The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Posts by JohnP  

Joined: 8 Sep 2007 / Male ♂
Last Post: 20 Feb 2010
Threads: -
Posts: Total: 210 / Live: 55 / Archived: 155
From: Back in the US. Yay.
Speaks Polish?: No, love to learn
Interests: Lots! bits of foil, shiny objects...

Displayed posts: 55 / page 1 of 2
sort: Latest first   Oldest first
JohnP   
20 Feb 2010
News / US to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland [404]

Wow.
this thread is still going? I left, went to Iraq (again) came back, and generally ignored this forum for months....and it's still going.

Except for one or two days, Iraq was quiet where I was located.
Iran...is now claiming to be a nuclear power. Can't say I (and others) didn't tell you so.
Their missiles can apparently now reach Poland. "Experts" claimed they didn't think it would be possible for quite a few years. It would be foolhardy to think they haven't already made the connection themselves and at least begun work on just how to mount said WMD into said missile...

Poland is not getting interceptors, now. Russia (and her ally Iran) is most happy with this.
One wonders why Poland sought independence from the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Influence, if it has to ask Russia for permission to do anything?

Patriots were not the interceptors being offered, but THAAD-which are capable of destroying ICBM's at much much greater ranges and at safer distances than Patriots; Patriots, I believe, were a later deal meant to appease Russia.

Contrary to some posts, and propaganda from Russian as well as misinformed sources...nuclear weapons were NEVER on the table.

It is apparent some posters here (thankfully not all) let their dislike in general of Americans taint their understanding of reality, and wildly follow any conspiracy which allows them to continue their anti-US views.

disagreement with these raving lunatics is simply an invite to their attentions, and to have them claim "brainwashing" and all sort of other things...never mind they never seem to back up their own theories.

This thread is tiring. Poland, sorry. Hope you don't need the interceptors.

They've never *really* been all that much about the U.S....contrary to what blowhards on here will tell you, we already have protection in the US; the same sort Russia convinced you not to have.

Russia has, after all, always been a friend not only of the US, but of Poland....

John P.
JohnP   
27 Jun 2009
Love / How to seduce Polish girls: Tips and advice [118]

Odd.
I think the term "trousers" is pretty rare in the US except perhaps when referring to part of a uniform.
I've always heard pants or panties used in that statement.

Knickers is a very British thing, I think. Not something one hears in the US although most of us know what they are (another thing that can throw us Americans off is the habit over there of stating someone or something's weight in stone. For us, its pounds)

Anyway. Wouldn't know about seducing. I'm married now and even before was the world's worst...women usually picked ME up, which seems odd to me (as I'm quite funny looking)

John P.
JohnP   
22 Apr 2009
News / US to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland [404]

What about others "partially" responsible? Are they excused?

No. Which is why they are being hunted and or killed as we speak, although I have a feeling you are (predictably) going to try to blame everyone but the terrorists or their direct supporters...

But was the restrictions set by US or the United Nations? If it was the latter, why the United Nations were against invasion of Iraq? US thumbed its nose at the UN resolutions, hm?

There were no UN resolutions against the US...and for that matter, while the UN wanted to wait (and apparently the G.S. was involved in a related scandal) the mandate for war was written into the very resolutions drafted at the end of open hostilities in 1991. Not to say the US or any nation needs UN permission to go to war. We all created the UN after WWII...however did anyone survive without the UN prior to that, one wonders. The UN is a club. Its only power is the will of its independent member nations to support various ideas and mandates it arrives at. It has the strength of iron in some ways, but soft clay in others, if you will...not predictable.

And the Saudi gave under the table?

Not that you have the sense to read them anyway. Go back to your comic books. The lot of questions you put in this last paragraph demonstrate you lack the motivation to look things up for yourself. Hollywood tracking bank accounts (huh?) Bin Laden's family in US, twin towers....wow. You could keep Reynolds wrap in business for YEARS. Don't bother reading my posts any more. I prefer to argue with people who come up with valid arguments to discuss, not off the wall conspiracies or unfounded blanket statements.

Do you yourself understand what you wrote? It is gibberish of nonsense.

Ahh...so the new definition of anything challenging your canned belief with logic is "gibberish of nonsense". Good to know should that information be required.

Of course, you blame me and people that have the same opinion about Holy US BS.

Way to prove your higher learning. You went on the attack against my country with generalizations that are categorically false (e.g. you whether or not intentionally are spreading lies)

...I merely defended it; if you cannot take the heat in return, do not dish it out, especially if you are not prepared to defend your positions with more than insults. There are many here who disagree with me quite a bit but are capable of holding a discussion in a civilized manner, which makes the exchange of ideas enjoyable. Learn from them.

John P.
JohnP   
22 Apr 2009
News / US to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland [404]

More or less, a living evidence of my prior claim that US is intentionally creating a nation of morons who without moral or ethical backbone or personal opinion will be easily manipulated and governed

And yet...it isn't me who believes the (unfounded in fact) status quo, but you. If there is large scale manipulation happening...well, the status quo and most of the voters agree with you. Now who's the "moron"? Enjoy that next spoon full of pablum.

For you nothing has changed, oil companies get more oil, they can sell more oil but thats for their benefit, not yours.

??? of course oil companies sell oil, who did you expect would sell it, refrigerator manufacturers?

Iraq, like other governments, owns its own oil. If it sells it to companies for resale, that is their decision, not yours or mine. Hence their recent efforts at OPEC to reduce the supply, to allow them more income.

Iraq is also famous for its dates, but somehow I doubt they produce nearly enough to support their economy compared to the oil.

Who are you to decide about sovereignity of other countries?

Wasn't me. Saddam lost in 1991, the UN made restrictions on him, he agreed to them. He was allowed not only to live, but remain in power, so long as he followed those restrictions. He did not. His choice.

So? America is not the friend of ME states, if i was an Iraqi i'd be cheering those jumpers who hopped out of windows since i'd hate you and your people for all the sanctions and Israel support, their support of 9/11 is fully understanble even if not politically correct, they hate you for good reasons so ofc they wont be sad when your people die.

And yet, you are NOT an Iraqi, nor are your views (or mine) necessarily theirs.
UN sanctions left Saddam able to take care of his people, just not so much his war machine.
Like so many dictators in precarious positions of power, his path was unfortunately predictable...the money wasn't spent on people but on Saddam and his sons' ever increasing power, while creating a secret police that grew in ruthlessness in direct proportion to the unhappiness of his people. Your implication of a more Utopian Iraq under Saddam, with everything just peachy under him...is wrong.

No WMDs have been discovered prior to or after the war, US admitted it had no tangible proof which means the country was invaded for another reason, the only other reason is oil

This is a shallow minded argument. You can do better. Finding nothing when inspectors are not allowed to look....proves nothing, other than that inspectors, contrary to the restrictions Saddam agreed to, were not being granted unfettered access. As for during and after the war...who knows what may be found in the future, but artillery rounds found full of Sarin gas, have already been discovered (5 years ago....) and do qualify.

