Engineering News Blog

Engineering News

Latest news of interest to engineers. Sourced from GlobalSpec's Engineering News

Previous in Blog: Computer Science Programs Make a Comeback in Enrollment   Next in Blog: Turn a Sound Waveform Into a Bracelet
Close
Close
Close
80 comments

Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

Posted March 17, 2009 1:51 PM

From Gizmodo:

Oh hello, again, you Cold War you! As if we didn't have enough problems with worldwide economic collapse, the Russians are now testing President Obama's nuclear balls placing strategic nuclear bombers in Cuba and Venezuela: There are four or five airfields in Cuba with 4,000-meter-long runways, which absolutely suit us. That's what tovarishch Major General Anatoly Zhikharev—chief of staff of the Russian Air Force's long-range aviation—told Russian news agency Interfax, adding that "if the two chiefs of state display such a political will, we are ready to fly there." So basically, the Russians are now at the dick-waving testing-the-new-guy stage. Add this to the Chinese plans to build carrier battlegroups and their recent harassment against a US Navy oceanographic ship in international waters, and you will have a pretty grim picture of what may be brewing.

Read the whole article

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Anonymous Poster
#1

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/17/2009 3:09 PM

Hogwash.

The Chinese have little motivation for actual combat against the US or involvement in any large-scale conflict. They simply like to to sabre-rattle and watch people jump. For them it's much, much more about making sure the world frequently acknowledges their greatness.

I think the Russians are having a small resurgence of old school politics. The aging hard-liners are reminiscing about the "good old days" when they were powerful and relevant. They're trying to get in one last blustering hurrah. And there's perhaps a few middle-aged "youngsters" here and there who also look to the past and feel a little cheated because they just missed out on all the fun. But all in all Russia is pretty stable and rational at the moment.

Of course I could be entirely wrong and there could be soldiers and ICBMs from both countries swarming down my street this very moment. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.

Reply
7
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11109
Good Answers: 918
#2
In reply to #1

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/17/2009 5:32 PM

I would have to agree. The prospects of actual combat is close to nil.

Both cited examples are all part of the diplomatic chess game that other countries are playing to project their power.

I would argue that the new US administration is perceived abroad as both weak and inexperienced in foreign affairs. Russia, China, and many other countries are testing the "US waters" and diplomatically maneuvering to capitalize as much as they can.

However, I would not agree that Russia is pretty stable (nor entirely rational). Right now Russia is in a big financial bind and the price of oil, being suppressed, is exhasperating their financial problems all the more. Pressure from the US and the rest of the free world on Iran threatens Russia's investment in Iran's nuclear ambitions. Russia also took a big financial hit in the nose when we invaded Iraq, which was one of the bigger reasons Russia did not support the invasion of Iraq (the same applied to Germany and France). Maybe Russia is getting a sense of deja vu?

I think that the short-term action to watch is between Israel and Iran. If Israel feels compelled to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities to slow Iran's development of a nuclear bomb, then all hell could break out. Iran has threatened to shut down the Straits of Hormuz (among other things). Most of all Mid East Oil travels through that strait. Iran's government isn't all that stable, either.

If you think the price of oil was expensive last year, this year's spike will probably eclipse it if Iran makes good on that threat.

The new US administration has given Israel a very cold shoulder so far. The Bush administration refused to allow Israel to take action against Iran last year. However, Israel will act if they feel they are in a position that demands it. The incoming Israeli party and prime minister are more open to such a plan. However, Israel will be pretty well isolated by the world if and when they do. I give the odds of an Israeli strike probably at 60 to 70% right now and my best guess is that it will come as early as this summer or Fall.

The second big world hot spot to watch is Pakistan. The current government is in a very tenuous position. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA Middle East expert, was tasked to examine Afghanistan and Pakistan US policies. The report and subsequent intelligence reports have caught the new US administration off guard. After a recent intelligence briefing one of the new administration's aids was quoted as uttering "Holy Sh.t" as they emerged from that briefing. It is no secret that Pakistan is on the verge of a take over by radical Taliban extremists. Pakistan is a nuclear power with nuclear weapons and there are already obvious and serious cracks in the security of those weapons as I write.

Lastly, Mexico is under the very real threat of collapse from three drug cartels whose "soldiers'" combined numbers nearly equals the Mexican army. That violence has already spilled over into the US recently and a collapse of the Mexican government would be a huge problem for the US.

So, don't be fooled by China's and Russia's saber rattling. That isn't the real issue. Although, we will pay for some of that at a later date. The real problems are in the Middle East and just south of the US boarder. The new US administration's foreign policy is basically Peace, Love, and Understanding, which is very philosophically nice indeed, but not very realistic in practice. I have a feeling that Obama is trying to adjust to those realities now, but his projected image and his micro-managing administrative style are going to seriously confound those efforts.

The good news is that we owe so much money to China that in the event of something getting really serious, China is likely to intervene just to protect its investment! Okay, a little foreign policy sarcasm there.

Actually, China, Russia, and a multitude of other countries are looking for ways to cut the US down to size (economically and militarily) just to give the rest of them a little more political elbow room. That's another story altogether.

Tune in next week and I will be glad to critique domestic policy.

Reply Good Answer (Score 7)
Guru
United States - Member - Charter Member Engineering Fields - Instrumentation Engineering - Charter Member

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts
Posts: 1946
Good Answers: 73
#3
In reply to #2

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/17/2009 5:41 PM

AH, congratulations on your 100 ga's. However, I'm going to try to make it 101. A very well thought out answer, that I agree with.

We certainly live in exciting times.

__________________
I go into every human encounter expecting to be framed for a crime I didn't commit. Dilbert, 2013
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#4
In reply to #2

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/17/2009 7:01 PM

There is a good deal of on the ground combat going on. Since the US is doing most of it, and already at limits. You never really know. This is a multipolar balance of power world.

What that really means is that what makes sense, and what might occur, are extremely hard to predict.

To find how to predict what might happen, look to find whomever predicted World War I, since the power balance is similar.

The difference that is important to understand is that a Cold War situation, was an illustration of a Bi Polar Power Balance, as opposed to what we have now, which is a MultiPolar Power Balance.

Since the Bi Polar Power Balance worked. I have postulated that maintaining it by giving statehood to Russia, thereby recreating the Cold War, Bi-Polar Power Balance in relation to China, would have made the world more manageable.

The short term events between Israel and Iran, are absolutely a spot on assessment of potentially explosive instability. One of the most upsetting things to understand is that the Persians are Poets, and that they are passionate and poetic, and have a unique sense of humor. In this case the US for sure has completely failed to understand a people and a culture that could easily be an ally.

Between the American Citizen and the Russian Citizen, there are also incredible affinities. Political and Financial Leaders of the US and Russia have long before World War II feared that American Working Classes and Russian Working Classes would combine in opposition to the Corporations that have bought off the National Leaders, and sold the Working Classes of both nations, out.

Israel does illustrate the skew of the Multi Polar Power Balance, and I am in essential agreement with AH, though want to return to that aspect of the situation later, in more depth.

Truly Pakistan is a dangerous situation. It is ironic that the majority of UN Armed Forces are from the Pakistani Army. Unless India and Pakistan unite to maintain and advance peace in the region, we are pretty much fucked.

(forgive me, I just couldn't find a better word.)

Prior to Obama's election, I did say that my great fear was that he would be same as Carter. My only hope as far as any difference was that Obama came out of rough and tumble Chicago Politics. Chicago is a tough town where people kill each over over work. Chicago is a town where you say your mind and expect to make a friend, and an enemy whenever, whatever, and knowing it is one way or another, at a price.

P.S. Anonymous Hero gets a GA from me, though we are having some difficulties concerning Climate Change stats.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Car Customizing - Dances with Trees Canada - Member - because I can Hobbies - CNC - too much fun Hobbies - Target Shooting - paper shreader

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 769
Good Answers: 10
#7
In reply to #4

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 7:19 AM

Well said, and it covers the situation very well, except for one wild rabbit, North Korea which is about as unpredictable as mercury on a paint shaker.

Historically the US and Russia fight each other via proxy nations, and for years the build up has been between Israel and Iran, now with the US giving Israel the cold shoulder things have short circuited and anything could happen, probably not good. The diplomatic talks between the US and Iran, however low level adds an interesting spice to the soup.

Pakistan was destine to collapse as most despot ruled nations do eventually, having nukes just makes it scarier.

The Mexico problem is the real nasty, drug lords(DL) with huge well paid armies vs the government with a poorly paid army. The DL also have assault troops on US soil in the form of the street gang distribution network. When things finally brake out, it will turn nasty really fast. I had a good laugh last night when CNN reported they had granades, oooh, they have more than that, considering the vast amount of cash they have on hand. A gorund was along the US Mexican borer is only a matter of time and the opposition will once again be hard to tell from non-combatants.

We are really living in interesting times.

__________________
Kevin "Dances with Trees" Willey
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Posts: 313
Good Answers: 7
#9
In reply to #7

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 8:37 AM

"A gorund was along the US Mexican borer" ?

__________________
Bill Morrow
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Car Customizing - Dances with Trees Canada - Member - because I can Hobbies - CNC - too much fun Hobbies - Target Shooting - paper shreader

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 769
Good Answers: 10
#21
In reply to #9

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 6:33 AM

oops

__________________
Kevin "Dances with Trees" Willey
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Posts: 313
Good Answers: 7
#26
In reply to #21

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 10:47 AM

Kevan-

I wasn't trying to be a smartaleck. I can't figure out what you meant to say.

__________________
Bill Morrow
Reply
Power-User
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Chemical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 367
Good Answers: 10
#27
In reply to #26

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 11:24 AM

A ground war along the US-Mexican border is what I think he was saying.

__________________
Money doesn't talk, it screams in your face.
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#13
In reply to #7

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 2:19 PM

Your mention of North Korea just further illustrates the multiplicity of threats. I believe I heard the other day that North Korea was refusing Food Aid. Why they would do that is not known to me. Any insights would be appreciated.

The recent loss of an important airbase for the prosecution of the US & Nato conflict in Afghanistan buttresses some Historical proxy conflict patterns as concerns historical relations between Russia, and the US.

