[RexImperator]

There was an (eventually abandoned) effort to create something similar in Asia. It was called SEATO.

[Orion]

(05-03-2014 06:02 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

Technically most of Ukraine wasn't EURO either.But that's another story. Better question why the fuck would the average EU national want those uncivilized barbarians in their union?
Once they get in they will get visa free travel to USA...bring their Molotov cocktails with them as well?

Wow wow, hold on. No need to label any nation as uncivilized barbarians. There might be Ukrainians here too. Those labels are very dangerous to use, and anger those who they are directed at.

Believe me i felt it on my own skin, my nation was once labelled as uncivilized barbarians and entire world raced each other who will drop more bombs on us, and who will contribute more to expansion of "democracy and human rights".

Quote:

BTW Russia will never be considered West all though they can westernize until they start acting western.Its a Eurasian country.

Romania isn't west either. But it's an European nation. And that's the whole point.

Quote:

I also believe the term West as the state dept uses it includes South Korea and Japan. I think any country that has become a US client state with democracy and other institutions is considered Western today. I don't buy the whole white race crap simply because most of the west isn't solely or even majority wise white now or in the future.

It's not race crap, it's cultural crap. Japanese culture was always so resilient that they even got to keep the Emperor. NATO is not a democracy club, or money club. It's European's club. Why did Albania join, a nation of muslim majority, and Japan did not, or Philippines ? Figure it out. It's a western cultural block. And it sees Russia as European state gone rogue, which needs to be integrated back, under one common policy, of course, which is nowadays liberalism.

[jimukr104]

(05-03-2014 06:34 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 06:02 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

Technically most of Ukraine wasn't EURO either.But that's another story. Better question why the fuck would the average EU national want those uncivilized barbarians in their union?
Once they get in they will get visa free travel to USA...bring their Molotov cocktails with them as well?

Wow wow, hold on. No need to label any nation as uncivilized barbarians. There might be Ukrainians here too. Those labels are very dangerous to use, and anger those who they are directed at.

Believe me i felt it on my own skin, my nation was once labelled as uncivilized barbarians and entire world raced each other who will drop more bombs on us, and who will contribute more to expansion of "democracy and human rights".

Quote:

BTW Russia will never be considered West all though they can westernize until they start acting western.Its a Eurasian country.

Romania isn't west either. But it's an European nation. And that's the whole point.

Quote:

I also believe the term West as the state dept uses it includes South Korea and Japan. I think any country that has become a US client state with democracy and other institutions is considered Western today. I don't buy the whole white race crap simply because most of the west isn't solely or even majority wise white now or in the future.

It's not race crap, it's cultural crap. Japanese culture was always so resilient that they even got to keep the Emperor. NATO is not a democracy club, or money club. It's European's club. Why did Albania join, a nation of muslim majority, and Japan did not, or Philippines ? Figure it out. It's a western cultural block. And it sees Russia as European state gone rogue, which needs to be integrated back, under one common policy, of course, which is nowadays liberalism.

1.The nuts going around beating people with chains are barbarians.Besides from a Euro mentality they are barbarians (Russia also) due to mongol invasion. This is how many in Lviv even see Russians btw.They always mention the Mongols lol.
Btw my wife is Ukrainian..doesn't stop my brother from calling her a savage .In fact I have done so a few times....isn't non feminists great? lol
We also have many savages here in NYC(usa) but we don't have a choice((
2.Romania is now considered the west. Like I said its a club one can join regardless of geography when it gets certain reforms,etc implemented.But in Russia's view the West is the countries that side with the USA on most accounts.
3. Britain had/has a queen. Does that mean they aren't part of the West?
4. NATO was a military alliance to defend against USSR expansion in Europe. So why would they invite other countries including Japan? It consisted of the countries that mostly were vulnerable to tanks rolling in.Also it still up to a country to join..example Finland didn't. It also was a way to keep US (canada) in Europe.Now NATO has become the economic serving military might of EU but that is more its post cold war functioning..one that Russia opposes.

I understand many of your points but I think they get complicated in trying to make more of it than it really is.
Again..power and money go hand in hand and that's all it is about.Do as we say,do and align your politics and market with ours and we will consider you part of the West. It is nothing more or less.Russia can become part of the west when it does so..regardless that 90% of the population won't be westernized. It has to do with gov't,power, control regardless of what the leaders want,say or do.
Example is the Eastern EU countries. They are considered part of the west but if you go into the population centers you will see, especially in the smaller cities, that the avg. Joe is closer to Russian mentality than so called Western.
But come to think about it visit Redneck boonies in America and Canada and you will see the locals aren't exactly what the world considers western. But as long as the gov't is..the country is considered so.

I guess it is like when a women becomes bitchy, fat, demanding entitled one can say she is Americanized regardless if she is actually American or Not. Most who experience it, even abroad, will understand!

[Yatagan]

(05-03-2014 06:28 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

There was an (eventually abandoned) effort to create something similar in Asia. It was called SEATO.