Not finding a nuclear weapon is not indicative of no WMDs, but short of a nuclear weapon going off, it will receive little coverage unless it is found as a result of efforts by the party favored by a majority of the media, especially during election years. We are still finding things buried and stockpiled left over from the Iran-Iraq war, including MiG fighters (much larger than a WMD).

Oil? please...there are several here who think everything ever done by America is about oil (or perhaps Israel...or bankers...where's my tinfoil hat) ...who pulled your string?

If oil was the reason for going to Iraq, we would have saved ourselves the trouble of the first war, let alone the last one...and simply leveraged Saddam to sell to us at a cut rate (much as Russia was attempting to do prior to the invasion behind the scenes...Putin had a lot of money in Saddam and lost a lot when he fell). We did not do so. Iraq is paidfull price for its oil, although the US is not their primary customer as I understand. Most US oil comes from much closer than the Middle East.

The one thing that scares me is that USA is so powerfull and yet inhabited by mindless drones like you, make no mistake thats not an insult, as far as i can like a nickname on an online forum you evoke sympathy, the problem is that what you're reapiting is basically the same pro-war propaganda spewed by Bush and debunked later, your arguments hold zero factual basis.

I am a mindless drone eh? And yet I put my own name to my posts. You sir...hide behind the name of a long dead philosopher who you do not represent in the least.

I do my own thinking.
You obviously, do not, and come across as shocked that anyone would disagree with what you, from your armchair, have deemed to be the absolute truth.

You make accusations about me, without backing up them or even your own statements.
I, presumably unlike yourself, have at least a basic grasp on the US and on our military. I have been to Iraq for long periods of time and have been shoulder to shoulder with Iraqi soldiers as well as civilians.

Where does your knowledge come from? a commentator or two who agree with you politically? politicians going through an election?
Some of your information may be correct...but it is at least as suspect as anything I've written.
Mine? I doubt I will ever convince you, but then again, your opinion is far more important than facts are, isn't it.

imber94:
All in all, it strongly looks like JohnP is the end product of establishment brainwashing, and a CIA agent. Of course he'll deny every word of it.

This is the truth -

@bimber...I wish I were a CIA agent. They make a LOT more than I do; and interestingly...the establishment is saying the crap YOU believe.

I simply feel the establishment has swallowed a bunch of BS because of its desire to win elections at all cost, and much of what people believe...is based on biased political commentary, while they skim over without seeing the few morsels that are fact.

Iraq bombed the twin towers.

Your words, not mine. I do believe they tossed in cash when the hat was passed, however. Just as Columbus did not sail in 1492 at his own expense, neither did the hijackers do all of their work with their own money.

US invaded Iraq and conquored the best Air Force, one of the best Navy and some of the mostly highly equipped troops in the world.

I see you still haven't bothered reading, but rather input what YOU think I (or for that matter, anyone else who agrees with me on some basis) believe.

Mocking me does not address my (actual) points. Nevermind I've never even implied any of the things in this statement.

Iraq had nuclear warheads aimed at the rest of the world.

Nor have I implied this one...although I do believe he either had one or two or was actively trying to get them.

No civilians were killed.

Not even this one...although I did take you and your source to task for making up numbers and inventing imaginary military tactics...
The source claiming millions of civilians killed....the one you and others have referenced in the past...apparently never actually verified the majority of the casualties they claim, claiming it was too "dangerous" to actually visit the sites of these alleged civilian slayings.

Pardon me for thinking this was shoddy work on the part of the reporter, especially considering at that time the US was paying large sums of money to those who indeed had suffered and could demonstrate this.

The numbers claimed were inflated to a level that would have been difficult to believe even under WWII style total war, let alone current "you're going to go to jail for murder if the guy you shoot wasn't the one shooting at you" tactics.

Forgive me for my insensibilities here, but where I grew up, that sort of story is called a "Lie".

Iraqis love us for it.

Some do, however I suspect some also resent the fact we could have helped them take their country from Saddam in 1991, and when the chips fell, left them hanging because the politicos in the UN wanted to give Saddam another chance, and Pres. Bush (Sr) obliged them. Saddam mowed his people down like grass while the promised help in their revolt...never came, called off the very DAY the fight was to start.

So it is bittersweet to some, especially those who risked and lost the first time...that they would have to wait 12 years with their grief.

Al Quaeda are everywhere.

Again a feeble attempt at mockery by attributing to me things which I have not claimed.
Yet you can claim all sorts of conspiracies, and feel secure that those are completely sane.
Perhaps Al Qaeda are everywhere...but not as strong as they once were.
Oh sure, many pay lip service...but the ones who'll put their lives on the line, real planners? not so much. Perhaps they're in Iran (or perhaps your basement?) being trained. After all, if you can claim I must be a CIA operative...(simply for disagreeing with your constant attacks on America or her troops or her citizens....where I grew up that was called "patriot" not CIA but hey...) then I could just as easily claim based on your statements that you were working for Al Qaeda.

See? It is the same. Hopefully you (and bimber) now see the ridiculousness of these statements.

John P.
JohnP   
21 Apr 2009
News / US to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland [404]

What about farts? Can Iraqis fart or if they do, they got invaded?

Iraq is in the position to have pissed off a lot of people in 1991, and one of the conditions they were required to meet was to eliminate their WMDs (including reporting and inventory of where material went) and WMD programs. It was not a secret that they did neither.

JohnP:
where Saddam's army lined up the Kuwaiti officers outside their barracks and machine gunned them...are still there.
They were there for 10 years, didn't you know about them before and found out only in 2003?

Strange...had you read my post you would have understand why this was relevant. Iraq was thumbing its nose at restrictions placed on it during the first war...which started with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait over what he supposed were oil wells drilled on a slant or some such.

Why don't attack Saudi Arabia instead or with Iraq. 19 "hijackers" were from there, right?

Never had anyone from your home town commit a crime? Just because a group of terrorists are from a certain country is not enough to call that country a state supporter. Saddam openly gave to various terror groups, and the Taliban even more so. The Saudi government does not, regardless of the fact some of the hijackers were Saudi. That is the primary difference. No country is immune to having religious zealots or even run-of-the-mill whack-jobs. It doesn't mean that country is actively supporting the efforts of these.

But what is hurting the most is the fact that this only applies to oil-bearing nations. Do you think only Iraq had something to say about you?

What are you talking about here, it seems you haven't read anything I've written...

I believe you study oil fields, not social, cultural or other currents of life.

I think you are a blow-hard. If this premise were true, we'd have killed Saddam back in 1991 and let the Kuwaitis play football with his head, or perhaps when the Saudis and others nationalized oil infrastructure built and operated by US and on land bought by US and UK companies...instead of making a deal with the Saudis (they deal in US Dollars only) we would have sailed a ship or two there and killed everyone. You and I both know we could have done it, and there wouldn't be squat anyone could do about it. We did not.

So your argument is faulty.