I have not fully grasped here either what great benefit this could be to hobble attempts to stabilize Afghanistan for Russia. A stabilized Afghanistan represents land access to India and Pakistan markets for Russian goods, and is obviously too much for one nation to effect. Russia would achieve benefit from allowing the US and Nato to at least clear the road for them to exploit. -Again too bad the Cold War didn't end with Statehood for Russia!

As far as Mexico and the Drug War, well, the influence of that War on insecurity internationally is much more profound than it is allowed to be addressed. I did once live in a place where the economy was based on Drug sales and smuggling. As a practical matter drugs are one thing, and weapons are another. Legalization of drugs would increase international security simply due to the fact that it would separate Weapons Smuggling, and Weapons Smugglers, from Drug Smugglers.

Certainly all the other War Fronts can be viewed as temporary in comparison to the Drug War, that has in the US made all but "Gated Communities" into war zones.

As a simple practical matter, it is advisable to reduce war fronts, and of wars going on, The International Drug War, is truly the longest consistent War predating, and outliving even The Cold War.

Certainly stabilization of Afghanistan would be more likely if the Hashish they make could be legally sold to markets in Europe, such as in Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands. As long as that trade is lumped in with the other war, there is little hope for any modicum of security, and further I will predict at some time WMD events flowing out of an international refusal to put morality second to ethics.

Let me put it this way: It is both a moral, and ethical outrage to murder, whereas it is considered moral to kill or jail others right often for not believing as your sect, or theocratic leadership mandates.

It could be well the truth that the Quakers, Society of Friends have taken the most logical ethical stance by opposing all war.

However in the case of the UN, I do not think this is either possible, or practical. I feel that the UN partially is doomed, because it does cleave to an impossible idealism of ending all war, whereas it is more practical to enforce rules of war.

In discussing Wars, and Wars to be, I do include The Drug War as most general internationally, longest running, and most destructive and threatening to the most people because of what it has done to the social fabric, and what it does facilitate when you understand motives for crimes, and smuggling.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Car Customizing - Dances with Trees Canada - Member - because I can Hobbies - CNC - too much fun Hobbies - Target Shooting - paper shreader

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 769
Good Answers: 10
#22
In reply to #13

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 7:01 AM

Going to be hard to follow that...

Prohibition of anything really doesn't work, and most of today's problems were created when an attempt to ban alcohol use in the US was attempted. People simply turned to other substances during those years or found a speak easy or tea club.

Lots of people got very rich, lots of people got very dead, and in the end the prohibition on alcohol was lifted. The alternate sources of getting a buzz didn't go away, and after some very strong lobbying by the alcohol manufactures, one by one they became illegal. Did that work, just another form of prohibition and the 'drugs' went underground, history repeats people get very rich, people get very dead.

The current war on drugs can not ever be won simply because until poverty is eliminated there will always be people willing to try anything to brake up the tedium of doing nothing day in day out. The 'drug' issue is cross all finical levels but in every case the new chemical of the day starts in the slums, human lab rats in a sense.

Since that isn't going to happen in our lifetime, and a 'war on' will not work, it only makes good press for silly politicians, an alternate has to be implemented. legalization and controlled distribution would seem to be the way to go. Elimination a large portion of the financing for those who want to change society in general to their way of thinking.

__________________
Kevin "Dances with Trees" Willey
Reply
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4273
Good Answers: 213
#41
In reply to #22

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 9:50 PM

Unfortunately, legalization of drugs is NOT economically feasible. Such action would result in a financial collapse that would make AIG look like kindergarten. Legalized drugs would put more people out of business than the collapse of all three US automakers- and these "employees" would be very hard to train for alternative work...

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Milky Way galaxy, Sol solar system, Earth (not Giaha), USA, WA, N.E.
Posts: 691
Good Answers: 13
#5
In reply to #2

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/17/2009 7:03 PM

Good job AH and a GA from here too.

Serioully well written, concise and enough (one would think) to scare the hell out of anyone not too blinded by the ministers of misinformation or their own rose colored glasses.

Interesting times indeed.

__________________
They that do not learn from history and apply those lessons to the present are bound to repeat its failures.
Reply
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4273
Good Answers: 213
#40
In reply to #2

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 9:39 PM

Anonymous Hero-

Excellent analysis. One issue you have overlooked, and one that I can not confirm absolutely, is, where are the guns coming from in Mexico? I have reason to believe they are coming from Venezuela (there have been a couple of suspicious busts here in Panama, and Chavez has stuck his nose into Mexican politics in the past. Chavez has been buying far more arms than he could possibly use from the Russians. He has also done everything he can to aggravate Latin American disputes, threatening to invade Columbia over the Columbian incursion into Ecuador, supplying arms to the Columbian rebels, igniting arguments between Columbia and Nicaragua over sovereignty over a couple of small islands, and the list grows). Meanwhile, US foreign policy panders to declared enemies, while punishing friends...

Whoops. This is an engineering blog. Not a political blog. Off topic...

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11109
Good Answers: 918
#42
In reply to #40

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 10:19 PM

You are right. I have not delved into that aspect of world affairs. Right now the NY Times and the LA Times are pointing the finger at the the US for supplying arms.

Does anyone have anything on the validity of that?

As far as I know, all sales of weapons in the US made trough gun shops, gun dealers, and pawn shops must be put through a NIC check. Obviously, being a foreign citizen would block the sale immediately. The only way around that is to:

a. buy weapons directly from private citizens

b. set up a straw man purchase through a US citizen

c. FFLs (Federal Firearm Licensed dealers) selling arms directly to foreign citizens

I may be wrong, but it seems like it would not be easy to get any one of the three methods to work in any quantity for a host of reasons given the volume of alleged guns. I do know that the LA Times and the NY Times both have an agenda and they collaborate on that agenda. It may be a very real problem, but then again, it may just be another band wagon for the anti-gun movement.

If you want my guess, yes, it is a serious problem, but the US Government is not taking it seriously (they only have a few hundred BATF agents that are assigned to that region and they are severely understaffed). In other words, we need more laws instead of more enforcement.

Now I have heard that there have been smuggling of arms via newly formed relationships between several Islamic terrorist groups based in Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay and Mexican drug cartels. I have not seen proof of that, but there is definitly drug traffic associated with these ties and in 2007 NDIC reported this as one of their accomplisments. I know someone that is very high up in the State Department that operates in that region working on anti-drug inderdiction. Next time I see him I will ask and see if he is willing to comment.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - Car Customizing - Dances with Trees Canada - Member - because I can Hobbies - CNC - too much fun Hobbies - Target Shooting - paper shreader

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 769
Good Answers: 10
#56
In reply to #42

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/21/2009 1:18 PM

There seems to be a huge amount of funding behind the Islamic extremist groups, most of it coming from the poppy trade in Afghanistan, which bring a totally different spin to things. allow me to elaborate, the Afghan farmer has to grow a crop on land that by any measurement is miserable for crop production. Poppy production pays very well as a cash crop, and they actually make enough to feed their families. The area is very unstable to say the least, it has been tribal longer than the US has existed and has never been truly conquered, although through out history many have tried. This gets even more complicated with the unstable government next door in Pakistan. The extremist group have taken over a large part of the country, again a very poor region, and the government has not got the resources to expel those who are running the poppy trade. Again the drug money is making the life just a bit easier for the localized people who once again are tribal and will not bite the hand that feed them.

So you have cultivation and initial processing in a region where they are relatively unmolested, and almost untouchable because they blend in with the locals. The military is seen as the invader because they look different and because they are seen as taking away the opportunity of the locals to feed themselves.

Shipping the product half way around the world is easy mainly due to the lask of stability in the country of origin and the willingness of the county of destination to look the other way. Once in the western hemisphere delivery to the US is simple based on the fact that the same money is used to feed the unrest and to keep conflict alive.

The only group that could simply step in a snip off the head and tail of the snake that is drup processing and delivery is the UN, and they have become so politicized that they will never move to solve the problem facing the world with reference to the drug trade. Funny thing China, Russia, and several of the others who regularly veto any attempt at interdiction have the same drug problem as the US. What is required to stop this problem is putting aside the distrust and suspicion and the formation of a multinational force to stop the production and distribution. This is only the first step, following the removal of those who are running the trade, the local people have to be given something else to provide them with a means to feed themselves, if not the whole system only re-roots and we start all over again.

Political desire to actually solve the problem, public reaction be dammed, is not something that is likely to happen. There are always those who will scream about the human rights being trampled and there must be a better way. I for one wish there was, but everything seems to have been tried, and billions has been spent on band aids with the result of what we have today. A time comes when drastic measures have to be applied, in order to fix the problems that those that came before have created.

We are indeed living in interesting times, and the path we are treading is leading to an unpleasant future, Oswell's 1984 was just misnamed, we are heading there at a very fast pace, and the victims are all the wrong people.

Bummer

Notice my spelling is getting better...

__________________
Kevin "Dances with Trees" Willey
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 734
Good Answers: 70
#64
In reply to #56

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/23/2009 11:15 AM

Why not start a bidding war for the opium poppy crop? The Taliban and others may be making fat bank from the processing and distribution, but the Afghan farmers - not so much.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Car Customizing - Dances with Trees Canada - Member - because I can Hobbies - CNC - too much fun Hobbies - Target Shooting - paper shreader

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 769
Good Answers: 10
#65
In reply to #64

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/23/2009 11:49 AM

Interesting idea, provide more money for their cash crop and send the products into Pharmaceuticals rather than the street. That could solve the heroin funding extremists end of things, but it still leaves a lot of alternate chemicals that enter the street market to take care of.

__________________
Kevin "Dances with Trees" Willey
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 734
Good Answers: 70
#66
In reply to #65

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/23/2009 12:22 PM

One problem at a time. I don't imagine that this would do much to end drug addiction - many people like to get high. But with probably 1/3 of the adult world population unemployed and with at least a temporary dimming of their chances to improve (at least for now while the world economy takes a dive), addiction is likely to increase. Most people consider that a problem, but it appears to me that the huge profits available are fueling a world wide militarization of the drug traffic and I think this is the more serious problem. If we can find ways to limit the cash flow, we can deal with the health and moral issues separately.

I spent many years working as a musician, and have known more than a few junkies. They are mostly pathetic and sad people, but I can live with those personal tragedies more easily than I can with the crime needed to support their habbits, or more importantly with the profits from their addiction going to support terrorists and other para-military types.

