Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#301891 08/20/08 05:31 PM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 37
gatski Offline OP
Rookie
OP Offline
Rookie
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 37
Rice signs deal to put U.S. missile base in Poland
WARSAW (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Polish counterpart signed a deal Wednesday to build a U.S. missile defense base in Poland, an agreement that prompted an infuriated Russia to warn of a possible attack against the former Soviet satellite.

Rice dismissed blustery comments from Russian leaders who say Warsaw's hosting of 10 U.S. interceptor missiles just 115 miles from Russia's westernmost frontier opens the country up to attack.

Such comments "border on the bizarre frankly," Rice said, speaking to reporters traveling with her in Warsaw.

"When you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988," Rice said. "It's 2008 and the United States has a ... firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland's territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it's probably not wise to throw these threats around."

The deal, which Washington sought as a way of defending the U.S. and Europe from a hypothetical threat of long-distance missiles from Iran, has strained relations between Moscow and the West. Those ties were already troubled by Russia's invasion of its former Soviet neighbor, U.S. ally Georgia, earlier this month.

Speaking to reporters traveling with her, Rice said, "the Russians are losing their credibility."

Rice and Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski signed the deal Wednesday morning.

"It is an agreement which will help us to respond to the threats of the 21st century," she said afterward.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the agreement came after tough but friendly negotiations.

"We have achieved our main goals, which means that our country and the United States will be more secure," he said.

After Warsaw and Washington announced the agreement on the deal last week, top Russian Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn warned that Poland is risking attack, and possibly a nuclear one, by deploying the American missile defense system, Russia's Interfax news agency reported.

Poles have been shaken by the threats, but NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop dismissed them Tuesday as "pathetic rhetoric."

"It is unhelpful and it leads nowhere," he told reporters at a NATO meeting in Brussels.

On Wednesday, Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the U.S. missile shield plans are clearly aimed at weakening Russia and that Moscow's response to their further development will go beyond diplomacy.

Many Poles consider the agreement a form of protection at a time when Russia's invasion of Georgia has generated alarm throughout Eastern Europe. Poland is a member of the European Union and NATO, and the deal is expected to deepen its military partnership with Washington.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski also expressed "great satisfaction" at the outcome of the long months of negotiations.

Poland and the United States spent a year and a half negotiating, and talks recently had snagged on Poland's demands that the U.S. bolster Polish security with Patriot missiles in exchange for hosting the missile defense base.

Washington agreed to do so last week, as Poland invoked the Georgia conflict to strengthen its case.

The Patriots are meant to protect Poland from short-range missiles from neighbors — such as Russia.

The U.S. already has reached an agreement with the government in Prague to place the second component of the missile defense shield — a radar tracking system — in the Czech Republic, Poland's southwestern neighbor and another formerly communist country.

Approval is still needed the Czech and Polish parliaments.

No date has been set for the Polish parliament to consider the agreement, but it should face no difficulties in Warsaw, where it enjoys the support of the largest opposition party as well as the government.

Quote:

Just what we need again...........get the big arms makers going and stir the economy, way to go George. Wonder if the Czechs will make a secret deal with Ruskies to block the contract.



gatski #301892 08/20/08 06:16 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
R
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
R
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Putin is one of the group of Soviet sympathyzers who has dreamt for the reemergence of the old Soviet Union for the sake of dear old Mother Russia.

The Old Soviet rulers had no problem murdering millions of its own citizens during the late 30s thru the early 60s and Putin gets all warm and fuzzy thinking about doing it all over again. What the HELL...what's a few thousnd Georgians or Ukrainians when the prize is Russian domination and other nation's subservience thru Russian bully tactics.

The difference is that this is 2008 not the early 1980s and the surrounding free nations want in on NATO and protection from the "somewhat big russian bear". The Ukrainians, Georgians, Poles, Czechs and many others do not want to return to the friggen bread lines and insults from the Kremlin.

