Putin's mad and I'm glad

[geetrue]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-10-putin_x.htm?csp=24


Putin: USA acting on its own has made world more chaotic



By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
MUNICH, Germany — Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the United States on Saturday for acting unilaterally in foreign affairs and accused America of destabilizing the world.
Putin's criticism was harsh and wide-ranging — from U.S. missile defense efforts to Russia's support for Iran. They came during remarks and a question-and-answer session at a security confernence attended by world leaders and military officials, including U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and members of Congress.


This can only mean one thing, Russia is afraid of America going to war against Iran over the latest round of;
"they can and they can't have nukes",
because Mr Putin has a lot of time and money invested in Iran.

Remember before Bush went to Iraq (right or wrong is not the problem)
this country and just about every country in the world protested Bush
going to war against Iraq.


Yep! War is on the way ... I'm not glad about that of course just the fact that it
is so easy to see. :yep:

[U-533]

:rotfl: :rotfl: Tootin' Putin:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:hmm: yeah ...I spelled it right...:rotfl:

[CCIP]

I'm glad he said it. As much as you might disagree I think he's very much right on unilateralism. Come on America, no need for the messianic attitude. Take some criticism for once :hmm:

[robbo180265]

Yep maybe "Team America - World Police" will have to stop strutting around the playground picking on the little kids now:up:

[joea]

Problem is, (for CCIP and robbo) what can Putin do? The EU is going along with the US, China ain't ready yet (not India) Chavez well .... hot air from him. If only the Martians would attack. :rotfl:

[CCIP]

Oh of course nothing. That's why he's talking :roll:

The US, of course, is in a position to act unilaterally for exactly that reason.
By the way, Putin's speech, I think, is aimed more at raising his and his government's profile at home. Just as in the US you have people starting to talk themselves off more strongly as the election year draws nearer, no surprise there...

[moose1am]

:gulp:

Where are the Carriers?

[geetrue]

Putin did surprise me however ... notice at the end of the article, Putin becomes a gentleman when he says;


Putin did have some kind words for President Bush. "He's a decent person. He's a decent man, and one can do business with him."

[CCIP]

Surprised? I think it was said repeatedly by both men that they liked each other, and I'm quite certain they genuinely do. They do have a number of things in common; though I consider Putin to be a far superior politician (it's not so much a compliment as an acknowledgement of his combination of image control and strategic pragmatism, in both of which Bush suffers).

What impresses me about Putin (and don't get me wrong, I'm no fan and view his government critically at best) is that he is a very hard politician to attack. Though the West has been making digs at his 'undemocratization', at home he's been making those attacks look like a joke and in fact using them to enchance his standing. Practically for every criticism made of him, he's been able to respond in a way that makes him look better.

My favorite Putin moment: at the G8 summit, his retort to Bush's speech on Iraq and spreading democracy - "I don't think we want the same kind of democracy as in Iraq". I was rolling when I heard that :p

[TteFAboB]

Already been done. Khrushchev called it a "Cult of Personality".

[STEED]

If Russia did not kick up a stink now again we would all be wondering if Russia has gone off the world stage.

[bradclark1]

If Russia did not kick up a stink now again we would all be wondering if Russia has gone off the world stage.
They are doing a 190 billion dollar military facelift so I figure he's planning on becoming a world player with teeth.
Now is this because of China, the U.S., or both?:hmm:

[AJ!]

If Russia did not kick up a stink now again we would all be wondering if Russia has gone off the world stage. They are doing a 190 billion dollar military facelift so I figure he's planning on becoming a world player with teeth.
Now is this because of China, the U.S., or both?:hmm:

Makes you wonder doesnt it :hmm:

We are seeing the shaping of the new world now.... Looks like if things continue the way they are we are going to be seeing 3 Superpowers, Russia, China and the US

I dont think the US is too happy about China though... I mean not only does it have the man power and wallet to topple the US, its recent military tests have shown its got america by the balls in the event of a war :-?

[baggygreen]

If Russia did not kick up a stink now again we would all be wondering if Russia has gone off the world stage.
They are doing a 190 billion dollar military facelift so I figure he's planning on becoming a world player with teeth.
Now is this because of China, the U.S., or both?:hmm:my money is that he's more concerned about china than the US. Whats the US gonna do... invade russia??:rotfl:

I think not.

China however, well there is purportedly a shipload of natural resources just over the border from china, and who is getting to be the most energy-hungry nation??:hmm:

[Skybird]

Now this diplomatic move was overdue. Although it is aimed at the europeans as well as the russian public opinion, it nevertheless is a highly substantial warning. Russia necessarily must feel surrounded, pushed back and strategically outplayed since NATO started it'S foolish attempt to push it's sphere of influence as far as directly to the Russian borders. Additionally it is under pressure by chinese migration into it'S empty eastern territories, and unrest in it's Islamic southern provinces. NATO's policy necessarily must be seen as provocations, and strategically threatening, and since years so.

I said this for years now.

It is time to ask if it really is clever to seek confrontation that way. The US as well as NATO needs to realize that they have no monopole on defining what is in the interest of mutual relations (like the NATO expansions often is sold as). Some iditots who are drunk of their own magnificient egos even want to see the Ukraine joining NATO: iIf you want to see a second cold war with Russia, go ahead with that. For Russian interests that is as unacceptable as were Russian ICBMs in Cuba unacceptable for the US. Uklraine is their sphere of infoluence. period.

The American insensitivity to the views of others is dangerous, and has triggered a lot of additonal and unneeded destabilisation on the globe, and when Putin labels that as "dangerous", then he is right on the mark. Like it or not, but Russia is a global major player again, economically the West partially depends on it (energy), while militarily they are pressing hard to step back into the first line of global players, and I think they are successful in that, judging by the financial investements of the last five years. They had military equipement that partially is en par with modern Wetsern euqipment, partially surpasses it in quality. But since some years they also have the money again not build such equipment in limited numbers, but to distribute it to their armed forces in higher quantities.

You may be tempted to claim after the cold war that the self-declared winner of that has the right to take it all. But Russia seem to disagree on that. Today's Russia is not that kind of threat like the Soviet union may have been. I see a good basis (founded on mutual supportive or even identical interests) for cooperation. NATO's infantile "mine is longer than yours" attitude is not helpful. such confrontative style also makes it more and more diofficult to get Russian cooperation on issue like Iran - as if that divergence in interests isn't already difficult enough.

