Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Testify wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Testify wrote:Europe need to accecept that they need to actually pay money for defence. The current crisis notwithstanding, we easily have the money to be paying for this gak outselves. The missile defence was never supposed to protect Poland, it was to protect Western Europe.

I question the actual need for Europe to pay more for defense than it currently does. Who are they defending themselves against? Wars between nations with developed economies cost too much.

Right because the Russians couldn't find buyers in China or India for their gas.
The nature of the beast has not changed. Russia is still a threat to Europe, especially considering only France and the UK actually have armies.

How is Russia a threat?? explain please

Testify wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Testify wrote:Europe need to accecept that they need to actually pay money for defence. The current crisis notwithstanding, we easily have the money to be paying for this gak outselves. The missile defence was never supposed to protect Poland, it was to protect Western Europe.

I question the actual need for Europe to pay more for defense than it currently does. Who are they defending themselves against? Wars between nations with developed economies cost too much.

Right because the Russians couldn't find buyers in China or India for their gas.
The nature of the beast has not changed. Russia is still a threat to Europe, especially considering only France and the UK actually have armies.

Please tell me that you are trolling and you don't actually believe all that nonsense?

Russia is a threat because of a...

...

...

...

...

...

... CONSPIRACY!

edited

When did we start caring what Poland thinks about our Nuclear Defense Program or lack thereof?

Did I miss a memo or something?

To create a fool-proof system that would protect the US or even Europe from Russia or China's nukes is nearly impossible with current technology. Has anyone ever shown that such a system would be even 10% effective against a rogue state with a lone missile lobbing into Europe or Israel? The whole point of developing the "Star Wars Program" was sabre-rattling and getting the other guy to think twice about blowing billions on nukes, which didn't work. So why keep doing it?

Tempest in a teapot. Nothing to see here.

kronk wrote:When did we start caring what Poland thinks about our Nuclear Defense Program or lack thereof?

Did I miss a memo or something?

When it became politically convenient for Republicans to care.

Huffy wrote:
How is Russia a threat?? explain please

Well they're trying to influence Ukraine/Belyrus as much as they can. There are plenty of people in the Russian government who'd be in favour of outright annexation - "Anchluss" of their cultural kin.
And then, who knows, "re-integrate" Poland with the Russian Empire?
Russia is large, wealthy and autocratic - it's also right next to Western Europe. Of course it's a threat.

Testify wrote:Well they're trying to influence Ukraine/Belyrus as much as they can.

That argument is weaker than a ninety pound five foot ten corpse.

Because Pretty much every country in the world is trying to influence every other country in the world. It doesn't indicate any sort of aggression.

Melissia wrote:

Testify wrote:Well they're trying to influence Ukraine/Belyrus as much as they can.

That argument is weaker than a ninety pound five foot ten corpse.

Because Pretty much every country in the world is trying to influence every other country in the world. It doesn't indicate any sort of aggression.

The president of the Ukraine is a Russian puppet who imprisoned the (Ukrainian) opposition. There are plenty of Ukrainians who'd be in favour of annexation too.

Testify wrote:The president of the Ukraine is a Russian puppet who imprisoned the (Ukrainian) opposition. There are plenty of Ukrainians who'd be in favour of annexation too.

If there are enough Ukrainians who want to be annexed, I really don't see the problem. That's their business, not mine.

Testify wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Testify wrote:Well they're trying to influence Ukraine/Belyrus as much as they can.

That argument is weaker than a ninety pound five foot ten corpse.

Because Pretty much every country in the world is trying to influence every other country in the world. It doesn't indicate any sort of aggression.

The president of the Ukraine is a Russian puppet who imprisoned the (Ukrainian) opposition. There are plenty of Ukrainians who'd be in favour of annexation too.

The president of Ukraine was democratically elected by the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainians put Tymoshenko in jail because she blatantly favoured the Russians and harmed her own country in the gas dispute of 2009! That seems as far away as a "Russian puppet" as one could get.

And I wish corrupted politicians got put into jail in my country as well...

Melissia wrote:

Testify wrote:The president of the Ukraine is a Russian puppet who imprisoned the (Ukrainian) opposition. There are plenty of Ukrainians who'd be in favour of annexation too.

If there are enough Ukrainians who want to be annexed, I really don't see the problem. That's their business, not mine.

lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
The president of Ukraine was democratically elected by the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainians put Tymoshenko in jail because she blatantly favoured the Russians and harmed her own country in the gas dispute of 2009! That seems as far away as a "Russian puppet" as one could get.

And I wish corrupted politicians got put into jail in my country as well...

Right, it was the 2007 elections the pro-Russians won.
Regardless, Russia is a threat. No one in Britain, France or Germany trusts them.

Testify wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Testify wrote:The president of the Ukraine is a Russian puppet who imprisoned the (Ukrainian) opposition. There are plenty of Ukrainians who'd be in favour of annexation too.

