Putin: U.S. Has Triggered New Arms Race

[Rhino]

Putin: U.S. Has Triggered New Arms Race

Thursday, May 31, 2007

MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that tests of new Russian missiles were a response to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense installations and other forces in Europe, suggesting Washington has triggered a new arms race.

In a clear reference to the United States, he harshly criticized "imperialism" in global affairs and warned that Russia will strengthen its military potential to maintain a global strategic balance.

"It wasn't us who initiated a new round of arms race," Putin said when asked about Russia's missile tests this week at a news conference after talks in the Kremlin with Greek President Karolos Papoulias.

Putin described the tests of a new ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads and a new cruise missile as part of the Russian response to the planned deployment of new U.S. military bases and missile defense sites in ex-Soviet satellites in Central and Eastern Europe.

He assailed the United States and other NATO members for failing to ratify an amended version of the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, which limits the deployment of heavy non-nuclear weapons around the continent.....http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276721,00.html

[Beowulf]

Hey, Vlad, maybe if you wouldn't sell your stuff to meatballs like Chavez, Castro, terrorist leaders and other various madmen of the world who wish only to use those things against the U.S, maybe we wouldn't have to be "imperialists."

Or are you just jealous because the mighty Russian Army isn't the big machine it once was?
So, quit whining because we could have things ready for you, Big Boy!!

[Lazarus]

How does a missile defense shield translate into an arms race? Especially since time and again it has been made perfectly clear that the system is meant to defend agaisnt missiles from the likes of Iran, not Russia...

Ya know, to me it seems that all this crying and hair-pulling and noise from Russia over this defense system kinda makes it look like Putin has had plans for retaking Eastern Europe by force of arms...

Looks to me like the "former head of the KGB" misses the old days of Soviet dominance... Looks to me like he wants to bring it all back...

[M.C.]

I only hope that if the Russians try and retake some crap eastern Europe countries like Ukraine, we stay out of it and let them reclaim their land. We really don't need the war with them.

They will always be upgrading their missles as we look for ways to do the same, shouldn't be any problem as long as relations stay calm.

[Rhino]

I only hope that if the Russians try and retake some crap eastern Europe countries like Ukraine, we stay out of it and let them reclaim their land.It isn't their land.

[Kathy30]

Aren't most of those easter European countries now part of the EU? Isn't it their problem?

[Lazarus]

I only hope that if the Russians try and retake some crap eastern Europe countries like Ukraine, we stay out of it and let them reclaim their land. We really don't need the war with them.

They will always be upgrading their missles as we look for ways to do the same, shouldn't be any problem as long as relations stay calm.What alternate universe have you been living in?

Right now those CRAP Eastern European countries are among our biggest allies in the world... And as Rhino pointed out, its not Russia's land...

Your rhetoric sounds strangely passifistic...

[M.C.]

What alternate universe have you been living in?

Right now those CRAP Eastern European countries are among our biggest allies in the world... And as Rhino pointed out, its not Russia's land...

Your rhetoric sounds strangely passifistic...

It WAS their land, they aren't our biggest allies, and I think we are referring to different countries.

Pacifistic? Perhaps, but allowing Russia to expand east a small amount is much better than nuclear war. ANYTHING is better than getting nailed with one of them new missiles.

[Lazarus]

So let me get this straight - Like FDR you're willing to give away several sovereign nations to the Russians out of an irrational fear of the fantasy nuclear war that the leftist media has hyped for years... And you think this is a not only a good and equitable trade but a reasonable method of pacifying Russia's hunger for power...

Im gonna have to rethink my evaluation of you, MC...

[Rhino]

Aren't most of those easter European countries now part of the EU? Isn't it their problem?Ukraine isn't, but some of the others are.

[Rhino]

It WAS their land...No, it wasn't.

[Rhino]

Ukraine was originally formed from the East Slavic Kievan Rus′, which was a nation only in very loose terms, being formed by a conglomeration of city-states. It included what is now Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. The capital was Kiev, which is in Ukraine, so if anybody has claim to the other, it would be Ukraine claiming Russia, not the other way around. In any case, Ukraine was never a part of Russia.

[M.C.]

