Russia threantens with Nukes

[OneShotKi11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UExHgRrRaq4&feature=related

This supposed threat was in response to the U.S. building missile defense systems in Europe.

In all actuality i agree with the Russians although they are threatening to nuke me.
I can understand why they would be so angry that the United States wants to implement a missile defense system in Europe.
Its almost degrading to Russian military because it will render their ICBMs somewhat useless if im not misunderstanding how the system works.
Also this would give us the clear advantage over them if we were to ever break out into conflict with Russia.

If we did get one up i would feel safer at night but i cant say that i disagree with Russia's logic!

Any thoughts?
Am i mistaken with anything i have stated?

[Texas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UExHgRrRaq4&feature=related

This supposed threat was in response to the U.S. building missile defense systems in Europe.

In all actuality i agree with the Russians although they are threatening to nuke me.
I can understand why they would be so angry that the United States wants to implement a missile defense system in Europe.
Its almost degrading to Russian military because it will render their ICBMs somewhat useless if im not misunderstanding how the system works.
Also this would give us the clear advantage over them if we were to ever break out into conflict with Russia.

If we did get one up i would feel safer at night but i cant say that i disagree with Russia's logic!

Any thoughts?
Am i mistaken with anything i have stated?
Do you think for a second that if Russia could put up a credible MDS they wouldn't do it? I can't believe the "better red than dead" mentality around here.

[OneShotKi11]

Do you think for a second that if Russia could put up a credible MDS they wouldn't do it? I can't believe the "better red than dead" mentality around here.

Yes of course, in their own country.
What would we say if they wanted to put one in Canada?
I can assure you we would not like it one bit!

[Matteo Martini]

Any thoughts?
Am i mistaken with anything i have stated?

The sooner the Americans will understand that they are not the only ones living in this world the better

[Ysidro]

Do you think for a second that if Russia could put up a credible MDS they wouldn't do it? I can't believe the "better red than dead" mentality around here.

Of course they would. And we'd bitch about it too. Welcome to international politics.

But "better red than dead"? Do you really think we're in thre throes of the Cold War again? Do you look for commies under your bed too? Trust me, they're not trying to take over the U.S. My handler told me personally.

[Texas]

Of course they would. And we'd bitch about it too. Welcome to international politics.

But "better red than dead"? Do you really think we're in thre throes of the Cold War again? Do you look for commies under your bed too? Trust me, they're not trying to take over the U.S. My handler told me personally.
Oh come off it. The Soviet Union was real and it was the USSR because it did what it is now trying to do to Georgia. This time the world is pushing back. Poland is in the lead along with the unified Baltic states. Putin overplayed his hand.

[Texas]

Yes of course, in their own country.
What would we say if they wanted to put one in Canada?
I can assure you we would not like it one bit!Ridiculous analogy. Poland has up close and personal experience with Russia and are not about to let itself fall under its control again. Canada is also considering joining the Missile Shield project. The better analogy is the Cuban missile crisis if you really want to make sense but even that fails since the US isn't basing nukes in Poland.

[Texas]

The sooner the Americans will understand that they are not the only ones living in this world the betterSo you want the Bear back in full vigor right? It has a long way to go to get there. Putin screwed the pooch. The only nation that has sided with him is.........Cuba. That's it. Contrary to many on this forum the world is not longing for a resurgent Russian empire.

[Matteo Martini]

So you want the Bear back in full vigor right?

Never said that.
It is not the bear coming in full vigor. It is the dragon

[SezMe]

Contrary to many on this forum the world is not longing for a resurgent Russian empire.
Texas, your penchant for exaggeration is showing in this thread. First the silly "better red than dead" comment and now this.

So, since there are "many" such people on this forum it should be very easy for you to name, say, three.

[Texas]

Texas, your penchant for exaggeration is showing in this thread. First the silly "better red than dead" comment and now this.

So, since there are "many" such people on this forum it should be very easy for you to name, say, three. Just read the following thread:


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120607

[Texas]

Texas, your penchant for exaggeration is showing in this thread. First the silly "better red than dead" comment and now this.

.


What does this rediculous statement say?

In all actuality i agree with the Russians although they are threatening to nuke me.

[Ysidro]

Oh come off it. The Soviet Union was real and it was the USSR because it did what it is now trying to do to Georgia. This time the world is pushing back. Poland is in the lead along with the unified Baltic states. Putin overplayed his hand.

Right, so you do believe in the Red Menance. Gotcha.

[SezMe]

Just read the following thread:


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120607
I'm not going to read through 16 pages in order to do your work for you. You made the claim - now back it up.

[SezMe]

What does this rediculous statement say?
I dunno. You left out the link so I have no context. And even if I did, you're asking the wrong person. Ask the poster.

[Whiplash]

I can understand why they would be so angry that the United States wants to implement a missile defense system in Europe.
Its almost degrading to Russian military because it will render their ICBMs somewhat useless if im not misunderstanding how the system works.
Also this would give us the clear advantage over them if we were to ever break out into conflict with Russia.

Missle defense systems, if they even fully work, are by their very definition defensive weapons, not offensive arsenals. Their existence should only threaten someone who actually intends to use missles and doesn't want them shot down.

I understand that some people think that having some kind of balance with Russia is a good thing, but even when just developing a defensive system as a deterant to their hostilities, many still get all worked up. This doesn't make any sense, logically.

If you are against them based on the cost and uncertainty of their working, that's a different story. But to say it's not "fair" to Russia is ridiculous, IMO. It's a defensive deterant. It should only be a problem for someone who actually intends to start lobbing big nuclear missles around, which would be reprehensibe and unforgivable.

[Matteo Martini]

Missle defense systems, if they even fully work, are by their very definition defensive weapons, not offensive arsenals. Their existence should only threaten someone who actually intends to use missles and doesn't want them shot down.


If I were Russia I would start to sell "defense" military systems to Venezuela and Iran, and give them technology to produce their nuclear power for energy too.

[Cleon]

I can't believe the "better red than dead" mentality around here.

You've gotta be *********** kidding me.


Listen to me very carefully:

The Cold War is over. The Soviet Union no longer exists.


There is no serious dispute of the above facts. Viewing the Russian situation in terms of decades-old talking points is just silly.

[moon1969]

Oh really? Last time I checked Poland independent country. Russia has no right to tell an independent country what it can do and what it can"t do.

[moon1969]

sooner the Americans? When will Vladimir Putin understand that Russia can"t tell an independent country what it can do and what it can"t do?

[The Fool]

Missle defense systems, if they even fully work, are by their very definition defensive weapons, not offensive arsenals. Their existence should only threaten someone who actually intends to use missles and doesn't want them shot down.



issile defence systems,if they even work, are indeed defensive weapons. So are suits of armor. This is why Knights have never been successful as an offensive weapon?

In a world balanced for decades by a mutual assured destruction reality then an anti-missile system, if it works, reopens offensive capabilities of the owner. If the russians perfected a system that made them immune to US nuclear weapons do you think the US would be comforted by your "defensive weapon" claim?

anyway, if its as good as patriot was it will be largly irrelevant.....expensiv too.

[Travis]

issile defence systems,if they even work, are indeed defensive weapons. So are suits of armor. This is why Knights have never been successful as an offensive weapon?

In a world balanced for decades by a mutual assured destruction reality then an anti-missile system, if it works, reopens offensive capabilities of the owner. If the russians perfected a system that made them immune to US nuclear weapons do you think the US would be comforted by your "defensive weapon" claim?

A missile defense system is supposed to comfort the one deploying it, not their potential enemies. The idea is deter the enemy by making the prospect of their attacks less comfortable.

[Oliver]

If I were Russia I would start to sell "defense" military systems to Venezuela and Iran, and give them technology to produce their nuclear power for energy too.


I would even send Nukes to Iran and donate some Interceptors, just as a "tweaking hawkish noses - counterbalance" to the missile defense system. :D

[Oliver]

sooner the Americans? When will Vladimir Putin understand that Russia can"t tell an independent country what it can do and what it can"t do?


At the exact point when the hawks understand that they're doing the friggin same thing all the time - with faaar more aggression than the red's themselves... :rolleyes:

[Darat]

...snip..

Its almost degrading to Russian military because it will render their ICBMs somewhat useless if im not misunderstanding how the system works.

...snip...

Leaving aside that I think you are at least slightly misunderstanding the shield how in anyway can this be considered "degrading"?

[Thunder]

Correction: Russia didnt threaten anything. some stupid Russian General who does not speak for Russia threatened something.

If Putin says the same thing, then we have a problem.

why would we put an anti-missile system, supposedly pointed at the Middle East, in Poland? if we are worried about a missile from Iran or Syria, we would put the system in Greece or Italy.

if Russia put an anti-missile system in Cuba or Mexico, and claimed it was aimed at rogue missiles from england or iceland, the usa would be very suspicous and would makea threat too.

[Wildy]

Leaving aside that I think you are at least slightly misunderstanding the shield how in anyway can this be considered "degrading"?

[whiny 5 year old voice]

But it's just *sniff* nOT FAIR!!!!!!!

*cries*

[/whiny 5 year old voice]

[Nogbad]

Countries have war plans and in those plans are key targets. At the moment Polish installations are not primary targets in the Russian war plan. The Defence Shield, however, will be and consequently will be allotted weapons to target it.

However, this would only actually be an issue if there was a war (in which case it is probably academic anyway). The General has rather clumsily pointed out that Poland is becoming a player in the international game of war plans chess. It is not a "put those there and we will nuke them" threat, it is more a "put them there and you go on our war plan" threat.

However, as Bush has gone out of his way to point out that these are not anti-Russian shields then there isn't going to be a war so the matter doesn't arise. :D

In truth the Russians have so many missiles they could swamp the Shield and render it useless so a lot of this is just posturing.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

why would we put an anti-missile system, supposedly pointed at the Middle East, in Poland? if we are worried about a missile from Iran or Syria, we would put the system in Greece or Italy.

Evidence? The guys on CNN disagree.

