Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[xoxoxoBruce]

Flushed with oil money, the Russians are getting an erection.

Russia is planning to buy new intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly aircraft carriers as part of an ambitious military programme, it emerged yesterday.
The defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, told parliament the military would have 17 new ballistic missiles this year - a hefty increase on the four deployed on average each year in recent times.

The purchases are part of a weapons modernisation programme for 2007-2015 worth about 5 trillion roubles (£96.4bn).

[SamIam]

Well, aren't we planning on more missles in various spots in Eastern Europe? Its the same old, same old, and, as I understand it, the US is the country that started the latest face-off, not Russia. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Its the same old, same old, and, as I understand it, the US is the country that started the latest face-off, not Russia.

Was that before or after the Head of the KBG became thier leader?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Was that before or after the Head of the KBG became thier leader?

That was when America kept doing things that made Russian security threatened. America was building bases that surrounded Russia. NATO forces were being deployed closer to Russia. America would unilaterally 'Pearl Harbor' nations (ie Iraq) and threatened to attack others. The United States would unilaterally cancel international treaties intended to create mutual trust between Russia and America. All this started with George Jr whose staff had even written a memo saying that the United States should be ready to unilaterally attack Russia, Germany, or India. Why? The objective was to keep the United Stated number one at all costs.

Is this a nation that Russia could trust? Of course not. Putin had been repeatedly warning that actions of the United States threaten to restart the Cold War. How many Americans - especially the 'big dic' types who blindly support George Jr - ever heard these warnings even from many in the United States?

Under George Jr, the United States has repeatedly acted in ways that only worry Russia. My god. This American government is so wacko extremist as to even justify torture, extraordinary rendition, imprisonment without judicial review, nuclear weapons even for conventional warfare, unlimited wiretapping, nuclear proliferation, a fear of enemies who were even once friends, a population that even believes wacko extremist lies (propaganda) from their government, and even ‘Pearl Harbors’ nations using outright lies. Leaders who would even go to war over a silly spy plane. A nation that had no problem even destroying the Oslo Accords. Russians looking at history would recognize what preceded 1938.

What does Russia do when threatened externally? It consolidates domestic power. What is Putin doing? Consolidating power after having repeatedly and publically warned about American actions restarting the Cold War.

The damage done by George Jr to America's international reputation will be our legacy for at least the next 10 years. Even worse are the so many Americans who so hate America as to deny the damage.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Not negotiating with al-Qaeda does not define stupidity and cannot define stupidity -- as long as al-Qaeda doesn't want to negotiate. You're being unfair to Republicans because they're Republicans, tw. Please take your delusional bigotry elsewhere before I put it someplace that will make you walk very oddly on departing.

You have yet again disgraced yourself, btw.

Don't for one minute fall for myths promoted by wacko and religious extremists - that Americans are the good guys. One benchmark for identifying the myopic and potentially 'evil' ones? They view in terms of "good verses evil" rather than a world full of perspectives.

I see, along with your inability to spell versus -- you're really not very good at foreign terminology, you know -- that you're still trying, in the old Soviet manner, to tell us there is no basis for seeing that we have, and are a living example of, a solution to the world's ills. This tired old Sixties-leftism claptrap will not suffice, tw, except for those as thickheaded as yourself. That is almost no one on this board, come to think of it.

Too many still never learned lessons even taught by Kennedy and Khrushchev that one October when American and Soviet 'big dics' tried to destroy the world.

That is exactly the thing they did not do -- and I think a more careful reading of the Cuban Missile Crisis will show that. Both sides knew what might have happened; neither side wanted to make that happen. But then, are we to be surprised when tw deals in half truths?

Tw also needs perpetual reminding that for the "unnecessary deaths" he decries so vehemently, you cannot beat the Communists. But oh, no -- criticizing the Communists doesn't accord with tw's extremist agenda, and you'll never hear him do it. I've been listening for this for a couple of years now, and the lack of fire against the Communists tells me what tw is.

That was when America kept doing things that made Russian security threatened. America was building bases that surrounded Russia. NATO forces were being deployed closer to Russia.

It is clear that tw believes this implicitly and literally. So also, in my experience, did the Soviet propaganda mongers, who promulgated this very idea, inside the USSR and out -- in case anyone might be listening.

