. Arnie: Russia has over played their hand. They HAD some leverage by giving the impresison they might be persuaded to put pressure on Iran, but no one will expect that now. So what happens, SA? What happens now that that it looks like the sanctions against Iran won't work? ******** August 16, 2008 SouthAmerica: Reply to Arnie Nothing is going to happen. I never understood why Americans are so paranoid about Iran being able to develop nuclear weapons. I donât think that Iran is the real threat in that area of the world. For years I have been saying that the real threat is Pakistan. And Pakistan already is armed with about 100 nuclear warheads. Pakistan is the place that is very unstable politically, and the place that has been protecting Osama Bin Ladden and his Al Qaeda group for many years. By now most Americans donât even remember who Osama Bin Ladden is anyway. At the end of the day the Iranians are not fools, but in the case of Pakistan I can see some fanatic religious crazy person pushing the nuclear bottom to start a nuclear war. .
Actually this is far from true, the last dynasty of China is Qing and their ancestors came from Manchu area. A huge portion of it was taken by Russia. Lenin once signed a treaty promising to give it back to China but Latin later broke the promise. The land area is about 5 times that of Taiwan. Besides this, Mongolia used to be part of China. And Russia played a big role in separating it frm China too. Manchu/Mongolia combined is around 1/3 the size of nowadays China. The disputed land you mentioned used to become China and was seized by imperial Russia ~100 yrs ago. At that time, the British/German/Russian/Japanese/French all had colonies inside China. Russia is only country keeping the territories until now. The island just returned (actually just half of it) is extremely small, it is more of a gesture instead of having any economic/territorial meaning. I am a Chinese and I am not saying this b'coz of my natinoality. China Communist Party needed to please Latin at that time and swallowed whatever Latin said. This is history but to say that the Russians hv bulled anyone in Asia but the Chineses is purely not based on facts. Anyway you are correct that Russia is concerned about losing its far east territories to China as their population is falling and their people aren't willing to live there due to the harsh conditions. To me it isn't true that Russia can bully anyone but China. If they can pick either US or China as an enemy they will definitely choose China as it is for sure the weaker one. But China is more busy with its economic issues and is willing to give up 99.99% of the land, while US is threatening their previous backyard of Eastern Europe and Middle Asia... that is why they collide with US instead of China.
Actually I am not so sure whether this is true. I once read a book about Hitler and Stalin. It said that Stalin was very uneasy about his identity. He had done lots of things to prove that he is more Russian than the native Russians. One of the things he did was to be particularly harsh to non-Russia areas including Georgia. If I can remember right he seldom went back to Georgia too. So I believe that the Georgians didn't really like this "leader" at that time. I may be wrong about this as I don't hv much interest in Russian history anyway. But this is indeed what I read. One thing for sure is that Stalin is a big monster, just like Hitler and Chairman Mao. It is too bad that the news says that he is in the top 5 list of the greatest Russians ever live in a recent role in Russia.
BTW, to be fair to the Russians, personally I think that USSR was a big player than US in defeating Nazi Germany. The eartern front claimed much more lives and drew much more resources frm Nazi Germany than the western front. Even though even if Hitler didn't lose the war in the eastern front he would lose the war in the long term anyway as the US economy was so much bigger and had the atomic bomb. In this forum, so many threads are about conflicts. So many members here paint the world as a multipolar world, why can we view it as a multilateral world and everyone cooperate to make everybody a little bit more prosperous??
Its not just a concern to the US. The UN has passed any number of resolutions to get Iran to stop its program. Funny how you never talk about the bilateral aspects of this. Guess it doesn't fit your myopic view of the US. The only paranoia I see is yours.