Why are to be afraid to say Russia is the country. Well, both of ya are pain in the butt of many nations. Why there is no finger-pointing to Canada, second-largest country in the world? Because it doesn't stick its nose where it doesn't belong and doesn't kill thousands of civilians on the way.

Watch the news buddy. Canadian troops are fighting right along side ours, and you have no idea how many civilians have or have not killed or by whom. I was simply pointing out that it is quite easy to point at the people across an ocean from you as being the cause of the world's problems, blame them for controlling all the oil, meanwhile someone in your own back yard is actually DOING the things you THINK Americans are. Which is foolhardy. I don't blame Russia or Russians...they are doing what they SHOULD be doing, which is to look after their own interests. Rather, I blame people like you, who lose everything because they are watching the neighbor's house while their own is on fire.

Saddam did not have to show the evidence, Iraq was a sovereign country and you had no right to invade just because someone refuse to show every single recording of chem agents being scrapped, its a pride thing you know and hardly justification for waging war on a country.

Iraq, while being a sovereign nation, as you say...was only allowed to remain so if it agreed to various restrictions placed on it at the end of the first war in 1991, one of which was reporting, another was unfettered access being given to weapons inspectors, and also a no-fly zone. It did not honor any of these, and short of Saddam's saying so we had no evidence he had, as he said, destroyed his stockpiles, stopped his development program, or for that matter did not possess WMDs. Inspectors did declare many locations to be free of WMDs, true, but almost up to zero-hour there were also places which Saddam restricted the inspectors from visiting. Combine this with a stance openly in support of the 9-11 attacks, as well as information pointing to Iraqi money flowing to support the hijackers and it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

There was justification for war from the first time Saddam shot at an aircraft in the no-fly zone, and the first time he barred inspectors from a site they wished to visit;

Just because he got away with it for 12 years didn't mean he would continue to do so, and apparently he made the misjudgment of thinking he would. Just my opinion, anyway.

the only reason for invasion being control of the oil.

So where is it? WE sure aren't getting it for free...if that was your theory, it is misguided.

And then US came in under made up casus belli and destroyed the country, murdered its leader, wrecked its infrastructure and took over its major resource, in fact US acts far more fascist than Iraq ever did at this point.

Now while you made some interesting points about China, you're wrong here...first of all, Iraq is not destroyed, second, the only US participation in Saddam's death was to provide him a defense attorney the rest was up to Iraq...third of all its infrastructure is better than it was before the war, fourth, the US nor any other member of the coalition took over its major resource (Iraq still has that...we pay for it just like everybody else, although most US oil comes from elsewhere) and lastly, while I'm concerned as the next person about the loss of freedoms currently being threatened by our government, we do not have people who speak up against the government disappearing, or secret police so feared that when they march in public they always keep their faces hidden as did Saddam's Fedayeen secret police. America has its problems, but you're a bit off here. I'd say the UK is closer than we are (cameras everywhere, etc) but still a whole different ball game compared to what the Iraqis had to worry about under Saddam.

Slow down tiger ! I just asked you to clarify an obscure point you were making ( Exxon are better than Gazprom )
Whatever.....linking the twin towers to the invasion of Iraq is low.

Prior to the war, there were photos shown on the news of Iraqi intelligence agents meeting with hijackers in Switzerland; not only this there used to be methods of tracking the banking activities of these same, which later became useless due to an article publishing the techniques used...so linking the two is only low if you refuse to believe there was ever a connection or the possibility of it. Perhaps America is indeed so evil that it will conquer a nation living under a Tyrant, force it to install a democratically elected government, and then steal its oil by paying them for it....or perhaps we sometimes actually have reasons other than those you seem most amenable to.

John P.
JohnP   
20 Apr 2009
News / US to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland [404]

Hate to burst your bubble here...chemical weapons ARE WMD's. Saddam also had a nuclear program (Canada currently receiving the fuel left over from this) and had employed former bioweapons experts from elsewhere also. Not only this, but a large issue with the assessment of WMD's was that Saddam failed to show evidence for the destruction of ALL of the ones he used to have, just some of them.

You're saying it's OK for USA and UK to have WMDs, but not who they decide is an 'enemy'? Funny how whatever 'enemy' it is, just happens to be sitting on oil.

look up "nonproliferation". The cat's already out of the bag, no need to let it walk around the block. As far as oil goes...the same people are buying it from Iraq as before, and Afghanistan doesn't have any. Odd, though, must be easy to point at us Americans; lot safer feeling than looking at the country right next door that controls nearly ALL the oil in Europe now... Funny how things just conveniently worked out to spark intervention in just about the only country to have a non-Russian pipeline, and a nice, juicy seaport. But hey...it wasn't Americans doing it, so must've been all on the up and up...

Naturally, USA was enforcing inspections via European institutions as means of political pressure and to assert dominance over Iraq, Iraqi goverment defied these attempts in the only way it could, by not admitting the inspectors.

The UN is not a "European institution" but an institution founded by the victors of WWII. Iraq wouldn't have had to worry about these things if they had not invaded Kuwait in the first place. Incidentally, the bullet holes where Saddam's army lined up the Kuwaiti officers outside their barracks and machine gunned them...are still there.

Iraq has never killed thousands of American civilians, this is another blanket statement designed to avoid burden of proof and still give your absolutely general argument some sense of credibility, it has none

You're kidding, right? stop hyperventilating and read what I said. And yes, support and funding for hijackers is still enough to blame Iraq at least partially for what happened. If you hire a hit man to kill your wife, YOU are going to jail for murder also, not just your trigger man.

Still trying to associate Iraq with the twin towers - baaaad John.

Yet...you've yet to show that it wasn't associated. Even if it were not the brains, it was I believe at least partially responsible for funding. Iraq's public affairs website, even, prior to the war beginning, looked like it came from a Neo-Nazi group, blaming all sorts of things on the US and especially "Zionists" here or there. Yes, I went to the site. I believe it pays to study one's enemies...it not only helps in war, but later when that same enemy might be a friend.

Can you clarify the point you are trying to make here.

Americans don't control the oil in Europe, we don't even control the oil in MOST places...but there IS a country that does control most of Europe's oil now and is striving to change that statement from "most" to "all".

That country, no matter how easy it is to point fingers at us Americans...is not the United States of America. I'm not spelling it out for you any more. It doesn't pay to fight with a pig, you get all dirty and the pig likes it.

I think if there was a drought in China you would somehow think us responsible, but that's just my impression.

John P.
JohnP   
18 Apr 2009
News / US to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland [404]

There was a time when Poland didn't have special operations forces, because Russia didn't like it. Now she doesn't want interceptors, ostensibly, again, because Russia doesn't like it.

Might as well shut down Warsaw and move it to the Kremlin, that way people like you can go on complaining about the Americans, while being happy that Russia finally got what it wanted.

Honestly, nobody on here really knows if there were or weren't WMD's in Iraq, either (chemical weapons and biological weapons are included as WMDs incidentally). You know only what you've heard from other people, who themselves, often have no idea.