Reply
Participant

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Planet Earth Kingdom
Posts: 3
#51
In reply to #40

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 10:40 AM

that must be terrible all that trouble brewing so close.

now tell me again what the USA has been doing with its armament sales to whom and why, oh and injecting money into oposition political parties to destabalise those same countries. oh thats different, that then gives the USA an excuse to invade and liberate them.... oh now I get, how silly of me

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11109
Good Answers: 918
#78
In reply to #2

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

04/23/2009 1:52 PM

Just an update. The situation in Pakistan is sadly pretty much following what I predicted.

At this rate we may see the fall of that country into Taliban control withing 60 days. The wild card is the Pakistan military, which has historically acted on its own (not under government command) at times. The Pakistan military is 140,000 strong (larger than the US Army) and has 100 nuclear weapons. Many of the military are Taliban sympathisers, so it is a crap shoot what the Pakistan military will do or can do.

This is a very, very serious situation that is not getting much news attention. If Taliban forces get control of Pakistan and its arsenal there will be a significant and sudden shift of power in that region that dwarfs anything before.

On the Russian front Russia appears to be setting itself up to re-invade Georgia. In spite of economic collapse, Russia is pouring money into its military and it is pouring both men and equipment near the border of Georgia. Does this mean another incursion is coming? I don't know, but it looks like Russia is trying to stack the deck so that it can claim cause to do so if it sees a political reason. I think that Russia is strategically trying to play chess in Europe and particularly East Europe to manipulate its power and influence in that region. They may win that game, too.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Milky Way galaxy, Sol solar system, Earth (not Giaha), USA, WA, N.E.
Posts: 691
Good Answers: 13
#79
In reply to #78

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

04/23/2009 4:17 PM

Thanks for that AH,

I subscribe to some Israeli news sources and am seeing the same things. It's too bad our media are so short on real news. It looks a lot bleaker for the US in the long run than what we are led to believe here.

As a follower of Biblical prophesy these events come as no supprise to me. Many people are headed for a nasty turn of events, I think.

__________________
They that do not learn from history and apply those lessons to the present are bound to repeat its failures.
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Car Customizing - Dances with Trees Canada - Member - because I can Hobbies - CNC - too much fun Hobbies - Target Shooting - paper shreader

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 769
Good Answers: 10
#80
In reply to #78

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

04/23/2009 4:48 PM

I have been following this via various news feeds I get, one good thing about the interesting times we are in, information is flowing faster than ever via the net.

It is interesting that the main media outlets are not giving this much coverage, which ultimately means that they are having problem finding something to talk about.

This may also be a case of there is already so much bad news out there that the editorial staff has decided to set that aside for now. Bad enough the US is actually in a depression, which is being called a deep recession. The rules governing the counting of the unemployed changes several years ago, makes the political types not to look as total losers.

things are indeed going to be interesting.

__________________
Kevin "Dances with Trees" Willey
Reply
Anonymous Poster
#6

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 2:13 AM

It might occur to you that someone in Russia & China thought the same about the USA bases near their own borders and RESPONDED in-kind.

Anti-missile bases in poland (eastern europe) and S.Korea etc.

You guys only like giving, how about learning to gracefully receive the same ?

make you nervous? then don't make others nervous, FIRST!

SIMPLE! ;-)

"It was nice and quiet - 'till the Dubya's went gun-ho'

To stop all the nonsense have faith in The Big 'O' !"

Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11109
Good Answers: 918
#8
In reply to #6

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 8:31 AM

I don't mean to be unkind, but that is very shallow thinking on the part of foreign affairs.

There are two levels of diplomacy and rhetoric that make up every nation-state's composure. Your statement examines the outer shell of posturing, which is the public expression designed for general public consumption (both internal to the nation-state and external or other states). Beneath that layer is another layer which is the actual nation-state's policy position and their political aspirations.

When you distill the argument down to two different administrations and then make the claim that everything was fine before the Bush administration took office simply shows, if I may use a euphemism here, that your slip is showing.

Most of us do not know (let alone understand) the behind-the-scenes dance that goes on. This is by design. The public, myself included, simply do not have access to the behind the doors data. We must infer it based on what data we can obtain and a good working knowledge of human history. In this case you claim that the motives behind China's and Russia's public policy are a result of public policy initiated by the US, specifically "W's" gun-ho policies. I submit to you that this is completely wrong.

This is by far not the simple case you believe and is really only what resides on the surface of a much deeper game. If you believe that simply not offending other nations will provide the best results with world politics you are very sadly mistaken. I believe that even Obama is not that naive. However, I have not seen anything to date that inspires confidence that your little limerick holds any truth whatsoever.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1601
Good Answers: 58
#11
In reply to #8

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 9:22 AM

I agree with your assessment that the public only sees the official stories they are fed by the governments, and have very little knowledge of what is really going on in the policy and decision making process. On the other hand, we must form opinions based with the information we have access to. If our president tells us that we must invade a country to rid the world of WMDs, we must agree with him. If it later turns out that the WMDs are not found and our president tell us that we must stay in that country to promote democracy, we have very little influence in the matter. I just hope they never discover huge oil reserves in Tibet.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 734
Good Answers: 70
#14
In reply to #8

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 2:22 PM

You make a good point about the difference between to public pronouncements and private motives of political leaders (in all countries), and the implications this has for any well meaning citizen who is trying to figure out just what the hell their government is up to. But this is just a fact of life that we all, especially those of us who live in democracies who are therefore personally responsible for their government's policies and actions have to live with.

But I think you are a bit off-base in your criticism of 'guest' in post six. History is full of examples of peaceful peoples who treated other nations with respect and were still trampled under the boots of their more militaristic neighbors. But it is also true that both in national and personal affairs that we can sometimes piss people off with our actions.

People and nations may well decide that it is in their best interests to ignore the insult, or they may find it a useful excuse for their own bad behavior. But sometimes their is no overwhelming personal or national interest involved, or the interests may be muddied and conflicted. In such cases the insult may be a determining factor in how the aggrieved party reacts. Believe it or not some people have shorter fuses than others, and longer memories.

Sometimes there is an air of 'predestination' in international affairs. It was pretty clear to our (US) leaders back in the 50's that a recently elected leftist government in Iran presented a real possibility for the USSR to expand into the Middle East, giving them access to oil and an opportunity to create mischief. Certainly our leaders of the time anticipated that this would cause problems in the future, but they calculated that the immediate problem was worth that risk. Now we are living in that future, the problem is real, and we may or may not deal with it successfully. But when you throw your weight around you MAKE enemies. Many countries will resent being used in pawns in a big power game, and will take advantage of changing circumstances to get even.

Sometimes things are not so clear. Our historic tendency to support repressive cleptocracies in our own hemisphere was not so much in our national interest, as it was in the personal financial interests of some people in high levels of our government. Cuba is a good example of this. I'm not arguing that if we had been more 'friendly' to Castro that he would not have aligned with the USSR. I'm arguing that if we had not provided support to the criminals who were running the place, that the conditions that led to revolution might well have evolved differently. But after several decades of aligning ourselves with the thugs in power it certainly became clear to the Cuban people that we were not their friends but were instead 'part of the problem'.

So I think 'guest' is half right. If we act in a forthright and fair manner with others, they may still turn against us. But if we treat others with contempt, if we treat them like ants at our picnic, if we take actions that crush their hopes and dreams, they will very likely turn against us.

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#17
In reply to #14

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 5:33 PM

There is a mechanism within the Charter of the United Nations that actually addresses Public and Private differences of Nations. It is designed to take into account that a Public Announcement by a Nation is not necessarily meant for the Nation to whom it is addressed, but really meant for the constituents of the Nation it is coming from.

It is recognized that when faced with a problem, the international community of Diplomats, Ambassadors, and even Statesmen are inhibited from working together openly. The UN Article is Article 99, which does allow for Secret Meetings and Negotiations.

In Andre` Lewin's Points for ReInvention of the UN, he recommends more use of Article 99. (Mr. Lewin had a long career either as an Ambassador from France, either to Nations individually in behalf of France, or at the UN. In the archives of my site I write about Article 99. Essentially I say Mr. Lewin is right, but only suggest further that in all such secret Article 99 meetings, an International Attorney ought to be the one to sign off on the legality of whatever comes out of such meetings, and really ought to be there in them as both a witness, and an advisor so as to provide a measure of trust and legitimacy to such events.)

In the end it is not very helpful to judge a government based solely on its form of government. Better to judge the government and the nation on what it does, than what it says it is, or will do.

My little doggerel poem partly on this goes: A Good King, Is a Good Thing, Tried and True, and Nothing New.

In this post I have primarily addressed Johnfotl's first paragraph in the post I have rejoined to here. My leap to a mention of the UN Article 99 may be a shade hard to follow. It primarily comes from the words in the first paragraph "Public" and "Private".

As far as Projections of Power on the Seas, or by Missile Bases, they may well be wasted efforts among friends similar to soccer or basketball games, when real threats are not between Nation States, but between Nation States and International Cartels, Cabals, and unnamed Fanatical groups.

What is truly interesting about life is that on the one hand it as True to Believe in inalterable absolute truths, and on the other to know One not ever believe in anything too much.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Popular Science - Paleontology - New Member

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Holeincanoe Ontario
Posts: 2169
Good Answers: 27
#57
In reply to #17

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/21/2009 4:25 PM

Bill Reids Haida Gwaii.

A carving illustrating a canoe filled with the Powers that Be and a single human paddler.

In this allegory Reid depicts a full canoe. According to him it has no known destination. The Gods argue about which direction to take. They fight amongst each other. Some have become fatalists. All face either forward or backward ...except for the human who finds himself as merely an instrument of work and will paddle in whichever direction is agreed upon....if ever it will be agreed upon.

I've always admired the Indian sense of humour.

__________________
Prophet Freddy has the answer!
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#58
In reply to #57

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/22/2009 3:58 PM

It is a wonderful carving. I guess there is little reason for a "God" to really care where they are going. At one point in my intellectual career I was called to identify mankind as on the cusp of being a Big Time Species.

What I meant by that was that Mankind was capable of surviving the loss of its home on earth, and that this is the defining achievement of any other self conscious being we can acknowledge as a Big Time species.

