The Colder War.

[TheEgoist]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...mp;refer=europe

Wow, just when you thought Russia had learned to shut up...They haven't.

Like the psychologically damaged bully on the playground, as soon as people stop paying attention to it, they do something crazy and stupid.

Let's hope if it comes to it, Obama sticks to his guns...IF WE AREN'T ALL RUBBLE BEFORE HE IS CONFIRMED.

[Mammon]

He also said the U.S. provoked the war between Russia and Georgia in August, a position he had voiced before.

What?

[Jake_Ellison]

That is such a stupid move on Russia's part: Obama would've probably scaled back the whole missile defense project in Europe all by himself. Now he won't be able to do it, because he would be perceived as weak.(I hope he at least wants to give the impression that he's not)

The only reason why Medvedev keeps running his stupid mouth is because he is trying to prove himself to his retarded audience, by outshining Putin. He won't though, he'll be Putin's lapdog forever.

[KendallJ]

he'll be Putin's lapdog forever.

Putin will see to that.

[sanjavalen]

What?

The US was making noises about including Georgia in NATO.

[TheEgoist]

How DARE we!

[Steve D'Ippolito]

...and how dare the Georgians!

That is such a stupid move on Russia's part: Obama would've probably scaled back the whole missile defense project in Europe all by himself. Now he won't be able to do it, because he would be perceived as weak.(I hope he at least wants to give the impression that he's not)

Nope--I was agreeing with this earlier this morning, but it was pointed out to me that the Left will simply decide we've been provoking Russia and they'll calm down if we stop. And oh by the way missile defense is itself a provocation.

Neville Chamberlain all over again. The end result of his appeasement was millions dead, and all of Eastern Europe enslaved by the Soviets. And yet these people do not learn. Apparently appeasement is ONLY wrong and a bad idea if the guy you are appeasing wears a red white and black armband and gives the old Roman salute. (Yet another failure to focus on essentials....)

[Jake_Ellison]

...and how dare the Georgians!

Nope--I was agreeing with this earlier this morning, but it was pointed out to me that the Left will simply decide we've been provoking Russia and they'll calm down if we stop. And oh by the way missile defense is itself a provocation.

Neville Chamberlain all over again. The end result of his appeasement was millions dead, and all of Eastern Europe enslaved by the Soviets. And yet these people do not learn. Apparently appeasement is ONLY wrong and a bad idea if the guy you are appeasing wears a red white and black armband and gives the old Roman salute. (Yet another failure to focus on essentials....)

Yeah, that's tough to argue with. Obama isn't exactly causing me to be confident, but on this specific issue of the polish missile defence sites I still have some hope he'll resist the russians: in my view the problem will be over Ucraine and Georgia. Before the war, those two were supposed to join Nato (at least that was Bush's plan). If Obama isn't willing to carry out that plan and then defend those two countries, the next fight will be over Poland or Estonia and Lithuania, which are NATO members.(maybe not through a direct attack, but some sort of naval blockade, shelling on the borders, covert operations etc., until they simply give in and switch sides)

The europeans certainly have no intention to stand up to Russia, or even help the US, so Obama is the only real obstacle in Putin's way to rebuild the old Soviet Union.

[Zip]

Yeah, that's tough to argue with. Obama isn't exactly causing me to be confident, but on this specific issue of the polish missile defence sites I still have some hope he'll resist the russians: in my view the problem will be over Ucraine and Georgia. Before the war, those two were supposed to join Nato (at least that was Bush's plan). If Obama isn't willing to carry out that plan and then defend those two countries, the next fight will be over Poland or Estonia and Lithuania, which are NATO members.(maybe not through a direct attack, but some sort of naval blockade, shelling on the borders, covert operations etc., until they simply give in and switch sides)

The europeans certainly have no intention to stand up to Russia, or even help the US, so Obama is the only real obstacle in Putin's way to rebuild the old Soviet Union.

Emphasis mine

I'm sorry when exactly did George Bush develop the god-like power to dictate to a country that they would ask for admittance into NATO? And again when did he develop the power to tell the other 26 countries in the alliance who they will and will not admit into it?

