Putin blasts U.S.

[Catchme]

Guess some people prefer evil to goodbness.

[Catchme]

Russia is taking action against the USA and Israel, as is China, in regards to them wanting to bomb Iran and everything else in the middle east.

But Putin is right when he warns the Bush Administration has undermined the UN, made a dangerous mess in the Mideast, and threatens to ignite a strategic arms race..

In response, Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, chief of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, warned US BMD plans may compel Russia to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a cornerstone of US-Russian détente, and deploy a new generation of intermediate-range missiles aimed at Europe.

... Given the faked war against Iraq, and Bush and Cheney’s strident talk about `pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations,’ the Russians are understandably uneasy. Their nuclear arsenal remains the leading strategic threat to the United States.

Putin’s angry speech is a warning that...Russia will not allow the US to attain unchallenged world nuclear, political, or energy domination. China echoes this warning. Ironically, high world oil prices caused in good part by Bush’s disastrous invasion of Iraq have boosted Russia’s oil-based economy, allowing Moscow to modernize its run-down armed forces.

Putin’s speech also suggest Russia will take a more active role in the Mideast. This could be a positive development given the striking inability of the Bush/Cheney Administration to separate itself from the policies of Israel’s right wing parties and return to its traditional somewhat more balanced Mideast role.

..There is growing irritation in the EU and NATO – what former US National Security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski cruelly terms `America’s vassal states’ – at being brusquely ordered about by Washington and told send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

History repeatedly shows that when one nation becomes too dominant, others will join forces to oppose it...President Putin has said `enough.’ A new Cold War? Not quite yet..

http://www.ericmargolis.com/

[blueblood]

I am tempted to throw this question out there, if nuking the whole middle east meant peace for the rest of the world is that not a possible solution?

It seems like this whole war on terror is another proxy war like the ones during the cold war. Russians and Chinese bankrolling one side, Americans fighting the other.

To throw a hockey saying from my coach "If someone is pissing you off, drop the gloves and have at it."

[obsidian]

putin has also been criticizing the us star wars program which has procured:

THEL- tactical high energy laser, can shoot down multiple missles and mortars

Airborn Laser- high powered laser possible of shooting down ICBM's

Active Denial System-shoots microwaves which penetrate the skin and cause immense pain but no immediate damage. if they afjusted the frequency this could be used to essentially cook you from the inside out.

Rafael's Trophy- A FORCE FIELD. all munitions carrying explosive charges detonate after passing through the created barrier.

seems to me that russia and the rest of the world has some catching up to do. looks like another arms race.

and it's not just russia who doesnt want the us to invade iran, china also agrees fully. there is a chinese-russian-irani pact..

[Catchme]

I am tempted to throw this question out there, if nuking the whole middle east meant peace for the rest of the world is that not a possible solution?

It seems like this whole war on terror is another proxy war like the ones during the cold war. Russians and Chinese bankrolling one side, Americans fighting the other.

possible solution sounds much like Hitler's final solution eh?

So, really you are saying that that we should just wipe out all of the ME; Israel, Iran, Irag Afghanistan, Ubekistan, Kazikstan, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Algeria, Syria, Saudi Arabia Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Tijikistan, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, Kyrgyztan, plus a few more incidental little countries?

wow, that's quite the holocaust you are advocating.

Nice to know what Harper and his supporters are advocating!

[blueblood]

I am tempted to throw this question out there, if nuking the whole middle east meant peace for the rest of the world is that not a possible solution?

It seems like this whole war on terror is another proxy war like the ones during the cold war. Russians and Chinese bankrolling one side, Americans fighting the other.

possible solution sounds much like Hitler's final solution eh?

So, really you are saying that that we should just wipe out all of the ME; Israel, Iran, Irag Afghanistan, Ubekistan, Kazikstan, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Algeria, Syria, Saudi Arabia Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Tijikistan, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, Kyrgyztan, plus a few more incidental little countries?

wow, that's quite the holocaust you are advocating.

Nice to know what Harper and his supporters are advocating!

It was done in WW2 in Japan as the lesser of two evils debated in another thread. I'm not advocating it personally, I'm posting a question.