There was a near eastern/mid eastern one(which included the UK) called CENTO that went to shit as well.

[speakeasy]

Samseau sounds like the new Brian.

[RexImperator]

Jim, while he shares some hawkish stances on Russia with them, I wouldn't actually consider Zbig to be a neocon. He's often been very critical of neoconservative foreign policy.

[Foolsgo1d]

(05-03-2014 02:58 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:17 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Small level nuclear exchange with Russia?

No such thing I'm afraid. Its either use them or dont use them, hence the MAD agreement.

???
There was NO agreement. MAD was a concept the US gov't invented(made up fantasy) to feel better and make the population less fearful.
But Russian military doctrine never believed in it. Red Army military leaders often were bewildered that the Americans believed in MAD.
That being said it has come out that many Pentagon officials also believed in the use of low yield nukes and didn't strictly abide by MAD ideology.
There reasoning is that since Soviet conventional forces outnumbered NATO forces the US needed nuclear deterrence.
Now the role is reverse and Russian doctrine authorizes tactical nukes if their forces are being overwhelmed and their statehood or interests are at stake. Yeltsin actually wrote up the 1st draft of the doctrine. Putin /Medvedev re issued it.

How in theory it works is Russia uses it on the battlefield in confrontation. In theory even if NATO returns a nuclear bomb.Russia doesn't lose much since it was already facing defeat and chances are their forces have dispersed anyway..so damage will be small.
Of course NATO could decide to throw the nuke at an unrelated force or base but then they risk that Russia will do the same. That is the concept of escalation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism
The whole TV/media image of all the silo missiles launching is pretty much fear mongering. No one in their right mind would do that. That's more of the scenario of a retaliation with = number of incoming. But who would do that?
In any case if Putin did use a small nuke, IMHO NATO would lose many members.Most of the small countries would drop out because they can't afford a detonation on their territory and wouldn't want the consequences. The old "better dead before RED" isn't going to hold for 90% of citizens or politicians today.
I think the EU liberals and USA /Canadian ones would storm the gov't and demand an end (and impeachment also). Today's Western society isn't as naive as the past generations and they aren't going to sacrifice themselves for Mc Cain, Neo Cons, and other 1% er's.
The Vietnam protests pretty much showed the attitude change.

You say things have changed within the west, I dont believe they have and nuclear weapons are a stage of war which has not been seen since the destruction of two Japanese cities.

We have had western governments acting aggressively since 2001 with rapid expansion of NATO and the defence shield.

Russia using tactical nukes on the battlefield would not be considered a tactical act of war by the USA or NATO, it will be an escalation of force which would spiral out of control.

I mentioned MAD because it is a logical thought process. You have two sides with the same type of weaponry, both can wipe out half the globe with an exchange.

It comes down to who pulls the trigger first. You need to launch yours to get maximum effect and at the same time destroy the main enemy launch pads.

I dont consider the use of any nuclear weapon as a limited force, it does nothing but creates a fear of the unknown. Your enemy is prepared to use them so now you need to do the same and before you know it Pentagon and NORAD officials are gunning for a full-on nuclear exchange.

The fear of the Red Army is still around, its why the US backed off Syria.

[jimukr104]

(05-04-2014 09:33 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Jim, while he shares some hawkish stances on Russia with them, I wouldn't actually consider Zbig to be a neocon. He's often been very critical of neoconservative foreign policy.

He has Neo con attitude when it comes to Russia ....And the Neo Cons follow his strategy, etc.
Of course he also believes in US having world domination...the basis of Neo Con beliefs.
As to actual implementation...I wouldn't blame him for criticizing Neo foreign policy. The outcome has been chaotic and even failure in many cases.He is more fond of indirect intervention..while many Neo Cons have a preference for direct.

[jimukr104]

(05-04-2014 10:32 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 02:58 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:17 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Small level nuclear exchange with Russia?

No such thing I'm afraid. Its either use them or dont use them, hence the MAD agreement.

???
There was NO agreement. MAD was a concept the US gov't invented(made up fantasy) to feel better and make the population less fearful.
But Russian military doctrine never believed in it. Red Army military leaders often were bewildered that the Americans believed in MAD.
That being said it has come out that many Pentagon officials also believed in the use of low yield nukes and didn't strictly abide by MAD ideology.
There reasoning is that since Soviet conventional forces outnumbered NATO forces the US needed nuclear deterrence.
Now the role is reverse and Russian doctrine authorizes tactical nukes if their forces are being overwhelmed and their statehood or interests are at stake. Yeltsin actually wrote up the 1st draft of the doctrine. Putin /Medvedev re issued it.