If there are enough Ukrainians who want to be annexed, I really don't see the problem. That's their business, not mine.

lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
The president of Ukraine was democratically elected by the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainians put Tymoshenko in jail because she blatantly favoured the Russians and harmed her own country in the gas dispute of 2009! That seems as far away as a "Russian puppet" as one could get.

And I wish corrupted politicians got put into jail in my country as well...

Right, it was the 2007 elections the pro-Russians won.
Regardless, Russia is a threat. No one in Britain, France or Germany trusts them.

I think you're mixing up "threat" and "not my friend".

Huffy wrote:

Testify wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Testify wrote:Europe need to accecept that they need to actually pay money for defence. The current crisis notwithstanding, we easily have the money to be paying for this gak outselves. The missile defence was never supposed to protect Poland, it was to protect Western Europe.

I question the actual need for Europe to pay more for defense than it currently does. Who are they defending themselves against? Wars between nations with developed economies cost too much.

Right because the Russians couldn't find buyers in China or India for their gas.
The nature of the beast has not changed. Russia is still a threat to Europe, especially considering only France and the UK actually have armies.

How is Russia a threat?? explain please

Have you tried Russian cuisine? Its so bad its almost...English...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:When did we start caring what Poland thinks about our Nuclear Defense Program or lack thereof?

Did I miss a memo or something?

To create a fool-proof system that would protect the US or even Europe from Russia or China's nukes is nearly impossible with current technology. Has anyone ever shown that such a system would be even 10% effective against a rogue state with a lone missile lobbing into Europe or Israel? The whole point of developing the "Star Wars Program" was sabre-rattling and getting the other guy to think twice about blowing billions on nukes, which didn't work. So why keep doing it?

Tempest in a teapot. Nothing to see here.

because we asked them to put the ABM launchers in Poland.

I think you're mixing up "threat" and "not my friend".

Oh god. I agree with Shuma. Quick someone do something before something terrible happens!

Russia isn't a threat to anyone right now. Politcially there's a lot of internal squabbling over the old boys club (Putin) and the new kids on the block (Not-Putin), not to mention a SERIOUS (and I mean ALL CAPS SERIOUS) population problem, economic weakness, an army that's straight out of the 1970's, and air force that's mostly chairs (hehe), and a Navy that might as well rust and sink on its own.

One would think we'd have better, more constructive things to do.

It's a good thing President Obama is president of the USA and not Poland!

OR

Keep throwing gak against the wall and maybe something will stick sometime.

OR

hahaha your candidate is a warmongering idiot who will say anything to get elected by an aging population of white racists who hate everyone who isn't a white Christian male hahahaha good luck in those FEMA camps!

The best part of the first post is when Frazzled suddenly goes from "Nobody cares what anybody else thinks about us, we are the best country and don't need anybody telling us what to do. USA USA USA" to "Some eastern European country is angry at us, quick everybody get in here and care about this!"

That nugget of thought implanted now though. The US can break a treaty/deal when the next administration comes around

Jihadin wrote:That nugget of thought implanted now though. The US can break a treaty/deal when the next administration comes around

No no wait. We need to change our name and lose some land first. How about, United Semi-States of America? USSA. Poetically awesome considering the situation

As for land. Lets just dump Mississippi. We're not really getting much of them anyway.

Let not LoH....Frazz be all over this train of discussion. He be proclaiming that TX be dropped first.

Take off the parts of the gulf that are below sea level and then get to claim them anyway since they are within some-odd number of miles of the coast.

Fun fact: The whole missile defense controversy was created only after Bush unilaterally had the US withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/

That "nugget of thought" was implanted a long, long time ago.

d-usa wrote:The best part of the first post is when Frazzled suddenly goes from "Nobody cares what anybody else thinks about us, we are the best country and don't need anybody telling us what to do. USA USA USA" to "Some eastern European country is angry at us, quick everybody get in here and care about this!"

Neither of these is incongruent. I just believe we generally keep our word to allies who are fighting alongside us, when we asked them to take the risk.

Frazzled wrote:
Much more likely to be invaded.

Poland is a NATO country, so no.

Frazzled wrote:I just believe we generally keep our word to allies who are fighting alongside us, when we asked them to take the risk.

What risk?

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:The best part of the first post is when Frazzled suddenly goes from "Nobody cares what anybody else thinks about us, we are the best country and don't need anybody telling us what to do. USA USA USA" to "Some eastern European country is angry at us, quick everybody get in here and care about this!"

Neither of these is incongruent. I just believe we generally keep our word to allies who are fighting alongside us, when we asked them to take the risk.

When it's not couched in an emotional appeal what you said actually doesn't make any sense at all. What risk? They're fighting alongside us? Who are they fighting against? Iran? Russia? How does a missile shield, which by its very threat of existence is causing conflicts where none previously existed protecting anyone?