[obsidian]

THEY MIDDLE EAST POSES NO THREAT. THE ONLY THREAT IS IF WE TAKE TOO MUCH OIL AND IT CAUSES OTHER NATIONS TO ACT.

what could iraw have done to us

what can iran do to us

NOTHING.

even if iran gets a nuke, there really is no liklihood of it being used, the only starategic use for ICBMS is to deter the use of them against the country trying to aquire them. hence why the us is threated by iran

[Wilber]

I am tempted to throw this question out there, if nuking the whole middle east meant peace for the rest of the world is that not a possible solution?

It seems like this whole war on terror is another proxy war like the ones during the cold war. Russians and Chinese bankrolling one side, Americans fighting the other.

possible solution sounds much like Hitler's final solution eh?

So, really you are saying that that we should just wipe out all of the ME; Israel, Iran, Irag Afghanistan, Ubekistan, Kazikstan, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Algeria, Syria, Saudi Arabia Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Tijikistan, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, Kyrgyztan, plus a few more incidental little countries?

wow, that's quite the holocaust you are advocating.

Nice to know what Harper and his supporters are advocating!

Get real, don't you think both sides evaluated the pros and cons of a first strike during the Cold War? The cardinal rule of any fight is that if you know you can't avoid one, never let the other guy get in the first punch.

[Catchme]

I am tempted to throw this question out there, if nuking the whole middle east meant peace for the rest of the world is that not a possible solution?

It seems like this whole war on terror is another proxy war like the ones during the cold war. Russians and Chinese bankrolling one side, Americans fighting the other.

possible solution sounds much like Hitler's final solution eh?

So, really you are saying that that we should just wipe out all of the ME; Israel, Iran, Irag Afghanistan, Ubekistan, Kazikstan, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Algeria, Syria, Saudi Arabia Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Tijikistan, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, Kyrgyztan, plus a few more incidental little countries?

wow, that's quite the holocaust you are advocating.

Nice to know what Harper and his supporters are advocating!

It was done in WW2 in Japan as the lesser of two evils debated in another thread. I'm not advocating it personally, I'm posting a question.

No it was NOT done in Japan, it was 2 cities, not about 2 billion + people, and do you not realize what that kinda of nuking would do to the whole world?

Only the truly xenophobic would even contemplate such a thing!!!!

[blueblood]

No it was NOT done in Japan, it was 2 cities, not about 2 billion + people, and do you not realize what that kinda of nuking would do to the whole world?

Only the truly xenophobic would even contemplate such a thing!!!!

I look at it as a part of the population having to be sacrificed so that the rest of the country would be spared. I was merely asking considering the fear concerning WW3, wouldn't nuking that vipers nest to achieve world peace and prevent a world war where scores and scores of more people would die? It's a fair question and it has been played out on a smaller scale before.

[Catchme]

It is NOT a fair question you are advocatiing a holocaust upon a select group of people.

You are also inferring others have more right to life than you.

[blueblood]

It is NOT a fair question you are advocatiing a holocaust upon a select group of people.

You are also inferring others have more right to life than you.

So I guess what Truman did in WW2 was a holocaust in itself as he wiped out a thousands of Japanese people to save scores more people. Lesser of two evils. It was a scenario question a big what if. Would you prefer I say another location that is a vipers nest like that and has the potential to start a world war?

[Catchme]

The only other logical country would be the USA

And no that is NOT acceptable, it is unaccpetable to advocate genocide upon any peoples.

So, it seems the new words for "final solution" is "possible solution", and boy am I going to direct people to this thread and show them what Harper and his supporters are advocating, it is reprehensible.

[blueblood]

So your for nuking the USA? hmm. Me putting words in your mouth? I can play your game too.

So you would rather send billions of people to their graves than fire off some nukes that would off a hundred or so million? Looks like I'll be seeing you in hell. Anyways it's a hypothetical situation as I blatantly said IF nuking them meant world peace... Your spin on things people say is quite alarming. My views of the middle east are to give them all guns and leave them to their own devices.

Make no mistake about it WW3 could likely cost billions of lives.

[Catchme]

So your for nuking the USA? hmm. Me putting words in your mouth? I can play your game too.

