# Czechs and Poles, what do you think of the Anti Missile System?



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2008)

I thought I would start up a thread so that the topic of the anti missile system that is planned for eastern europe can be discussed.

Why?

A. This topic comes up quite a bit and hijacks other threads that are about other topics. Now it has its place to be discussed.

B. It would be neat to hear what the people of these countries think about it.

Now having said that, anyone can discuss in this thread, but please only vote in the poll if you are from the Czech or Poland.

*Keep this discussion civil! This can be discussed by adults as adults!*


----------



## mkloby (Aug 23, 2008)

I think this missile system is definitely a good thing. Russia's rhetoric is laughable for its disconnect from reality. They act as if it's an offensive system. Not only that, but Russia has still proven itself a threat to NATO. Also, does Russia not comprehend the overwhelming conventional warfare power the US has?

I would also very much like to see Ukraine in NATO. In my opinion, the US should focus more on their relationship with Poland and less on some more "traditional" US allies.


----------



## stasoid (Aug 23, 2008)

I was curious too. Why Czechs? What is their interest? 
Russia-Czech relations seemed to be normal since break-up of the USSR. No territorial or major political disputes, no trade-wars etc. Russian tourists were a signifiacant chunck of Czech's tourism revenue. Why piss on Russia? Will Czechs sleep better knowing that russian missiles now targeting their territory?


----------



## fly boy (Aug 23, 2008)

mkloby said:


> I think this missile system is definitely a good thing. Russia's rhetoric is laughable for its disconnect from reality. They act as if it's an offensive system. Not only that, but Russia has still proven itself a threat to NATO. Also, does Russia not comprehend the overwhelming conventional warfare power the US has?
> 
> I would also very much like to see Ukraine in NATO. In my opinion, the US should focus more on their relationship with Poland and less on some more "traditional" US allies.



mk one conventional warfare power of the US,MOAB.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 23, 2008)

fly boy said:


> mk one conventional warfare power of the US,MOAB.



What'd he say ?

Charles


----------



## mkloby (Aug 23, 2008)

He's referring to the MOAB - GBU-43 I believe.

There are many technological advances that would not bode well for anyone engaging the US conventionally.


----------



## Torch (Aug 23, 2008)

My parents just got back from Poland yesterday. When they get home tonight or tomorrow I will ask my dad what people think(cousins,family etc.)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 24, 2008)

Okay, first of all, everyone's gotta understand that after we install the system, it is not automatically going to be activated. The system will be built and positioned to intercept missles coming form the south-east, not the east; as of right now, the hardware will be emplaced, but it will not go operational (no software) until a definite threat evolves from a certain Mid-East country (who's name starts with an "I", has an "N" on the end, and has RA in the middle). At this point, the sytem has nothing to be aimed at; HOWEVER, that may change in the very near future. And, as mkloby pointed out, it is a purely defensive system. The Russians claim it can/will be used to neutralize their Strategic Rocket Force, but the system is in the wrong place to intercept ICBM's aimed at the US (that's what BMEWS is for).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2008)

The closest response here came from torch - let's see what some of our Czech and Pole members say....


----------



## marshall (Aug 24, 2008)

I don't want to speak for whole Polish society or other Polish forum members but I can say what I think.

Generally I think it's good that Poland took part in this venture, because I doubt that this system will be ever used and Poland can gain something form this. What exactly the future will show, but I belive that stornger relations with the USA are a good thing, though I also think that Poland should have equally good relations with the EU and USA.

But I have doubts also, will Poland gain anything? I'm concerned that the situation with the offset for the F-16s can occure once more time. I know that there's still time for realisation of the offset deal but there are problems with it. What I mean is the USA will have same motivation to complete other terms of the deal than only building the system itself?

Another thing is what if Obama will win? Will the system will be build then? If not what will happen to the deal?

About the Polish-Russian realations, I think that this relations on high level (governemts) are so bad that it's hard to make them worse, but the relations on low level (between people, companies) are quite good and anti-missle system won't make them worse.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2008)

marshall said:


> I don't want to speak for whole Polish society or other Polish forum members but I can say what I think.
> 
> Generally I think it's good that Poland took part in this venture, because I doubt that this system will be ever used and Poland can gain something form this. What exactly the future will show, but I belive that stornger relations with the USA are a good thing, though I also think that Poland should have equally good relations with the EU and USA.
> 
> ...



Thanks for chiming in marshall! In situations like this, it is best to hear from the people that it effects the most.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2008)

*fly boy* you are an idiot! Do you not know how to read! The very first post says that the poll is only for citizens of the Czech Republic and Poland!

Yet somehow you managed to vote in it too?

This is what the first posts said:

*Now having said that, anyone can discuss in this thread, but please only vote in the poll if you are from the Czech or Poland.*


----------



## mkloby (Aug 24, 2008)

marshall said:


> I don't want to speak for whole Polish society or other Polish forum members but I can say what I think.
> 
> Generally I think it's good that Poland took part in this venture, because I doubt that this system will be ever used and Poland can gain something form this. What exactly the future will show, but I belive that stornger relations with the USA are a good thing, though I also think that Poland should have equally good relations with the EU and USA.
> 
> ...



As I said above - I'd like see more emphasis put on Poland as an ally, and less on say... France. I remember hearing that Poland was asking for assistance in modernizing their military. I don't know ultimately what had happened with that request, but I'd be behind that move.

A lot of the older members of my family are 2nd Gen Polish Americans, and they still harbor resentment towards Russians...



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> *fly boy* you are an idiot! Do you not know how to read! The very first post says that the poll is only for citizens of the Czech Republic and Poland!
> 
> Yet somehow you managed to vote in it too?


----------



## seesul (Aug 24, 2008)

OK, here´s a private opinion of one Czech boy.
Most of the people here are against the anti missile radar here. Think there are 3 general reasons:
*1) Fear*
The people think (and I´m sure it´s a fact) that in case of war the radar station would be a target # 1.
*2) Russia*
Russian official statement is that this radar system is not against Iran but is also able to scan Russian territory and that in case of the radar placing here Russia would re-aim their missiles...
*3) Absolutely terrible information campaign of our goverment*
Where there´s no information there´s uncertainty and hesitancy. Few years ago, when there´s was a social democratic party at the power, they started negotations with the USA about the radar and they supported it. Today, when there´s a liberal party at the power and supports the radar, social democrats in the opposition doesn´t agree with it I´m 100% sure that in case social democrats came back to power, they would support it again...Only dirty political game...
*4) Distrust to expresions of American goverment*
The war in Iraq was declared as the war for the human rights there but mainly as the war agaist a tyran who owns nuclear weapons. No one nuclear weapon was found there. Since that it is hard to recognize where is a truth...

All in all lack of information is the main reason why a lots of people here doesn´t know what to think about it...but I´m really happy that there´s no public plebiscite regarding this matter here as I´m sure that´s one of the things that have to be decided by specialist and not by experts in the pubs...

My opinion is- we belong among allies. Should we call for help our friends one day, we have to be a part of common defence system-we gotta invest something.

So I would vote for radar, but my requirement is to have this radar (and whole anti misilles system) as a part of NATO.

Only hope we will never need to see it in action. And if so, I hope the result for our country won´t be the same as after Munich´s dictat in 1938 when Great Britain, France and Soviet Union threw us over the board to Hitler...


----------



## stasoid (Aug 24, 2008)

seesul said:


> And if so, I hope the result for our country won´t be the same as after Munich´s dictat in 1938 when Great Britain, France and Soviet Union threw us over the board to Hitler...



I dont think the USSR was among those who signed the Munich Treaty in 1938. It was actually decided between Great Brirain, France and the Nazi Germany. The Soviets in fact condemned the annexation postfactum. And later, in 1945 it was the Russians who reunited Sudeten Lands with the rest of Czechoslovakia. 
It is strange that you forgotten or just ignored these important facts.


----------



## fly boy (Aug 25, 2008)

ccheese said:


> What'd he say ?
> 
> Charles



charles MOAB is mother of all bombs weighs less then grand slam and more power if somone has a poto of it


----------



## seesul (Aug 25, 2008)

stasoid said:


> I dont think the USSR was among those who signed the Munich Treaty in 1938. It was actually decided between Great Brirain, France and the Nazi Germany. The Soviets in fact condemned the annexation postfactum. And later, in 1945 it was the Russians who reunited Sudeten Lands with the rest of Czechoslovakia.
> It is strange that you forgotten or just ignored these important facts.



Yep, you´re right. Soviet Union has nothing to do with Munich´s dictat. My mistake. Italy was the 4th country that signed it.
Soviets threw us (and not only us) aboard 1 year later- in August ´39 when they signed Molotov-Ribentrop pact.
And if you speak about ´45- this year in fact started our living behind the iron curtain which I haven´t 4gotten and ignored...one occupation ended up just to allow to start the other occupation...that lasted more than 40 years...


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 25, 2008)

I think these missle sites are needlessly provocative to the soviets.

Dont deploy them and place them in Japan.


----------



## stasoid (Aug 25, 2008)

seesul said:


> Soviets threw us (and not only us) aboard 1 year later- in August ´39 when they signed Molotov-Ribentrop pact.



The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact dividing Poland was signed some 6 months after Czechoslovakia had been completely occupied by Germany where the Soviets hadn't been involved in any way.

_And if you speak about ´45- this year in fact started our living behind the iron curtain which I haven´t 4gotten and ignored...one occupation ended up just to allow to start the other occupation...that lasted more than 40 years_

40 years of living behind the iron curtain must've been a nightmare for your freedoom loving people and I'm really sorry for few of your patriots died in 1968'
I dont wanna be very cynical here, but... at the end, you got your country independent, safe and sound, all in tact, it gained some territory, population grew, you still speak your language (and it's not German) ...
Russian tourists are your best customers now...
I mean, 40 years is nothing in the long term. In 100 years noone will remember what iron curtain or socialist economy was...


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 25, 2008)

I too believe that the equalisation of the 50 years of communist rule in Czechoslovakia and German occupation on the other side would be a great exaggeration, despite all oppression occurred.


----------



## JugBR (Aug 25, 2008)

seesul said:


> Yep, you´re right. Soviet Union has nothing to do with Munich´s dictat. My mistake. Italy was the 4th country that signed it.
> Soviets threw us (and not only us) aboard 1 year later- in August ´39 when they signed Molotov-Ribentrop pact.
> And if you speak about ´45- this year in fact started our living behind the iron curtain which I haven´t 4gotten and ignored...one occupation ended up just to allow to start the other occupation...that lasted more than 40 years...



seesul, in the game of superpowers, the smalls allways looses. whats better example than poland in ww2 ? invaded 3 times: 1 by germany, 2 by soviets and the only country that allies declared war was germany.

the czech politicians should make the better for their people not for usa/nato or for russia. i cant see a situation wheres you have foreign weapons in your ground would bring some profit. turkey have missiles too. its makes turkey more important ? more stable ? more rich ? i dont know. cuba also almost had missiles in their ground but it didnt make them a better country by that. its all relative, but if you read machiavel, he have a good explanation about his point over a kingdon depends other kingdon´s forces to make their own security.


----------



## seesul (Aug 25, 2008)

stasoid said:


> The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact dividing Poland was signed some 6 months after Czechoslovakia had been completely occupied by Germany where the Soviets hadn't been involved in any way.



Hmmm...just wanted to say that although our country was already occupied by Germans our big friends signed the pact with Hitler.
Ok, if you really think Soviets had a right to let us be in 1938 and then stay here with their soldiers from 1945 till 1991, here´s one fact more:
- 1935 May 2. France concludes a treaty of mutual assistance with the Soviet Union
- *May 16. Czechoslovakia signs a treaty of mutual assistance with the USSR, thereby joining the Franco - Soviet treaty 
*

*Treaty contents*

Article 1
In the event that France or the U.S.S.R. are subjected to the threat or the danger of aggression on the part of a European state, the U.S.S.R. and France engage themselves reciprocally to proceed to an immediate mutual consultation on measures to take in order to observe the provisions of Article 10 of the League of Nations Pact.

