Europe News
Putin says Russia "has to react" to US missile shield in Europe
Jun 2, 2007, 12:35 GMT
Berlin - Russia will be forced to react to US plans to station elements of its missile defence shield in Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said in an interview published Saturday by the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
Speaking to the same magazine, the general heading the US Missile Defence Agency, Henry Obering, repeated an offer to share technology with the Russians and to station missiles in Russia.
'The strategic balance in the world will be disturbed,' Putin said. 'To restore it we will have to create a system to overcome these American weapons.'
The Russian president said that the missiles - to be based in Poland along with a radar station in the Czech Republic - would be automatically linked to the US nuclear arsenal.
'For the first time in history, components of the US nuclear system will arise on the European continent. That changes the whole configuration of international security,' he said.
Putin added that the defence system, set to be in place in around five years, would create only an 'illusion' of security, but actually increase the risk of nuclear conflict.
And he repeated that the shield was aimed at a threat that did not exist.
Obering said security estimates were that Iran would be able to threaten the US with long-range missiles at some point between 2010 and 2015.
He added that Iran and North Korea - the two states the US says it needs to counter - were cooperating on missile technology.
'I believe that Iran will pursue a very aggressive development and test programme,' the general said.
Obering rejected the argument that the US nuclear arsenal would deter any aggressor.
Sketching the possibility of rogue generals taking over in Iran or of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il losing his mind, he said: 'In the 21st century one has to reckon with organizations and states that cannot be deterred.'
Obering repeated the US offer to share resources with Russia. 'I believe it would make real sense to combine American and Russian technology.
'If we were to combine with Russia to set up a common defence system to make these weapons basically unusable, that would be a perfect goal,' Obering said.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Europe
- 1. Pope in Easter message calls for peace and religious tolerance
- 2. Magnificent Messi leads Barcelona to ninth straight win
- 3. Pope leads Easter vigil, calls for "true enlightenment"
- 4. Barcelona increase pressure on Real with romp in Zaragoza
- 5. Pope Benedict XVI leads Easter Vigil
Older Talkback
page: 1
The 'Missle Defense System' is only as good as its operators. This is why NORAD, or state-of-the-art 'defense system' stood down during the 9/11 catastrophe.
And yes, whether people want to accept it or not, the cold war IS on again. Yet another figurative phallus measuring contest.
It would seem to me that if the US missile defense system currently being developed is as technologically useless as the left in the West has tediously insisted it will be for the past thirty years then Putin wouldn't be worried about it at all.
My first suspicion is that the Russians and Chinese both are seriously worried that the system will be scalable upwards from dealing with limited threats like North Korea and Iran to bigger threats like Russia and China.
Failing that, one must suspect that Putin has either lost his mind completely and there is some evidence for that or is playing quite another game that has little, if anything, to do with the missile defense system he is causing so much drama about. This last I am beginning to suspect more and more seeing the games he is playing with energy sales.
Also, it's quite remarkable how fear of another country developing a nuclear weapon is even thinkable despite the fact that the US is the most advanced, the most equipped nuclear power in the world.
The most technologically advanced and nuclear equipped power in the world need not fear another nation's development of a nuclear weapon. Yet, this was the very ground on which we attacked Iraq, and on which leaders seek to attack Iran next.
'Get 'em before they attack us' seems to be the mantra GOP have chanted since the 9/11 attacks. To date, more innocent civilians in Iraq have died (over 600,000) than the victims of 9/11 (approx. 3000) and even US soldiers (3,000). More needless war, death and suffering have been endured in 'pre-emptive strategy' than in waiting for an actual attack.
Oh and uh, by the way. Have we found those nasty WMDs yet? And Hussein was caught and hanged (yippee, hooray, bravo), but why have we chosen to kind of just forget that Osama is still at large?
Whatever, Putin is a little bitch....
To Joe in CA:
Where did you come up with 600,000 dead in Iraq ?
These numbers have been proven false time and time again
President Putin is nothing but a follow up of the Soviet Union. He was an important member of the terrorizing KGB and surely wants to go back to the 'cold war'. Democracy has to defend itself from Russia selling weapons to Venezuela, Iran, Korea, Cuba etc.... Putin, go to hell!!!
As long as one country builds nuclear weapons, another country is going to do it, and round and round it goes - where it stops NO ONE knows!!
the only feature of defense and international policy which continues to threaten our national security is our stubborn insistence upon maintaining a robust and large arsenal of nuclear weapons. we are so insecure that we insist upon being top dogs and are not comfortable unless everyone else has military forces significantly inferior to our own.
and, like any effort to control people, this one backfires, when China, who had long resisted modernization and buildup, chooses to do so in its own interests, and Russia reacts to a missile force in their own backyard. any watcher of Russia knows their historical fear of being surrounded and cultural fear of the foreigner. and we tell Iran they cannot have nuclear weapons? yet other countries who violated our wishes and international consensus, including India and Pakistan, are now our buddies.
right.
You are such an ignorant for saying that we don't need to be on the offensive.
Would you rather wait for another attack in US soil to react again.