South America, Why is such a wretched third world banana republic like brazil wasting money on a pathetic space program when millions live in poverty? John
. Richardyu301: So many members here paint the world as a multipolar world, why can we view it as a multilateral world and everyone cooperate to make everybody a little bit more prosperous?? ******* August 16, 2008 SouthAmerica: That is a nice concept in theory, but the reality is man in general are very greedy and they would do anything to take advantage of another group if they can get away with. Besides that goes against human nature â man is an aggressive animal who is ready to go for the kill at any time. Aggression is a stronger instinct in man than common sense and you donât have to look further for an example than what happened in Iraq in the last 7 years. If common sense had prevailed the United States would not be in such a trouble in the Middle East as we have been following that fiasco for many years. Since you are a Chinese there is something that you need to understand â I remember seeing General Colin Powell being interviewed right after the Soviet Unionâs collapse (I believe it was at The Charlie Rose Show) and he said at the time that the demise of the Soviet Union had created a major problem for the United States since with their major enemy gone how the United States Military Industrial Complex would be able to justify the massive investment in Defense spending in future years. The lack of a clear enemy had become a major problem to the military justify continued overspending in the area of Defense. Osama Bin Ladden became the excuse that the US Military Industrial Complex needed to not just continue pissing the money in defense spending as if there was no tomorrow, but also gave the chance to double the amount of US defense spending in the last 7 years. Please donât take my word for just check the United States total US government budget for the last 7 years and the amount that has been pissed away in defense spending; out of a total US government budget of US$ 20 trillion dollars about US$ 4 trillion dollars were spent on Defense spending or about 20 percent of total US government spending. Since you are Chinese I hope you have realized that China has been financing a big chunk of this massive waste of money. .
. Arnie: Its not just a concern to the US. The UN has passed any number of resolutions to get Iran to stop its program. Funny how you never talk about the bilateral aspects of this. Guess it doesn't fit your myopic view of the US. The only paranoia I see is yours. ***** August 17, 2008 SouthAmerica: It does not make any difference to me if Iran is armed with nuclear weapons or not. As far as I am concerned that it is the business of the Iranian government and the Iranian people and nobody else. Regarding the UN resolutions against Iran since 1979 they passed 100âs of resolutions and sanctions against Iran â I guess if 30 years of resolutions did not work then just keep trying maybe when the UN reaches resolution 10,000 against Iran they might get somewhere. Where? I have no idea. By the way, Iran is going to get their nukes some time in the next decades â just keep passing resolutions at the UN â that worked very well against Iraq. Why are you saying that I am paranoid when the United States and Israel are the countries that are so afraid that Iran can managed to build nuclear weapons? I am the person who doesnât care about that, and I donât waste even a second worrying that Iran is going to build some nukes. ***** jficquette: Why is such a wretched third world banana republic like brazil wasting money on a pathetic space program when millions live in poverty? ******** SouthAmerica: The Brazilian and Chinese space programs are leapfrogging into the future at the speed of light. The Russians are also moving into the future as the US space program it seems to me it is stuck in 1979. Letâs check back in 20 years and see which country became the real Banana Republic. ********** By the way, If I were in charge of the US government budget in the last 7 years I would have invested only US$ 2 trillion in defense spending and the other US$ 2 trillion in infrastructure around the United States; and in the process would have created millions of new jobs around the country. .
