See other Resistance Articles
Title: What If Putin Doesn’t Back Down?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.theamericanconservative. ... hat-if-putin-doesnt-back-down/
Published: Feb 4, 2015
Author: SCOTT MCCONNELL
Post Date: 2015-02-04 06:55:28 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 1412
Comments: 75
The Beltway's blind confidence in its ability to break Russia could push Moscow into desperate measures. What if Vladimir Putin really was tough? What if he would prefer to fight to the death rather than see his country humiliated by the West or his regime collapse into chaos—outcomes he likely regards as equivalent. Is this not possible? There is no shortage of American politicians ready to attribute the most vile traits to Putin: Hillary Clinton, far from America’s most extreme rhetorician, likened him to Hitler. It’s not, of course, a remotely legitimate comparison. But if Putin were one-tenth as reckless as he is commonly depicted, what conclusions ought we to draw? Leading papers of the Anglosphere are now promoting American plans to escalate the fight against Russia and its Ukraine intervention. Former government officials, polishing up their tough-minded credentials in preparation for their next administration job, recommend we begin major weapons shipments to Ukraine. Are trainers and advisers on how to use them included as well? Strobe Talbott in the Washington Post, Ivo Dalder in the Financial Times, the Washington Post editorial board, other major figures from Clinton-land and the permanent government are all on board for a major roll-out. Their idea is to make Russia pay a higher price in casualties if it continues to intervene on behalf of anti- Kiev rebels in the eastern parts of Ukraine. Mr. Putin “will settle only when the costs of continuing the war are too high” says Dalder. Supplying arms will “raise the costs” to Russia thereby leading to a settlement. Strobe Talbott says the same thing in the Washington Post—”further aggression” must be rendered “so costly” that Putin is deterred. Nowhere in these admonitions is there a suggestion that a negotiated settlement might include a codification of neutral, non-aligned status for Ukraine. The Russian leader who is regularly likened to Hitler is expected apparently to own up to his mistake and allow the country that has countless times served as an invasion route into Russia to be incorporated into NATO. Here’s a thought experiment—not original to me. I heard it voiced last week at a Washington think tank; it was expressed by a Russian immigrant to America, a man I know to be well informed about the thought processes of Russian leaders. What, so the idea was presented, would happen if the tightening economic sanctions, in conjunction with the collapsing oil prices, really did bring about a crise de régime in Moscow? Faced with hard currency shortages and galloping inflation, would the Putinites say simply, “OK NATO You Win. The Ukraine is Yours”? Or would they contemplate measures that might totally rejuggle the underlying realities? Take, for instance, the price of oil. It’s low, it’s collapsing. It’s the major source of Russia’s fiscal difficulties. Would it remain low if Israel launched an attack on Iran? The hawkish Israeli foreign minister Avigidor Lieberman was warmly received in Moscow last week. I don’t think Netanyahu would require much in the way of encouragement to launch an attack, and the promise of the backing of one major outside nuclear power might suffice. Or, playing the other side, would the oil price remain depressed if Saudi Arabia’s monarchy—we all know how stable monarchies are—began facing an armed insurgency, potentially targeting its oil rich eastern provinces? Take your pick, the Islamic State or Shi’ites, it’s not hard to find people who need little encouragement to fight the Saudi monarchy. Could Russia accelerate such insurgencies? Surely a desperate enough Russia could try. Or consider this scenario, the most shocking thing suggested by my Russian emigré interlocutor. Which Baltic country, in the midst of some manufactured crisis between pro- and anti-Russian elements, would be the best place to try out a tactical battlefield nuclear weapon? I can’t imagine such a thing happening—it would certainly be the most alarming event in international politics since what—the Cuban missile crisis? But, to say the least, one such explosion would pretty rapidly put an end to all speculation that Putin and his government are going to meekly comply if we only “raise the cost” to Moscow of intervening in Ukraine. I’m not a Russia expert, though I’m not really persuaded that Ivo Daalder and Strobe Talbott and company are either. But they, like much of the Washington political class, are convinced that it is their God-given role as elite Americans to manage the world, to bend it to our neoliberal capitalist sense of what the good society is. They are part of the seamless Washington web—the term military-industrial complex hardly seems adequate anymore—whose role it is to continuously expand the range of human activities that are supposedly Washington’s business, our ” vital interests”—invariably presented as what is best for everyone else. The Ukraine crisis originated, of course, with the efforts of various American and European elites to exploit longstanding historic resentments in that tragic land in order to count up a win for the West, a defeat for Moscow. Billions of dollars were spent laying the groundwork for a coup d’état and popular revolution—the Maidan campaign was a bit of both—and the efforts were successful. Bravo, said everyone. “It’s one for the history books” said our meddling ambassador after last February’s coup. Then Russia responded, and Washington and all the chanceries of Europe were taken aback by the vigor and violence of the response. So now they plot how to respond to Russia’s reaction. If the West amplifies the pressures just a bit, “raises the price” to Putin for trying to keep NATO out of his backyard, he surely must then submit and bless the transfer of Ukraine into the Western alliance. It’s logical that he would, just as it was logical that the North Vietnamese would submit to Washington’s carefully calibrated escalations of bombing of their homeland. Doesn’t Putin realize that he is up against a superior, more advanced social system? But what if Putin doesn’t respond as all the think tank warriors say he will, then what? Has anyone thought about that? Scott McConnell is a TAC founding editor.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-10) not displayed.