Putin had better be sure of his grasp on the situation. As soon Poland will have our missiles...the Czechs already have defensive missiles shields and some offensive ones.... and the UKRAINE has has nuclear missiles left from the Cold War times. I do not know which way the are pointed but I can assume they will be pointed soon to Moscow rather than Western Europe.

Russia is a nation of 160 million....Ukraine itself has over 55 million citizens...Georgia and Poland and Czechoslovakia along with Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania wll side quickly against Russia as Poland and many Baltic nationals are ethnically connected...not so the Ruskies.

What we are seeing is the final death throes of the OLD KGB clan desperately trying to stay relevant before they are forced to join the Russian mob to make a living.


The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Isn't Putin former KBG? I agree that he's a big part of the problem, and acts like he's running the former USSR.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
POST DELETED

Last edited by Referee1; 08/21/08 06:29 AM.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
About time. Life was so much simpler during the first cold war when it was us against them.


[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]
gatski #301896 08/20/08 07:21 PM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
2nd String
Offline
2nd String
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
What's interesting is that Democrats are already saying that we shouldn't put this missile sheild in Poland for fear of poking the bear. They couch it as saying that the system isn't completely operational. If we put our minds to it and commit to the program, the defense system's bugs will be worked out. I read somewhere that in the last 9 tests, they hit 6 of the targets. The dems want to go back to appeasement politics when it comes to Russia. They fail to remember that Ronald Reagan and his hardcore tactics are what brought the Soviets to their knees. The game may be a little different this time around with Russia drowning in oil money.

You may also want to consider that Russia is forming a defensive alliance with Syria. You may begin to see the world aligning themselves again with one or the other. Now we will have to deal with this conventional threat, but with radical islamic extremists.

I can say this, I don't envy the next President at all.

gatski #301897 08/20/08 08:17 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,567
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,567
Poland: Chernobyl #2

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 232
B
2nd String
Offline
2nd String
B
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 232
POST DELETED

Last edited by Referee1; 08/21/08 06:30 AM.
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
2nd String
Offline
2nd String
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
If that happens, we are treaty bound to defend Poland and their soveriegn territory. Russia would be wise to keep it to rhetoric.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Quote:

Also, do a google search about people that have disagreed with putin and said so - many of them mysteriously die.




I did a report on this guy: Alexander Litvinenko

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Quote:

Quote:

Also, do a google search about people that have disagreed with putin and said so - many of them mysteriously die.




I did a report on this guy: Alexander Litvinenko




Yup, that's one of them. One of the many. Disagree with putin, make it public, and, if you have info that would make him look bad, you die. Mysteriously, of course.

Heat33 #301902 08/21/08 01:21 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
P
PDR Offline
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Quote:

They fail to remember that Ronald Reagan and his hardcore tactics are what brought the Soviets to their knees.




What brought the Soviets to their knees was that we goaded them into a spending war.

Hardcore tactics? If anything, Reagan's tactics were very, very soft...which was a good thing. He just had soundbytes that made the uninformed think he was being "tough", when in fact the USSR was just being bled dry financially by the string-along that came with the softer tactics. The soft approach was a much, much better way to go than a "hard" tactic...thankfully Reagan and some of his predecessors chose the former.

The crux of the debate IMO is whether we planned that all along or it was a gift that fell into our laps (did we know that they were close to broke or did we find out in hindsight?) A brilliant poker game it was...

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
P
PDR Offline
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Putin is bad news.

He reminds me of Bush. When the two spoke I got chills down my spine. Putin is smarter than Bush, but lives in a more primitive culture...both share similar styles of political propoganda...both are dangerous to the rest of the world. Apples and oranges as far as the men they are and the people they govern...but eerily similar in B.S. and destruction.

