A highly placed Russian general stated that if Poland does accept armament from the United States and signs a mutual assistance pact and is a full NATO member, Russia may, and probably will, pre-emptively attack Poland.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…
Russia has also stated that Georgia can forget regaining territorial integrity. http://www.washingtontimes.com…
I know BMG is largely about state politics, but frankly – whomever we elect as President had better be good at “real politik”.
Russia claims Georgia is a “defacto American protectorate” and that the events of August 8 onwards are really about the transcaucasus pipeline – and oil.
Further, by unilaterally invading Iraq, “we” don’t have moral clout as to Russia invading Georgia or Poland – “we” had better have a leader who is capable of bringing countries, alliances, and actual coalitions together.
Further, the crazy fact is we have outsourced almost all of our military gear – even the raw material to make bullets. So the ability to face reality and deal with Russia without appeasement may prove critical to us all.
While I would rather be wrong, I could provide you all with dozens of links and more information – and am convinced that by using up all our reserves and diminishing our industrial stateside capacity so that we cannot meet our own needs for steel and other basics, we are endangered as a nation.
This is all adding up to very scary. The worst case scenario is something I don’t want to think about!
<
p>Another reason why we should elect Obama – fresh start on the moral clout, in my opinion. If we elect McCain, forget about ever regaining our beacon of light on the hill status any time soon.
<
p>The last thing we need at the helm is a quick-tempered, factually bereft older person who would continue the policies of the current disaster president.
Will he attempt to appease the Russians if it comes to Americans dying?
<
p>If the Iraq war never happened, would we be in a better position to handle Russia? How? I can remember during Gulf War I, the military analyst were talking about the Iraqi army and how “battle tested” they were due to their war with Iran. I would suggest that the US military is stronger now than they have ever been. Without the Iraq war, our military would be filled with weekend warriors who go away for 1 weekend a month (or less) to play army. They will have never fired a gun, ducked from hostile fire… or any of the other experience that comes with be “battle hardened”. This would be true of many aspects of our military including machinery/gunnery operation, maintenance, supply lines, communication, intra-service cooperation…
<
p>The kind of issues that the new President will face has been on the table for a long time, albeit slightly hidden. Nothing has changed other than our troops are more prepared than ever before.
“Will Obama give the Russians Poland, Georgia and the Ukraine if they stop?”
<
p>Why in the world would he? I’m pretty sure no leader in his right mind has any desire to be the next Neville Chamberlain.
<
p>I’m not completely sure about the moral clout argument. We have lost some of that to be sure, but for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on, it still seems that blatantly rolling your tanks into neighboring territory somehow feels worse than what we did to Iraq.
They want to take over the land and install a Russian government, then move on to other countries. What they did sounds like what Saddam wanted to do in Kuwait.
<
p>It’s just so darn convenient for critics of the war to make that analogy. Maybe if we had invaded Bermuda and then deemed it an American possession that would be a good comparison.
<
p>Of course nobody wants to be another Chamberlain, but when faced with tough decisions like war (people dying, bad press…) or capitulation, wrong decisions are sometimes made.
They want to invade Georgia, oust the government and get a Pro-Russia government in there.
<
p>We invaded Iraq, ousted the government and installed a far more Pro-America government there.
<
p>I’m not so sure what we did to Iraq is all that different than your absurd hypothetical about Bermuda. Or even all that different than Iraq invading Kuwait.
<
p>I do think what the Russians are doing to Georgia is worse, though, because it could be the spark that ignites something I never thought I’d ever see.
none of this is happening?
I was in the USSR when it was the USSR.
<
p>I remember when nation by nation “went red” and nothing ever left the bear’s grasp.
<
p>I weas 100% serious when I said that the assault on innocence at School No.1, and the sense of impotence that Putin felt [others too, but especially Putin who is a real law and order guy who takes protecting his own very seriously] had led to an abrupt change in how Russia was governed that has continued and solidified.