What we know-Iraq *used* to have them, (openly) and for years after 1991, failed to demonstrate what happened to them; amongst other UN sanctions they continued to flaunt. Regardless of pride or whatever reasons they may have had, Iraq was still thumbing its nose at the inspectors, and even blocking them from entry to some locations... then the spark occurred when over a short amount of time multiple primarily American civilian targets had been hit, with thousands of lives lost. We lost our sense of humor for such things-and Iraq was not only openly hostile to the US but hinted it had something up its sleeve. There's an endless amount of conspiracy theories you can find, so-and-so here or there that's still alive or some such...and you can wear as thick of a tinfoil hat as you like-but either Iraq had something, and it was removed/disabled before it could be used, or they didn't, and chose a very poor time to imply they did, perhaps thinking that like the previous administration, nothing would be done to them and their neighbors would continue to quake. America does have trouble fighting the paper tiger label, after all...for every President with a will to do something (and a congress who will let him) there are three who only pay lip service to actions, and then only when trying to get elected.

Saying one did not find anything under those conditions proves little or nothing besides that the government in question is hiding something, whatever that may be.

Second guess it all you want, it has never been shown that Iraq didn't have WMD's; only that they haven't been openly found. To me it is the equivalent of having the police search your house for contraband, but not allowing them to look in the garage.

When they say they found nothing...it really doesn't prove anything.

The oil story is completely off the mark, and is basically a canned answer at this point, as it seems to be tossed out every time America has an interest ANYWHERE. Yet we do not get the oil...we have to buy it like everyone else. Other countries...well, I guess you are just unwilling to criticize; because as they get control of ALL the oil (in Europe...) you're afraid to call a spade a spade, and are still distracted by Americans buying some of Iraq's oil.

Originally...it was all going to go to another country and THEY were going to decide how to divide it. Now Iraq gets to do this. Interesting now that Iran is digging up territory disputes from hundreds of years ago, to try claiming the oil is theirs because it passes through "their" waters. (It doesn't...but they try claiming the whole sea as "theirs" these days).

If anyone blows up Poland, it won't be the US.
The only thing that changes by not having US interceptors there, is that you'll have the self satisfaction of knowing, that when someone DOES blow you up(!?) you got the last laugh, because no nasty American missile shot down the incoming missiles. The satisfaction will last in fractions of a second, but hey...no American interceptors.

To me, not allowing interceptors (patriots included) is like playing hockey, and removing your goalie because it offends the opposing teams.

John P.
JohnP   
17 Apr 2009
News / US to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland [404]

The President doesn't have control over interceptors, as they aren't considered strategic offensive weapons. He has the nuclear "football" now, and can launch nuclear weapons, if need be... but Patriots need no such authority to be launched. They can even be set on sort of an "automatic" mode, and kill anything coming through the expected tragectory of an enemy missile...

It's very effective, but unfortunately guidance computers, like other computers, are inherently stupid and cannot tell the difference between friend or foe quickly enough to matter; at the beginning of the latest war in Iraq, Patriots shot down somewhere between 19 and 23 missiles fired by Iraq into the base I was at over a period of a few weeks; unfortunately, they had to be taken off of automatic mode, apparently, as they also shot down one of our own F/A 18 Hornets and a British Tornado, when those happened to come back along the same path the missiles had taken.

Shame.
It wouldn't surprise me that the latest iterations have since resolved even this problem.

Doubt they are going to be as effective against an ICBM as the THAAD originally being offered, however.

Watch and wait, wait and watch.

John P.
JohnP   
16 Apr 2009
Genealogy / Polish person's average height? [210]

Yes, where I am it's about average. There's some taller than me (a few even quite a bit taller) and there's also plenty who are shorter.

John P.
JohnP   
16 Apr 2009
Genealogy / Why Polish aren't white?? [272]

freebird,
I agree. Just wish the government saw it this way also.

I really do believe the PC movement is why a Pole or someone else is not identified as "white" first, for instance.

It's possible that hey, it's OBVIOUS you are white, but where are you FROM?

Met an Army MP in Iraq who adamantly claimed to be from "Cleveland, Ohio" but her accent told otherwise. Ended up she was originally from Ukraine. Pretty too, a buddy of mine even tried asking her out. Yes, she was white...but that was never the question.

I'm rambling. I guess I see your point as well HB.

John P.
JohnP   
16 Apr 2009
Genealogy / Why Polish aren't white?? [272]

HB, perhaps I've been in government/military service too long. If it is printed it is PC. We have to attend all sorts of training every quarter to make sure we stay in touch with our sensitive side and don't go around offending people...

Perhaps out in town people will refer to each other as white or black...but try saying someone did something because "he is white" or "she is black" and see how fast you end up talking to your boss or risking loss of employment.

Still, even foreigners...we know they're white (or black).

I often wondered, years ago when applying to colleges, whether a white immigrant from South Africa would be able to check the minority block for "African American" and if any were able to receive affirmative action benefits due to this.

Not that it had one bit to do with my own situation, but it was something for me to ponder.

John P.
JohnP   
16 Apr 2009
Genealogy / Why Polish aren't white?? [272]

Actually.....
I am.

Still, regardless where one is from it is frustrating.

I think we are far too thin skinned; we worry about offending people now, based on what may (or may not) have happened to their great, great grandfathers, now. It would be nice if for once the world could let 800 years ago or 200 years ago or 60 years ago remain in the past, and stop making current generations stand or fall on their own merit. I'm as much for learning from history's mistakes as the next guy, but I don't think we should hate Germans because of Hitler, white people (in the US) and especially Dutch, because of slavery here, or black people because of violence in the past...

Its just ridiculous. I think we'd get along a lot better if we stopped being sensitive over what one persons 800 year ago ancestor did to that of another...

I may be completely off the mark, of course.

John P.
JohnP   
16 Apr 2009
Genealogy / Why Polish aren't white?? [272]

Oh this is silly.
Of course Americans know you are white. However we Americans are SO programmed to pretend we do not see color so as to seek any label but the obvious one, for fear of offending, or being labeled a "racist".

A white man is not a white man...to speak of such is equated unfortunately to certain racist groups portrayed on the media...likewise many shy away from calling a black man black, for fear of causing offense.

IMHO it is ridiculous. Black people know they are black, white people know they are white, yet we play these silly hyphenation games. I'm not black...I'm African-American. I'm not "white", I'm Caucasian using other labels is even considered by some to be "insensitive". Hence referring to people by national origin, rather than, heaven forbid, the race that anyone can see.

Political correctness run amok,
and I wouldn't be surprised if Americans on all sides of the issue were tired of it.
Yet, it is how things are.

John P.
JohnP   
10 Apr 2009
History / Why will Poland always be the puppet of America? [159]

This is all very interesting.
Some right some wrong, as it always seems to be. Seems Americans aren't the only people who bought the (ridiculously expensive) media hype that won Obama the election...and Americans aren't the only ones disillusioned with him.

