I fully backed Russia in this conflict.

US travelled 8000km to Iraqi -> whats that called?

Israel destroyed Lebanon because two soldiers were killed.

No country would allow its people to be killed.

Russia strategy is to isolate Georgia and warn all other WESTERN puppert countries in that region that it would not tolerate any nonsense in their backyard.

This strategy will should have used against Cameron but we are too corrupt & lazy, that why we gave them Bakassi on platter of Gold.

Mark this: If OIL is discovered in Semme or Badagry; the WEST will instigate Benin republic to claim its their land.

The whole world should be happy we still have Russia and China to balance things otherwise the whole world would be under bondage of WEST.

debosky:

*shrugs*
But if NATO knows that Russia is willing to attack a country like Georgia over this type of dispute, it will be hesitant in giving Georgia NATO membership to prevent direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. That alone serves as a deterrent to other close by nations joining NATO. In addition, being hostile to Russia alone is not the issue - its seemingly going to the 'other side' as it were.

This military action will alienate Russia a bit, but will cause a rethink with regards to NATO's expansion eastwards, which is one of the aims of Russia. Yes the Russians have historic interventionist practices, but you don't see them sabre rattling with Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan, simply because those nations are not angling for a more western tilt and are happy to let things remain as they are.

dremoney:

Point is,
No country for now can stand Russis'a military might, d invasion of Goergia was actually meant to be a warning to US (the gang leader), US is exhausted because of their LOST war in Iraq and Afganistan, na onli noise them dey make nw!!!!

Thank God for Russia and China, d rest of d world would have bn, i don't know

cold:

These Americans and their double standards just give me the creeps.Y is it okay for Kosovo to break away from Serbia but not okay for South Ossetia & Abkazia to remain independent of Georgia.And y is it okay for America to remain in Iraq 4 as long as they want and xpect Russia to leave Georgia and surroundin environs effective immediately?Do they think Russia is another state they can just boss arnd.Threatening to throw them out of the G8,xclude them from WTO etc.What nonsense!I just feel pity 4 Poland,because by the time their Parliament ratifies the missile defense shield treaty signd by the exec & the USA and the interceptors are installed,they'l b nxt on Russia's list.America'l maq all the noise they want & still do nuthin.

sly-k:

let there be peace, Amen!

Bush and his henchmen have no clue what diplomacy means. I agree that Poland will suffer some consequence for allowing herself to be played like a pawn.

RichyBlacK:

Bush and his henchmen have no clue what diplomacy means. I agree that Poland will suffer some consequence for allowing herself to be played like a pawn.

FBS:

you guys na waoo, na only america dey iraq, are the britons & co not there? in any case we have seen than most americans have come out to say what the US in doing is wrong.

but here, you see russia thinking that they are the newly crowned kings of the world, they are dreaming. is it not clear that moscow is also using the ossetins has pawns? forget what the media says, go to georgia, russia, abzhakia and most of the countries bodering russia and you will see what exactly is going on.

I applaud the steps of Poland, they know that the russians are crazy 'because everyone know what they in czechkoslovakia in 1968.

russia like the usa signed a pact with hilter during the world war II, russia is evil if you don't know, they care about nothing, they least of their worries is the ethnic ossetins, they can go to hell as far as russia is concerned,

as anyone ever thought why ukraine is NOT supporting russia? ( these are people of the same blood, russians, ukrainians, ), and yes, belorussia has been very very silent and good action that is.

Tayo-D:

@RichyBlack,
The installations in Poland are purely defensive weapons. Why should a country be punished for defending herself? I thought people will address issues objectively, but this is just unbelievable.

so what would you say if they seek after nuclear weapons like Iran?

RichyBlacK:

@Tayo-D,

What was America's reaction when the Soviet Union put "defensive" missiles in Cuba in 1962?

If the missiles the Americans want to put in Poland is to protect Europe from Iran's non-existent nuclear threat, why not place the missiles in Bulgaria, Romania or Turkey?

No sane person thinks the US missile defence system offers anything approaching protection from a Russian nuclear attack. The system clearly can't stop Russian missiles and is not designed to. The Russians' main concern is that the whole system reflects a growing sense of encirclement,in its own 'backyard',by pro-Western Govts and Western military institutions

Until the Georgia crisis, Poles didn't want the US missile shield. It was seen as another demonstration of Bush lunacy: a piece of kit that didn't work; a $100bn subsidy of American aerospace; a defence against an Iran that would use a terror cell with a dirty bomb before an ICBM; and a middle finger to a Kremlin that will take any pretext to whip up Russian nationalism to distract from its own failings.

But now, the 10 interceptor missiles headed for Poland have real power – and that power is symbolic rather than tactical. With American boots and hardware on the ground in their country, Poles feel that they cannot be let down in the way they have been so many times before. The Kremlin's recent behavior, and long memories in this part of the world, makes Poles want that certainty.