'You are such an ignorant for saying that we don't need to be on the offensive.
Would you rather wait for another attack in US soil to react again.'
the 'attack' you site has been overplayed and overblown in stature, despite the obvious tragedy of losing 3000 people. if you will recall, in the days immediately following 2001-09-11 it wasn't clear HOW many people had been killed. it might have approached 20000.
the message taken from that event by this government and by the media focussed upon its tragedy. in fact, it should have been celebrated as an engineering and social success because, despite the unpreditability and enormity of the attack, the inappropriateness of fire and safety and engineering safeguards used at the WTC for it, and the police and fire response resources being overwhelmed, the system worked and most of those 20000+ people got out okay.
follow the money. follow the power. WHO benefits from the state of fear created by terrorist attacks? surely terrorists. but also central government and media.
also, i find al-Qaida quite puzzling as an adversary. they claim they want a body count, but really don't: they want the bright hot spotlight of international media attention. otherwise they'd go after far more mundane targets.
the idea of al-Qaida fielding nukes? sure, possible. but, as the experts have said, it is inevitable and a deterrent force of the Cold War sort won't deter them. frankly, the most likely route at present is for Musharraff in Pakistan to die or be deposed and Pakistan's nukes fall into Islamist hands.
if we're really afraid of nukes against U.S. soil we should interfere constructively with the marketplace and decentralize critical resources such as energy. but we don't. so we must not be so afraid.
also, any comparison of an aftermath of a terrorist strike with even a nuke is utterly insignificant compared to the risk we endured during the Cold War with a far more substantial adversary.
point is, nuclear weapons are useless as military devices. they were then. they certainly are now.
'You are such an ignorant for saying that we don't need to be on the offensive.
Would you rather wait for another attack in US soil to react again.'
Wait, when has the US ever been attacked? Are you refering to 9/11, because if I remember correctly, that was an independent terrorist attack that had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. If I am correct, our government and US media would have us believe that it was all orchestrated by one Osama Bin Laden, which even after an offensive in Afghanistan (which I was totally for, by the way) is still at large.
So how many times are we going to one-up 9/11? How many countries are we going to 'pre-emptively' attack?
Let's address your strange question.
'Would you rather wait for another attack in US soil to react again.'
Why does the solution have to lie in lashing out at other countries that we 'think' might be 'plotting against us?' What good did it to to bomb Iraq? Did we ever find those weapons of mass destruction?
The fact of the matter is the US should have been ready, plain and simple. Instead of 'pre-emptively' attacking countries left and right, be READY for an attack on US soil.
We got love videos from Osama way in advance. Bush and his administration KNEW. Yet nothing was done. Why did Bush establish Homeland Security AFTER the fact? It is conspiracy theory to believe that perhaps the administration waited for such an attack ON PURPOSE so as to have this carte blanche to 'pre-emptively' attack any country of our choice. But let's not deviate. The fact of the matter is, we SHOULD HAVE BEEN READY.
What about MY questions? There was enough time between each building. Bush was told with enough time about the first crash, but he was too busy at an elementary school. (Actually, we were told that he was safe in a bunker somewhere...) Where was NORAD? Where were our planes? Why didn't Bush do anything after he was told of the first crash? Deliberate stand-down.
So to answer your question, no we shouldn't just be sitting ducks. We should be ready at all times in case of any event. The fact that attacks were recently foiled in New Jersey and recently at JFK airport means that America is as vulnerable as in 9/11/2001. The 'war on terror' isn't working. The answer lies not in going on a bombing spree. The answer lies in increased vigilance and always being READY for an attack. I think to just go around bombing countries we THINK might be plotting against us is ignorant. People that go around shooting other people unwarrented are known as serial killers. They are crazy murderers that are sick in the head. The excuse that 'I shot him/her because I knew that he/she was planning to kill me first' usually doesn't stand up in court.
Let me put this in perspective: 9/11 could have been a 'pre-emptive attack.' Pre-emptive attacks, by their very nature, are carried out un-warranted. 9/11, if it were an attack by any nation, which it wasn't, was an unwarranted, unprovoked attack.
The war in Iraq was an unwarranted, unprovoked 'pre-emptive attack.' We haven't even found the WMDs we were supposedly looking for. In 'not waiting for an attack on US soil,' we are as bad, if not worse than the 9/11 terrorists.
WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two lawmakers said Wednesday.
'We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons,' Sen. Rick Santorum, said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: 'Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.'
He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.
Both Magog and Persia are on GODS diner menu schedule. It’s just a matter of time. No one messes with the blessed House of Israel.
Maybe instead of building a giant wall all around the Middle East, etc., the U.S. should just build one around them much like the old forts and man the battle stations!!!
The need for a cold war is obvious. This is how our economy has functioned since WWII, we need a threat that we can use as an excuse to drive spending on R&D and weapons production. The economy is about to take a serious nose dive and any threat to justify ramping up war production is gratefully accepted by the Cheney Administration and his poodle, George.
