Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by looseleaf, Aug 11, 2008.
what usa will feel once russia begins to build defensive missile system on cuba?
Why don't you just build your own missile defense shield and place it in Cuba, say ... to defend from Mexican nukes or whatever. THAT's how you get even.
LOL!!! Bastard, beat me to it.
Roman, it's much worse then you can imagine. My Mother lives in Australia, she said they don't have Russian news program on TV any more (they had 2 NTV news issues every day, at 10 and at 17). She has to say she's Ukrainian (in fact she is).
I watch BBC World News on cable: it's fantastic. We are again bloody savages, every time they report Red Army tanks 18 miles from Tbilisi and show the same block-post (outpost) with 3 BMPs. The degree of hysteria and hatred is overwhelming. I am surprised to read reasonable discussion here, thanks to our Western friends. At AH BBS (where I got banned for a week for calling nazi a nazi) they now discuss if "free world" should bomb us immediately or wait until we come and bring all our possessions to their disposal.
I saw similar things when NATO bombed poor Yugoslavia, then when US "liberated" Iraq, but it's quite a different feeling when all this shitstorm of hatred is directed at us and our country.
I don't know what is going to come out of this. It's scary, but I don't fucking care. West clearly positions itself as an enemy of Russia, regardless of political system here. It's an end of a 60-years old myth that West was fighting "communism", they were and still are fighting against Russia and Russians. They just don't need prosperous and successful Russia, they need to "reduce Russia's population to 30 million, who will support oil/gas production and pipelines", as mrs. Thatcher said almost 20 years ago.
So it goes and it's all very sad
Cuban airfields were already inspected by Russian Long Distance Aviation. They are ready to receive Tu-95s and Tu-160s there. Just in case such a need will emerge.
i doubt we reach the civilization type 1
Better to put nuclear bombers there for a while. Again.
It worked last time. After alot of crying and bitching USA removed their missiles from Trukey and status quo restores.
well, poland must prove that their bullets are rubber to stop a robber, not full-metal jacket to kill. as far as i understand it renounces to do that.
I'm only asking why Russia feels that anti radar umbrella is only and only against it. They can firing rockets over pacific or North pole as well or better than over Czech rep I think. And 10 anti radar missiles couldn't change results of atomic war.
I think Czech rep and Poland was chose because there is a hole in umbrella(If I was a terrorist I will try find these holes and travel all around the world to find best place to launch my one and last missile(isn't easiest way) or plan my missile way through these holes) and because shoted down missiles will ends in atlantic ocean and not on a heads of allies in Europe. There are these two opinions why could be Czech rep and Poland better than Azerbaijan.
One more flamewar theme. Now it is about 40 years from Warsaw pact invasion to Czech republic in 1968. I saw some interwiev with Russian general(I hope he was) who was one of comanders. He said, that they save us from 3rd WW and invasion of Americans and NATO troops on our lines and still believe they didn't occupy us. I believe that he believe this lie truly. Unfortunatelly after invasion many humans who only want be little more free was prisoned and life came back in old grey colours of normalization. I think we believe that Russians were friends and kick back nazis(komunists were another chapter) till 1968. This is the date when almost whole population changed your point of view and really don't like Russians. Hope this time passed...
in this example it's better to make umbrella bigger by adding azerbaijan radar.
i'm not pro-russian or anti-euro in radar/missile theme
i just use logic to limber up my mind.
I don't think it's the only lie, nor is he the only person to believe that, or any other lie for that matter.
I'm not sure. In fact, I am sure, but can only speak for myself. That's not true. And I can say that the rest of Europe thinks the same (I'm pretty sure of that). There's no anti-Russian feeling in Europe. You have your way of doing things, we have ours. It's only when nuclear weapons come into the equation that people start freaking out.
And well, you've scared a lot of people now with your combination of an assault on Georgia and now this "Missile Crisis anno 2008". This reminds people a lot of the cold war. There's really not much good that can come from this, until cooler heads prevail.
Nobody likes the kid in the corner of the room randomly waving a gun around.
i like pluralism. usa waves guns, russia waves guns, china show cunning smile, korea defends it's sovereignty, pakistan. no "world cop" that will force everyone to dance cops tune.
why don't you afraid of usa? because it has similar culture and you intuitively hope that usa won't wave gun at you? it seems that russia won't wave gun at kazakhstan, because of similarity. china scares. and hoping usa won't notice tiny us to wave gun in our side.