PDR #301904 08/21/08 03:35 PM
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
Offline
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
Figured this would go here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26331771

Russia halts military cooperation with NATO
Moscow hints alliance cannot have relations with both Russia, Georgia


BRUSSELS, Belgium - Russia halted all military cooperation with NATO, the Western alliance said Thursday, in the latest sign of East-West tension over the invasion of Georgia.

Alliance spokeswoman Carmen Romero said NATO had received notification through military channels that Russia’s Defense Ministry had taken a decision “to halt international military cooperation events between Russia and NATO countries until further instructions.”

The United States immediately played down the significance of the Russian decision, saying that NATO had already effectively frozen cooperation in protest at Russia’s continued military presence in much of Georgia.


“For all practical purposes, military-to-military cooperation had really already been ended with the Russians,” said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe, with vacationing President Bush in Crawford, Texas.

“I can’t imagine a circumstance right now that we would engage in military cooperation with the Russians until the situation in Georgia is resolved.”

In a move that angered Russia, NATO foreign ministers on Tuesday said they would make further ties with Russia dependent on Moscow making good on a pledge to pull its troops back to pre-conflict positions in Georgia. But they stopped short of calling an immediate halt to all cooperation.

Moscow also bristled at NATO’s insistence that Georgia could one day join the alliance and by an agreement signed Wednesday allowing the United States to base anti-missile interceptors in Poland.

The U.S. State Department called the Russian move “unfortunate.” Spokesman Robert Wood told reporters in Washington, “we want Russia to work with us” despite U.S. concerns about the Georgian invasion.

“We still have some very important issues that we need to work with Russia on,” Wood said.

'Russia's help is critical for NATO'
Under a 2002 agreement that set up the NATO-Russia Council, the former Cold War foes began several cooperation projects. They include sharing expertise to combat heroin trafficking out of Afghanistan, developing battlefield anti-missile technology, joint exercises and help with rescue at sea.

Romero said she was unaware of any specific events under the cooperation agreement scheduled before early September.

NATO itself decided last week to suspend plans for a Russian warship to join NATO counterterrorism patrols in the Mediterranean Sea, deciding it was inappropriate after the outbreak of fighting in Georgia.

Earlier Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested that NATO needs Russia more than Moscow needs NATO, and Russian cooperation with NATO’s efforts against militants in Afghanistan could be jeopardized.

“Russia’s help is critical for NATO,” Lavrov said in televised comments in Moscow.

He said that after the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting “leading alliance members came to us and whispered in our ears, hoping that we do not halt cooperation with NATO on Afghanistan.”

Signs of tensions
Moscow signed an agreement with NATO in April authorizing the alliance to send non-lethal supplies to its troops in Afghanistan through Russian territory.

However, NATO officials said the alliance has not started to use routes through Russia since it has yet to conclude the necessary transit arrangements with Central Asian nations lying between Russia and the Afghan border.

In another sign of tensions, Moscow has called its ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, home for consultations, a diplomat at the Russian mission at alliance headquarters said.

Rogozin will leave Friday for “some time” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give his name for attribution.

Russian media reported Wednesday that Rogozin’s discussions in Moscow would include the question of future military cooperation with the alliance.

Meanwhile, three NATO warships sailed into the Black Sea on Thursday for what the alliance said were long-planned exercises and routine visits to ports in Romania and Bulgaria not linked to the conflict in Georgia.




I don't think it will be long before Russia is booted from NATO, and the other countries wanting into NATO getting approved. Rice and Iraqi officials seem close to a timetable for troop withdrawal. I wonder if we are trying to get out of Iraq sooner so we can be more equipped to deal with Russia.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
B
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
B
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Russian isn't part of NATO now.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 809
All Pro
Offline
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 809
Quote:

I wonder if we are trying to get out of Iraq sooner so we can be more equipped to deal with Russia.





IMO, and its a point that Henry Kissinger first brought up almost 40 years ago is that the US needs to have presence in the middle east in case of a war with Russia. I think that this makes us less likely to remove the troops from Iraq. Oil is king afterall.


