The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 286

Poland Should Beef Up Military


lesser 4 | 1,311
10 Feb 2009 #91
Well...they DID stir up tensions!

They also claimed to be anti-EU to got more votes from EU sceptics. In fact they do everything what eurocrats expect them to do. Today's politicians are very far from idealistic ideologies, demagogy is widespread and everything they care is re-election and cash.

If you are really for serious, then I'm afraid that your poor knowledge if polish politics move our discussion to fantasy world.
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,423
10 Feb 2009 #92
If you are really for serious, then I'm afraid that your poor knowledge if polish politics move our discussion to fantasy world.

Still no answer...

And still no reason for why do you need nukes! Interesting...

They also claimed to be anti-EU to got more votes from EU sceptics

And no, I don't think they did it to get votes, as those people who vote for them (the religious zealots, the anti-everything, the very old etc.) are just a minority in Poland.

The majority is pro-EU and modern. So they lost in the end as the public was fed up with them.

But I think they where very honest in their bitterness and hate and agressiveness.
And they would have used nukes if it would have fit them...
lesser 4 | 1,311
10 Feb 2009 #93
What's wrong with it?

What is wrong about building empires?

Still no answer...

And still no reason for why do you need nukes! Interesting...

How is that? I suggested that your views are caused by your incompetence in these matters. How could I argue with delusions?

While earlier I have wrote that Poland need nukes to keep peace, forever.
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,423
10 Feb 2009 #94
What is wrong about building empires?

What's wrong with building the European Union?
How far will Poland come alone against the future american and asian blocs?

I suggested that your views are caused by your incompetence in these matters. How could I argue with delusions?

Still no answer...
JohnP - | 210
10 Feb 2009 #95
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.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
10 Feb 2009 #96
Don't try to sell us that you are a peace loving people

Who do that ? Kraut, stop making things up.

Your problem is only that most of your neighbours are by far stronger

We've got 7 direct neighbours. Which are by far stronger ?
lesser 4 | 1,311
10 Feb 2009 #97
The majority is pro-EU and modern.

Modern doesn't mean of good quality. Anyway there is no sense to talk about masses, world was always pushed forward by elites. Simply our current elites are of very poor quality and this is the problem with the EU. Very bad construction build by intellectual zeros .
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,423
10 Feb 2009 #98
Who do that ? Kraut, stop making things up.

How about that:

Poland is innocent for the most part, from day one Russians and Germans wanted to destroy us

Isn't that sad?

We've got 7 direct neighbours. Which are by far stronger ?

Isn't it always about "Germany - Poland - Russia"?

Very bad construction build by intellectual zeros .

Yeah to bad they don't have a genius "know-it-all-and-better" like you in their ranks, isn't it?
Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Feb 2009 #99
This will be an interesting discussion. 2 level-headed gents from the 2 big powers.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
10 Feb 2009 #100
Isn't that sad? sniff

OK, sorry...

Isn't it always about "Germany - Poland - Russia"?

No... anyway you had a few decades of "glory" just like almost every European country at some point, now slowly going back to its place... the same with Russians, oil prices fall down, let's welcome again greater Moldova...
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,423
10 Feb 2009 #101
now slowly going back to its place

And what is our place?
lesser 4 | 1,311
10 Feb 2009 #102
How far will Poland come alone against the future american and asian blocs?

Why do you think that Poland should go against any of such blocks? even if something like that would appear

Yeah to bad they don't have a genius "know-it-all-and-better" like you in their ranks, isn't it? heh

For your information, there are many of such people that could replace them. However this mafia wont let them to work if they don't share their visions. Just 'modern' people like you don't see it.
PolskaMan 2 | 147
10 Feb 2009 #103
both not on their own!

Do you think the invasion of Poland would be succesful without the help of russia and slovakia????
Sasha 2 | 1,083
10 Feb 2009 #104
Isn't it the case that it is Ukrainian and to be returned to them 8 years from now?

Basically yes, it is Ukranian. They just don't want to prolong the lease.
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.

Surely that's the best guarantee that can be provided, inspections? What else would you propose?

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

your military is NOT what will give you security!

I'd even say opposite. That's what would jeopardize them.

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've recently listened to one Russian military expert on the Middle East affairs on radio. He cast doubt on that they had launched satellite. As an engineer whose scope of activity includes aerospace vehicles I second his opinion. Iran is bluffing. 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.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Feb 2009 #105
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. Although Biden said no change, he still has the right to reverse course. Still, the same hawks are behind him that were behind Bush.

About the lease, well, it depends what sources you read.
celinski 31 | 1,258
10 Feb 2009 #106
Poland to tell Biden it ready for shield

"When we agree something with our ally, we keep our promise," Tusk said.

That should strike a cord.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009 020602222.html?sub=new

Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Feb 2009 #107
Of course Iran is such a huge threat, LOL. Does Israel have such a shield?
celinski 31 | 1,258
10 Feb 2009 #108
Of course Iran is such a huge threat

Every Country has a right to defense, be it from Russia or Iran. Now that you mention Iran having one, no they have two from Russia that are mobil units and the best on the market.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Feb 2009 #109
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.
celinski 31 | 1,258
10 Feb 2009 #110
Political considerations should assume greater importance as the threat is questionable at best.

In my opion they do, how many were left in Poland when "Communist" control took over. Today the same concern is being voiced.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Feb 2009 #111
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?
celinski 31 | 1,258
10 Feb 2009 #112
Since when has Iran been interested in Poland?

Since Poland has backed USA. Look at the money the USA pours into others that left US high and dry the first chance they got in Iraq, Poland has been there for the duration.

Have you seen the help Russia is giving? Shoot he's paying billions to get others to evict USA.

The exchange capped a confusing week in which Russia was widely seen to have offered Kyrgyzstan's leader billions to evict the U.S. military from its main air hub for supplies going into the widening Afghanistan

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009 020600830.html

Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Feb 2009 #113
I think it goes a little deeper than that. Just because you generally back somebody doesn't mean you are anti-Iran.
celinski 31 | 1,258
10 Feb 2009 #114
Just because you generally back somebody doesn't mean you are anti-Iran.

I might aggree that Russia is using an all to willing Iran, reguardless, Iran speaks of killing USA military and tells his people to.

Iran Satellite Launch Raises ICBM Concerns

missilethreat

Seanus 15 | 19,706
10 Feb 2009 #115
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. Read up on that, Celinski. 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.

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. It's like Obama at the APEC conference, VERY pro-Israel but, with a different audience, the tune changes a fair bit.
Lotnik767 3 | 145
10 Feb 2009 #116
Iran is ku ku ku ku ku a country run by morons that want their god to come back and run the world! Iran thinks if they destroy Israel and USA that their god will come back and reward them. So they will try to start wars with US!! Poland needs to have the army ready 24/7 for the unexpected!!
BubbaWoo 33 | 3,510
10 Feb 2009 #117
obviously youve spent time in the armed forces and are fully aware just what a messy business war tends to be
Sasha 2 | 1,083
10 Feb 2009 #118
About the lease, well, it depends what sources you read.

What says yours?:)
Bratwurst Boy 6 | 10,423
10 Feb 2009 #119
Poland needs to have the army ready 24/7 for the unexpected!!

To do exactly what?
cjjc 29 | 408
10 Feb 2009 #120
Defend itself from aggressors I presume.


Home / News / Poland Should Beef Up Military
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.