Clearly Global Warming isn't a manly enough threat, they need something that can be called 'evil' and villanized so that they can shoot at it - War on Drugs, War on Terror...something that we can mobilize military forces against. We don't hear about War on Poverty, War on Illiteracy, War on Women' Right to Choose, War on Valerie Plame, War on Dishonest Advisors like Meirs and Rove, War on Overbearing Religious Zealot Right Wingers,.... We only hear about Wars on things that can be shot at. Its a macho term, 'War on..'. It implies action and deadly determination. But it really means 'doing something stupid that sounds like action and screwing up lives and killing innocent people (see 'Drug War casualties' and 'Iraqs connection with Bin Laden')'. Everything else is ignored or handed over to the bible thumpers.
Heck, in 1960 the Russians had maybe 20 atomic missiles yet we were told that they had thousands and that the gap would continue - we must build more weapons to offset theirs... and the arms researchers and makers laughed to the bank and now history tells us that it was all trumped up bs. It wasn't until we escalated and scared the hell out of the Russians that they in turn escalated and justified the made-up bs that started the accelerated arms race to begin with. More nonsense from generals and politicos with big oil and arms makers whispering in their ears....
Heck, the Cheney Administration, the Bushs, and a number of the other key players in the current fiasco made their billions in arms and oil..and we need to trust them now that the missile defense system is the way to go... sure we do...sure we do...
Will the missile defense shield protect Arab nations from Israel's WMDs?
And by the way, when is Israel going to face the same noise as Iran with its destabilizing nuclear arsenal? When are we going to declare 'War on Foriegn Manipulation of US Politics by Theocracies and Self-Important Zealots'. The Jewish lobby has no business in US politics and our sad support of that regime is as hypocritical as our demands on China to respect human rights while we run secret CIA prisons and practice torture and abduction. Of course that is business as usual for Israel....
Listen to Israel rail against Iran's nuclear ambitions as it covertly threatens its neighbors with a nuclear arsenal that it created and maintains illegally. Bald-faced hypocrisy. That is the problem with Israel, it claims that everyone is against it when the world community calls its actions into question and then uses God as an excuse to break from the world community. No different than Iran or any other fundamentalist state. Israel hasn't shown respect for a single UN sanction but demands billions in US aid so it can continue to oppress and murder Arabs. It is an embarassment that many US citizens are tired of...
Of course, the Israeli's don't care. They are the chosen ones of God and can do no wrong and are justified at every juncture... nobody can question Israel, it holds itself above all laws including the Torah, the Koran and the Bible...Israeli's are fine with this because, in the end, God chose them and we won't even be around when their religion is finally victorious. They just use us to reach their own religious agenda and we play along because our politicians have their own religious agenda.... pathetic.
Religion and politics equals repression, murder and self-rightousness...
The world is always full of Neville Chamberlains. See how they work, see how those that follow them suffer!
star wars was a joke too when Reagan proposed it, now we learn North Korea has nuke and may be able to hit california eventually, it's NOT a joke now when you have rogue states with pscho in charge..
It is too bad that the US has to have this liar-sissy-cheetleader represent us to other countries. I cannot wait until we have someone that the rest of the world respects and trusts.
The Cuban Crisis comes to mind.. Missiles on peoples doorsteps and stuff like that.. but that was different of course.. yeah.. right.
Prophetically it is all falling into place.. but hey its a lovely day lets all go fishing while we can after all Vietnam was wrong, Iraq was/is wrong so with this they gets to score three out of three... and deeper in debt.. happy days!
@Joe the idiot in CA
'Wait, when has the US ever been attacked? Are you refering to 9/11, because if I remember correctly, that was an independent terrorist attack that had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. '
So there are no Al Queda fighting us in Iraq, eh? You idiot.
'So how many times are we going to one-up 9/11? '
Zero, we haven't flown any aircraft full of people into buildings full of people, idiot.
'Why does the solution have to lie in lashing out at other countries that we 'think' might be 'plotting against us?''
Not an answer to his/her question, idiot.
Idiots like you who have been chipping away at our resolve would have railed against any plans at preparedness as 'fear mongering', idiot.
'We got love videos from Osama way in advance. '
So what? Idiot?
' Bush and his administration KNEW. '
Knew what? idiot. That 19 hijackers were going to fly aircraft full of people into buildings full of people? Idiot? No they didn't know that, idiot.
'Yet nothing was done.'
So we should have done what? Closed down all the airports, seaports, schools and highways, put a 24 hour curfew on and had everyone go to shelters? Idiot? Did I mention that you are an idiot? A conspiracist idiot? Who bought you your computer idiot?
't is conspiracy theory to believe that perhaps the administration waited for such an attack ON PURPOSE so as to have this carte blanche to 'pre-emptively' attack any country of our choice.'
YES, idiot. It is, idiot. It also does not make any sense, idiot.
'The fact of the matter is, we SHOULD HAVE BEEN READY.'
How? Idiot? How do you prepare for every weakness that a terrorist wants to exploit? Obviously you can not, idiot.
'What about MY questions? '
They are the idiotic questions of a paranoid mind, idiot.
