Russia's New President

O

Oxygen

One Hissy Kitty
Registered Senior Member
Did anyone else catch this? Russia's new president has ordered back into production for military use several craft that Yeltsin had put out of production as evidence of his peaceful intentions to the rest of the world. The phrase that was used was "His message to the West is that Russia is still a military force to be reckoned with...".

My paranoia-bunyon is acting up. We go through so many years of smiles and handshakes from Yeltsin, disarm and otherwise get into a generally gosh-isn't-this-great-we're-all-getting-along-now mindset only to have this guy traipse in and start reforging offensive weaponry?

I'm no expert at body language, but fromt he footage I saw of him on TV, there was something about his mannerism that told me this was not a man of peace. He walked with a clenched fist, and he never seemed to let his eyes rest on any of the officers he was meeting for more than a second. His eyes would dart away as if to say "Yeah yeah yeah. Let's get this over with."

Maybe the cameras just caught him on an off-day, but I'm still gonna dig that bomb shelter. I just get the feeling that this guy means trouble.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

[This message has been edited by Oxygen (edited May 08, 2000).]
 
I saw a local news teaser last night: "Russians swear in a former spy as President, tune in to find out how this will affect you."

Former spy? Is that really important? I still come across GOP supporters in the US who don't know that George H.W. Bush was director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In the United States, at least, it has long been a theory that we can build weapons of war to stimulate the economy. This idea has become so prevalent that the US now stages interventions at international "hot-spots" to field-test new gear. As to production, I'm willing to say, "Build away". If they point the new weapons at the United States, then hey, we're right back where the American people really, truly, want to be.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
 
Isn't US policy to have only 1 global enemy?, well 1 that the ills of the world can be blamed on. I thought iraq had that job at the moment. New decade maybe its time for a new enemy. Either way there will always be someone the USA can pretend to save the world from...it keeps the citizens patriotic and the US military budget at max.

Save us big brother the commies are back......and they look sober.
 
US policy seems to require a single, coherent enemy. Having a single enemy makes generalizations and propaganda much easier.

What's stunning is that the US will frequently seek to create an enemy for itself.

* Iraq: We financed Hussein.
* Panama: George HW Bush, specifically, financed Manuel Noriega.

Each of these puppets became "enemies of democracy" in their own time. Each of these people were empowered to become "enemies" by the US. Both patterns of "enemy" conduct developed with American blessings.

I would also point to the Communist Revolution of 1918. Now, I can't say that the Communists would have been our buddies, but I'm quite sure that if our best efforts "on Russia's behalf" involved something other than subverting the new government only weeks after it is installed, things might have gone differently. We could have affected Stalin's conduct, as well; one of the reasons the Reich trounced the Russians so badly in WWII is because the Russians were awaiting weapons relief from the United States.

I'm happy we won the Cold War, but I'm not sure we had to have it. I wouldn't assert eighty-two years of harmonious existence between the US and USSR, but I'm quite sure that things wouldn't have been quite so grim.

On the other hand, building a Cold War enemy worked miracles for our economy. Someone's gotta build the guns, and someone's gotta pay for 'em.

The problem with the American system, currently and, in some form, throughout its history, is that we are so competitive a people in our own abstract way that we will cannibalize our world in order to justify competition. Competition requires an opponent, though, and it seems we're quite skilled at creating them.

If we don't have enemies, we we'll be too poor to buy our necessities: coffee, insurance, and a steady diet of psychiatric drugs. God help us the day we get sick of tearing each other to pieces.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

PS--Rambler ... I would say that the difficulty of carrying on multiple opponents is showing in American policy. We won WWII, and I'm happy with that. I think Korea and Vietnam were unnecessary, but that's my opinion. But the present inability to be effective in the current world situations involving Kosovo, Ireland, various African nations, and other nations around the world might have something to do with being unable to address multiple overt threats. To that, though, I would also tack on the idea that, in the modern day of the internet, it will be nearly impossible to bury wartime atrocities. I'm not sure the American people would have stood for the Dresden firestorm, Nazis or no, were the bombing broadcast on CNN. I mean, come on ... is it wartime? I dare the government to enact the Alien & Sedition laws. I just don't think the government can control the information flow well enough during times of crisis.