And those who are now surprised by Putin's outburst, only illustrate that they have not watched russia close enough during the last five years and since Putin took over. The message was on many walls, and bright and clearly.

One thing is for sure. Russia is no warmonger. But it will defend it's interests, nobody has the right to demand them act stupidly and self-hurting, and having cooperative relations with them is far vbetter than icy silence.

Putin just took the right to point this out, indirectly.

I do not care if Westerners accuse him of being not democratic. He raised the stability of russia, and that is what makes Russia more predictable. He strenghtend national structures, and stabilized the military. All that is good. He also managed to fight back the criminal oligarchs that corrupted the economy after the initial anarchy when the soviet Union broke down and western capitalism sold them economical exploitation as "democracy" and freedom. He send clear messages that all have understood: "do your businesses, and if they are a little bit dirty, I do not care, but when you mess with the interests of the Russian state and try to translate wealth into political power, I'll take your head." I see myself unable to criticise him for that, when looking at the desolate condition russia has been in just ten years ago. And as my journalistic idol Peter Scholl-Latour once said on TV: "Putin a dicator? I've seen many far, far worse dictators in the past fourty years." when Putin does things the way he does - then maybe this is because he knows that in that big country other governmental styles (like the EU madness for example) simply does not work. How well total liberalism works in Russia we have seen when the oligarchs and self-made millionaires threatened to take over the whole state. I think Russia has learned that lesson.

[Abraham]

I largely agree with Skybird's opinion about Putin.
The oil & gas dollars are helping him to make Russia into an economic (semi) superpower, which will reflect in a more self assured posture in international policy and military affairs.

However these remarks puzzle me:
Russia necessarily must feel surrounded, pushed back and strategically outplayed since NATO started it'S foolish attempt to push it's sphere of influence as far as directly to the Russian borders...
NATO's infantile "mine is longer than yours" attitude is not helpful. such confrontative style also makes it more and more diofficult to get Russian cooperation on issue like Iran - as if that divergence in interests isn't already difficult enough.
If the Russians feels surrounded by NATO it's their problem. With the choice of a proper foreign policy that fear could be eliminated.
Contrary to this, the former Eastern Bloc countries felt a future threat from Russia after the break down of the Warsaw Pact. Countries like Polan, Hungary and the Czech Republic - for many years suppressed by Russian military might - requested to join NATO. How could the West has shown these countries, who at a certain time all resisted their occupation, the door with the argument that their former occupier might feel threatened?
It is in my view a historic necessety that these countries became part of a free Europe and share its economic and military protection.
Putin will have to live with that reality...

As far as the remark:NATO's infantile "mine is longer than yours" attitude is not helpfulIt's not an argument, it's not substantiated and it says more about Skybirds view on NATO than about NATO's view on Russia.

[NefariousKoel]

You're still here justifying Commie agenda I see Skybird.

I think your favorite KGB Russian overlord, Putin, was attempting to demonize the US as that seems a popular thing to do lately. In an attempt at trying to "sympathize" with Germany and win them back to the old regime. He basically threw it right out there that he wants an ally against the US in his visit to Germany. It's plain as day.

Putin is certainly an old hard liner when it comes to his thinking and I'm sure he'd have a new Soviet nation if he had it fully his way. You could be his client state!

I'd be all for it because being the only superpower on the stage is, quite frankly, a far underappreciated job. I think it's time for the next "Cold War".

[Skybird]

That's exactly the arrogance Putin - and me - are talking about: "Putin will have to live with that reality". No, it's not just Putin, it's a majority of russian public opinion, and No, they must not just live with it - in fact they already are reacting. BTW, Putin is very popular - especially amongst the young. They (voluntarily) even make pop songs about him. The size of intellectual opposition is overestimated, imo. and many of it's dreams about "all would be well if we would have a way like the EU" are simply this: dreams. A look at Brussel's already present anti-democracy and ursurping of powers that have no democratic legitimation should teach them for the better. - And after the fall of the USSR, and before stronger state control was reestablished again, the country, it'S ressources and economy almost got sold off to oligarchs and Western predators. No, the West has no reason to tell the Russian that the West is more fair, just and well-.going than Putin's method.

When the US felt that Soviet-friendly influence might be installed in Middle America, they started to wage wars in such cases. That was far tougher a reaction for much lesser cause. Talking about wars against independant states, not Aerican federal states wishing to leave the union. ;)

If a foreign military power starts to creep towards your borders more and more, installs sensors, radar screens, missile defense systems that reach far into your territory, it is not only hurting to your pride. It is an open provocation - like U2 flights high above your territory outside your missiles reach. Not to mention diplomatic phrases like "hurting one's territorial sovereignity". Mind you again: when America thought Soviet influence was coming too close in form of socialist regimes, it launched hidden or open wars. It turned countries in south and middle america into bloodthirsty tyrannies. Say what you want, Putin is far from that. He wants to keep together what he has left, and not give any more ground, that's it. The nineties were a time of constant giving ground and constant bad compromise and constant moves back. This has been brought to a halt.

It is not wise to treat a huge and mighty country, which in sort of it'S energy ressources has already a mighty "civilian" club available, in such provocative manner. It is totally unimportant if you think your moves are harmless, and have good reasons. Important is what reaction you cause because they see it different. there is also a nationalistic faction in Russia that is far worse than Putin. You do want to avoid acts that help them to come to power again or even just widen their influence. Putin doies not ifgnore them, but it seems to me that he also has managed to tame their ambitions for the time being.

NATO always claims it's only for the best of people. at the same time it is a toothless tiger on the european part, an actor making excessive use of military force whenever it serves his interests on the American part. This is what Putin lined out, and correctly.

NATO also needs to ask if it is in NATO's own interest to grow that far. that the US is aiming at a global role for it, is clear. But I do not see it that way. Europe shall not have any interest in playing policeman - not in the North-Atlantic neighbourhood, but in Asia. Or closer to China. the farther NATO reaches into crisis regions in the south-east, the greater the chance that it will get cought up in a real war that has little to do with European interests. Why fighting other people'S wars? And is anyone living under the impression, after Afghnaistan, that the european part of NATO is prepared for that? Or that the american part, after the poor performance in Iraq, is prepared for that? Like the EU, a too huge NATO also could lead to inability to act, to reach decisions, to come to reasomnable agreements. Every dwarf wants his voice represented in the outcome. There are already far too many players in the team.