There seems to be a serious lack of understanding about how the Alliance operates. For your educational pleasure...

http://www.nato.int/issues/faq/index.html#

[Jake_Ellison]

Emphasis mine

I'm sorry when exactly did George Bush develop the god-like power to dictate to a country that they would ask for admittance into NATO? And again when did he develop the power to tell the other 26 countries in the alliance who they will and will not admit into it?

There seems to be a serious lack of understanding about how the Alliance operates. For your educational pleasure...

http://www.nato.int/issues/faq/index.html#

I did not write any of those things your first paragraph implies I did. What specifically out of the things I did write (as opposed to what for some reason you imagine I wrote) is wrong?

What specifically, out of the things I actually wrote and you can actually qoute, using the cute bubbles, in my post, makes you think I can't find the official webpage of the North Atlantic Treaty Org. by myself?

Please point out my exact words, and then point out a quote that contradicts my words right after it, off of the website you directed me to, so we can all see the error of my ways. If you feel like pretending to be someone accurate and precise, please go ahead and prove that I really do need to go to that website and learn something. Using accurate and precise quotes, put accurate facts right next to my words, contradicting them neatly and eloquently. Don't be vague and dishonest, by putting words in my mouth and then arrogantly pointing me to the FAQ section of a huge website.

Until then you have no reason to be arrogant my friend.

As far as your questions, I did not say anything you suggest I said in them, but I'll answer them anyway: Georgia and the Ukraine have both requested Nato membership, and that membership was taken into consideration by key countries in NATO, and actually backed by the ones that really count: the US and Britain. Other important members, such as France, Germany and Poland are also leaning toward supporting their eventual entry into the Alliance, although they disagree on the timetable.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[Zip]

I did not write any of those things your first paragraph implies I did. What specifically out of the things I did write (as opposed to what for some reason you imagine I wrote) is wrong?

What specifically, out of the things I actually wrote and you can actually qoute, using the cute bubbles, in my post, makes you think I can't find the official webpage of the North Atlantic Treaty Org. by myself?

Please point out my exact words, and then point out a quote that contradicts my words right after it, off of the website you directed me to, so we can all see the error of my ways. If you feel like pretending to be someone accurate and precise, please go ahead and prove that I really do need to go to that website and learn something. Using accurate and precise quotes, put accurate facts right next to my words, contradicting them neatly and eloquently. Don't be vague and dishonest, by putting words in my mouth and then arrogantly pointing me to the FAQ section of a huge website.

Until then you have no reason to be arrogant my friend.

As far as your questions, I did not say anything you suggest I said in them, but I'll answer them anyway: Georgia and the Ukraine have both requested Nato membership, and that membership was taken into consideration by key countries in NATO, and actually backed by the ones that really count: the US and Britain. Other important members, such as France, Germany and Poland are also leaning toward supporting their eventual entry into the Alliance, although they disagree on the timetable.

Jake, I actually bolded the phrase in question, which along with the rest of the sentence it links to says in total

Before the war, those two were supposed to join Nato (at least that was Bush's plan).

Now since you wrote it perhaps you want to clarify this sentence. In it you are referring to the Ukraine and Georgia, sovereign states which were according to you are "supposed to join NATO" and you tie that particular thought in with "at least that was Bush's plan".

Clarify please...

[Jake_Ellison]

Jake, I actually bolded the phrase in question, which along with the rest of the sentence it links to says in total

Now since you wrote it perhaps you want to clarify this sentence. In it you are referring to the Ukraine and Georgia, sovereign states which were according to you are "supposed to join NATO" and you tie that particular thought in with "at least that was Bush's plan".

Clarify please...

I'm not goimg to clarify anything. My sentence is quite clear. The word supposed has a very well defined meaning, and so do the words join and plan. There is no need to make it any more clear. In fact I assure you that most people who read that phrase know exactly what I mean.

I think the burden of proof is on you, to show where my factual error is, since you are the one who attempted to correct me.

