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.