. August 17, 2008 SouthAmerica: Yesterday when I was reading the Financial Times (UK) a few articles called my attention as follows: Based on these articles it seems to me that this president of Georgia represents just another neo-con project gone bad. And the second article on the FT summarized the current crisis in a nutshell: âThe Boeing 757 usually made available to the secretary of state was being used by Dick Cheney, vice-president, for a political fundraising trip to Colorado, forcing Ms Rice to take a smaller C-40. To critics, the second-class transport symbolised the Bush administration's second-rate response to the crisis.â ***** Man in the News: Mikheil Saakashvili By Quentin Peel Published: August 16, 2008 Financial Times â UK ⦠Mr Saakashvili â known universally as Misha to friends and foes alike â was swept to power in 2004 on the heels of the Rose Revolution that ousted Eduard Shevardnadze, his predecessor, after a blatantly rigged election. He became, at 36, the youngest head of state in Europe, a passionately pro-American polyglot who toured the world selling the story of Georgiaâs revival. He was the darling of neo-cons in Washington,⦠⦠In government he conducts business at a furious rate. âIt is government by mobile phone,â says one foreign observer. âDecisions are taken with a small group of insiders, working late at night. Then the rest are simply informed.â Former allies, such as Salome Zurabishvili, his former foreign minister, left in disgust. âWe are living in a de facto one-party system,â she says. âHe has an obsessive desire to win,â says the former ambassador. âThat means really hammering people with different points of view â intellectually, and there is some evidence of intimidation. He has no time for a particular type of investigative journalist or a critical politician.â ***** Bush lacks options to act on rhetoric By Andrew Ward in Washington Published: August 16, 2008 Financial Times (UK) Condoleezza Rice had to use an unfamiliar aircraft when she flew to Europe for emergency talks on the conflict in Georgia this week. The Boeing 757 usually made available to the secretary of state was being used by Dick Cheney, vice-president, for a political fundraising trip to Colorado, forcing Ms Rice to take a smaller C-40. To critics, the second-class transport symbolised the Bush administration's second-rate response to the crisis. "Washington was caught by surprise - both by the Georgian action and the scale of the Russian reaction," says Janusz Bugajski, an expert on the region at the Center for Strategic and International Studiesâ¦. ⦠President George W. Bush yesterday sharpened his rhetoric, warning that Russian "bullying and intimidation" would not be tolerated. "Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations, or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation," he said. But experts warn that Washington has few effective instruments to match its tough words. Military intervention has been ruled out, and European allies are resisting US suggestions that Russia could be expelled from the Group of Eight industrialised nations and barred from the World Trade Organisation. ⦠Critics of US handling of the crisis and events leading up to it divide into two camps: those who believe the Bush administration provoked Russia by aligning itself too closely with Georgia, and those who believe it did not stand up to Moscow strongly enough. Both camps agree, however, that the US delivered mixed messages to Georgia by cautioning it against military action in private while championing its cause in public, and that Washington failed to pay sufficient attention to the brewing crisis. Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee5b8f26-6b29-11dd-b613-0000779fd18c.html ********** SouthAmerica: The New York Times article failed to mention that George W. Bush was talking about his personal experiences in relation to his foreign policies regarding Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, Colombia and God knows what else went wrong in the last 7 years. The United States actions in recent years regarding its foreign policies have damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world; and that also shows that âBullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.â The United States did not lose completely only its credibility, the US also lost its Prestige, Influence, and Clout around the world â maybe not everywhere as the last trip of George W. Bush to Africa shows that he still has some prestige left at least in some African countries. ****** No Cold War, but Big Chill Over Georgi By STEVEN LEE MYERS Published: August 16, 2008 CRAWFORD, Tex. â âThe cold war is over,â President Bush declared Friday, but a new era of enmity between the United States and Russia has emerged nevertheless. It may not be as tense as the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union, for now, but it could become as strained. ⦠âWith its actions in recent days Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world,â Mr. Bush said in his fourth stern statement on the conflict in five days, and the strongest to date. âBullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.â ⦠The United Nations Security Council has reverted to a cold-war-like stalemate, with American and Russian vetoes blocking meaningful action over Georgia and other issues. While the United States and Russia will continue to negotiate out of necessity, as the old superpowers did, cooperation and collaboration â however limited in the past few years â now appear even more remote over such issues as Iranâs nuclear programâ¦. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/w...1&scp=1&sq=Steve Lee Myers&st=cse&oref=slogin .
