Drake7707 Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 Yet, once again, america managed to piss off a lot of people of europe & russia. If you haven't heard (because you were on mars for the entire week), it's about their so-called construction of a "ballistic shield" in poland and czech to be able to intercept long range missiles from iran and others in that area. Personally i agree with russia, it's just a provocation, the missiles aren't even near as capable to hit american territory from that distance. I find it pretty disturbing that america tries to put bases everywhere, even on non-american soil, it's like they want to control the entire world.And if they really want to surpress russia, they should come up with better excuses than the ones they've made now
SeVeR Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 Vote Ron Paul for a non-intervention foreign policy... among other things.
rootbear75 Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 who the !@#$%^&* is Ron Paul? and no i dont feel like reading your topic
Drake7707 Posted June 5, 2007 Author Report Posted June 5, 2007 don't spam here, we're in the world politics forum remove this post + the 2 one above please
Samapico Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 It seemed on topic to me actually. Sever's post atleast
NBVegita Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 Nothing like trying to start the next cold war.
JoWie Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 The EU should set up their own shield, just like the EU is replacing the American GPS with Galileo
Incomplete Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 No offence to any Americans but are you really suprised?
Samapico Posted June 5, 2007 Report Posted June 5, 2007 They also wanted to do that here (in Canada)... some kind of useless missile shield. Pft. We were like 'GTFO USA GO ?buy Friends AND YOU WON'T N33D TH0Z MISSALZ!!!1'Is 1337-speak appropriate in this forum?
Greased_Lightning Posted June 6, 2007 Report Posted June 6, 2007 I dont see how its a provocation towards Russia, it's not as though a missile shield (no matter how well it works) would do any good if Russia and the US decided to 'get all up and ballistic on each others' !@#$%^&*es' ... Also, from what I read, the leadership of the Czech Rep. is in favor of the US building the station in that country (not to say the people of CR are happy, but they can express that at election time). So... Russia doesn't have a great basis for opposing a defensive system, especially in a country that was under the Soviet heel for so long. People say Bush is inflammatory, Putin's talking about targeting nuclear warheads on it's neighbors. That guy needs to get voted out.
Drake7707 Posted June 6, 2007 Author Report Posted June 6, 2007 who says it's a defensive system? maybe thats just the cover? And yeah, putin should start aiming at usa, not europe You could compare this with you and your neighbour that you dislike. One time the neighbour sets up some sort of device in your backyard (or very close to it) to prevent like ehh moles coming to his garden. While that might be the case, you doubt its purpose, would you like it to be there ? I think not
Aileron Posted June 6, 2007 Report Posted June 6, 2007 The US has ICBMs. Frankly, if the US wanted to nuke Russia, we could do so from a base in Kansas. As far as the government is concerned, there are too many nuclear weapons drifting around outside our borders as it is and the last thing we want to do is set up some of our own in a foreign country where they could potentially get lost. So, from a cost/benefit standpoint the US has no reason to secretly set up offensive bases in these places. Besides, the Russians certainly have enough intelligence capability in these areas to know what missiles are at these bases, and they are smart enough to know that a Patriot missile isn't nearly big enough to mount any kind of offensive warhead. All they would need to do to determine this would be to hand some farmers cameras with a telescopic lenses and get them to take pictures of the bases. As far as I know, missles at these locations can't intercept an Iranian missle bound for the US, even if the Iranians had ICBM technology, which by the way they are decades away from. ICBMs literally go out into space, orbit the Earth, and then re-enter the atmopshere, much like the 60s-70s era spacecraft which by the way were the same design. While they are in orbit, they can't be intercepted. Space has no atmosphere. No atmosphere means that rudders and ailerons won't work, so the interceptor missile can't turn in order to hone in on the target. An ICBM can only be intercepted after they re-enter the atmosphere. Setting up a missile defense shield in East Europe will only protect East Europe from ICBMs. However, Iran probably isn't too far away from cruise missile technology if they don't already have it. Cruise missiles stay within the atmosphere, usually at low al!@#$%^&*udes, and simply fly to their targets. They could be intercepted at any point along their flight path...though you don't necessarily need a missile defense system to do it. Conventional anti-aircraft tactics will work, though an explicit missile-defense system is better. As far as I know, its impossible to reach inter-continental ranges with a cruise missile, and if you could, an ICBM would be cheaper. So, if Iran fired a cruise missile, the shield would protect all of Europe from them. This is mostly a political game. If Iran plays it peacefull, these bases will be a waste of money and be an embarr!@#$%^&*ment. If Iran does go hostile, the US will look like the hero to most of Eastern Europe. Russia has on the other hand been being very nice to Iran, and thus would be the heros if Iran stayed peacefull and would look like idealistic buffoons Iran went hostile. Now, if the US didn't construct the bases and Iran went hostile, then no one would look like heros or buffoons. Basically, prior to this action by the US, the Russians had a win/tie situation regarding Iran. The odds of Iran being peacefull are low, but they would've lost nothing if Iran does hostile. Now, they have a win/lose situation. In the likely event Iran goes hostile, Eastern Europeans will ask the Russians why they didn't build defenses for that contigency. What the US has done here is force the Russians to really use every tool they have to make sure the situation doesn't escalate into war. If it does, Russian loses all of their support in Eastern Europe. Previously Iran used oil as leverage on Russia. Now the US has applied greater leverage. Russia doesn't like this because first off they are about to lose a lot of oil access, though more importantly because nobody likes their hand being forced. As for the moral ramifications of this...these missiles have virtually no offensive capability whatsoever. In a violent world all they can do is help and in a perfect world they can't really do any harm. If Poland and the Czech Republic want them, Russia has no business arguing.
