks, do you? you only care that its material actions are what you need them to be in order to accomplish what you want. In this formula, you are the horse, and you come from a mental assumption that they are going to steer you with valid information and so its always correct to follow the mass line.
However, its hard to get people and horses to walk off a cliff. So they lie. They learned from their FRIENDS (Molotov ribbendorph agreement), the Nazies, who were ALSO socialists.
Anyway… I didn’t have to listen McCarthies speeches, as he didn’t really do that. he wasn’t a radcial socialist who took the podium and tried to mobilize the public into a religious fervor towards a socialist revolution or even towards what they should have done. which is remove those people who wish to harm the very country they are a part of.
Lets take a short trip and lets see who turned to really be spies… and not mere nothings.
[aren’t you glad you brought McCarthy up? I am!]
Alger Hiss who had been the number three man at State behind Dean Acheson and Dean Rusk, and who, most assuredly, at some point, would have eventually been Secretary of State.
So the number three man in the whitehouse was a spy… how nice.
Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who purposely withheld allocated funding for the Chinese Nationalists, during their Civil War, that destroyed their currency and, thus, their efforts against Mao's Communists.
Assistant secretary of the treasury was a communist spy… and look what they did, they helped mao, which resulted in the deaths of more than 30 million people. lovely.
remember, this is the side your fighting on. these are YOUR people. these are the people and the ideas YOU support. You belittle me and make fun of me and make me out to be MUCH older than I am… the reason is that that makes me out to be an old man who can be ignored, rather than an erudite young man. McCarthy was decades before I was born. I just got a better education than you!!! whats amazig is that you also cant discern the qualitative difference between the two sides, and that you constantly keep bringing up something that you think is real and of substance, and throw it. like McCarthy, and your side didn’t hace the decency to let you in on the lies and propaganda so that you don’t step on these land mines and make yourself out to be a total idiot
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been conduits for even more damaging information than the atom bomb, for which they were executed
Lauchlin Currie, Special Assistant to F.D.R.
Samuel Dickstein, member of the House of Representatives from Brooklyn.
William and Martha Dodd, son and daughter of the U.S. ambassador to Germany
Lawrence Duggan, State Department Director of Latin American Affairs
Harold Ickes, Sr., father of Clinton's impeachment flack, who was Secretary of the Interior.
William Weisband, U.S. Army Signal Security Agency
NONE of these ended up being expose by McCarthy because of the leftist and communists in the press and colleges and the arguments. The SAME argyuments that people like you perpetuate years and years later as truth…
[Bout the only real thing we DID do was contain them in jobs that no longer were useful]
Recent archive releases (like in the past year) put out a list of 12,000 people in the state who were confirmed by decoded transcripts to be spies.
Lattimore was a McCarthy "coup". Lattimore was the individual who coined the term "McCarthyism" in response to and defense of the charges brought against him. In a feeble attempt to attack the messenger, Lattimore went so far as to write a book declaring his innocence while, at the same time, attacking McCarthy.
So your spouting the defense stuff of one of the leaders of over 40 other spies and front organizations!
For all those rushing to put pen to paper to denounce any of the above, you'd be best advised to first do your "homework". Read "Venona" (Yale University Press); "The Secret World Of American Communism" (Yale University Press); "The Haunted Wood" (Random House); "The Venona Secrets" (Regnery); "The Secret History Of the KGB" (Basic Books); "Whittaker Chambers: A Biography" (Modern Library); and "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the life and legacy of America's most hated Senator" (Free Press). If at first you haven't read the above, then you are coming unarmed for a battle of wits.
As I have said… you’re coming to a gunfight with a penknife.
I don’t have to be old… I can READ… and I don’t just read to confirm my ego, which is what your doing… you even prmote disinformation in an effort to preserve that fragile ego.
Your so sure of the facts that you know.. that your throwing them out as if lies are truth and mean something. Your not even smart enough to research your OWN assumptions!!!
I would not be surprized to have known that you lived as long ago as during the First Red Scare too.
Nope, much much younger.. that would be my grandfather, and my dad as a young lad….
