Interesting things I read today, but not good at all : http://en.rian.ru/world/20071215/92601146.html Why US still need to place that stuff if its proved that Iran doesnt have nukes ? Seems they lied then. At the same time Poland cant make a steady decision, at first they agreed and now its not clear what they want: http://en.rian.ru/world/20071206/91243538.html
thats what Russian side was saying from the 1st place, seems like now when Iran doesnt have anything we can see a clear picture, US want it, and the reason is not Iran.
Antimissiles are defensive. Why is Russia worried about antimissles? They also need to stop selling nuclear technology to Iran.
Simple. If someone could actually block all of their missiles it makes them defenseless. We would be able to hit them without worry of being hit back. Defense in this situation is more powerful than the weapons themselves. --- Plus if they could not tell the difference between a 'defensive' and an 'offensive' missile it would be trouble for all..
Russia has nuclear subs and bombers. SU-35 fighters can be nuclear armed also. Russia has thousands of nuclear missles and 20 anti-missles is no threat to them. Putin is trying to use strong arm tactics to further his political agenda. They have already used gas exports as an economic weapon. Russia is really playing stupid dealing with regimes like Saddams's Iraq and Iran. The few dollars they get in bribes is nothing compared to the revenue for exports of gas and oil to the west. Russia's oil exports are 7 Million bbl/day and gas exports for 2006 were 145 billion cubic meters of gas to European non-CIS countries at 230 USD per 1,000 cubic meters. Russia is also the third largest exporter of wheat which is a record prices of over $9 per bushel.
everyone backs up who they need. You back up Israel. Cos its in your interest. I do not believe that a country can back another coutry if its against their interests. Unless they from the same ethnics (example: Russia/Belarus/Ukraine) What have West done that Russia should back up West? Nothing, so why not play in the sake of our own interests? US always plays like that and people in US are happy not even knowing much about politics. Im okay with that. Also, the gas and all other business things. Whats that gotta do with politics? Even if you dont buy anything (like isolation in USSR times), would that change smth? I doubt it.
I don't really know why we want to build a missile shield for Europe when we do not have one here in the USA. It would seem to be a smarter move to build it here first. BTW, it has not been proven that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapons program. The intelligence that's been gathered is very limited and appears to be politically driven in order to defuse Bush's saber rattling. The Iranian nuclear program went underground several years ago. We have about as much proof that their program was discontinued as we had proof that we knew exactly where Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were located. Iran is a closed society. We just do not have access to details about their program. Given the obvious nature of Ahmadinejad, I don't think his word can be trusted.
the hand in this case isnt US. There are no pipelines to US. So we dont bite anything. Tech, how come you dont have one in US ?? Are you sure about that.
isnt that selfish in your opinion? To not plant this nuclear sh*t on your own land? Anyhow, theres no shield created that would defend from Topol-M (SS-27) missles.
The system is not able to block multiply missiles launched at the same time which Russia could do, it's setup to hit a missile or two which would protect Europe from an attack by Iran. Also why is Russia so interested in launching bombs into Europe?
Everyone knows that theres no such interest (the people). US tries to put this in other heads, even when people of that country do not want US bases (check italian protests). US simply buys them with $ deals (Poland in this case). Like it did buy N. Korea. As I quoted earlier, if the automated system wont see if the missle from Poland is offensive or defensive, then its end of the world...Now Im asking from whom this shield is going to be protecting? At first it was Iran, is it still Iran? Why do they lie? Thats what pisses me off.
Anti-missles are defensive. Your argument is backwards that "it's going to be the end of the world if the west fires its anti-missles". You are clearly pointing out the danger that the west faces from Russian weapons like the Topol-M (SS-27) missles