[Linked Image]


When it gets cold and snows and the wind blows, you gotta be able to run the ball. - TR
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Quote:

Quote:

I wonder if we are trying to get out of Iraq sooner so we can be more equipped to deal with Russia.





IMO, and its a point that Henry Kissinger first brought up almost 40 years ago is that the US needs to have presence in the middle east in case of a war with Russia. I think that this makes us less likely to remove the troops from Iraq. Oil is king afterall.




http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.asp...704&rss=703
Quote:

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have completed a draft security agreement that would see American troops leave Iraqi cities as soon as June 30, Iraqi and American officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

In Washington, a senior military official said the deal is acceptable to the U.S. side, subject to formal approval by President Bush. It also requires final acceptance by Iraqi leaders, and some members of Iraq's Cabinet oppose some provisions.

Also completed is a companion draft document, known as a strategic framework agreement, spelling out in broad terms the political, security and economic relationships between Iraq and the United States, the senior military official said. The official discussed the draft accords on condition that he not be identified by name because the deals have not been publicly announced and are not final.

In addition to spelling out that U.S. troops would move out of Iraqi cities by next summer, the Iraqi government has pushed for a specific date -- most likely the end of 2011 -- by which all U.S. forces would depart the country. In the meantime, the U.S. troops would be positioned on bases in other parts of the country to make them less visible while positioned to assist Iraqi forces as needed.

U.S. officials have resisted committing firmly to a specific date for a final pullout, insisting that it would be wiser to set a target linked to the attainment of certain agreed-upon goals. These goals would reflect not only security improvements but also progress on the political and economic fronts.

It was not clear Wednesday how that has been settled in the draft security accord, which the two governments are referring to as a memorandum of understanding. The draft agreement must be approved by the Iraqi parliament, which is in recess until early next month.

On Wednesday evening a second senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the two sides have come up with a draft agreement that addresses the issue of the timing of future U.S. troop withdrawals, but the official would not say whether the two sides had agreed on 2011 for a final pullout. The official suggested there would be a series of timelines set, linked to conditions on the ground, and that the draft worked out by the negotiators required more talks at higher levels of the two governments.

The senior U.S. military official said the draft is consistent with U.S. objectives, which include setting a "time horizon" rather than a firm date for the future withdrawal of American forces.

"The improved security in Iraq allows us to have conversations with the Iraqis about setting goals for more American troops to come home and for the Iraqis to take the lead in more combat missions," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "Any dates in an agreement will be based on conditions on the ground because we do not want to lose the hard-fought gains of the surge."

The draft agreement addresses issues that are key points of contention in the U.S. presidential election -- in particular the future U.S. troop presence in Iraq. GOP hopeful Sen. John McCain is opposed to setting any timeline for withdrawals; his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, says he would bring all combat troops home from Iraq within 16 months.

An Iraqi official who was involved in the protracted negotiations said the latest draft was completed last week and sent to the two governments. The official said a compromise had been worked out on the contentious issue of whether to provide U.S. troops immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, but he did not give details. In Washington, the senior military official said the draft agreement reflects the U.S. position that the United States must retain exclusive legal jurisdiction over its troops in Iraq.

While Iraqi negotiators signed off on the draft, another official close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the country's political leadership objected to parts of the text, including the immunity provision.

"There are different points of view," he said. "We have given ours. The other side has given theirs." He would not elaborate and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

A third senior Iraqi official said al-Maliki himself had gone through the text personally and made notes with objections to some undisclosed points. He also spoke on condition of anonymity.

The security deal is to govern the status of the more than 140,000-strong U.S. military force after the U.N. Security Council mandate for its mission expires at the end of this year. The Shiite-led government has been pressing for some sort of timeline for the departure of U.S. troops, saying that is essential to win legislators' approval.