.
.
.
#11. To: FormerLurker, Cynicom (#10)
I'd guess none of the above. Cyni's just a grizzled old cold warrior who's been out of the game for a while, and deserves more respect than what some posters here give him. Considering the amount of experience he seems to have had in the affairs of state over the years, he could possibly be ex-cia, but that's just my wild assed guess.
When a person resorts to spewing war party lies and parrots MSM propaganda as if they were honest to goodness facts, I have to wonder where they're coming from. If Cyni would ever have a two way conversation where he accepts documented facts and concedes he may not have had all the information he needed to form an opinion, then perhaps he'll have my respect. John McCain is a grizzled old cold warrior too, but that doesn't mean we need to respect him just because of it. I think Cyni just gets most of his info from CNN and Fox News, and whatever they say must be true, because they're the "official" news outlets. I doubt a seasoned ex-CIA man would be calling Putin "Pooty Poot", and insist that he's planning on taking over Europe to rebuild the Soviet Union (or the Russian Empire depending on what day of the week we're talking about). Close but no cigar. One does not have to be a member of any particular group or agency, to have access to their product. Even as a fringe player, you see and hear things you would rather not. If one has a inquiring intellect, you learn very quickly that in some cases 2 plus 2 does in fact equal 5. The problem is, there is a 1 there somewhere you do not see. My first encounter with NSA was about the year they were formed. At that time they were strictly foreign oriented, with many military personnel, some of whom were shot down by the Russians. Once one has a peek behind the curtain, you realize what you normally see is not real, what is behind the curtain is real.
Well, apart from ignoring the central points of what I wrote, what you say there merely reinforces my points. It wouldn't take much to create a nuclear laden zone through which no human could or should pass through without great risks. One has to think that populated by the "enemy" is as good as unpopulated, even better than sparsely populated with your own people. Sorry, but no matter how it's sliced, I simply don't see a huge troop assault by the Chinese into Russia anymore than I see one with the Chinese on our soil despite the alarmist websites to that effect. Russia isn't about to let itself be overrun by Chinese boots given a wealth of options, sorry, just won't happen. "Boots on the ground"/troops still have a role, but it's diminishing. The only reason why we get away with it is because we only do it in countries that have neither the training nor technology to deal with it and are terminally overmatched apart from passion, which clearly is worth quite a bit. China does not have such a technichological advantage over Russia, not by a longshot. We don't even have one over China or Russia.
I'm an ex-Intel person, but just because someone is doesn't mean that they know everything. Who do you think is fueling everything that's going on from an intellectual capital perspective? Hint: It's neocons, evangelicals espousing what they're doing in the name of Christ when those things contradict the very things that Christ stood for the most, and people that "know the most" with the greatest credentials in these things.
Total agreement...at present time and present circumstances. Back to two front war... Suppose Russia and the west come to arms, over Ukraine or whatever. Hark back to 1939, Stalin knew Hitler was coming, he did not know when. He defeated the Japanese in Mongolia, signed a peace treaty, immediately denuded Eastern Russia to fight the Germans. The Japanese wanted no more Asia land war, so they turned South on us. They had a treaty with Japan, China was weak, so was the US. They struck South. Russia has a large portion of China. Would they hazard a fight with NATO, denude the East of military.