Bombings of embassies (no way to convince me those were unintentional), patrol flights that are setting courses most precisely on the path of international border for "that is legitimate", phrases like "we armed them to death during the cold war, we'll do it again" (voice in this forum), and "let there be no doubt that the US has the capability to wage two wars at the same time" (Powell), sabre-rattling against Iran although having lost in Iraq and is being outmanouveured in Afghanistan and helpless against Northkorea - not really a display of reason and modesty. "Mine is longer than yours - so don't even dare to piss me!" In many regards, NATO policy is american policy, and American foreign policy does not reach farther than it can reach out with it's fist - an armslength, that is. That is the tapping-around of a relatively blind man. As is extremely obviously demonstated for example in the Middle East, since decades.

Nato is not the holy round of the twelve King Arthur knights. It neither is as noble, nor as capable. As a matter of fact it is in deep crisis, torn apart between America's attempt to use it for it'S own global desires, and Europe stubborness by which it refuses to even take responsebility for europe itself, and halfheartly waging wars that are not labelled wars in other parts of the globe, trying to close ties with Islamic countries at the same time. The example of Afghanistan for me has started to sing the swan song of NATO, although one might not be willing to see that before another 10 or 20 years have passed. the North Atlantic has become significantly wider in size, not smaller.

25-40% of gas and oil for most European countries comes from Russia. For Germany, it is even slightly more. You want to piss the russians, for whatever silly reasons you have? then at least make sure you get independant from them first. Like I always said before: you want to resist Islam? Become independant from Muslim oil first (around 20% of German's oil comes from Arab states, 20% that are tough to replace on today's tensed global energy trade markets since the chinese and Indians switched to higher gears).

[waste gate]

Sounds like Mr. Putin is playing the Kim Jong Il card for attention.

[Abraham]

That's exactly the arrogance Putin - and me - are talking about: "Putin will have to live with that reality".Everybody will have to live with realities that we don't always like. If you can't stand reality, try to change it, which is exactly what Putin tries to do and is entitled to do, by the way.

No, the West has no reason to tell the Russian that the West is more fair, just and well-.going than Putin's method.That really depends on how you compare the Western lifestyle with the Russian one. It is my conviction that most people will reach a different conclusion than you, Skybird. I for one find more fairness, justice and wellbeing in the Western lifestyle.

If a foreign military power starts to creep towards your borders more and more, installs sensors, radar screens, missile defense systems that reach far into your territory, it is not only hurting to your pride. It is an open provocation...I would like to rephrase this in:
"If decades long oppressed countries decide to prefer freedom and choose to become members of an Alliance to guarantee that freedom... it is not only hurting to your pride. It is an open provocation etc. etc."
One of the realities that Putin has to face is that his foreign policy carries the burden of the heritage of a totalitarian communist regime that suppressed its neighbour countries...

Mind you again: when America thought Soviet influence was coming too close in form of socialist regimes, it launched hidden or open wars. It turned countries in south and middle america into bloodthirsty tyrannies.Wasn't that Soviet influence in those days of the Cold War an "open provocation" in Cuba, Bolivia, Guatemala, Angola etc.? Every revolutionairy agitator with a "democratic peoples movement for the liberation of..." who claimed to be "Marxist" - either in Azia, Africa or South and Middle America - could count on the full diplomatic and military support of the Soviet Union, no matter how dictatorial the regime was.

NATO always claims it's only for the best of people. at the same time it is a toothless tiger on the european part, an actor making excessive use of military force whenever it serves his interests on the American part. This is what Putin lined out, and correctly.

NATO also needs to ask if it is in NATO's own interest to grow that far. that the US is aiming at a global role for it, is clear. But I do not see it that way. Europe shall not have any interest in playing policeman - not in the North-Atlantic neighbourhood, but in Asia. Or closer to China. the farther NATO reaches into crisis regions in the south-east, the greater the chance that it will get cought up in a real war that has little to do with European interests. Why fighting other people'S wars? And is anyone living under the impression, after Afghnaistan, that the european part of NATO is prepared for that? Or that the american part, after the poor performance in Iraq, is prepared for that? Like the EU, a too huge NATO also could lead to inability to act, to reach decisions, to come to reasomnable agreements. Every dwarf wants his voice represented in the outcome. There are already far too many players in the team.

Bombings of embassies (no way to convince me those were unintentional), patrol flights that are setting courses most precisely on the path of international border for "that is legitimate", phrases like "we armed them to death during the cold war, we'll do it again" (voice in this forum), and "let there be no doubt that the US has the capability to wage two wars at the same time" (Powell), sabre-rattling against Iran although having lost in Iraq and is being outmanouveured in Afghanistan and helpless against Northkorea - not really a display of reason and modesty. "Mine is longer than yours - so don't even dare to piss me!" In many regards, NATO policy is american policy, and American foreign policy does not reach farther than it can reach out with it's fist - an armslength, that is. That is the tapping-around of a relatively blind man. As is extremely obviously demonstated for example in the Middle East, since decades.
I can't argue that much pessimism. :down:
I'll confidently await the judgement of history on NATO.
And I think you are a little bit too much focussed on the line: "Mine is longer than yours". I never heart Jaap De Hoop Scheffers use that phrase to explain NATO policy.

[Skybird]

Everybody will have to live with realities that we don't always like. If you can't stand reality, try to change it, which is exactly what Putin tries to do and is entitled to do, by the way.
So why did you tell him that he has to live with reality...