[SezMe]

When will Vladimir Putin understand that Russia can"t tell an independent country what it can do and what it can"t do?
*snort* Roughly at the same time that the CIA understands it can't overthrow foreign governments it doesn't like. You've got a mote/beam problem.

[Darth Rotor]

Missle defense systems, if they even fully work, are by their very definition defensive weapons, not offensive arsenals. Their existence should only threaten someone who actually intends to use missles and doesn't want them shot down.
Precisely. Also, I don't think Russia wants to nuke Eastern Europe. Nuking it would ruin its value. It wants more influence there, however . . . but given recent history, Eastern Europe is for the nonce a bit more interested in consorting with Central and Western Europe, and the US, for obvious reasons.

This BMD complaint by the Russians is a Red Herring.

Yes, pun intended. :D

If you are against them based on the cost and uncertainty of their working, that's a different story. But to say it's not "fair" to Russia is ridiculous, IMO.

Yep. It ignores the nature of the thing itself.

DR

[CapelDodger]

I'm not going to read through 16 pages in order to do your work for you. You made the claim - now back it up.

I'm pretty sure he'd include me. Wrongly, of course. I'm sitting safely on the sidelines watching what's going on, including the hyperbole (lots of that going about). I've no particular liking for Poles, Russians, or Caucasians.

[Beerina]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UExHgRrRaq4&feature=related

This supposed threat was in response to the U.S. building missile defense systems in Europe.

In all actuality i agree with the Russians although they are threatening to nuke me.
I can understand why they would be so angry that the United States wants to implement a missile defense system in Europe.

Epic fail, you've already played into the hands of those who seek power in totalitarian societies -- treating the "Russians" as a society, rather than as a hundred and fifty million people losing their freedom to thugs.

[CapelDodger]

Precisely. Also, I don't think Russia wants to nuke Eastern Europe. Nuking it would ruin its value.

And it's up-wind.

It wants more influence there, however . . . but given recent history, Eastern Europe is for the nonce a bit more interested in consorting with Central and Western Europe, and the US, for obvious reasons.

There's still a lot of work to do in Eastern Europe untangling the mafias from the governments.

This BMD complaint by the Russians is a Red Herring.

Yes, pun intended. :D

It's nothing the Russians haven't said before. What stands out about this deal is its timing and (alleged) fast-tracking. It appears to be a very clumsy diplomatic ploy which will have made a lot of people wince.

It got the headlines it was aiming for, so to that extent it worked.

Meanwhile, back in Georgia, US demands that the Russians go away are falling on deaf ears. First rule of demands : don't demand what you can't enforce.

[CapelDodger]

In truth the Russians have so many missiles they could swamp the Shield and render it useless so a lot of this is just posturing.

It's diplomatic shadow-boxing, signifying nothing. The aim is probably to distract attention from the raging US impotence in Georgia, amid reports that the Russians are being increasingly provocative.

[CapelDodger]

sooner the Americans? When will Vladimir Putin understand that Russia can"t tell an independent country what it can do and what it can"t do?

The Russians are demonstrating that they can, and will, dictate what happens in Georgia. If the Georgians get out-of-order, the Russians will ut them straight. And there's not a damn' thing anybody can do about it.

[applecorped]

Do you think for a second that if Russia could put up a credible MDS they wouldn't do it? I can't believe the "better red than dead" mentality around here.


Isn't it "Better Dead than Red?"

[applecorped]

The Russians are demonstrating that they can, and will, dictate what happens in Georgia. If the Georgians get out-of-order, the Russians will ut them straight. And there's not a damn' thing anybody can do about it.

Can and Will are two different things.

[CapelDodger]

Can and Will are two different things.

Russia is demonstrating both in Georgia. The US is demonstrating what it can't do. Vociferously.

[CapelDodger]

Epic fail, you've already played into the hands of those who seek power in totalitarian societies -- treating the "Russians" as a society, rather than as a hundred and fifty million people losing their freedom to thugs.

Russia is a democracy; it chooses its thugs. Putin is their favoured thug.

Georgia is a democracy, and Saakashvili is their favoured thug. Not for much longer, I suspect; the Mark of Milosevich is upon his brow.

[applecorped]

Russia is demonstrating both in Georgia. The US is demonstrating what it can't do. Vociferously.

Won't.

[Matteo Martini]

Evidence? The guys on CNN disagree.

CNN is an American news provider

Oh really? Last time I checked Poland independent country. Russia has no right to tell an independent country what it can do and what it can"t do.

You gotta be kidding.
Have right or not?
International politics does not work this way.
Why do you think Karzai is the president of Afghanistan and Musharraf is still in power in Pakistan despite 95% or so of the Pakistani does not like him?

[Darth Rotor]

CNN is an American news provider
It is a multinational news company headquartered in America. It is not controlled by the US government.

Got it?
Why do you think Karzai is the president of Afghanistan and Musharraf is still in power in Pakistan despite 95% or so of the Pakistani does not like him?
Why do you think Mugabe is in power in Zimbabwei? Why do you think the Junta is in power in burma? Is it due to America? Is it due to the people's love for them? Is it perhaps due to something else?

DR

[Matteo Martini]

It is a multinational news company headquartered in America. It is not controlled by the US government.

Got it?


You write you want to "educate" in this forum, and you do not anything about International Politics 101.
I suggest you to read something about manufacturing consent by the US Media.
ALL the US media are influenced (not controlled) by the US government, exactly like the press is influenced by the government in any other country.


Why do you think Mugabe is in power in Zimbabwei? Why do you think the Junta is in power in burma? Is it due to America? Is it due to the people's love for them? Is it perhaps due to something else?

DR

You write you want to "educate" in this forum, and you do not anything about International Politics 101.
Look at which job did Karzai before becoming president of Afghanistan.

[dudalb]

You Matteo, you are really demonstrating that along with your hatred for the US you have a real ignorance of it.

[dudalb]

Russia is a democracy; it chooses its thugs. Putin is their favoured thug.

Georgia is a democracy, and Saakashvili is their favoured thug. Not for much longer, I suspect; the Mark of Milosevich is upon his brow.

Why are you so freaking in love with Putin?

[KoihimeNakamura]

You write you want to "educate" in this forum, and you do not anything about International Politics 101.
I suggest you to read something about manufacturing consent by the US Media.
ALL the US media are influenced (not controlled) by the US government, exactly like the press is influenced by the government in any other country.

Hmm. I've never heard this in any politics class ever. It's usually only repeated by people who are slightly paranoid.


You write you want to "educate" in this forum, and you do not anything about International Politics 101.
Look at which job did Karzai before becoming president of Afghanistan.

Hm. He appeared to be leading the Northern Alliance, or at least involved with them. This isbad how?

[Matteo Martini]

Hmm. I've never heard this in any politics class ever. It's usually only repeated by people who are slightly paranoid.
[..]

I assume you took political classes in an American University.
Go read "Manufacturing consent" by Chomsky.
Where the media of all nations take the money from?

Presenting an analysis its authors call the "propaganda model," the book argues that since mass media news outlets are now run by large corporations, they are under the same competitive pressures as other corporations. According to the book, the pressure to create a stable, profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported. This occurs not as a result of conscious design but simply as a consequence of market selection: those businesses who happen to favor profits over news quality survive, while those that present a more accurate picture of the world tend to become marginalized.

[OneShotKi11]

I dont understand how any of you cant look at this from the Russian point of view!

Nations power over each other, and their power within themselves against other nations is the fact that whatever is done to them can be dished back out, in which this knowledge gives a balance to political and physical power.

The U.S. placing a Missie defense system in Russia's area of power renders any threats of international power from them within warfare useless.

Neighboring countries and beyond will now laugh and mock Russia knowing America will keep it safe from any extremely dangerous intercontinental attacks and beyond.

How do you not see how this affects Russia?
Maybe i am to immature and naive but i always refer things to personal experience and try to compare.
Anyone ever play the Game civilization?
Childish yes, but to me it helps convey a point!
In the game you try to build a powerful empire and maintain a strong power influence against other players building their countries! When a country begins to build an international Ballistic missile defense system you begin to get worried/annoyed!
Why?
Because you know that with that technology they are rendering anything you built and striven to get to show power within the world your playing in, will now be rendered useless and laughable!
Other countries will now never show you the respect you played to get, for the fact that you now have no power over them as long as they side with the right individuals.
I feel this relates in a childish way but to me it still hold true in the real world.

If the United States builds a system in Poland or anywhere near Russia i will never fear the Russians again. I will feel we have already won against them and will never consider them a threat ever. This to me is what the Russians dont want and especially in the regions around them!

P.S. Before Darth Rotor rips into me with his logic. I have been drinking and this is the best loser response i can give!
I will regret this in the morning but so be it!

Enjoy! I feel i made somewhat of a point with my stupid example!

[Matteo Martini]

I dont understand how any of you cant look at this from the Russian point of view!
[..]

As 90% of the Americans are trapped in this logic:
We are the good ones.
Why the others (Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, ..) hate us?
As they are bad.
This gives us the right to fight/bully/push/intimidate them.

They also believe 100% of what the American media tell them (America is "good", the rest of the world is either "bad" or progressing from "bad" to "good")

[gumboot]

Russia is demonstrating both in Georgia. The US is demonstrating what it can't do. Vociferously.


The only thing holding back the US is their own will. If they wanted to they could clear Russia out of Georgia with ease. They don't want to.

[Matteo Martini]

The only thing holding back the US is their own will. If they wanted to they could clear Russia out of Georgia with ease. They don't want to.

Russia has many nuclear headed-ICMBs which can perforate any space shield and strike any American city.
America has to be quite careful not to push their hand too far.

[CapelDodger]

The only thing holding back the US is their own will. If they wanted to they could clear Russia out of Georgia with ease. They don't want to.

The Russians hold the coast, and they could hold the air if they wanted to. So how on earth could the US get forces into Georgia in the first place? And while they're getting them there the Russians would be digging in their anti-aircraft batteries on the North Caucasus Range. A fleet in the Black Sea would be horribly vulnerable, and don't expect any help from the Ukrainians - they've got a gun to their head.

So not at all, let alone "with ease".

[CapelDodger]

Why are you so freaking in love with Putin?