What? Not sure you're making much sense here. Otherwise, yes, hearken back to 1939, back then tanks/armor were key in blitzkrieg and land war. Air power was huge too, but today it's far more air power and long-range and unmanned aerial weaponry that would be the deciding factor in something like that. Still, if Germany had had the ability to turn Belarus and Ukraine into a nuclear waste zone in order to prevent the advance of Russian troops, you don't think they'd have done so? The point is that that ability is there today and without killing the numbers of people that it would have required killing back then, at least in the region we're talking about. Not to mention Cyni, have you even looked at and considered the topography in that region hindering troop movement from China to Russia? It's worse than it is in Afghanistan. You don't just march a million troops up, over, or around that without exposing them to slaughter via weapons of mass human destruction.
Please distinguish between massive land war and nuclear war. They are totally different. For instance, China invaded Korea, MacArthur wanted to use nuclear in fashion you wrote of. Truman said no, so millions died in yet another land war. Later a near rerun in South Vietnam. NO nuclear, just long killing land war. No one wants a nuclear war, however some may indeed chance another land war in Asia or even Europe.
Look Cyni, no disrespect intended here, but you've gotta hone your reading comprehension skills if we're going to conduct a mini-debate here. Go reread it all, maybe it'll clear up for you the second (or third or fourth ...) time through. I'm just spinning my wheels with you here otherwise. It's a waste of both of our time. I cannot imagine that Russia is even remotely worried about China attacking them via foot-soldier. There are much easier ways for China to commit mass suicide for their troops.
Your choice, I will refrain from posting to you.
Seriously Cyni, I wasn't saying it out of spite or facetiousness at all. I was being objective. Again, no disrespect intended, but you take just about everything that I pointed out and either ignore it or put it in some other context altogether. Makes it difficult tho I may try.
I think that many still operate under the dated delusion that ground troops are what win wars, or at least create them. The next step is simply larger tactical nukes, that's all. David Irving has documented this very well. It was Churchill's war, war for world Jewry. You're on fire, Katniss. On your next issue with ground "foot soldier" warfare, I've been saying this for years: strategic weapons and (as you mention) remote controlled, automated weapons platforms like drone aircraft have changed everything. On your last quoted point, I believe depleted-uranium ammunition would have some of the characteristics you've described.
I don't see how this is helpful.
I believe the following is all available in public postings, but chrissy please remove this if Cyni objects. He's claimed involvement for the NSA and before that Air force intelligence. He's inferred work with NATO intelligence services from what I can gather. I conduct dialog with Cyni on the assumption that he is what he says: an advocate for global liberty with a fierce loyalty to America. He's darned near always right about past history, even if I disagree with his analysis from time to time. We all can disagree at any time for any reason. Otherwise we wouldn't be free. Many intelligent people, including the architect of the NAZI financial miracle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar Schacht felt betrayed by Hitler's choices from 1938 onward. Cyni was mentored, possibly in relation to his intelligence work by a contact of Schact's. Cyni often infers that he knows things that he doesn't articulate, possibly because he is barred from doing so. I don't disrespect him for that at all. I see Cyni as an asset to his country and an asset to the 4um whether or not he makes sense to me at a given point. What I hope is that at some point, Cyni will publish more of what he knows before it is "lost," either because of health reasons or because he's been shutdown.
Zbigiew Brzezinski's analysis may be close to Cyni's. There's Realpolitik and there's how you and I would do things out of a particular ideology. I think Realpolitik is one of the enemies of Mankind in the long run. I think Hitler thought so, too.
"What If *Obama* Doesn't Back Down?" Isn't that the more accurate question? He's been stirring up shit ever since The People publicly told him to go pound sand over Syria. So Cyni, are you a neo-con, a neo-nazi, a media parrot, or are you just getting senile?
#12. To: Obnoxicated (#11)
(Edited)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#13. To: Obnoxicated (#11)
Considering the amount of experience he seems to have had in the affairs of state over the years, he could possibly be ex-cia, but that's just my wild assed guess.
#14. To: Cynicom (#8)
Second...There are untold millions of Chinese in Eastern Russia, some legal, most illegal. In many parts they outnumber the Russians.