Ignorant puzzled and angry Mankind has had the luxury of decolands of time to fight with each other.

What use of a rock thrown, or arrow shot, or rifle bullet is there really against what really could kill us all off?

Our wars between each other have been nothing but Research and Development meant to equip us for the ultimate achievement of mastery of our real weather, that is made out of a Solar System.

Since we know that at one point "we" homo sapiens were reduced to a population of 12,000, I recommend we make plans to support 12,000 of us to be able to live permanently off of the planet.

That 12,000 shall have as their primary job protection of the planet from Asteroid Strikes. Their secondary job will be to simply survive and colonize Mars and Venus.

We are not to abuse them by making spaceships for them that don't have gravity.

After participating and reading this particular Blog Thread, I was prompted to point out what a waste if time and money it is for the US and Russia to threaten each other with bombers and missiles.

Since both nations still have some submarines with which to threaten each other right well day in and day out like brothers sharing the same room, I lament the extra effort, better turned to flying things.

If I have to I will put up with a certain amount of insanity. However my goal is to steer the crew towards being a destination, since most destinations are less attractive than home.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Popular Science - Paleontology - New Member

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Holeincanoe Ontario
Posts: 2169
Good Answers: 27
#59
In reply to #58

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/22/2009 4:34 PM

Further to the carving........the company (a self contained artsy compendium of wealthy trophy wives) got 1.9 million $ to find an artist and contract the carving for the new Canadian embassy in Washington. They did....and paid him $250k to do it....Bill Reid. The casting and the bronze costs were significantly over budget and yet he didn't get a cent more from them. Eventually he mortgaged his house and the native population raised enough capital for him to complete the work...but only to complete the work...ie no money for him or his helpers.

Only after the director of the Vancouver airport, on his own initiative, ordered a second sculpture did Reid get any money.

The 'ladies' had many lovely dinners/parties and fact-finding junkets to all the art centres in the world.

Reid couldn't afford to be at the unveiling.

I have to wonder whether this is what all those subs are protecting.

Meanwhile....save a seat for me.

__________________
Prophet Freddy has the answer!
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#60
In reply to #59

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/22/2009 6:05 PM

Well actually yes, wars, and conflicts do revolve around women. This is especially stark when you look at the reasons for the War Between the States. The White Men owned the Black Women, and the White Women, and even if they didn't per se, they had an interest in the hope of it.

In nations where the US has greatest threats you can about demark them entirely on the basis of the rights of women.

Of course Submarines with Coed crews are required of the US naval fleet, if we are to be able to point to the US as any fully realized citizen army devoid of hypocrisy. Actually we deny honor to all citizens as equal if we prohibit any sector or set, race, sex or religion from any service to the country.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Posts: 313
Good Answers: 7
#61
In reply to #60

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/23/2009 10:12 AM

"wars, and conflicts do revolve around women. This is especially stark when you look at the reasons for the War Between the States. The White Men owned the Black Women, and the White Women"

Hm-m-m, interesting. And all this time I thought wars were fought over economic issues, such as natural resources, cheap labor, etc.

__________________
Bill Morrow
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Hobbies - Car Customizing - Dances with Trees Canada - Member - because I can Hobbies - CNC - too much fun Hobbies - Target Shooting - paper shreader

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 769
Good Answers: 10
#62
In reply to #61

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/23/2009 10:48 AM

I think it is more of a perception thing, in this case the US seems to be getting into conflicts with countries where individual rights are very few or non-existent.

There seems to be a quest to bring democracy to the world, equal rights to everyone, or at least that is the way the spin goes. I truth it is all about a threat to the US, real or imagined, in one form or another. Mainly about the stability of the oil supply, but only since the end of the cold war, before that is was all about ideology.

Funny thing about democracy, a very miss used term, people really don't have much say in how things are going to be run, you get to vote every few years, but the spin doctors saturate the air waves with so much marketing and hype that you don't really get much choice.

The last presidential campaign was interesting in that they actually came out and said; we will do this if elected, they also stayed totally away from the traditional mud slinging. funny thing, they won.

back on subject sort of, these people that the WE are bringing democracy to are society that for their whole existence to date are tribal, and for he most part are have no problems with the way things are.

For example look at the Arab states, and the history here is just an example of how great powers come and go. Century's ago they were the world power, through conflict the receded to tribal life and upon discovery of oil returned to world prominence, again a real power. Still run by royal families, and decades ago with a very few educated members of society. Simplified granted, but who wants to read a blow by blow of the last 700 years.

Look now to Afghanistan, again once a power in it's region, and through conflict toppled almost to the stone age, very much tribal, and once again the WE are trying to bring them democracy.

Scary indeed, and it seems I have lost my train of thought again...

__________________
Kevin "Dances with Trees" Willey
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#67
In reply to #61

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/23/2009 3:22 PM

My thesis is that ultimately economic issues arise from the natural need to get a woman, and keep her happy. Can't get a girl, work, put food on the table, may as well go to war.

The writer James Jones, author of From Here to Eternity, The Thin Red Line, Whistle, Go to the Widowmaker, wrote a nonfiction book of which I am not really certain what the title was. WWII Diary maybe? He is surprisingly blunt about his view of how young men are motivated to go to war when they fail to achieve "ownership" of a woman.

In his fine work, Some Came Running, one of his characters who suffers a broken heart, immediately joins the Army ultimately having his throat cut on a Korean War battlefield.

I've known men driven to crime out of the bald desire to achieve the means necessary to capture the affections of a particular woman.

On a Macro Scale we may study the story of Anthony and Cleopatra, or consider the story of Helen of Troy.

Real poverty, is not that you don't have much, real poverty is the inability to give things away.

And who do we most typically across all cultures want to give our money to?

The American Indians did have a history of attacking other tribes with the specific goal of taking their women.

Scratch the surface of US conflicts in the Middle East, and I believe you will soon find that certainly in Afghanistan there will be resistance resting on fears of any change in how they can treat "their" women.

How about you simply divide nations and cultures according to the comparative rights of women?

Look then at whom the West, the US, and Nato Countries are in violent conflict with. Typically it is with nations and tribes where women are essentially owned.

Gottah tell you many of my fist fights early in my life were for the defense of my sisters.

Even later in my life I was in fights over either my girlfriend, or in one case over my wife.

I got in one fistfight because I was talking to an old girlfriend, and her boyfriend threatened my life, so I beat him up.

And Hell, I consider myself an intellectual!

What does it get for the Russians to threaten the US?

Sometimes you figure a nation threatens and or attacks the easiest target.

I have not had an opportunity to visit Russia and observe how women are treated, but was under the impression they did have rights approaching parity with women in the US.

It does seem often that women eschew politics and war as dirty business, beneath them, but they sure aren't shy about telling a guy, what they want.

In the end recently I myself am inclined to some depression when I hear of US willingness to accommodate the Taliban, which I understood as extremely mean to women.

When the Russian Pilot of the Bomber in Cuba gets home on leave, and says to his wife, "Hey, we're getting back at the Americans for looting our country, by scaring them with our great bomber!" I hope she says, "How'd you like those Cuban girls?" "What?"

"-At least the Americans are trying to help my sisters."

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Car Customizing - Dances with Trees Canada - Member - because I can Hobbies - CNC - too much fun Hobbies - Target Shooting - paper shreader

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 769
Good Answers: 10
#68
In reply to #67

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/24/2009 7:07 AM

Interesting thesis, and after thinking on it for a time, I must agree. I can clearly remember footage on CNN of a woman being executed in Afghanistan for some infraction and my first reaction was where is my sniper riffle. I really wanted to take the fool out.

I have also noticed one of my neighbors gets his back up every time I talk to his wife, now I am not a really big guy, but I do look very different from just about anyone else I know, which may have kept him at bay initially. He has since calmed down but only a bit.

The crusades were actually a reaction to a huge fighting force returning home from war. they had been fighting, pillaging and raping for so long that upon return home the trend tended to carry on, on a much reduced scale, but continued it did.

The answer, a 'holy' crusade against the infidel. I remember a conversation with a history major years ago, at the time he said something along the line of; funny there is never any mention of the policy that only the very prettiest of girls were sent back to Rome, apparently at the command of the pope at the time.

Defend the girls and mothers has, many times throughout history been used to rouse the troops before an invasion, even in modern times. I seem to recall Georgie saying something along those lines at least once in one of his blundered speeches.

Good point, and thanks for bringing it up.

__________________
Kevin "Dances with Trees" Willey
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Posts: 313
Good Answers: 7
#69
In reply to #67

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/24/2009 11:43 AM

You make a fairly convincing argument. So, the solution to ending war is... to make sure every man owns a woman?

__________________
Bill Morrow
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 734
Good Answers: 70
#70
In reply to #69

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/24/2009 12:42 PM

If I read Transcendian's post correctly there is a second point: try to pick a woman carefully, who has modest expectations for the luxuries of life (this is a bit absurd because generally, at least in open cultures it is the woman who does the picking). Wars may be fought by men without women, but started by men looking for goodies to bring home to try and keep the lady of the house in a good mood.

On the other hand, I think another cause is men getting in pissing contests with each other over who can demonstrate the greatest hatred for their enemy. The leader is therefore usually the guy who is the biggest asshole. At some point an upstart will suggest that the leader is all talk, and to prove him wrong the leader will declare war. At that point it doesn't really matter why that particular 'enemy' was chosen. Pride makes backing down impossible.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#74
In reply to #70

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/25/2009 1:03 AM

Don't know if you read me correctly or not.

Assume women to have grand expectations.

Even if they don't, you won't go wrong in general if you function accordingly.

In the novel by Larry McMurtry The Last Picture Show, there is a sweet story of pissing.

Sex and War are really the same thing, only different.

Loyal Leader of the Opposition is the thing you are thinking about.

Such reality is why all Democracies other than the experimental US Federal system are typically Parlamentary types.

We can discuss this later.

I do think there are skews of equality between belligerents, and inequalities that affect what matters.

The issue of Pride is one I feel worthy of thought and wish I had left today the energy to properly address it in a sociological sort of way.