Why are you so angry? It can't be good for you.

[Wire]

According to OSCE Georgia is somewhat more democracy than Russia.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I assume you took political classes in an American University.
Go read "Manufacturing consent" by Chomsky.
Where the media of all nations take the money from?

I've read and seen it and Chomsky doesn't know what he's talking about. =p


Presenting an analysis its authors call the "propaganda model," the book argues that since mass media news outlets are now run by large corporations, they are under the same competitive pressures as other corporations. According to the book, the pressure to create a stable, profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported. This occurs not as a result of conscious design but simply as a consequence of market selection: those businesses who happen to favor profits over news quality survive, while those that present a more accurate picture of the world tend to become marginalized.

Yes. But that doesn't mean the government's doing it (also doesn't mean ALL of it's being supressed)

[Darth Rotor]

You write you want to "educate" in this forum, and you do not anything about International Politics 101.
A bit more than you, amico, if your comments on this forum are any evidence of your understanding. .
I suggest you to read something about manufacturing consent by the US Media.
I have. I even commented on a very good article a few months back about the unethical conduct of some serving officers in the Pentagon in how the information war was waged.
ALL the US media are influenced (not controlled) by the US government, exactly like the press is influenced by the government in any other country.
You just said a whole lot of nothing.
You write you want to "educate" in this forum, and you do not anything about International Politics 101.
A bit more than you, amico.
Look at which job did Karzai before becoming president of Afghanistan.
You fail to look at the longer view. Karzai won't, as I see it, last a day longer than he can show he isn't the prime conduit to bringing aid money to his faction in Afghanistan. He is keenly aware, as someone who is familiar with the internal conflicts in Afghanistan, that what happened when the USSR pulled out, to the puppets of theirs, can happen to him when the Americans eventually leave. He's been walking the high wire for how many years (five, I think) and is still around. That could end tomorrow, and It Won't Be Voters who get rid of him.

Pay attention, Matteo, really pay attention, to something other than strawmen.

DR

[dudalb]

Why are you so angry? It can't be good for you.

If you were around in 1938, you would probably be talking about the Czechs the way you are talking about the Georginas.
And I will take a Goodwin rap for that comparasion.

[dudalb]

Russia has many nuclear headed-ICMBs which can perforate any space shield and strike any American city.
America has to be quite careful not to push their hand too far.

I almost think you would secretly like that to happen so the world would be rid of those horrid Americans.
And I note you double standard...you are trying to excuse and justify when Russia does the same thing you condemn the AMericans for doing..

[dudalb]

As 90% of the Americans are trapped in this logic:
We are the good ones.
Why the others (Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, ..) hate us?
As they are bad.
This gives us the right to fight/bully/push/intimidate them.

They also believe 100% of what the American media tell them (America is "good", the rest of the world is either "bad" or progressing from "bad" to "good")

So Americans are a bunch of idiots, basically?
And I note you seem to prefer Authritarian regimes to democracies.

[Darth Rotor]

The U.S. placing a Missie defense system in Russia's area of power renders any threats of international power from them within warfare useless.
The Poles get a vote, I would hope, on which power they align themselves with. OBTW, those missile systems don't render anything "useless" but they do afford a finite capability to defend some ares versus ballistic missiles.
Neighboring countries and beyond will now laugh and mock Russia knowing America will keep it safe from any extremely dangerous intercontinental attacks and beyond.
If they do that, they are foolish. Those missile defense networks are, again, a limited measure. There is no complete security, anywhere.
Anyone ever play the Game civilization?
Not a kid's game. (Did you frequent Civ Fanatics discussion board? A lot of adults seemed to interact there.) It is a decent one, as PC games go. My son used that as a springboard to ask me (Civ III era) a lot of questions about history and politics once he played that game. It sparked some interest.
In the game you try to build a powerful empire and maintain a strong power influence against other players building their countries! When a country begins to build an international Ballistic missile defense system you begin to get worried/annoyed!

Why?

Because you know that with that technology they are rendering anything you built and striven to get to show power within the world your playing in, will now be rendered useless and laughable!
Uh, no, at this point, the game stops being a good way to frame your thinking.
Other countries will now never show you the respect you played to get, for the fact that you now have no power over them as long as they side with the right individuals. I feel this relates in a childish way but to me it still hold true in the real world.
Uh, sort of. Sid Meier did a nice job in balancing that game, but let's not pretend it maps one for one to reality. ;)
If the United States builds a system in Poland or anywhere near Russia i will never fear the Russians again.
Here is where the reality part steps in. Any defensive system, or offensive system, can be countered. (See Starcraft for a fine rock/paper/scissors example of counters well depicted in a game.)
I will feel we have already won against them and will never consider them a threat ever. This to me is what the Russians dont want and especially in the regions around them!
The bold part is where you slipped up.
P.S. Before Darth Rotor rips into me with his logic. I have been drinking and this is the best loser response i can give!
I often PWD as well. Cheers, and don't forget the aspirin and glass of water before trying to sleep off a few beverages.
Enjoy! I feel i made somewhat of a point with my stupid example!
Yes, somewhat. :)

In a nut shell, the BMD system is a symbol, and is being used as such, by the Russians, Poles, and Americans in political maneuvering, and the battle of symbols in the propaganda war.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

So Americans are a bunch of idiots, basically?
And I note you seem to prefer Authritarian regimes to democracies.

No. The most clever people are sometimes trapped in weird logic.
No. I do not like autoritarian regimes.

I almost think you would secretly like that to happen so the world would be rid of those horrid Americans.
And I note you double standard...you are trying to excuse and justify when Russia does the same thing you condemn the AMericans for doing..

No, I never excuse what Russian is doing, but Russians at least do not claim they are the leaders of the world, and bla..bla..

[Matteo Martini]

Yes. But that doesn't mean the government's doing it

Never said that is was (at least, not completely)


(also doesn't mean ALL of it's being supressed)

Never said that is was

[Matteo Martini]

If you were around in 1938, you would probably be talking about the Czechs the way you are talking about the Georginas.
And I will take a Goodwin rap for that comparasion.

And, if you were in 2003 in Iraq, you would be speaking about..

[CapelDodger]

If you were around in 1938, you would probably be talking about the Czechs the way you are talking about the Georginas.
And I will take a Goodwin rap for that comparasion.

If I were my age in 1938 I'd have been saying "told you so". The carve-up after the Great War carried the seeds of its own destruction.

Czechosolvakia was carved out of the Austrian empire. That empire had included the Sudetenland, which was mostly German but so were the Austrians. The Czechs insisted on the old border, thus taking a poison-pill on board.

Arbitrary borders as national fetishes are inherently destabilising. The arbitrary borders drawn up after the Great War would be less than a century old had they survived the re-drawing in the 40's and the new drawings of the post-Soviet era.

[Darth Rotor]

And, if you were in 2003 in Iraq, you would be speaking about..
What a bunch of pricks those Arabs are, were I a Kurd in Mosul. ;)

DR

[GreyICE]

Wow, didn't we go through this in, I dunno the Cuban Missile crisis?!? Which, btw, was something that America was more than an innocent victim in (we basically did a Cuba to them first).

Great. George W. Bush has brought our country to the brink of Nuclear War, the end of civilization and 9/10ths of our population. This is something no world leader has managed to do in 40 years.

Can we just *********** stop arguing about his *********** legacy now? He's the worst president ever.

[mr rosewater]

Wow, didn't we go through this in, I dunno the Cuban Missile crisis?!? Which, btw, was something that America was more than an innocent victim in (we basically did a Cuba to them first).

Great. George W. Bush has brought our country to the brink of Nuclear War, the end of civilization and 9/10ths of our population. This is something no world leader has managed to do in 40 years.

Can we just *********** stop arguing about his *********** legacy now? He's the worst president ever.

What are you ranting about?

[GreyICE]

What are you ranting about?

It's a little missile defense system crisis. You might have heard of it? Unless you're living under a rock?

[mr rosewater]

Yes, so how is it the same as nuclear missiles in Cuba?

[Policenaut]

A public missile defense system that Russia was invited to participate in vs a secret deal involving nukes 60 miles off the US coast. HMMMM ANY DIFFERENCE THERE?

[GreyICE]

A public missile defense system that Russia was invited to participate in vs a secret deal involving nukes 60 miles off the US coast. HMMMM ANY DIFFERENCE THERE?

Turkey. Jupiter. Look it up.

Funny when you have idiots forcefed propaganda, and it becomes obvious.

As for how this is similar, we're on the brink of Nuclear war. Again. Wouldn't think that would take a genius, but I constantly underestimate human stupidity.

[mr rosewater]

Wouldn't think that would take a genius, but I constantly underestimate human stupidity.

Look in the mirror.

[GreyICE]

Look in the mirror.

One of the few things that gives me hope for this race every day. :p

[mr rosewater]

One of the few things that gives me hope for this race every day. :p

There ya go, cheer up!

[GreyICE]

There ya go, cheer up!

Well then nameless other people come along and ruin it.

At least it gets off to a good start every morning.

[Policenaut]

The brink of nuclear war? Are you riding your donkey down the streets with lanterns warning the world of this? I got it. This must be the South Ossetia Crisis. Russia exposing the US (not so) secret plan to install DEFENSIVE missiles near a region of Russia that is possibly the least optimal place to put DEFENSIVE missiles IF they are trying to DEFEND against Russian missiles. I'm sure a wikipedia page explaining the international outrage will be coming forthright.

[Tailgater]

America will keep it safe from any extremely dangerous intercontinental attacks and beyond.

If the United States builds a system in Poland or anywhere near Russia i will never fear the Russians again. I will feel we have already won against them and will never consider them a threat ever. This to me is what the Russians dont want and especially in the regions around them!




Imagine you live in the former soviet bloc. Now repeat this part out loud ten times.

ETA: The Russians showed everyone in Georgia that a missile shield doesn't stop tanks.

[DC]

Russia threantens with Nukes
so did the USA, so did France
so what?
the Russians are not better than the USA in any way.

[OneShotKi11]

Wow what a bad last post by me....