The Ukraine and several other provinces over there were all property of the Soviet Union throughout a large part of modern history. If Russia does wish to re-build that empire by taking over USELESS land, then it would not damage America in any way. No need to world police into a nuclear war.

[Lazarus]

So you consider the land swallowed up by the world's original communist empire by means of violent revolution to be the legitimate claim of of Russia...

And all those free Poles and Czechs and Romanians who want to continue to live free are a reasonable sacrifice to placate the hunger of the Russians, just as long as they dont throw a nuke at us... You easily and gladly give away what is not yours to give...

I find it ironic that you take this stand considering the avatar you are sporting...

[Rhino]

The Ukraine and several other provinces over there were all property of the Soviet Union throughout a large part of modern history.First, the Soviet Union wasn't a nation, and Ukraine was not a province.

Second, the Soviet Union no longer exists, so it can't exactly lay claim to UKraine, can it? Russia and the Soviet Union were not the same thing, although many referred to them that way.

Third, the member states of the Soviet Union were still individual nations. Thus, it never gave Russia any claim over Ukraine.

If Russia does wish to re-build that empire by taking over USELESS land, then it would not damage America in any way. No need to world police into a nuclear war.You aren't really that naive, are you? And, how can someone with a Ronald Reagan avatar advocate or condone a resurgence of the old Soviet Union?

[M.C.]

So you consider the land swallowed up by the world's original communist empire by means of violent revolution to be the legitimate claim of of Russia...
No.

And all those free Poles and Czechs and Romanians who want to continue to live free are a reasonable sacrifice to placate the hunger of the Russians, just as long as they dont throw a nuke at us... You easily and gladly give away what is not yours to give...

I wouldn't give it away, I just wouldn't care.

I find it ironic that you take this stand considering the avatar you are sporting...
Reagan was able to defeat the Soviet Union not through violence, but through diplomacy, all the while averting nuclear war....that was the main thing, Reagan WOULD NOT go into a nuclear war.


Second, the Soviet union no longer exists, so it can't exactly lay claim to UKraine, can it? Russia and the Soviet Union were not the same thing, although many referred to them that way.
I am aware it no longer exists.

Third, the member states of the Soviet States were still individual nations. Thus, it never gave Russia any claim over Ukraine.
I'm also aware of that, the theoretical conversation we were having was referring to a "what if" scenario of Soviet rebirth.

You aren't really that naive, are you? And, how can someone with a Ronald Reagan avatar advocate or condone a resurgence of the old Soviet Union?
Of course I wouldn't condone the Soviet Union's return, I also would not condone nuclear war.

[Lazarus]

Might I suggest MC change his avatar to something more appropriate- Like, say, Neville Chamberlain?

And, btw, MC - You're wrong... The Eastern Eurpoean countries are our biggest allies in Europe... They have stood by us unquestioningly thru this war in Iraq... They, unlike many of the other European nations, are grateful to the US for our role in freeing them from Tyranny...

[M.C.]

Might I suggest MC change his avatar to something more appropriate- Like, say, Neville Chamberlain?
Maybe Woodrow Wilson, for staying out of war would help.....although that was the greatness of Reagan, staying out of a hot conflict without rasing a finger.

And, btw, MC - You're wrong... The Eastern Eurpoean countries are our biggest allies in Europe... They have stood by us unquestioningly thru this war in Iraq... They, unlike many of the other European nations, are grateful to the US for our role in freeing them from Tyranny...
I never doubted their loyalty to the United States, but on the extremely small chance Russia starts gobbling, I would still reccomend isolationism.

[omegatrump]

Not to worry, they are our very good friends. Putins soul has been looked into. We have it on good authority, "we can trust them".

The old Russia is gone, and a new day has dawned.

Rest in peace, or rather go take a rest on it, or something like that.

[M.C.]

That's why this conversation has been odd, we've been debating on what to do in a soviet ressurection, when that is almost impossible to happen.

Regardless, I stand by what I've said on that, I'm a member of the Old Right, the original conservative isolationists.

Indeed their new missiles sound very deadly though.

