Russian Warships may probe U.S./Obama response during transition of power

Discussion in 'Politics' started by wilburbear, Dec 16, 2008.

  1. talknet

    talknet

    I agree with "FortuneTeller". Let's decide once and for all who is bigger and stronger, USA or Russia.

    I am fed up of hearing for past 40 years who is bigger and stronger, USA or Russia.
     
    #21     Dec 18, 2008
  2. What does it say about the capabilities for strategic thinking by the current lot if they are still caught up in a Cold War mentality ?

    I think it's probably more a case of the neocons running wild spurred on by their dreams of Pax Americana.

    Also I think it's yet another one of those famous "Intelligence Failures", which might be more aptly named failures of common sense. Just as the military strength of the former Soviet Union was consistantly overestimated in the 50s and 60s - the notorious "bomber gap" being a fine example - the current strength of Russia is consistantly underestimated. The war launched by Georgia is a case in point. Of course these intelligence estimates always have their own political agenda.

    Far from being a disaster for Russia as argued by any number of talking heads, the war with Georgia has strengthed Russia and drawn a line in the sand as far as the eastward expansion of Nato is concerned. Western Europe is very sensibly not having a bar of it.
     
    #22     Dec 18, 2008
  3. Pat Buchanan has been correctly saying that for years
     
    #23     Dec 18, 2008
  4. talknet

    talknet

    US warns Russia against selling missiles to Iran

    WASHINGTON Monday, December 22, 2008— U.S. officials said Monday that they want answers from Russia on whether it is selling advanced surface-to-air missiles to Iran, a move the U.S. insists could threaten American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.


    A senior military intelligence official said that while Moscow has sent out conflicting responses to reports on the sale of long-range S-300 missiles, the U.S. believes it is taking place. However, it appears that no equipment has yet been delivered to Iran, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

    Russia's state arms export agency said Monday it is supplying Iran with defensive weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, but did not say whether they include sophisticated long-range S-300 missiles.

    State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the U.S. is seeking clarification from Russia.

    "We have repeatedly made clear at senior levels of the Russian government that we would strongly oppose the sale of the S-300," Wood said. "As the U.S. government has said before, this is not the time for business as usual with the Iranian government."

    Iran currently has an antiquated missile defense system, dating back to the 1960s and 1970s, so the Russian sale would provide Tehran a much longer range, more mobile and lethal capability. With a range of roughly 75 miles, the Russian system would allow Iran to reach coalition forces operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, if the missiles were moved near the borders.

    Both the U.S. and Israel have strongly opposed the sale, saying that supplying such an advanced anti-aircraft system to Iran would shift the military balance of power in the Middle East. It also would make any strike at Iran's first nuclear power plant — which Russia is helping to build — more difficult.

    There have been indications that Russia intends to supply only defensive weapons to Iran, thus keeping in line with U.N. Security Council resolutions that impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment and prohibit supplying Iran with materials that could contribute to its nuclear program.

    Officials acknowledge that the sale of the S-300 system is not prohibited by the resolution.

    Israel and the United States fear that Iran could use the S-300 missiles to protect its uranium enrichment plant at Natanz or the country's first atomic power plant now under construction at Bushehr by Russian contractors.

    The U.S. and other nations believe Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons, but Iran insists its uranium enrichment program is intended solely for civilian energy needs.

    While the possibility that the U.S. might launch an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities faded about a year ago, Israel has never ruled out a strike of its own, and is considered the nation most likely to take action.

    Iran's president has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

    The sale of S-300 missiles, said the military intelligence official, presents a decision point for Israel, since once the anti-aircraft system is in place it could deter any strike.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,471204,00.html
     
    #24     Dec 22, 2008
  5. Why shouldn't Iran have SA-300s. These are purely defensive missiles and apparently a very effective air defense.
     
    #25     Dec 22, 2008
  6. talknet

    talknet

    Why is USA warning Russia against missiles supply to Iran?

    Also every country develops Nuclear bomb for National-defense. Nuclear-bombs have proved to be "most successful war-deterrent". There has been no major war since 1950. That's when Nuclear techonology became famous and available to many countries.

    Why does USA stop other countries from developing Nuclear Bombs for National-defense?. Any country that tries to develop Nuclear techonology receives USA & UN sanctions.

    USA & UN behave like Nuclear-Gods. Only they can develop Nuclear Bombs.

    Why is USA trying to stop Iran from developing Nuclear technology which Iran claims is for Civilian purpose?.

    In fact Russia does not stop any country from developing Nuclear Bombs whether it is for National-defense or Attack/aggression on other countries. Russia is brave, strong & confident.

    Russia is helping Iran develop and fulfill it's Nuclear ambitions.
     
    #26     Dec 23, 2008
  7. talknet

    talknet

    Russia is investing $140 billion into New missiles and military equipments such as Warplanes, Helicopters.
     
    #27     Dec 23, 2008
  8. heh he heheh they're going to probe u.s. beavis :D
     
    #28     Dec 23, 2008
  9. Use your head. Of course the "world" wants a weaker than current U.S. President. The question posed to jealous foreigners might as well had been, "do you want a strong, prosperous America or an America that becomes a shit hole like your country"? Nobody outside of New York roots for the Yankees either.

    Ironically in polls back in 2004, only Russia and Israel had favorable opinions of Bush.

    American military policy under Bush is like the neighbor who everyone knows is armed. He's the last house ever robbed. Black guys think, " My ass ain't fuckin wit dat old man Bush. Mutha fucker's cold. Shot that Saddam mutha fucka fer no mutha fuckin reason at all."

    Europe wants an America like the hip professor living down the hill. Hangs with counter culture folks-maybe shares a doob and sneaks a bj from a coed-sees himself as a benefactor to street culture. He's the type whose wife gets raped and murdered by thugs they'd befriended and helped.

    Like Reagan preached, speak softly and carry a big stick. Hawks need not worry. Obama will kill plenty in Pakistan......
     
    #29     Dec 23, 2008
  10. No, you use your head. It is not just in the third world or even the second world where Bush is detested. How about western europe, Britian, even Australia and NZ. Do you really think the populace of these countries are envious of the US ? That they want their countries to become more like the US ? Do they want a US style health care system ? Do they want a US crime rate ? Not bloody likely!

    Obama is on probation as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Signs are he will more or less carry on with the Bush/neocon foreign policy and that will end for a long time any "soft power" that the US still has.

    Well, we know all about the big stick bit, but what happened to the "walking softly" part. More like lurching from crisis to crisis and killing hundreds of thousands or millions in the process. From Vietnam (and before that) to Iraq and Afghanistan, the military interventions and covert ops have been numerous, mostly disasterous and usually brutal. And none of them to do with the actual defence of the US.

    It is time some Americans grew up and stopped engaging in this ridiculous American exceptionalism. It is worth reflecting on the fact that just one country was the victor in WWII - the United States. Every other major industrial power was devastated. Consequently the US was able to organise the world to suit the interests of it's elite, which has something to do with US economic success post WWII. The dollar standard and the F16 standard have gone hand in hand.
     
    #30     Dec 23, 2008