It confuses me. On the one hand people were screaming about how they don't want the interceptor base...not in *my* back yard...."nimby's" we call them here...so now that Obama is cancelling it to suck up to Russia...people are complaining again?

Obama could care less about Poland, IMHO. He is too busy kissing up to radical Islam and super rich eccentric billionaires who are into kingdom making, to have time for nations which are predominantly Catholic, like Poland.

No, Israel doesn't call the shots. Obama's campaign contributors (paging Mr. Soros, paging Mr. Soros...) do. China...very possibly could, however at the moment they are in a quandary, as the Chinese economy is just as tied to the US economy as our is to theirs. President Bush...for all his shortcomings, did at least remember who our friends have been. Obama seems currently to be selling out friend after friend to attempt to appease current and former enemies. I do not understand it. If Poland is offered some good deal, or if some of the deals continue from the previous administration...I say jump on it for all it's worth, as Obama isn't likely to make new ones.

Incidentally...those "old C-130s"....we Americans are flying them too. The Air Force here has new fighters...but we are also still flying F16s, too. The Avionics suites are not made by the aircraft manufacturer, and typically these are provided by the end users.

I remember there was commentary about a fly off (about 15 years ago) where German F-4's held their own against American F-18's. Politics here seems to demand NEW this or that all the time without always taking time to perfect what we had already.

The Germans turned their F-4's into veritable hotrods with stronger engines, etc etc. likewise the Israelis...provide all the guts for the F-15's they got from us, and Israeli pilots are widely accepted as the best in the world.

Also...what sense would it make to provide US Avionics suites which wouldn't be able to communicate with anyone else in Poland's military? The ability to work in cohesion is extremely important, and I'm sure Poland will outfit whatever planes she has to be efficient in the role they need to be effective in?

Just speculating, anyway, like the rest of us.
Poland isn't a puppet, but I'm worried our newest President is, on a level much worse than the last one.

John P.
JohnP   
25 Feb 2009
Love / WHY DO POLISH MEN LIE? [150]

Just curious, why do you want a Polish boyfriend?
Lying to women...isn't specifically a Polish trait, unfortunately. All nationalities have these I'd imagine.
regardless, sorry you are having a run of bad luck apparently.

John P.
JohnP   
24 Feb 2009
News / Poland Should Beef Up Military [286]

i dunno what happened, during communist times he had a almost half a million armed forces, 3rd largest in Europe after the Soviet Union and West Germany, and in quality of equipment it was in comparison also on NATO average.

The horror of this is that in the U.S. it was generally known that Poland was a little better equipped and weapons were a little better put together than some of her contemporaries' versions of the same things, but that had it come to a nuclear exchange it is now known that it likely would not have been U.S. nukes raining down on Poland in event of war, but Soviet. Not bashing Russians here, but that scorched earth idea is so burned into their psyche apparently that such was the intent had NATO started rolling towards Russia. One can speculate, but perhaps that is why it is generally accepted that NATO upon knowing nuclear war was imminent, would have made the first strike. If only to reduce the Soviet arsenal prior to the counterstrike. Of course this is all old history.

And this whole American anti-missile missles deal is the same thing, it's only for Americas benefit, to protect America from Iran, North Korea, and above all Russia, it's just making us a target, if Russia nukes us or invades, the 200 man American garison will pack up and leave, leaving us alone, AGAIN.

It's always good not to have to rely on other countries, one never knows what other dirty deals those countries have had to make, and at the very least they will generally look after their own interests first. This is true. That said, the first part of this statement is only true if you think only America would be targeted by those missiles, but in reality you are kidding yourself there...those above countries can reach Europe a lot faster than the U.S., additionally, the US already is fielding versions of this same technology here. However an interceptor launched from a warship off the coast of North Carolina somewhere doesn't help Europe a whole lot....does it? I do not live in Poland, but have seen this same thing happen in the U.S.; people will say "oh this would be a wonderful idea to have" but then they protest that it not be placed in their back yard, due to the attention it receives.

WRT Russia...it is apparent to me that Russia intends Poland to be its bi...well let's just say Russia seems to feel it should control what Poland does and does not do. This is evidenced by Putin wishing to retarget his missiles toward Poland, for the suggestion of installing interceptors. How childish. It is simple bullying. Obviously his bluff has been called and you know where you stand with Russia. If Russia had a military with much skill they wouldn't be so insecure, I think. They have great equipment, they just need to catch back up to the training level they once had.

The crew of an interceptor base would of course be small...after all it is purely defensive in nature, and honestly the people who would man it likely would be technicians and not shock troops. They will not be arriving (IMHO) with helicopters armed to the teeth and special operations troops, but with computers, engineers, and missile technicians.

If Poland wanted an all out joint base with the U.S. that is something Poland should bring up. I am sure there are quite a few people who would much rather be stationed there than, oh, some of the other places we get sent. Especially if we were welcome.

And hate to tell you, but as for Russia planning to nuke Poland...what's different between that and the old Soviet days? They just admit it now, whereas before it was kept a secret but Poland, Czechoslovakia etc would have been the Soviet Union's "scorched earth" and they no doubt felt they would sacrifice quite a few of you to kill the American tanks that would have been trying to roll through from E. Germany to fight them.

Such was the cold war, but no doubt you knew most of this.

John P.
JohnP   
21 Feb 2009
History / Can anyone from Poland tell me about Auschwitz and The Ghetto? [582]

Geez, cunning American justifications.

funny that thing called "truth"...

Choosing sides, what?? You'd even have contemplated a stint of Nazism??

While many lambast Americans for not knowing enough European history, perhaps the same could be said about Europeans and American history. The U.S. was taking an isolationist stance and the largely popular views were to remain neutral and out of the war. Unfortunately a few torpedo incidents by the Germans started to test this neutral mentality, then when the Japanese (in hind sight, foolishly) decided to bomb Pearl Harbor, alliances were already in place which made U.S. entry in the war inevitable. As for horrors under the Germans (camps, for instance) many simply refused to believe such a charismatic leader as Hitler would be having such evil things carried out. America was not alone in this, by the way.

What did Prescott invest SO MUCH money in? What was his purpose in investing such a vast sum, hope? Hope for what??

I cannot watch the video you referred to, but unless he was investing specifically in death camps somehow (????) it is more likely that like many even today who try to make money, he saw Germany on the rise and as a potential investment that would make him or his interests a lot of money. Remember that after WWI an entire wheelbarrow of Deutschmarks would barely buy a loaf of bread...but Germany had started to turn around, and was actually starting to become a world power again. I doubt he invested in concentration camps at all, but wouldn't be surprised if he simply invested in a growing economy. I also doubt he was alone in this. If he DID specifically invest in camps (which many did not even believe existed, remember...there was no "You tube" then) then of course that was deplorable. I simply doubt it.

The British were NOT at war at this point, the funds arrived well before that. America didn't want a hand in shaping the world order?? Wow, that's a first.