. August 20, 2008 SouthAmerica: In the new arms race between the United States and Russia â right now the ball is in the Russians side of the court â for the Russians to prove that they are back and mean business then they need to match the United States move by placing a military base in Cuba armed with a similar system. The Russians can use a similar rhetoric when they announce their agreement with Cuba: ââMissile defense, of course, is aimed at no one,â said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who signed the agreement in Warsaw with her Polish counterpart, Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski. âIt is in our defense that we do this.ââ I bet the United States would not mind if the Russians made such a move. The United States is already in terrible financial shape and it canât afford a new arms race against the Russians and also with China. The Russians response to the latest Unite States agreement with Poland it will show if the Russians are really back or just making some meaningless noises. It would be interesting also if the Russians decided to place a radar system in Venezuela as part of their new arms race with the US. By the way, the Russians will need to move fast if they want a big bang for the buck - if they want to see pictures of Fidel Castro participating in any agreement event they have to move fast before the old man drop dead from old age. The Fidel Castro symbolism would give a bigger impact to the new game. ***** Rice Signs Missile Deal With Poland By NICHOLAS KULISH and TOM RACHMAN Published: August 20, 2008 The New York Times WARSAW â Despite fierce opposition from Moscow, the United States and Poland signed a long-stalled agreement on Wednesday to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory. The Kremlin has leveled sustained criticism against the American plan, characterizing it as a hostile act near the Russian border. But American officials insist that the system will defend against threats from countries like Iran and would not target Russia. âMissile defense, of course, is aimed at no one,â said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who signed the agreement in Warsaw with her Polish counterpart, Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski. âIt is in our defense that we do this.â The United States and Poland finally reached agreement on the deal last week, after Russia sent forces into Georgia, a move that has alarmed former Soviet satellite states like Poland. The talks between the United States and Poland had been deadlocked for months, but the Russian military intervention in Georgia appears to have given both sides a final push to get the deal done. As part of the deal, an American Patriot missile battery is to move from Germany to Poland, and this would be operated at least temporarily by American military personnel. Under the agreement, Poland would host 10 missile interceptors, intended to shoot down a small number of ballistic missiles. A separate tracking radar system is to be based in the Czech Republic. The system is expected to be in place by 2012. Last week, Russian officials reacted angrily to the announced deal with Poland, saying that the move would worsen relations with the United States. A senior Russian defense official, Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, suggested that Poland was making itself a target by agreeing to host the antimissile system. Such an action âcannot go unpunished,â he said. American officials have tried to frame the discussion in terms of defending against Iran, saying that the limited system could not possibly deter a nuclear arsenal as large as Russiaâs. For Poland, meanwhile, the goal has been to anchor an American military presence in the country at a time of growing concern in former Communist countries about a newly rich and powerful Russiaâs intentions in its former cold war sphere of power. âFreedom can be denied for a while but it cannot be denied forever,â Ms. Rice said, after signing the agreement. âPoland has always been a strong defender of freedom, even in dark days when it was not able to fully express its desire for freedom.â Ms. Rice also spoke of the âdeepeningâ friendship between the United States and Poland. âIn troubled times, the most important thing is to have friends,â she said. âBut it is even more important to have friends who share your hopes and aspirations and dreams. And Poland and the United States are those kinds of friends.â The signing ceremony took place at the prime ministerâs chancellery in Warsawâs city center. Several dozen protesters stood opposite the chancellery, holding signs with slogans in Polish and English like âWeâve had Moscow. We donât want Washingtonâ and âWe donât want to be a human shield.â âThe shield is in fact a sword, of the White House and the Polish government,â said Andrzej Zebrowski, a Polish peace activist. But Polish officials have insisted that the deal was struck in Polandâs own interests. âPoland made this decision as a sovereign state,â President Lech Kaczynski said late Tuesday, according to Bloomberg News. âNobody has the right to tell Poland what to do; times have passed.â Lena Kolarska-Bobinska, director of the Institute of Public Affairs, a leading independent think tank in Warsaw, said Moscow perceived Poland âas one of the major players against Russia.â âThey feel that Poland is one of their territories and Poland is entering their field,â she said. Zbigniew Lewicki, a professor of political science at Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw, argued that Poland had acted wisely in signing the deal. âItâs in Polandâs interest to stay on the American radar, to be seen from Washington, and if we are ever in trouble, to hope at least for American support,â Professor Lewicki said. He said Poland was also sending a message to Russia. âWe had to do it, if only to retain our sovereignty. If we had rejected, the Russians would have interpreted it as a success,â Mr. Lewicki said. The agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic, both members of NATO, must still be ratified by their Parliaments. The fears about a resurgent Russia were codified to some degree in what Polish and American officials characterized as unusual aspects of the final deal, including an obligation on the United States to defend Poland in case of an attack with greater speed than required under NATO. Russia has long opposed the deal, saying the United States was violating post-cold-war agreements not to base its troops in former Soviet bloc states and devising a Trojan horse system designed to counter Russiaâs nuclear arsenal, not an attack by Iran or another adversary. Nicholas Kulish reported from Warsaw and Tom Rachman from Paris. Graham Bowley contributed reporting from New York. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/world/europe/21missile.html?em .