That really depends on how you compare the Western lifestyle with the Russian one. It is my conviction that most people will reach a different conclusion than you, Skybird. I for one find more fairness, justice and wellbeing in the Western lifestyle.
You may talk about lifestyles, maybe. I talked about the mechanism by which power that leads and influences a state is being projected, and legitimated. And here the madness of allowing political party policies overruling the interests of the whole community, the massive lobbying and the inextricable sleaze of politics and industry, the turning of democracies into effective plutocracies (US) or ruling of (corrupt) bureaucracies under heavy PC and socialistic influence (Europe) hardly can be seen as the shining democratic alternative that it claims to be. And the EU: when observers and insiders say that every member of parliament in Brussel is being workd on by a mean of roughly two dozen lobbyists, then you may think that democracy may still be there and is immune to that massive attack on it. I don't - and see that proven in the way the EU has developed over the last 5-10 years, if not longer. these gremias are not elected by the european people, but nevertheless forge rules which elected governments are expected to follow. If such governments (like Merkel said it for Germany) are accepting to obey rules that are outlined to them, without having the ability to reject them, that this turns the idea of elections and democratic procedures on national level into an absurdity, and probably in most European countries also violates constitutions, constitutional rights for sovereignity, and puts these constitutions very much out of effect. All this because of bureaucratic bodies that are not elected, and are not democratically legitimised. There must be a reason why founding fathers of the early EEG (EWG), namely Helmut Schjmidt and Giscard d'Estaing, today are talking so bitterly against the course the EU has set in the past years. Schmidt say it very clearly: this is not the Europe the intentionback then was aiming for, and the accumulation ofunlegitimised power in Brussell's institutions is highly threatening for the national democracies of europe. He also does not hide that in his opinion the new idea of what the EU shall be is doomed to fail, and will become obsolete and inefficient. Quite some old politicians who had resposnebility in the late 70s and 80s agree with that view. The EU is being turned into a dictatorship of bureaucrats who outsit the coming and going of politicians and governments, having the power to influence the process of turning political goals into realities by hindering or helping them when processing them in the internal bureaucratic procedures. that is nothing else than ursurping of power, to a degree that compares to the dominance of the courtly bureaucrats and minstre in acnient china who very much hollowed out the institution of the emperor and turned him into their puppet. It led china to a century-long status of stagnation, in which the country almost got suffocated and prooved to be unable to flexibly respond to the new challenges of changes when the Westerners arrived. Thus it was overthrown.

I would like to rephrase this in: "If decades long oppressed countries decide to prefer freedom and choose to become members of an Alliance to guarantee that freedom... it is not only hurting to your pride. It is an open provocation etc. etc."
One of the realities that Putin has to face is that his foreign policy carries the burden of the heritage of a totalitarian communist regime that suppressed its neighbour countries...
Then I recommend you throw out Germany of NATO and the EU.

And btw, NATO has no obligation whatever to accept every Peter and Paul as a member - simply because Pauls wishes to become a member, btw. His wish is not NATO's command. The West, and Russia are two huge political spheres, and I also say that the US compares to the historical examples of empires (I mean that as a fact-oriented argu,ment, not a provocation). Empires do not simply stop at this artificial line on a map, or that river. the power and influence they project degrades, the farther away you are from their centre. Beyond the teritory they claim to be theirs, they nevertheless project some influence: border traffic, trade traffic, habits of people living in "the outback", languages being spoken, knowledge of their habits and laws affecting local conditions outside their territories, but close to the border, currency, etc. Between two such spheres or empires therefor it is wise to have a bufferzone of territories not officially belonging to any of them. Else every movement of the one necessarily will immediately affect and force to react the other. the margin for misunderstabndings or errors becomes extrmeely thin that way. Best example: the iron curtain through europe. thatwas such a no-bufferzone-contact between two huge blocks.
Your rephrasing is pathetic in choice of words, but you know that yourself - you picked it nevertheless, because suggestive phrasing like this serves your cause.

Wasn't that Soviet influence in those days of the Cold War an "open provocation" in Cuba, Bolivia, Guatemala, Angola etc.? Every revolutionairy agitator with a "democratic peoples movement for the liberation of..." who claimed to be "Marxist" - either in Azia, Africa or South and Middle America - could count on the full diplomatic and military support of the Soviet Union, no matter how dictatorial the regime was.
I am sure that after the example of cuba - Nicaragua, Honduras, San Salvador, Peru, Chile and Argentina, Panama were doomed to become very lethal, incredible threatening challenges for the mere existence of the US, and the West. Reason enough to launch hidden wars, direct interventions, and support dictatorships that costed the lifes of hunrdeds of thousands. Not to mention the Souteastasian domino... Well, Vietnam was lost. And still we have not Neo-USSR-like nations in that region. Northkorea is an artefact from even earlier times.

I can't argue that much pessimism. :down:
A weak reply. :down: NATO is a bright-weathert alliance. Go arguing with that in the face of the political rifts about Afghanistan and troop contributionsd for it.

I'll confidently await the judgement of history on NATO.
Here it is: it served it's purpose well duzring the cold war, but with the end of the Soviet Union it failed to reach agreement on it'S future role - the one camp wishing to turn it into a deputy helping to push global ambitions of the major dominant player in the team, the other camp allowing to be intimidated by that demand, but passively refusing to support that by substantial contributions, blocking that agenda indirectly. The age of self-deception sooner or later must come to an end. Really, the Afghanistan controversy is telling much. and as a matter of fact, countries like France, Germany, Italy, probably Spain as well, and smaller ones hiding behind these, will never support a global role for NATO in deeds, not just words. That is diplomacy: to say No, without using the word.

And I think you are a little bit too much focussed on the line: "Mine is longer than yours". I never heart Jaap De Hoop Scheffers use that phrase to explain NATO policy.
Please don't tell us you are surprised that he has not.

[dean_acheson]

Yes, I wish that we in the United States would learn to take criticism better.

I also wish that we hadn't gotten involved in the worlds problems, mainly in 1917, and that little European stink in 41, since that wasn't 'our' war anyway.

Can't the world take care of itself without us? Get rid of the imperialistic WTO and World Bank, as well as letting the UN move to Brussels....

Lord knows, we always just screw everything up, and everything would be so much better if we would just stick to bad movies and McDonalds.... and letting the EU run our court systems.

I'm sorry, but taking lessons in how the world should work from a former KGB agent is something that I find a bit difficult.

[CCIP]

I wanted to say something but Skybird has already said everything. It's wonderful to operate under the assumption that one's vision is better than others', but let's not forget that we aren't dealing with a 'Soviet Empire' of any sort here. Russia is perfectly willing to work with the west so long as its interests are respected. And as I see it, some of you seem to have some sort of ideological block to respecting them.

[geetrue]

I wanted to say something but Skybird has already said everything. It's wonderful to operate under the assumption that one's vision is better than others', but let's not forget that we aren't dealing with a 'Soviet Empire' of any sort here. Russia is perfectly willing to work with the west so long as its interests are respected. And as I see it, some of you seem to have some sort of ideological block to respecting them.

(in high falsetto voice) "Oh, Skybird you have already said everything that could be said about this problem" Kiss, kiss :roll:

I'm sorry I just couldn't resist it CCIP ... Please forgive me, but come on your an intelligent sort of guy you can come up with something ... :p

My second guess about Putin getting all worked up about the USA is that he is trying to drag Germany and the
EU in agreement to align themselves against us.

Russia's well known investment in Iran is the real reason as our warships steam torward the Persian Gulf.
Just like France stood to lose billions of dollars if we attacked Iraq and they let everyone know they
were against that confrontation.