<
p>The fact that the MSM doesn’t get that connection, or follow what Russia, itself, is saying is scary and not helpful.
<
p>If you go to http://www.globalresearch.ca/i… you will read that Georgia is viewed as an American protectorate, and Isreali advisors directed Georgian President Saakasvili. “Global Research” is a Russian backed think tank with a lot of credibility – at least in Russia and worth watching.
<
p>If THIS is what THEY think, no, we cannot afford to pretend this is not happening.
I honestly was trying to make a mini joke, because this is definitely one of those situations that I’d rather laugh than cry. I WILL do one or the other, so it’s just a defense mechanism. Of course I’m paying attention to all this. It’s really the only news item I’ve been reading about.
<
p>I only wish we, as a country, were in a position to really do something about it. If there’s one prescient comment that’s come out of all this is the fact that Iraq’s made this country so much less safe. Our soft power as a country is almost nonexistant because of Iraq, and our hard power is pretty much nada too as long as most of it’s being spent in Iraq. At least that’s what apparently most other countries think – and we’ve done nothing to make them think otherwise.
<
p>(And doing nothing is probably better than this administration doing something, sadly.)
response to Al-Qaeda during the 1990s. WOW.
Just happens to be a lie and you should know better.
<
p>The Bush Administration could not take its focus off Iraq between January 20 and September 13, 2001. They were repeatedly warned to look at Al Qaeda by ex-Clinton Administration officials.
A) You couldn’t be any more wrong about Al Qaeda. Unlike Bush, Clinton actually tried to do shit about them. And, honestly, if I were a betting man, I wouldn’t place money against the possibility that GWB didn’t even know who Osama bin Laden was on September the 10th.
<
p>B) I was half kidding. This Russia/Georgia/Ukraine/Poland situation is one of those things that it clearly hurts to watch. Basically, I feel the same way about this situation – in my gut – as I did watching that weight lifter dislocate his elbow. Both things make me feel sick to my stomach just thinking about it. Hence my half-joke, because I’d rather laugh than cry.
I remember when Clinton ordered strikes against al-Qaeda in northern Africa, and the Republicans got furious that he was distracting the public from their obsession with his sex life.
didn’t Clinton refuse?
<
p>Al Qaeda has not attacked the United States outside of a part of the world in which we are proactively engaged with them, and yes that includes Iraq, since 9/11. Al Qaeda attacked the US multiple times during the Clinton administration and all Bubba did was send a couple of Tomahawks. I am one of the few conservatives you will meet that actually agreed with Bill Maher. His statement was the most damning summary of the Clinton administrations response, especially because it came from a liberal.
<
p>So no Clinton did not do a hill of beans about Al Qaeda. and to the point upstream. We have been since 2001 engaged in a war with Al Qaeda on 6 continents. In places you and I don’t even know about, so to say that because we were involved in Iraq that we weren’t involved in other places is a naive view, akin to not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
This has become right-wing orthodoxy, but it is not, as we like to say “reality based”. I did a Google search of the words “Clinton Sudan Osama bin Laden” and the first page of results read like a did not/did too of articles about this, some very obviously biased. Here is the link to the Factcheck article that seems to be balanced and from a neutral source. Factcheck I think has a pretty solid reputation for not playing either side and points out that the 9/11 Commission, a reputable body by any measure, has concluded that no credible offer was made.
Good job “accidentally” writing “Obama” instead of “Osama”! Rush would be proud.
response to Al-Qaeda during the 1990s. WOW.
just to eliminate the duplication
almost every other conversation on this blog seem entirely vacuous.
Is this idea that an attack on Poland would be “pre-emptive”. As if joining NATO somehow is an attack on the Russia Federation. Sadly, over the last decade we’ve seen evidence what constitutes an imminent attack go from massed troops on the border to vague rumors about tubes in Niger. Not a good start.
<
p>Also disturbing is that any attack on Poland would perforce come through the Baltic Republics, so we’re talking about targeting four countries at once.