If the funds arrived well before the British were involved, then again, it is likely nobody was funding "camps". I would also point out that the US was not a superpower at this point. It had the potential to become one, but simply was not. That did not happen until after WWII, realistically. Prior to this it was primarily a regional power. Not to say there was no interest in shaping world order...but that isn't what I said, either. I simply said most wanted no part of the war in Europe and while some dreaded it like an oncoming train, the mindset was, again, if the Europeans want to kill each other, that's their business... it just turns out that isn't how things worked out. It's also why the U.S. did not join until 1941, well into the war for other countries.

If the US couldn't see what was happening, they were even blinder than dumb Europe.

I think they saw, but again, the mentality was, "not our fight". Remember, WWI was supposed to be "the war to end all wars". For crying out loud, when the US entered the war many of her implements were badly outdone by German implements, and probably she would have had even less if it were not for contracts making things for British forces...

The Thompson submachine gun, for instance...and later, Mustang fighters (which the US originally didn't want to go for) being redesignated the P-51 for US forces...had originally all been made for UK forces....by Americans. Americans? were flying biplanes at the beginning of the war. Some superpower. Our submarines were commanded by 21 year old "old men" and most often, did not come back...our tanks might as well have been cardboard boxes with a BB gun, compared to the German tanks of the time...

So yes. The U.S. really thought it would be able to sit the thing out. Political will was to do just that.

John P.
JohnP   
21 Feb 2009
History / Can anyone from Poland tell me about Auschwitz and The Ghetto? [582]

JohnP: Hmmm. Presumably you mean pre-WWII, in which case ALL money going into Germany (not just American) was "funding Auschwitz" if you will.

Ummm....you just agreed with me...
America was not at war with Germany and and commerce with Germany did not cease until after the U.S. declared war. Prior to that, from what I gather, a widely held belief in the U.S. was "not again" after WWI, and "if the Europeans wanted to slaughter each other, let them. We want no part of it." .....many of the other things were not much more than rumors. Which shouldn't surprise us...I heard mentioned on the news a few years ago that Christians and Jews in Iran were being required to put stitching indicative of their faith into their clothing...which to me, sounds uneasily familiar. I've not heard it mentioned again, amidst the praise for Ahmadinejad for "standing up to Bush" or whatever it is they like him for these days.

So saying "oooh the Nazis used ticket counters made by IBM!" is an awful lot like saying Osama Bin Ladin uses flourescent light bulbs made in Poland, or drives a BMW made in Germany. I seriously doubt that card punching machines are sold only after one signs a "no use in death camps" clause.

watch this and you will know what I am talking about. Look at part 4 of 15 for evidence that Prescott Bush was behind the funding

Sean, again, LOTS of money went into Germany from the US prior to the war (which, well, is not surprising...the US had not chosen sides prior to going into the war) so I'm not sure you can convince me that, as implicated, Prescott Bush specifically laid money out for a "camp for working Poles and Jews and others deemed undesirable, to death, and exterminating the rest who cannot work". Otherwise if you are just saying someone sent money to Germany...and well, there's no surprise there.

Just because the British were at war at this point, or Poland, or Russia...Americans wanted no part of it. Apparently even Hitler himself wanted to keep us out of it...but the Japanese ruined that whole idea for him, and dragged the U.S. into the war with what they thought would be a debilitating strike.

But you are right pre-war most large multinational companies (from US, UK, France, Holland etc, ) had sales operations or German operating divisions that indirectly or directly funded the Nazi state and its concentration camps in 1930's Germany

Operating a business in a state is quite a bit different than saying one finances a death camp, unless you want to make a REEAAALLLY long stretch. That would be like saying the sale of Coke in Saudi Arabia is somehow funding extremist Islam, or sale of Rolls Royce jet engines to airlines in Pakistan somehow fund their activities.

John P.
JohnP   
19 Feb 2009
History / Can anyone from Poland tell me about Auschwitz and The Ghetto? [582]

Let us not forget who funded the Nazis, da da, Prescott Bush.

While I can't link to your 2.5 hour commentary, please Sean, I thought better of you than this! Everyone was funding the Nazis...until almost the war started they seemed to be all the rage, Adolf Hitler himself was even made Time magazine "man of the year" while people denied the other things he was doing as "rumors"...Saying Prescott Bush or anybody else "funded the Nazis" when in reality everyone was rushing to fund this "new refreshing leader" in Germany...is a bit hasty...sounds familiar to me..

He also says here, youtube.com/watch?v=KzBtE__mZlI that he had incontrovertible evidence that America could have prevented those attacks. I can furnish those like HB with screeds of evidence, in chronological order, showing numerous instance of potential aversions.

(emphasis added) Not sure which attacks you are referring to here? but again, sometimes "America" does not prevent attacks because people perceive there is no real threat. Not to mention, the rest of the world complains when America DOES do something...so honestly, why is it America's fault if someone is attacked, so long as Americans didn't do it? And if Americans DID do it, what makes you think we'd TRY to prevent it (hypothetically speaking, anyway)

It is SOOOO clear that the American government was involved. But, back to the thread, Auschwitz was a reality funded by American sources. Fact!!

Hmmm. Presumably you mean pre-WWII, in which case ALL money going into Germany (not just American) was "funding Auschwitz" if you will. I sincerely doubt there were many (if any) who were sending money earmarked for the "establishment and operation of a facility intended to exploit and or terminate political and religious undesirables to the German government". Rather, most probably swallowed the "Hitler is a great guy doing great things in Europe" bullcrap from the media (nothing changes here...) and were clamoring to send his government help. There were even sympathizers with the Germans etc at least until the war started, what with people in denial of what was occurring, and Hitler being made into a media darling much as has occurred with Hugo Chavez or Ahmadinejad today (the old "misunderstood but benevolent leader" routine). There was no "you tube" in those days to try convincing people, and fact is, many believed the Germans could do no wrong, and the ones who DID know something was amiss, did not want to be dragged into yet another world war. When the war did start, and friendships started to chill over U-boat targetting of US shipping as well as those already in conflict...passenger liners suspected of carrying arms to the British, for instance, being torpedoed. Regardless of whether it was true or not...did not endear Germany to the American people, who had just started to let go of WWI anger and mistrust.

John P.
JohnP   
15 Feb 2009
Love / The age of consent in Poland is only 15 [147]

This is silly.
Age of consent never stopped a single true sicko, I'd wager. Perhaps it did stop a few couples from getting married for a few years, but that's it. In the U.S. it varies from state to state, and the laws are different in different jurisdictions. 14 is legal for consent, for instance, in some states (yes, true) although I think those states have a maximum age difference, similar, Seanus, to what you refer to Austria having.

Just because there is a law applying the extreme limits does not mean that everyone is rushing to try them.
Ultimately, the laws only protect you from HONEST people. Hopefully your daughter has been instilled with enough knowledge to take care of herself and has the intuition to avoid a sleazebag...in the mean time, martial arts training is a great workout, helps confidence, and might help her avoid some sicko that doesn't understand "no".