Putin is a chess player and after thinking about why Putin would say,
"Bush is a nice man to do business with",
I realized he was talking third person to President Bush, saying hey Mr President
were not too happy about your intentions, "Lets make a deal"

Putin has the US Congress on his side ... No one in the majority wants to start a war with Iran, right?
They don't even want us to finish the preventive maintence war we are in right now.

Mr. Bush can't convince the Congress to fund a war ...
all that leaves is for Iran to make the first move and the US Navy to finish it ...
the whistle on tea pot is going to start blowing and
somebody better get out of the way.

This many ships in and around the Persian Gulf means someone has
already thought out a battle plan ...
Now see why Putin is tooten?

[CCIP]

May I remind you that, as with Iraq, whatever investments Russia may have in the 'enemy', it will end up being a big winner should a war break out - as it was with Iraq (where it lost what Saddam owed them, but gained oil sales and a bunch of contracts too - net result well in the positive figures). Anything that threatens middle eastern oil is in fact great news for Russia. I would attribute much of Russia's economic upswing lately to the effects of instability in the Middle East on oil prices.

[irish1958]

CCIP,
You are right about that.
In less than 2 years, we will have a new "leadership" in the US. I hope they will know history and have a little better understanding of Islam and the need for national self interests.

[joea]

FFS, why are some of you Americans so eager to make enemies???? :hmm:

[irish1958]

FFS, why are some of you Americans so eager to make enemies???? :hmm:

Simple. The John Wayne, cowboy mentality of some of our conservatives forces them to ignore opinions that are contrary to their "beliefs". As a matter of faith (defined as certainty without the necessity of having facts to support your position) they believe they are right, and everyone else is wrong, or at least misguided.

[Dimitrius07]

Sorry if i hurt someone but at least here i can say that.

Putin put out your tong from Iraq a@s and stop make fool of our self :down:

[Fish]

This many ships in and around the Persian Gulf means someone has
already thought out a battle plan ...

So where are we waiting for? A Gleiwitz incident?

[geetrue]

This many ships in and around the Persian Gulf means someone has
already thought out a battle plan ...

So where are we waiting for? A Gleiwitz incident?


No, a radar blip on the radar screen that can be distingushed between sea return and a patrol boat ... ala 1964.

Which was a sad day in American history, but enlisted men just fight em ... The higher ups start em.

[Fish]

This many ships in and around the Persian Gulf means someone has
already thought out a battle plan ...

So where are we waiting for? A Gleiwitz incident?


No, a radar blip on the radar screen that can be distingushed between sea return and a patrol boat ... ala 1964.

Which was a sad day in American history, but enlisted men just fight em ... The higher ups start em.

Well, lets hope that "blip" will not be the beginning of a other sad day for American history. :hmm:

[CCIP]

Putin put out your tong from Iraq a@s and stop make fool of our self :down:
No offence taken

Putin doesn't need to make fools of 'our self' as I believe the American leadership has that ground firmly covered :/\\x:

FFS, why are some of you Americans so eager to make enemies???? :hmm:
Simple. The John Wayne, cowboy mentality of some of our conservatives forces them to ignore opinions that are contrary to their "beliefs". As a matter of faith (defined as certainty without the necessity of having facts to support your position) they believe they are right, and everyone else is wrong, or at least misguided.

Very good point, and I'd like to make it a point for distinguishing Putin (and why he's liked in his country, quite aside from "cult of personality") - I see the US conservatives acting largely out of principles and idealism, whereas Putin tends to act pragmatically and with concern for specific & real (rather than ideological) interests.

Again, though I'm not a fan of Putin, I sincerely wish we could have a world where pragmatic forces seek a balance than a world of great ideological struggles between "good and evil" that the American leadership is trying to build a frenzy around. This is why I think Putin is very right in that speech. :hmm:

[TteFAboB]

quite aside from "cult of personality"

Putin can't really be accused of personality cult. If we took the usual criteria used for actual valid accusations, some of them would fit, but I think there are two fundamental conditions without which a personality is not a valid target for the accusation:

1. To hinder or to have hindered communism.
2. To actually be a ruling personality, to become a King.

Putin fits neither. He's not doing anything to hinder communism and as far as I'm aware he's not planning to remain personally in power forever, nor does all power concentrates on his person.

True, it's a paradox. He's the most popular Russian politician ever, or at least appears to be, or we believe him to be, or all of them were, while he's not using this popularity to perpetuate his person on power. But that's of the nature of the accusation itself. Somebody has to sit in the head chair and he'll have a name and will be a person, like him or not.

[CCIP]

Thus my use of it in quotations (it was brought up in the thread before).

You're quite right, except that I should note that Russians are quite used to having one choice of leader so I wouldn't say his popularity is massively out of proportion (paradoxical though it may be, many Soviet-era leaders were relatively popular; Yeltsin, perhaps Russia's worst leader ever, even had overwhelming popularity for the early part of his career).

But that does bring me back to the question of elections. Putin has stated that he will not be running in 2008, but then he made some rather ominous remarks that he is not planning to step away from public/political life afterwards.
My personal prediction is Ivanov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Ivanov), in which case I think we can safely expect him to continue along Putin's lines, and even perhaps more forcefully.

[robbo180265]

The other way of looking at things is that maybe Russia thinks that Nato hasn't any power. Say America invaded Iran? Would Nato really be able to do anything about it?

Or maybe Russia thinks that Nato is America because America is the most powerful nation in it.Therfore Nato moving into Eastern Europe is a threat to Russia.

I think that there are some good points raised here on both sides, the one thing we can't dispute is that Russia is arming up, question is why?

My God ! in the time it took me to write this you lot have gone bonkers! Page two already!

Hope it still makes sense.

[TteFAboB]

Thus my use of it in quotations (it was brought up in the thread before).

I know. (where's the "attempting to hold grin" smiley?) I brought it up! :rotfl:

And when I say some criteria would fit, it is implied but perhaps it's best to make it clear that whoever sits in the leading chair will always fit into something. Even if a head of state rejects attention or attempts to hide his figure, which probably means political suicide, this would still be a display of an individual personality. The damn thing is inescapable. It goes round and round :ping: and never reaches anywhere.

[Ducimus]

Reading this thread has only reinforced my isolationist tendencies.

Where's this president again?
http://www.bvml.org/webmaster/patton.html
It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying darn tootin'. Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet.

It is time to cut taxes here because we will not be spending on other peoples problems.