Article 2
In the event that, in the circumstances described in Article 15, paragraph 7, of the League of Nations Pact, France or the U.S.S.R. may be, in spite of the genuinely pacific intentions of the two countries, and subject of unprovoked aggression on the part of a European state, the U.S.S.R. and France will immediately lend each other reciprocal aid and assistance.

Article 3
Taking into consideration the fact that, according to Article 16 of the League of Nations Pact, every member of the League that resorts to war contrary to the engagements assumed in Articles 12, 13 or 15 of the Pact is ipso facto considered as having committed an act of war against all the other members of the League, France and the U.S.S.R. engage themselves reciprocally, [should either of them be the object of unprovoked aggression], to lend immediate aid and assistance in activating the application of Article 16 of the Pact.
The same obligation is assumed in the even that either France or the U.S.S.R. is the object of aggression on the part of a European state in the circumstances described in Article 17, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the League of Nations Pact.

*Protocole de Signature*

Article 1
It is understood that the effect of Article 3 is to oblige each Contracting Party to lend immediate assistance to the other in conforming immediately to the recommendations of the Council of the League of Nations as soon as they are announced under Article 16 of the Pact. It equally understood that the two Contracting Parties will act in concert to elicit the recommendations of the Council with all the celerity that circumstances require and that, if nevertheless, the Council, for any reason whatever, does not make any recommendation or does not arrive at a unanimous decision, the obligation of assistance will nonetheless be implemented....


----------



## seesul (Aug 25, 2008)

stasoid said:


> I mean, 40 years is nothing in the long term. In 100 years noone will remember what iron curtain or socialist economy was...



OK, if you really think that the only problem during those 40 years was the socialist economy, this could explain your opinion on this matter...
I was born in 1973 and the velvet revolution toke place in 1989 so I wasn´t affected by this period so much. But if you lived here in 50´s and 60´s, the times, when the human right was only a strange word, you would speak another way. The times of political processes with the innocent people, which were executed, the times, when your children and relatives couldn´t get a good job or to go in a good school only because you didn´t join the communist party, the time, when former gestapo confidents used to work for a new pro-Russian goverment and had a power, a real power, the time, when the former Czech WW2 vets from the west front were jailed, interrogated, tortured and sometime also killed, only because their fought against Nazis with West Allies...that was reality that was here for these 40 years...
You should tell your interesting opinion to my father that enjoyed this period for all these 40 years...or better you should speak to the political prisoners or their family members...

BTW, in my born town used to live one WW2 Czech vet, a pilot. He served in France, Great Britain and even in Russia. Real hero with more than 10 kills.
His fortune? They threw him away from Czech Airforce in 1947, he never got a good job, he was getting only a small amount of money for all the rest of his life so he better moved to my born town where he was unknown for all the people there. By the time the people got to know him and he became our secret hero. He wasn´t allowed to speak about his experience. Unfortunately he died too soon, in 1990, few months after the velvet revolution. I spoke to him several times and since that time I hate both nacists and communists. I just wasn´t able to get over the fact, that such a hero, that fought for our freedom so many years, was a dirty duster for his OWN HOMELAND!
If you´re interested, more here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/s-ldr-josef-stehl-k-four-airforces-1603.html


----------



## seesul (Aug 25, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> I too believe that the equalisation of the 50 years of communist rule in Czechoslovakia and German occupation on the other side would be a great exaggeration, despite all oppression occurred.



Yep, I really can´t compare those 2 periods, I agree.
But the fact is, that Czechoslovakia was sovereign country only once in the future...since October 28,1918 till March 15,1939. And now, for a second time, since November 17,1989...


----------



## seesul (Aug 25, 2008)

JugBR said:


> seesul, in the game of superpowers, the smalls allways looses. whats better example than poland in ww2 ? invaded 3 times: 1 by germany, 2 by soviets and the only country that allies declared war was germany.
> 
> the czech politicians should make the better for their people not for usa/nato or for russia. i cant see a situation wheres you have foreign weapons in your ground would bring some profit. turkey have missiles too. its makes turkey more important ? more stable ? more rich ? i dont know. cuba also almost had missiles in their ground but it didnt make them a better country by that. its all relative, but if you read machiavel, he have a good explanation about his point over a kingdon depends other kingdon´s forces to make their own security.



I would never take it as a business so I don´t care about any profit. For me it is a question of a safe future so I have to think about it. So as I said and I repeat it again- if someone will convience me about a real threat from Iran or far East and if this system will be integrated in NATO, I would agree as I feel my own responsibility for my own children. I wouldn´t want to hear my son in case of war telling me: Dad, you have also had your head in the sand when there was a negotation about radar?
I just was asked by Chris for my opinion...you don´t need to agree...


----------



## stasoid (Aug 25, 2008)

seesul said:


> 1935 May 2. France concludes a treaty of mutual assistance with the Soviet Union
> - *May 16. Czechoslovakia signs a treaty of mutual assistance with the USSR, thereby joining the Franco - Soviet treaty
> *
> *Treaty contents*
> ...



That was 1935. Since France signed a new treaty in 1938 in Munich becoming now Germany's ally, and neither the Soviets nor Czechs were even invited to that conferrence, that act, I guess automatically denounced all previouse agreements between France, USSR and Czechoslovakia.






1930s-era Soviet poster by Kukryniksy showing Western powers giving Hitler Czechoslovakia on a dish. Inscription in the flag:"On towards the East!"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2008)

stasoid said:


> The Soviets in fact condemned the annexation postfactum. And later, in 1945 it was the Russians who reunited Sudeten Lands with the rest of Czechoslovakia.
> It is strange that you forgotten or just ignored these important facts.



Dont forget about the part of making the Czech pretty much a communist puppet state and controling everything including there lives and then invading them when they decided they did not want anything to do with it anymore.

It is strange that you have forgotten or just ignored these important facts.



stasoid said:


> The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact dividing Poland was signed some 6 months after Czechoslovakia had been completely occupied by Germany where the Soviets hadn't been involved in any way.
> 
> _And if you speak about ´45- this year in fact started our living behind the iron curtain which I haven´t 4gotten and ignored...one occupation ended up just to allow to start the other occupation...that lasted more than 40 years_
> 
> ...



So one tyranny replaced by another makes it all better?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2008)

seesul said:


> OK, if you really think that the only problem during those 40 years was the socialist economy, this could explain your opinion on this matter...
> I was born in 1973 and the velvet revolution toke place in 1989 so I wasn´t affected by this period so much. But if you lived here in 50´s and 60´s, the times, when the human right was only a strange word, you would speak another way. The times of political processes with the innocent people, which were executed, the times, when your children and relatives couldn´t get a good job or to go in a good school only because you didn´t join the communist party, the time, when former gestapo confidents used to work for a new pro-Russian goverment and had a power, a real power, the time, when the former Czech WW2 vets from the west front were jailed, interrogated, tortured and sometime also killed, only because their fought against Nazis with West Allies...that was reality that was here for these 40 years...
> You should tell your interesting opinion to my father that enjoyed this period for all these 40 years...or better you should speak to the political prisoners or their family members...
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing that. I myself did not live in the Czech or anyplace that was under the Soviet thumb print, so I can only imagine what it was like.


----------



## seesul (Aug 25, 2008)

stasoid said:


> That was 1935. Since France signed a new treaty in 1938 in Munich becoming now Germany's ally, and neither the Soviets nor Czechs were even invited to that conferrence, that act, I guess automatically denounced all previouse agreements between France, USSR and Czechoslovakia.



interesting thougt...so the fact that France signed a new treaty meant automatically that also an agreement between czechoslovakia and soviet union was cancelled as well...what a strong friendship...
what has Kukryniksy drawn after molotov-ribentrop pact?
i give it up...


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 25, 2008)

seesul said:


> interesting thougt...so the fact that France signed a new treaty meant automatically that also an agreement between czechoslovakia and soviet union was cancelled as well...what a strong friendship...



but the Soviets _did_ offer even a military help to Czechs during the Sudeten crisis ,didn't they? In fact they were the _only_ ones who were ready to intervene military at the time of Munich agreement.


----------



## seesul (Aug 26, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> but the Soviets _did_ offer even a military help to Czechs during the Sudeten crisis ,didn't they? In fact they were the _only_ ones who were ready to intervene military at the time of Munich agreement.



Ramirezzz, the offer of military help from Soviet union was very controversial. For the Soviet army there were 2 possibilites how to get their soldiers to Czechoslovakia. Either tru Poland or tru Rumania. Both countries refused it and it´s is not hard to understand why...
So officially there was an pact between Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia signed in 1935 and people believed in it, but both Soviet and Czechoslovakian goverment knew that it was in fact a kliché. Hitler knew it as well and counted with it in Munich. Unfortunately he was right...
The other thing is that Stalin didn´t want the war with Hitler in 1938. His army wasn´t ready yet and the situation in the army command after Stalin´s purges was...terrible... This fact was later confirmed by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact...Stalin knew that the war with Hitler is unavoidable so he played for the time...

I got a great book about Stalin and Hitler written by, if I´m not wrong, by Allan Bullock. Without any irony I higly reccomend it to you. You gotta read it better more times just to understand the political connections of Hitler´s and Stalin´s decisions...

Please, don´t get me wrong. I know the Soviet army liberated our country and I´ll never forget the sacrifice of normal Soviet soldiers. But dirty Stalin´s policy put us under his (and Soviet) influence for next decades and this is what I speak about.

I´m also not a pure USA supporter. I don´t agree with many decisons of American goverment taken. It is so here- since 1945 till 1989 only the Soviet Union was a best model of the best industry, agriculture, education, research and level of living...and Soviets were the only liberators of our country...
Since 1989 a lot of people turned their attention for 180° from east to west so Germany and USA are the best model and no matter which decision is taken by USA and Germany, it´s always the best- for me it´s a crap. Every nation makes good, controversial and bad decisions and they have to learn from them. That´s why I absolutely can´t agree with Stasoid opinion that 40 years in the past is in fact nothing and they will be 4gotten in 100 years. No, the past can´t never be 4gotten and that´s why I´m interrested in history. ´cause who doesn´t know it´s own history can´t create it´s own peaceful future.

I give you a small example- as you can see in my siggy in August 1944 there was an air battle very close to my town. 9 USAAF bombers went down, 41 flyboys lost their lives and 28 from them were buried at the cemetery in my born town. Till 1989 none was allowed to speak about it. Since 80´s every year people from American embassy came here to lay the wreaths on their grave. My father always knew about their arrival in advance as he used to listen to Voice of America radio station, which was for sure forbidden. So I always went with my father to the grave when the people from embassy where there. You could see a lot of secret policemen around with cameras taking pictures. That time I´d never think that there are still some crewmembers alive and that one day I´ll meet them! After velvet revolution I´ve found out that they are alive and I got in touch with them...I also got in touch with their former enemies-German fighters-and don´t have any problem with that. By the time we created a strong relationships with both American and German veterans. When you speak to them you have their opinions and thoughts from first hand and you always realise what a bullshit every war is. There´s always policy, money or religion behind and normal people has to die for these political bastards...

So the years 1938 and 1968 are no exceptions for our country...As JugBR said, we are too small to be able to take a decision about our own future by ourself...

I´d never have a problem to meet you, to have a beer and discuss with you as I like friendships. My language knowledge (limited as you can see ), the possibility to travel and internet gave me a chance to get to know a lot of new friends and I´m really happy for that.

But if there was a war between Russia and Czech Republic, you would be forced to kill my Czech friends and I would be forced to kill your Russian friends...that´s absolutely crazy, isn´t it? Why??? What for??? Only because of ****ing politicians!!!