As a private matter, I have to say I know all my father had left was pride that he had fought with his countrymen in a foreign land.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - Car Customizing - Dances with Trees Canada - Member - because I can Hobbies - CNC - too much fun Hobbies - Target Shooting - paper shreader

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 769
Good Answers: 10
#76
In reply to #70

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/25/2009 6:38 AM

The unstable person factor has popped up over and over again in history, Sudam being one of the recent, Nepolian arguable was a bit nuts, but then again the war between France and Brittan had been going on for a while. The Leader of North Korea is obviously crackers.

Or perhaps they were just a product of their society, or their segment of society. Some would consider Georgie a bit nuts but he is just a product of being sheltered by his parents from most reality. He grew up privileged and when he finally went out into the world he didn't have a clue. You see that a lot now with the current crop of politicians, and corporate presidents, COOs or CEOs, you wonder why they seem to be so detached from reality. In fact they have never been in what we see as a day to day existence and have no idea how the vast majority view life in general.

__________________
Kevin "Dances with Trees" Willey
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#71
In reply to #69

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/24/2009 2:04 PM

Well bmorrow492, for every simple truth, there is a nearly impossibly complex and vexing solution.

Since the Tread comes from the report that the Russians intend to deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba and Venezuela, which revives and continues The Cold War I must pivot my thinking from the basic motivations for war.

For the Russians to put Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba ought to be yielded to as their right in relation to where the US has Nuclear Bombers and missiles. They wanted to do that a good while ago, and as long as Cuba is treated as a No Go Zone, embargoed and demonized by the US, really, the Cold War is not resolved.

As a foil to the thrust I myself would advice the US to in reaction to the basing of Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, counter by simply normalizing relations with Cuba, ending all embargos, and lifting all travel restrictions.

Russian, Cuban, and American women would have an interest in this event since they like to go on vacations and are pretty much interested in the same things.

Further if Americans can Vacation and do business in Cuba, if Russia bombs Miami, then there will be Americans still hanging around on the beaches of Cuba, not to mention some Russian women shopping in Miami.

Okay, so Strategic Nuclear Bombers Advance Peace Through Shopping!

"Damn, I can't bomb Miami today, my wife is there shopping." -says the Russian Bomber Pilot. Now in the prior post I did use words like ownership, "own a woman". We know we are not supposed to really accept as a reality ownership of someone else. However we are aware that that is what it sometimes feels like. Men like the feeling of being able to say, "That's my girl." Nobody gets out of sorts when you say, "Here's my wife.", or a woman says, "Here is my husband." - So the feeling of ownership is more universally understood, than any laws or politically correct speech.

"Here is the woman who volunteered to act like a wife, though legally not necessarily permanently obligated to do so."

I myself would hesitate to introduce my wife to others at a State Function using such language.

At any rate in this blog thread I admit I cannot end all wars.

Should I succeed in instituting an International Minimum Wage, combined with Universal Whole Life Insurance policies for all, thereby creating parity between capital and labor, then relative peace could be achieved among nation states competing for the means to have exciting or comfortable relationships with women.

(Dick Gephardt also posited that an International Minimum Wage was called for due to the degree of Globalization.)

As relates to the positioning of Bombers in Cuba and Venezuela, my recommendation is that to end the Cold War, it be rolled with.

I'd normalize relations with Cuba.

Encourage the Russian Bomber Pilots to bring their wives with them from Russia, and even invite them to fly over in that cool looking plane to Miami, and go shopping.

Possibly Michelle Obama would enjoy shopping with Russian and Cuban women in Miami?

Us guys could check out the plane. Maybe have a Bomber Ballet between a B 52 and a Bear? We could put our bombs out on the ramp, and compare them, take pictures of ourselves stroking each others bombs.

The wives could show up in red dresses and all of us could get a tan, have a drink, and dance and flirt later on South Beach.

What fun it would be to invite every Nuclear Armed Nation to bring their bombs and Bombers to Miami for a show off.

Dick waving and women shopping for Red dresses to pose by the bombs seems wonderfully fun, since all fun revolves around some risk.

This April Fools it is unlikely I will be able to orchestrate such an event of Bomb Show, Bomber Ballet, and major shopping spree in Cuba and Miami for the women.

However to avoid this being a waste of time and idle chatter, I encourage my friends on CR4 to either donate to Transcendia so I can fund such initiatives, or write or call their elected representatives asking for their support for the events I have proposed.

P.S. During the Bomber and Bomb Show Shopping Spree, all politicians shall be required to wear pink shirts, as a security measure.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11109
Good Answers: 918
#72
In reply to #71

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/24/2009 2:17 PM

Interesting. However, Russia really does not have the financial resources to weather another Cold War. With suppressed oil prices Russia is just rattling sabers, but it is unsustainable.

At some point they will have to stop or risk going bankrupt and collapsing again like they did 20 years ago.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#73
In reply to #72

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/24/2009 3:32 PM

Russia will no more stop than the US will stop.

Both the US and Russia are in similar economic situations, though Russia has more oil than the US.

You could make a strong case for US bankruptcy as a current fact. We now hear not even Treasury Bonds are fully trusted.

At the time of the Big Change in Russia, Fall of the Wall, I then posited that the perfect resolution to the Cold War would be Statehood for Russia.

Hell, the US has Utah, and Mississippi, and Luizianna. Lousianna actually uses a completely different law system for Gods sakes!

(Napoleanic Code, as opposed to English Common Law.)

So far Russians have not been very good at making desirable consumer products, or cars.

I have myself had the opportunity to examine a Mig. I've also had opportunity to walk around on top of an F15 and take pictures.

It is my suspicion that were Russia to become a State in the Union of the US, Russian products would improve from the interactions between the engineers and combined strengths would allow for trade exports to India and China, leveling some of the out of kilter economic pressures on all working classes.

I do point to the cooperation between the US and Russia as far as the International Space Station, and the history of Space presence by mankind as evidence of possiblities. It is in my face and in my home that the US is collapsing. Statehood for Russia represents to me a way to meld the situation for the overall benefit.

Russia becomes a State in the Union as a full end to the Cold War.

The EU and US then merge.{p] China brings North Korea inline and takes over control of their bombs.

Their tech feeds in conjunction with Japan that area of influence.

China, Japan, the EU, and proto US combine tech to Protect the Planet from Asteroids.

Confused life goes on.

Nobody is sure of anything.

All is well.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Car Customizing - Dances with Trees Canada - Member - because I can Hobbies - CNC - too much fun Hobbies - Target Shooting - paper shreader

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 769
Good Answers: 10
#77
In reply to #73

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/25/2009 6:59 AM

When it comes down to it War in any form is not affordable any longer. Pakistan is on the edge and about to fall in due to the chase for nukedome, joining the big boys, the war on drugs has cost 100's of billions. The taliban only exist because does not have the money to go and root them out. Again the promise of unlimited ladies comes into the story. Those Islamic fighters, who have for the most part have never been to any school, are promissed 1000 virgins should they die in combat. Uneducated minds manipulated by their educated leaders, in this case clarical, blindly following what they have been told their faith tells them they should do.

This is not restricted to the uneducated, just listen to any news story in North America where a member of the public is interviewed after some sort of disaster, they all say 'god' was looking out for them. Seems the US is not so different from the Islamic countries, just a different 'god' or at least a different name for their emaginary all powerful being. Notice every sporting event starts off with a prayer, lucky this 'god' is a football, NASCAR, and baseball fan or you guys would be in big trouble.

Funny every tie times get tough people get religon or the underlying religon in their life comes to the surface. Everyone would be so better off making lemon aid from the lemons handed then, but then the price of lemon aid would plummet

__________________
Kevin "Dances with Trees" Willey
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 285
Good Answers: 9
#75
In reply to #72

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/25/2009 3:23 AM

Anonymous Hero

"Russia really does not have the financial resources to weather another Cold War" you should modify this to read "Russia or the US or China or Europe etc really do not have the financial resources to weather another Cold War". I suppose one could argue that it is the only good thing about the existing financial situation - we may all loose our houses and starve to death but at least there won't be another cold war

Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
3
Power-User

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 285
Good Answers: 9
#15
In reply to #8

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 2:40 PM

Anonymous Hero,

You are only looking at this from a US point of view. If you look at it from a Russian point of view I am sure that they see everyone else building bases on their borders and they have decided that it is only "fair" that they be allowed that courtesy. I am sure that you may try to argue that you/we are the "good" guys and that they are the "bad" guys, however recent history would not defend such an argument (recent history would probably have us both in the "bad" guys bracket).

"If you believe that simply not offending other nations will provide the best results with world politics you are very sadly mistaken" - Not wishing to offend but I think you are the one that is sadly mistaken. Clearly the attitude shown by the previous US government did not bring about best results.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Posts: 313
Good Answers: 7
#10
In reply to #6

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 8:40 AM

Russia's move is retaliation for proposed missle defense in Poland and elsewhere. However, comparing the two is comparing apples to oranges. One is defensive and the other is offensive.

__________________
Bill Morrow
Reply
Anonymous Poster
#18
In reply to #10

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 3:28 AM

if i set up a missile base next door to you, do you know whether they are defensive and will not or cannot be used as offensive missiles ? you don't know exactly what's next door do you ?

defensive guns and offensive guns how do you tell the difference???

Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Posts: 313
Good Answers: 7
#25
In reply to #18

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 10:44 AM

Trust- but verify.

Agree to mutual inspections.

__________________
Bill Morrow
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#37
In reply to #18

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 6:45 PM

No.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Member

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7
#12

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 11:06 AM

Let's see now, the US has several hundred military bases around the world, NATO was supposed to have been largely dismantled after the Iron Curtain and the Warsaw Pact fell apart, US missile bases in Poland and Czech right on Russia's doorstep, NATO exercises in the Black Sea, etc...Now compare this with what little military presence the Chinese and Russia have worldwide- is it any wonder they are concerned and are thinking about some balance? The US spends more than the rest of the world combined on defense; other people have a right to be concerned don't you think? Aren't we all trading partners anyway? How would you want civilized peoples to behave?

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: El Lago, Texas, USA
Posts: 2639
Good Answers: 65
#16

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/18/2009 4:38 PM

Get your hands off my President's balls, commies!

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#19

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 3:34 AM

bhankiii -

that is exactly the attitude and perception that has destroyed the honor USA once had worldwide, & a continuation of that same attitude and ignorance will cause more and more extremist and even less extremist groups to plot revenge against 'the USA' inevitably causing many innocent USA citizens to suffer unjustly... because of scum like you.