Shame such a president doesn't exist.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

the U.S ever since it has been created needed war to survive, they were created from the civil war, they needed to "re-invent " themselves so they stay a superpower, and to stay a superpower they created their disgusting foreign policy(which i spit on:down:) and all the wars they been at, ww1,ww2, korean, vietnam, somalia, yugoslavia, cold war, gulf war 1, gulf war 2, aghanistan , "war on terror:roll::roll:" there never wudda been extremists if america wa never so violent in the first place, obviously theywudda been there but not america haters, then 9/11 never wudda happened:roll:, so i spit on NATO, UN and NAFTA, UN for being puppets and not even trying to punish america for their crimes, NATO for not trying to stop america and being puppets, and nafta for taking away jobs and giving them to lousy illegal aliens who dont have the balls to back to their country and legally get a passport.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Reading this thread has only reinforced my isolationist tendencies.

Where's this president again?
http://www.bvml.org/webmaster/patton.html
It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying darn tootin'. Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet.

It is time to cut taxes here because we will not be spending on other peoples problems.
Shame such a president doesn't exist.

FINALLY SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING THAT 10000000000000~% should be U.S right now, then there wud be no kosovo crap, no tearaparts of countries, no iraq problem , no north korea proble, no iran problem etc.. all these problems go away lol :doh:

[Tchocky]

the U.S ever since it has been created needed war to survive, they were created from the civil war, they needed to "re-invent " themselves so they stay a superpower, and to stay a superpower they created their disgusting foreign policy(which i spit on:down:) and all the wars they been at, ww1,ww2, korean, vietnam, somalia, yugoslavia, cold war, gulf war 1, gulf war 2, aghanistan , "war on terror:roll::roll:" there never wudda been extremists if america wa never so violent in the first place, obviously theywudda been there but not america haters, then 9/11 never wudda happened:roll:, so i spit on NATO, UN and NAFTA, UN for being puppets and not even trying to punish america for their crimes, NATO for not trying to stop america and being puppets, and nafta for taking away jobs and giving them to lousy illegal aliens who dont have the balls to back to their country and legally get a passport.

I wish my worldview was ^this ^ much fun :(

[ASWnut101]

last I recall, war is what caused a majority of our national debt...

[elite_hunter_sh3]

last I recall, war is what caused a majority of our national debt...
bingo!!! so heres a helpful tip stop bombing other countries, and fix ur economy
few good things come out of that

1. rest of the world doesnt hate u anymore, thus no or little terrorists left,
2. good relations with rest of world so then economic prosperity
3. economic prosperity= surplus thus better social in ur country thus less crime this better country to live in overall

then with all that extra money and little unemployment rate, concentrate on enviroment nd global warming.

thus america becomes the "dream land" again.

[Onkel Neal]

the U.S ever since it has been created needed war to survive, they were created from the civil war, they needed to "re-invent " themselves so they stay a superpower, and to stay a superpower they created their disgusting foreign policy(which i spit on:down:) and all the wars they been at, ww1,ww2, korean, vietnam, somalia, yugoslavia, cold war, gulf war 1, gulf war 2, aghanistan , "war on terror:roll::roll:" there never wudda been extremists if america wa never so violent in the first place, obviously theywudda been there but not america haters, then 9/11 never wudda happened:roll:, so i spit on NATO, UN and NAFTA, UN for being puppets and not even trying to punish america for their crimes, NATO for not trying to stop america and being puppets, and nafta for taking away jobs and giving them to lousy illegal aliens who dont have the balls to back to their country and legally get a passport.

I wish my worldview was ^this ^ much fun :(

Lol, right on :smug:

[Abraham]

the U.S ever since it has been created needed war to survive, they were created from the civil war, they needed to "re-invent " themselves so they stay a superpower, and to stay a superpower they created their disgusting foreign policy(which i spit on:down:) and all the wars they been at, ww1,ww2, korean, vietnam, somalia, yugoslavia, cold war, gulf war 1, gulf war 2, aghanistan , "war on terror:roll::roll:" there never wudda been extremists if america wa never so violent in the first place, obviously theywudda been there but not america haters, then 9/11 never wudda happened:roll:, so i spit on NATO, UN and NAFTA, UN for being puppets and not even trying to punish america for their crimes, NATO for not trying to stop america and being puppets, and nafta for taking away jobs and giving them to lousy illegal aliens who dont have the balls to back to their country and legally get a passport.
A quite remarkable view on the foreign policy of the US as a Superpower...
:rotfl:

Never mind that the War of Independance was not the Civil War, never mind a couple of Zero's and Val bombers above Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7th 1941, a couple of civil air planes flown in some builings on Sept. 11, 2001 and a handfull of other historic facts.
:o

Some stupids over here in Holland still celebrate each year that those wicked Americans came over - together with British, Canadians, French and Polish troops - to occupy our country after the Second World War.
Mind you!

And 8302 of those occupiers are still here!
http://www.digitalefotosite-corenjoke.com/margraten.htm
Mind you!
:hmm:

[Fish]

the one thing we can't dispute is that Russia is arming up, question is why?



Question: Why not?
Looking at the state of here fleet. :hmm:
Looking at the dollars put in the US army in total.:hmm:

[geetrue]

the one thing we can't dispute is that Russia is arming up, question is why?



Question: Why not?
Looking at the state of here fleet. :hmm:
Looking at the dollars put in the US army in total.:hmm:

Old Russian generals and Russian admirals are dying or being replaced
and the new one's don't want have the same thing happen to them.
Job protection and foreign sales of arms (old and new) keep them going.

[The Avon Lady]

the one thing we can't dispute is that Russia is arming up, question is why?



Question: Why not?
Looking at the state of here fleet. :hmm:
Looking at the dollars put in the US army in total.:hmm:

Old Russian generals and Russian admirals are dying or being replaced
and the new one's don't want have the same thing happen to them.
Job protection and foreign sales of arms (old and new) keep them going.
I think it's very important and logical that Russia at this time is investing heavily in its military, who has been in neglect for quite some time.

Military policy and spending is one thing. Foreign policy and politics is another.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

russia needs to become a superpower asap, because during cold war there were 2 sides, and america could not go around policing the world, alot of countries are pissed at the U.S because they go around acting like they own the world which is a big no-no:nope: , russia and china will help counter that cuz of former communist political ties, and they can keep (and i quote a japanese general)"trhe great beast" at bay

[Takeda Shingen]

Warning No. 1: Keep this clean. Keep this friendly.