'Where was NORAD? '
Norad looks out, not in idiot.
' Where were our planes? '
Do you just hop in a fighter jet and turn the key and go? Idiot? No you do not... Idiot.
'Why didn't Bush do anything after he was told of the first crash?'
What did you want him to do you lunatic?
'Deliberate stand-down.
'
Bull, you idiot.
People like you, who are so unbelievably stupid and so unbelievably mailable and who are such complete IDIOTS make me sick.
When people have nothing worth saying they have to resort to calling others names!!!
I don't understand why the combined forces of the EU don't make a stand. Are they that afraid of putin? Is it putins oil that is owning the EU? The EU is full of itself that it can't or won't do anything but talk, talk, talk and soon may talk itself out of existance.
Henry Obering must think Putin is stupid,
When makes the claim that that Iran's missile's could threaten the U.S.in 3to 8 years,
Also the Poles should ask themselves,where they will get their oil and gas from if they station these missles on polish territory
Russia is within its rights to link its energy to its security considerations.
(Watch this get the egomaniac calling everyone else 'idiots' get bent out of shape ... if it's who I have in mind, he's getting over a broken leg, and while I wish him a speedy recovery, it's left him with his foot in his mouth)
***
This is very personal with Putin, just as Saddam was very personal for Bush and Cheney. Putin's background is the Stasi, and cooperation with the KGB. Related 'pastes' from other Web articles:
---
(Washington Post in 2000)
Putin defends the Soviet-era intelligence service to this day. In recent comments to a writers' group in Moscow, he even seemed to excuse its role in dictator Joseph Stalin's brutal purges, saying it would be 'insincere' for him to assail the agency where he worked for so many years. Fiercely patriotic, Putin once said he could not read a book by a Soviet defector because 'I don't read books by people who have betrayed the Motherland.'
---
(more recent)
Putin feels he offered friendship to the West after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S. only to be abused in return, said Nina Khrushcheva, an analyst at the World Policy Institute housed at the New School in New York and the granddaughter of former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.
'He truly feels the West betrayed him,' she said, because of the continued expansion of NATO, and alleged American and EU support for nonviolent revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine that led to the election of leaders friendly to the West. Western criticism of Moscow's record on human rights and democracy, in the view of Russia's leaders, only adds insult to injury.
More broadly, Putin has repeatedly expressed frustration with the political and economic consensus among the major world powers, represented by groups such as the EU and the G-8, which have relied on the military might of the U.S. to guarantee security.
The question coming up is who will follow Putin as President, just as we face our own elections in 2008. Of course, Russian elections are for show, but the issue of a successor is critical; just as it will be when Musharraf leaves office, or Karzai. There's no guarantee that who follows won't be worse for the U.S., a lesson that should have been learned already in other countries. We supported Saddam all those many years for a reason.
Check this article:
Putin heirs apparent
ESTANISLAO OZIEWICZ
Globe and Mail Update
June 2, 2007 at 12:01 AM EDT
Speculation in Russia is rampant about who may succeed Vladimir Putin as president next year.
Mr. Putin has said that he will make his own choice known during the presidential campaign in early 2008. The two names most often mentioned in Russia and abroad are two of his closest colleagues, first deputy prime ministers Sergei Ivanov and Dmitri Medvedev. But Timothy Colton, director of Harvard's Davis Center for Russian and Eurasion Studies, said recently that all kinds of Kremlin names are being bandied about and that the eventual successor may come out of the blue.
“All this is keeping in mind that in 1999 [former president Boris] Yeltsin surprised us by picking Putin as his successor, and so there is the precedent, and he's certainly going to have a very good chance of imposing whomever he wants,” Mr. Colton said in an interview with the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations.
Russian deputy prime ministers Sergei Ivanov, left, and Dmitri Medvedev, are both potential candidates to succeed President Vladimir Putin. “He simply hasn't tipped his hand yet.”
The question regarding system’s current capability is not an issue here. Instead the issue is whether those capabilities will improve in the future. Without of doubt they will. By that time, however, US will have the necessary foothold very close to Russian borders. This puts this new cold war wrangling in perspective. US wants a foothold; Russia knows if they give an inch, US will take a yard.
As far as rogue states go, I cannot see why would N.Korea make it so difficult for themselves to send their missiles the long way around the globe. Why not put the radar in Hawaii?
Has this happen before?
Yes. Popular history at length chews on the Cuban missile crisis, but the precursor to the stand off between US and USSR usually goes unmentioned.
“In 1961 the U.S. started deploying 15 Jupiter IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) nuclear missiles near Ýzmir, Turkey, which directly threatened cities in the western sections of the Soviet Union, including Moscow through its 1500 mile range and flight time of about 16 minutes. These missiles were regarded by President Kennedy as being of questionable strategic value; an SSBN (ballistic submarine) was capable of providing the same coverage, with both stealth and superior firepower.
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had publicly expressed his anger at the Turkish deployment, and regarded the missiles as a personal affront. The deployment of missiles in Cuba — the first time Soviet missiles were moved outside the USSR — is commonly seen as Khrushchev's direct response to the Turkish missiles.”
