Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, November 6, 2008

Russia to deploy missiles near Poland

November 6, 2008

Advertisement

— Russia will deploy short-range missiles near Poland to counter U.S. military plans in Eastern Europe, President Dmitry Medvedev warned Wednesday, setting a combative tone that clashed with global goodwill over Barack Obama's election.

In his first state of the nation speech, Medvedev blamed Washington for the war in Georgia and the world financial crisis and suggested it was up to Washington to mend badly damaged ties.

Medvedev also proposed increasing the Russian presidential term to six years from four - a change that could deepen Western concern over democracy in Russia and play into the hands of his mentor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has not ruled out a return to the Kremlin.

Extending the presidential term could mean a possible 12 more years in the top office for the popular Putin.

Comments

Liberty_One 5 years, 5 months ago

L_the_moocher--yeah, the threat is real, but it wouldn't exist if we didn't create it. If we weren't meddling in the world's affairs we wouldn't get this blowback. Didn't we sell weapons to Saddam? Didn't we arm and train bin Laden? If we left everyone else to blow each other up they would leave us alone. That's reality. When we go around and pick sides, donate money and weapons, and drop bombs on people we don't like, surprise surprise, they fight back. And "the leadership" that decided we needed to be prepared to fight a war on two fronts was the oligopoly that made huge profits during WWII. Germany and Japan were far greater threats than what we face today and we beat them in far less time. We do not need to have a huge and expensive standing army--that is unless "the leadership" plans on using it to fight wars all the time. Maybe to seize natural resources from other countries for the oligopoly's benefit? Hmm? Sound familiar? It should, or you haven't been paying attention.

0

Liberty_One 5 years, 5 months ago

Pay_N--far from it. The military has not been cut too much. They have simply been spread too thin. Why do we have bases in Korea, Japan, Cuba and Germany? We wouldn't have to rely on the National Guard if we didn't have fully staffed bases in the Pacific and in Europe now would we? As for new equipment, maybe if we weren't so busy spending billions of dollars in Iraq we could use that money to buy new aircraft. There's a difference between having strong offensive capability, and always being on an offensive attack. We can have a capable and well-armed military without using them to kill people all around the world. We can bring our soliders home from The Empire, cut spending, and still be far more prepared to fight a war. Do you think we are prepared to fight another war when we are spread so thin? No, wasting our soliders' lives to protect Iraqi oil doesn't make us safer.

0

Pay_N_My_Way 5 years, 5 months ago

Liberty one wrote: - what's wrong with cutting spending on the military? Isn't spending cuts a conservative plank? You really need to read Larry_the_Moochers blog. the military has been cut and way too much. The active duty military has been cut so much we must rely on the National Guard to pick up the pace. This in my opinion leaves the U.S. somewhat vulneralbe to attacks here on our land. We are still flying KC-135's that were built in 1956-1963. They are getting old and tired. It's time for a new model. We should have had new tankers long a go. Maybe during the Clinton years when it was brought up that we needed to take a look at our inventory of aircraft. I think we took the liberal approch at that time. It would have been much less expensive during the 90's.A strong offense is most often your best defense.

0

Pay_N_My_Way 5 years, 5 months ago

Right on Larry! but, I don't think the tree huggers of Lawrence will take your blog very serious. Lack of understanding which equates to lack of education. Get ready the threat is coming home.

0

Larry_The_Moocher 5 years, 5 months ago

There is a downsizing of the military after every major conflict. Obviously, the need for additional soldiers during times of war drives the plusing up of the force. The continuing problem is not maintaining a trained and adequate force. The US prides itself on not re-inventing the wheel, and as they call it, lessons learned, but seldom do they ever do it. The need for an adquate force was identified after ww2 when the leadership determined it needed to maintain a force capable of fighting on 2 fronts at the same time. We have 2 fronts now, but not enough equipment or manpower. You add the blatent disrespect some have for our soldiers not only in congress, but in our cities, makes for a bad combination. The lack of adequate funding can be blamed on the 52%+ of the budget going toward entitlement programs.We all know that much of the reason we continue to get into other countries business is it effects us and our allies. In addition to going into Iraq and whacking a dictator that did have wmd's (He used bio weapons on the Kurds in the northern sector, some 400K dead, residue was found from other programs but not reported by the media. While Sadam was flipping boogers on the UN these programs and assets were shipped to rogue nations like Syria and Lebannon) we protected the middle east from a mostly complete takeover. After Saddam invaded and tried to take Quaite, there was nothing stopping him from taking Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and other countries in the region. This was believed to be his intent.As we all also know, Iran is hellbent on obtaining nukes. This is bad enough in itself, but strides are being made by them to obtain delivery systems which does effect us. Iran is capable of reaching Europe now and only lacks the warheads. We are protecting Europe now and us down the road when delivery systems (ICBM's) are obtained.Without being to mean, those who live in a world surrounded with beautiful music and tofu need to get with the program, or there will not be a program. People are to wound up worring about public transportation and the SE Lawrence mosquito farm/slt to really know what is going on. Gay marraige will not matter after multiple attacks. People need to work and put into the system so there is something there for those who really need it now and some left for our protection.The threat is real. With the incomming leadership my money is on it getting worse. A strong offense is sometimes your best defense. We forget that we are one of the few countries that does not have leftover land mines and/or other things that mame kids from fighting wars and conflicts within their contential boundries.No matter if you like the military or not, it does provide a way for some to dig themselves out of poverty, training for civilian related careers, and makes it possible for less fortunate kids to go to college.