True, but I don't see the US of A threaten us because we install a Russian anti ballistic missile unit.
well for one small thing, usa is a bit further away from dictatorship than china, korea, or R.F. (yeah, tell me you guys have free elections and that there are equal rights for the ruling party and any kind of opposition, just try and tell me that...)
Try it. And you'll see.
I remember you say that you got Soviet nuclear missiles aimed at Rotterdam, 'cause it's the biggest European transit port in case of a Red-Blue war.
That time I asked: ain't it better to stay neutral, then to join an alliance? With such "friends" as the US you don't need enemies.
European countries are just pawns on the US chessboard. Some of them - disposable pawns, like Poland, Baltic so-called "states", CZ, big friends HU/RO etc.
Back in mid-80s Europeans understood that, protesting Pershing-II missiles deployment, understanding that the very existence of this weapons makes their countries more-then-possible targets.
ABM problem is not about Poland. They chose (I mean their regime) to host a hostile armed force, it may be a beach-head of an "indirect aggression", so - we are not going to target Poland, but the enemy bases there.
Does anyone still need explanations why NATO is an aggressive military block aimed at my country? And why, in case of any serious tension, RF will do to LV, LT and EE the same thing it did to GE? We are not fighting civilians, we only destroy all military structures, objects and facilities.
Hint: Leningrad is within tactical aviation range from Pribaltika. 10 minutes ETA for possible nuclear-weapon-capable hostile planes. It's even within nuclear-capable artillery range from Estonia.
Get real. You call us names - and we may take it quite seriously. We have some reasons to be a little paranoid, don't we?
I'd say nowhere is the Cold War more alive than in your head.
You think we should sit and wait until an A-bomb falls on our heads? "Geeze! It's sooo expensive we're gonna get rich!!!"
"How much people did they have to kill so we could wait until you consider it genocide!?" (c) Russian Ambassador to the UN.
Do you watch BBC or CNN? Watching them I get a strong impression that it was me and my friends who crucified Jesus. It's good that Euronews, that's transmitted all over the country here, edits it's Russian soundtrack to sound somehow unbiased. If only average Russian could watch and understand BBC - we'll get Western embassies burnt down by the crowd.
Do you realize how insulting all that media crap sounds for us? THAT is a cold war alive and kicking.
Popular RU.net joke
That bloody Russian barbarians back in 1945 used inadequate force, outrageously violated Germany's territorial integrity and literally forced it's democratically elected Chancellor to commit suicide!
That's the summary of what I see in Western media today.
Maybe I was younger then, then again, that shouldn't really matter.
We joined NATO, because we border on the Atlantic. Because we're not naturally communistic, though Marx lived in Brussels at some point in his life. And also, because we don't really let what nuclear weapons are aimed at our ports decide what we do with them. If our ports wouldn't expand, it wouldn't be worth a target, but it wouldn't provide an income. So, that's a sort of impasse, but in the end, we've seen enough different countries reign over this tiny bit of soil, not to care about that.
And what's Russia? The king?
If this is a chess board, then who'se decided to play white? You'll say it's America, but what if you're wrong? Mistaken intentions are a dangerous thing. Is a nuclear deterrent really necessary? MAD really is the dumbest idea in the book of dumb ideas that came ouf of the cold war.
Even then, this is no chess board. Saying European countries are pawns is all fine and well, but in the end it doesn't matter what they are. A pawn can still beat the king, even by your own analogy. Most of all, nobody is prepared to land themselves in the middle of something they have little affinity with. As I said before, the non continuation of - or the ceased support for - the non-proliferation treaty has only been because of the US and Russia.
Plenty of European countries could build nuclear weapons, but the fact that they haven't, clearly shows they don't want to*. They have no interest in a second cold war.
NATO is a mutual defence pact. It only goes on the offensive, as a whole, if it's UN sanctioned. Of course, what the US of A does in its free time, we can't influence, but we damned well can voice our disagreement, and we've amply proven our eagerness to do so in the past.
Why in godsname would you want to regress? We've evolved into the sort of society where you'd assume people give diplomacy a second chance before trying to give the military full control. We've been down that road all too often before. The military will always be a military. Politics however can change. And as society evolves, so do politics and diplomacy.
We could be stricken by your planes or your ICBM's, hell, for this little country they don't even need to cross much of a continent. A couple thousand kilometers will do. The thing just is though, we don't threaten with striking first.
Separate names with a comma.