John P.
JohnP   
14 Feb 2009
News / What's the stupidest question asked about Poland? [414]

I will never be offended by whatever Americans come up with, they can be so unbelievably stupid its hilarius.

I'm sure the favor could be returned to your own countrymen...although in fairness some areas of the US are so convinced they are superior to or more enlightened than everyone else on the planet (sorry LA and New York, love you guys...) that it shocks them that everyone else doesn't live in a hovel...even in their own country. Hollywood doesn't help. I grew up in NC...and spent years trying to convince people I did not live in a tar paper shack or want to marry my sister. and I'm an American. My mom was a schoolteacher and one of her friends' sons was a nuclear engineer on a submarine...and he ran into the same thing.

People who judge based on nationality or where you live are stupid period, not just the ones from America who do it.

John P.
JohnP   
13 Feb 2009
News / What's the stupidest question asked about Poland? [414]

Well, get this,
I'm not even Polish (my name is...I am an American) but my little sister who is a scientist tells me all the time about other scientists asking her "how was it growing up under the boot of the communists" or commenting as if she'd endured this....

We grew up in the US.
Likewise, during my first deployment to this wonderful country (I'm in Iraq) we worked quite a bit with Poland's GROM special operations types. One of our officers (to use the slang here) "threw me under the bus" and sent me to mingle, thinking I spoke the language. Awkward to say the least....he assumed, I guess, because of the name.

My grandfather grew up in Poland....but I didn't even know what a Pierogi was until I was 23...and my girlfriend who was part Polish had family making these things.

I was even afraid of what horrors might be inside them... so now I try to learn more and more. Grandfather took many secrets to his grave.

Well since that's not QUITE on topic, I'll step aside now.

John P.
JohnP   
10 Feb 2009
News / Poland Should Beef Up Military [286]

Well, Obama has extended his arm out and, judging by reports, Iran are interested. They just don't want to be treated as fools in a carrot and stick game.

Here is what a major problem is here...I think I have more issue with Ahmadinejad personally than I do with Iran. They were an ally in the past, and might (some day) be again. However leaders demanding a whole segment of society, or entire nations vanish are not to be trusted.

How does he EXPECT to be treated. In this day and age such things are took more literally than figuratively, even if saying it figuratively were in the realm of polite conversation.

John P.
JohnP   
10 Feb 2009
News / Poland Should Beef Up Military [286]

A new appointment, a more moderate one like he is, would go a long way to alleviating tensions and restoring hope in the process of dialogue.

This is something we can all hope for, and reason enough to be ready, but not pull the trigger just yet;
John P.
JohnP   
10 Feb 2009
News / Poland Should Beef Up Military [286]

I don't think the world is hiding its eyes. France, in particular, vociferously opposes any nuclear developments in Iran. Just Youtube Bernard Kouchner and Iran and you will see.

(Seanus, I'll have to take your word. I can't you tube anything out here....too much bandwidth. )
Still that's now. Where was everyone when Ahmadinejad first fired up the reactors, and at home was vowing the destruction of the Zionists (like them or not, they ARE an entire country) and their allies, while seeming simply to be the charming man who leads a country being picked on by the Americans...when he is abroad?

A two faced man is capable of anything. Give him nuclear weapons...and the unpredictability is terrifying.

Which, I think, also answers your questions about Bush and his "henchmen" considering pre-emptive strikes against him, and why they did not open dialogue with him. When a man says things that contradict, what sort of "deal" can he make, that is worth potentially risking millions of lives? Exactly none.

So, preparations are made in case war is the only option (in spite of the people around who say "why he seems like such a nice man, Mr. Ahmadinejad") while putting containment measures in place(missile shields, etc) if it is not.

After all, we could go to war with N. Korea tomorrow...they rattle their sabers every two weeks it seems, looking for attention. If Iran is one of these, it would be stupid to engage in a fourth front, when Iran can simply be put into a holding pattern until hopefully saner leaders come to power or something else happens.

Not to mention...if all these other countries are "highly critical" etc etc of Iran's actions, let them put THEIR men on the line for once. We've heard this before. Everyone and their brother claimed Saddam had WMD's, but then when they weren't instantly found, did they say "oh we were wrong" or, "maybe they were moved or we just couldn't find them"? no, they said "Bush lied, and Americans are fighting an ILLEGAL WAR". So screw all of them. Until their blood is on the line too. I'm happy to do things for my country, but I'm tired of doing the world's dirty work only to have them call US the center of all that is evil, when we do it.

Iran's missiles can't reach MY home town, after all.
Perhaps some of the countries Iran CAN reach or even ones it's a good bet they can...can make the first move on this. I feel like America is somehow the world's doberman. They love us when they want us to protect them, but talk about they hate that $#^ dog when their society neighbors are around.

It is frustrating.
I'm in an odd mood.

John P.
JohnP   
10 Feb 2009
News / Poland Should Beef Up Military [286]

And it's interesting... if there're some ethnical cleansing, 1000s of people rotted in camps then Russia is a heir of the guilt but if there're some military bases, factories then of course baltic states or Ukraine or any other country of the former USSR is the rightful heir.

All great powers face this. Likewise the USA. Everyone is around when they think you owe them something, but disappear when there is blame to spread. The only way I could see them being completely right is by calling into account specific people or groups formerly in the Kremlin for what they did. I am not one who believes it is right to terrorize an innocent, simply because his great great great grandfather terrorized my own, for instance.

The best guarantee is not to keep radioactive materials (going back to my example), i.e. not to install missile shield.

The interceptors they plan for the shield have no radioactive materials; they are not like the old 1950s and 60s interceptors from the US and (apparently still) Russia, which were themselves small nuclear weapons. The new ones (here) use kinetic technology. Not sure if Russia is concerned enough to change, after all her nuclear interceptors do work...they're just nasty is all. In the US there is a huge stigma against anything that has the word "nuclear" in it, so there's large pushes to do things in other ways.

Iran is bluffing.

We can hope.

They in fact did once the launch of the satellite but there was Russia helping them. Their warhead delivery system can cover for now less than 2000km but as I already said Russia didn't feel comfortable with that and tried to reach a compromise with Iran both in her oil interests and interests of her and her neighbours safety.

I've never supposed that Iran's capabilities were achieved without help. I am not saying Russia handed Iran ICBMs anymore than the US gave them stinger missiles...but ultimately, as I understand it, it is believed Iran got a lot of her technology from the Koreans and other sources, who...originally got *their* toys from Russia; likewise the Iranians' latest shoulder fired missile...is simply a copy of smuggled Stingers from Afghanistan, but made locally in Iran. I agree with using diplomacy as much as possible, however diplomacy without force to back it is foolhardy.

Of course Iran is such a huge threat, LOL. Does Israel have such a shield?

Perhaps they do. It is no accident I believe, that on multiple occasions Israel has desired to attack the Iranian nuclear sites. It was Israeli intel, I believe, that brought to light that the Iranians were purifying nuclear material in the first place, but this is one point I could be wrong about. The rest of the world seemed to be, and perhaps continues to be...hiding its eyes.

