US and Poland sign missile shield deal

[Desmond Hawkins]

Looks like the Polish are going to need that missile shield.

Ah dammit, not again.

 

[Aleenik]

No. I thought Russia boycotted the UN for the UN's refusal to recognize PRC as the legitimate government of China. Thus, Russia was unable to veto the measure to repel the North Koreans.

You are correct
The Russian Delegate was busy boycotting, and missed out on the vote...thats his own fault

 

[bhsup]

Let's pretend for a moment that I give a crap about the UN and whether or not they give approval for the US to wipe its backside or go to war or whatever...

Approval for the use of military force was never rescinded after the first gulf war in 90-91. We had a ceasefire with ol' Saddam. Saddam refused to let UN inspectors do their job. That alone, right there, that alone, was enough to re-initiate hostilities without having to go scampering back to the boys in blue. Game on, as Wayne and Garth would say.

Okay, pretending over. As if the UN means crap to me. We do what we need to do and if the UN doesn't like it, they can take a flying monkey... they can leave and go elsewhere.

 

[scy12]

Leave from where , from New york ? Do you want to abolish the UN VRWCAgent ?

But i do find the Neocon " Our great might makes everything right and go screw yourself you weak pathetic people who don't deserve anything including disagreeing with us , for being weak". And " You evil fascistic ,Freedom hating evil ,Terrorist , that you think you can kill because you want to" perspective very interesting on , the subject of what is the top limits of Human hypocrisy.

 

[DNK]

Although I agree at some point the UN should be sidestepped, since the formal structure is not conducive to action all the time, and that many of the member states, not being representative of their own populaces to say the least, shouldn't really have much of a say, in many cases it simply makes sense for the US, or any power, to pay attention to it and follow its rules.

Additionally, the UN serves as an international form of stabilization. It allows the world to function with fewer bumps in the road and allows for an increased ability, due to this, for the various global and regional organizations to feel secure in their understanding of the future. Effectively, it creates a more vibrant investment and growth situation and a less dangerous security situation. Yet at the same time the world does need to cross those bumps here and there, which the UN allows for, yet in some cases is not able to pull through on due to a SC veto or something of that nature.

This perspective on the UN, I think, plays heavily into the "illegality" issue. Seriously undermining the UN creates instability in itself, in addition to whatever instability is wrought through the action. As much as many people may dislike the UN, they would highly prefer it to a world where no such organization existed, and see the US' actions as threatening its continued existence, which are all the more serious due to the leadership position the US had at the time in the world as well as its massive sway in the international system, an almost completely US-dominated system at the time.

Along with this, the "illegality" issue stems from the fact that not only was the invasion of Iraq a serious blow to the UN but also widely unpopular as well. I think that, ideally, the UN was meant to serve as a means of giving some extranational representation to the countries of the world through a formal system of voting and rules. People may accept that the UN has its quite large flaws and that the letter of its law can be breached without really breaching its intent, but Iraq was not a case of this, quite the opposite in fact.

Although there were a number of governments that sided with America, and surely some peoples as well, this invasion was highly unpopular throughout the world, especially in the more developed and powerful corners. This then throws into question the invasion itself: if the US cannot convince most other liberal democracies, not to mention the not-so-liberal ones and even the non-democracies it allies itself with, of its invasion, then why is it personally so convinced of it? In this I am implying an international system of checks which again increase overall stability and expectability in global relations.

Now, why should the US care about the opinions of other countries? You can easily say it shouldn't, but at the same time it needs to work with them on many other issues, and will need their support in the future. Diplomatic relations aren't everything, and perhaps not even the foundation of overall relations (I would argue economic and security relations trump them), but they can be very significant and can ease the costs of spreading US ideas and getting acceptance of US programs, and at times this can make or break a rather important deal.

I am not arguing that all countries should follow the UN all the time. I do not like the idea of a world government in that sense much at all. But following the UN reasonably is a good idea, and breaking its laws can quite understandably be called "illegal" and considered a bad thing in the right circumstances, which I personally feel was the case in the Iraq invasion.

 

[Thorbal]

Approval for the use of military force was never rescinded after the first gulf war in 90-91. We had a ceasefire with ol' Saddam. Saddam refused to let UN inspectors do their job. That alone, right there, that alone, was enough to re-initiate hostilities without having to go scampering back to the boys in blue. Game on, as Wayne and Garth would say.

Well - still pretending that you care about the UN - if Saddam did not let the inspectors do their job, putting reprisals or retorsions into effect is indeed allowed. But they have to be proportional to the breach of the offender. Armed reprisals are not allowed.

 

[Winner]

So it's not just a missile shield. Patriot batteries are most certainly meant to be used against Russia.

Sure. IF THEY ATTACK. Patriots hardly qualify as an offensive weapon. Anf frankly, in a situation when the Russians openly threaten the Poles, they are right to ask for defensive weapons.