Oh you were joking.... really ?..... oh and I am too.

lots of luv to you to brother

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Anonymous Poster
#20

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 3:50 AM

dear bhankiii, U R SICK

People like you are so much worse than commies. (by the way - the Russians are a democracy now or haven't you noticed that some people learn from mistakes. It appears that you are unable to learn) People with your level of 'mentality' ARE the worlds biggest problem.

You are no different to any 'OTHER' extremist.

People like you are the reason the USA and Other NATO allies are HATED by so many around the world. We all suffer because people like you exist.

Reply
4
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11109
Good Answers: 918
#23
In reply to #20

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 7:54 AM

I really didn't want to descend to this level of discussion, but here goes...

The reason there is so much hate is not because of US arrogance, but that certainly is the false target set up in front of you by leaders and special interest groups that are trying to lead you around by your nose.

Bhankiii is not sick, he sarcastically right. If you follow the money trail of many of these "special interest" groups they do lead to Communist organizations.

I am the first one to publicly state that the US is not perfect and we have acted in our best interest many times, but many, many more times we have acted in the world's best interest.

Guest, I assume that you are somewhere in Russia from the way you speak. Yes, welcome to the free world. I hope you and your people find prosperity and joy, but I know it is going to be a struggle. However, freedom and liberty are something that need a lot of work, but the rewards are endless.

Now, who do you think gave 140 million of your good people freedom?

No other country on this planet has done more to spread liberty than the US. 56 million people are now recently free in Afghanistan and Iraq to choose their own destiny because of one of our most 'despised' presidents.

Going back further in history it was the USA that sacrificed over 290,000 US lives for Europe's and Asia's liberty. How many millions people were liberated from tyranny in WW II?

Here is a link to a list of US soldiers that gave their lives for the principles of liberty throughout our short history.

We have been called imperialists, but nothing can be further from the truth. In the history of the US we have never occupied any nation (unlike a number of European nations that come to mind), we have liberated them.

Who best knows about imperialism? Europe, bless their hearts, have a deep, long troubled history of war, conquest, and slaughter, yet some of the most scathing remarks come from that direction about our actions. That's okay because we will still come to your aid the next time you need us and we will sacrifice more of our lives if ever asked.

We make tenacious soldiers of freedom. We never give up. We may feel fear, but we always fight on and never run away. We always recover our fallen soldiers and we fight with more honor and dignity than any one else I know.

The reasons some people hate us is not because we are arrogant, it's because we represent what they despise; prosperity, liberty, and human rights.

I know we are not perfect, but I'll pit our mistakes against any country's history, including yours.

If we seem arrogant it might be that some of us are frustrated with hearing the crap about how horrible we are from a few of the ungrateful hundreds and hundreds of millions of people that owe their liberty to us.

Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Guru
United States - Member - Charter Member Engineering Fields - Instrumentation Engineering - Charter Member

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts
Posts: 1946
Good Answers: 73
#24
In reply to #23

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 8:29 AM

Well put AH, and I couldn't agree more. History speaks for itself. From August of 1945 on, the US was the only country in history, that could have achieved world domination. We did not, we gave back, and rebuilt our former enemies.

Virtue is it's own reward.

__________________
I go into every human encounter expecting to be framed for a crime I didn't commit. Dilbert, 2013
Reply
2
Power-User

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 285
Good Answers: 9
#28
In reply to #23

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 12:04 PM

Anonymous Hero,

I can't really disagree with some of the facts that you put forward. However your facts do seem to be hand picked.

Perhaps you might share your views with us on the French involvement in the War of Independence and the Treaty of Paris - the same French nation that was vilified by the US (and, to be fair, by certain other European countries as well) for not engaging in the recent "war for oil" in Iraq. I suppose one could argue that you owe your liberty to the French, bless their hearts.

I would not agree that ramming your beliefs/culture down the neck of someone else is actually the same as the spreading of liberty.

"people are now recently free in Afghanistan and Iraq to choose their own destiny" - do you honestly believe that the Western world will allow the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to choose their own destiny? What happens if their choice/wish is to go back to the way things were. Those involved in the Afghan and Iraq wars have invested too much money to allow the people to choose their own destiny.

If I am not mistaken the US did not get involved in WWII until the Japanese bombed pearl harbour, therefore one could argue that they were merely acting to protect their interests abroad (and I for one am glad that they did, get involved in the war that is).

"it's because we represent what they despise; prosperity, liberty, and human rights." - perhaps you might explain the Patriot Act for us and while you are at it explain why your new president is going to close down the prisons (sorry, detention centers) in Guantanamo bay - is he closing them because they are a symbol of liberty and human rights? Are there not certain civil liberty issues with the Patriot Act?

One final point that you may consider and it is your comment about following "the money trail" and "Communist organizations" - exactly how much money is China (yep that big great Communist Organization) is owed by the US. You may be right when you said follow the money trail.

You are putting the argument forward that the world owes its liberty and freedom to the US and you do this by hand picking out some facts from history while conveniently omitting other relevant facts. I am suggesting that you consider all the facts.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Posts: 313
Good Answers: 7
#29
In reply to #28

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 12:45 PM

I probably should not jump into this conversation, but you make some solid points that beg for a response.

"Perhaps you might share your views with us on the French involvement in the War of Independence..."

Point well taken. We (in the US) are eternally grateful.

"I would not agree that ramming your beliefs/culture down the neck of someone else is actually the same as the spreading of liberty."

Liberating people from a brutal, murderous regiem and allowing them to vote for the leadership of their choice is not the same as forcing your beliefs down their neck.

"do you honestly believe that the Western world will allow the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to choose their own destiny?"

The western world "allowed" the Palistinians to choose Hamas as their leaders, didn't they?

"If I am not mistaken the US did not get involved in WWII until the Japanese bombed pearl harbour"

You are right. Americans are slow to war, but once committed, determined to win. With one exception- in Southeast Asia.

"why your new president is going to close down the prisons"

Because he made it a campain issue.

"Are there not certain civil liberty issues with the Patriot Act?"

Actually, the US government already had active programs to monitor land phones, cell phones and internet communications long before the Patriot Act. Google "carnivore surveillance program" and "echelon surveillance program".

"One final point that you may consider and it is your comment about following "the money trail" and "Communist organizations" - exactly how much money is China (yep that big great Communist Organization) is owed by the US. You may be right when you said follow the money trail."

Agree with you 100%!

All of us can hand-pick our facts at times.

With Respect,

Bill Morrow

__________________
Bill Morrow
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 285
Good Answers: 9
#30
In reply to #29

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 1:08 PM

bmorrow492,

You are more than welcome to join this conversation.

You make some good points and I actually learned a couple of new things aswell.

Agreed that we are all guilty of hand picking our facts, point well made and taken.

Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Reply
Power-User
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Chemical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 367
Good Answers: 10
#32
In reply to #29

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 1:49 PM

I'd have to further disagree on some other points:

Liberating people from a brutal, murderous regiem and allowing them to vote for the leadership of their choice is not the same as forcing your beliefs down their neck.

I could be mistaken but I remember our reason for invading Iraq was because of their "WMD" problem and their "ties to terrorism," both of which seem to have been fabricated at this point. Granted, I fell for it back then as well, but lets not be too revisionist here.

Afghanistan was invaded for their ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11, and rightly so in my opinion. However, they were not invaded because of their sorely oppressive regime, which had existed for some time and done some terrible things up until 9/11.

The western world "allowed" the Palistinians to choose Hamas as their leaders, didn't they?

Sort of, and then we told them that they had done it wrong and that we would not support the government that they had fairly elected. I'm not saying that we should support Hamas either, but the one place "democracy" showed up over there, the US is not supporting and is in fact actively repressing.

The US policy under Bush regarding several other items I personally view as confrontational, destructive, and possibly illegal. Discussion about his presidency is probably not suited for this thread, but Bush's tacit and sometimes active approval of the degradation of personal freedoms and the increase of government power fly directly in the face of his party's (not to mention the country's) ideals. He is the ultimate "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" example in my opinion.

__________________
Money doesn't talk, it screams in your face.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Posts: 313
Good Answers: 7
#34
In reply to #32

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 3:56 PM

"I could be mistaken but I remember our reason for invading Iraq was because of their "WMD" problem and their "ties to terrorism," both of which seem to have been fabricated at this point."

You are correct that we did not invade Iraq simply to deliver the Iraqi people from oppression. The WMDs and "ties to terrorists" were only two items on a long list of reasons given by Bush for the invasion, the principle ones being numerous UN resolutions. But when WMDs were not found, his political enemies pretended that it was his primary reason for invading. We know Sadam had WMDs. What happened to them we do not know. They could be hidden in the desert sand, or they could be in Syria or Iran. And he did have ties to terrorists. A meeting between terrorists and an Iraqi diplomat was recorded in Libya in which the Iraqi diplomat offered financing for the terrorist group to attack the US.

"Afghanistan was invaded for their ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11, and rightly so in my opinion. However, they were not invaded because of their sorely oppressive regime, which had existed for some time and done some terrible things up until 9/11."

You are absolutely correct. In order to take military action against another country there must be valid legal, ethical, moral and national security reasons as well as strong public support and a likelihood of military victory and a good outcome politically. There are many oppressive governments in the world, but we can not help everybody.

"the one place "democracy" showed up over there, the US is not supporting and is in fact actively repressing."

That is correct. The Palestinians have the right to elect whomever they want, but we are not obligated to support a terrorist government. In the 90's they had the opportunity for a homeland with almost everything they ever wanted. But they rejected it a chose continued conflict instead.

I enjoy exchanging views with you, and respect your opinions.

Bill Morrow

__________________
Bill Morrow
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Power-User

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 285
Good Answers: 9
#35
In reply to #34

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 4:37 PM

bmorrow492

"We know Sadam had WMDs" - could you kindly elaborate on this? If my memory serves me correctly, Hans Blix the UN Weapons inspector and his team could not find any nor could any WMDs be discovered after the invasion. I believe that no traces of WMDs have ever been found. If Saddam could have hidden all of these WMDs then I am sure he could have found a better hiding place for himself as well.

"or they could be in Syria or Iran" - Somehow I doubt that Saddam would be willing to hand over all those alleged WMD to Iran.