I don't deny the right to defence. Yes, safety is of paramount importance but we have been bought and sold by the press. Political considerations should assume greater importance as the threat is questionable at best.

I agree...we HAVE been bought and sold. However the threat being questionable at best....I disagree on. Just because someone smiles to you does not mean he is not going to kill you. There are words, and there are deeds. Trust but verify.

It just seems like Poland is pandering to the whims of the White House at the expense of Russia. It should be addressed on its merit and not as a payback. Since when has Iran been interested in Poland?

Iran is interested in Poland because unlike our own countries, Iran's government and its religion...are essentially one and the same. It is hard for many in secular countries to understand, but it isn't because of who Poland is, but because of where she stands.

Killing USA military?? If that was really the case, there was no way in God's Earth that he'd've braved the trip to Columbia University.

Seanus, you forget, Columbia University, for starters, invited him, are not pro-US policy in any way (many US universities seem stuck in the 1960's and aren't happy if they can't protest something), and furthermore.....the U.S. is still in spite of what many may believe, a civilized country. The man, like him or not, is a head of state, and the headquarters of the UN, etc...is here, also, even though they seldom decide anything in the U.S. favor.

If you look deep enough, you will find that Bush treated Ahmedinejad very well for somebody who was such a 'threat'. His safe passage was paramount and his assassination was never really an issue.

He was protected as are any foreign leaders here. It does not mean his country is not seen as a threat, what sort of travesty do you propose should have been done? While his country is seen as a threat, we are not in direct war with them, and what exactly do you think would have happened had we allowed something to happen to him? There is a difference between seeing his nation as a threat, and therefore putting in place measures to protect against the same (diplomatic pressure to stop plutonium enrichment, missile shields to allies in his range, etc etc even asking Israelis to hold off while we attempt diplomacy) and outright attacking him personally or his nation. After all, unlike our nations, where Presidents or Prime Ministers hold much of the power, in Iran, the strings are pulled from behind the scenes.

Please tell me, how many interviews have you seen him in?? I have watched him in several and, although I see a devious glint in his eye, I don't think he is the kind of person who would destroy like others suggest.

People thought similar things about other leaders who proved to be just that. Stalin *looked* friendly.

It's like Obama at the APEC conference, VERY pro-Israel but, with a different audience, the tune changes a fair bit.

With Ahmadinejad...the tune at home and abroad changes QUITE a bit. He is a very intelligent man, that doesn't mean it is somehow unwise to watch him and his nation with a wary eye.

Regardless of why you think we are in this situation.

John P.
JohnP   
10 Feb 2009
News / Poland Should Beef Up Military [286]

I don't see any other way to handle the issue except for diplomatic. Let's face the fact: if Iran would build the missile, Poland shield couldn't help. Well... there's one more way - to invade Iran right-away but this hardly possible. I don't think the world society will allow to the US another Iraq.

Sasha, interestingly enough it seems you and I see things pretty similarly here (sorry I've been away for a few hours, guess there's a war going on here or something..)

My suspicion is that Iran already has the missiles, and is now just trying to get something "special" for a payload. After all, as you and I both know, the technology for launching a warhead and for launching a satellite...are the same, and Iran has just done exactly that, contrary to many who thought they weren't so far along.

I do think the shield would help against Iran. It may not stop a cold-war style onslaught, such as the U.S. or Soviet Union were threatening each other with, but I think it could be effective against Iran.

Finally, while I agree there is perhaps reason to invade Iran right away, there are far too many naysayers who feel that the U.S. invents everything from thin air and is just picking on people....so I would say, why not Russia? I know Russia has oil deals with Ahmadinejad, but hey, if the Russian army were to roll through Iran...the ICBM threat would be countered at least. The new government of Iran will still need to sell its oil, at any rate, and new deals could then be brokered....its a thought, and it would take away from all those who distrust everything the US does. Of course, then there are probably just as many who distrust what Russia does, as well.

John P.
JohnP   
9 Feb 2009
News / Poland Should Beef Up Military [286]

I disagree. Two Empires can't be allies. We(you and me I mean) may be friends, I have many American friends but two our governments - never. And perhaps we will both be able to see it better, when the arctic shelf's developed. The basic american interest here is the oil and they always forget while in Europe the old saying "when at Rome, do as the Romans do".

Interesting point. I don't completely disagree, although from watching Russia's actions it would seem Russia's interest is the oil...(also?) so there doesn't seem to be that big of a difference. I do think there need be some difference between the nations, however, otherwise what would be the point.

No... I would apply different logic. The American missile system located in Poland might shake the piece in the region.

There is of course a counter to every argument. One could also say that while the missile shield in Poland is a counter to Iranian threats primarily, Russia has brand new ICBMs that is has recently tested...which is a far cry beyond *starting* a shield. Russia's protests and threats against Poland "IF she installs a shield" sound if anything like all the more reason to build one, rather than not. Generals discussing re-aiming Russian missiles at Poland....all because of some interceptors...sounds to me a lot like someone saying "I'll shoot you if you buy a bullet resistant vest". Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems our politicians (all of them, not just yours or mine) are more petty than the common folk they are supposed to be leading.

John P.
JohnP   
9 Feb 2009
News / Poland Should Beef Up Military [286]

Yeah...till she got the money for her goods...how horrible!

Possibly...still, it set a precedent. There are other ways to blackmail nations besides letting them know you control their very lifeblood.
I guess if some country figures out how to control air, scuba tanks will get more expensive...

John P.
JohnP   
9 Feb 2009
News / Poland Should Beef Up Military [286]

And yet....just as the paranoid alarmists were saying on here a year ago predicted....now that Russia controls most of Europe's fuel...she is using it as leverage, by turning off the flow, until things go her way...

I don't know if Poland needs to worry about Russia invading or not, but Sasha, it is interesting that in your previous post,

I find it naive to put it mildly when people say about the future agression of Russia against Poland as if it is something inevitable. Weird. That would be stupid. However I should admit that american influence in Europe adds fuel to the fire.

(emphasis added) it almost betrays a logic of "well, we're angry at the Americans, so we might invade Poland". Hopefully that is not the point you were trying to make, but ultimately if a country is an ally of the U.S. why do Russians care? Russia is, or was, or could be...an ally of the U.S. as well. Just as friends do not agree on everything, neither do nations have to. Personally...I still do not think Georgia was the big aggressor in this past fray; I just think they were the loser in it, and were Russia stronger, I imagine perhaps US troops would have been sent also-but because Russia is weak (conventionally) the big minds all know it would turn into a nuclear exchange (an area Russia is NOT weak on) over territories Russia had already taken over in everything but name.

It is naive considering Poland's past history, for her to allow her armed forces to wither. A strong Poland should not be seen as a threat anymore than a strong Russia.

I do believe history repeats itself. We have newer technologies, but the same human nature, ultimately, and politics just as crooked as in 1939.

Just the Neville Chamberlains of the world have different names.

John P.