And your link on mccarthy doesn cover the decoded transcripts and the full history. (if you take the time, wiki has a page that will tell you who corrected the page and such. very interesting to look at that too)
Your information on McCarthy is off… and you never asked the qyestion if he was right. You accepted the testimony of the guilty over the truthful. Lattimore was guilty.
You were so sure it was a ‘scare’ which denotes false information, that you never wanted to think of the implications that it wasn’t a scare and what THAT means.
Think of that. that your protecting your ego from having to conceive of such nastiness, and that protective reflex, makes you protect the people that are doing that, while pretending and denying that truth!
PRIOR to the decoding of the transcripts by modern computers, the complete truthful history was a matter of who could shout the loudest.
So contrary to me being old and backwards, it’s you, whose information is woefully incomplete, out of date, and not even wrong!
Given recent revelations from Soviet-era archives and new thinking about the Cold War, this biography was probably inevitable. Readers can therefore be thankful that Herman, a historian at George Mason University, has given us an occasionally strained but generally fair study of McCarthy rather than a one-sided defense or assault on him. The book will surely be controversial and subject to attack from all sides, for its author insists that we must hold McCarthy's enemies and victims to the same standards to which we hold him.
And another author
McCarthy stopped the highly organized, intellectual and productive Marxist movement and diverted its PATH from taking over in the USA internally; it never truly gained momentum afterwards. What Joseph McCarthy failed to realize was the breath and depth of the communist character and soul. The harshness and brutality of the attacks on McCarthy and co. were (in essence) a disclosure of an evil and misguided (but determined) will. Welded on an abnormal dogma of vicious misconceptions, SIMILAR IN CONCEPT ONLY TO NATIONAL SOCIALISM (...) IDEOLOGY, these attackers knew the game plan (all to well) of bombarding and destroying the enemy at all costs (another Lenin inclusion). Turning the tables as though J. McCarthy and co. were the "bad guys". If Joseph McCarthy, Roy Cohn and co. had been more well-read on material in the philosophical/political/psychological areas of communism, they would have been better prepared for the fight. Sizing up the situation as dealing with human beings - rational, reasonable, and of good-willed nature - was a big mistake. Because at the heart and core of the communist breeds the demon of illusion. As with the late actualized communistic State, the Soviet Union, they came out (in history) smelling like roses, when in reality, they had killed more innocent people than Nazi Germany. Only with the present day material, do we now have the truth of many misconceptions.
You experienced kinda strong emotions. They stay alive for the rest of the life...
Your way way off… my parents were flower children..
You’re an EGOIST… your spouts are LOGOREAH (diarrhea of the mouth). My PROOF comes from YOU.
and burried my brilliant post addressed
Whether it’s brilliant or not is not for you to decide you egotistical moron.
Once again… you have proved to argue from nothing but false arguments.
Ad hominem: old fart's
By authority: my brilliant post
Needling: calling me old when I am not
Straw Man: you caricatured my position and then attacked the caricature as if it was me
Special Pleading: using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against.
Burden of proof: your mccarthy thing (since he was right, not wrong)
Other things you have used and that don’t work with me are:
Argument By Question
Argument by Rhetorical Question (the tack you took in the Vietnam post)
Fallacy Of The General Rule
Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification):
Psychogenetic Fallacy: You experienced kinda strong emotions. They stay alive for the rest of the life...
Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients): snobbery that very old (or very young) arguments are superior.
Poisoning The Wells: a variation of Ad Hominem
Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People): (a big favorite)
Argument By Personal Charm
Cliche Thinking using as evidence a well-known wise saying, as if that is proven, or as if it has no exceptions. [mccarthyism. You also pulled Appeal To Widespread Belief too with this one]
Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology):
This is another favorite of yours… reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions.
Bad Analogy
Extended Analogy
Argument From Spurious Similarity another favorite of yours
Confusing Correlation And Causation
Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause)
Fallacy Of Composition
Complex Question (Tying):
Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness): refusing to accept something after everyone else thinks it is well enough proved. For example, McCarthy being an example of a false hunt, when its now proven that it wasn’t a false hunt.