#15. To: Obnoxicated (#11)
I'd guess none of the above. Cyni's just a grizzled old cold warrior who's been out of the game for a while, and deserves more respect than what some posters here give him. Considering the amount of experience he seems to have had in the affairs of state over the years, he could possibly be ex-cia, but that's just my wild assed guess.
#16. To: Katniss (#14)
Sorry, but no matter how it's sliced, I simply don't see a huge troop assault by the Chinese into Russia
#17. To: Cynicom (#16)
#18. To: Katniss (#17)
#19. To: Cynicom (#18)
(Edited)
#20. To: Katniss (#19)
hone your reading comprehension skills if we're going to conduct a mini-debate here.
#21. To: Cynicom (#20)
(Edited)
#22. To: Katniss, Cynicom, christine (#7)
I'm not sure I would agree with that. Agree on the general two-front war, which Germany never wanted. In fact Hitler is on record, not the propagandized "winners write the history books" record, the other, the real one, as not having wanted war at all and all but on his knees begging the US to avoid one along with Germany.
#23. To: FormerLurker (#10)
So Cyni, are you a neo-con, a neo-nazi, a media parrot, or are you just getting senile?
#24. To: Obnoxicated, Cynicom, christine, randge, Katniss (#11)
he could possibly be ex-cia, but that's just my wild assed guess.
#25. To: Katniss (#21)
(Edited)
I pointed out and either ignore it or put it in some other context altogether. Makes it difficult tho I may try.
#26. To: Ada (#0)
-Alex Kurtagic
#27. To: Katniss, Cynicom (#21)
Just as with anyone who tries to "debate" him, he'll play the wounded victim if you point out his fallacies or criticize his viewpoint in any way, ESPECIALLY if he has no logical or factual retort to your criticism. Seriously Cyni, I wasn't saying it out of spite or facetiousness at all. I was being objective.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#28. To: Deasy (#23)
Your comment is even less helpful. Are you trying to standup for a poster simply because he hates Russians, thus leans towards your Nazi sympathies? I don't see how this is helpful.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#29. To: Deasy (#24)
So which alphabet soup agency are YOU affiliated with? You appear to have a Paperclip bond there somewhere.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#30. To: FormerLurker (#27)
It's seldom a factual issue with Cyni. It's when a closely-held opinion or extrapolation is under attack that there are cries of pain. Why worry?
#31. To: FormerLurker (#29)
"Appear?" I'm talking about what Cyni has said about himself.
#32. To: FormerLurker (#29)
Do you oppose Operation Paperclip? I have always thought that it was one of the few good things to come out of WWII
-Alex Kurtagic
#33. To: X-15 (#32)
In terms of rocket scientists, such as Wernher von Braun, it certainly helped us. On the other hand, Nazi war criminals who performed horrific experiments on people were ALSO allowed in under that program. Such is how the CIA obtained info on torture techniques and mind control, and is what helped kick start MK- ULTRA. So I wouldn't call THAT a "good thing". Do you oppose Operation Paperclip? I have always thought that it was one of the few good things to come out of WWII
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#34. To: Deasy (#22)
Yes, exactly. Portions of Iraq are a mess in that way having resulted, and still resulting in birth defects and other clearly anomalous health related issues, not unlike, yet different, from chemical use in Vietnam for example. It wouldn't take much to create an impassible zone for Chinese foot soldiers trying to move via NE China into SE Russia. Not to mention that that distance is silly and there's little strategic significance until further inroads towards Moscow are made. Cyni's just wrong on that. On your last quoted point, I believe depleted-uranium ammunition would have some of the characteristics you've described.
#35. To: Deasy (#25)
Well then IMO Brezinski's living in the past too. I simply don't see how some enormous number of Chinese troops are going to march through the huge mountains in a rural area that could easily be made completely impassible rather than just extremely difficult to pass through, what, three, four, or five thousand miles just to get to some strategically relevant geography? Not seeing it. Just because these guys are in high positions, doesn't mean that they're any brighter or more intelligent, much less more astute or possessive of common sense. In fact, most operate from completely flawed establishment information baselines. Just look at our country's take on Afghanistan and the end result that the world's most powerful and technologically advanced military could not conquer it.
