Welcome to PatsFans.com

Russia threatens to quit arms treaty

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by maverick4, Feb 16, 2007.

  1. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/289ed728-bd26-11db-b5bd-0000779e2340.html

    Russia threatened on Thursday to pull out of a landmark nuclear arms control treaty unless the US backed away from plans to install its missile defence shield in Eastern Europe.

    Yury Baluyevsky, the Russian army chief of staff, said Moscow might unilaterally withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty, which forced the US and the Soviet Union to ban nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500km.

    There was “convincing evidence” for leaving the agreement because “many countries are developing and perfecting medium-range rockets”, he said.

    But the general also explicitly linked Russia’s stance to the US’s plans to extend its missile defence into central Europe.

    The Pentagon is preparing to start negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic about hosting missile interceptors and radars. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Polish prime minister, on Thursday expressed conditional support for participating in the system.
  2. fleabassist1

    fleabassist1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,104
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    Cold War II: The Winter


    Seem's like a good book. :p
  3. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    So let them pull out, they have no money for arms anyway.
  4. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,850
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    They have no money for arms, but have a ton in storage.. the possibility of a rogue outfit getting their hands on some of their stuff has always been a concern.
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    They have an ever-increasing pile of petro and natural gas dollars, though.

    Now if they could only get the money spent on the public needs, as opposed to private mansions, off-shore bank accounts, and stables full of super-charged Bentleys and Lamborghinis.

    Like Bill Clinton, Putin went into his presidency a salaried government hack (KGB-type), but he will leave -- if he leaves -- a multi-millionaire.

    Gee, some government jobs just "pay" more than others, it seems.


    //
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Neither did Hitler. In other words, there's always money for arms.
  7. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Why do we need to protect Eastern Europe? Russia is not going to bomb its former satellite states any time soon. Bush needs to look inside Putin's soul again.
  8. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    i find it interesting that no one cares to mention how our brazen foreign policy the past 6 years has led to new arms race for the entire globe... Cheney's well-thought-out comments about Putin cutting energy supplies to its people was another brilliant step in that direction...

    hooray neocon thought!!! let's pick a fight with everyone!!! good for all of us!!!
  9. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Nah, my only disagreement with the Bush admin on how they deal with Russia is that they haven't been harsh enough. Russia is like a bad dog, it will only learn if you hit it with a newspaper.
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Why wouldn't they? Think Poland thinks highly of the Soviets? LAst I checked, we were moving bases into eastern Europe, and outside of the west. Eastern Europeans don't think very highly of the Red, matter of fact, didn't they just erect a statue of Reagan in one of the eastern Euro capitals?
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2


    Tardo, do you read the news? Putin has been cutting fuel supplies.
  12. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    What has Russia done wrong? They are democratic now and have no interest in warring with the U.S. Ok, they want to have influence over their smaller neighbors, but so do we... Latin America anyone?

    Why have a military buildup when there is no longer a threat from anywhere in Europe? What a waste of money.
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2


    What military build up? And why a threat in Europe? Ever heard of an RDF? Rapid Deployment Force? We've been in western Europe as a result of the Cold War. Well, the CW is over, and we've therefore been redeploying our forces to more strategically advantageous locations. Obvioulsy Eastern Europe is a more geographically satisfying location than Germany. Furthermore, the cost of doing business is far cheaper. We're not building up a military presence, so much as we've relocated, and reorganized it.

    BTW, this is a missle defense shield Putin is crying about. If he's so upset, why hasn't he been more helpful with Tehran? If nuclear nonproliferation were a priority as it should be, then there wouldn't be a need to have a missle defense system.
  14. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    pompous jackass... i clearly read more news than you... i'm aware of what he may or may not be doing, but why is that our problem? and why does your moron hero Dick Cheney need to stoke new fires?
  15. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    We don't need bases in Eastern Europe either. That continent is done with warfare. Ok, maybe in Serbia but that's it.
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    I thought you knew already? He's trying to start WW III. :D
  17. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    well, yes... i knew... but i was hoping you'd offer your condoning or condemnation... but, as usual, you run from a direct challenge....
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Well, we could use them in the ME, but I'm not sure that's such a good idea. How about Kazakastan? Hmmm....that didn't go to well either. So lets see, where can we strategically place a base, where the people there want us, and where the commute to troublespots in question won't be too long?

    Ta-da! Bulgaria!

    Bulgaria OKs 3 bases for U.S. troops
    By Nicholas Kralev
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    April 24, 2006


    Bulgaria has agreed to open three military bases to permanent use by 2,500 U.S. troops who would be available for combat in the Middle East and other nearby regions. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will seal the deal when she visits the country this week.
  19. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Turkey. We've had bases in Turkey for a long time and we've had no problems. I think we should scale back from Middle East intervention too, but Turkey is a perfect place to host the military for (note to Republicans) EMERGENCY situations only.
  20. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    First of all, Russia is not democratic. Not even close. Russian politics work on extortion, bribes, and poison. Someone here's going to say America's like that, but Russia is a hundred times worse. Second, Russia is aggressive and has no problem pushing countries around - the only thing that limits how much they're willing to push is how much they can get away with. I'm not saying we should attack them, but that kind of bullying you can only repond to with might. You can bet if Russia had the opportunity to get something out of us by coersion, they would, and for me that's enough reason to have a missile defense shield SPECIFICALLY for them. There's no being friends with the current Russian leadership.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>