4 Play:

In your warped view, a purely defensive system designed to detect incoming missiles is akin to nuclear missiles.

No sane person thinks the US missile defence system offers anything approaching protection from a Russian nuclear attack. The system clearly can't stop Russian missiles and is not designed to. The Russians' main concern is that the whole system reflects a growing sense of encirclement,in its own 'backyard',by pro-Western Govts and Western military institutions.

davidylan:

why are you guys arguing with RichyBlack? If the sun fails to rise tomorrow he will blame it on George Bush . . .

RichyBlacK:

All missiles in the same range category or ballistic class have essentially similar hardware, however, what distinguishes them is an itty-bitty thing called software.  What you term "defense system" can be converted to an "offensive system" by changing the software.

4 Play:

Even a shield can be converted into a weapon by a capable smith who chisels the metal into a sharp pointed object or even simply wielding it as one.

There is no dumber sight on Nairaland than RichyBlack trying to sound intelligent. One would have thought that the fact that the Russians have never contested the deployment of the missile defense systems on the basis of a supposed potentially offensive capability,would have made him realize the folly of crassly comparing the deployment of 10 interceptor missiles in Poland to the deployment of nukes in Cuba.

That this nitwit claims that interceptors are distinct solely on the basis of their software beggars belief.   

RichyBlacK:

4 Play,
Instead of spending so much time posting over 12,000 posts on Nairaland (considering the huge number of profiles you've created, e.g. I-man, etc.), why not just pick up a good non-fiction book (not sport magazine) and read. Or visit other serious forums and soak up some knowledge. Depending on the little education you got from college is not doing you much good. Try to upgrade yourself, seriously. Your general knowledge base has dwindled. Pathetic!

I repeat, you're a complete and utter neophyte on the subject of missile technologies.

4 Play:

This mooncalf started by drawing crass parallels between Soviet deployments in Cuba and US interceptors in Poland. Never mind that the Soviets came to Cuba with at least 40,000 troops,80 warplanes and 40 nuclear warheads. Only a fool would have failed to see the absurdity in the parallels.

He then proceeds to justify this idiocy by proclaiming that the interceptors are distinct only because of their software. To call this imbecility will be too kind.

Of course,the Russians have never raised objections to US missile defense in Europe on the grounds that the interceptor missiles can easily be converted to offensive weapons. They are obviously not possessed of the same cretinous mindset of RichyBlack.

RichyBlacK:

1. 4 Play has no idea the role of software in modern missile systems. He probably thinks that those missiles are shot by humans watching the night sky. Real mumu!
2. 4 Play does not understand the concept of reusability in modern technologies. He still thinks that every hardware is built again from scratch, whenever a new purpose is defined for the system the hardware integrates into. Real ode!
3. 4 Play thinks it is impossible for a missile that can track and hit a moving target cannot be used to hit a stationary target. Complete buffoon!
4. 4 Play cannot answer the simple question: "What would America do if Russia deploys ABMs in Cuba to protect Mexico from Brazil?" Real ote!

[b]The fact is that 4 Play is not aware of the many reasons why Russia is opposed to the deployment of ABMs in Poland. [/b]If the systems are entirely "defensive" and if Russian missiles can penetrate the shield, then why is Russia worried? Are the Russians just a bunch of worriers? No. The gist is that the conversion of "defensive" systems to "offensive" systems is an exact science! Only a fool will fail to realize that all "defensive" systems are potential "offensive" systems, at least in the context of missile technologies. How and when the system is deployed will properly define its status.

4 Play:

It's obvious that you are an slowpoke. The attempts to cover up your cretinous analogy is absurd with bizarre attempts at a straw man's argument. Interceptors are built differently,both in their hardware and software,to undertake their main task and it will take more than a mere change of software to adapt them.

I didn't answer the question about what would America do if Russia deploys ABMs? You are either an Alzheimer's patient or a craven liar. How could I answer a question that was never posed? It was only until it was pointed out to you, the absurdity of comparing the Soviet missiles in Cuba with US interceptors in Poland ,that you came up with this new line.

Could it be that the reason why I am unaware of this "reason",that ABMs can be reconfigured into offensive weapons,is because it was wholly manufactured in your craven mind in an absurd attempt to justify your earlier analogy?

The Russians are worried about the ABMs for the reasons they have stated. No where,I repeat,no where have the Russians ever stated that one of the reasons they are worried is that the interceptors could easily be reconfigured into offensive missiles. You have access to the internet,if you can find one single article where the Russians have made such a claim,show us.

Being an idiot,you have invented this red herring to escape from your earlier crass remarks.

While novices like you rely on the press (CNN and BBC) to give you information about this issue, people who know about these technologies do not need the press to tell them of the possibility of converting "defensive" systems to "offensive" systems.