#36. To: Katniss (#17)
The more the old fool can be drawn out from one word droppings the the more his nonsense and contradictions come to light for all to see. I especially enjoy it when he takes diametrically opposed positions on the same thread. It's "wisdom" like his that got us here. Not sure you're making much sense here.
“Anti-semitism is a disease–you catch it from Jews”–Edgar J. Steele
“The jew cries out in pain, as he strikes you.”–Polish proverb
“I would like to express my heartfelt apologies for the unfortunate and tasteless quotes I published in my tag lines. I am very sorry and ashamed. I never wanted to offend anyone, or to encroach human rights."- Hmmmmm
#37. To: Katniss (#34)
These are not considered to be 'nuclear weapons' and I doubt that they're under any NPTs yet. They're so effective that I doubt we'll be giving them up soon. A beam weapon of some sort could take their place but that's unlikely anytime soon. The number of troops available to China are still a big concern, but their technological approach is even more worrisome. They'll likely be focused on building simple, EMP-proof platforms that are easy to build in quantity. But we agree: China isn't likely to attack Russia if NATO tries to push the Russians out of the Crimean or northeastern Ukraine. According to military theory, NATO would require 10x or better superiority in forces, which they can't deliver. To attack Russia near its core would be suicidal. This whole charade is disgusting considering how many troops Europe and America would lose to gain a few hundred square miles of territory. It reminds me of Napoleon in fact. Yes, exactly.
It wouldn't take much to create an impassible zone for Chinese foot soldiers trying to move via NE China into SE Russia.
This sounds like Douglas MacArthur. Neutron weapons on actual troops would be more likely scenario, and both the Russians and the Chinese have them, AFAIK.
#38. To: Katniss (#35)
Imagine stealth-based paratroop transports... It could happen. The Zbig camp is done with Afghanistan AFAIK. There's a difference between him and the NeoCons as led by the PNAC think tank. Oddly enough both PNAC and the Zbig schools appear to be happy to work with Islamists. Not seeing it [huge numbers of Chinese troops crossing into Russia]
Just because these guys are in high positions, doesn't mean that they're any brighter or more intelligent, much less more astute or possessive of common sense.
This is the problem: they really are smart. But that makes them overconfident and self-righteous. Moral superiority is a dangerous excuse because it's probably an artificial construct in their minds. Consider napalm as used on Dresden at the end of the war, for no good reason. Yet Germans were hung for collective punishment. Just look at our country's take on Afghanistan and the end result that the world's most powerful and technologically advanced military could not conquer it.
Yes, entering Afghanistan was a fool's errand, and if the 9/11 story has anything to do with bin Laden, our earlier involvement in fighting the Soviets via proxy taught him how to bring empires down. I sometimes wonder if the Russians or even the Chinese returned the favor to the Islamists in the region as a means for revenge.
#39. To: FormerLurker, Cynicom, Katniss, Ada, Obnoxicated, Hmmmmm, X-15 (#9)
From the Treaty of Aigun page. See also the nifty map below and more history: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/29263.stm Russia and China have apparently come to an understanding on how to endtheir centuries-old border dispute, agreeing to the joint development of several islands on the Amur and Ussuri rivers, which divide the countries. President Boris Yeltsin has spoken of it as a possible model for settling of other border disputes in the region. Is this just a pious hope, or a real possibility? Here's our regional analyst, Malcolm Haslett. The islands in the middle of the rivers which separate Chinese and Russian territory have been one of the main causes of the border disputes between the two countries. In 1969, for example, there was a major gunbattle on Damansky island [Chinese - Zhenbao] on the Ussuri [Wusuli] river, in which dozens of soldiers were killed on both sides. This was territory already claimed by the Chinese Empire, though never effectively controlled. There was sporadic fighting between the two sides before the Treaty of Nerchinsk, in 1689, defined the border well north of the Amur river, along which it runs today. But later, with China weakened by the various Opium wars of the 19th century, Russia was able to force the local Chinese commander to sign the Treaty of Aigun, ceding everything north of the Amur, and the large slice of land east of the Ussuri, to Russia. This in effect established today's frontiers. But efforts to resolve the issue permanently only began again when Mikhail Gorbachov was in power in the 1980s. The improvement in relations has continued under Boris Yeltsin. Clearly if joint exploitation goes ahead as planned, it would help greatly to overcome past suspicions. A lot remains to be done, however, to put them into practice FL:
D) Russia did not TAKE Vladivostok,
At a link from his source: Treaty of Aigun From 1850 to 1864, China was heavily fighting the Taiping Rebellion, and Governor-General of the Far East Nikolay Muraviev camped tens of thousands of troops on the borders of Mongolia and Manchuria, preparing to make legal Russian de facto control over the Amur from past settlement. Muraviev seized the opportunity when it was clear that China was losing the Second Opium War, and threatened China with a war on a second front. The Qing Dynasty agreed to enter negotiations with Russia.