The war is most terrible thing I know and the veterans know it best...That´s why I´m happy I know few of them and that I got 2 of them to one table...
More here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...joe-owsianik-meeting-after-63-years-9298.html


----------



## JugBR (Aug 26, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dont forget about the part of making the Czech pretty much a communist puppet state and controling everything including there lives and then invading them when they decided they did not want anything to do with it anymore.
> 
> It is strange that you have forgotten or just ignored these important facts.



in a certain point, all minor states or minor powers are somekind puppets of the great powers. lets dont forget that not just russians are guilty by its situation, but in almost of these states there was local leader, a local secret police, composed by local people. so its not just blame russia, but in the case of romenia, for example, blame ceaucescu, wich was romanian and a psycho.

just picked the example of romania because ceaucescu was no doubt the crazier comunist dictator of balkans. also very know by everybody. but in the case of east germany or czech, there was also a local leader, a local secret police, with local people that tortures and repressed their own citzens.

also, is good to remember, the spring of prague was instigated by a western propaganda radio. when soviets invaded czech and made that horrible scenes, that we saw in pictures posted before, what did west and nato to help the czechs that was been killed ? 

the smallers allways loose, its a vicious game.

seesul i didnt posted that to convinced you to be against the missiles, just putting a different point of view to be analized. but you right, we cant just hide from the main issues.


----------



## seesul (Aug 26, 2008)

JugBR said:


> seesul i didnt posted that to convinced you to be against the missiles, just putting a different point of view to be analized. but you right, we cant just hide from the main issues.



That´s OK, no problem. It´s just a discussion...
I gotta withstand the pressure on me being the only Czech or Pole in this discussion


----------



## seesul (Aug 26, 2008)

JugBR said:


> also, is good to remember, the spring of prague was instigated by a western propaganda radio. when soviets invaded czech and made that horrible scenes, that we saw in pictures posted before, what did west and nato to help the czechs that was been killed ?


Very easy answer my friend, such a NATO and Soviet Union confrontation would mean a WW3 and in this case you can imagine a result. So we better were sacrificied, as usually in the past...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 26, 2008)

JugBR said:


> in a certain point, all minor states or minor powers are somekind puppets of the great powers. lets dont forget that not just russians are guilty by its situation, but in almost of these states there was local leader, a local secret police, composed by local people. so its not just blame russia, but in the case of romenia, for example, blame ceaucescu, wich was romanian and a psycho.



You are correct, I think that stasoid does not understand that however and thinks that the Soveit Union was the most innocent peace loving country in the world and the West was just out to kill them all!


----------



## stasoid (Aug 26, 2008)

seesul said:


> That´s why I absolutely can´t agree with Stasoid opinion that 40 years in the past is in fact nothing and they will be 4gotten in 100 years. No, the past can´t never be 4gotten and that´s why I´m interrested in history. ´cause who doesn´t know it´s own history can´t create it´s own peaceful future.



Hey, lets think positive and move ahead. I dont know what kind of a tyrany you had there, but what I will remember of Czechoslovacia from 70th and 80th when I was a schoolboy is your great hockey team which kicked our ass so many times (I guess all of your players are in NHL these days), your cool Jawa motorcycles that every kid in my neighbourhood dreamed about, your orange painted Skoda trams in my hometown and those mighty Tatra trucks... 
Do you still have anything of that? Or just beer? Is beer still good as it was 20 years ago?


----------



## seesul (Aug 26, 2008)

stasoid said:


> Hey, lets think positive and move ahead. I dont know what kind of a tyrany you had there, but what I will remember of Czechoslovacia from 70th and 80th when I was a schoolboy is your great hockey team which kicked our ass so many times (I guess all of your players are in NHL these days), your cool Jawa motorcycles that every kid in my neighbourhood dreamed about, your orange painted Skoda trams in my hometown and those mighty Tatra trucks...
> Do you still have anything of that? Or just beer? Is beer still good as it was 20 years ago?



Tatra- still in production
Skoda Trams- still in production
Jawa- as a big motorbike fan I can tell you that its conception hasn´t changed too much since 1947 till 1989. Till the end of 70´s Jawa belonged among the best motorbikes in the world. Our communistic president Novotny said in 70´s that we will drive into communism on 4 wheels and since that the Jawa development was in fact stopped. That´s why when I was a kid I always dreamed about Japanese motorbike with 4 stroke engine and when I was 20 my dream came true. Should we really be independent and sovereign state I would also dream about JAWA. 
Jawa CZ Motorcycle Mopeds - West Coast Motorcycles
Beer we always had and still have good, would say the smaller private breweries make better beer than before now.
We still have a good natinal hockey theam. After the revolution we won the world championships in 1996,1999,2000,2001 and 2005. In 1998 we won Olympic games.

Don´t know when I´ve spoken about tyrany. I´ve spoken about occupation and about its consequences for the normal people. Don´t know if you have read it...


----------



## JugBR (Aug 27, 2008)

the czech republic is really a very industrialized country. i read once about the skodas been imported to uk in the comunist times. also some references that czechslovakia was a kind of "paradise" behind the iron curtain: more liberal, more advanced, etc..


----------



## Henk (Aug 27, 2008)

I think it can cause more problems in a part of the world that has not yet come to rest. If I was Russia I would also through a fit about this. Most of all their military, navy and airforce is in shambles and if you look at where the US are at the moment I would also be scared.

The Russians also have their pride and I think they want to once again be a super power, but remember the US is not always the best for everyone in the world or so to speak the greatest. Think from their point of view and you will also feel some of the heart break that they feel.

How will you guys from the US feel if the US government and economy came crashing down and everything is worth nothing and the US Navy, Airforce and Military is almost nothing from what it once was?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2008)

Henk said:


> How will you guys from the US feel if the US government and economy came crashing down and everything is worth nothing and the US Navy, Airforce and Military is almost nothing from what it once was?


If Obama gets elected we could answer that question.


----------



## Henk (Aug 27, 2008)

Ha ha ha... That was funny as hell!


----------



## JugBR (Aug 27, 2008)

what would said machiavelli about that issue ?

considering the texts from the book "the prince":

_Against foreign powers, a prince can defend himself with good weapons and good friends; if he has good weapons, he will never lack for good friends._

_The prince who relies upon their words, without having otherwise provided for his security, is ruined; for friendships that are won by awards, and not by greatness and nobility of soul, although deserved, yet are not real, and cannot be depended upon in time of adversity. _

_A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves. _

_Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge. _

_I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe_


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 28, 2008)

Boy this thread is way off track into local nostalgia. But the JAWAs are certainly beatiful bikes.


----------



## mkloby (Aug 28, 2008)

Henk said:


> How will you guys from the US feel if the US government and economy came crashing down and everything is worth nothing and the US Navy, Airforce and Military is almost nothing from what it once was?



I like how you specifically left out the US Marine Corps


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2008)

I love the fact that this thread proves how people do not read. The Poll specifically says that only Czechs and Polish members can vote in the thread.

Yet somehow a German (Airfix), South African (Henk), Russian (Mitya), Mexican (smg) and an American (fly boy) have managed to vote in the poll. Way to go guys!


----------



## JugBR (Aug 29, 2008)

well in this case, i gonna vote too !


----------



## Henk (Aug 30, 2008)

mkloby said:


> I like how you specifically left out the US Marine Corps



He he he...



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I love the fact that this thread proves how people do not read. The Poll specifically says that only Czechs and Polish members can vote in the thread.
> 
> Yet somehow a German (Airfix), South African (Henk), Russian (Mitya), Mexican (smg) and an American (fly boy) have managed to vote in the poll. Way to go guys!



I am still in the process of trying to get my school fees back because they did not teach me anything at all. I just could not help myself.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 1, 2008)

Face it Henk. Your anti-establishment.


----------



## Henk (Sep 3, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Face it Henk. Your anti-establishment.



Me? Never


----------



## Freebird (Sep 3, 2008)

seesul said:


> Only hope we will never need to see it in action. And if so, I hope the result for our country won´t be the same as after Munich´s dictat in 1938 when Great Britain, France threw us over the board to Hitler...



One thing I should mention, the UK France did not just try to give Czechoslovakia to the Nazi's as a sacrifice, it was realized in the UK that we needed time because we were so unprepared, and a rapid re-armament {exchanging Gladiator biplanes for Hurricanes} began in earnest in 1938. I believe that they hoped that Hitler would only take the Sudeten, did not realize the true intentions.

That being said, it was a huge shame for the UK that they allowed this to happen to the Czechs. 



mkloby said:


> I think this missile system is definitely a good thing.



NATO membership missiles, Good for who? US? Or Poland Ukraine? 



mkloby said:


> *I would also very much like to see Ukraine in NATO*. In my opinion, the US should focus more on their relationship with Poland and less on some more "traditional" US allies.



Mkloby do you think the people government are willing to send 10's of thousands to defend Ukraine in the event of an attack? Or will we have a repeat of Lizzy Rice crying winging her hands as Russian tanks roll in?
Will we promise them to offer all possible assistance - *short of any actual help*?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thanks for chiming in marshall! In situations like this, *it is best to hear from the people that it effects the most.* Thanks for sharing that. I myself did not live in the Czech or anyplace that was under the Soviet thumb print, so I can only imagine what it was like.



I don't know if there is anyone else who has been to Ukraine, and understands the dynamics. Do you {I'm speaking to our American friends} really believe that this will help Poland Ukraine? Would you be willing to supply their heat oil this winter if Russia shuts off the oil gas? 

My future in-laws are Russians, living in Ukraine BTW. 



syscom3 said:


> I think these missle sites are needlessly provocative to the soviets.



Perhaps the first sensible post...  



Henk said:


> How will you guys from the US feel if the US government and economy came crashing down and everything is worth nothing and the US Navy, Airforce and Military is almost nothing from what it once was?





FLYBOYJ said:


> If Obama gets elected we could answer that question.


----------



## JugBR (Sep 3, 2008)

freebird said:


> One thing I should mention, *the UK France did not just try to give Czechoslovakia to the Nazi's as a sacrifice*, it was realized in the UK that we needed time because we were so unprepared, and a rapid re-armament {exchanging Gladiator biplanes for Hurricanes} began in earnest in 1938. I believe that they hoped that Hitler would only take the Sudeten, did not realize the true intentions.



like if czechoslovaquia was owned by UK France...

as sir winston churchill said once: giving meat to the lion, expecting been the last to be eaten...

worst was germany and ussr invaded poland and allies just declares war against germany... ussr was attacking and invadidng countries since 20´s...


----------



## mkloby (Sep 3, 2008)

freebird said:


> NATO membership missiles, Good for who? US? Or Poland Ukraine?



Good for US and Poland, as well as any other nation that will fall under its umbrella. Obviously the US and Polish governments feel the same.




freebird said:


> Mkloby do you think the people government are willing to send 10's of thousands to defend Ukraine in the event of an attack? Or will we have a repeat of Lizzy Rice crying winging her hands as Russian tanks roll in?
> Will we promise them to offer all possible assistance - *short of any actual help*?


What people and what government are you talking about? Use specifics please. If Ukraine was in NATO and attacked, I believe that yes they would be defended by the US and others. You seem to be referring to an attack on Ukraine by Russia... and if Russia knew US troops would be committed in the case of an attack - do you really think Russia would?



freebird said:


> I don't know if there is anyone else who has been to Ukraine, and understands the dynamics. Do you {I'm speaking to our American friends} really believe that this will help Poland Ukraine? Would you be willing to supply their heat oil this winter if Russia shuts off the oil gas?



Why is this defensive missile system provocative towards Russia??? Please explain. Also, do you think Russia would want to shutdown pipelines long term, which would be damaging to their economy? If they did chose to use gas/oil as a political weapon - should the US and others p*ssyfoot around them and appease? Let's cower and not do anything that might antagonize Russia in some irrational way??? Very "sensible."


----------



## Freebird (Sep 3, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Good for US and Poland, as well as any other nation that will fall under its umbrella. Obviously the US and Polish governments feel the same.