------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
 
Erratum-- If not "single opponents", then "single situations" or "events". We had multiple enemies in WWII, but it was easier to lump them together than it is when you have independent conflicts in the UK, in Sierra Leone, and in East Timor.

thx,
Tiassa
 
I just want to bring something to light that I read in an earlier post in this thread, something about the military budget being at the max. I have heard it from other places as well that it seems like we pour all of our money into the military and whatever is left over goes to the other departments.

I have talked with vets and currently serving members of the armed forces. Wherever all that wonderful money is going, it isn't going to the war machine. I have heard from Marines who have had to actually steal equipment from the Navy just to keep their own machines running. When I served, we had a boot-camp incident in which the food trucks didn't show up because of low fuel supplies. (The camp got a nostalgic dish that night: left-overs.) The Marine Corps only recently began computer-based training for certain skills because they didn't have the money for the equipment they needed to train our soldiers to fight on a modern battelfield. Even today our fighting men and women are facing the possibility of being as well-equipped to handle war in the 21st century as the Austrian army was to handle war at the beginning of the 20th century. (Check your history books. They still relied on sabers and bayonets when the rest of the world was using machine guns and tanks. Austria was swept aside like so much dust.)

I don't know where all this money is going, but it isn't going to the actual working mechanism of our war machine. We are hardly in a shape to defend ourselves, let alone get involved in a serious all-out war. I think it's all staying in the inflated salaries of the fat-cats up topside, because G.I. Joe and G.I. Jane aren't seeing any of it.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.
 
Oxygen, I think that I have a fair idea (theory I guess) as to where the money is going. I believe that the money is being funneled into 'black projects'.

------------------
The New Age of Enlightenment is approaching...are you ready?
 
Fair enough theory. Like Judd Hirsch pointed out in "Independence Day", we can't really believe they spend 4 million dollars for a toilet seat, can we?

I generally support a big military budget, and I don't knock the government for their black projects.
Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice, moderation in the defense of Freedom is no virtue.
Click to expand...
I would, however, like to see better results for my money. I greatly resented paying for whats-his-name's jet flights to get his hair cut.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.
 
I don't knock the black projects either. I would like to know what exactly they are for. I have suspicions, but nothing more I guess. Your right...$400 toilet seats are a joke, but thats how you put the money 'through the wash' if you will. The seat costs $10, and the remaining $390 gets put through the rinse cycle..nice and clean. Of course that doesn't really compare to the 'mother of all money pits'...Ballistic Missile Defense.

------------------
The New Age of Enlightenment is approaching...are you ready?
 
Indeed, balistic misslie defence would be a big drain on the system. Also Star Wars, and other oribiting weopons.....thats the killer, the grunts on the ground wouldn't see too much of it. Lets not forget an aircraft carrier would set you back some 5 billion dollars. Then there's the $30 million a peice aircraft. The $100 million+ for a stealth fighter......we're talking bugets that exceed most other 1st world forgein debts.
 
Thats the thing about BMD, the US has been pouring billions of dollars into it in various forms for as long as there have been ballistic missiles (around 1960). And yet, no deployable system. What a load of BS. "We're underfunded" is the standard excuse. They have their BMD system alright, except its pointing 'out' instead of 'in'. Want a prediction? No matter what happens in the next test of the National Missile Defense system, the funding will be approved and 'work' will begin on deployment. Thats because NMD in the conventional sense is a front. Its all about 'planetary defense' boys and girls...and I pray to whatever gods there are that these men know what they are doing.

------------------
The New Age of Enlightenment is approaching...are you ready?
 
Alex DeLarge,

Can you lead us to information about these systems being used as 'planetary defense' and ware they are pointed?
 
Originally posted by Alex DeLarge:
Its all about 'planetary defense' boys and girls...and I pray to whatever gods there are that these men know what they are doing.

[/B]
Click to expand...

Planetary defence from what exactly??

Meteor's?
Comet's?
Alien space scum?
 