Argument By Half Truth
Argument By Selective Observation another favorite of yours
Argument By Selective Reading
Argument By Generalization
Inconsistency another favorite of yours [kgb is great and superior, but there are rogues, etc]
Non Sequitur
Argument By Gibberish
Equivocation using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different
Euphemism
Weasel Wording
Error Of Fact for example, "No one knows how old the Pyramids of Egypt are." (Except, of course, for the historians who've read the records written by the ancient Egyptians themselves.) // everyone knows that McCarthy was chasing innocent people, except the people who have read and studied history and not receive their education from the public trough.
Hypothesis Contrary To Fact
Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis): [how did Vietnam get in here when it was a response to nuclear weapons]
Argument By Fast Talking if you go from one idea to the next quickly enough, the audience won't have time to think [doesn’t work with me, I think fast and know my subjects VERY well]
Ambiguous Assertion: you did this with the Vietnam thing.. shoved it in.. then later claimed that it was something else.
Outdated Information: information is given, but it is not the latest information on the subject. McCarthy.. your data was outdated…
Least Plausible Hypothesis
Argument By Scenario
Affirming The Consequent
Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection): if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.
Appeal To Complexity
Common Sense: [in your analysis of lugovoy, which is why you weren’t accepting the arguments I was giving since they were pointing out that this was your argument, and what you think is common sense may not be what someone else thinks]
Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion): the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect.
if you were rating your posts on subversive and fallacious arguing ability, then yeah.. it was brilliant..
As a debate, its GARBAGE..
your arguing stule is attempting to ‘win’ by anything BUT merit, while ignoring that winning by those means is cheating. Like giving food poisioning to all the other racers and never having to actually run the race and getting the title by default. Wining that way you can be a quadrapelegic against an olypic runner and win – so your not really winning, no matter how much your little mind and swollen ego thinks so
in connection with La Russophobe's article and response to my comment?
I think that you made a point, but not the center of the target you were hoping to hit. Want to know the difference. The key point that is different?
This was a document presented to people, a suggestion. A proposal
The Russian situation was their adopted plan…
ALSO the Russians statements were escalatory (and a veiled threat to use nukes for IRAQ), and were a response to “conventional forces”, not nuclear forces. While the NATO suggestion does not say that NATO will respond to conventional forces with nuclear weapons.
And lastly… the general with the big mouth from russia, is still in his office serving and commanding, the general your referring to is “the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff”, so he is a NATO leader, not a US leader.
Read the qualifying difference here
Naumann conceded that the plan's retention of the nuclear first strike option was "controversial" even among the five authors. Inge argued that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence".
Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the west's cold war strategy in defeating the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was a productive instrument to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate.
Basically russia has built up their missiles and military in the past 8 years like germany did… they have abandoned treaties unilaterally so that they can continue building up.
The twos behaviors are not the same at all..
All your doing is the exact thing that George Kennan said as to dissimulation… that your just grabing whatever facts discordant or not that seem or sound like they bolster your position. It works with idiots, but it doesn’t work with cogent informed educated people.
I suspect that if I didn’t open my mouth… you might actually lean towards “False Compromise” if one does not understand a debate, it must be "fair" to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.) Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of "balanced" coverage.
Artfldgr says:
OK, about your thoughts: What treaties do you think Russia broke? None!
Do you wish to start with all the friendship treaties she had while she was working out the pact with Hitler?
World War II losses in the Baltic states were among the highest in Europe. Estimates of population loss stand at 25% for Estonia, 30% for Latvia, and 15% for Lithuania. War and occupation deaths have been estimated at 90,000 in Estonia, 180,000 in Latvia, and 250,000 in Lithuania. These include the Soviet deportations in 1941, the German deportations, and Holocaust victims.[8]
Read the “treaty of tartu”, “latvian-soviet riga peace treaty”, “Soviet-Lituanian treaty of 1920”
On sept 24th in 1939, with these treaties still in effect, and another set for finland. Russia appeared off the shores or Tallinn. On September 25th Moscow demanded that these countries let them build military bases on their soil. The three countries were forced to comply, and signed an agreement letting russia house troops on their soil.