How does it benefit Poland? The ABM system is suppost to protect against ICBM's from "rogue nations", it's hard to see how a missile fired from the mideast would be going through Poland. And it offers no protection to Poland from Russian missiles, as in an extreme case of war they would be using short range or else just driving in. The only real effect of the missiles in Poland is to raise tensions in Eastern Europe.



mkloby said:


> What people and what government are you talking about? Use specifics please. If Ukraine was in NATO and attacked, *I believe that yes they would be defended by the US and others.* You seem to be referring to an attack on Ukraine by Russia... and if Russia knew US troops would be committed in the case of an attack - do you really think Russia would?



Then why did we not offer any help to Georgia? The Russians have been escalating tensions there for several months after Bush went over trumpeting NATO membership plans for Geogia. The Russian backed irregulars attacked Georgian troops bordering Ossetia, and when Georgia responded Russia attacked. There were a couple of thousand US troops in Georgia helping to train Georgian troops, yet offered no help, and were quickly evacuated.

I look at it this way, suppose you propose to a girl, but she is nervous to marry an outsider because she lives in a bad 'hood. You tell her "Don't worry, I'm tough, When we get married I can protect you." Then you go out on a date with her, and she gets raped. Can you stand back and watch saying "But she's not my wife yet"?

To me it just makes the US look weak. 



mkloby said:


> Why is this defensive missile system provocative towards Russia??? Please explain.



The same way if the Russians started to set up "defensive" missile bases in Cuba. Would we trust them that the missiles are only "defensive"? HELL NO! Would the US Poland allow Russia to snoop through the bases and examine the missiles in detail to verify that they are "defensive"? Defensive against who?



mkloby said:


> Also, do you think Russia would want to shutdown pipelines long term, which would be damaging to their economy?



As far as oil goes Russia has Europe by the b***s. Not stopped long-term, they would shut down exports this winter to Europe, perhaps simultaneous with some "random" terrorist attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.

The Russians would lose nothing, as the crisis demand in Europe would probably push oil to over $200/ barrel. 



> However estimates of the long-term consequences stress the seriousness of the situation. The European Union imports 82 percent of its oil and 57 percent of its gas from third party states.



Russian oil pipeline interruption intensifies struggle for raw materials



> At this point Europe needs Russia more than Russia needs Europe. The Russians can buy goods from the Far East if the Euroes put any restrictions on their exports. The Russians can afford to cut back on oil production given how much they can make off of higher oil prices.



ParaPundit: Russia Threatens European Oil Cut Back




mkloby said:


> If they did chose to use gas/oil as a political weapon - should the US and others p*ssyfoot around them and appease?



No, but it would be better to avoid provoking them unneccasarily



mkloby said:


> Let's cower and not do anything that might antagonize Russia in some irrational way??? Very "sensible."



"Cower" is not in the USA's foreign policy manual...  

Instead of pushing membership in the US dominated NATO which is seen as provacation by Russia, I would think that it would be better to encourage the Central European states {Poland, Czech, Ukraine, Georgia, Baltics etc} to form a "Central European Alliance", similar to "SEATO". As a bloc they would have more power than individual countries, there is no reason why the USA could not have a good political economic relationship with these countries.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 3, 2008)

Catchin' up to you Matt308...


----------



## mkloby (Sep 3, 2008)

freebird said:


> How does it benefit Poland? The ABM system is suppost to protect against ICBM's from "rogue nations", it's hard to see how a missile fired from the mideast would be going through Poland. And it offers no protection to Poland from Russian missiles, as in an extreme case of war they would be using short range or else just driving in. The only real effect of the missiles in Poland is to raise tensions in Eastern Europe.


If it's hard for you to see a possibility with a missile launched at Europe, what can I say to you then???




freebird said:


> Then why did we not offer any help to Georgia? The Russians have been escalating tensions there for several months after Bush went over trumpeting NATO membership plans for Geogia. The Russian backed irregulars attacked Georgian troops bordering Ossetia, and when Georgia responded Russia attacked. There were a couple of thousand US troops in Georgia helping to train Georgian troops, yet offered no help, and were quickly evacuated..


You are comparing different scenarios. Georgia is not a member state in NATO. Do you think Russia would attack a NATO member state?



freebird said:


> I look at it this way, suppose you propose to a girl, but she is nervous to marry an outsider because she lives in a bad 'hood. You tell her "Don't worry, I'm tough, When we get married I can protect you." Then you go out on a date with her, and she gets raped. Can you stand back and watch saying "But she's not my wife yet"?


I'm not commenting on that ridiculousness.



freebird said:


> To me it just makes the US look weak.


What do you propose the US and/or NATO should have done in response?




freebird said:


> The same way if the Russians started to set up "defensive" missile bases in Cuba. Would we trust them that the missiles are only "defensive"? HELL NO! Would the US Poland allow Russia to snoop through the bases and examine the missiles in detail to verify that they are "defensive"? Defensive against who?


I'm not sure where you are going with this - if you're referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis, there is no comparison between the weapons installed in Cuba and the planned systems for Poland and Czech Repub. It's already covered as to their purpose - if Mr Freebird decides not to believe that to be true, what else can I say to you?




freebird said:


> As far as oil goes Russia has Europe by the b***s. Not stopped long-term, they would shut down exports this winter to Europe, perhaps simultaneous with some "random" terrorist attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> The Russians would lose nothing, as the crisis demand in Europe would probably push oil to over $200/ barrel.


There's a whole spectrum of things that could happen. The Russia you just described would be a terrorist state. If Russia is intent on policies such as that - a defensive missile system in Poland is not going to change matters one way or the other. Their vocal response to the missile system is rhetoric.



freebird said:


> "Cower" is not in the USA's foreign policy manual...
> 
> Instead of pushing membership in the US dominated NATO which is seen as provacation by Russia, I would think that it would be better to encourage the Central European states {Poland, Czech, Ukraine, Georgia, Baltics etc} to form a "Central European Alliance", similar to "SEATO". As a bloc they would have more power than individual countries, there is no reason why the USA could not have a good political economic relationship with these countries.


I disagree with you. But, it's up to the individual states to decide their policy.


----------



## stasoid (Sep 4, 2008)

mkloby said:


> If Ukraine was in NATO and attacked, I believe that yes they would be defended by the US and others. You seem to be referring to an attack on Ukraine by Russia... and if Russia knew US troops would be committed in the case of an attack - do you really think Russia woul



Russia ever attacing Ukraine is very unlikely. Both countries have so much in common. Mixed families, where one parent is Russian and the other is Ukrainian and there are many millions of such families living in Ukraine and even more in Russia. 
Imagine Russia attaking Ukraine is like to say US attaking Canada.

The bigges fear Ukraine facing is russian economical and cultural expansion. Big russian corporations slowly but surely penetrating ukrainian economy and russian show business swallowing its ukranian competitor. There is no military solution to that, you know, with the NATO or without it.

Its NATO membership is a highly controversial issue within the Ukraine itself. It most likely would be voted down if, say, a nationwide referendum was held today. It seems like the only proponent of Ukraine's NATO membership is its current president, backed up mostly by radical nationalists from the western part of the country. His raiting by the way is around 10% right now.
So, US can play ukrainian card, while the country is poor, against Russia, of course, but it might be a very expensive game, and it will cost more and more, day after day as the living standards in both Russia and Ukraine will improve.


----------



## marshall (Sep 4, 2008)

freebird said:


> How does it benefit Poland?




Well anybody interested can check here how Poland can benefit on this deal 

Text of the Declaration on Strategic Cooperation Between the United States of America and the Republic of Poland

but how it will be in reality is another case.



One more thing about Russia reaction to this, they probably know very good that this is not any real danger for them but they want to use this situation as exuse to achieve some things that normally would be hard to achieve or would be criticesed hard. Like increasing prices of nautral resources.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 4, 2008)

mkloby said:


> If it's hard for you to see a possibility with a missile launched at Europe, what can I say to you then???



Any missile launched from Iran or Syria etc. will not be passing through Poland. The only missiles it would defend against would be Russian, and the ABM shield is seen by the Russians as chipping away at MAD {mutually assured destruction}



mkloby said:


> You are comparing different scenarios. Georgia is not a member state in NATO. Do you think Russia would attack a NATO member state?



Do we only help NATO countries? The USA is pledged to protect S. Korea Taiwan, which do not belong to NATO last time I checked. Georgia has been a strong ally to the USA, sending more troops {per capita} to fight Iraq than any other nation, including the USA! Do you not think that the US should have helped to protect Georgia, seeing as it was your President's call for NATO membership that precipitated the crisis? Are we {NATO} such fair-weather friends? 



mkloby said:


> I'm not commenting on that ridiculousness.



I thought it was a reasonably comparative analysis. Do you think we have no moral or honorable duty to help defend our ally that is attacked?



mkloby said:


> What do you propose the US and/or NATO should have done in response?



Perhaps if NATO had put a few AT SAM battalions on the Georgian side of the Ossetian border in the first 48 hours, then Russia would not have occupied Georgian territory, but stopped at the Georgia/Ossetia border. As it is now it doesn't look like the Russians will be leaving georgia proper the port of Poti anytime soon. 



mkloby said:


> I'm not sure where you are going with this - if you're referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis, there is no comparison between the weapons installed in Cuba and the planned systems for Poland and Czech Repub. It's already covered as to their purpose - if Mr Freebird decides not to believe that to be true, what else can I say to you?


 
*Capt. Mkloby, do not confuse Mr. Freebird's opinions with that of Mr. Putin please.*  My grandfather and probably yours were on the same side in the fight against Fascism Communism, some of my Grandfather's relatives never made it back home. We are on the same side here.

My point was that if I was President and Russia was putting missiles in Cuba, I would not trust Mr. Putin's claim that missiles are only "defensive". Putin has no reason to trust us either. Suppose next week that Russia starts shipping "unknown" cargo to Cuba and insists that it is only "defensive missiles". 

I'll ask a few questions then:

1.} Would we allow Russia to ship "unknown" missiles to Cuba?
2.} Would we demand to inspect the cargo before it lands in Cuba? 
3.} If the cargo is accompanied by Russian warships, what then? 
4.} If Russia demands to inspect these "defensive missiles" in Poland, do we allow it?



mkloby said:


> There's a whole spectrum of things that could happen. The Russia you just described would be a terrorist state. If Russia is intent on policies such as that - a defensive missile system in Poland is not going to change matters one way or the other. Their vocal response to the missile system is rhetoric.



Why would they be a terrorist state? It's their oil and they are free to sell it or not as they see fit, according to international law. if Europe is totally dependant on getting more than 50% of its oil gas from Russia, that's too bad. If people are freezing in Europe this winter, Russia will blame NATO for initiating a crisis. Can the US supply half of Europe's needed oil gas this winter? Oh, and by the way you can probably count on Venezuala Iran to help Russia to create a shortage drive prices up.




stasoid said:


> Russia ever attacing Ukraine is very unlikely. Both countries have so much in common. Mixed families, where one parent is Russian and the other is Ukrainian and there are many millions of such families living in Ukraine and even more in Russia.
> Imagine Russia attaking Ukraine is like to say US attaking Canada.



Stasoid are you from Europe if I may ask? 

The situation in Ukraine would not be a simple attack. It would probably involve pro-Russian nationals anti-Ukrainian Tatars in Crimea declaring independance from Kiev. Crimea is not exactly part of Ukraine proper, it is the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" nominally part of Ukraine, but with its own "ARC" legislature. Ethnic Ukrainians are in the minority, and Crimea was nver a part of Ukraine historically until "gifted" by Khrushchev. So if Crimea declared independance and Ukraine decided to "invade" Crimea to prevent it's secession, then Russia could intervene to "protect civilians" and to uphold the right of Crimeans to "self determination". 

Sound crazy? This is the exact same method used in Georgia/Ossetia.