 

[Winner]

Imagine if the the Czechs had been allowed to participate in the Marshall Plan. Imagine if they had been allowed to rebuild their industry to their needs and not Moscow’s. Imagine if they had been allowed to export their goods to Western markets on their terms.

You know when Soviet troops marched into Poland, they were surprised at how much better the Polish farmers were doing comparatively to themselves? Who would have guessed that kulakization was a poor, reprehensible, policy?

Similarly, when the Soviets took over the foresting industry, they totally destroyed and ruined the environment. An industry that self-regulated and maintained the forests was pushed aside by Soviet bureaucracy and ended up heavily damaging the forests and left rusting unused lumber mills across the Russian steppes.

Perhaps Russia should come to terms with the economic, cultural, and political retardation it forced upon Eastern Europe during the last half century.

Well said. Many Russians live in delusions. Partially due to the government propaganda, they tend to believe that they subsidized their communist satellite states...

 

[Snorrius]

Well said. Many Russians live in delusions. Partially due to the government propaganda, they tend to believe that they subsidized their communist satellite states...

Actually, it mostly concerned Central Asia's and Caucasian Republics. As for European countries, they were ok, I suppose, but still communist regime in most East European countries with its free housing, free education, free medicine and a lot of opportunities to find a job where you could get money for doing nothing hardly can be called "oppression" and "exploitation".

 

[Archbob]

Nuclear war is the only way to solve things.

 

[Patoz]

Actually, it mostly concerned Central Asia's and Caucasian Republics. As for European countries, they were ok, I suppose, but still communist regime in most East European countries with its free housing, free education, free medicine and a lot of opportunities to find a job where you could get money for doing nothing hardly can be called "oppression" and "exploitation".

LOL i just cant believe you just said that, its justs goes to show how much u know about economy and how the lives of people look during those days, communism RUINED us, we fell so badly behind in everything, idk about other countries but Poland's international debt was enormous, we didnt get the money from the marshal plan, every thing we made was sold to russia and other communist countries for horsehockey prices, the money u say u could get for doing nothing was worth nothing, think about it, back then it was possible to have 5 secretaries in a job place that required just one, how do you think that reflected upon economy? Life under the communist rule was no dream come true

 

[Defiant47]

LOL i just cant believe you just said that, its justs goes to show how much u know about economy and how the lives of people look during those days, communism RUINED us, we fell so badly behind in everything, idk about other countries but Poland's international debt was enormous, we didnt get the money from the marshal plan, every thing we made was sold to russia and other communist countries for horsehockey prices, the money u say u could get for doing nothing was worth nothing, think about it, back then it was possible to have 5 secretaries in a job place that required just one, how do you think that reflected upon economy? Life under the communist rule was no dream come true

Have you ever lived under communist rule?

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Nuclear war is the only way to solve things.

Fallout LARP!

 

[Patoz]

Have you ever lived under communist rule?

no, have you? my parents did and they've told me about it

out for the weekend HUZZZAAAA

 

[Snorrius]

think about it, back then it was possible to have 5 secretaries in a job place that required just one, how do you think that reflected upon economy? Life under the communist rule was no dream come true

System, where there are 5 secretaries doing nothing instead of one, at the best can be called "an extremely ineffective economy system". But exploitation? Certainly, not. Billions of people in the world are dreaming about free housing, free medicine, free education and an easy job which pays enough to buy food, clothing, have some entertainment and save the rest for the future. Also people in the East Europe lived better than in Soviet Union. Exploited nation living better than exploitators is nonsense.

 

[Labtec600]

Well - still pretending that you care about the UN - if Saddam did not let the inspectors do their job, putting reprisals or retorsions into effect is indeed allowed. But they have to be proportional to the breach of the offender. Armed reprisals are not allowed.

The Violation of the UN resolutions by Saddam were one thing. He also fired on US aircraft and supported suicide bombers in Israel.

Firing on you, supporting attacks on an ally and violating resolutions gave the US reason to go in. The question is, was it worth it? At the moment no, but things do look like they're starting to move in a better direction there.

Things should have already been there if this adminstration wasnt so damn incompetent. If you think Bush runs things, you're wrong. Rumsfeld and Cheney were making the moves while Bush just signed his name next to whatever the hell they gave him.

Why did the US disband the Iraqi military? Why did the US not protect Iraqi National Monuements? Why did the US not guard the ammo dumps? Why did the US not provide basic security, which instead created the uprising of the militias. Luckily the Adminstration finally after years woke up and started listening to the guys on the ground.

It's comical to go back and listen to some of the speeches by Donald Rumsfeld and compare them to that Baghdad Bob guy...they both sound the exact same with the crap that was coming out of their mouth.

 

[Thorbal]

The Violation of the UN resolutions by Saddam were one thing. He also fired on US aircraft and supported suicide bombers in Israel.

Firing on you, supporting attacks on an ally and violating resolutions gave the US reason to go in. The question is, was it worth it? At the moment no, but things do look like they're starting to move in a better direction there.