Just got around to reading it again and its funny that i said Darth Rotor was gunna rip me a new one.

What was i thinking?

I still believe in the basic premise behind what i (my last post) was saying, but oh boy did i ramble.

[egslim]

Missle defense systems, if they even fully work, are by their very definition defensive weapons, not offensive arsenals. Their existence should only threaten someone who actually intends to use missles and doesn't want them shot down.
Missile defense systems don't exist in isolation. Assuming they actually work, they allow you to nuke an enemy without any worries about being nuked in return. That's about as threatening as can be.

The solution is to either build a missile defense system yourself, or escalate a nuclear arms race by building a nuclear arsenal that can overwhelm the enemy defense system.

Personally, I rather dislike the second option. While the nuclear geni is now irretrievably out of the bottle, I prefer a world where countries limit themselves to small numbers of nukes. Makes it easier to control them.

Assuming, of course, that the proposed system would be actually effective on a large scale. Which it won't, at least not initially, but the Russians probably don't like the thin end of a wedge and have a longer term perspective.

Correction: Russia didnt threaten anything. some stupid Russian General who does not speak for Russia threatened something.

If Putin says the same thing, then we have a problem.
If Putin didn't mean the same thing, that general would now be out of a job for interfering with Russian foreign policy.

The reason Putin did not say it himself was to not be unnecessarily provocative.

[egslim]

The only thing holding back the US is their own will. If they wanted to they could clear Russia out of Georgia with ease.
That's bollocks.

Most of the US Army is tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US Navy can only get to Georgia through the Bosporus. Assuming Turkey allows that - a large scale war at its border wouldn't make them happy - they'd enter a narrow, shallow deathtreap with only one, easy to close, exit.

That leaves the Air Force to operate in mountaineous terrain, which is about as unsuited to air operations as possible.

But most of that is academic anyway. Any large scale conventional war between major nuclear powers involves the ever increasing risk of nuclear escallation. Even during the Cold War US and USSR troops never fought each other directly (except through "advisors"), for precisely that reason.

The only thing the US could do in Georgia is bomb the place, while Russians dig in. That leads to an indefinate stalemate, with increasing losses on both sides making peacetalks ever more difficult and escallation ever more likely.

[GreyICE]

The brink of nuclear war? Are you riding your donkey down the streets with lanterns warning the world of this? I got it. This must be the South Ossetia Crisis. Russia exposing the US (not so) secret plan to install DEFENSIVE missiles near a region of Russia that is possibly the least optimal place to put DEFENSIVE missiles IF they are trying to DEFEND against Russian missiles. I'm sure a wikipedia page explaining the international outrage will be coming forthright.

By the time you get to the second page, you've completely forgotten about the OP, haven't you?

[WildCat]

Russia is a democracy;
That's debatable. IMHO a free press is essential to a democracy and Russia lacks that at the moment.

[gumboot]

Russia has many nuclear headed-ICMBs which can perforate any space shield and strike any American city.
America has to be quite careful not to push their hand too far.


Obviously. That's where the whole want thing comes into it. Georgia isn't worth losing US lives over.

[WildCat]

IThis occurs not as a result of conscious design but simply as a consequence of market selection: those businesses who happen to favor profits over news quality survive, while those that present a more accurate picture of the world tend to become marginalized.
Why do you assume people do not want an accurate picture of the world? Do you assume that your opinions are the "accurate" ones and all others are wrong and the result of stupid people being manipulated by the press?

[WildCat]

The U.S. placing a Missie defense system in Russia's area of power renders any threats of international power from them within warfare useless.
The Warsaw Pact is dead, and Poland is now a member of NATO and no longer in Russia's "area of power".

Russia doesn't like it, and they can go pound sand.

[gumboot]

The Russians hold the coast, and they could hold the air if they wanted to. So how on earth could the US get forces into Georgia in the first place? And while they're getting them there the Russians would be digging in their anti-aircraft batteries on the North Caucasus Range. A fleet in the Black Sea would be horribly vulnerable, and don't expect any help from the Ukrainians - they've got a gun to their head.

So not at all, let alone "with ease".


I think if the US wanted to it could secure air sovereignty pretty easily. Once that was done, the answer is simple. XVIII Airborne Corps. Once the US had them on the ground the Russians would be screwed.

[GreyICE]

I think if the US wanted to it could secure air sovereignty pretty easily. Once that was done, the answer is simple. XVIII Airborne Corps. Once the US had them on the ground the Russians would be screwed. This is a joke, right? Right? You're not seriously suggesting that two nuclear-equipped powers engage in direct conflict?

[WildCat]

The Russians hold the coast, and they could hold the air if they wanted to.
Do you know which country borders Georgia to the south, and which also has the entire south shore of the Black Sea? Do you know which military alliance said mystery country belongs to?

[gumboot]

That's bollocks.

Most of the US Army is tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You consider most to be less than 10%? Odd.

If the US wanted to it could put sufficient ground forces into Georgia to push the Russians out. It doesn't want to, obviously. Doing so would be stupid. As you rightly pointed out it would rapidly escalate, potentially even as far as Matteo Martini's nuclear holocaust wet dream. It would probably involve pulling forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan, amongst other places, and just generally making a shambles of things. No doubt it would result in a lot of Americans being dead. But they could do it.

[gumboot]

This is a joke, right? Right? You're not seriously suggesting that two nuclear-equipped powers engage in direct conflict?


I'm merely talking about capability. It's a question of whether the USA won't do anything about Georgia, or can't. I'm contending that it won't. I disagree with the assertion that it can't.

Given my earlier expression of disgust at the way larger nations use smaller nations as their personal play things, I think it should be pretty clear that I'm not suggesting anything like you mention above should happen.

[GreyICE]

I'm merely talking about capability. It's a question of whether the USA won't do anything about Georgia, or can't. I'm contending that it won't. I disagree with the assertion that it can't.

Given my earlier expression of disgust at the way larger nations use smaller nations as their personal play things, I think it should be pretty clear that I'm not suggesting anything like you mention above should happen.

I think it falls into the category of realistically can't.

If Russia wasn't nuclear armed, yeah, we could probably do something with the rest of NATO backing us up.

As it is, we can't because our military is run by realists. Any war, you need a hypothetical worst case. The worst case for Iraq, for instance, is that it turns into another Vietnam and we have to withdraw after massive international disapproval and casualties.

The worst case for intervening in Georgia is we all die. That's really not an acceptable worst case.

[WildCat]

The Russians hold the coast, and they could hold the air if they wanted to.
Think there's many Russian pilots itching to take on this bird?

j9LMsHJo3uo

[Big Les]

All of them, I should think.

[Horatius]

Yes of course, in their own country.
What would we say if they wanted to put one in Canada?
I can assure you we would not like it one bit!



"Canada, dude, WTF? We thought you were cool!"

[gumboot]

All of them, I should think.


Russia only has fighters that are comparable to the F-15 and F-16 and the F-22 annihilates F-15s and F-16s even when very heavily outnumbered. Their performance in the latest Red Flag exercises was quite phenomenal.

Russia's answer to the F-22 is still four years away at least.

[CapelDodger]

Missile defense systems don't exist in isolation. Assuming they actually work, they allow you to nuke an enemy without any worries about being nuked in return. That's about as threatening as can be.

Tanks, artillery, infantry, air-support and kick-ass quartermasters under a tightly integrated and effective staff structure with a defined objective ... that's threatening.

Anti-missile defence is posturing. It's transparent posturing. It's risible, rib-tickling posturing. And it would be very expensive posturing - if it was ever built. We're still at the cheap talk phase, after all.

Something that hasn't attracted much comment is that the Russians have been helping themselves to shiny new NATO-class equipment that was gifted to the Georgians, who subsequently proved themselves unable to look after it. Not their fault. Giving the Georgians any more would be like giving a kid a new dog because he let the previous one starve. Pleas of "It won't happen again!" would ring hollow.

[CapelDodger]

That's debatable. IMHO a free press is essential to a democracy and Russia lacks that at the moment.

Russia was a celebrated democracy under Yeltsin, and conditions were arguably worse in his day.

Democracy, diplomacy, hypocrisy ... the Greeks have a lot to answer for. it's their words that underpin everything that's imperfect in the world.

Saakashvili's approach to a free press is refeshingly direct and thuggish. The Russian approach is more subtle - swamp the airwaves with feel-good and let the dissidents squeak away to their heart's content.

There's a free press in the US, and its democratic processes are a frickin' circus. It's not much better in the UK.

[CapelDodger]

Do you know which country borders Georgia to the south, and which also has the entire south shore of the Black Sea? Do you know which military alliance said mystery country belongs to?

I wasn't referring to a NATO response, I was referring to a US response. Turkey isn't going to co-operate for free, and Turkey's focus is on Iraqi Kurdistan. What can the US offer them there? Nothing that doesn't demolish its shaky Iraq strategy. Just a couple of degrees of freedom and contradiction sets in.

Turkey sent its "Dear John" to the US when it declined participation in the Iraq War. Turkey can't be taken for granted.

They do have a free press and a democracy, though. It's been hard work, and it's not perfect yet, but Turkey is in a relatively good place right now.

[CapelDodger]

I'm merely talking about capability. It's a question of whether the USA won't do anything about Georgia, or can't. I'm contending that it won't. I disagree with the assertion that it can't.

The scenario must be hot stuff in the table-top strategy-game world right now. That's the arena in which it will be decided - and the US loses every time. More to the point, it doesn't even get to start in any credible scenario, such as right now.

Given my earlier expression of disgust at the way larger nations use smaller nations as their personal play things, I think it should be pretty clear that I'm not suggesting anything like you mention above should happen.

Speaking for myself, I understand and appreciate your position. We have to look at these matters dispassionately.

[WildCat]

I wasn't referring to a NATO response, I was referring to a US response. Turkey isn't going to co-operate for free, and Turkey's focus is on Iraqi Kurdistan. What can the US offer them there? Nothing that doesn't demolish its shaky Iraq strategy. Just a couple of degrees of freedom and contradiction sets in.