Would we intervene to prevent Crimean people from having self-determination?


----------



## Ramirezzz (Sep 4, 2008)

freebird said:


> Perhaps if NATO had put a few AT SAM battalions on the Georgian side of the Ossetian border in the first 48 hours, then Russia would not have occupied Georgian territory, but stopped at the Georgia/Ossetia border.
> As it is now it doesn't look like the Russians will be leaving georgia proper the port of Poti anytime soon.


other way round - would Georgia attack the South Ossetia if those NATO battalions were there?



> If people are freezing in Europe this winter, Russia will blame NATO for initiating a crisis. Can the US supply half of Europe's needed oil gas this winter?


and how should Russia equialize their oil gas income losses in that case ? The natural resources incomings make up to some 40 % of the Russian annual budget. 



> Sound crazy? This is the exact same method used in Georgia/Ossetia.


no, it isn't. Russia hadn't intervened when Georgia was about to beating Ossetians out from the Tshinhvali in 1992. And now the situation is completely different.
There was no war for independence in Crimea, and they actually didn't declare independence at no time. With other words there is no conflict potential in this region. 
And as Stasoid has said - Russia wont fight Ukraine and visa versa because of a long list of reasons. That's the thing which nobody both in Ukraine and Russia could ever imagine.

I completely agree with you on missile shield issue. USA certainly don't want any Russian backed military alliance in Caribbean region, we don't want it in the Eastern Europe for the very same reasons.


----------



## JugBR (Sep 4, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> other way round - would Georgia attack the South Ossetia if those NATO battalions were there?



good point ramirezzz


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 4, 2008)

Russia is sore that they haven't been taken seriously for the last 10 years. 

Antagonism = Strength = Power

It's good to keep the Russians on there toes. If we dont make the deals with other nations they will either by diplomacy, coercion, corruption or force.

.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Sep 4, 2008)

oh, and one more thing about that gas crisis between Ukraine and Russia which broke out some 2 years ago. I've just thought that maybe not all members of this forum remember the background while talking about how Russia cut off the gas supplies. 
Until 2006 Ukraine recieved the gas for some laughable price of 40 or 50$ per cubic meter, well below the production cost. For example Hungary or Germany pay for one cubic meter some 250 or 300 $. 
Moreover , there were constant unauthorized siphonings of the Russian gas in Ukraine , Russia lost some 2 or 3 billion dollars because of that.
The next question - why should we continue selling gas to the Ukranians at our own sacrifice if they try to distance from Russia and cause us problems in almost every issue? We don't have problems with the current Ukrainan goverment critisizing Russia all the time - they are not the first , and surely not the last ones here, but why the heck they're doing that while sitting on our cheap gas? If you want some free market relations - you'll get that. 
Yes, we supplied such countries as Angola and Mozambique with some cheap MiG-23s at own sacrifice as well - but that was completely other case. They were our allies in that region or at least positioned themselves as such.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 4, 2008)

No argument here Remirezzz. But I thought that is was not a black and white oil issue, but also include offsets.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 4, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> other way round - would Georgia attack the South Ossetia if those NATO battalions were there?



When you say "Georgia attack S. Ossetia" it makes it sound like attacking a foreign country, yet until this crisis S. Ossetia was *part of Georgia*, not even Russia recognised it as a separate country. So according to Georgia they would be "bringing back order to an area under control of some armed rebels." There is credible information that the crisis was provoked by S. Ossetia shelling Georgian troops, who then responded. 

Whether you believe Georgia's version of events, the truth will eventually come out.

Point is if *I were in Mr. Putin's shoes* I would not allow such a humiliating dangerous situation such as Georgia joining NATO right on Russia's back door. Looks like this will not happen now, as the only reliable Georgian port Poti is under the control of Russia. {Batumi is part of another self declared "enclave"}

Ramirezz {or anyone} Is it a coincedence that there had not been a crisis in S. Ossetia for 16 years, but right after Bush's visit to promote NATO membership the whole thing blows up?



Ramirezzz said:


> and how should Russia equialize their oil gas income losses in that case ? The natural resources incomings make up to some 40 % of the Russian annual budget.



Ok, suppose that Russia now exports 1 million barrels/month to Europe at about $110. They totally shut down exports for 2 months in Nov Dec as the demand for winter heating is extreme. The price of oil would EASILY hit $200/ barrel as the demand in Europe skyrockets. {You can bet that the usual cast of America-haters Chavez Iran slow down shipments too} Russia can still export to China {at the higher price} and *Russia will recoup ALL of it's lost $$$ within a few months by selling to the now freezing Europeans at $200/ barrel.*



Ramirezzz said:


> no, it isn't. Russia hadn't intervened when Georgia was about to beating Ossetians out from the Tshinhvali in 1992. And now the situation is completely different.
> There was no war for independence in Crimea, and they actually didn't declare independence at no time. *With other words there is no conflict potential in this region. *
> And as Stasoid has said - Russia wont fight Ukraine and visa versa because of a long list of reasons. That's the thing which nobody both in Ukraine and Russia could ever imagine.



WHAT??? No potential for conflict? If Crimea declares independance from Ukraine, and Ukraine sends troops in to "put down the sepratists" do you really think Russia will stand by and do nothing???? 



NY times said:


> The poor relations between Ukraine and Russia, already tense over Ukraine's nuclear weapons and its inability to pay for Russian oil, are likely to be aggravated by the election on Jan. 16 of the first President of Crimea.
> 
> A peninsula with balmy weather and a beautiful coast that juts into the Black Sea, Crimea is home to the Black Sea Fleet, an aging fleet of rusting ships that Ukraine and Russia continue to bicker over.
> 
> ...



Crimea Vote Raises Regional Tension - New York Times




> Relations between Ukraine and Russia have been tense in recent years, mainly due to the presence of Russian troops on the Crimean Peninsula, where Russia's Black Sea Fleet is based. Moreover, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is the only Ukrainian region with an ethnic Russian majority: according to Minority Rights Group, *Russians make up 60% of the Crimean population, with 24% Ukrainian and 12% Tatar.*
> 
> *According to RFE/RL, there is a general feeling among Crimea's ethnic Russian population that the peninsula should be reintegrated into the Russian Federation, * while the ethnic Ukrainian population sees the Russian military presence as a continuing "act of aggression



Potential for further diplomatic tension between Russia and the West over Ukraine - Nationalia



Ramirezzz said:


> I completely agree with you on missile shield issue. USA certainly don't want any Russian backed military alliance in Caribbean region, we don't want it in the Eastern Europe for the very same reasons.



In my opinion, there will be some sort of "Quid pro Quo" {a deal done}, Russia gives back Georgian territory and guarantees oil delivery, while the EU US back away from plans for Ukraine Georgia in NATO, and probably dump the missile shield as well.

Do we really want to inflame a crisis with Christian Russia, and lose their help against Muslim fanatics?

Similar to the deal in the 60's for USSR to pull missiles from Cuba, in return for the USA pulling missiles from Turkey.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Sep 4, 2008)

> When you say "Georgia attack S. Ossetia" it makes it sound like attacking a foreign country, yet until this crisis S. Ossetia was part of Georgia, not even Russia recognised it as a separate country. So according to Georgia they would be "bringing back order to an area under control of some armed rebels."


Well, western newspapers didn't hesitate to call the Russian operation in Chechnja an invasion, so why should we hesitate here either?  




freebird said:


> There is credible information that the crisis was provoked by S. Ossetia shelling Georgian troops, who then responded.


which credible information exactly? Those constantly repeated claims by Georgians? 


> Whether you believe Georgia's version of events, the truth will eventually come out.


I wish it would!



> Ramirezz {or anyone} Is it a coincedence that there had not been a crisis in S. Ossetia for 16 years, but right after Bush's visit to promote NATO membership the whole thing blows up?


I'm sorry Freebird , but you are dead wrong here. The crisis in SO was in kind of frozen condition right before Saakashvili was elected. Now see what happened afterwards 

1)in january 2004 Saakashvili who was in presidential race at that moment visited a village in SO without any consultation with SO goverment despite all cease-fire agreements. He made there a statement where he pointed out that the 2004 is the last year when South Ossetia and Abkhazia don't take part in the all-Georgian elections.
Since his election he made it clear many times his goal is to regain the control over the SO and Abkhazia.
2) February 2004: Second man in the SO Ministry of Defence was killed by the Georgian policemen 
3)May 2004 : the second Georgian assault in the SO (after war for independence of 1992) - police troops and Georgian special forces entered the SO territory which was under control of Tshinvali goverment. They were repelled, some 20 people been killed.
4) June 2004: Georgian forces closed down the Ergeti market, what left many South Ossetians unemployed. They intercepted the Russian convoy but were disarmed by the SO paramilitaries.
5) August 2004: a third Georgian military operation in SO. A SO village was seized but was later given up by Georgians.
5) Late 2006 - Saakashvili entered the Abkhaz controlled territory of Kodory and broke the Moscow cease fire agreements of 1994.
etc etc etc
So actually you see it's not that important who fired the first shot in the recent war. Saakashvili made it very clear from the very beginning - he won't leave the SO "problem" unattended unlike his predecessor Shevarnadze did. In fact there is a war going on since his election.


> {You can bet that the usual cast of America-haters Chavez Iran slow down shipments too}


I wouldnt be so sure here. 



> Russia can still export to China {at the higher price} and *
> *


*
current exports to China cover some 3 or 5 percents of the oil gas incomes, so that wouldn't help much either.



Russia will recoup ALL of it's lost $$$ within a few months by selling to the now freezing Europeans at $200/ barrel.

Click to expand...

I'm gonna tell you what will happen if Russia cut the gas supplies. Stock market will crash within a week - actually we can see it right now. Oil prices sunk for some 20 dollars and the RTS index (Russian Dow Jones) has fallen to some 10 percents. And its still falling.
No oil gas incomes - no budjet incomes for some 40 percent. Inflation skyrockets, no money for anything. A greatest economical disaster which I could ever imagine, overshadoving the crisis of 1998 by far. 
Ine one word - Russans are not kamikazes. Nobody in a sober mind in the goverment would cut off the pipeline. That would hit Russians much more harder than the Europeans who still have their strategic reserves to survive for several months.




WHAT??? No potential for conflict? If Crimea declares independance from Ukraine, and Ukraine sends troops in to "put down the sepratists" do you really think Russia will stand by and do nothing????

Click to expand...

Do you really think it would declare any? And if so, why the Crimea only? Heck, some 45 percent of Ukraine are ethnic Russians!  
Speaking serously ,beside of some radical prorussian elements there which are not in a large number nobody really wants to cut their ties with the "continental" Ukraine.*


----------



## mkloby (Sep 4, 2008)

freebird said:


> Any missile launched from Iran or Syria etc. will not be passing through Poland. The only missiles it would defend against would be Russian, and the ABM shield is seen by the Russians as chipping away at MAD {mutually assured destruction}


Are you seriously pretending to know the exact capabilities of the missile system to be installed? Why would you think it would have to necessarily pass through Poland???



freebird said:


> Do we only help NATO countries? The USA is pledged to protect S. Korea Taiwan, which do not belong to NATO last time I checked. Georgia has been a strong ally to the USA, sending more troops {per capita} to fight Iraq than any other nation, including the USA! Do you not think that the US should have helped to protect Georgia, seeing as it was your President's call for NATO membership that precipitated the crisis? Are we {NATO} such fair-weather friends?


I did not say that - what I said is that aiding a NATO ally is a different scenario from a state that is not a NATO member state.



freebird said:


> I thought it was a reasonably comparative analysis. Do you think we have no moral or honorable duty to help defend our ally that is attacked?
> 
> Perhaps if NATO had put a few AT SAM battalions on the Georgian side of the Ossetian border in the first 48 hours, then Russia would not have occupied Georgian territory, but stopped at the Georgia/Ossetia border. As it is now it doesn't look like the Russians will be leaving georgia proper the port of Poti anytime soon.