Wild Luck Posted June 6, 2007 Report Posted June 6, 2007 Well after the weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction not beeing found on irak even if bush said 1,000 times he would find it, i no longer beleive in americans words. They say its only defensive anti missile shield, who know what they are really doing?!
ESCANDAL0SA Posted June 6, 2007 Report Posted June 6, 2007 They also wanted to do that here (in Canada)... some kind of useless missile shield. Pft. We were like 'GTFO USA GO ?buy Friends AND YOU WON'T N33D TH0Z MISSALZ!!!1'Is 1337-speak appropriate in this forum? LOLLL...i seriously lol'd <3
Drake7707 Posted June 7, 2007 Author Report Posted June 7, 2007 where does the likelyness come from that iran goes hostile ? They make pretty good profit from export to europe and russia, why would they turn against them ? If iran would go hostile and made ICBMs and/or other long ranged weaponry, they would target the US, not europe. Especially with america having the at!@#$%^&*ude problem of "me and nobody else" or "surpress any other country that threathens the power of USA", and threats about attacking iran sure doesn't help that fact (if it would ever come to that, don't be in the us army, iran has 900000 troops + 11mil that can be mobilized, wouldn't want to go hostile on that. ~source wikipedia)
Telson Posted June 7, 2007 Report Posted June 7, 2007 ironically a RTS game called World of Conflict is in development atm... its bsically US vs Soviet Union in WW3, via source http://www.gamepot.com
rootbear75 Posted June 7, 2007 Report Posted June 7, 2007 next time give a FULL link please:http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/worldi...36;%^&*le;0
Aileron Posted June 7, 2007 Report Posted June 7, 2007 You act like Iran is a liberal country. It isn't. It is a fundimentalist theocracy. Generally, they want the whole world to be states which force Islam on their people. Ofcourse, they know they can't reach those goals at the moment, so they just do what they can. If they believed they could force Europe to convert to Islam by firing missiles at them, they would do so. Apparently the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic agree with me.
SeVeR Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Generally, they (Iran) want the whole world to be states which force Islam on their people. If they believed they could force Europe to convert to Islam by firing missiles at them, they would do so. No proof, just anti-islamic fear mongering.
jacob hunter! Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Drake LOLOOOOOOOOOLLLL.... our us troops can pwn irans troops ez dude...
rootbear75 Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 attraction stop spamming... geez, some people never learn Mods: Please delete this post and the one above me.
activation Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Am I the only one who thinks that being in "war" with Russia provides stabilization? It's like having all the war time economy benefits, with none of the threat. We've been looking for something similar to that ever since the end of the Cold War, but the middle east has proven to show resistance and our war time presidents should learn to back off. Russia, however, doesn't want to start anything because it knows no one else, save the "communist" countries, will support them. It's better to know your enemy and live with it than not know when the next strike is going to occur.
Drake7707 Posted June 8, 2007 Author Report Posted June 8, 2007 war only benefits economy in the countries that won and had no losses (on own soil). Economy in japan & europe was crushed after ww2, and usa greedily used that to boost its own economy because europe had but no choice than to import to rebuild everything
Greased_Lightning Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 (edited) Yes, God!@#$%^&* us americans for rebuilding the economies of Japan and Europe, providing low or no interest loans (or just giving them the money with no payback), sinking billions upon billions of dollars in investment and transforming them from second or third-rate powers in to major players in the global economy, providing defense from communist takeover during the cold war, and helping former soviet states in the transformation to capitalist economies. we are SUCH !@#$%^&*bags for that. edit: and attraction, that 'stability' you !@#$%^&*ociate with the cold war only came from the lucky fact that each side was smart enough (or not insane/stupid enough, take your pick) to start anything major because they knew it meant total annihilation. I'd take a less stable economy over being a stone's throw from a nuke in my backyard any day of the week. Edited June 9, 2007 by Greased_Lightning
Recommended Posts