Russia and China end 300 year old border dispute
End article.
Where 2 huge countrys meet
The dispute, however, dates back much longer, to the time in the early 17th century when the first Russian settlers reached the sparsely-populated regions north of the Amur river. ![[ image: There
have been border clashes for 300 years]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_29263_border1.jpg)
There have been border clashes for 300 years
But China has never acknowledged the legitimacy of the "unequal treaty" of Aigun. And disputes continued until the fighting of 1969. That was ended after talks between prime ministers Zhou Enlai and Kosygin in that same year. ![[ image: Troops still patrol the area]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_29263_border3.jpg)
Troops still patrol the area
Both sides are hailing the new "understanding" as the effective end of their border dispute. But it's only been made possible by the introduction of the idea of "joint exploitation" of a number of islands in the Amur, Ussuri and Argun rivers. The details of how this is to be done, contained in a separate agreement, are not yet clear. ![[ image: Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin shake on the deal]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_29263_shake150.jpg)
Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin shake on the deal
#40. To: FormerLurker, christine (#29)
I'm flattered! You needn't call me a sympathizer. I wear jack boots and a black leather trench coat everywhere I go. I'm your worst NAZI nightmare come true :) So which alphabet soup agency are YOU affiliated with? You appear to have a Paperclip bond there somewhere.
#41. To: Deasy (#39)
So when will Mexico be taking Texas back from the US? Oh that's right, they already have. As other posters have so aptly stated, China has no intent on facing off against Russia, and at the moment they are allies and share mutual defense agreements. Russia is in fact selling them their latest generation anti- aircraft missile systems, the SS-400. In terms of Vladivostok, Russia did not TAKE it from China, but ok, they did prod them a bit for it. So should the US give the majority of the US back to the Native Americans, since the US government pretty much stole all their land a couple of hundred years ago? They didn't just prod them for it, they TOOK it.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#42. To: Deasy (#40)
And BTW Deasy, are you pinging Christine to get her to fight your battles for you? You are beginning to follow a familiar modus operendi.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#43. To: Hmmmmm (#36) (Edited)
Yeah, I've noticed the same at times. A tinge of senility? He's supposedly no spring chicken. He's a decent civil person however which is more than I'll say for 90+% of most message board posters. I'm not sure I'd say that, but it's "wisdom" like that that at least contributes to us remaining here once we get/got here. "Here" is not a perpetual state however. 40/50 years ago it came and went. 911 did the trick, apparently. Then again, that was their stated goal. I especially enjoy it when he takes diametrically opposed positions on the same thread.
It's "wisdom" like his that got us here.
#44. To: Deasy (#37) (Edited)
Yeah, they have both tactical ones for individual use by each soldier, as well as shells for use in artillery and armor. War in general is disgusting. The people rarely want it, modern America is among the exceptions. Even here however, people weary of perpetual war. Once it hits home a lot more, which could come with a heightened police state action, then they'll be dead set against it. Ironically, that will be a decade or more too late to do anything about it. And remember, everyone "voted" for it. LOL As to Russia China, we agree that China is not likely to attack Russia, but even if they did, it would not be with ground troops having to march over serious mountain ranges and 4,000 miles +/- to boot. That will never happen and if the Chinese were stupid enough to attempt that, which I cannot even remotely fathom, then they'd be stopped via methods in our discussion or others. These are not considered to be 'nuclear weapons' and I doubt that they're under any NPTs yet. They're so effective that I doubt we'll be giving them up soon. A beam weapon of some sort could take their place but that's unlikely anytime soon.