Thanks,
The Management

[NefariousKoel]

the U.S ever since it has been created needed war to survive, they were created from the civil war, they needed to "re-invent " themselves so they stay a superpower, and to stay a superpower they created their disgusting foreign policy(which i spit on:down:) and all the wars they been at, ww1,ww2, korean, vietnam, somalia, yugoslavia, cold war, gulf war 1, gulf war 2, aghanistan , "war on terror:roll::roll:" there never wudda been extremists if america wa never so violent in the first place, obviously theywudda been there but not america haters, then 9/11 never wudda happened:roll:, so i spit on NATO, UN and NAFTA, UN for being puppets and not even trying to punish america for their crimes, NATO for not trying to stop america and being puppets, and nafta for taking away jobs and giving them to lousy illegal aliens who dont have the balls to back to their country and legally get a passport. A quite remarkable view on the foreign policy of the US as a Superpower...
:rotfl:

Never mind that the War of Independance was not the Civil War, never mind a couple of Zero's and Val bombers above Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7th 1941, a couple of civil air planes flown in some builings on Sept. 11, 2001 and a handfull of other historic facts.
:o

Some stupids over here in Holland still celebrate each year that those wicked Americans came over - together with British, Canadians, French and Polish troops - to occupy our country after the Second World War.
Mind you!

And 8302 of those occupiers are still here!
http://www.digitalefotosite-corenjoke.com/margraten.htm
Mind you!
:hmm:

Well done Abraham! I find facts don't seem to be his strongest suit. Bile. That could well be. :lol:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

what ever america relies on war to survive, and right now the rest of the world is getting tires of the police state. sooner or later a country is gonna crack there yo have it ww3.

[ASWnut101]

Warning No. 1: Keep this clean. Keep this friendly.

Thanks,
The Management


Huh? I didn't see anything wrong...



*this is a guess: you waved the delete wand*

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Warning No. 1: Keep this clean. Keep this friendly.

Thanks,
The Management

Huh? I didn't see anything wrong...



*this is a guess: you waved the delete wand*



I think maybe its precautionary

[Takeda Shingen]

Warning No. 1: Keep this clean. Keep this friendly.

Thanks,
The Management

Huh? I didn't see anything wrong...



*this is a guess: you waved the delete wand*



I think maybe its precautionary

Yes. I always act in the precautionary sense first. It is a well established fact that I do not like to delete posts or lock threads. I feel that they are unsightly and give a poor impression for new or casual members. Accordingly, I issue warnings when things get heated, or when they appear to be heading down this path. There are serveral red flags waiving in this thread. As such, I have reminded the participants in this discussion that I am watching the thread in the hopes that they will regulate themselves.

Regarding deletions and magical instruments: There is always a tab left with the name of the poster and moderator who performed the deletion. I am not able to perform a 'hard delete', where the post dissapears entirely. Only Mr. Stevens is able to excecute such an action. As such, no posts have been deleted.

I hope that this has been informative. Now, back to the sandbox.

[geetrue]

You came along just in time Takeda, because I was fixing to post a picture
of the entire United States Navy and all of it's ships and men,
but I figured it would take too long to download ... :lol:

[joea]

what ever america relies on war to survive, and right now the rest of the world is getting tires of the police state. sooner or later a country is gonna crack there yo have it ww3.

Geeez a lot of countries relied on war, and still do M8. :shifty:

[The Avon Lady]

what ever america relies on war to survive, and right now the rest of the world is getting tires of the police state. sooner or later a country is gonna crack there yo have it ww3.
Geeez a lot of countries relied on war, and still do M8. :shifty:
You're responding to someone who on another thread suggested that Serbia use nukes against Kosovo to resolve its own problems.

What's good for the goose........................

[dean_acheson]

O my. If not for NATO, I shudder to think of the way the world would look today.

Of course, it obvious that I am biased from my choice of a name.... lol :D

[loynokid]

All Putin is doing is sucking up to the liberal world media, does no one have the common sense to see that... it is pretty plain and simple

[CCIP]

All Putin is doing is sucking up to the liberal world media, does no one have the common sense to see that... it is pretty plain and simple

I think everyone has the common sense to see that Putin has nothing to gain from the world liberal media, especially since he's no liberal to begin with. Please stop with the conservative drivel already, it's getting annoying. :-?

[Fish]

All Putin is doing is sucking up to the liberal world media, does no one have the common sense to see that... it is pretty plain and simple

You use the word liberal as a curse isn't it?

[Takeda Shingen]

All Putin is doing is sucking up to the liberal world media, does no one have the common sense to see that... it is pretty plain and simple

I think everyone has the common sense to see that Putin has nothing to gain from the world liberal media, especially since he's no liberal to begin with. Please stop with the conservative drivel already, it's getting annoying. :-?

To add further, whatever one may say about Putin, and many things can be said, he plays by his own rules. Accordingly, sucking up is not in his playbook. If he does not like what the media says, he simply closes them down or kicks them out.

[loynokid]

All Putin is doing is sucking up to the liberal world media, does no one have the common sense to see that... it is pretty plain and simple
I think everyone has the common sense to see that Putin has nothing to gain from the world liberal media, especially since he's no liberal to begin with. Please stop with the conservative drivel already, it's getting annoying. :-?
To add further, whatever one may say about Putin, and many things can be said, he plays by his own rules. Accordingly, sucking up is not in his playbook. If he does not like what the media says, he simply closes them down or kicks them out.


Its seemes that i am proved wrong again. Now if you wouldn't mind please tell me why he is saying this stuff.

[Kapitan]

There are very few people who dislike putin since he came to power russia's GBP as quadrupled and is set to double again by 2009, under the last idiot the navy went to pot and so did most of the armed forces, putin re constructed and still is today.

unemployment has gone down a fair bit too it could be better but theres plenty of work yet to be done, ok its not a free state there are draw backs but it works.

Remember freedom comes at diffrent levels and it doesnt all work the same way for everyone.

[CCIP]

Its seemes that i am proved wrong again. Now if you wouldn't mind please tell me why he is saying this stuff.
We've said plenty of times.

1) Raising his government's profile at home, leading up to the elections in 2008 when his likely successor, Ivanov, will capitalize on pursuing a tough and confident line of foreign policy that shows Russia as not afraid to speak to its interests and criticize others (very different from 90's Russia).