Turkey sent its "Dear John" to the US when it declined participation in the Iraq War. Turkey can't be taken for granted.

They do have a free press and a democracy, though. It's been hard work, and it's not perfect yet, but Turkey is in a relatively good place right now.
I was assuming you were working under the hypothetical that Georgia was a NATO country, (too many threads on this subject!) in which case they'd certainly be obliged to cooperate. Of course, they aren't and the US is certainly not going to war over Georgia when they aren't a NATO member.

But does anyone think Russia would have done what they did had Georgia been a NATO member? I don't think they would.

[Policenaut]

The Russian approach is more subtle - swamp the airwaves with feel-good and let the dissidents squeak away to their heart's content.

By subtle you mean when they're not assassinating reporters right?

[Matteo Martini]

Why do you assume people do not want an accurate picture of the world? Do you assume that your opinions are the "accurate" ones and all others are wrong and the result of stupid people being manipulated by the press?

People are not "stupid".
They only have the press and TV to get informed from.
And press and TV are in the hands of the big media groups, which have no interest (and a lot to lose) of portraing the government`s actions in an unfavourable way.

[gumboot]

And press and TV are in the hands of the big media groups, which have no interest (and a lot to lose) of portraing the government`s actions in an unfavourable way.


Most media corporates loves nothing more than finding fault with the government.

[KoihimeNakamura]

It'd make their station a well known and well watched one.

[Matteo Martini]

Most media corporates loves nothing more than finding fault with the government.

You wish..

[Matteo Martini]

Most media corporates loves nothing more than finding fault with the government.

US media..
They said the Ahmadinejad said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map (AFAIK false)
They wrote a lot about the recent suicide attack by bus of a Palestinian guy in Israel, but said nothing that the day before two people from Hamas got killed, probably by Isrealis.
They almost did not say (or said, en passant), that there is a million-barrel-a-day pipeline in the region of South Ossetia, and that was the reason of the war.
They said that all the reports about Saddam` s WMD were questionable years after (not before) the invasion was started.
Every time you read America`s sites about anything about anything regarding another country, the point of view of the other country is often mis-represented and some facts are skipped, you can understand it when you look at any of the other`s country web-site.
They write nothing about all the dictatorships that America supports/has supported, when McCain claims that the US export democracy all over the world..

[nexalacer]

I think the world would be safer if all of the American and Russian politicians offed themselves in MAD. The tragedy would be all of the innocent people that would die just for living in Washington D.C. and Moscow. But regardless, it won't happen, politicians aren't stupid enough to draw nukes to their door step, no matter how much muscle flexing they do.

[CapelDodger]

But does anyone think Russia would have done what they did had Georgia been a NATO member? I don't think they would.

A hypothetical to far for me. Georgia wouldn't be in NATO unless we were sure they wouldn't do what they did in South Ossetia. Which is one reason why it isn't in NATO, of course. The South Ossetia and Abkhazia disputes will have to be resolved first, in a manner acceptable to all concerned. At which point Russia will have no need to intervene and all would be quiet in the Caucasus. Or as quiet as it ever gets up there.

[CapelDodger]

By subtle you mean when they're not assassinating reporters right?

Hey, I didn't say they were blameless. A lot of murky stuff goes on in Russia. Putin is ex-KGB, after all.

[CapelDodger]

People are not "stupid".

Most of them are. I've met loads of them and I've been forced to that conclusion. Fortunately the stupidness far outweighs the nastiness. It's the clever nasty bastids that give offense and should be plucked out.

[CapelDodger]

I think the world would be safer if all of the American and Russian politicians offed themselves in MAD. The tragedy would be all of the innocent people that would die just for living in Washington D.C. and Moscow. But regardless, it won't happen, politicians aren't stupid enough to draw nukes to their door step, no matter how much muscle flexing they do.

I've always drawn comfort from that. The people who could start a nuclear exchange have the most to lose from it. They have their nice homes, their families, their lovers, cars, suits, yachts ... At some level in the chain-of-command from mad President to launch, people will rebel. A shock-wave will rebound back up the chain, and sudden health issues will remove the President. Or something like that. Long story short : it ain't gonna happen.

What isn't comforting is how much damage we could do before nuclear weapons. Industrialised warfare is inhuman enough.

[Ziggurat]

They said the Ahmadinejad said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map (AFAIK false)

Well, you don't know much then. "wipe off the map" is an English idiom. The actual words he used do not translate literally to "wipe off the map", but something closer to "erase from the pages of time". But that comes across a little funny in English, so it was translated to a more familiar form which maintained the same essential meaning.

[CapelDodger]

Well, you don't know much then. "wipe off the map" is an English idiom. The actual words he used do not translate literally to "wipe off the map", but something closer to "erase from the pages of time". But that comes across a little funny in English, so it was translated to a more familiar form which maintained the same essential meaning.

Israel will pass into the pages of history, just as the Crusader Kingdoms did, and the sooner the better. That's yet another alternative rendition.

Poland mostly exists in the pages of history, popping out now and then in various locations. We happen to be in one of the "there is a Poland" periods. What's new is that we're in a "there is a Ukraine" and "there is a Georgia" period. Apart from the Tsarist to Communist interregum these places never existed at all.

[gumboot]

Well, you don't know much then. "wipe off the map" is an English idiom. The actual words he used do not translate literally to "wipe off the map", but something closer to "erase from the pages of time". But that comes across a little funny in English, so it was translated to a more familiar form which maintained the same essential meaning.


Actually "Erase from the pages of time" is a perfectly usable phrase in English (probably better translated as "pages of history"), and if you ask me, much more severe than "Wipe off the Map".

Wiping them off the map implies Israel won't exist any more - you could argue he just has an issue with Israel as a state.

"Erase from the pages of time/history" implies not just getting rid of the State of Israel, but removing all evidence of it ever having existed - in other words Ethnic Cleansing. Another holocaust.

[gumboot]

Israel will pass into the pages of history, just as the Crusader Kingdoms did, and the sooner the better. That's yet another alternative rendition.


How do you get that from "vanish from the pages of time"? If you wanted to say that the regime must "pass into the pages of history" you'd phrase it as "enter the pages of time" not "vanish from the pages of time".

[Policenaut]

I think they mean it literally also. Look at the disinformation campaign in Iran to deny and twist the facts of the holocaust.

[Darth Rotor]

Turkey. Jupiter. Look it up.

Funny when you have idiots forcefed propaganda, and it becomes obvious.

As for how this is similar, we're on the brink of Nuclear war. Again.
No. Your logic is being replaced by hysteria, and flowing thuswise:

Russia says because you put up ABM's, I am forced to attack you.

That is "on the brink" in terms of being damned near red buttons being pushed.

That isn't the transaction here. You are watching a propaganda war. No brink of anything. Georgia isn't worth fighting over. We were closer to the brink in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War, but the red phone Washington to Moscow, the hotline, was a nice tool developed after Cuban Missile Crisis that helped mitigate that.

Now, in the past ten years, have the risks of nuclear exchanges increased?

Hell yes. But not due to American, nor Russian, nor Chinese actions.

NPT is dead, see Pakistan and India, for starters, and fill in other blanks as you like. Israel and Iran? There's a possibility in the near to mid term.

"We" are on the brink of nuclear war? No. Not even close.

Check back in a year or so, we'll see how things have improved or gone to the dogs.

DR

[gtc]

Israel will pass into the pages of history, just as the Crusader Kingdoms did, and the sooner the better. That's yet another alternative rendition.

I know that is the rendition that you would prefer. But is that the way the Iranians actually translated the speech?

[Matteo Martini]

Well, you don't know much then. "wipe off the map" is an English idiom. The actual words he used do not translate literally to "wipe off the map", but something closer to "erase from the pages of time". But that comes across a little funny in English, so it was translated to a more familiar form which maintained the same essential meaning.

You know nothing.
He was speaking about the regime of Israel, not about the people of Israel. Get informed.

[Matteo Martini]

Most of them are. I've met loads of them and I've been forced to that conclusion. Fortunately the stupidness far outweighs the nastiness. It's the clever nasty bastids that give offense and should be plucked out.

I do not really know if they are stupid or not.
As Gunboot, WildCat, Darth Rotor and Ziggurat show here, people tend to get attached at their ideal of nation, economic system, ideology, religion and so on.. and become unable to see the bad things in it.
I do not know if this qualifies for being "stupid".

[gumboot]

I do not really know if they are stupid or not.
As Gunboot, WildCat, Darth Rotor and Ziggurat show here, people tend to get attached at their ideal of nation, economic system, ideology, religion and so on.. and become unable to see the bad things in it.
I do not know if this qualifies for being "stupid".


What a stupid thing to say. You have no idea what my opinions are on nationhood, economics or religion (I don't know what you mean by "ideology").

The only "ideology" you've seen me practice is pointing out when you say stupid things.

Like now.

[Tailgater]

I do not really know if they are stupid or not.
As Gunboot, WildCat, Darth Rotor and Ziggurat show here, people tend to get attached at their ideal of nation, economic system, ideology, religion and so on.. and become unable to see the bad things in it.
I do not know if this qualifies for being "stupid".

What an incredible example of pot meet kettle.

[Ziggurat]

You know nothing.
He was speaking about the regime of Israel, not about the people of Israel. Get informed.

Israel is a democracy. Its government is not a "regime". You cannot remove a democratic government except by extreme violence. Are you honestly suggesting that the Islamic world can achieve that WITHOUT killing a large fraction of the Israeli population and driving much of the rest of it from the region? I really can't tell anymore: are you an appologist for despots, or are you honestly just this clueless?

As Gunboot, WildCat, Darth Rotor and Ziggurat show here, people tend to get attached at their ideal of nation, economic system, ideology, religion and so on.. and become unable to see the bad things in it.

I am not unable to see the bad things in the US. But unlike you, I do not romanticize dictatorships and attribute moral superiority to weakness.