[Rhino]

I'm also aware of that, the theoretical conversation we were having was referring to a "what if" scenario of Soviet rebirth.Well, you said "the Russians try and retake some crap eastern Europe countries like Ukraine", and said it was Russia's land once. It wasn't.

Of course I wouldn't condone the Soviet Union's return, I also would not condone nuclear war.I'm not condoning nuclear war. I was talking about your claim that Russia had a claim to Ukraine, and your position that they mean nothing to us, and that we should not interfere should Russia try to take over other nations. You also seem to be assuming that our opposition to such a move would necessarily mean a nuclear war. That's one hell of a stretch.

[M.C.]

You also seem to be assuming that our opposition to such a move would necessarily mean a nuclear war. That's one hell of a stretch.

Maybe its a stretch, but one thing we all heard for years is never trust the Russians. If a nuclear war ever occurs, they'll be the ones to start it.

[Rhino]

Regardless, I stand by what I've said on that, I'm a member of the Old Right, the original conservative isolationists.Oh. That explains it. I don't agree with isolationism, mainly because it would never work.

Indeed their new missiles sound very deadly though.If you believe their claims. I'm not sure I do.

[Rhino]

Maybe its a stretch, but one thing we all heard for years is never trust the Russians. If a nuclear war ever occurs, they'll be the ones to start it.Of that I have little doubt. But the remote possibility of a nuclear war, or any other kind for that matter, is poor justification for abandoning our allies. Of course, as an isolationist, I can see how that idea would appeal to you. But to a realist like myself, it just doesn't work. Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see us be able to be completely independent of foreign stuff, but that just isn't possible.

[Lazarus]

Maybe Woodrow Wilson, for staying out of war would help.....although that was the greatness of Reagan, staying out of a hot conflict without rasing a finger.Yes I remember Woodrow Wilson... He was that brainiac who tried to outlaw war...

I never doubted their loyalty to the United States, but on the extremely small chance Russia starts gobbling, I would still reccomend isolationism.If you think Mr Reagan shifted into isolationist mode when dealing with the Soviets, I suggest you do some remedial work on recent world history...

One wonders at just what point you would stir yourself as the Russians gobble their way across the world... Would you speak up when they land troops in Connecticutt? Should Alabama remain in isolationist mode on that day, for fear of triggering a nuclear war with the Russians? Just how much "useless" land, along with its "useless" inhabitants, are you willing to give the Russians in your grand security scheme?

[CzechPrince]

I only hope that if the Russians try and retake some crap eastern Europe countries like Ukraine,


What exactly are you calling crap? The only crap I see right now is every single one of your posts. Have you ever been to the Ukraine? If you haven't, you should stop posting such ignorant and uneducated posts and venture there before passing judgment.



we stay out of it and let them reclaim their land. And it's not their land, a**shole. Ukraine and it's people are sovereign, just like every other existing country in Eastern Europe. I'm Czechoslovakian, not Russian. Russia does not own my birth land or it's people. Go back to school and learn a few things before spouting off nonsense.



We really don't need the war with them.Appeasement cost a lot of lives in World War II as well.

They will always be upgrading their missles as we look for ways to do the same, shouldn't be any problem as long as relations stay calm.Not only is your history poor, but so is your understanding of Russian politics and culture is as well. Do you really think relations will be calm with an ex KGB agent in power?

[CzechPrince]

What alternate universe have you been living in?

Right now those CRAP Eastern European countries are among our biggest allies in the world... And as Rhino pointed out, its not Russia's land...

And have the fastest growing economies in Europe.

[Lazarus]

Good afternoon, Prince... I was looking forward to hearing your contribution to this debate...

[Rhino]

Well, the fact that he's an isolationist did explain a lot. The general premise is that no one else is important, eastern European or not.

[Lazarus]

Well Im not in favor of being the world's police, and I have made my position on that subject clear more than once... But there is a vast difference between not being the world's daddy and abandoning our true and loyal allies to enslavement by military invasion...

If we can spend vast wads of money and American lives in a "nation building" project in the Middle East where we are only tolerated as long as we are doing something for them, we can certainly put our military might in support of those few countries who have stood by us when the rest of the world turned their backs on us...

Its a obscure quaint concept called loyalty...