Source Wikipedia, Cuban Missile Crisis.
What should we expect?
As of late US has been apprehensive about Putin induced changes in Russia. The young democratic institutions of Russia are being strangled, but Putin’s approval rating is at an all time high. Some say it’s because the people of Russia are better off economically and care not for the democracy. Others attribute Putin’s popularity to feeding the people’s imperialist aspirations. No doubt these are contributing factors, but what about unilateral US foreign policy? Does anyone think they are safe from the wrath of the only Superpower left? It seems only nuclear nations who are capable of delivering warheads anywhere on Earth could feel more or less safe. Russia is among these states and certainly does not want to lose its deterrent.
Russia will be electing a new president in 2008. If this stand off escalates any further, Putin’s successor will not be able to do what Khruschev did. But he will be able to kick off another arm’s race. A race in which the sheer destructive power not precision will be the goal. Alas, the fuse will become short again.
The question regarding system’s current capability is not an issue here. Instead the issue is whether those capabilities will improve in the future. Without of doubt they will. By that time, however, US will have the necessary foothold very close to Russian borders. This puts this new cold war wrangling in perspective. US wants a foothold; Russia knows if they give an inch, US will take a yard.
As far as rogue states go, I cannot see why would N.Korea make it so difficult for themselves to send their missiles the long way around the globe. Why not put the radar in Hawaii?
Has this happen before?
Yes. Popular history at length chews on the Cuban missile crisis, but the precursor to the stand off between US and USSR usually goes unmentioned.
“In 1961 the U.S. started deploying 15 Jupiter IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) nuclear missiles near Ýzmir, Turkey, which directly threatened cities in the western sections of the Soviet Union, including Moscow through its 1500 mile range and flight time of about 16 minutes. These missiles were regarded by President Kennedy as being of questionable strategic value; an SSBN (ballistic submarine) was capable of providing the same coverage, with both stealth and superior firepower.
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had publicly expressed his anger at the Turkish deployment, and regarded the missiles as a personal affront. The deployment of missiles in Cuba — the first time Soviet missiles were moved outside the USSR — is commonly seen as Khrushchev's direct response to the Turkish missiles.”
Source Wikipedia, Cuban Missile Crisis.
What should we expect?
As of late US has been apprehensive about Putin induced changes in Russia. The young democratic institutions of Russia are being strangled, but Putin’s approval rating is at an all time high. Some say it’s because the people of Russia are better off economically and care not for the democracy. Others attribute Putin’s popularity to feeding the people’s imperialist aspirations. No doubt these are contributing factors, but what about unilateral US foreign policy? Does anyone think they are safe from the wrath of the only Superpower left? It seems only nuclear nations who are capable of delivering warheads anywhere on Earth could feel more or less safe. Russia is among these states and certainly does not want to lose its deterrent.
Russia will be electing a new president in 2008. If this stand off escalates any further, Putin’s successor will not be able to do what Khruschev did. But he will be able to kick off another arm’s race. A race in which the sheer destructive power not precision will be the goal. Alas, the fuse will become short again.
The problem with anti-missile defense is that the U.S. is not omnipitent. Russia's new oil wealth has given the capability to offset, through sheer number of warheads, if not technology itself. With MIRV (multiple independent warheads), it requires our knocking out an offensive missile at or near launch. Iran does not have the capability to launch multiple missles, nor do terrorists; but Russia does.
The proximity of Bush's proposed defensive missiles to Russia is the problem - lot of the Old Guard don't trust Bush and Cheney. The promimity is the key to attacking an offensive launch early, so Putin is concerned. Ours are NOT offensive weapons, and Putin understands that full well. It's the old 'balance of power' theory at work, so Putin feels the need to respond.
Out dealings with North Korea and Iran has caused similar reactions, and Iran's combination of nationalism and Islamic fundamentalist is unique - Russia is nationalistic, but religion does not enter into it.
Sec'y. Rice has enough education to understand this, but is stuck constantly having to mitigate Bush's policies, and Cheney's bellicose rants. Not an enviable position.
Washington Post 5/31 (excerpt)
Rice, in her speech, asserted: 'We find Russia's recent missile diplomacy difficult to understand, and we regret Russia's reluctance to accept the partnership in missile defense that we have offered.'
'There is no need to fear Russia's actions; they are not aggressive,' Putin said. 'They are a mere response to harsh and groundless unilateral actions by our partners and are aimed at maintaining the balance of forces in the world.'
The disputes between Russia and the United States have colored other diplomatic efforts, such as concerns over Iran's nuclear program and the future of Kosovo.
Gulf News (excerpt)
Madrid: The US is not preparing for war against Iran and Vice-President Dick Cheney supports that policy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says, taking a swipe at a UN official who says he is worried about 'crazies' who want to start bombing.
'The president of the United States has made very clear what our policy is. That policy is supported by all the members of his Cabinet and by the vice- president of the United States,' Rice said on Friday.