[Darth Rotor]

I do not really know if they are stupid or not.
As Gunboot, WildCat, Darth Rotor and Ziggurat show here, people tend to get attached at their ideal of nation, economic system, ideology, religion and so on.. and become unable to see the bad things in it.
You are incredibly wrong in your assessment of me. I am indeed critical of my government. I am clear minded enough to understand propaganda when I see it, but I don't cry and moan about it as you sometimes do. I grasp that it is part of how the world works. People in any position who are trying to change things to their vision will always use the public debate, and the press, to establish and spread their views.

Other than that, how do you like living in the kitchen cabinets? :D

DR

[Matteo Martini]

I am not unable to see the bad things in the US. But unlike you, I do not romanticize dictatorships and attribute moral superiority to weakness.

Ziggurat, in Italy we would say that you have salami slices over your eyes.
When did I "romanticize dictatorships and attribute moral superiority to weakness"?

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat, in Italy we would say that you have salami slices over your eyes.

:rolleyes: And in the US, we would say you need to get whacked with a clue-stick.

When did I "romanticize dictatorships and attribute moral superiority to weakness"?

When you ignored China's history of conflicts with its neighbors and attributed their imaginary peacefulness to moral superiority in your comparison of the US's military history to everyone else. The salami slices aren't over my eyes, Matteo.

[CapelDodger]

I know that is the rendition that you would prefer. But is that the way the Iranians actually translated the speech?

That's not a translation, it's all my own work. "Pages of history" is a cliche, and I'm well guilty of those.

[CapelDodger]

How do you get that from "vanish from the pages of time"? If you wanted to say that the regime must "pass into the pages of history" you'd phrase it as "enter the pages of time" not "vanish from the pages of time".

I think "pass into the pages of history" serves quite well to express my opinion. Israel will pass, just as the Crusader Kingdoms passed. They weren't tenable, and Israel isn't tenable. It will vanish from the "now" at some point, but obviously won't vanish from history. There's far too much documentation surviving, and yet more accumulating as we speak.

[WildCat]

I think "pass into the pages of history" serves quite well to express my opinion. Israel will pass, just as the Crusader Kingdoms passed. They weren't tenable, and Israel isn't tenable. It will vanish from the "now" at some point, but obviously won't vanish from history. There's far too much documentation surviving, and yet more accumulating as we speak.
You could say the same of any country in existence.

[CapelDodger]

I think if the US wanted to it could secure air sovereignty pretty easily. Once that was done, the answer is simple. XVIII Airborne Corps. Once the US had them on the ground the Russians would be screwed.

Strategy game companies are working frantically on this scenario as we speak. Expect release any time now.

I doubt a US carrier group would fare well in the Black Sea. Will the Turks let them in, for one thing? The Russians would get very snarly about that, on the back of which the Turks would make demands. Something in the Kurdish line, probably, to secure their rear against Russian agression. And resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh "frozen conflict" in favour of the Azerbaijanis (good Turkish folk) and against pro-Russian Armenia.

And you don't mess with the Armenians. Check out their history, especially the last few centuries.

Long story short, the war would be lost in Washington before it even got started.

[CapelDodger]

You could say the same of any country in existence.

You can't of countries that have emerged from their geographical and historical circumstances. Britain is a country. France is a country. Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy are countries. There's no sign of these going away.

Israel is a colony, not a country.

[Ziggurat]

You can't of countries that have emerged from their geographical and historical circumstances. Britain is a country. France is a country. Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy are countries. There's no sign of these going away.

Israel is a colony, not a country.

America was a colony. So was Australia. But they are countries now. Israel is a country. The circumstances of its birth cannot change that. Tell me: what do you think is going to make Israel "go away"?

[Skeptic Guy]

I dont understand how any of you cant look at this from the Russian point of view!

Nations power over each other, and their power within themselves against other nations is the fact that whatever is done to them can be dished back out, in which this knowledge gives a balance to political and physical power.

The U.S. placing a Missie defense system in Russia's area of power renders any threats of international power from them within warfare useless.

Neighboring countries and beyond will now laugh and mock Russia knowing America will keep it safe from any extremely dangerous intercontinental attacks and beyond.

How do you not see how this affects Russia?
Maybe i am to immature and naive but i always refer things to personal experience and try to compare.
Anyone ever play the Game civilization?
Childish yes, but to me it helps convey a point!
In the game you try to build a powerful empire and maintain a strong power influence against other players building their countries! When a country begins to build an international Ballistic missile defense system you begin to get worried/annoyed!
Why?
Because you know that with that technology they are rendering anything you built and striven to get to show power within the world your playing in, will now be rendered useless and laughable!
Other countries will now never show you the respect you played to get, for the fact that you now have no power over them as long as they side with the right individuals.
I feel this relates in a childish way but to me it still hold true in the real world.

If the United States builds a system in Poland or anywhere near Russia i will never fear the Russians again. I will feel we have already won against them and will never consider them a threat ever. This to me is what the Russians dont want and especially in the regions around them!

P.S. Before Darth Rotor rips into me with his logic. I have been drinking and this is the best loser response i can give!
I will regret this in the morning but so be it!

Enjoy! I feel i made somewhat of a point with my stupid example!

You have a severly inflated sense of the capabilities of this ABM system. The Russians have thousands of nuclear warheads and missle delivery systems. The US ABM system won't even make a dent in it. The only thing it could serve to do is to make the US and Europe less safe than they are now. Because, if it came to a nuclear exchange, which I doubt, instead of a limited launch, Russia would feel compelled to overwhelm the defensive missle system with many warheads.

It's stupid to put the ABM system in place in the first place, but it's par for the course for the Bush administration.

[CapelDodger]

America was a colony. So was Australia. But they are countries now. Israel is a country. The circumstances of its birth cannot change that. Tell me: what do you think is going to make Israel "go away"?

The circumstances of its creation. How similar do you find them to those of the colonies in the US or the colonies in Australia? And how long are those colonies in Australia likely to last anyway? Forget the natives; check out the neighbours.

[Ziggurat]

The circumstances of its creation.

That's not an answer. States do not simply disappear. In order for it to go away, some force must destroy it. What force is that going to be?

Forget the natives; check out the neighbours.

In other words, you think Israel's neighbors will destroy it, but for some reason you're reluctant to provide that as your direct answer. And you think that they'll destroy Israel because of the "circumstances of its creation". But take a closer look at those neighbors: what do you think the circumstances of their creation was? The emergence of a self-sufficient and unified polity? Hell no. It's the arbitrarily carved up remains of the collapsed Ottoman empire. Why is that intrinsically more stable? The actual track record of the countries in the region suggests it's not.

[gtc]

You can't of countries that have emerged from their geographical and historical circumstances. Britain is a country. France is a country. Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy are countries. There's no sign of these going away.

Israel is a colony, not a country.

There is a very serious secession movement in Scotland and reasonably serious movements in Wales and Northern Ireland. At the same time a federated European nation can't be discounted as a possibility. I can't put a number to the probability of Britain being around in its present form in 100 years but it is certainly not 1.

Spain and Italy also have secession movements of varying seriousness.

The circumstances of its creation. How similar do you find them to those of the colonies in the US or the colonies in Australia? And how long are those colonies in Australia likely to last anyway? Forget the natives; check out the neighbours.

First of all, your condescending attitude towards Australia and the US is noted. In my experience such condescension from Brits reflects a sense of inferiority.

Secondly, would you care to explain what it is that makes Australia, the US and Israel somehow less legitimate than Britain and France? Why are we colonies and your good selves real countries?

Thirdly, would you care to explain why you think Australia and the USA are in danger of being swallowed by our neighbours?

Is this some form of the marxist dialectic?

[gumboot]

I think "pass into the pages of history" serves quite well to express my opinion.



Yay for your opinion. Unfortunately that's not what he said:

bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad

bayad - must
az safheh-ye ruzgar - from page of time
mahv shavad - vanish from

He said "vanish from the pages of time"

[gumboot]

Strategy game companies are working frantically on this scenario as we speak. Expect release any time now.


So you can't address the point?

[egslim]

You consider most to be less than 10%? Odd.

If the US wanted to it could put sufficient ground forces into Georgia to push the Russians out. It doesn't want to, obviously. Doing so would be stupid. As you rightly pointed out it would rapidly escalate, potentially even as far as Matteo Martini's nuclear holocaust wet dream. It would probably involve pulling forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan, amongst other places, and just generally making a shambles of things. No doubt it would result in a lot of Americans being dead. But they could do it.
That's a far cry from your "with ease" claim, which I therefore assume is now retracted.

How is the US going to get those ground forces into Georgia? Over land or by sea requires cooperation from Turkey. That country refused cooperation with the invasion of Iraq, and intervention in Georgia is even less attractive to them. Not to mention that Eastern Turkey has lousy logistics, and the Black Sea is covered by Russian subs, mines, missiles and aircraft.
Of course the US could invade Turkey to force its "permission", but we're discussing realistic political options, not writing a Tom Clancy novel.
Transport by air is simply insufficient for large numbers of heavy troops, so we can write that off.

And much of the US military has been focussed on fighting insurgents for several years now. I seriously doubt they are at peak efficiency for conventional warfare right now.

But most importantly, even without the risk of escallation the logistical difficulty of getting US troops into the Caucasus is prohibitive.

And where did you get the "less than 10%" from? If you compared the total number of US servicemen with the number of combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you need to realize that the majority of those service men form the army's "tail", and are not combat troops able to be deployed to fight Russians.

[egslim]

Anti-missile defence is posturing. It's transparent posturing. It's risible, rib-tickling posturing. And it would be very expensive posturing - if it was ever built. We're still at the cheap talk phase, after all.
Right now, it is posturing. Looking into the future it may very well become functional at some point, and then it becomes a real threat.

[Matteo Martini]

Israel is a democracy. Its government is not a "regime".

Maybe..
However, the point is that Ahmadinejad did not say "wipe off the map"


You cannot remove a democratic government except by extreme violence.

You can, by having the opposite side elected during elections.

