BF2S Forums Russia: the REAL Threat to the World

Turquoise wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

oug wrote:

Example?

Nothing off the top of my head. There have been wars fought for good reasons, for example Kuwait and Afghanistan pops out in my memory.

Vietnam purportedly fit this description actually.  The problem is that the areas we were trying to defend weren't worth fighting for.  At the time, Southeast Asia was rather insignificant compared to most other threatened regions.

Not to mention the South Vietnamese government wasn't the greatest, though it was better then the North's obviously. Lesser of two evils, we chose we we assumed was the less in WWII and sided with the Russians.

Turquoise wrote:

Well, to be fair, Stalin wasn't as bad to our interests as Hitler.  He was just lucky that he rose to power at a time where we had that frame of reference.  Had we handled WW1 better and not left Germany in ruins, Hitler never would've rose to power, and we'd probably had fought the Soviets instead at a time long before nukes came about.

Imagine how much better Russia would be now as a capitalistic Western power.  Oh well....

Russia is a capitalist country, and its a world power without a doubt; and look how that turned to be with the rampant corruption.

Russia can't ever do anything. They aren't strong enough to go against the US and Europe.

They also can't get China to ally with them in a war on the US and Europe otherwise China will lose its entire economic growth and go back to being nothing. China relies on the West a whole lot.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Define a threat. Russia doesn't seem to pose any threat whatsoever to the U.S. to me.

isolationism ftw

You know all those socks missing a match, well that is Russia doing that and it won't stop there.  They have also undermined our silverware with the introduction of the spork.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking, but those heartless commie bastards will never give you your socks back.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Define a threat. Russia doesn't seem to pose any threat whatsoever to the U.S. to me.

isolationism ftw

You know all those socks missing a match, well that is Russia doing that and it won't stop there.  They have also undermined our silverware with the introduction of the spork.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking, but those heartless commie bastards will never give you your socks back.

I can buy a dozen socks for a quarter from those heartless Chinese commie bastards.

Fuck the socks. They're the most useless piece in our attire. If America can get our socks back through healthy, non-binding diplomacy, great. Otherwise, we can do without.

ATG wrote:

I think the real question is, who are you or we to define Russias place?

You want WW3?

Try and put them in their place.

The United States is provoking Russia with a proposed missile shield. We encourage former Soviet countries to become members of NATO with which comes a promise of mutual military response to a attack. We invaded Iraq with 1/10th of the justification.

Nope. Let the bear roam.

The Cold War is back.  You just don't know it yet.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Define a threat. Russia doesn't seem to pose any threat whatsoever to the U.S. to me.

isolationism ftw

I used to support that...  I definitely support less intervention in certain regions, but Russia really is more of a threat to our allies than Iraq was.

Iraq had nothing to do with our allies, it had to do with us attempting to enforce our dominance in the region. It was actually more the other way around, we had to use our influence in other nations to get them to help us. Do you think anyone would be there if not for the U.S.?

Russia being a threat to our allies, not to us, is exactly my point. As far as I'm concerned as long as the West maintains some sort of tactical and cultural haven along the perimeter of Eurasia, we can sit here happily churning out our computers and hot dogs and cruise missiles.

One of the most American principles is that when the individual works for the betterment of his or herself, they work to the betterment of the group.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I used to support that...  I definitely support less intervention in certain regions, but Russia really is more of a threat to our allies than Iraq was.

Iraq had nothing to do with our allies, it had to do with us attempting to enforce our dominance in the region. It was actually more the other way around, we had to use our influence in other nations to get them to help us. Do you think anyone would be there if not for the U.S.?

Russia being a threat to our allies, not to us, is exactly my point. As far as I'm concerned as long as the West maintains some sort of tactical and cultural haven along the perimeter of Eurasia, we can sit here happily churning out our computers and hot dogs and cruise missiles.

One of the most American principles is that when the individual works for the betterment of his or herself, they work to the betterment of the group.

I totally agree with you on Iraq, which is why I leaned more in the isolationist direction with that invasion.  Russia is a very different story though.  The Cold War was necessary, and it looks like it will be necessary yet again.  Countries like Iran and North Korea are isolated problems.  Russia is huge and powerful.  We can't afford to sit idly by against them.

Why is it so necessary the second time around? There first time I understand as a cold, nonviolent war is about the best you can ask from the clearly two top dog countries coming out of a massive world war, in a race still in growing pains at the nuclear level.

Now why is it necessary? Just to remind all the ex KGB (or CIA?) how awesome we are? Just because Russia is powerful does not mean we need to do anything about it, or even that they are a threat.