Also, I thought that most of the 9/11 suspects were Saudi and not Iraqi or Afghani.

Unfortunately, ethical and moral grounds have never played a part in a country going to war against another - if it did then perhaps someone might actually help the people of Darfur. It is a damning indictment of the world when we let that situation continue. I cannot understand why the UN has not done anything about this.

My rant is over (sorry for ranting on)

Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Posts: 313
Good Answers: 7
#36
In reply to #35

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 6:14 PM

""We know Sadam had WMDs" - could you kindly elaborate on this? If my memory serves me correctly, Hans Blix the UN Weapons inspector and his team could not find any nor could any WMDs be discovered after the invasion. I believe that no traces of WMDs have ever been found. If Saddam could have hidden all of these WMDs then I am sure he could have found a better hiding place for himself as well."

If you will recall, Sadam murdered thousands of Kurds with WMD. (Do we have a misunderstanding with the meaning of the term WMD?)

""or they could be in Syria or Iran" - Somehow I doubt that Saddam would be willing to hand over all those alleged WMD to Iran."

If you will recall, during Desert Storm Sadam tried to send his jet fighters to Iran to save them from air strikes. Few made it. And Iran refused to return them after the war. Therefore I suspect he would not have sent military equipment to Iran again. But he could have sent it somewhere to hide it from Allied forces.

"Also, I thought that most of the 9/11 suspects were Saudi and not Iraqi or Afghani."

Indeed. Nonetheless, he was financing terrorism, just as other countries in the region are doing to this day.

"Unfortunately, ethical and moral grounds have never played a part in a country going to war against another - if it did then perhaps someone might actually help the people of Darfur. It is a damning indictment of the world when we let that situation continue. I cannot understand why the UN has not done anything about this."

I could not agree with you more, though there are exceptions to your first statement. But before engaging in any military venture, all the conditions I listed in my last post must be met. Otherwise you end up with disasters like the pullout from Vietnam (1970s), the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon (1980s) and the slaughter in Somalia (1990s).

I think you and I agree on much more than we disagree.

Bill Morrow

__________________
Bill Morrow
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11109
Good Answers: 918
#38
In reply to #35

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 6:59 PM

I'll give you a quick synapses why we went into Iraq. It is not the sole reason, but it is the major reason why we went in there.

I disagree with the WMD charge, too, and I think that was primarily used to make people feel better. The administration felt that they would probably turn up, but their gamble was wrong.

However, contrary to popular legend, we had a valid, legal case for invading Iraq. That reason was laid out plainly with UN resolution after UN resolution. Saddam violated all of them and it was also legally laid out at the original cease-fire that any violation could legally be used as a pretext for resumption of hostilities.

Look at it this way, if you were arrested by the police for aggravated assault on your neighbor and placed on probation by a judge, then subsequently violated every probation clause year-after-year, would you reasonably expect the police to not show up at your door?

Saddam believed that the "police" would not show up and as a show of his own nation's bravado thumbed his nose and provided the digitus impudicus at every turn. He did this to prove he was above the UN and particularly the USA. He gambled dead wrong.

So why did we go into Iraq? Oil? Bull droppings. Absolutely not, although, it was deemed that the future government, when established, would be friendly to the West. So, it was not by any chance a primary reason, but icing on the cake, nonetheless.

The real reason we wen into Iraq was to establish a working democracy at a strategic location in that area. Iraqi people were unique in that they lived between both cultures (Western and Middle Eastern) with relative ease. It was felt that democracy had a very high probability of success, there was legal precedent, and if successful, provide a powerful ally in reducing Mid East turmoil.

Now, pull out your maps. Look at the placement of Syria and Iran. Both are on the black list for terror. Look at the proximity of Iraq and Afghanistan to Syria and Iran. Both Iraq and Afghanistan could be turned toward democracy. Turkey already was a thriving economy (they are one of the largest in the region), and Pakistan might play along if they can keep their own people and military in step.

Successful democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan would put a political squeeze on Syria and Iran. Iran already has internal rumbling politically and if enough pressure was/is applied externally, political change might take place all on its own (mostly). If Armadinajad is cast out and a less radical government emerges, then Syria would lose a supporting ally. If Russia and Europe would play along, further pressure to reform Iran could take place. China could play a role in keeping North Korea out of the Mid East, which would further starve Syria of support.

The net effect of reducing Mid East tensions would be a win-win for the whole world. Al Qaeda's strongholds would diminish or collapse and push that organization further into oblivion.

The Palestinians are a whole other story. I simply do not have time to go over that abhorred situation.

It was/is an excellent plan in principle, but a few things went wrong. One, the WMD story went bust. Two, Democrats saw an opportunity to cut George Bush off at the knees at a time he was way too popular for Democrats to retake the White House in 2004. So they began opposing the "War" on a number of basis and worked with old anti-war groups to hammer the Vietnam syndrome. The media hyped the US body count and the whole thing went on and on for years until the population (here and abroad) turn on Bush.

There is a whole lot more going on, but those are the highlights. My point is that once again, there is popular perception and there is a whole other layer of political reality going on that people ignore and are not privy for public consumption.

I am not passing judgement for or against the above plan, so don't attack me. I am not the architect, either. My point is to at least try to get people to see things beyond the top layer, which usually is there to subvert opinion anyway. However, too many people see that as more work than it's worth.

Anyone can pass judgment based on whatever set of information they please, but there is so much more going on to this story and international politics in general that it would be wrong not to at least try to understand what lies beneath the surface first.

Historically, many times nations make decisions between two or more choices which are simply the lessor of two evils.

Reply Off Topic (Score 3)
Power-User

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 285
Good Answers: 9
#43
In reply to #38

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 3:25 AM

Anonymous Hero,

Not really sure why you marked that off-topic.

I hope that you did not see my comments as "attacking you" - that was not my intention. I just happen to have a different view on it, that does not mean that we disagree totally.

Historically, many times nations make decisions between two or more choices which are simply the lessor of two evils. - Agreed, life is not so simple as to have a "good" and a "bad" choice.

Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11109
Good Answers: 918
#45
In reply to #43

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 6:36 AM

I don't think I marked it off-topic.

No, I did not see it as a personal attack and different view points are a good thing. After all, we are engineers and we should be used to getting cross examined.

I have enjoyed the debate, too.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Anonymous Poster
#52
In reply to #38

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 11:13 AM

Today's definition of "democracy" = (over) friendly government to big (particularly US) corporations and their economic exploitation.

Reply Off Topic (Score 6)
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Posts: 313
Good Answers: 7
#53
In reply to #38

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 12:32 PM

Bulls Eye!

You got it exactly right. Bush looked at the trends in the Islamic world and saw that the world was heading for a catastrophe. The only way to avoid it is to introduce democracy into that sphere- a formidable task, but a risk worth taking if it saves our children or grandchildren from cataclysm. The resistance in Iraq and Afganistan is formidable, but the most difficult battle was in Washington, where the priority of most is only to gain advantage for the next election. If democracy takes root and grows in the region H. W. Bush will eventually be regarded as a visionary president on the order of Monroe, Jackson and T. Roosevelt.

Bill Morrow

__________________
Bill Morrow
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Milky Way galaxy, Sol solar system, Earth (not Giaha), USA, WA, N.E.
Posts: 691
Good Answers: 13
#31
In reply to #23

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 1:19 PM

AH,

I gave you a GA for that because I believe that our (the US) intentions have been, for the most part, honorable and because it struck a patriotic chord with me.

Unfortunately it is also true that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Where we generally fail is in the aftermath. Remember the history of our own civil war. Northern carpetbaggers swooped in to pillage what was left of the south, often under the eyes and with the blessings of northern generals.

Some recent conflicts come to mind which seem to indicate these 'carpetbaggers' were actually involved in starting the wars in question.

Capitalism is, in my view, a form of economic warfare. As long as it's confined within 'the rule of law' it does more good than bad, but as soon as that rule is cracked (often by the the very forces it's designed to contain) it can become a very bad thing indeed.

That's my take on it at any rate.

__________________
They that do not learn from history and apply those lessons to the present are bound to repeat its failures.
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: El Lago, Texas, USA
Posts: 2639
Good Answers: 65
#33
In reply to #23

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 2:44 PM

The history of the US is neither black nor white, but a mushy gray - like the histories of most modern countries. One can just as easily draw a straight line between current world crises and American actions in the past.

Regardless, the placement of bombers in Cuba has nothing to do with whether the US is a "good" country or a "bad" country. It's merely political theater.

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#44
In reply to #23

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 6:27 AM

check your history 'mate'

the Russians were in Berlin and the Nazi's defeated before Eizenhower even set foot on European soil on 'D-Day'.

Or are you being taught a hollywood history?

How many YEARS did the USA do nothing while Europe suffered?

More Russian soldiers were killed in WWII than the Jews in concentration camps and USA soldiers put together!

(link? -www.show some initiative and seek the truth)

It could be said that the only reason the USA got involved at all was when it was obvious the Krauts were beaten on the Eastern front where a vast majority of their forces were, making Western Europe "somewhat" easier to land-on.

Yeah mate- thanx for liberating Europe?

and not occupied a nation? The USA has 'strategic" bases all over the world. do you think these bases would be vacated if asked to do so by a democratically elected government??? what do you think ? is this what you call freedom, and liberty? thanx mate.

I'm from Australia, and most people here (like most places) have always had a hard time dealing with the stereotypical 'American' - "We are HE-MAN" self-righteous, self-gloating, indignant, arrogant, attitude, that you yourself have shown by your '(un)-inspriational 'half-time-pep-talk' analysis.

Then again - you may actually see Rambo holding an M16 & ammo, whilst looking at the statue of liberty's modesty, graciousness. Oh don't worry about whats in the book that the statue is holding...

Take the log out of your own eye brother.

Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11109
Good Answers: 918
#46
In reply to #44

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 6:55 AM

"...do so by a democratically elected government??? what do you think ?"

Actually, that has happened on a number of occasions in the past as well as recently and we have vacated. That's simply history and easy to check and it do not support your assertions.

I am aware of the horrific death toll encountered in WW II. Those people lost their lives defending their land. The USA got a punch in the nose at Perl Harbor, but went overseas to fight on foreign soil for the liberation of other nations.

If the US involvement was purely defensive we would have simply focused on Japan, as history shows.