Your rape comparison - not reasonable at all. Regardless, of course there are other options and possibilities that could have been implemented. Stratlifting a few anti-tank and anti-air bn's to Georgia - not a militarily sound idea at all.




freebird said:


> *Capt. Mkloby, do not confuse Mr. Freebird's opinions with that of Mr. Putin please.*  My grandfather and probably yours were on the same side in the fight against Fascism Communism, some of my Grandfather's relatives never made it back home. We are on the same side here.


I don't know what you mean there. You refuse to see any value or benefit from the installation of the missile system and look at it as soley antagonizing Russia, if I'm reading your posts correctly. Obviously, I disagree. And yes, my Grandpa was a Marine too!



freebird said:


> My point was that if I was President and Russia was putting missiles in Cuba, I would not trust Mr. Putin's claim that missiles are only "defensive". Putin has no reason to trust us either. Suppose next week that Russia starts shipping "unknown" cargo to Cuba and insists that it is only "defensive missiles".


Of course - nobody would blindly trust. However, fear of ruffling Russia's feathers is not going to give heavy consideration when it comes to US foreign policy. Do you seriously think that it would?



freebird said:


> 1.} Would we allow Russia to ship "unknown" missiles to Cuba?
> 2.} Would we demand to inspect the cargo before it lands in Cuba?
> 3.} If the cargo is accompanied by Russian warships, what then?
> 4.} If Russia demands to inspect these "defensive missiles" in Poland, do we allow it?


Do you really think they would be "unknown" missiles that we know nothing about??? Come on - Think outside of the theoretical vacuum.





freebird said:


> Why would they be a terrorist state? It's their oil and they are free to sell it or not as they see fit, according to international law. if Europe is totally dependant on getting more than 50% of its oil gas from Russia, that's too bad. If people are freezing in Europe this winter, Russia will blame NATO for initiating a crisis. Can the US supply half of Europe's needed oil gas this winter? Oh, and by the way you can probably count on Venezuala Iran to help Russia to create a shortage drive prices up.



Why would those actions you said earlier be those of a terrorist state??? Because you described a Russia that would use oil/gas as a major weapon, coordinated with what you called terrorist attacks on oil tankers. How is that not a terrorist state.

Regardless - as ramirez stated such a scenario I don't forsee since it would not be in anyone's interest, although you seem to believe that it would not harm Russia economically.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 4, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Are you seriously pretending to know the exact capabilities of the missile system to be installed? Why would you think it would have to necessarily pass through Poland???



I don't think missiles would pass through Poland if lauched from the MidEast. If the missiles come from Russia, having an ABM system is the least of the worries, as that would be WWIII 



mkloby said:


> I did not say that - what I said is that aiding a NATO ally is a different scenario from a state that is not a NATO member state.



So how do you decide which of your Allies to aid, and when to do nothing? 



mkloby said:


> Stratlifting a few anti-tank and anti-air bn's to Georgia - not a militarily sound idea at all.



Why is that an unsound idea? It's unlikely that Russia would attack US forces, they probably would have just stopped at the border of Ossetia 



mkloby said:


> I don't know what you mean there. You refuse to see any value or benefit from the installation of the missile system and look at it as soley antagonizing Russia, if I'm reading your posts correctly. Obviously, I disagree. And yes, my Grandpa was a Marine too!



Oh I'm sure that the US sees it as a benefit, and for the Poles it is an open question. How does it benefit Poland? Who is it designed to defend against?



mkloby said:


> Of course - nobody would blindly trust. However, fear of ruffling Russia's feathers is not going to give heavy consideration when it comes to US foreign policy. Do you seriously think that it would?



Part of the problem I think is that the US does not give enough considerization to the effects of their actions on other countries. The question is how many "enemies" do we {The Western nations} need? I would prefer to see more cooperation with Russia to eliminate the "Radical Muslim" cancer. 



mkloby said:


> Do you really think they would be "unknown" missiles that we know nothing about??? Come on - Think outside of the theoretical vacuum.



How would the west know what missiles are onboard Russian Cargo ships?
Some missile platforms are dual purpose, could you not rig up a "Patriot" size missile with an NBC warhead?



mkloby said:


> Why would those actions you said earlier be those of a terrorist state??? Because you described a Russia that would use oil/gas as a major weapon, coordinated with what you called terrorist attacks on oil tankers. How is that not a terrorist state.



Personally I don't think that Russia is above using "black ops", however using oil as an economic weapon is not terrorism, thats just economic "warfare" which has been practiced by the US every other country. As for terrorist actions against oil tankers, the culprits would never be traced back to the origin. Don't you think the Pentagon has done analysis of the various scenarios that other groups might use to affect world oil supply? 



mkloby said:


> Regardless - as ramirez stated such a scenario I don't forsee since it would not be in anyone's interest, although you seem to believe that it would not harm Russia economically.



Not if it doubles the price of oil it wouldn't, as the demand will still be there after a temporary shutdown. Every potential interruption of oil supply raises the price, from hurricanes in the Gulf to political instability in Nigeria or war in Iraq.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 4, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> I'm sorry Freebird , but you are dead wrong here. The crisis in SO was in kind of frozen condition right before Saakashvili was elected. Now see what happened afterwards
> 
> 
> So actually you see it's not that important who fired the first shot in the recent war. Saakashvili made it very clear from the very beginning - he won't leave the SO "problem" unattended unlike his predecessor Shevarnadze did. In fact there is a war going on since his election.



So you think this has nothing to do with Georgia trying to join NATO?
Do you not think that Putin would like to prevent that from happening?







Ramirezzz said:


> current exports to China cover some 3 or 5 percents of the oil gas incomes, so that wouldn't help much either.
> 
> I'm gonna tell you what will happen if Russia cut the gas supplies. Stock market will crash within a week - actually we can see it right now. Oil prices sunk for some 20 dollars and the RTS index (Russian Dow Jones) has fallen to some 10 percents. And its still falling.
> No oil gas incomes - no budjet incomes for some 40 percent. Inflation skyrockets, no money for anything. A greatest economical disaster which I could ever imagine, overshadoving the crisis of 1998 by far.
> Ine one word - Russans are not kamikazes. Nobody in a sober mind in the goverment would cut off the pipeline. That would hit Russians much more harder than the Europeans who still have their strategic reserves to survive for several months.



So then do you think that Putin will just sit back and watch as Georgia Ukraine join NATO, and the missiles are sent to Poland? 


Do you really think it would declare any? And if so, why the Crimea only? Heck, some 45 percent of Ukraine are ethnic Russians!  
Speaking serously ,beside of some radical prorussian elements there which are not in a large number nobody really wants to cut their ties with the "continental" Ukraine.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Ramirezzz (Sep 5, 2008)

freebird said:


> Not if it doubles the price of oil it wouldn't, as the demand will still be there after a temporary shutdown. Every potential interruption of oil supply raises the price, from hurricanes in the Gulf to political instability in Nigeria or war in Iraq.


as been said -the short term negative effects of the oil supplies shutdown will be catastrophic for Russia in any case. Russian economy has just recovered from the ruins, such thing will surely kill it. There're many offshore factors which are highly dependent on the global economic situation, so if West suffers, Russia will suffer as well regardless how high the oil price could potentially skyrocket afterwards


> So you think this has nothing to do with Georgia trying to join NATO?
> Do you not think that Putin would like to prevent that from happening?


Sure he would, but not in this particular case. You see , Russia while trying to save its positions at Cacausus threatened by the Georgian invasion solved a very local problem, which is quite an old one as well. 
Russia began to support the SO both financially and politically long before Saakashvili was been elected and long before Georgia expressed its wish to join NATO. That would be a rough comparison, but - like Georgia was and remains a "project" of/for the United States, so South Ossetia was a "project" of Russia. 
That doesn't mean though that they (Russians) wanted to integrate SO into Russia - there were numerous requests of the South Ossetian parlament to recognise its independence, but the Kremlin hesitated doing so for some 10 years.
Look, we had a lot of problems with Shevarnadze over South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the past, and at that time Georgia hadn't declared yet its wish to join NATO. We had problems with him but somehow managed to keep things relatively quiet, as both sides weren't much interested in rising the tensions to some critcal point and because the Georgians didn't feel they are strong enough to undertake such steps at that particular moment.
But then came Saakashvili, some say an energetic young leader who wants to reunite the Georgia, while others say - a dangerous madman, who is ready to blow up the fragile peace at Caucasus apart because of his ambitions. In fact most people at Caucasus ,even some Georgians share this opinion.



> So then do you think that Putin will just sit back and watch as Georgia Ukraine join NATO, and the missiles are sent to Poland?


of course they'll try to counter it, but certainly not with a military force. The other question is - those West European NATO members like Germany and Italy, are they willing to integrate both countries into the NATO, especially after recent events? 
Moreover - would Ukraine itself take any further steps to join it? As it seems by the moment, the majority of the population is still against it and now Yushenko is about to loose even its fragile support in the Ukrainan Parlament while the Timoshenko party has left the coalition several days ago.


----------



## JugBR (Sep 5, 2008)

freebird said:


> In my opinion, there will be some sort of "Quid pro Quo" {a deal done}, Russia gives back Georgian territory and guarantees oil delivery, while the EU US back away from plans for Ukraine Georgia in NATO, and probably dump the missile shield as well.
> 
> Do we really want to inflame a crisis with Christian Russia, and lose their help against Muslim fanatics?
> 
> Similar to the deal in the 60's for USSR to pull missiles from Cuba, in return for the USA pulling missiles from Turkey.



i dont see that "quiprocó" in any scenario.

if russia gives up the struggle to make ossetia and abkhazia independent of georgia, they will not receive anything in exchange.

the missiles program will continues, the nato advance for east will continues, the isolation of russia in europe will be even greater. its better dont promisse what dont gonna be done later.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 5, 2008)

Freebird - this conversation is going in circles. Nobody even said that the missiles would have to pass through Poland - why are you fixated on this concept??? 

You idea of sending in a few AT or AA Bns is foolish... and if the matter did escalate and engage Russian forces - what are these few isolated US battalions going to do? They would be overwhelmed.

You ask how do you decide when to act and when to do nothing - that is a decision that needs to incorporate many factors - and nobody is going to agree on all of them. It's not a simple black and white decision based off the fact they have troops in Iraq.

Freebird - I'm curious - have you spent any time in the military?


----------



## fly boy (Sep 5, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I love the fact that this thread proves how people do not read. The Poll specifically says that only Czechs and Polish members can vote in the thread.
> 
> Yet somehow a German (Airfix), South African (Henk), Russian (Mitya), Mexican (smg) and an American (fly boy) have managed to vote in the poll. Way to go guys!



der adler are you talking about an icbm missle system or a rpg cuase if icbm it's kinda of more like a world porplem with it and if it is rpg then ignore my posts


----------



## mkloby (Sep 5, 2008)

fly boy said:


> der adler are you talking about an icbm missle system or a rpg cuase if icbm it's kinda of more like a world porplem with it and if it is rpg then ignore my posts



A rocket propelled grenade anti-missile system?


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 5, 2008)

Oh no, Adler gonna have a hayday with that one.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Sep 5, 2008)

BTW Matt (Mkloby), very moving avatar indeed. Despite being a Russian born in the USSR I have a lot of respect to the GIs who fell in combat regardless where.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 6, 2008)

JugBR said:


> i dont see that "quiprocó" in any scenario.
> 
> if russia gives up the struggle to make ossetia and abkhazia independent of georgia, they will not receive anything in exchange.



Huh? Since when is there "something for nothing Jug? Why would they give it up if they get nothing in return? Makes no sense



mkloby said:


> A rocket propelled grenade anti-missile system?



Maybe he means RPG - Role-Playing-Game {like D&D}  



mkloby said:


> Freebird - I'm curious - have you spent any time in the military?