Well, they are pointed at whomever/whatever those who control the system want them to be pointed at. Simply put, the 'threat'. Now in what way the 'threat' is manifested is speculation, but my money is on whomever/whatever is flying/operating the anomolous objects that people have reported and continue to report around the world. Prove it? If the information were that easy to come by, everyone would know about it, wouldn't they? 'Planetary defense' is something that I suspect...I can't provide ready-made answers. I've come to this conclusion based on what I've read, seen, heard, what have you on the relevant issues (US military spending, US space program, Russian Space Program, world history 1945-present, the entire 'UFO' phenomenon). It appears clear to me that all the major powers on this planet are indeed in bed together, that includes Russia and China. The 'tensions' that exist between us and Russia, China are fictional. The tensions that are implied serve as convenient excuses to inflate defense budgets without arousing suspicion within the populace and with politicians who ultimately approve the money. The National Missile Defense System is a best example of this. And as I stated in previous posts, no matter what happens with the next test...Clinton will give the 'go' for production and deployment. It has to be that way. If anyone chooses to believe that since the 1950's the US alone has spent over $100 billion (1996 dollars) on Ballistic Missile defense research, development and VERY limited deployment (the US has had operating ABM systems such as Nike-Zeus, Nike-Hercules, Sprint-Spartan..but these were nothing more than nuke warheads put on high acceleration missles to create a 'nuclear wall' over Canada when the missles came over the pole, not very advanced in my opinion) and yet still more $$$$ and time is necessary to develop a system to stop just ONE ICBM that MAY be launched from a 'rogue' state. Give me a break. We're being duped. For me, this is the explanation that best fits the data. I have yet to hear another that comes close. If anyone has another possible theory, I'm open to hearing it. Sorry if I seem to be rambling, but I am 98% convinced of this, and I have a lot of stuff relating to it packed into my skull and I have a hard time trying to keep it from jumping out.

------------------
The New Age of Enlightenment is approaching...are you ready?
 
(sorry, but I can't resist!)

the US has had operating ABM systems such as Nike-Zeus, Nike-Hercules, Sprint-Spartan..but these were nothing more than nuke warheads put on high acceleration missles to create a 'nuclear wall' over Canada when the missles came over the pole
Click to expand...

Yeah, the serious stuff includes the Starbuck's series-19 and the Doc Marten Orbital Defense System. Nike and Sprint were in contention for development of the "Blue Screen of Death", but Microsoft beat them to it. (Geek humor, arr-arr)
 
I can`t stop noticing that you Us citizens have a curious idea looking toward former Soviet Union, here in Europe we are between you two :).
We must understand one thing Russia want`s to get up again, the cold war was gain by US and we have to understand that Putins in russian people hope in being something again, but i think we can stay calm, 1st is not a plain that makes a difference, not even one like B-2 Spirit, 2º since the begining of cold war nuclear weapons were intended to be used, so we can be sure of one thing Putin only wants to defend his country against humiliation again, we all know that Ieltsin was a dummy and a drunk, Gorbatchov destroyed some stability not only in russia but also in europe, asia, every where.
It`s interesting to see bright person like all the people that come here, and i think many are US citizens, and see they`re opnions, it`s good that you know our reality not only portuguese but european, i don`t talk in their behalf, this is my opinion.
I think that not everything is bad in Putin, it`s better a russia as an enemy but proud than a destroyd russia and unstable.
 
Originally posted by Tony H2o:
Planetary defence from what exactly??

Meteor's?
Comet's?
Alien space scum?
Click to expand...
it`s important to remember that meteor`s threat exist`s and it`s very real
 
Originally posted by Alex DeLarge:
Well, they are pointed at whomever/whatever those who control the system want them to be pointed at. Simply put, the 'threat'. Now in what way the 'threat' is manifested is speculation, but my money is on whomever/whatever is flying/operating the anomolous objects that people have reported and continue to report around the world. Prove it? If the information were that easy to come by, everyone would know about it, wouldn't they? 'Planetary defense' is something that I suspect...I can't provide ready-made answers. I've come to this conclusion based on what I've read, seen, heard, what have you on the relevant issues (US military spending, US space program, Russian Space Program, world history 1945-present, the entire 'UFO' phenomenon).
Click to expand...
where stays the airborn system asat tested in a F- 15 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top