And history does show the US was very reluctant to enter the war, but we did and it was not at the end of Europe's war, it was at a low tide for Europe.

I am also aware that Australia played an important role in both the European and Pacific regions as well.

As for stereotyping, your post seems to be doing that quite well. I don't mind debating, but personal attacks never achieve anything meaningful and people here find them unacceptable.

Why not join CR4 instead of posting anonymously?

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#49
In reply to #46

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 9:41 AM

The USA only vacate when their $US are not enough to buy control of those 'democratic' countries, Venezuela springs to mind - but that's not a great example since Hugo is a socialist - albeit democratically elected.

And I agree that stereo-typing is not constructive and understand how that is as you claim 'unacceptable'.

Its interesting reading that you don't comment on the amount of long-term damage that comments like 'Bhankiii's does to the reputation of the people of the USA.

Should it surprise you then, that maybe that's why the last 50 years (and continuing) of USA attitude has tarnished the U.S. stereo-type.

In recent times the competition has been very HOT to transform the OLD image into a new 'in-d-hood' Super Gangsta. yeah that is 'way cool'. I mean 'barf-me-out-and-gag-me-with-a-spoon-totally-gross'.

The media and marketing are doing some serious social damage.

Sorry, Man. I wish it was not so, and still believe it will change for the better (and not just for the USA - all of us). But most things of that nature take a lot more time - generations of the willing - to undo the damage. All nations are inhabited with a minority of people who can cause nation embarasment - and I think we agree that it shouldn't be allowed to go unchecked. .nobody can keep patting themselves on the back all the time - sometimes a good long look at ourselves and acknowledging faults and inabilities is the best way to make progress - and that usually involves criticism - which a lot of people in this world find very hard if not impossible to accept.

Who was it who said -

evil triumphs when good 'persons' do nothing

ps. I found the CR4 site only a week ago, and thought it was a godsend - a place where people SHARE idea's and knowledge, and learn from ONE ANOTHER to solve some of lifes tangible problems and maybe, just maybe, the world will become a better place. I'm glad that most of the people on the site (that I've read to date) can call a spade a spade.

Reply
Power-User
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Chemical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 367
Good Answers: 10
#48
In reply to #44

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 9:10 AM

Disagree with your first point. The US first fought (I believe) the Vichy France government in Northern Africa in WWII and then followed that up with the invasion of Italy before moving on to Normandy. The US provided critical financial and military support to Britain after the opening of hostilities (which wasn't until three or four other countries had been taken over by Germany).

Russia did suffer historic losses militarily and civilian (the Siege of Leningrad was a major story of suffering), but the US could have easily gone after only Japan instead of working in Europe as well. The US had a vested interest in all of Europe not being part of Russia and so did Europe.

The US recently vacated a base in "Something"-istan when people asked and we have done so in other situations as well. The truth is that most foreign governments enjoy US bases because they provide a modicum of security and a source of stable employment for locals. Ironically for your post, those bases exist exactly for the reason that we don't sit around and do nothing.

__________________
Money doesn't talk, it screams in your face.
Reply
Participant

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Planet Earth Kingdom
Posts: 3
#50
In reply to #48

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 10:33 AM

The USA couldn't afford the rent of airport facilities in 'something'-istan, and so left.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 734
Good Answers: 70
#63
In reply to #44

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/23/2009 11:03 AM

I don't think it's my place to try and curb your America bashing, but I don't see that you really have all your facts straight.

"the Russians were in Berlin and the Nazi's defeated before Eizenhower even set foot on European soil on 'D-Day'."

The Russians arrived in the outskirts of Berlin ~April 20 1945. D Day was June 6, 1944. Allied troops (British and US) landed in Italy (part of Europe) on May 30, 1943. Allied Troops landed in southern France (also part of Europe) August 15, 1944. So go ahead and bash the US, but you might be a bit more persuasive if you dont bash the history of these events. A lot of people - Russians, Germans, Brits, Aussies, French, Dutch, Polish, Belgians, Italians, Japanese, Phillipino (even some Americans) died in that war. We should do them the honor of getting their stories straight.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#39

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/19/2009 7:18 PM

I consider Bhankii a friend of mine.

If in fact we've got some Russians here on this thread, I understand their snit, and the history of the past eras, both distinct, and in conglomerate.

At the supposed end of the Cold War, I was appalled at the advantage Investment Bankers, and "Capitalists" leaped to take advantage when Russia, and the former Soviet States, were down.

A Russian is likely to laugh when an "American", goes on about 357,000 deaths, when 20 million Russians died fighting Hitler during WWII.

As far as where we are now, it would be smart for the US and Russia to really focus on their common interests, unite their working classes, and keep at a shared Space Program, as they have, as was brokered by Al Gore, to his everlasting status and legacy better than 20foot ocean rise predictions.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Anonymous Poster
#47

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 7:26 AM

Firstly I'm not Russian & My Family did flee other Commies.

Secondly I'm dissappointed to have-to inform you of the REAL historical facts and statistics of WWII- correct me if I'm wrong.

The USSR troops had conquered Berlin, had the Nazi's defeated and running before Eizenhower and the USA troops even set foot on European soil on 'D-Day'.

Or are you being brainwashed (commie style) with a hollywood history?

How many YEARS did the USA do nothing while ALL the WORLD (and Europe) suffered?

More Russian soldiers were killed in WWII than the Jews in concentration camps and USA soldiers put together (and add the rest of the allied soldiers who you haven't mentioned by number)

(link? -www.show some initiative seek the truth & credit where credit is due)

It could be said that the only reason the USA got involved at all was when it was obvious the Krauts were beaten on the Eastern front where a vast majority of their forces were, making Western Europe "somewhat" easier to land-on.

And when Eisenhower did finally get there his first task was to open a concentration camp for media-press-release, ...how did he get ther so quickly I wonder?

yeah mate - thanx for liberating Europe?

And the USA has not occupied a nation? gimme a break...

The USA has 'strategic" bases all over the world. do you think these bases would be vacated if asked to do so by a democratically elected government??? what do you think ? is this what you call freedom, and liberty? thanx mate.

I'm from Australia (of European decent-& you probably are also), and most people here (like most places in the world) have always had a hard time dealing with the stereotypical 'American' - "We are HE-MAN" self-righteous, self-gloating, indignant, arrogant, "bigger than BEN HUR", U.S. attitude, that you yourself have shown by your '(un)-inspriational 'half-time-pep-talk' type analysis.

Then again - you may actually see Rambo holding an M16 & ammo, whilst looking at the statue of liberty's modesty and graciousness. Oh don't worry about whats in the book that the statue is holding...

Take the log out of your own eye brother.

You remind me of Roman Catholics who talk as if Jesus himself was Roman Catholic - even the Wikepedia (Administered by Roman Catholics ) states that Peter -the Apostle of Jesus, was the first Roman Catholic Pope - which is odd because Roman Catholicism didn't exist until over 1000 years later)

Hasn't this world we live in got soooo many other more important problems we should all be working together to solve TOGETHER. And that we could all say we solved/conquered them together, And not have somebody trying to 'usurp' their selfish individual supremacy?

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#54

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/20/2009 1:25 PM

Every now and then when a Blog Thread Discussion goes on for awhile, and wanders around I feel obliged to come back to the original inspiration of the debate.

Certainly of CR4 discussions, this one has been properly a political and historical debate.

We were never asked about that pictured bomber, how far it goes, how fast, and what it carries.

We are told there is a grim picture of what may be brewing.

I don't really know if "Grim" is the best adjective for the situation. It is more like a depressing waste of time and resources.

I ask myself how could it be that the US and Russia co-operate very closely in Space, why they feel compelled to threaten each other on the ground is on one hand not mysterious at all, and then on the other obviously insane.

One Political Reality about which I held a mistaken belief for many years, is that nations that have common economic interests, and trade with each other, will have less likelihood of going to war with each other.

In Fact it turns out more often the opposite is true.

We wandered into some discussion of the Drug War, which due to economics and trade across the US Southern border, is now a Hot War. I cite this as evidence easy to see.

Trade patterns between Japan and the US prior to WWII, also support the thesis that actually you are more likely to go to war with people you do business with, than those you have little real interaction with.

Big trade with China between the US and China. Motives for war are created.

Big trade with Russia.

Cold war continues between the US and Cuba.

Why no war between the US and Canada?

This would imply that a misconception about threats to security exists between Canada and the US. They believe it is in their interests to get along.

Obviously this is not a complete essay capable of addressing the skews of national size, and we are wise to recognize there are "Tipping Points", when one belief, becomes another.

Still you only have to look at divorce between parents of children to see horrors between parties sharing interests.

The more you think about it, the more you end up wondering if isolationism is not the answer.

Anyway, from where I sit, for Russia to spend the time and money to base bombers in threat to the US now, is just really an ironic waste of time.

Hell the US and Russia get along right well in Outerspace! Why not at least Reopen the Silk Road, and roll on?

It might help things if big planes from Russia were more easily FAA Certified for sale in the US.

Remember if you are going to have international trade, you create motives for conflict by being unfair about it.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User
Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - BSME Clarkson University 1992 Engineering Fields - Software Engineering - BSME Clarkson University 1992 Fans of Old Computers - TRS-80 - DataRock 1.0

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Troy, NY
Posts: 388
Good Answers: 3
#55

Re: Russia to Deploy Strategic Nuclear Bombers in Cuba, Venezuela

03/21/2009 10:27 AM

Who is Jesus Diaz, who authored this piece? And did he just use a "potty-word" in his Gizmodo piece here? Some civility, please, as you paint the morphed-movie "Red Dawn". Also, some more facts, please, before we ramp up for another war. The "Jesus" I know would never use a potty-word like that. :) - Larry

Reply
Reply to Blog Entry 80 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Anonymous Hero (9); Anonymous Poster (9); april05 (1); betomachine (3); bhankiii (2); bmorrow492 (10); Bricktop (2); cwarner7_11 (2); Dances with Trees (10); Duckinthepond (2); FredNorth (1); HoleInTheSnow (6); johnfotl (5); kingordon (2); Shadetree (3); Transcendian (12); welderman (1)

Previous in Blog: Computer Science Programs Make a Comeback in Enrollment   Next in Blog: Turn a Sound Waveform Into a Bracelet

Advertisement