0

BABBOY 5 years, 5 months ago

Jason007: guys, Jason is flipping idiot. I do not have time to fully explain but the gist is Bush alienated Russia a long time ago and mini cold war has been going on for several months. Jason, of course, missed all of that in the news. War in Georgia -- Jason I am not talking about the state in the United States so do not get confused. Also, Russia is doing joint navy exercises with Venezuela. Jason, that is the guy who called Bush Satan. The problem is that Bush has his troops to thinnly spread and Russia can do whatever the F--- they want. Maybe as opposed to waiving the flag and quoteing the bible you stupid republicans should try thinking about what works and what does not work.But, simpletons do not suddenly get smart so I have to go make money and that is not done wasting times with idiots on here.

0

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 5 months ago

We cannot continue to treat the Bin Laden terrorism issue the same as we have wars in the past.In my view, Bin Laden is a cult leader. He uses religion to acquire power and wealth. The Bush approach simply put Bin Laden on the world stage where he had the best possible pulpit to preach his garbage. We gave him exactly what he wanted.We have to stop giving this guy so much free advertising and just go kill him as if he was a rabid coyote and then we have to attack the people who are spreading this extremist garbage and taking advantage of others. The target has to be the leaders who spread the ideology of terrorism.

0

Liberty_One 5 years, 5 months ago

madmide, readiness for what? Another war of aggression for US oligopolies? No thanks.

0

madmike 5 years, 5 months ago

The United States military is the weakest it has been in over a generation. We have to use national guard troops as front line soldiers, not just once, but on repeated rotations. And you want to cut the readiness even more? What's wrong with you?

0

roger_o_thornhill 5 years, 5 months ago

Brrrrr...Is it getting "cold"-er or is it just me? "War on terror" not making enough money for the powers-that-be?

0

Liberty_One 5 years, 5 months ago

L the moocher--what's wrong with cutting spending on the military? Isn't spending cuts a conservative plank? Why do we need to spend billions of dollars and fight in every war around the world. And apparantly you missed my post above, this is only an aggressive reply to what WE did first. It won't get worse if WE don't make it worse. However, Obama probably will make it worse because he'll send money and aid to countries thus picking sides and escalating conflicts.

0

Larry_The_Moocher 5 years, 5 months ago

When you have someone that wants to negotiate with terrorists, they show no back bone... this is just the first in foriegn agression and will get worse when our new Obamanation of a leader cuts our military in half on his way to restore the Clinton years.

0

Liberty_One 5 years, 5 months ago

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says: "Did anyone expect any other result from the Bush decision to plant missiles there?"100% correct. When Russia tried to put missiles in Cuba we were infuriated. Why would they be any different when we do it to them? Bring our military home, stop meddling in others' affairs. The best way to bring peace is to trade with other countries.

0

SMe 5 years, 5 months ago

Now children remember when the sirens sound climb under your desk and tuck your head in and kiss your...........

0

unpalinized 5 years, 5 months ago

Yeah- madmike- the so called expert....LOL

0

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 5 months ago

Deterring aggression through the "threatened" use of nuclear weapons is a short term solution at best because to use a nuke is disaster for the whole world. I believe it will eventually result in a catastrophic tragedy if we do not find a diplomatic solution. The aggressive attitude of the Bush administration and its unilateral approach to solving problems made the world far less capable of achieving a diplomatic solution.Unfortunately, the window of opportunity has narrowed as Putin has responded in kind.

0

madmike 5 years, 5 months ago

The Sovs had Ss-21's within range of the USSR/Polish border for years. There is a choke-point along the huge rail yard on the border. It would be the perfect place to place a tactical nuke to stop any large army traversing it in either direction.

0

Jason Bailey 5 years, 5 months ago

Guys: Putin decided to do this the day after Obama is elected. That's the reason and has nothing to do with Bush.Think I'm overreaching or being partisan?! Biden's own words warned us to "expect a test" from foreign enemies to exercise this new, young President. It starts already.

0

madmike 5 years, 5 months ago

There have always been missiles within targeting distance of Poland.

0

XEPCT 5 years, 5 months ago

The missiles are in Kaliningrad, I can't believe the article neglects to include that.

0

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 5 months ago

Did anyone expect any other result from the Bush decision to plant missiles there?The only winners here are the companies that manufacture these weapons. Everyone else is a big loser and the world is far less safe.But you cannot get any sensible discussion out of the right or left wingers, Democrat or Republican, because they cannot see past their noses.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.