So you would rather send billions of people to their graves than fire off some nukes that would off a hundred or so million? Looks like I'll be seeing you in hell. Anyways it's a hypothetical situation as I blatantly said IF nuking them meant world peace... Your spin on things people say is quite alarming. My views of the middle east are to give them all guns and leave them to their own devices.

Make no mistake about it WW3 could likely cost billions of lives.

Now we get Bushisms, "make no mistake"!

There is no such thing as just "firing off some nukes" that murder a 100 or so milion in the name of peace. Such thinking is short sighted and evil.

War does not beget peace. Never has never will.

I do not play games with peoples lives nor advocate the destruction of the world because of xenophobia.

What is alarming is that there is actually people, out there, that advocate a nuclear holocaust based upon short sighted thinking, fear, and perhaps a desire to bring on armageddon.

[White Doors]

War does not beget peace. Never has never will.

demonstrably false.

More to the point, Victory in war begets peace.

[Catchme]

Please do show us where war has brought peace

[White Doors]

Please do show us where war has brought peace

The defeat of Hitler brought peace. The defeat of Napoleon brought peace. The defeat of the french in North America brought peace. The defeat of Carthage brought peace.

I have many more if you wish.

[Catchme]

Please do show us where war has brought peace

The defeat of Hitler brought peace. The defeat of Napoleon brought peace. The defeat of the french in North America brought peace. The defeat of Carthage brought peace.

I have many more if you wish.

Then why do we still have wars?

[White Doors]

Indeed, if you can answer this then you have your answer:

"If we lock up murderers for committing crimes then why are there still murders?"

see how dumb your question is?

I doubt you do, but I know others will.

[mcqueen625]

Can plainly see you did not read the link.

Munich Germany is NOT Putin's "home town crowd". Far from it.

Moreover, there are 240 or so leaders and delegates from all over the world, attending said conference, reading the link really does keep you informed as to correct knowledge.

There will surely be many more statements from other world leaders coming out this week end.

However, Putin's actually is the one that means the most, as they, Russia, can actually back up their shots across the bow. Another Cold War between the US and Russia could well kick start the Russian economy.

It seems to me that both Russia, China and France are more interested in backing muslim extremists such as those in Hamas, Iran, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon than they are in achieving world peace. These people do not get it do they? These muslim extremists could care less about these supporters they are merely a means to their end goal which is the elimination of all infidels which is also what the people of these countries are considered to be, no different than the U.S. Brittain, Canada, Australia. The big difference is that these countries want to continue selling arms and other commodities to these extremist countries, never mind that they are using these weapons against fellow NATO countries soldiers..

[Catchme]

Indeed, if you can answer this then you have your answer:

"If we lock up murderers for committing crimes then why are there still murders?"

see how dumb your question is?

I doubt you do, but I know others will.

Your analogy is in error and a strawman.

The USA has been involved in non-stop wars since its conception pretty and they are always fighting for peace and they have NEVER attained it, nor will as they.

War again has never brought peace perhaps a cessation to conflict in that area for a short while.

[Wilber]

Indeed, if you can answer this then you have your answer:

"If we lock up murderers for committing crimes then why are there still murders?"

see how dumb your question is?

I doubt you do, but I know others will.

Your analogy is in error and a strawman.

The USA has been involved in non-stop wars since its conception pretty and they are always fighting for peace and they have NEVER attained it, nor will as they.

War again has never brought peace perhaps a cessation to conflict in that area for a short while.

And because of it we have not had a major war since WW2. It's called Pax Americana. Britain was involved in constant little wars between 1815 and 1914 but there were no major world conflicts during that time. The period is called Pax Britannia. The Roman Empire fought many wars between 50 AD and 450 AD but the security and stability that Europe and most of the known world enjoyed during that period is called Pax Romana.

Invariably, whenever there has been an extended period of stability and progress in the world it is because there has been someone strong enough to enforce it.

[Catchme]

stability? Only if your country is not part of all the "little wars"

[blueblood]

stability? Only if your country is not part of all the "little wars"

If he means stability as far as numbers of people dying as a result of wars, then he has a point. If say 5 million people died during the napoleon wars and 500,000 died in all the little wars in the span of a hundred years then I say there is stability. Mind you that is my opinion.