All this started with George Jr whose staff had even written a memo saying that the United States should be ready to unilaterally attack Russia, Germany, or India. Why? The objective was to keep the United Stated number one at all costs.

I'm sure of two things: either this will remain unsourced, or a complete reading of the matter will show quite a different slant. Expect tw to deal in half truths only. He probably got all excited about a war plan, devised well ahead of events as a plan for what to do about prosecuting a war. They keep them on file, you know.

The people who insist that we are damaged strike me as myopic and as fatuous. Fatuity is not good for foreign policy.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Not negotiating with al-Qaeda does not define stupidity and cannot define stupidity -- as long as al-Qaeda doesn't want to negotiate. You're being unfair to Republicans because they're Republicans, tw. Please take your delusional bigotry elsewhere before I put it someplace that will make you walk very oddly on departing.

What did Reagan say? Not negotiating with your enemies is stupidity. Was Reagan was a Democrat? Who is being delusional here? The one who sees enemies hiding everywhere. The one who sees solutions only in 'big dic' terms. Only military solutions work. We should not talk to anyone. Just shoot 'em all. God will know his own.

[deadbeater]

Sorry, Urbane, but when the US is banging the war drums concerning Iran, which in my opinion the Gov't have a better basis for attacking than the US Gov't ever did for attacking Iraq; and the other countries are holding their collective heads to their ears this time; the US reputation is really damaged.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Yep. Unsourced...

(cue the 60 Minutes stopwatch: tick tick tick...)

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Pay more attention to Fox News and other sources you don't agree with as well.

I see the problem as people paying too much attention to all news outlets, not just to the media wing of the GOP. They all have their bias, but their main objective is the public's attention. They don't get attention by dispassionately presenting what happened. The last I watched cable news, CNN was working as hard scaring liberals as Fox was scaring conservatives.

Both outlets scare their people into believing that more power needs to flow to their politicians. The vast majority of people are basically good. Those few who are evil will try to gain power over others, politics looks like the path to power when centralizers are successful. If we give too much power to politicians we are asking for oppression.

If it weren't for US influence, most of the world's oil chokepoints would be controlled by those bad actors and/or the nations interested in throwing their weight around.

We are a nation throwing its weight around. Our attempts to stabilize the region over the years have contributed to our problems on the Arab/Persian street. We were never great supporters of ME democracy before, supporting "undemocracy" if we thought tyranny suited our needs. We have this vision of ourselves left-over from WWII as international defenders of freedom, unfortunately that reality didn't survive the Cold War. In the work of halting global communism we lost the man on the street, when his democratic aspirations conflicted with our needs.

There wouldn't be US influence, actually because we'd be in Carter-era economic sluggishness/crisis.

I'd say we risk another era of sluggishness if we don't free ourselves of oil dependence. The money we've thrown at stabilizing tyrants was a subsidy for the established oil industry. Some would say subsidizing nuke, wind, and solar at the same levels would make them competitive. It is an argument worth having, especially if global warming is man's doing.

Look at history man. The time of world wars was before US throwing its weight around arrived on the scene. I know you don't like the World Police approach but you are reaping tremendous benefit... as does the entire world.

I stand by my previous thought that we are benefiting more from man's accumulation of knowlege than from US hegemony. Free societies are better at preserving and distributing knowlege. We are a country at a crossroads, will we choose to be free or will we choose fear? I do not believe we can continue to sow fear to justify foreign and domestic interventions and remain as free as we are. The voters will demand that people have less control over their daily lives.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Griff

I see the problem as people paying too much attention to all news outlets [[because their main bias is to frighten]]

Oh it's people now and not me. Yeeeah, I thought you were just doing the usual Cellar attack style, in which we take whatever we know about somebody and attack them on that basis. If we know they have an orange cap and wear it backwards, we attack on that basis. If we know they are fat, we attack on that basis. Now since it's been noted that, in the past, I watched a lot of TV news, I assumed you were assailing me for doing that. I was going to retaliate by saying you don't get smarter about the world by turning off all your sources and living in isolation in the middle of nowhere. So thankfully it's people now, and you weren't attacking me, you were just making an unrelated point about news, right?

If you have other outlets, you can learn to determine what is fright and what is actual news. But do tell us what your wonderfully golden sources are, and we promise not to mock you.