Let's face it, the U.S. has problems coping with the idea that someone else might be number 1. The truth is however that I would find it hard to argue post invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan that the U.S. is still a superpower. We might be stronger militarily than everyone else still, particularly because of our navy, but that does not mean we are a simple majority in military power. After the loss of so much psychological power in the Middle East, let's just say I wouldn't expect the U.S. to be able to go try to take over the world anytime soon. We need to get over the fact that we might not be the end all be all of military might and moral superiority, before our hubris gets us fucked in the ass.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Iraq had nothing to do with our allies, it had to do with us attempting to enforce our dominance in the region. It was actually more the other way around, we had to use our influence in other nations to get them to help us. Do you think anyone would be there if not for the U.S.?

Russia being a threat to our allies, not to us, is exactly my point. As far as I'm concerned as long as the West maintains some sort of tactical and cultural haven along the perimeter of Eurasia, we can sit here happily churning out our computers and hot dogs and cruise missiles.

One of the most American principles is that when the individual works for the betterment of his or herself, they work to the betterment of the group.

I totally agree with you on Iraq, which is why I leaned more in the isolationist direction with that invasion.  Russia is a very different story though.  The Cold War was necessary, and it looks like it will be necessary yet again.  Countries like Iran and North Korea are isolated problems.  Russia is huge and powerful.  We can't afford to sit idly by against them.

Why is it so necessary the second time around? There first time I understand as a cold, nonviolent war is about the best you can ask from the clearly two top dog countries coming out of a massive world war, in a race still in growing pains at the nuclear level.

Now why is it necessary? Just to remind all the ex KGB (or CIA?) how awesome we are? Just because Russia is powerful does not mean we need to do anything about it, or even that they are a threat.

Let's face it, the U.S. has problems coping with the idea that someone else might be number 1. The truth is however that I would find it hard to argue post invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan that the U.S. is still a superpower. We might be stronger militarily than everyone else still, particularly because of our navy, but that does not mean we are a simple majority in military power. After the loss of so much psychological power in the Middle East, let's just say I wouldn't expect the U.S. to be able to go try to take over the world anytime soon. We need to get over the fact that we might not be the end all be all of military might and moral superiority, before our hubris gets us fucked in the ass.

Well, for starters, if we don't defend Georgia, that's going to make all of our other allies wonder why they are aligned with us.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

ATG wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

While Pakistan is plenty concerning in its own right, I think we can safely say at this point that Russia is far more of a threat to the world than Iraq, North Korea, and Iran ever could have been and ever will be.

With the way that the rest of the world either doesn't care or doesn't have the power to do much against Russia in its attacks on Georgia, I suppose we're back to the position we were in with the Cold War.

So, the question I have for this thread is...  With us being stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, how best can we deal with Russia?  We obviously don't want WW3 to occur, but Russia is really pushing its luck lately.  How can we put them back in their place?

I think the real question is, who are you or we to define Russias place?

You want WW3?

Try and put them in their place.

The United States is provoking Russia with a proposed missile shield. We encourage former Soviet countries to become members of NATO with which comes a promise of mutual military response to a attack. We invaded Iraq with 1/10th of the justification.



Nope. Let the bear roam.

1/10th of the justification?  Let the bear roam?  Provoking Russia?

Let's just say this is the country that gave the world the Cold War, Chernobyl, and Perestroika.

Perestroika.
Duncecap Boy, do you even understand what that  was?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I totally agree with you on Iraq, which is why I leaned more in the isolationist direction with that invasion.  Russia is a very different story though.  The Cold War was necessary, and it looks like it will be necessary yet again.  Countries like Iran and North Korea are isolated problems.  Russia is huge and powerful.  We can't afford to sit idly by against them.

Why is it so necessary the second time around? There first time I understand as a cold, nonviolent war is about the best you can ask from the clearly two top dog countries coming out of a massive world war, in a race still in growing pains at the nuclear level.

Now why is it necessary? Just to remind all the ex KGB (or CIA?) how awesome we are? Just because Russia is powerful does not mean we need to do anything about it, or even that they are a threat.

Let's face it, the U.S. has problems coping with the idea that someone else might be number 1. The truth is however that I would find it hard to argue post invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan that the U.S. is still a superpower. We might be stronger militarily than everyone else still, particularly because of our navy, but that does not mean we are a simple majority in military power. After the loss of so much psychological power in the Middle East, let's just say I wouldn't expect the U.S. to be able to go try to take over the world anytime soon. We need to get over the fact that we might not be the end all be all of military might and moral superiority, before our hubris gets us fucked in the ass.

Well, for starters, if we don't defend Georgia, that's going to make all of our other allies wonder why they are aligned with us.

Maybe we should be wondering why they aren't defending them? Georgia is a lot closer to their backyard.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I'm not sure you're getting my point. Isolationism. No binding alliances.

You really think ditching our allies is a good idea.

Cutting ties at the next peaceful time would be 1000% good for this country.