'The president has made clear that we are on a diplomatic course,' she said in regard to US opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
M&C story: BACKGROUND: Missile defence for Europe faces technical challenges
(More non-scientific crap from the Administration, and no doubt not helping with the G-8 talks, either. Bush seems to have no idea of what works, and what does not).
----
Washington - The United States is forging ahead on fielding a long-range missile defence system in Eastern Europe despite concerns that the shield still faces considerable technological hurdles and has not been tested under realistic scenarios.
The controversial plan to deploy 10 interceptor missiles to Poland and a radar site to the Czech Republic has been greeted with unease in Europe and outright hostility in Russia, and Bush is meeting with Czech leaders on Tuesday and Polish leaders on Friday to discuss the issue.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress' investigative arm, said in a March report that Ground Based Midcourse is still largely unproven despite scoring a successful hit in a September 2006 test.
'There is still a ways to go to demonstrate whether the capability is reliable enough,' Paul Francis, primary author of the GAO report, said in an interview.
The GAO and missile defence critics, including Philip Coyle, who headed the Pentagon's independent weapons testing office during the 1990s, say testing has not been realistic.
The target missile in September's test did not release countermeasures like balloons or chaff, which are used to confuse the missile defence system's tracking radar, Coyle said.
'They have done these tests under scripted conditions, where you have information in advance that no enemy would give you,' said Coyle, now an analyst with the Centre for Defence Information in Washington.
Peace threw Superior fire power.
(This is Putin jockeying for influence at the upcoming G8 - note how calmly he makes these threats, to pressure countries who count on Russia for natural gas)
'Putin warns he will point missiles at Europe'
ROME (Reuters) - Russia will once again aim its missiles at targets in Europe if U.S. plans to build a missile defence shield near Russia's borders go ahead, President Vladimir Putin was quoted as saying on Sunday.
In an interview reported in Italy's Corriere della Sera, Putin acknowledged Russia's response risked restarting an arms race but he said Moscow would not be responsible for the consequences because Washington had started it.
Putin made the tough statement days before a Group of Eight summit in Germany on June 6 where, among other world leaders, he will come face to face with U.S. President George W. Bush.
Russia has not expressly targeted its missiles at Europe since the end of the Cold War but, asked if it would do this again if the U.S. missile shield plant went ahead, Putin said: 'Yes, naturally.'
'If the American nuclear capability widens across European territory, we will have to give ourselves new targets in Europe,' Italy's leading daily quoted Putin as saying.
America installs 'X' number of anti-missiles and announces the fact.
Russia fires 'X+n' missiles. How many reach america ?
For 'n' read nuclear bangs on american soil (or slightly higher - for more effect)
Bush ---> take your bulls and go to hell
RE:
America installs 'X' number of anti-missiles and announces the fact.
Russia fires 'X+n' missiles. How many reach america ?
For 'n' read nuclear bangs on american soil (or slightly higher - for more effect)
----------
That's not Putin's threat - he is putting pressure on Europe for allowing these ineffective missiles to be placed close to Russia's border. He's not interested in threatening American soil. Russia already has thousands of warheads that can reach the U.S., but now has demonstrated superior missile technology formerly under wraps - a wakeup call for Bush and his missile-defense strategy. This longer-term risk is a cold-war-type revival, since both sides simply choose to escalate. Putin's energy revenues have enabled this kind of investment, and Russia is a main supplier of natural gas to Europe.
This is the same technique that Iran is using by declaring that they're moving ahead with nuclear energy - they're in a good position, now that Bush has removed Saddam, who had offset Iranian hegemony attempts for 25 years, and Iraq continues without an effective government.
Why would you build nuclear weapons and missles? To use them. If you are not going to use them, destroy them, all across the world! If you dont want to destroy them, then lets use them. Its now or later. Lets just go ahead now and start a nuclear war. Isnt that what everyone is preparing for? Its going to happen one day so why not go ahead and start now?
Lets go nuclear!!!
I almost have to agree with YoYo, and if this crazy build-up of nuclear arms around the world wasn't so serious, it would almost be laughable.
Just a few years of neo-con (con stands here for 'to con someone') rule and the whole middle east gets destabilized and the entire post-cold war progess gets flushed down the toilet in the last months of Bush rule.
It seems they have a screw up to-do list or something to push through before they get kicked out of office by the american voters.
Now , please americans vote another neo-con at next election and they will protect you sooo much from all the threats that they themselves created that the whole world will go up in mushroom clouds.
- Taliban ( Brought into power by u.s republican governments)
- Bin Laden (Not so long ago supported by the CIA)
And now ...prepare yourself for the new threat america !
Vladimir Putin !
Why didnt know he is a threat ?
Because he wasnt until neo-con America started that missile shield plan
Strange huh ? Enemies coming from Bush's manufacturing band....
As predicted, Russia is useing its oil to force Europeans to bow down to Putins Russia. Russian assasination squads are all over Europe and doeing Putins bidding, Now Putin is threatening Europe once again with nukes. How will Europe respond? The won't they will bow even lower and capitulate to Russia's demands. Just wait for Putins new upcoming replacement to come into office and then Putin will really turn up the heat on Europe.