We are a nation throwing its weight around. Our attempts to stabilize the region over the years have contributed to our problems on the Arab/Persian street. We were never great supporters of ME democracy before, supporting "undemocracy" if we thought tyranny suited our needs. We have this vision of ourselves left-over from WWII as international defenders of freedom, unfortunately that reality didn't survive the Cold War. In the work of halting global communism we lost the man on the street, when his democratic aspirations conflicted with our needs.

Do tell us your wonderfully golden sources.

When I went to college in the early 80s, I had a friend named Roberto. Roberto was lucky and got to go to school in the US for nearly free due to international programs. Roberto was from Uruguay.

Roberto hated America. He would bring anti-American propaganda from Uruguay. The Uruguayans were mad, or at least some of them were, because they didn't like American pressure on their country.

But there wasn't really American pressure on their country. Come on, it was Uruguay! The socialists just enjoyed saying that there was, so they could blame America for all their ills. The people liked to think that their little country was so important that it required the intimate meddling of the great powers.

Being the biggest guy in the room makes us a target for doing nothing.

Some would say subsidizing... wind, and solar at the same levels would make them competitive.

We need your sources on this so that we can properly mock them (and not you)

So now the worm turns: you're in favor of massive government research programs in the name of freedom... broadly preventing free people (well, Exxon/Mobil, we can easily color them the bad guys) from trading with nations we don't agree with... and you're saying that if we prevent trade and come up with a sensible alternative to oil that is cheaper *snort*...

...it would surely make the US more powerful...

...which according to you, would make everyone that we don't trade with, not hate us, and therefore make us less of a target...

...although at that point, having developed and exported these energy alternatives, we will have undercut their only means of making serious money at all.

We are a country at a crossroads, will we choose to be free or will we choose fear?

I'm sorry, weren't you the one who was carefully cautioning about sources that use fright to make their message important?

[Griff]

My reply is fair because you claim special insight due to intense scrutiny of media. Your criticism is fair because I intentionally ignore same.


My "other outlets" are regular people like your Roberto. Did you find him misguided or instead evil? Unless Rob was advocating or committing violent acts, I'd say he was merely misguided.


Yes, we will take heat for being successful, but I'd rather take my chances with that than to take heat for being truly wrong.


Note the weasle word "Some." I don't advocate subsidy. I advocate bringing home the troops and letting energy cost what it costs. If you argue for the military subsidy, I'll counter by noteing a lower level of force would be used by the state subsidizing alternatives.


It is fair to say I'm fear mongering. I believe that people with "evil" or misguided intentions try to concentrate power. I believe that power distributed is safer. I am not familiar with any cable news outlet with that bias.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

tick tick tick...)

There it is. Urbane Guerrilla is a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Still unsourced, and two current posts from tw. Is tw then a lying bastard? Or should it be then and now...?

Perhaps I am a crocodile that once swallowed an alarm clock, and at another time, a captain's arm, and now wants the rest...

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Was that before or after the Head of the KBG became thier leader?

Ah, but our president has examined his soul and found it acceptable.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue.

I don't know what is a bigger surprise, that President Bush thinks he is a good judge of mens souls or that he appreciates 'frank dialogue'.

President Carter used to be considered a wimp for talking too much about feelings. Yet I doubt that he would have used this kind of language for Putin. Maybe President Bush is getting a free pass on the wimpiness since he is responsible for two wars (and wore a flight suit).

Anyway, it is an interesting philosophical argument whether a tyrant can also be a patriot.

We always talk about democracy and patriotism, but we always seem to ignore the fact that in many cases the democratic and patriotic goals of other countries are in conflict with our goals. It's like saying to a five-year-old "I know I told you that you can have what you want for dinner, but you don't want pizza, what you really want is broccoli".

[BigV]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Anyway, it is an interesting philosophical argument whether a tyrant can also be a patriot.

We always talk about democracy and patriotism, but we always seem to ignore the fact that in many cases the democratic and patriotic goals of other countries are in conflict with our goals. It's like saying to a five-year-old "I know I told you that you can have what you want for dinner, but you don't want pizza, what you really want is broccoli".

rich, you answered your own question here. If you serve broccoli, you're a tyrant. If you serve pizza, you're a patriot.