[Darth Rotor]

You have a severly inflated sense of the capabilities of this ABM system.
He does indeed.
The Russians have thousands of nuclear warheads and missle delivery systems. The US ABM system won't even make a dent in it.
That isn't its purpose, and look, you just suggested a thousand ICBM salvo at Poland. No.
The only thing it could serve to do is to make the US and Europe less safe than they are now.
No, it increases the options, and makes the power game more complicated.
Because, if it came to a nuclear exchange, which I doubt, instead of a limited launch, Russia would feel compelled to overwhelm the defensive missle system with many warheads.
Yes, but where? ;)
It's stupid to put the ABM system in place in the first place, but it's par for the course for the Bush administration.
You are wrong. It's a calculated political move, and a BMD system (your terms are out of date, by the way) does more than defend against Ballistic Missiles. It is part and parcel to an integrated Air Defense and Air Command and Control system.

For Capel and Gumboot:
I think if the US wanted to it could secure air sovereignty pretty easily. Once that was done, the answer is simple. XVIII Airborne Corps. Once the US had them on the ground the Russians would be screwed.

Strategy game companies are working frantically on this scenario as we speak. Expect release any time now.

As I noted elsewhere, the XVIII Airborne Corps isn't arriving in Georgia any time soon. If it showed up, the US is screwed since its Contingency Corps is now tied down in rough terrain, and in a non decisive battlefield. That area is a meat grinder. Egslim addressed the logistics issues well a few posts up.

Air support would have to come from Turkey, possibly from bases in Bulgaria and Rumania. You don't send carriers into the Black Sea, they are capital ships.

I'll again ask: do you, gumboot, seriously think the Turks want to play along? Note their not playing long with 4th ID in Iraq.
I doubt a US carrier group would fare well in the Black Sea. Will the Turks let them in, for one thing?
See Montreux Convention, carrier ain't going there.
The Russians would get very snarly about that, on the back of which the Turks would make demands.
Bingo.
Something in the Kurdish line, probably, to secure their rear against Russian agression. And resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh "frozen conflict" in favour of the Azerbaijanis (good Turkish folk) and against pro-Russian Armenia.
Azeris have an opportunity here. I'd like to see an Azeri Irridenta movement in Northern Iran. :D
And you don't mess with the Armenians. Check out their history, especially the last few centuries.
The Turks messed with them rather handily, first portion of 20th century.
Long story short, the war would be lost in Washington before it even got started.
Shorter: US has no strategic reserve to mention of XVIII Airborne Corps is in Georgia, and US remains in Iraq. That's just begging people the world over to act up.

Mr Kim, paging Mr Kim: your opportunity is knocking . . .

DR

[Tailgater]

Because, if it came to a nuclear exchange, which I doubt, instead of a limited launch, Russia would feel compelled to overwhelm the defensive missle system with many warheads.



Doubtful that even in a full scale nuclear exchange that Russia would add to their own misery by creating nuclear fallout over the western side of the country, but you never know.

[WildCat]

You can't of countries that have emerged from their geographical and historical circumstances. Britain is a country.
I thought it was a Norman colony?

[WildCat]

I know that is the rendition that you would prefer. But is that the way the Iranians actually translated the speech?
Who translated this?

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped01.jpg

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped02.jpg

[Ziggurat]

Maybe..
However, the point is that Ahmadinejad did not say "wipe off the map"

No, he said erase from the pages of time. We've been over this already.

You can, by having the opposite side elected during elections.

That's not removing the government. Yes, yes, the Italians call it a change of government if a different party is elected, but that's bloody well not what I mean by it (after all, it's laws remain in place, most of the government employees remain in place, and the basic democratic structure remains in place), and a change in political party is bloody well not what Ahmadinejad is talking about either. Really, Matteo, that was a pathetic response.

[CapelDodger]

I thought it was a Norman colony?

It was conquered by William Duke of Normandy, which effectively meant that the Anglo-Saxon ruling class was largely replaced by a French ruling class. The French aristocracy were assimilated, which is why we speak English.

Colonising is not the same as conquest.

[CapelDodger]

Right now, it is posturing. Looking into the future it may very well become functional at some point, and then it becomes a real threat.

Like fusion power, it's one of those things that have been twenty years away for fifty years.

[CapelDodger]

Doubtful that even in a full scale nuclear exchange that Russia would add to their own misery by creating nuclear fallout over the western side of the country, but you never know.

There are some things you don't do into the wind ...

[CapelDodger]

Azeris have an opportunity here. I'd like to see an Azeri Irridenta movement in Northern Iran. :D

That's just mean. I like it.

[WildCat]

Colonising is not the same as conquest.
What country is colonizing Israel again?

[CapelDodger]

What country is colonizing Israel again?

Not a country, but a cause - in that case Zionism. The Crusader Kingdoms were colonies of a cause - in that case Christian jihad. Early colonisation of North America was mostly by causes, not by countries.

Israel was originally conceived as a colony, was instituted as a colony, and remains a colony, beset on every side by the natives. The native problem was short-lived in North America and Australasia, but in the Old World it's not so simple.

[CapelDodger]

Yay for your opinion. Unfortunately that's not what he said:

I don't give a toss what anybody else said, in any bloody language. I simply said my piece, expressing my opinion. Ahmed frickin' Dinna-Jacket paraphrasing Khomeina in Farsi is not something that interests me.

I was not quoting, interpreting, or alluding to :

bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad

(for instance)

Where I live, the Persians are far enough away that I don't have to pay them much attention at all, let alone learn the language.

[WildCat]

Not a country, but a cause - in that case Zionism. The Crusader Kingdoms were colonies of a cause - in that case Christian jihad. Early colonisation of North America was mostly by causes, not by countries.
No, early colonization of NA was by countries seeking unexploited riches, mostly England and France. I don't recall the Pilgrims, for example, claiming NA for the Puritans. It was 100% owned by the Crown.

Israel was originally conceived as a colony, was instituted as a colony, and remains a colony, beset on every side by the natives.
It was? To which mother country do they send their resources? Which country is taxing them?

The native problem was short-lived in North America and Australasia, but in the Old World it's not so simple.
And by "natives" you mean the people outside Israel (in Iran and Syria for example) who never lived there? What about the one million Arabs living in Israel proper, are they also "colonists"?

[Matteo Martini]

No, he said erase from the pages of time. We've been over this already.


He said that the regime of Israel should be erased, not the people, not the nation of Israel


That's not removing the government. Yes, yes, the Italians call it a change of government if a different party is elected, but that's bloody well not what I mean by it (after all, it's laws remain in place, most of the government employees remain in place, and the basic democratic structure remains in place), and a change in political party is bloody well not what Ahmadinejad is talking about either. Really, Matteo, that was a pathetic response.

So, what about the American candidates who do not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran??
Are they different from Ahmadinejiad?
Or worse?

[WildCat]

He said that the regime of Israel should be erased, not the people, not the nation of Israel
Really? Who translated this Matteo?

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped01.jpg

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped02.jpg

[Matteo Martini]

Really? Who translated this Matteo?

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped01.jpg

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped02.jpg

What does it mean:

Reporter: "Mr. President, which are the options with Iran?"
Bush: "All options are on the table"
Reporter: "Including nukes?"
Bush "Yes"

[Darth Rotor]

What does it mean:

Reporter: "Mr. President, which are the options with Iran?"
Bush: "All options are on the table"
Reporter: "Including nukes?"
Bush "Yes"
Matteo, can you please cite the news conference or interview that came from? (Link would be handy.) I'd like to keep it in the Favorites for future reference, for illustrative purposes when I discuss the below average US-Iran relationships.

Thanks.

DR

[WildCat]

:words:
Answer the question Matteo. Who translated the phrase in those banners? Do US translators do it for the Iranians, or did the Iranians themselves translate it that way?

[Matteo Martini]

Answer the question Matteo. Who translated the phrase in those banners? Do US translators do it for the Iranians, or did the Iranians themselves translate it that way?

Does it matter or not?.
As I read somewhere (you will pardon me the rude words) "Ahmadinejiad has Bush for the cojones"*
The US can not attack Iran as Iran can easily bomb the strait of Hormutz and send the price of oil to USD300 a barrel.
If Iran really wants the bomb, they will have it, whether you like it or not.

*note for the moderators.
please do not censor this word, as it is widely used all around the world, and not offensive

[WildCat]

Does it matter or not?.
Yes, it matters. You claimed the phrase translated as something else entirely, the Iranians seem to disagree. You make excuses for the Iranians they don't even make for themselves! If the Iranians say that's what it means, don't you think they should be believed over your tortured explanation?

As I read somewhere (you will pardon me the rude words) "Ahmadinejiad has Bush for the cojones"*
I think the phrase you're looking for is "by the balls".

The US can not attack Iran as Iran can easily bomb the strait of Hormutz and send the price of oil to USD300 a barrel.
Iran (and Iraq) tried that once before, without success. Look up "tanker war" for more info.

If Iran really wants the bomb, they will have it, whether you like it or not.
So you do think they're developing a bomb?

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, it matters. You claimed the phrase translated as something else entirely, the Iranians seem to disagree. You make excuses for the Iranians they don't even make for themselves! If the Iranians say taht's what it means, don't you think they should be believed over your tortured explanation?


I do not know where the pics were taken, so what can we say?
Is there any member of the government in the pic?


I think the phrase you're looking for is "by the balls".


That is the translation.


Iran tried that once before, without success. look up "tanker war" for more info.


Read here:

Iran's Hormuz fleet includes more than 1,000 heavily armed speedboats

WASHINGTON — Iran has expanded its naval presence in the Straits of Hormuz, the passage for an estimated 40 percent of global crude oil shipments.

[..]

At this point, officials said, IRGC has deployed more than 1,000 FPBs in and around the straits. The vessels, armed with cruise missiles, mines, torpedoes and rocket-propelled grenades, are up to 23 meters in long and can reach a speed of 100 kilometers per hour.

Link: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_iran_06_22.asp


So you do think they're developing a bomb?

Maybe. After all they need to protect themselves from the US, who has nukes and has threatened to use them against Iran.

[Darth Rotor]

Maybe. After all they need to protect themselves from the US, who has nukes and has threatened to use them against Iran.
For a second time, a request, for the cite of the interview or public statement that supports your memory of that. I seriously do want to have that handy for a future reference.