In early 1939, the Leningrad Military District had already allocated 17 divisions, about 10% of the Red Army, to the Baltic states. Mobilizations followed shortly. The 8th Army was dispatched to Pskov on September 14, 1939, and the mobilized 7th Army placed under the Leningrad Military District. Invasion preparations were by now nearing completion. On September 26, the Leningrad Military District was ordered to "start concentrating troops on the Estonian-Latvian border and to finish that operation on September 29th." The order noted, "for the time of starting the attack a separate directive will be issued."[16] Altogether, by the beginning of October, 1939, the Soviets had amassed along the Estonia-Latvia border:
• 437,325 troops;
• 3,635 artillery pieces;
• 3,052 tanks;
• 421 armored vehicles;
• 21,919 cars.[17]
Those were the people that they had friendship pacts with!!!
The finns were also asked to sign a pact with stalin, but they refused. On November 30th, 1939 the soviet union attacked finland launching the “winter war”.
The attack was judged illegal in the eyes of the world and Russia was kicked out of the league of nations (precursor to the united nations).
Finland succeeded in halting russia, however, they werer forced to cede nearly all of finish Karelia, with finlands industrial centers, finlands second largest city, in total they lost around 10% of their country to their FRIENDS. 12% of fins lost their homes, finland also had to cede part of the salla area.
But, unlike Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, their peoples were not loaded into cattle cars and tortured to death in slave labor camps while Russians were shipped into the country to force it to be Russian forever through occupation. Now when these states want independence, they have to be as mean as Stalin to get their country completely back (as the Russians used by Stalin have lives there, and now there is a political problem and a permanent base for spies – Latvia just ejected one as did japan, and uk, and the US. ).
From the NY times april 26 1903..
The reason I am posting this is so that you see that this is a way of Russians doing things. its not something new, its not something that has yet gone away. it’s a constant “way they are”. they haven’t changed, and everyone is waiting for them to.
Here is what was quoted.
we took occasion to point out that the fact that Russia had made an agreement raised no probabil- ity that she would keep it. Her perfidy, indeed, is quite unique among civilized nations in its shamelessness. If she were an individual instead of a huge nation nobody would consent to have any dealings with her, her reputation for truth and veracity is so bad.
That her promise for the evacuation of mancuria by three installments of six months each would be kept in good faith nobody was so innocent to imagine. It was supposed that she had made the agreement to gain time – time to fortify her self, to safe guard her interests, which she regards as exclusive, throught all Manchuria, and to mcomplete the communication with European russia and with the central asian khanates which would enable her to defy opposition.
Experts in her ways expected that she would then keep the world of promise to the ear. Having perfected her arrangements for breaking it to the hope.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9506EFDE1F30E733A25755C2A9629C946297D6CF
Even though that’s before 1917, it shows that this way of dealing with the world predates their soviet ways. So in effect, all soviet did, was make them worse.
If you care to check treaties… America kept terms of treaties it never ratified, and Russia still has no complied with treaties it signed to destroy weapons. America even gave russia billions so that they could use the money to destroy the weapons and comply. They took the money, and still haven’t destroyed the weapons!
And what about the CFE treaty? In april 2007 russia unilaterally broke this treaty.
The CFE Treaty dates from the last days of the Cold War and limits the deployment of conventional arms, including tanks and other heavy weapons, on either side of the old Iron Curtain.
However, russia never fully complied with the treaty… what about troops in checknya? What about in Georgia? Etc. read the terms, they NEVER FULLY COMPLIED.
and before you whine as to the missle shield, the new nuclear weapon that they were building AFTER the fall, which you are still saying these are left overs Even primitive missile technologies would be enough for neutralizing the most up-to-date US global Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system, Tass cited experts from the Russian Academy of Military Sciences as saying Wednesday.
so Russian military scientists have said that the shield has no real bearing to russia. It cant even stop primitive missiles. So it can only stop the really primitive missles of iran. It has little or NO actual effect on russia SO SAYS THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
their beef, as they state, is that they imagine that the US will use space based weapons LIKE CHINA DID.
Russian security experts said Wednesday that the US missile defense concept presupposes the use of modern space-based weapons.