[Rhino]

I agree. I was only saying that his being an isolationist did explain his positions pretty much.

[CzechPrince]

I agree. I was only saying that his being an isolationist did explain his positions pretty much.

I don't believe so. Given his lack of knowledge about world history, modern politics, and Soviet culture, I'd say it was a desperate grasp for validation.

[omegatrump]

MC, I don't know if you were responding to me or not.

I was spreading a little sarcism. I don't think we have ever been able to trust the Russian Government. I do love the Russian people. I don't really understand why they tolerate their government. It can only be the product of Godlessness. It's happening to us as well.

[ThomasMore]

The Ukraine and several other provinces over there were all property of the Soviet Union throughout a large part of modern history. If Russia does wish to re-build that empire by taking over USELESS land, then it would not damage America in any way. No need to world police into a nuclear war.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were the many nations conquered and occupied by Soviet Russia. Any Russian moral claim on Ukraine or the other USSR nations is equivalent to Hitler's "Lebensraum" armed occupation of Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Your "modern history" is exactly equivalent to the time frame in which the Soviet murderers conquered and occupied many of their neighbors.

Ukraine is not "useless" to the Ukrainians, any more than Texas is useless to Texans or Switzerland is useless to the Swiss. It is one of the largest nations in Europe, as large as Texas with a population of 46 million. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html) It has a large economy and is an agricultural powerhouse. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian public voted clearly to break with the Soviet past and pursue westernization and freedom.

Ukrainian Presidential candidate Victor Yuchchenko was poisoned (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/12/12/yushchenko/index.html) with dioxin during his campaign when he spoke out against Russian hegemony; the Russian government remains the suspected agent. Although the poisoning should have been fatal, he survived and was elected president. Obviously, the Russians do not think Ukraine is useless.

Before- and after-poisoning photos of Yuchchenko:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40192000/jpg/_40192864_yuchchenko_illness203b.jpg

M.C., you are very kind to offer to hand the Ukraine back to tyrants.

[Beowulf]

I agree. I was only saying that his being an isolationist did explain his positions pretty much.

Hate to say it but I think Isolationism isn't that bad of an idea. I've mentioned my feelings on it many times before. Think about it. The world wants the U.S., since we're so rich, to fix the world's problems. When we go to do it, they hoot, holler and shake a fist at us. If most countries don't appreciate our efforts, why do we bother? Cut em' off and let em' deal with the problem themselves for awhile.

Granted, many of those former Soviet block nations have embraced us. Why? They know better! They've seen the dark ages of Soviet control and know how bad things can really be. I'm fine with helping those countries out but for the rest, fix things yourselves!!

[DoctorDoom]

Isolationism isn't a four-letter word. There's much to be said for not being the sugar daddy and lap dog for countries that hate our guts.

Re allies, we can count on one hand those nations that are true allies of the US: Israel, England and Australia are the ones that come to mind. Except for the UK, Europe likes us only when they get their pathetic asses in another jam and need a bailout. Japan might also fit, but ... Canada is iffy. To Mexico, we're a human garbage dump. South America, Africa and Asia are wastes of land.

We don't owe the world a f'ing thing. Question: has any other nation offered to help us when we could have used a hand? Is an answer necessary? If so, here's one.

<hr><center><font face="arial" size="6" color="red">"The Americans"</font></center>

<font face="arial" size="4" color="navy">The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany.

It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help?

The Americans did.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped. The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans. I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes. Come on... let's hear it!

Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws..are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here. When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?

I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake. Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians.

And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke. This year's disasters .. with the year less than half-over… has taken it all and nobody...but nobody... has helped.

ORIGINAL SCRIPT AND AUDIO COURTESY STANDARD BROADCASTING CORPORATION LTD. (c) 1973 BY GORDON SINCLAIR</font>

<hr>
When it comes to other nations sending even a dime to help America, their isolationism is absolute. They come to America only to take and take and take. And we continue to give and give and give.

IMO, it's time to tell those f**king leeches to piss off. Our policy should be simple:

"We have decided that our own needs and affairs are infinitely more important than yours. Therefore, you can take a flying one at a rolling doughnut if you think we're going to continue our largesse.

