Bush looking to re-start Cold War with Russia

[atlrvr]

To Gusterfell.....by nature one system is defensive, and the other is offensive. Though I agree with erdogs that we need to get out of Europe and S. Korea, or at least reduce the presence we have.

To Metro.M.....Bush has failed the people in that he doesn't represent the opinions of the majority. We are far ahead of Russia in regards to virtually all economics and social measures. We live in a pretty self-actualizing society when we have time to concern ourself with what we consider the wrongs of our leadership and not what's for dinner, or why did the nice man down the street suddenly disappear.

I'm not giving our current leadership a free pass, but it's nice we are all afforded the time, resources, and protection to complain.

[cinco]

^ guys, we're talking about 2 countries - both, with superb natural resources and both with advanced technologies. sure, russia has taken a backseat to the U.S. in technology... but, that doesn't diminish the fact that they still have a ton of capabilities to pose a threat and cause damage.

some would argue russia poses more of a viable threat to us now, than during the cold war. b/c now with all the corruption - we have seen more and more high grades weaponary - wind up on the black market... thus in the hands of people who have no soveriegnty and to diplomacy to defend.

the truly scariest thing about this current situation is: two G8 countries are being presided over by failure and corruption.

putin appears to be trying to match the damnable hubris of our shameful leader.

[monsoon]

.....

To Metro.M.....Bush has failed the people in that he doesn't represent the opinions of the majority. We are far ahead of Russia in regards to virtually all economics and social measures. We live in a pretty self-actualizing society when we have time to concern ourself with what we consider the wrongs of our leadership and not what's for dinner, or why did the nice man down the street suddenly disappear. ...

[Captain Worley]

Cuba's missiles were designed to lob a warhead into the US. That is an offensive system. There is no comparison between the two.

[Gusterfell]

To Gusterfell.....by nature one system is defensive, and the other is offensive.

[monsoon]

Cuba's missiles were designed to lob a warhead into the US. That is an offensive system. There is no comparison between the two.

[Gusterfell]

Cuba's missiles were designed to lob a warhead into the US. That is an offensive system. There is no comparison between the two.

[Captain Worley]

You know as well as I that you are oversimplifying the message of Bush's missile shield. Why establish a system to defend oneself from one's allies? The missile defense system was intended to send the Russians a specific message, that they are not trusted. Bush reestablished a Cold War military policy towards Russia, and now we can't be surprised that Russia is responding, Cold-War-style, by developing countermeasures to that policy. Bush started this game, not Putin.

[Gusterfell]

By placing it in Europe, it can actually defend a part of Russia as well as Europe. Placement in S Korea will protect another big chunk of Russia. It has nothing to do with anti-ballistic missiles, and everything to do with Putin's inferiority complex.

[michaelskis]

They control a 1/6th of the world's surface. How much more do you want?

[monsoon]

By placing it in Europe, it can actually defend a part of Russia as well as Europe. Placement in S Korea will protect another big chunk of Russia. It has nothing to do with anti-ballistic missiles, and everything to do with Putin's inferiority complex.

[monsoon]

Tell that to Stalin, whose USSR was far bigger than Russia is today. Political boundaries change as politics change.

Today, the size of a political boundary means very little in the global world.

[Captain Worley]

For that matter, if this system isn't meant to defend against Russia, then who is the perceived threat?

[cinco]

the way i understood this whole issue is that putin/russia are not posturing b/c of a perceived attack by the united states... rather, that by implementing this defense shield - we have walked away from the ABM treaty.

i don't know the wording of this treaty... but, if we indeed are breaking from it - isn't that akin to breaking a promise. if so, it would seem that gives russia every right to not trust us.

also, i can't imagine that bush gets any brownie points for his hawkish, maverick, pre-emptive diplomacy.

[monsoon]

Basically the ABM treaty said that neither country would develop an anti-missile system.

[Captain Worley]

The ABM Treaty died with the USSR.

[DwntwnGeo]

I think its funny that a new bush-hating thread gets started here about every two days, but when someone started a thread a while back complaining about democrats it got closed because "we already have one of those".

[MadVlad]

Tell that to Stalin, whose USSR was far bigger than Russia is today. Political boundaries change as politics change.

Today, the size of a political boundary means very little in the global world.

[monsoon]

I totally agree with you torgo! Sometimes it seems a little one sided to me

[cinco]

The ABM Treaty died with the USSR.

[DwntwnGeo]

It's up to you to participate in this discussion. If you don't wish to put forth your side of the issue then I assume that nobody is twisting your arm to be here either.

[Gusterfell]

The ABM Treaty died with the USSR.

[flotown]

I agree with monsoon on most things on these forums, but even his thread title is a bit leading. Is Putin not complicit in this? Putin is a former KGB agent who is beholden to the hard liners who wish to revert to the ways of the Cold War past. But it is Bush who is looking to re-start the Cold War.

I agree that if Europe does not want the missle defense systems (which are to defend Europe from Iran, not Russia), then they should be abandoned. But let's be fair here.

As a sidebar, I sometimes read the political threads on this forum (and others) but rarely contribute to them. Half my friends are left leaning Democrats who you can't argue with. I'm an Independent, and no big Bush fan, but listening to them, you'd think that Bush was the anti-Christ. They side with Iran over Bush. They side with Chavez over Bush. They side with Putin over Bush. The war on terror is Bush's concocted reason to take away our freedoms and take over the world. The Fort Dix and JFK terror plots were set-ups. Hell, 9-11 was a Bush inside job, et. etc. ad nauseum. Then if I dare say that some parts of the Patriot Act are needed, for example, I'm called a Bush loving facist. Internet forums tend to lean politically left and the scenarios are often similar.

[Gusterfell]

They side with Iran over Bush. They side with Chavez over Bush. They side with Putin over Bush. The war on terror is Bush's concocted reason to take away our freedoms and take over the world. The Fort Dix and JFK terror plots were set-ups. Hell, 9-11 was a Bush inside job, et. etc. ad nauseum.

[erdogs]

It seems the only people who want this are the governments of Poland, the Czech Republic and the Bush administration. The people of those countries are overwhelmingly opposed to it, so I see this as a big mistake in going forward. From what I have read, it seems the leaders of these countries are trying to secure their independence and show a little muscle. I think Putin still has some aspirations of bringing back the territories of the former U.S.S.R and this will impede such an effort. What the Bush administration or the U.S. will get out of this is unclear.

The Democrats have been surprisingly quiet on this; now that they are in control of Congress they have the ability to stop it. They would get my support if they can derail this, so I hope they become more vocal. I do not believe this is in our best interest and I don't see why this is any business of ours. If Europe wants a missile defense system, they can pay for it themselves. It's time to cut the umbilical cord.