(My memory is that VP Cheney made more than one saber rattling remark about all options being on the table. However, other press conferences, etc, have doubtless happened than the one I remember.)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

WASHINGTON — Iran has expanded its naval presence in the Straits of Hormuz, the passage for an estimated 40 percent of global crude oil shipments.

At this point, officials said, IRGC has deployed more than 1,000 FPBs in and around the straits. The vessels, armed with cruise missiles, mines, torpedoes and rocket-propelled grenades, are up to 23 meters in long and can reach a speed of 100 kilometers per hour.
Up to 23 meters long. Hmm. 70 feet. OK.

As to numbers, might want to check here for a second opinion.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ships.htm

[Matteo Martini]

For a second time, a request, for the cite of the interview or public statement that supports your memory of that. I seriously do want to have that handy for a future reference.

(My memory is that VP Cheney made more than one saber rattling remark about all options being on the table. However, other press conferences, etc, have doubtless happened than the one I remember.)

DR

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-13-bush-iran-nuclear_x.htm

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-13-bush-iran-nuclear_x.htm
Matteo, thanks for the link, three years old, but I saw no reference in there to using nukes. I did see the reference to using force on Iran.

Do you have another link that spells out what you claimed it spelled out, that Pres Bush alluded to nukes?

But, he said, if diplomacy fails "all options are on the table."

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said.
Seriously, if Bush was that clumsy, I'd like to have it handy for a future reference.

You seem to have read something into his remarks.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

Matteo, thanks for the link, three years old, but I saw no reference in there to using nukes. I did see the reference to using force on Iran.

Do you have another link that spells out what you claimed it spelled out, that Pres Bush alluded to nukes?


Seriously, if Bush was that clumsy, I'd like to have it handy for a future reference.

You seem to have read something into his remarks.

DR

Directly from the site of the White House!!

Q Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?

THE PRESIDENT: All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so. The best way to do so is, therefore, to be a united effort with countries who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And that's why we're working very closely with countries like France and Germany and Great Britain. I intend, of course, to bring the subject of Iranian ambitions to have a nuclear weapon with Hu Jintao this Thursday. And we'll continue to work diplomatically to get this problem solved.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060418-1.html

[Ziggurat]

So, what about the American candidates who do not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran??
Are they different from Ahmadinejiad?
Or worse?

Well, yes, they are different. Refusing to rule out the use of a particular weapon is an issue of strategy (namely, there's no benefit to publicly ruling out their use, even if you have decided not to use them). Ahmadinejad talks about the destruction of a democracy as a goal. Of course they're different. Your moral relativism is in predictable high gear in the service of excusing the actions of dictators. You're becoming a rather dependable apologist for tyrants.

[Ziggurat]

So you do think they're developing a bomb?

From the way he writes about it, not only does he think they're developing nukes, he's happy about it. He thinks it's a chance to rub the US's nose in failure, and that possibility gets him in a tizzy.

[Matteo Martini]

Well, yes, they are different. Refusing to rule out the use of a particular weapon is an issue of strategy (namely, there's no benefit to publicly ruling out their use, even if you have decided not to use them). Ahmadinejad talks about the destruction of a democracy as a goal. Of course they're different. Your moral relativism is in predictable high gear in the service of excusing the actions of dictators. You're becoming a rather dependable apologist for tyrants.

Ahmadinejad has publicly states he does not wnt the bom, and the Internatioonal Agency for Checking Nukes (do not remember the name, sorry) is checking them continuously.
The US, do not only have nukes, do not only refuse to dismantle them, but also whine about Iran.
Two weighs, two measures, we say in Italy

From the way he writes about it, not only does he think they're developing nukes, he's happy about it. He thinks it's a chance to rub the US's nose in failure, and that possibility gets him in a tizzy.

Especially living in Tokyo, which could be a potential terrorist target

[Ziggurat]

Ahmadinejad has publicly states he does not wnt the bom, and the Internatioonal Agency for Checking Nukes (do not remember the name, sorry) is checking them continuously.

Wow. On the one hand you say that we can't stop Iran's nuke program, but now you're saying the IAEA can. Cognitive dissonance much? And why do you think the IAEA (whose name you should at least know if you want to talk about these issues) would be able to detect a hidden weapons program when they have never, in their entire history, discovered such a program before? And if Iran did want nuclear weapons, why on earth would Ahmadinejad say that? No benefit would come from public acknowlegement, only harm to them, so of course he would deny it. He would deny it regardless of whether it's true, and so we cannot use his statement as evidence of anything. Are you truly so clueless that you can't grasp this simple logic? Yes, apparently you are.

[Beerina]

After all they [Iran] need to protect themselves from the US, who has nukes and has threatened to use them against Iran.

You speak of Iran as if they're a bunch of free people rather than sixty million hostages being held captive by a bunch of religious thugs.

They have no more need to defend themselves than a bunch of people who take a theater full of people hostage need to.

"Oh, The Theater People are all the people in The Theater. The Theater People need to defend themselves against the police!"

[Darth Rotor]

Directly from the site of the White House!!

Q Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?

THE PRESIDENT: All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so. The best way to do so is, therefore, to be a united effort with countries who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And that's why we're working very closely with countries like France and Germany and Great Britain. I intend, of course, to bring the subject of Iranian ambitions to have a nuclear weapon with Hu Jintao this Thursday. And we'll continue to work diplomatically to get this problem solved.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060418-1.html
Matteo, I was hoping you'd not go there. It is very important to understand the context of that remark. I have quite a bit to share with you here.

I appreciate that not being a native speaker you might miss the subtle issue here, but you said he threatened to use nuclear weapons, when he did not so threaten. What he did was standard politicalese, and leave open that option.

I see why you read "I will use nukes" into that. That isn't what he said. He was being deliberately vague. However, I don't think it is wrong to infer that he wouldn't mind seeing some weapons that are not yet developed used on Iranian WMD installations (should they exist) and here is why. I think it was part of a bluff, but that's just opinion.

In 2005, when that interaction took place, there had been a lot of public debate about the so called "bunker buster," small yield tactical nuclear bombs being a viable option. These were wapons that were under development, but had not been fully funded, nor approved.

Donald Rumsfeld was an avid proponent of introducing them into the arsenal. So too were a lot of the silver bullet fools who have been in Washington for decades.

Me, I am against tactical nukes.

I will try to get you some up to date info, but back in 2006/2007, Congress didn't fund further work on that class of weapons. In short, whatever Bush was allegedly threatening Iran with didn't exist. It would be like me threatening you with a sword I don't own, since it is still at the foundary being forged. :cool:

In August 2004, Scientific American had a superb article on the troubles with that way of dealing with hardened targets, both technical and political. I get SciAm in paper, so I can't offer you a link, though one can buy a digital copy of the article.
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=A4C0C473-2B35-221B-675DA971076806AD
For the past two years, debate has again raged over these weapons. But lost in the frenzy has been adequate discussion of whether the military advantages of these weapons can offset their political and diplomatic liabilities. Non-nuclear alternatives to these technologies may well be able to achieve most, if not all, of the same ends with far less incidental risk-not just political and human, but military as well.
ETA:

Here is some info on an older weapon, whose yield is (my info is a couple of years old here) too big for the desired aim so loudly championed by the bunker buster crowd. What the silver bullet crowd want is a weapon that fills the gap between the largest penetrator, a 5000 pound conventional weapon, and this kiloton yield strategic weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

Some of its limitations are discussed here.

http://2007.zagimun.org/download/CD/topic-b/earth_penetrator_factsheet.pdf

I find myself in complete agreement with the following from the last article:

Problems with the RNEP
• The RNEP has been portrayed in the media as a low-yield or "mini" nuclear weapon designed to destroy deeply buried or hardened
targets with limited collateral damage (please see the graphic on the back page). However, Dr. Robert Nelson of the Federation of American Scientists has published a study demonstrating the physical impossibility of penetrating deeply enough underground to avoid widespread collateral damage, contamination and fallout.

He writes, "Even for the strongest of materials impact velocities greater than a few kilometers per second will substantially deform and even melt the penetrator."

The point is that there is a threshold at which increased velocities no longer result in greater penetration before the warhead is destroyed upon
impact. The overarching point is that any RNEP modification would never be able to burrow deeply enough to contain radioactive fallout.
• The NNSA has now made clear in testimony before Congress that it is no longer specifically seeking a low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapon. Instead, it is seeking to modify two existing warheads, the B61 and B83, with upper yields in the hundreds of kilotons, many times the destructive power of bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In combination with limited burrowing capabilities, the notion that a RNEP can somehow be a "clean" nuclear weapon for "surgical" use is a dangerous and provocative myth.
• The United States does not really need to develop a RNEP as it already possesses conventional "bunker-busters." While these weapons have limited penetrating and destructive abilities, they can be "laddered" in in by using a number of weapons in succession to defeat a hardened or deeply buried target without the use of a nuclear weapon.
How funding actually went.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3820.html
The Senate and House increased funding in line with administration requests for a new nuclear project called the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program. Ohio Republican Rep. David Hobson, who almost singled-handedly deep-sixed the administration request for a nuclear bunker-buster weapon in previous years, this year championed the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program, which in theory could build replacement warheads without resorting to nuclear explosive testing. However, without a new appropriations bill, the program is likely to revert to last year's spending level of $25 million.
Hmmm, looks like it isn't dead yet. This info is a couple of years old. Will try to get you more info related to 2008 appropriations.

For the year in question, 2005, when Bush made those remarks, this new silver bullet was going nowhere (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_12/DEC-Bunker/).

It is troubling to me that the newest coverage I can find is over two years old. My Google skills are rusty.
US drops nuclear “bunker buster” from budget (http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/weapons/dn8219)
14:03 27 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Shaoni Bhattacharya

Congress Cancels R&D for Nuclear Earth-Penetrator Bombs (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/congress-cancels-rd-for-nuclear-earthpenetrator-bombs-01404/)

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a781236465~db=all~tab=content~orde r=page
In 2004 and 2005, Congress denied Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator funding, leading the Administration to cancel it. How did this happen?
I am getting mixed signals.

DR