But we agree: China isn't likely to attack Russia if NATO tries to push the Russians out of the Crimean or northeastern Ukraine. According to military theory, NATO would require 10x or better superiority in forces, which they can't deliver. To attack Russia near its core would be suicidal. This whole charade is disgusting considering how many troops Europe and America would lose to gain a few hundred square miles of territory.
#45. To: FormerLurker (#42)
;) You are beginning to follow a familiar modus operendi.
#46. To: Deasy (#38)
Agreed. I see absolutely no difference, in fact even a bigger fool's errand, the Chinese launching a ground war under even more adversarial conditions and circumstances. Some are, some aren't. I'd say that they are almost all categorically cunning, but that doesn't necessarily equate to intelligent. They certainly lack morality and wisdom, but then so does the vast majority of the population of the US at large. LOL, yeah, funny that, isn't it. Yes, entering Afghanistan was a fool's errand, and if the 9/11 story has anything to do with bin Laden, our earlier involvement in fighting the Soviets via proxy taught him how to bring empires down.
This is the problem: they really are smart.
Oddly enough both PNAC and the Zbig schools appear to be happy to work with Islamists.
#47. To: Katniss (#44)
I remember some sentiments along the lines that Obama would "make peace." I don't know if that's how he got voted in, but the media played up his ambitions to ease the world's tensions. But like you I don't think Americans really want peace. WWII is enshrined as a golden calf that is worshiped daily around the nation. One can't have an argument in favor of isolationism without ending up back on the subject of the evil Axis and the poor Jude. Ironically, that will be a decade or more too late to do anything about it. And remember, everyone "voted" for it. LOL
#48. To: Deasy (#47)
Roger that, and everything always seems to come back to "he's the next Hitler" type of thing, which grows wearying and falls into the boy that cried wolf category, especially since that model and broken record is 70+ years old. War in general, along with mammon, are on the altar of the average American. Our society is one that has transformed into one that use to truly be Christ-ian at its core, but due to the lobbying and special interest groups, primarily Zios, that base has eroded and our nation now worships at the altar of mammon. As such, we reap what we've sown and deserve. I wanted to see Obama win just to see what his supporters would do when he was just as warmongering as his predecessors. He might even be more so depending upon the criteria. Either way, he's hardly generated an image of being any different in that way. Next we need a GOP guy, which will happen anyway because that's the next best move for the creators of this charade, and not that anything's ideal for them, but it's the best option. But that will be interesting when that person doesn't repeal "Obamacare," which is really central-bank-care via the insurance companies, their subsidiaries, and toes the Dem line, to see how the Neos react as their eyes pop out of their skulls.
#49. To: Katniss (#46)
I believe that morality is a relative thing. If it's universal, global government might make sense. But every culture has its own unique assets and liabilities. The depleted uranium and phosphorous shells come after concluding that we're more ethical than "they" are. Like I said earlier, if you and I were running foreign policy, we would speak softly at home only to our domestic citizenry consulting them about their domestic security preferences such as borders and industrial safety, and almost never speak internationally unless there were both a secular domestic benefit and a consensus from the foreign countries requesting our help. We would be carrying a right-sized defensive stick. We would never form alliances with any country on the entire planet, including Canada and Mexico. I would be advocating research to keep up with foreign weapons systems but think of the USA as our castle and make sure that no one could even consider attacking us militarily. Missile defense would be one way to do that. Caution on immigration would be another. They certainly lack morality and wisdom, but then so does the vast majority of the population of the US at large.
#50. To: Katniss (#48)
But I see average families and friends reacting as if we didn't do enough for the empire, and that's why we're failing. Younger people are changing, thankfully. I don't know what it means, but it's hopeful. As such, we reap what we've sown and deserve.
#51. To: Deasy (#49)
Without the Golden Rule morality is dead. Christ is the source of that Golden Rule. This is especially true of a nation that's essentially an island, a rather large one, given that we are bordered by two countries, one of which is a friend, the other primarily a friend as well, and given that neither even comes close to possession the military might or resources to do any harm to us in contrast to what we have, even if they tried. I believe that morality is a relative thing.
Like I said earlier, if you and I were running foreign policy, we would speak softly at home only to our domestic citizenry consulting them about their domestic security preferences such as borders and industrial safety, and almost never speak internationally unless there were both a secular domestic benefit and a consensus from the foreign countries requesting our help.
.
.
.
Comments (52 - 75) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest