Russian Warships may probe U.S./Obama response during transition of power

talknet · Dec 17, 2008

Quote from themarket:

Take revenge how and to what end? If a little shithole like Georgia shot down 20 of their planes? What the fuck do you think WE would do? Shoot down a hundred!?

In 1980, when Russia invaded Afghanistan, USA and CIA secretly supplied "stinger missiles" to Mujaheedins or Afghan fighters and they easily shot down Russian warplanes, Helicopters, and battle tanks.

What will happen if now Russia secretly supplies high-tech weapons to Taleban and Al-Aqeda. Already USA and NATO forces are fighting a losing battle in Afghanistan. Taleban has grown stronger now.

USA has a long history of Back-stabbing Russia. USA dares not face Russia face to face.

One day Russia will definately take revenge. There is always a "great silence" before a massive storm (nature's rule)

Landis82 · Dec 17, 2008

Right now, the Russian's are having to deal with a COLLAPSING ruble . . . in otherwords, they have enough problems of their own right now.

talknet · Dec 17, 2008

Quote from Landis82:

Right now, the Russian's are having to deal with a COLLAPSING ruble . . . in otherwords, they have enough problems of their own right now.

I think USA economy is in bigger trouble than the Russians

AAAintheBeltway · Dec 17, 2008

I think the deterioration of our relations with Russia has been one of the great failures of the Bush administration. For some reason, they seemed to think it was a good idea to rub Russia's nose in the fact we won the Cold War. How would we react if they had won and invited Mexico and Canada to join the Warsaw Pact? Bush has declared that Russia is not entitled to a sphere of influence over its former satellite states. While it might have been appropriate to impose some limits on what Russia could do to them, we didn't need to give them explicit war guarantees, which is what NATO involves.

Russia doesn't have to be a close ally of the US, but there is no reason they have to be an adversary. They are far from perfect, but I put 95% of the blame for the current poor state of relations on Bush.

talknet · Dec 18, 2008

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Russia doesn't have to be a close ally of the US, but there is no reason they have to be an adversary. They are far from perfect, but I put 95% of the blame for the current poor state of relations on Bush.

USA and Russia relations were best-ever during George Bush and Vladimir Putin administration. I think Bush and Putin were good friends.

But now leaders of Russia and USA have changed. Russia does not like Barak Obama. In fact worldwide, nobody likes Barak Obama.

I think the only reason USA citizens elected Obama was that, people thought Obama will stop giving Trillions of dollars to "worthless giant companies and Banks". But now Obama is investing $2.5 trillions into "sinking economy with no sales future". Obama turned out to be a Back-stabber for USA citizens.

USA will be in BIG TROUBLE under Barak Obama's rule.

FortuneTeller · Dec 18, 2008

Quote from talknet:

But now leaders of Russia and USA have changed. Russia does not like Barak Obama. In fact worldwide, nobody likes Barak Obama.

Nobody but Chavez and Cuba likes Russia. Maybe Russia will piss NoBama off and he will nuke the hell out of them. What would the world miss without Russia? Vodka? I say blast the dumb Russians now. Do it. Get her done. Once and for all. Just get it over with. Melt their ugly faces. The World doesn't need Russia. Never did.

BLOW THEM UP

Shagi · Dec 18, 2008

Quote from FortuneTeller:

Nobody but Chavez and Cuba likes Russia. Maybe Russia will piss NoBama off and he will nuke the hell out of them. What would the world miss without Russia? Vodka? I say blast the dumb Russians now. Do it. Get her done. Once and for all. Just get it over with. Melt their ugly faces. The World doesn't need Russia. Never did.

BLOW THEM UP

So USA citizens are more important than Russians - i your eyes maybe but its not all that share this hate

dcraig · Dec 18, 2008

Quote from talknet:

USA and Russia relations were best-ever during George Bush and Vladimir Putin administration. I think Bush and Putin were good friends.

But now leaders of Russia and USA have changed. Russia does not like Barak Obama. In fact worldwide, nobody likes Barak Obama.

I think the only reason USA citizens elected Obama was that, people thought Obama will stop giving Trillions of dollars to "worthless giant companies and Banks". But now Obama is investing $2.5 trillions into "sinking economy with no sales future". Obama turned out to be a Back-stabber for USA citizens.

USA will be in BIG TROUBLE under Barak Obama's rule.

You are delusional. The rest of the world would choose Obama over Bush by a factor of 10:1. Which doesn't make Obama especially great. Just that Bush is especially dreadfull.

dcraig · Dec 18, 2008

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I think the deterioration of our relations with Russia has been one of the great failures of the Bush administration. For some reason, they seemed to think it was a good idea to rub Russia's nose in the fact we won the Cold War. How would we react if they had won and invited Mexico and Canada to join the Warsaw Pact? Bush has declared that Russia is not entitled to a sphere of influence over its former satellite states. While it might have been appropriate to impose some limits on what Russia could do to them, we didn't need to give them explicit war guarantees, which is what NATO involves.

Russia doesn't have to be a close ally of the US, but there is no reason they have to be an adversary. They are far from perfect, but I put 95% of the blame for the current poor state of relations on Bush.

Can't disagree with much of your assessment. The thing is that so frequently the current admin has been pointlessly provocative. It just doesn't seem to have any real logic to it, other than some sort of "We're masters of the universe" mentality.

AAAintheBeltway · Dec 18, 2008

Quote from dcraig:

Can't disagree with much of your assessment. The thing is that so frequently the current admin has been pointlessly provocative. It just doesn't seem to have any real logic to it, other than some sort of "We're masters of the universe" mentality.

I think it was partly a case of people with a Cold War mindset being in charge and seeing a chance to settle old scores. Partly it was the neo-con argument that we should promote democracy everywhere and make it our business to protect fledgling democracies, even if, or maybe particularly if, they were former Soviet satellites.

As Pat Buchanan has pointed out repeatedly, the end result was that we extended security guarantees, in the case of NATO members explicit war guarantees, to places where we had zero vital interests. Moreover, we risk getting caught up in the sort of local intrigues and ancient rivalries that lit the fuse for WW I.