YOYO, aptly named, does at least (inadvertantly) bring up a point.
Those with the most nukes are the U.S. and Russia, by far. Under the MAD theory, neither would start a conflict with the other, since an ICBM flight time is 18 minutes, and retaliation would occur even faster than Bush's infamous 7 minute lag on 9/11.
The problem is proliferation - Israel has nukes, and therefore Iran feels the need - then would come the Saudis and others, who would feel they THEY needed them. Since terrorist groups have no morality, the more nukes you have spread around, the more opportunity for them to fall into terrorist hands.
Russia having warheads is no problem - they realize the consequences of using them. Seeing al Qaeda get even ONE, and then threatening Israel, is a far bigger problem. Israel has an actual COUNTRY to protect; but where do you retaliate against a worldwide terrorist organization? Where is it 'based'?
Fred Thompson just made a 'good vs. evil' speech, which I find totally disappointing - that attitude is what got Bush headed off in the wrong direction. I guess Thompson is after the 'good ol' boy' vote, and the right-wing, who loves this 'evil' talk, but never has the solution in terms of building an alliance to stand against it. Bush has made Europe and NATO second-team players (and the Euro nations themselves were also to blame), and we need a President who is not an isolationist (sorry, Pat Buchanan).
'Fred Thompson just made a 'good vs. evil' speech, which I find totally disappointing '
Of course you do, it is not what you want to hear. It is however essentially the truth.
' I guess Thompson is after the 'good ol' boy' vote, and the right-wing, who loves this 'evil' talk, '
I know, the left wing loves to call evil something other then what it is... News flash, the terrorists we are fighting are evil.
'Bush has made Europe and NATO second-team players (and the Euro nations themselves were also to blame)'
Glad you spared some blame for NATO. They were really good at taking, not so good at giving.
It's pretty remarkable how many American and British morons are spewing anti-Russian garbage around here...
US and NATO, they say, should be free to put any weapons on Russian borders, and Russia should never worry about it. It should just forget about its history of being constantly invaded from the West. And it should disregard growing aggressiveness and unpredictability of America.
Well, huge wake-up call is coming. Russia is not going to take it anymore. Wanna missiles? You'll get missiles. Instead of mythical Iranian nukes, you'll be targeted by very real Russian ones.
Seems like this latest American idiocy is one too many. The way it goes USA is one doomed country. 60 trillion dollars of liabilities - and these idiots are still playing stupid war games. Have patients taken over the asylum?
RE:
'Fred Thompson just made a 'good vs. evil' speech, which I find totally disappointing ' - Of course you do, it is not what you want to hear. It is however essentially the truth.
---------
Just an over-simplification, to appeal to 'simple' minds. I see he has your attention.
People do not become terrorists, or commit suicide, by being 'born' evil - it takes motivation; and poverty, unemployment, lack of education, and the appeal of fundamentalism are the catalysts. Couching the debate as 'good vs. evil' is an appeal to those who don't take the time to consider how the world got to this state, and furthermore have no answers of their own, aside from treating those who disagree as flies to be swatted. Egomania is a powerful force, whether it's Cheney or the President of Iran, or Bush, with a history of alcoholism and reliance on his father's connections, rather than the native ability to get things done. Even Gingrich today called him 'essentially' a failure, and from Gingrich, that's telling. Gingrich is more concerned with the GOP losing ground than the state of the world, but at least he understands the failures - more than Bush's lackeys on chat boards do.
-----------
WASHINGTON (AP) - Newt Gingrich described the Bush administration as dysfunctional and its unpopularity as hazardous to those in the Republican Party. 'The government is not functioning. It's not getting the job done,' said the former House speaker, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination. 'Republicans need to confront this reality.'
Gingrich said in a broadcast interview he believes Bush 'means very, very well' but falls short when it comes to putting his goals in place and running the government. 'All you have to do is look at the examples I've given you today where the government simply fails,' said Gingrich, citing the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, its immigration policies and response to Hurricane Katrina.
Putin is pure genius. There is no hype or spin around this simple fact.
'People do not become terrorists, or commit suicide, by being 'born' evil -'
Here comes the excuse maker.
'and poverty, unemployment, lack of education,'
You are statistically dead wrong. Most are middle class background and have education. Bin Laden is wealthy, Al Zawahiri is a doctor. You are just dead wrong and it makes me sick that you are again making excuses for terrorists who want to separate your stupid head from your shoulders in order to take a swipe at your scapegoat. We are in a war with EVIL things, but you can't allow yourself to see that because of your Bush derangement.
Here is your 'motivation', they are exposed to a steady diet of monstrous propaganda from birth, this is what they are steadily fed:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FvXefcvXCM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em-MnAYiEWk
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEB0SvMzKzg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G_YjKRDNVE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul4UecZThH4
Just drag and drop the above into your browser.
It gets worse in their schools and worse in their mosques. Go ahead, blame that on your scapegoat.