Nope, I never got higher than "Cadet" before a fractured spine killed that option. Luckily the doctors managed to put Humpty back together


----------



## mkloby (Sep 6, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> BTW Matt (Mkloby), very moving avatar indeed. Despite being a Russian born in the USSR I have a lot of respect to the GIs who fell in combat regardless where.



Thank you very much.


----------



## JugBR (Sep 6, 2008)

freebird said:


> Huh? Since when is there "something for nothing Jug? Why would they give it up if they get nothing in return? Makes no sense



thats true, make no sense, then i ask you, want know other thing that makes no sense ? russia was targeting the pipelines. all press sayd that but wheres the photos ? russia will cut off the gas supply. why ? shot their feet ? no gas, no money...

its a great conspiracy theory that russia wants to have the monopoly over the fuel supply to europe, to control them and manipulates the european union... 

the only true that makes sense is the fact of west fears russia. thats the only explanation i can find freebird. the west fears russia. and russia dont trust in west.


----------



## ROMERO (Sep 7, 2008)

There is no reason or motive for the anti-missile shield, the alleged reason is false and not convince the world, Iran is a threat to israel that perhaps can protect itself. 
Weapons draw weapons, or the Russians will be stopped against it? that nation would be? The United States agreed to cuba of Russian missiles in 1962? It is not clear and rightly so because it threatened his parents ... Because the russia should accept now? 
We must see that Russia is no longer the Soviet Union, should be treated as a major European nation that is, must be integrated European community and not ignored. We must not turn its back for a great nation as it is, nor to the United States. I believe that the gestures of friendship must not distrust. For that to now?


----------



## JugBR (Sep 7, 2008)

ROMERO said:


> There is no reason or motive for the anti-missile shield, the alleged reason is false and not convince the world, Iran is a threat to israel that perhaps can protect itself.
> Weapons draw weapons, or the Russians will be stopped against it? that nation would be? The United States agreed to cuba of Russian missiles in 1962? It is not clear and rightly so because it threatened his parents ... Because the russia should accept now?
> We must see that Russia is no longer the Soviet Union, should be treated as a major European nation that is, must be integrated European community and not ignored. We must not turn its back for a great nation as it is, nor to the United States. I believe that the gestures of friendship must not distrust. For that to now?



yes, usa didnt agreed with cuba hosts soviet missiles, also russia wouldnt agree now with that.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 7, 2008)

Gents - the weapons involved in the anti-missile system are completely different from the nuclear missiles that were present in Cuba. The missiles in Poland won't be capable of destroying Russian cities and wreaking havoc. Why are you trying to make a comparison between the two???


----------



## Freebird (Sep 7, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Gents - the weapons involved in the anti-missile system are completely different from the nuclear missiles that were present in Cuba. The missiles in Poland won't be capable of destroying Russian cities and wreaking havoc. Why are you trying to make a comparison between the two???




Russia has only the word of the US government on the capabilities, why should they trust us?

You didn't answer my earlier question

If Russia asks to inspect these missile systems in Poland, do we allow it?

If they are actually what we say they are, what is the problem?
If we refuse to allow them access, what are we hiding?

Just curious as to your opinion on this


----------



## JugBR (Sep 7, 2008)

mkloby, the nuclear missiles are in turkey, isnt that correct ?


----------



## mkloby (Sep 7, 2008)

freebird said:


> Russia has only the word of the US government on the capabilities, why should they trust us?
> 
> You didn't answer my earlier question
> 
> ...


My apologies - that one slipped by.
Regarding the inspection of such weapons - there are a couple inherent problems. First of all - Russia has no right to inspect the defenses of another state. Should they be allowed to inspect any and everything they wish? How about they be allowed to inspect other types of weapon systems.

More importantly, however, is security implications involved in allowing such inspections. Say for example, the missile system and TTPs for deployment are set at Cosmic Top Secret - are you seriously suggesting outsiders be allowed to mull about and inspect? That's just foolish and not militarily sound.



JugBR said:


> mkloby, the nuclear missiles are in turkey, isnt that correct ?



What nuclear missiles?


----------



## Freebird (Sep 7, 2008)

JugBR said:


> mkloby, the nuclear missiles are in turkey, isnt that correct ?




The nuclear missiles were removed from Turkey as part of the "Cuban Missile crisis"

Google "Cuba, Crisis, missiles, Turkey"



> Three months after the Cuban Missile Crisis the United States secretly removed all its nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 7, 2008)

Wait, wait, wait. Timeout.

The US specifically asked Russia to be involved in the missile defense system. They were not only asked to inspect the system, but to help staff the missile command, and were also asked to network in their over horizon X-band radar.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 7, 2008)

Now if by inspect, you mean allow for inspection of technical documents, then hell no. But a simple inspection of a missile, its payload and propulsion system would allow a simpleton to understand that they are defensive in nature. To argue otherwise is pure fantasy. It would be much easier to field an offensive capability in the form of cruise missiles.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 7, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Now if by inspect, you mean allow for inspection of technical documents, then hell no. But a simple inspection of a missile, its payload and propulsion system would allow a simpleton to understand that they are defensive in nature. To argue otherwise is pure fantasy. It would be much easier to field an offensive capability in the form of cruise missiles.




That is a very interesting twist indeed Matt.

Do you think that this missile system in Poland is a good idea?

Is the attitude of Russia a concern?


----------



## ROMERO (Sep 7, 2008)

The question all this in need. There is need to install such a system of missile defence and counter to Russia who feel threatened? the answer is no. NATO is the most powerful military organization in the world, and would force to respond to an alleged missile attack by Iran. Not to mention American fleet in the Mediterranean that has certainly interceptadores missiles. 
I believe that the United States should seek a partner in russia, and address the issue differently. Peace is made with attitudes peaceful, with no exchange of harsh words. 

The russia had no attitude that is justified isso.Deve to have balance and common sense ...


----------



## JugBR (Sep 7, 2008)

freebird said:


> The nuclear missiles were removed from Turkey as part of the "Cuban Missile crisis"
> 
> Google "Cuba, Crisis, missiles, Turkey"
> 
> Three months after the Cuban Missile Crisis the United States *secretly* removed all its nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy.



thats why i didnt knew dammit !!!


----------



## Ramirezzz (Sep 7, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Wait, wait, wait. Timeout.
> 
> The US specifically asked Russia to be involved in the missile defense system. They were not only asked to inspect the system, but to help staff the missile command, and were also asked to network in their over horizon X-band radar.



well Russia asked the US to use its radar in Azerbajdzhan too :

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/world/europe/05missile.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


----------



## Freebird (Sep 7, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I love the fact that this thread proves how people do not read. The Poll specifically says that only Czechs and Polish members can vote in the thread.
> 
> Yet somehow a German (Airfix), South African (Henk), Russian (Mitya), Mexican (smg) and an American (fly boy) have managed to vote in the poll. Way to go guys!



Adler, Ignorance is Bliss...  

What is the minimum % of Czech/Pole required to vote?


I'm drinking Czech beer and eating Polish sausage Perogies, I figure that my total mass is over 10% Czech/Polish by this point in the evening. 

Can I vote now?

Please hurry up and let me know, before I have to take a leak....


----------



## mkloby (Sep 7, 2008)

ROMERO said:


> The question all this in need. There is need to install such a system of missile defence and counter to Russia who feel threatened? the answer is no. NATO is the most powerful military organization in the world, and would force to respond to an alleged missile attack by Iran. Not to mention American fleet in the Mediterranean that has certainly interceptadores missiles.
> I believe that the United States should seek a partner in russia, and address the issue differently. Peace is made with attitudes peaceful, with no exchange of harsh words.
> 
> The russia had no attitude that is justified isso.Deve to have balance and common sense ...



I'm not sure what your post means - but NATO having the conventional military mass to respond conventionally by invading Iran in the incident of a missile launch provides no defense against the missile attack itself.

So I'll ask - how is it a bad thing for a missile system that can protect against incoming hostile missiles a provocative and foolish system to install? Why would Russia possibly be threatened by this? Explain to me the rational aside from the "How is Russia going to know they're not offensive missiles."


----------



## seesul (Sep 8, 2008)

freebird said:


> I'm drinking Czech beer and eating Polish sausage Perogies, I figure that my total mass is over 10% Czech/Polish by this point in the evening.
> Can I vote now?
> Please hurry up and let me know, before I have to take a leak....



You got my permission 
Which kind of beer do you drink there?


----------



## JugBR (Sep 8, 2008)

mkloby said:


> I'm not sure what your post means



let me "translate" to you. romero used google translator because he dont have a good english. me either, but i wont die hungry if you leave me in times square with 5000 dollars. ate least not in the first month...

_The question is all about of "do we really need this?". was needed to install this system and make russia feel threatened ? the answer is no. NATO is the most powerfull military alliance in the world. and would have the meanings to respons an missile attack by iran. and also american fleet in mediterranean have interceptor missiles.

i believe usa should seek a partner in russia and address the issue diferently. peace is made with peacefull attitudes, not exachanging harsh words.

russia didnt anything to justifies this harsh words exchanging. solution cames from balance and common sense._

and i agree with romero in almost he said. just dont know about the us fleet in mediterranean, but the rest is ok.



mkloby said:


> but NATO having the conventional military mass to respond conventionally by invading Iran in the incident of a missile launch provides no defense against the missile attack itself.
> 
> So I'll ask - how is it a bad thing for a missile system that can protect against incoming hostile missiles a provocative and foolish system to install? Why would Russia possibly be threatened by this? Explain to me the rational aside from the "How is Russia going to know they're not offensive missiles."



well mkloby, lets remember the iranian missile cant reach europe. it just could reach israel, in theory. also that missile have been proving to be a hoax, since the launch test was photoshoped.

another interesting point is: since czech are not nato partners, why dont pass to them the project and let them build the missile if they want ? because the czech republic is a very industrial country. they can do that themselves. if russia complains them, would be a matter of sovereign, because russia would been complaining of czech rep. builds a czech missile in czech land.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 8, 2008)

seesul said:


> You got my permission
> Which kind of beer do you drink there?




    Thanks!  

We got some Staropramen here, besides Pils it's hard to find any others.

Have you ever tried beer from Ukraine?


----------



## Freebird (Sep 8, 2008)

mkloby said:


> I'm not sure what your post means - but NATO having the conventional military mass to respond conventionally by invading Iran in the incident of a missile launch provides no defense against the missile attack itself.
> 
> So I'll ask - how is it a bad thing for a missile system that can protect against incoming hostile missiles a provocative and foolish system to install? Why would Russia possibly be threatened by this? Explain to me the rational aside from the "How is Russia going to know they're not offensive missiles."



It's seen as humiliation to Russia to have this system right up against it's borders. You may discount it, but political diplomatic consideratios play into these equasions too.

The Allies didn't put Hirohito on trial after WWII to avoid humiliating Japan {even though he was clearly guilty}


Why couldn't the missile system be put in Austria or Italy or Greece, especially as missiles from hostile nations {Iran, Syria ect} would be coming from the SouthEast

MKloby, don't get me wrong, I'm not a missile expert, and I'm not saying that this is a mistake. All I'm saying is that this will be seen as provocation by Russia, there will very likely be repercussions


----------



## seesul (Sep 8, 2008)

freebird said:


> Thanks!
> 
> We got some Staropramen here, besides Pils it's hard to find any others.
> 
> Have you ever tried beer from Ukraine?



not yet, only vodka with 90% of alcohol...for a first and last time
And BTW, Staropramen is actually my favourite beer...
So one point more 4 U


----------



## seesul (Sep 9, 2008)

JugBR said:


> another interesting point is: since czech are not nato partners, why dont pass to them the project and let them build the missile if they want ? because the czech republic is a very industrial country. they can do that themselves. if russia complains them, would be a matter of sovereign, because russia would been complaining of czech rep. builds a czech missile in czech land.