Care to read the history on the islands that russia grabbed from china at the end of the war? Russia had already signed treaties in the 1800s settling it, but stalin wanted them, and again, this breaking of treaties is still a sore spot.
How about march 18 1921?
Russia, the Ukraine, and Poland… ring a bell yet?
It’s a peace treaty between Russia and Poland…
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9401E4DD103CE533A2575AC1A9659C946095D6CF
And how long did that one last? Till stalin and Hitler decided to cut their FRIENDS apart and take the spoils. Not even 20 years.
Basically this treaty ended the polish Russian war (1918 – 1921)
You know.. the peaceful guys that accuse others of what they do!! after all…care to add up the number of countries under Russian control, and the number of countries the US has ever had? Want to count how many they still have? want to count how many they want back?
By the way… russia had also signed peace treaties with Poland going back as far as 1686. that one was called the ETERNAL PEACE TREATY with POLAND.
But since your nuclear bound.. .
Salt I - Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Agreement // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SALT_I
You see it turns out that RUSSIA was the first country to create an ABM system and rachet up the nuclear arms.
The strategic nuclear forces niche of the Soviet Union and the United States were changing in character in 1968. The U.S.'s total number of missiles had been static since 1967 at 1054 ICBMs and 656 SLBMs
One clause of the treaty required both countries to limit the sites protected by an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system to one.
Soviet Union had deployed such a system around Moscow in 1966 and the United States announced an ABM program to protect twelve ICBM sites in 1967. A modified two-tier Moscow ABM system is still used, probably with missile interceptors equipped with conventional instead of nuclear warheads. The U.S. built only one ABM site to protect Minuteman base in North Dakota where the "Safeguard Program" was deployed.
So the US complied… Russia did not. we signed it anyway.
Salt II
SALT II was the first nuclear arms treaty which assumed real reductions in strategic forces to 2250 of all categories of delivery vehicles on both sides. SALT II helped the U.S. to discourage the Soviets not to arm their third generation ICBMs. The USSR's missile design bureaus had developed in the late 1970s experimental versions of these missiles equipped with anywhere from 10 to 38 thermonuclear warheads each.
So who was racing forward building what?
An agreement to limit strategic launchers was reached in Vienna on June 18, 1979, and was signed by Leonid Brezhnev and President of the United States Jimmy Carter. Six months after the signing, the Soviet Union deployed troops to Afghanistan, and in September of the same year some senators like "Mr. Boeing" (Henry M. Jackson) unexpectedly discovered the so-called "Soviet brigade" on Cuba. As such, the treaty was never ratified by the United States Senate. Its terms were, nonetheless, honored by both sides until 1986 when the Reagan Administration withdrew from SALT II after accusing the Soviets of violating the pact.
And so SALT II was never ratified… why? russia was in violation from the start. The agreement was to give them a clear road to invade a country.
Unlike iraq though, this country had no despot. There were no people to liberate. It was just a land grab.
By the way, imperialists grab their neighbors first if they can… not fight wars from half way around the world… England lost lands that way.
Care to list out the country in modern times that has grabbed the most neighbors? Its russia.
Start / saltIII/ -
Reagan proposed a dramatic reduction in strategic forces in two phases, which he referred to as SALT III at the time.[1] The first phase would reduce overall warhead counts on any missile type to 5,000, with an additional limit of 2,500 on ICBMs. Additionally, a total of 850 ICBMs would be allowed, with a limit of 110 "heavy throw" missiles like the SS-18, with additional limits on the total "throw weight" of the missiles as well. The second phase introduced similar limits on heavy bombers and their warheads, and other strategic systems as well.
As Time Magazine put it at the time, "Under Reagan's ceilings, the U.S. would have to make considerably less of an adjustment in its strategic forces than would the Soviet Union. That feature of the proposal will almost certainly prompt the Soviets to charge that it is unfair and one-sided. No doubt some American arms-control advocates will agree, accusing the Administration of making the Kremlin an offer it cannot possibly accept—a deceptively equal-looking, deliberately nonnegotiable proposal that is part of what some suspect is the hardliners' secret agenda of sabotaging disarmament so that the U.S. can get on with the business of rearmament."