No, it is not an oversimplification, the monsters who would do that to children are evil. The monsters who would fly aircraft full of human beings into buildings full of human beings are evil. The monsters who would fill gyms full of children and stet off bombs are evil. Despite your idiotic moral equivalence arguments to say otherwise there is no other word for it.
'. Even Gingrich today called him 'essentially' a failure, and from Gingrich, that's telling'
It is pathetic, the subject was terrorists.... You are a pathological head case. everything has to go back to your scapegoat.
'Newt Gingrich described the Bush administration as dysfunctional and its unpopularity as hazardous to those in the Republican Party. '
Look at the videos and try to blame that on Bush.
RE:
You are statistically dead wrong. Most are middle class background and have education. Bin Laden is wealthy, Al Zawahiri is a doctor.
---
Garbage. bin Laden was upset when U.S. troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia, which he considered holy ground - a result of the Saudis turning down bin Laden's offer to raise a Muslim army.
The vast majority of terrorists, aside from being influenced by a fundamentalist upbringing, have nothing to live for. They've been convinced that there's glory in sacrifice, and indeed, fundamentalist education can bring that belief about.
By 'lack of education' I mean things that the rest of us have learned, in terms of what's needed to earn a living, and to fulfill ourselves without blowing up strangers.
'Evil' is a convenient designation; but that misses the point that those very same people, given a different upbringing, could have turned out 'useful' to their society. There are plenty of moderates in Iran who would like to see a different leadership. The problem is not their President, but the mullahs who actually run the place. The fact is, those fundamentalists see Western values as 'evil', so both cannot be accurate. 'Evil' is a subjective notion, based on who's doing the name-calling. I reject it as your own simplistic banner-waving, in lieu of a real attempt to support the moderates who actually could bring about change.
Our presence in Iraq continues to influence those in Madrassahs who spawn the very terrorists that we should be concerned with. We should be seeing to an Iraqi government able to run the place, so that we can leave, but there's no sign of one. Causation matters; and at this point we appear more to be the problem, than the solution. The Iraqi's don't want us, but are stuck with us, to keep things from getting worse.
If that's the way your doctor treated your illness, you'd be suing for malpractice.
This is just about Russia trying to show it has some influence, they will see they have very little and will be slapped down like the little bitches they are, or they will actually start a nuclear war in another of their historical tantrums. They have been playing zero sum politics for a while now, they are stupid - this kind of behaviour lead to the fall of the USSR, lets look forward to breaking Russia up..
America thinks they own the world. When Russia had missiles on Cuba it was a different story and the Americans were not so happy about that but now it seems its ok to do the same thing next door to Russia?? I dont think so somehow!!!
Nice one Putin, someone has to stand up to Bush's bullying.
Ok seriously!......yes america is very strong!!! ok But the Russians are too!.......If America and Russia Go to War no one will win!...the reason i think that Putin is against the missle shields is because i believe that he wants to rebuild the soviet Union.....Im pretty sure the Military Excersise with China and Russia is a Plan for them to take over the World.....andlately if you look at the statisticsthe 3 super powers in the World are America Russia And China! if 2 join to fight one the its over....Yeah we are the most advanced but in history some of the most advanced nations got there ass kicked by rebels and other small nations......America was not the #1 super power in the world untill 1991.....Russia was #1....There for putin knows that if he establishes the old Russian Empire they will become #1 in no time because there population and production and all others would double...the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed was because the wrong people were in control and wanted more and they condensented themselves.Wars between our Countries will not have a victory for either side....instead it will resolt in the end of Civilization as we know it......and none of you are idiots because we all have our own voices and opinions.......lol im sure the day we get into it with aliens from another planet lol all this shit between us wont be here anymore!......the next thing youll know is being beside a Russian and killing other life forms for survival of Mankind lol.......
page: 1
RDavisJun 2nd, 2007 - 14:11:59
I think the Missile Defense Shield is a white-collar welfare project of epic proportions. Such a system can never be proven to work when needed despite the number of 'successful' tests staged under 'just-so', softball conditions.
The likelihood of a 'rogue state' spending billions to develop an ICBM and nuclear warhead capable of hitting the US, and then actually using one to strike a US city has to be vanishingly small. It can't be done in secret. We are witnessing Military-Industrial-Complex fear mongering, preying on an unthinking public. This is the very thing that President Eisenhower warned us about when he left office back in 1961.
We've already seen the preferred method of terrorist weapon delivery: unorthodox, surprise, low tech. If terrorists ever get their hands on a nuclear device with the intention of destroying a US city, you can bet that it'll arrive via Rider or U-Haul and not on the tip of a ballistic missile where its route can be traced. It's clear that the decision makers in this country still can't think outside-the-box, and can only imprint our own methods on potential enemies.
If we in the US must spend our grandchildren's money on technological gadgetry from our trusty weapons makers, let's develop a meteor/asteroid deflection/destruction system that will benefit the entire world and not destabilize it. At least for this scenario we know for certain that such a system WILL be needed some day.
Report this comment