Czech Republic is a NATO partner since March 12,1999
NATO has added new members six times since first forming in 1949. NATO is comprised of twenty-six members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## seesul (Sep 9, 2008)

JugBR said:


> well mkloby, lets remember the iranian missile cant reach europe. it just could reach israel, in theory. also that missile have been proving to be a hoax, since the launch test was photoshoped.
> 
> 
> > I´d like to believe it was photoshoped. But I would´t play with Shabab 4, that could reach Europe. Shahab-4
> > Complete overview of Iranian misilles is here Iran Missiles


----------



## mkloby (Sep 9, 2008)

JugBR said:


> well mkloby, lets remember the iranian missile cant reach europe. it just could reach israel, in theory. also that missile have been proving to be a hoax, since the launch test was photoshoped.



Jug - I'm sure the Iranian government has conducted full disclosure with JugBR from ww2aircraft.net of specifications of it's current missile systems and those under development. Come on now.

Freebird - I am guessing the possibility of locating the system in other areas was looked into, but the current position was chosen. It was likely a combination of political and weapon system related factors that drove the decision. However, I'm certain that if it was located in Austria or Greece, we'd be having this same conversation regardless.

So the only alleged "threat" anybody can come up with is the missile system is bruising Russia's ego??? There's no actual threat here guys!


----------



## Ramirezzz (Sep 9, 2008)

seesul said:


> not yet, only vodka with 90% of alcohol...for a first and last time
> And BTW, Staropramen is actually my favourite beer...
> So one point more 4 U



Staropramen, J.J. and Java. Czechs top it in everything  


Now don't undestand me wrong our dear Czech members, your slogan from the sixties:
вы нас танками, мы вас -шайбами


----------



## seesul (Sep 9, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> Now don't undestand me wrong our dear Czech members, your slogan from the sixties:
> вы нас танками, мы вас -шайбами



 yep, you got a good memory...my father remembers those matches as he was 21 and served in our army back then...he often spoke about it...


----------



## Ramirezzz (Sep 9, 2008)

seesul said:


> yep, you got a good memory...my father remembers those matches as he was 21 and served in our army back then...he often spoke about it...



lol I remember it even during the Nagano's final and Gashek miracles on ice I had some strange deja-vue feeling


----------



## seesul (Sep 9, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> lol I remember it even during the Nagano's final and Gashek miracles on ice I had some strange deja-vue feeling



yep, my best icehockey experience so far...the final started at 5:30 our time and all the pubs were open and full...I´ve never been so drunk so early...


----------



## Ramirezzz (Sep 9, 2008)

seesul said:


> yep, my best icehockey experience so far...the final started at 5:30 our time and all the pubs were open and full...I´ve never been so drunk so early...



still looking for some BIG Revanš man !


----------



## ROMERO (Sep 9, 2008)

mkloby said:


> I'm not sure what your post means - but NATO having the conventional military mass to respond conventionally by invading Iran in the incident of a missile launch provides no defense against the missile attack itself.
> 
> So I'll ask - how is it a bad thing for a missile system that can protect against incoming hostile missiles a provocative and foolish system to install? Why would Russia possibly be threatened by this? Explain to me the rational aside from the "How is Russia going to know they're not offensive missiles."




I believe it is the legitimate right of defence of nations, but Iran should not be considered more dangerous than it actually is. 
The ideal solution would be the United States likely intercept these missiles from its ships and submarines in the Mediterranean, and thus acted no incomodo cause the nation nenhuma.Um ship anchored in a port ally in italy for example would work perfectly well that ... 

One problem may have many different ways, some more harmonious least .... we must rethink and find a solution conciliatory. 

I believe that these missiles are not against Russia, but Russian understand the attitude of embarrassment, because although it is not close to its borders, it seems to me out on purpose.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 9, 2008)

ROMERO said:


> I believe it is the legitimate right of defence of nations, but Iran should not be considered more dangerous than it actually is.
> The ideal solution would be the United States likely intercept these missiles from its ships and submarines in the Mediterranean, and thus acted no incomodo cause the nation nenhuma.Um ship anchored in a port ally in italy for example would work perfectly well that ...
> 
> One problem may have many different ways, some more harmonious least .... we must rethink and find a solution conciliatory.
> ...



I am not a missile guy or Navy SWO - but I would tend to believe that having dedicated ships performing a role like that in a relatively stationary and static would not be tactically or operationally sound. It would be tying up resources (ships) which are unable to perform other duties as may be required. Furthermore, a land based system seems like it would have the ability to be more redundant, spread out, and reliable.


----------



## JugBR (Sep 9, 2008)

iran, iraq, pakistan, afghanitan, syria... whatever... all paraguayan horses. look the strenght of american army. usa could declares war against all middle east, s. america and western europe and beats we all.

the problem here is that the root of all issues over the middle east came from the state of israel foundation and the ocupation of palestine. thats the problem #1 to be rsolved.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 10, 2008)

Occupation. Interesting.


----------



## seesul (Sep 10, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> still looking for some BIG Revanš man !


think there´s a good chance...your national team is the best in the world actually imho while our golden generation boys born 1972-1973 refuse to play for the national team anymore...they got old. so the quality of our team goes down slowly...


----------



## mkloby (Sep 10, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Occupation. Interesting.



I noticed that too... sad indeed.


----------



## ROMERO (Sep 10, 2008)

mkloby said:


> I am not a missile guy or Navy SWO - but I would tend to believe that having dedicated ships performing a role like that in a relatively stationary and static would not be tactically or operationally sound. It would be tying up resources (ships) which are unable to perform other duties as may be required. Furthermore, a land based system seems like it would have the ability to be more redundant, spread out, and reliable.



mkloby I understand your argument, but a fleet of war must be prepared for war and surveillance, is their primary job. The other roles but I think there are important priorities. Antimissil A system installed in ships of the United States would have the advantage of being mobile (SHIPS), and not cause irritation in other nations. It would be efficient and discreet.


----------



## JugBR (Sep 10, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Occupation. Interesting.



why ? wasnt a occupation ?


----------



## Ramirezzz (Sep 11, 2008)

well technically speaking it was an occupation to a certain degree.
Israel captured and annexed the West Bank from Jordan and Gaza from Egypt, which were already territories of those countries even if they were been annexed as well.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 11, 2008)

Keyword "WAS" an occupation. But they withdrew per UN resolution. Now the question is an occupation of what nation state that is internationally recognized? Kinda hard to "occupy" an armastice line and supposedly annexed Jordanian land that was not internationally recognized by anyone.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 11, 2008)

I don't now exactly what Jug meant - but it seems he was speaking of more than just the West Bank or Gaza... He did say occupation of Palestine.


----------



## JugBR (Sep 11, 2008)

by the point of the view from the people whos lived there, was a ocupation. because they was expelled from their houses. you can comment about the legality and veracity of the State of Palestine, but the fact of the palestinians, the people who lived in the region called palestine, was expelled from their homes and properties, its an absolute true.

of course, 40 years of yasser arafats, hammas, hezzbollas, hijacked planes and suicide bombers, made the palestinians have a bad image around the world. behind this fool therrorists theres a certain arrogance, they couldnt get what they want by dialogue, the needs to be brutal and assholes. palestinians would be better without those a.holes.

but of course, 40 years of sabras and shatilas and ariel sharons didnt made a good image of israel for palestinians. 

btw, lets remember why this last intifada started: when ariel sharon visited the temple mount, 10 days after the anyversary of sabra and shatila massacre. a provocative act by likud.

i dont know how to put a end in this issue without harm israelis and palestinians. but i know the root of all problems in the region came from there.

i just think its a terrible disgrace. for one side, fanatic crazy and dangerous terrorists from hammas and al fatah. for another side, the merkavas and the rockets of israel. in the middle, the great part of palestinian people.


----------



## JugBR (Sep 11, 2008)

also, about that crisis of palestina, a great article from daniel pipes, himself, a zionist, talking about the present state of israel:

Zionism's Bleak Present - article by Daniel Pipes

very interesting reading


----------



## mkloby (Sep 11, 2008)

Jug - Did Israel initiate the war against many neighbors as well?


----------



## JugBR (Sep 11, 2008)

this is a question like: who became first, the egg or the chicken ?

for the palestinians, the jewish, supported by usa and u.n. started the war when they took their lands. 
for the israelis, its was allways their lands even been almost 2000 years away from that and the arabs started the war with the 6 days war and the acts of terrorism.

everybody is right and wrond at a certain point.

but the present solution, couldnt be more "solomonic" !


----------



## Pisis (Jan 6, 2009)

stasoid said:


> 40 years of living behind the iron curtain must've been a nightmare for your freedoom loving people and I'm really sorry for few of your patriots died in 1968'
> I dont wanna be very cynical here, but... at the end, you got your country independent, safe and sound, all in tact, it gained some territory, population grew, you still speak your language (and it's not German) ...
> Russian tourists are your best customers now...


You are Russian, right? 
Well, although Russians are one of the top customers here, they are difningtely not our best customers. We get much more American, Spanish, Japanese, Italian, German, etc... tourists.



stasoid said:


> I mean, 40 years is nothing in the long term. In 100 years noone will remember what iron curtain or socialist economy was...


Maybe this is the optics you see it but this is not truth. Czechs are a small nation and therefore they stick to their history much more than bigger nations. Every small kid here knows what has happened 100 years ago, when the Czechs were fighting to be recognized in the Austro-Hungarian Empire...



stasoid said:


> And later, in 1945 it was the Russians who reunited Sudeten Lands with the rest of Czechoslovakia. It is strange that you forgotten or just ignored these important facts.


Not really. Regaining the Sudetnland territory was one of the main goals of Beneš's Czechoslovak exile government in London, recognized in June 1940 by the Allies.



stasoid said:


> That was 1935. Since France signed a new treaty in 1938 in Munich becoming now Germany's ally, and neither the Soviets nor Czechs were even invited to that conferrence, that act, I guess automatically denounced all previouse agreements between France, USSR and Czechoslovakia.


They didn't become Hitler's ally, they only agreed on handing Czechoslovakia over to Hitler!



Ramirezzz said:


> Gashek


    LOL, it's Hašek, man! Ha-shek! 

I will even not comment on the few last posts of JugBR, as I don't want any more of these threads to be locked.


----------



## fly boy (Jan 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I love the fact that this thread proves how people do not read. The Poll specifically says that only Czechs and Polish members can vote in the thread.
> 
> Yet somehow a German (Airfix), South African (Henk), Russian (Mitya), Mexican (smg) and an American (fly boy) have managed to vote in the poll. Way to go guys!



der alder to me this seems more like a international thing then just czechs and polish


----------



## fly boy (Jan 8, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Oh no, Adler gonna have a hayday with that one.



oops


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2009)

fly boy said:


> der alder to me this seems more like a international thing then just czechs and polish



Yes that is true.

However...

Where are the sites going to be located?

1. Czech
2. Poland

So therefore it was stated in the very first thread and the title of the thread, that this was asking for the opinions of the people that live in those locations. It was posted loud and clear!

Therefore I ask you this?

1. Are you Polish?
2. Are you Czech?

Nope, so what is the problem?

Is it difficult to understand this:

*As a Czech or Polish Citizen, are you for the Anti Missile System? Only Czech/Poles!!*

Or...

*Now having said that, anyone can discuss in this thread, but please only vote in the poll if you are from the Czech or Poland.*


----------



## fly boy (Jan 9, 2009)

breath in and out


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2009)

fly boy, I am not a good mood tonight. If you have nothing constructive to say, then do not say it at all.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 9, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> fly boy, I am not a good mood tonight. If you have nothing constructive to say, then do not say it at all.



He does that on a lot of topics, which is quite annoying.


----------



## fly boy (Jan 9, 2009)

yea when i look at my own posts i seem to see that


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 9, 2009)

Then here is a piece of advice, shut the f*ck up.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Jan 9, 2009)

Well said Gnomey


----------