You pointed me to a website that was supposed to teach me about the error of my ways, so I'm going to ask you again: please contradict what I'm saying with a qoute from that website, showing everyone where I'm wrong, and where exactly on the website I could've been educated, thanks to you pointing that website out for me. (In a manner that was quite insulting in my opinion: I wouldn't mind the insult, in fact I would apreciate the correction, if you could only prove that you were right.)

Edited November 7, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[Zip]

Supposed, join and plan are not the words causing my confusion Jake it's your insistence that the plan is Bush's, to once again quote your sentence.

So here's a quote from that website that demonstrates that the plan for those two countries (and any other country) to join NATO is not the plan of any single national leader.

NATO has an open door policy on enlargement. Any European country in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area can become a member of the Alliance, when invited to do so by the existing member countries.

Invited by countries... plural.

Allied leaders agreed at Bucharest that Georgia and Ukraine – which are currently engaged in an Intensified Dialogue with NATO on their membership aspirations and related reforms – will be members in future. Both countries’ applications to join the MAP process will be reviewed by NATO foreign ministers in December 2008.

Allied leaders and foreign ministers, again plural.

This was not George Bush's plan, it was the Alliances plan. That's my point, plain and simple.

If you want to continue to discuss this perhaps we can take our conversation to private messages so as to not clog up a perfectly good thread with our disagreement.

[Juxtys]

Yeah, that's tough to argue with. Obama isn't exactly causing me to be confident, but on this specific issue of the polish missile defence sites I still have some hope he'll resist the russians: in my view the problem will be over Ucraine and Georgia. Before the war, those two were supposed to join Nato (at least that was Bush's plan). If Obama isn't willing to carry out that plan and then defend those two countries, the next fight will be over Poland or Estonia and Lithuania, which are NATO members.(maybe not through a direct attack, but some sort of naval blockade, shelling on the borders, covert operations etc., until they simply give in and switch sides)

The europeans certainly have no intention to stand up to Russia, or even help the US, so Obama is the only real obstacle in Putin's way to rebuild the old Soviet Union.

I live in Lithuania. I know that Russia already does this. While joining the EU, Lithuania agreed to shut down the Nuclear Power Plant of Ignalina until 2012. They though they can build a new one before it. And it doesn't seem we will build that. We get about 75 percent of the power from Ignalina and after it being shut down, we're dependent of the Russian oil and gas. Lithuanian oil, although good quality, satisfies only 5 percent of Lithuania's needs. Russians have already set their prices high, so, unless the bridge of electricity with Western Europe is built, Lithuania is energy dependent of Russia. However, latvia and Estonia are more ready: Latvia has powerful hydro power plants and coal plants and Estonia has local fuel resources.

Of course, we could burn our trees, sawmill wastes, organic wastes, straws, excess bioproduction, peat and everything else that burns and what we have plenty of, but it's not cheap enough to implement at the times of crisis.

[Jake_Ellison]

Supposed, join and plan are not the words causing my confusion Jake it's your insistence that the plan is Bush's, to once again quote your sentence.

So here's a quote from that website that demonstrates that the plan for those two countries (and any other country) to join NATO is not the plan of any single national leader.

Invited by countries... plural.

Allied leaders and foreign ministers, again plural.

This was not George Bush's plan, it was the Alliances plan. That's my point, plain and simple.

You haven't said who's plan it was. I honestly doubt 26 nations came up with the plan simultaneously. Somebody had to make the decision that this was a good idea, and push it through the bureaucracy which is NATO: that someone was the American administration, lead by Bush. Perhaps the official webpage of NATO is not the best source if you honestly want to figure out how that structure works.

If you want to have a theoretical discussion on how the decision-making process within the Alliance is presented to the public, by spinmasters and PR specialists, you'll have to have that with someone else.

I believe members of this forum are more interested in reality than the fairytale which claims that the US and let's say Bulgaria are on equal footing when decisions are made inside NATO, and I'll continue to post based on the actual balance of power, rather than the imagined one, which you have described.

That actual balance of power (inside a military alliance, like NATO) places the country with the largest military on top of the foodchain. If we add to that the second largest military, the British Armed Forces, together they pretty much are the military power of NATO, so more often than not the US and Britain call the shots.