Don´t want to sound nitpicky, but even that did - if the UN charter is the reference point - not allow the US to occupy the whole place, because that is not considered a proportionate response to the attacks and aggressive acts you mentioned.

Don´t misunderstand me, I don´t want to argue along the line of "boo the US are teh devilz!!1 It´s just that technically the only institution that is able to "allow" violence except for self-defense is still the Security Council. And I don´t want it to appear like the US is the only country that broke the non-violence agreements. Technically, even Germany committed an act of aggression against Albania (I guess it was Albania, not 100% sure though) in the 90s when a group of helicopters had been dispatched to rescue German citizens trapped in an embassy there.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Ukraine Willing to Partner With West on Missile Defense

Ukraine says it is ready to share information from its missile warning system with Western countries.

Saturday's announcement comes as tensions mount between Russia and the West over the conflict in neighboring Georgia.

It also comes just days after Poland and the U.S. signed a deal to set up part of a missile defense system in Poland.

Ukraine's Foreign Ministry says the demise of a Russian-Ukrainian bilateral defense agreement allows it to make new deals with Western countries on missile warning systems and satellite tracking.

On Saturday, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko called for talks with Russia on the Black Sea Fleet's use of a Ukrainian port.

Mr. Yushchenko expressed concern that Russia's use of the port Sevastopol could inadvertently drag Ukraine into Russia's conflict with Georgia.

The Ukrainian leader signed an order Wednesday requiring Russia to seek Ukraine's permission moving warships to and from the port. Moscow rejected the decree, describing it as "anti-Russian."

Russia has an agreement to use the Ukrainian port until 2017, but Ukrainian officials say they want the Russian fleet to leave when the lease expires.

Ukraine is afraid of Iran as well.

 

[scy12]

Ukraine is afraid of Iran as well.

Well Iran must be an anagram of Russia in this case.

 

[przemuch]

System, where there are 5 secretaries doing nothing instead of one, at the best can be called "an extremely ineffective economy system". But exploitation? Certainly, not. Billions of people in the world are dreaming about free housing, free medicine, free education and an easy job which pays enough to buy food, clothing, have some entertainment and save the rest for the future.

Oh, great. Hair splitting... I'm sure hundreds of millions dream about having a bottle of water. How come it suddenly means there's nothing to be irritated about Soviet "heritage"?

Free (insert stuff) is never free. In this case we simply paid for it either later (internal/foreign debt) or at the same time (hack&slash nationalisation). Add enforced ideology and level of waste genereated by naive state property and what exactly are you getting except cost-ineffective temporary fix? Don't even start about quality of those freebies. Funny thing, even today it's beyond our financial capacity to fully repair ridiculous hospitals placement thanks to Soviet military needs being most important thing ever... Result - hospitals in one half of the country - overcrowded, in the second half - plenty of them, half-empty and barely breathing financially. This is just an example, it gets even "better" with agriculture, heavy industry, raped environment or enforced "country specialisation". Let's just forget bringing Marshall Plan into equation... As for "secretaries problem" - try to count lossess in other parts, where no metaphorical "secretary" could be found for months. And about some upsides like rebuilding, social privileges or fighting analphabetism - before using them as counter-argument, we have to assume that without directives from Moscow it would be done in similar/worse way. See below in case of harboring such delusions.

Also people in the East Europe lived better than in Soviet Union. Exploited nation living better than exploitators is nonsense.

Orly? Even though Soviet Union started a journey toward communist heaven a generation earlier and from way lower level - economically speaking? Even though because of its sheer magnitude and number of inhabitants no pillage and exploitation through enforced "deals" could get them better living than in puppet states? Even though huge part of robbed goods was simply wasted, to the point ie. after you finished dealing with red tape, machines were sometimes already rusty and useless. Even though there was hardly significant tradition of specialised private buisness to give something healthier than passive and indecisive attitude? Oh, and who said every coin squeezed from pupet states was given to common people? Unless you mean tanks and ICBMs were supposed to help them live better...

The point is, almost 1/3 of Europe received harmful, naive and one-sided "treatment" while no one neither asked for permission nor even cared for anything else than ideological model. The latter resulted with enforcing similar stupidity on every country, while ignoring local conditions. And with repeating - on smaller scale, luckily - grand experiments like "unintentional destro.. unhh.. improving Aral Sea/Lake".

In short? Destruction of, finally developed after WWI, foundations for free market economies. Crippling any private enterprise possible, preferably by blind nationalisation. Colonial regime applied to local industry, focused primarily on Moscow needs. Enforced ridiculous military spending, same about shaping economies according to Soviet army planning. Artificially enhanced heavy industry, easy to convert for war production, useless and/or obsolete mere generation after. Economy of empty shelves...yadda yadda yadda



The most depressing part is, those were economical downsides only . After having Soviet guardian angel for so long, any missile shield, missile sword or missile bikini is acceptable price for slightly higher level of confidence.