2) Likewise flexing his foreign policy muscle abroad. I consider this to be a 'subtle' hint to the Western leaders that Russia is no longer worried about sounding harsh. For the past while it has been traditional for the West to criticize Russia's exertion of power on and around her immediate interests - and now Putin says "look, we can do this too!"

3) As per the 'liberal media' theory - again, Putin could care less. In fact he knows that the conservative media will be far more in an uproar over this than any liberals, and it is perhaps much-better suited to them, though again - this isn't the purpose. Putin would be catering to western media if he wanted to step softly or bluff; meanwhile I think he's at a point where he's neither bluffing nor stepping softly.

By the way, I still blame the west, in large part the conservative west that has perceived Russia as an enemy/potential enemy, for turning their back on Russia at a crucial moment and not supporting true liberal (in the economic, not neccesarily social, sense) democratic elements and values in the country when it had the chance. Instead they rejoiced at the downfall of the old enemy, and now they're getting the response they deserve - "Don't mess with us, we know what we're doing, and we know what you're doing (and don't like it)".

[Kapitan]

I think russia would do alot better if it was semi communist semi capitalist basicaly roughly what it is now kind of.

[Takeda Shingen]

Its seemes that i am proved wrong again. Now if you wouldn't mind please tell me why he is saying this stuff.
We've said plenty of times.

1) Raising his government's profile at home, leading up to the elections in 2008 when his likely successor, Ivanov, will capitalize on pursuing a tough and confident line of foreign policy that shows Russia as not afraid to speak to its interests and criticize others (very different from 90's Russia).

2) Likewise flexing his foreign policy muscle abroad. I consider this to be a 'subtle' hint to the Western leaders that Russia is no longer worried about sounding harsh. For the past while it has been traditional for the West to criticize Russia's exertion of power on and around her immediate interests - and now Putin says "look, we can do this too!"

3) As per the 'liberal media' theory - again, Putin could care less. In fact he knows that the conservative media will be far more in an uproar over this than any liberals, and it is perhaps much-better suited to them, though again - this isn't the purpose. Putin would be catering to western media if he wanted to step softly or bluff; meanwhile I think he's at a point where he's neither bluffing nor stepping softly.

By the way, I still blame the west, in large part the conservative west that has perceived Russia as an enemy/potential enemy, for turning their back on Russia at a crucial moment and not supporting true liberal (in the economic, not neccesarily social, sense) democratic elements and values in the country when it had the chance. Instead they rejoiced at the downfall of the old enemy, and now they're getting the response they deserve - "Don't mess with us, we know what we're doing, and we know what you're doing (and don't like it)".

Grrr. CCIP, I direct you to the Forum FAQ's where it specifically states that no member is ever permitted to beat Tak to the punch in a response. Ever. Don't make me ban you.

Goofyness aside, this is correct: Putin has his own election cycle to deal with in '08. The Russian voter loves a strong man, and Putin has demonstrated domestic toughness in dealing with the press and with rival political factions. Now, he seeks to further demonstrate his foreign policy teeth by standing up to the US. He looks to reestablish a resurgent Russia on the world stage. Russia will not be a superpower, and Putin knows this. However, he is looking to give Russia a formal position on matters.

All of this plays very well with the voters back home.

[Kapitan]

I dont think putin can stand in the next election its limited to a set amount of terms i do believe theres been talk that he cant his predassessor put a limit on how many turns in office you can do.

Think im right il double check though.

[Takeda Shingen]

I dont think putin can stand in the next election its limited to a set amount of terms i do believe theres been talk that he cant his predassessor put a limit on how many turns in office you can do.

Think im right il double check though.

No, he can't, but he has to have something to hand Ivanov. Best to get the ball rolling now and then have Ivanov tell the Russian people, 'I plan to give you more of this!' Nothing is better for a successor than a strong incumbent.

[loynokid]

Its seemes that i am proved wrong again. Now if you wouldn't mind please tell me why he is saying this stuff.
We've said plenty of times.

1) Raising his government's profile at home, leading up to the elections in 2008 when his likely successor, Ivanov, will capitalize on pursuing a tough and confident line of foreign policy that shows Russia as not afraid to speak to its interests and criticize others (very different from 90's Russia).

2) Likewise flexing his foreign policy muscle abroad. I consider this to be a 'subtle' hint to the Western leaders that Russia is no longer worried about sounding harsh. For the past while it has been traditional for the West to criticize Russia's exertion of power on and around her immediate interests - and now Putin says "look, we can do this too!"

3) As per the 'liberal media' theory - again, Putin could care less. In fact he knows that the conservative media will be far more in an uproar over this than any liberals, and it is perhaps much-better suited to them, though again - this isn't the purpose. Putin would be catering to western media if he wanted to step softly or bluff; meanwhile I think he's at a point where he's neither bluffing nor stepping softly.

By the way, I still blame the west, in large part the conservative west that has perceived Russia as an enemy/potential enemy, for turning their back on Russia at a crucial moment and not supporting true liberal (in the economic, not neccesarily social, sense) democratic elements and values in the country when it had the chance. Instead they rejoiced at the downfall of the old enemy, and now they're getting the response they deserve - "Don't mess with us, we know what we're doing, and we know what you're doing (and don't like it)".
Grrr. CCIP, I direct you to the Forum FAQ's where it specifically states that no member is ever permitted to beat Tak to the punch in a response. Ever. Don't make me ban you.

Goofyness aside, this is correct: Putin has his own election cycle to deal with in '08. The Russian voter loves a strong man, and Putin has demonstrated domestic toughness in dealing with the press and with rival political factions. Now, he seeks to further demonstrate his foreign policy teeth by standing up to the US. He looks to reestablish a resurgent Russia on the world stage. Russia will not be a superpower, and Putin knows this. However, he is looking to give Russia a formal position on matters.

All of this plays very well with the voters back home.


Thanks guys, it seems as if you have brought up some new info that i hadnt thought of before. thanks again

[Takeda Shingen]

Thanks guys, it seems as if you have brought up some new info that i hadnt thought of before. thanks again

I hope that a lot of members sit up and take notice of this. Observe the lack of ad nauseum rhetoric. See that circular argument has not been persued. See that it is okay to actually admit learning something from your fellow members.

Loynokid, your stock has gone way up in my book. BZ to you. You are already a fine addition to this forum.

[Skybird]

A two-split way to look at things:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-467111,00.html

Winners: none.

Loosers: we all.

Maybe better to step back from trying to press it to the limits. 25x times a higher defense budget may buy more and better weapons. But does it buy wisdom as well?