The decision to refer the agreement to parliament followed demands by the country's most powerful Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, that any formula to keep U.S. troops on Iraqi soil -- even for a limited period -- must have broad political support.

Bush long had refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. Last month, however, he and al-Maliki agreed to set a "general time horizon" for ending the U.S. mission. Bush's shift to a broad timeline was seen as a move to speed agreement on the security pact.

Talks were supposed to have been finished by the end of last month but differences over immunity and other issues dragged out the process.

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.




We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 809
All Pro
Offline
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 809
I agree that right now it appears, that the US is working to extract from Iraq. I simply believe that if things with Russia escalate, it would make more sense to have a presence in Iraq.

here's why I feel that way. Thirty year itch


[Linked Image]


When it gets cold and snows and the wind blows, you gotta be able to run the ball. - TR
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
Offline
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
Quote:

I agree that right now it appears, that the US is working to extract from Iraq. I simply believe that if things with Russia escalate, it would make more sense to have a presence in Iraq.

here's why I feel that way. Thirty year itch




Good point and interesting link.

However we could attack or "defend" through the nations that are agreeing to the missile shield. We'd pose a greater advantage as to battling them in their own country. The more infrastructures we'd take down in their country would weaken them. But I don't know too much about military strategies, so I could be way off base with that. I know one thing, Russia would be one of the countries that I think would go nuclear if they were being defeated. This whole situation is not good.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,691
Raven
Offline
Raven
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,691
Here's the answer to the "Russia problem"........



Mike #301911 08/21/08 08:34 PM
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
Offline
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449

PDR #301912 08/21/08 10:39 PM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
2nd String
Offline
2nd String
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
Phil - I agree that part of the strategy Reagan used was to spend them to death. I also believe he did know the were a 'paper tiger'.

That said, Reagan did use hardcore tactics with the Soviets. Remember at the summit when Gorbachav (sp?) was trying to steam roll Reagan regarding nuke reductions. Reagan just said 'no' (pun on Nancy's just say no program) and left the summit. People were absolutely shocked. Not to mention when he said, "Mr. Gorbachav, tear down this wall!" You may not think that was hardcore, but his own staff urged him not to make such a bold statement.

Heat33 #301913 08/22/08 02:06 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
P
PDR Offline
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Quote:

Phil - I agree that part of the strategy Reagan used was to spend them to death. I also believe he did know the were a 'paper tiger'.




I don't think he knew. Perhaps the people around him knew...but either way, it worked out in a tactically sound manner, a few hiccups aside *hic* Afghanistan *hic*.

Quote:

That said, Reagan did use hardcore tactics with the Soviets. Remember at the summit when Gorbachav (sp?) was trying to steam roll Reagan regarding nuke reductions. Reagan just said 'no' (pun on Nancy's just say no program) and left the summit. People were absolutely shocked. Not to mention when he said, "Mr. Gorbachav, tear down this wall!" You may not think that was hardcore, but his own staff urged him not to make such a bold statement.




You listed two sound bites of political rhetoric.

I'm not even saying that to knock Reagan - they were fierce and bold moves on the world stage, yes...but they were words. Words to me, on the world stage, or in the political arena...are soft. Any words in politics are soft. It's action that matters. And if you look at my original post, you will see that I was glad that Reagan took a "soft" approach (speaking softly and carrying a big stick, as his predecessors)...so I'm not complaining about or deriding a "soft" approach...because a "hard" approach would have shed much more blood.

What we did to Japan in WWII was a "hard" approach. What we did with the USSR was a "soft" approach.

PDR #301914 08/22/08 08:42 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
What we did in Japan in WWII was revenge for Pearl Harbor.


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,691
Raven
Offline
Raven
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,691
And damn well deserving too.......

PDR #301916 08/22/08 09:27 AM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
2nd String
Offline
2nd String
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
You say tomato, I say tomato (doesn't have quite the same effect in writing, does it? ). Let's call the whole thing off.

DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Another Cold War

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5