Ah… but where is the catch? With Russians, there is always a catch, or else they are not going to do business.
Time Magazine did point out that, "The Soviets' monstrous ICBMs have given them a nearly 3-to-1 advantage over the U.S. in "throw weight"—the cumulative power to "throw" megatons of death and destruction at the other nation."
So that’s why the US has more… we have more SMALLER bombs, while russia has more LARGER bombs.
So if you add up the megatonnage, which is the damage they do. russia has fewer missiles that each do many times the damage america has.
Remember your whining as to smart weapons? America limits its weapons to the minuimum necessary… and so they need more… while russia is indiscriminate, they don’t care if they wipe out more, and so they have the largest nuclear weapons on the planet.
In this argument which would you rather have? 5000 shots each worth 10 points. Or 500 shots each worth 300 points?
That’s what you don’t get when your arguing the numbers of missiles.
But we do get it… and so another set of arguments is shown to be false.
I can show treaty after treaty going back beyond the bolshivik revolution, and that after they were even less trustworthy on such things. which is why the people of europe don’t want to work with them.
The soviets refused to sign… and instead embarked on the famous run up of nuclear weapons and arms that caused their FINANCIAL collapse.
Their refusal to ratify it, caused them to put their necks on the block
because of their paranoia! Notice that after they collapsed, the US helped them, not too them over. So ratification wouldn’t have caused what they were paranoid it would cause. In the end, they ratified it days before they collapsed.
START II followed START I and, although ratified, the treaty has never entered into force; in other words never been activated.
So no one can be accused of cheating on it. though russia used america abandoning the ABM treaty when russia was breaking it (Which actually leads to the situation now in which america is putting an ABM someplace russia doesn’t like, but as put above, it means nothing to them as they have said the technology CANT be against them!)
the Soviet MIRV missiles were equipped with electronic countermeasures and heavy decoys, with heavy missiles like R-36 carrying as many as 40 of them.[1] These decoys would appear as warheads to ABM, effectively requiring engagement of 50 times more targets than before and rendering defense ineffective.
So the argument as to the defense sheild is a FAKE ARGUMENT by russia. They have been able to stop such a sheild since the 1960s.
However, IRAN, who has the simplest missle,s not missles capable of distance, multiple warheads, and 40 decoys…. Like russia.
At about the same time, the USSR reached strategic parity with the US in terms of ICBM forces. A nuclear war would no longer be a favorable exchange for the US, but both countries would be devastated. This led in the West to the concept of mutually assured destruction, MAD, in which any changes to the strategic balance had to be carefully weighed. ABMs, now ready for use after over a decade of development, seemed to be far too risky – it was better to have no defense than one that might trigger a war.
In the East however, the concept of MAD was almost entirely unknown to the public, studied only by those in the Soviet military and Government who analysed Western military behaviour. Soviet military theory fully involved the mass use of nuclear devices, in combination with massive conventional forces.[2]
You see. everyone is antsy because russia never saw MAD as a valid thing (after all it was their idea to give that idea to us!).
And that bolded area is why people are worried about them today.
Since I don’t have time, lets quickly recap
More than 100 years history of attacking countries they make friends with, right up to the modern era of our lifetimes.
The behaviors started before the revolution, and continue to this day
Each breaking of a treaty was to their advantage, and was part of a set of games they played (for isntance, limiting strategic nuclear weapons, and not limiting tactical. Strategic weapons are needed in the distances between US and Russia, but tactical is whats needed to take europe!!! And as I said, imperialists eat their neigbors first if they can).
Continuous spying murders and poisinoings… with their spy orgs created from the worst sociopathic and psychopathic people given power over government. or did you no9t comprehend the outcome of filling an organization like the CIA with nothing but the worst of the criminally insane? The pedigrees of both agencies do not compare. No other system has been so horribly negative all aroudn than the checka/kgb/svr
That their collapse and taking help and building up, like their treaty behaviors, is only the stall of a paranoid that thinks they need to buy time till they can get their attacker before their attacker gets them!!!
