|
Obama's First Headache is Likely to Be Russia... WTF is going on there (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Why not put em in Israel.. seems the natural place for missle defence against Iran. Jews would love it too. |
Exactly my point. This isn't about Iran. Iran isn't dumb enough to do something as stupid as fire off missiles at Europe, let alone Israel. As I said, not even North Korea is that dumb. Regimes of all kinds, from democratic to despotic all recognize the nature of self-preservation. For example, Kim Jong Il may threaten South Korea with artillery on Seoul, but they know if they were to do that, their entire country would be razed to the ground. Therefore, in order to maintain the regime, they will not risk such an act as 1950. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Therefore, in order to maintain the regime, they will not risk such an act as 1950. |
then what happened in 1950 when self-preservation didn't seem so important? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
then what happened in 1950 when self-preservation didn't seem so important? |
Unifying Korea seemed to them like an act of self-preservation. Now that Korea is definitively split into two practically irreconcilable countries, with South Korea backed the USA, North Korea is not going to risk an attack on South Korea, because the preservation of the regime (which relies on ultra-strict internal stability) would be threatened by war. They can't even feed themselves, how the hell are they going to risk a war where the threat of foreign occupation could unravel Kim Jong Il's government in a flash? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Unifying Korea seemed to them like an act of self-preservation. Now that Korea is definitively split into two practically irreconcilable countries, with South Korea backed the USA, North Korea is not going to risk an attack on South Korea, because the preservation of the regime (which relies on ultra-strict internal stability) would be threatened by war. They can't even feed themselves, how the hell are they going to risk a war where the threat of foreign occupation could unravel Kim Jong Il's government in a flash? |
i agree that NK won't do anything, but self-preservation doesn't always drive actions. Hitler wasn't considering self preservation during WW2. Iraq wasn't considering self-preservation when it attacked Kuwait. i know you're going to say they did in some twisted way, but think about the fact that they probably knew there would be military consequences to their actions. someone acting in self preservation doesn't provoke a fight, they usually run away from fights. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i agree that NK won't do anything, but self-preservation doesn't always drive actions. Hitler wasn't considering self preservation during WW2. Iraq wasn't considering self-preservation when it attacked Kuwait. i know you're going to say they did in some twisted way, but think about the fact that they probably knew there would be military consequences to their actions. someone acting in self preservation doesn't provoke a fight, they usually run away from fights. |
Well, prepare for me give that "twisted way"...:disbelief
Hitler believed in the concept of Lebensraum. The "master race" needed land and raw materials for the preservation of Greater Germany. This could be said to be a huge motivation in Germany's conquests 1938-1942. 1942-1945 then became a real fight for self-preservation as the third Reich wasn't fighting for Lebensraum anymore, but now simply for it's existence, as the Allies had declared they would only accept unconditional surrender from Germany.
Iraq invaded Kuwait as self-preservation, definitely. First, Iraq was practically bankrupt from its war with Iran. Second, Iraq claimed Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq.
What both Hitler and Saddam miscalculated was their ability to contain retaliation from those they attacked. But in their basic motivation for their actions, it can still be said, they acted in self-preservation, albeit, a selfish one at that. But what country doesn't act in its own interests? None. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Russia likes to talk, lets see if they actually do anything.
Their biggest asset remains the control of gas to Europe, it's about time the Europeans started taking a more aggressive stance with Russia, the EU is formidable enough ffs. |
What are you talking about? Russia would be more than happy to switch the pipes off and instead pump to Asia and China. Silly European policies have been shifting Russia forcibly towards China, culminating in such developments as Shanghai Organization.
But Russia has obligations to Europe, guarantee to pump gas to them for the next what - 20-30 years? Russia, even in the darkest moments of the Cold War, has NEVER backed down on that. Until Ukraine and Belarus decided to play the pipeline game. No worries, there's the Baltic Sea pipeline being built as we speak to 100% guarantee Russian energy to European markets, so what are you blabbing about again? :p |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Maybe that's what it will take?
Unless you seriously believe Russia will start a war with the west... It's just so unlikely. They make their money by sending gas to Western Europe, it makes no sense to risk sanctions or a threat to their pipelines. |
LMAO! Europe will not DARE refuse Russian energy, because while they have loud mouths and complain they are happily taking in Russian energy because they dont have enough of their own! So where's the problem here? Russia's fault, as usual? |
|
|
| guerra-monstru |
| Why can't the Russians do as they please so long as it is in their own border? Or in the interest of their national security? Its not like they are saying they are going to be placing missle jammers in Serbia or Bulgaria or Iran? Their is no challenge to the US. Even if Russia did confront the US, how long would Russia last for? 1 week, a month, a year? Its silly that many believe Russia could last against the US or that their will be a confrontation. There wont be because the Russians would have to use their best weapon which would destroy us all. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Un-ing-believable.
Russian president Medvedev has just revealed a plan to extend the presidential term to 6 years 'to guarantee stability.' |
There are advantages and disadvantages to limiting Presidential terms. Limited terms protect a country from one person gaining too much power, however, it also means policy is only implemented for short term gains. In America, you need policies that show results within 4 years, otherwise you risk someone else coming in and reversing that policy. The most effective policies need to be long term, but if someone is going to come in 8 years later and undo all the good work then it's wasted.
What I object to, however, is this American-centric world view where America is the beacon for the rest of the world to follow. If a country operates a similar political set up then it is a democracy, but if it dares to decide for itself it wants to differ then it becomes a dictatorship! What elected representatives choose to do with their own countries is their business, even if it differs from the American model. In this case, Medvedev is doing nothing wrong... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Does anyone honestly believe we're placing "missile defense" batteries in Europe to protect against Iran?:rolleyes:...Honestly, that's got to be one of the stupidest things I've been hearing coming from our government. Russia sure isn't falling for that BS. Iran isn't dumb enough to be shooting missiles at Europe. Hell, North Korea isn't even that dumb...:rolleyes: |
Unfortunately you have completely the wrong idea about missile defence. The bases in Poland, Czech Rep and the UK (which I get to visit next month!!) are to defend against a missile launched from Iran (well, the Middle East region) and would be completely useless at defending against Russian missiles, not only for their location but because Russia has thousands of warheads (and many more thousands in reserve) which this missile shield simply cannot defend against.
Missiles fired from Russia would fly over Sarah Palin's house, or would be launched right on the coast line from nuclear subs. They would NOT fly over Poland!
But I don't think the missile shield is a defensive system, but an offensive system to increase American dominance over the Middle East (and all its resources), and THIS is what Russia feels threatened by. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by BloodlustShaman
Isn't there alot of neo-nazis or w/e in Russia?
I know there is a lot of racism in the world but isn't Russia up there as one of the top racism countries?
Anyone here know how bad racism is over there? |
Russia's government seems to have become extremely nationalistic since Putin took over |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Why not put em in Israel.. seems the natural place for missle defence against Iran. Jews would love it too. |
It would be a different type of missile that would be fired from Iran to America than what would be fired to Israel. Israel and America have already created the Arrow missile defence shield to protect Israel from short range missile attacks |
|
|
|
|