"If you really need our help, we'll be here. But come crawling on your knees and be prepared to kiss our asses. And have your checkbooks open.

"Capisce, losers?"

America has done more since 1776 than the rest of the world combined has accomplished since the dawn of civilization. Our major failing today is sucking up to endlessly demanding foreign assholes instead of taking care of ourselves. It's long past time to tell them where they can shove their pathetic, America-loathing countries.

[DesertFox]

It's clear that MC knows no history at all, and what he thinks he knows is wrong. I haven't seen a single post of his in this thread that makes sense.

[DesertFox]

I disagree with isolationism. I say America SHOULD be the world's sheriff and should act like it. That means we do what's best for us. We go in where we think we should, we leave when we think we should, and we give the world the finger when it bitches and moans.

[DoctorDoom]

I say America SHOULD be the world's sheriff.I don't know of a sheriff that pays the people to hold the position, and that receives nothing but contempt, abuse, scorn and hatred from those whom he protects by doing his job.

To hell with that. My POV is immutable. You can't buy love or allies. It doesn't matter whether the world likes us or hates us, as long as it fears and respects us, and lives in stark terror of pissing us off. We had that back when we weren't run by gutless, weak-kneed, craven, linguini-spined, ass-kissing, appeasing wimps.

[DesertFox]

As I noted, we give the world the finger. We run the world for our benefit, not for anybody else's. By accident, of course, our running things WILL benefit everyone else, but OUR benefit is why we should just take charge and do it.

[Timberwolf]

Imperialism leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'd much prefer we would follow the relative isolationist policies of our Founders.

[DesertFox]

Agreed on imperialism, but I'm not advocating imperialism.

[M.C.]

It's clear that MC knows no history at all, and what he thinks he knows is wrong. I haven't seen a single post of his in this thread that makes sense.

I disagree with isolationism. I say America SHOULD be the world's sheriff and should act like it. That means we do what's best for us. We go in where we think we should, we leave when we think we should, and we give the world the finger when it bitches and moans.
You insult my posts and then PROVE that you are a neo-con. Clearly we're gonna disagree.

My history isn't off about anything, my wording may be poor at times, but I say what I mean.

Sorry If I don't give a damn about Ukraine, Belarus, or any of the other leechers in Eastern Europe.

As Dr. Doom said, we have 3 true allies, The UK, Australia, and Israel. Those are the only nations we must keep intact at all costs. The world police thing brings NOTHING but American casualties and inflation. Oh yes I just said something similar to what Ron Paul says, so now I'm instantly evil I suppose.

[CzechPrince]

My history isn't off about anything,

No, it is, and it's utterly pathetic.


my wording may be poor at times, but I say what I mean.

Wording? A lot more than that. Go back and respond to my posts. I dare you.

Sorry If I don't give a damn about Ukraine, Belarus, or any of the other leechers in Eastern Europe.

How are they leechers? Again, I've asked you to support your uneducated posts yet you still fail to.

[DesertFox]

Moi? a neocon? :lol:

MC, you just don't know enough to be engaging the old hands here.

[Timberwolf]

Agreed on imperialism, but I'm not advocating imperialism.
Sure sounded like it to me...give the world the finger while WE run the world to OUR liking? What would you call that?

[dPrasse]

Imperialism leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'd much prefer we would follow the relative isolationist policies of our Founders.

In theory , that is great ...

but , even President Thomas Jefferson understood the need to kick the asses of over seas enemies rather than appease them ....
(been fighting Peaceful Muzzies since 1801 ... good slogan for the US Navy ... )

[Timberwolf]

Yup...and he sent the troops to the country which was actually messing with us. In this case, that would be Saudi Arabia...not Iraq. And he did it ONLY when our commerce was directly attacked on the high seas by pirates (from Tunisia, I believe).

Make no mistake, deposing Saddam was a good thing...but, were we to develop our crude reserves here at home, we'd have no reason to be over there. THEN, if the muzzies attacked us...well, let's just say, "Hell hath no fury...."

As I've been saying, as soon as it is feasible to do so, we need to extricate ourselves from the ME.