How in theory it works is Russia uses it on the battlefield in confrontation. In theory even if NATO returns a nuclear bomb.Russia doesn't lose much since it was already facing defeat and chances are their forces have dispersed anyway..so damage will be small.
Of course NATO could decide to throw the nuke at an unrelated force or base but then they risk that Russia will do the same. That is the concept of escalation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism
The whole TV/media image of all the silo missiles launching is pretty much fear mongering. No one in their right mind would do that. That's more of the scenario of a retaliation with = number of incoming. But who would do that?
In any case if Putin did use a small nuke, IMHO NATO would lose many members.Most of the small countries would drop out because they can't afford a detonation on their territory and wouldn't want the consequences. The old "better dead before RED" isn't going to hold for 90% of citizens or politicians today.
I think the EU liberals and USA /Canadian ones would storm the gov't and demand an end (and impeachment also). Today's Western society isn't as naive as the past generations and they aren't going to sacrifice themselves for Mc Cain, Neo Cons, and other 1% er's.
The Vietnam protests pretty much showed the attitude change.

You say things have changed within the west, I dont believe they have and nuclear weapons are a stage of war which has not been seen since the destruction of two Japanese cities.

We have had western governments acting aggressively since 2001 with rapid expansion of NATO and the defence shield.

Russia using tactical nukes on the battlefield would not be considered a tactical act of war by the USA or NATO, it will be an escalation of force which would spiral out of control.

I mentioned MAD because it is a logical thought process. You have two sides with the same type of weaponry, both can wipe out half the globe with an exchange.

It comes down to who pulls the trigger first. You need to launch yours to get maximum effect and at the same time destroy the main enemy launch pads.

I dont consider the use of any nuclear weapon as a limited force, it does nothing but creates a fear of the unknown. Your enemy is prepared to use them so now you need to do the same and before you know it Pentagon and NORAD officials are gunning for a full-on nuclear exchange.

The fear of the Red Army is still around, its why the US backed off Syria.

It can spiral out of control but hopefully the Pentagon wouldn't allow that. That doesn't change the fact that most legit gov't would try to make it a controlled escalation.
MAD was always just a theory based on assumed logic. I read a book once about the Red army..and their leaders even scoffed at the idea.
But today small yield nukes are viable options. Bush even incorporated it within his doctrine.
In any case if NATO goes to war with Russia..Russia being outnumbered has no choice but to use them. Countries don't tend to volunteer accepting defeat while they still have a way out or method to hurt ones enemy.
One has to even wonder if Saddam actually had chemical weapons at the end. If he did,,in hindsight I can see his ghost wishing he used them. He ended up being killed anyway so why not? Better to take out as many Americans as you can.
What I do know is that America spending so much money on having overwhelming military ends up creating other issues. Putin said it himself that more countries will rush to make/acquire weapons of mass destruction to keep the imperialistic Americans back.
They end up becoming "bug spray". They also are guarantees that the leaders will never be trialed in some world court nonsense.

Things have changed in the west....the West can't successfully start conscription or a draft without being overthrown by their own people.That's a historical change.People have too many ways to find out truth when they want to and ways to resist.
Today the US military basically has a professional force...one can even compare them to mercenaries since many aren't patriotic and do it for bennies!
Hey..I admit I was a paid gunslinger for the gov't,nothing more,nothing less!

[RexImperator]

Liberals can also accept US hegemony but want to promote it more through soft power, trade, and international institutions, etc.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic...ity_theory

[jimukr104]

(05-04-2014 11:15 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Liberals can also accept US hegemony but want to promote it more through soft power, trade, and international institutions, etc.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic...ity_theory

Yes...what would they do if no one was working in sweat shops making their Iphones? lol

[bojangles]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-30...erspective

Huge article that i won't quote as the word 'huge' is apt, thought provoking and well worth a read

[Samseau]

I like how some guys call Russia big and strong when they take over Ukraine but had the USA been successful in controling the region it would have just been those big bad neocons.



Politics are zero-sum and there are no good guys. Either your country wins or it doesn't. Doesn't make sense to pretend one party is better than the other. Might as well go with the guys who are protecting you.

That said, I'm glad the democrat party gets discredited. The republicans have been discredited long ago and it was painfully obvious that the democrats would be miserable failures too.

[Samseau]

(05-03-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

There is little functional difference between any of the American presidential "candidates", regardless of the party affiliation. Of whatever stripe and form of rhetoric, they all represent the oligarchy of financial-military interests. The interests of the common man be damned.

Not even remotely true for foreign policy. Again, the role of the president makes an enormous difference here. Had Gore been elected it would have been a very different story after the terrorists 2001 attacks.

Not saying one is better than the other but let's not kid ourselves. Presidents get dictatorial powers over the military.

Republicans love warfare, democrats love welfare.

[Orion]

Democrats just brought warfare to another level - drones.

[Samseau]

(05-04-2014 04:53 PM)Orion Wrote:  

Democrats just brought warfare to another level - drones.

I did some research - Drone warfare really started in 2001 under Bush. It's very consistent - warfare expands under republicans and welfare expands under democrats.

Once the government expands, of course, it never contracts. Thus the drone program that started under Bush continued under Obama, and Obamacare will continue in some form or another under whatever new president that comes in the future, even if it's Republican.