Total paranoia… the attacker never attacks.. when they are down, when they are hurt, on and on… the attacker never attacks… and so they have forever to get their house in order to get em. Totally nutty… but its FUNDEMENTAL to their STATED ideology.
And part of that STATED ideology is to be a liar, a cheat, etc. So you cant trust them EVER, and that’s by their own hand.
I have little time for you.
You live in a fantasy world were the facts are totally different than the rest of the world
And don’t answer me on this crap… go to the graves of the millions and tell them.
You were wrong on so many levels, in each post.. and you just come back with another wrong thing after another wrong thing..
Its like your side has abandoned you with fake bullets that don’t fire!
Artfldgr says:
All Russian wepon developments come from the time when the USSR was still alive. Even Topol-M was started in mid 80-th.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276014,00.html
The first Topol-Ms were commissioned in 1997, but deployment has proceeded slower than planned because of a shortage of funds, and aging Soviet-built ballistic missiles remain the backbone of Russia's nuclear forces. Existing Topol-M missiles are capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away.
The statement said the RS-24 conforms with terms laid down in the START-I treaty and the 2002 Moscow Treaty, which calls for reductions in each country's nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,000 warheads.
So how did they comply back in time? they didn’t…
And your off by years.
So your
WRONG.
Ussr fell 91… I showed you development from 98… cant add can you?
The SERIES topol M was started earlier than the 80s.
The first test firing of a Topol-M took place on December 20, 1994. The flight and design testing of the Topol-M was successfully completed by 1995,
From the late 1950s through the end of 1994, the Soviet Union, and later Russia, built a total of 245 nuclear submarines, more than all other nations combined.
They didn’t get destroyed.. they still have them…
As of May 2000, Russia's nuclear navy included only 45 operational nuclear-powered submarines,[4,5] down nearly 80% from the 245 vessels produced between the late 1950s to 1994.[2]
However, it does not take much to take a ship out of storage and ramp her up. much faster than actually building them if a war starts. So they get the best of both. They can claim poverty, while saving.
Fourteen submarines had been dismantled as of December 2000.
By the way, they have similar records with nuclear warheads.
The newest topol-m was tested in 2007! (just to make sure your listening - The first Topol-Ms were commissioned in 1997)
And things get even weirder when you put articles next to each other.
Russia: New missile can penetrate any defense system / Wednesday, May 30, 2007
They think its new… but youi don’t… better call them quick…
Russian military officials have confirmed that the country has tested a new inter-continental ballistic missile designed to evade missile defence systems.
The massive ICBM, called the RS-24, was fired from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk launch site in northwestern Russia.
The Russians say the missile is capable of evading Stars Wars-style defence systems like that the one the the United States wants to construct in Europe
So they have this great missle that doesn’t matter as to defense.
Iunt he last post, I have posted statements that their scientists don’t care about the primitive us defense system
And yet Russia issues new missile defence threat // Russia warned today that it would position its rockets close to the Polish border and point missiles at US bases in Europe if Washington rebuffed its latest offer of cooperation on missile defence.
Russia's hawkish first deputy prime minister, Sergei Ivanov, made it clear that Moscow would be forced "to respond" if the Bush administration snubbed Vladimir Putin's offer to work together on missile defence using a Soviet-era radar base.
So Moscow is forced to respond to a missle shield that they say is uneffective against their arms, and even less effective against the newest weapon they have (which was developed 6 years after soviet union ‘fell’, and tested 10 years after that).
Can you see why the only people that trust them are useful idiots?
Imagine you have a neighbor… you are invited over his house… and he shows off how much soundproofing he has… and how much work he has put into it… he shows you that with new equioment, no sound can penetrate (thanks bose)
Now the next week you get a noticve in the mail that your neighbor is complaining your dog is barking and that its disturbing them in ther den.
The same den that they just showed everyone is soundproof!
That’s why russia is so hard to deal with.
They are like some person who imagines themselves as invisible, because no one tells them we can see them!
So you watch as they snap their fingers… then go off and do something… then snap their fingers, then pretend that the whole thing you just watched them do was invisible.
Meanwhile… your standing there and they are talking as if they are invisible. Why?
because if they admit it then you know their secret!
|
