Thread: NATO Missiles in Poland --- Back on track... :-(

Originally Posted by An English Guy

Well, if everywhere was defended it would be benefitial to launch every nuke, that way they would all be destroyed and there would be no more threat from them.

I think the threat itself is still somewhat better than a single nuke that slipped through the cracks.

Disgusting how chicken boy Obama gave in to Putin without even trying for something in return. Obama basically just ran away! He didn't even try to get Putin to stop selling arms to Iran in return for nixing the missiles.

No one seems to care that the Poles weren't very happy at Obama's cowardice either! Not only that Obama capitulated to Puti on very day of anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland. I doubt that Obummer was smart enough even be aware of his bad timing!

Oh no, was just reading my regular paper online (dn.se) and learnt that the Poland rockets will go ahead over all.

As a result Russia will increase it's fleet in the Baltic Sea.
A shame - nobody wants to see war ships and submarines in this sea again... flashback to depressing cold war.

Frankly I get so p-d off with the USA!

It's just so aggressive and provocative to have missiles in Poland, right on the BORDER with Russia - within range of St Petersburg, Kaliningrad and probably Moscow. Incidentally also my hometown in Sweden.
There are plans for a regular American base there too, apparently.

Does Russia keep missiles and soldiers in Mexico or Canada? So why does the US want to do the equivalent to Russia?

I was pleased to see that the Swedish article took a condemning tone to the USA and questioned whether Obama really deserves the Nobel peace prize.

Most of the commenters (over a hundred!) said this was cr*p and was criticising Poland for agreeing to it. People also had sympathy for Russia's reaction (which surprised me).

Frankly the US seems hellbent on being provocative and creating bad feelings. There is no sensible reason for these rockets whatsoever. Perhaps they are sick of the "war on terror" and want the "good old" cold war back....

Well they will have Anti-Ballistic missiles. They can't hit ground targets, only other missiles. Russia's concerns are more about the radar station (if sh|t hits the fan Russian missiles would fly North-East along the most effective route over the North pole and towards the rotation of Earth.
But the radar station, from the other hand will be able to spy over the whole airspace or european-part Russia that really pisses Russia off.

The thing is, when they come, they never leave and the bases just get bigger. This is what the Poles probably haven't considered. There was just a terrible change in the US constitution that means that the country is going to be even more governed by big business than it already was.

10 years from now the Poles may find that they seriously regret having let the Amercicans in, and the EU might find that all these American bases in Europe are a "trojan horse". Even if the US remains the same as now, the bases are not needed in Europe, so why are they here?

I admit that I hadn't understood the difference between regular missiles and anti-ballistic missiles.

But if ANY country put a base full of missiles and spying equipment right on MY country's border and told some ridiculous story about it, then I'd be furious regardless of the technicalities.

I think it would be best for the US to pull out of many of the countries we currently hold bases and troops in, we are trying to reduce spending and this surely isn't helping with costs and it definitely doesn't help with our relations.

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

I think it would be best for the US to pull out of many of the countries we currently hold bases and troops in, we are trying to reduce spending and this surely isn't helping with costs and it definitely doesn't help with our relations.

Exactly... That is the American taxpayers money they are spending, isn't it! But these bases are not benefiting the people at all, only the industries that supply the US military, and perhaps some other business interests.

I'd want to see my tax money spent on schools, hospitals, roads, and culture if I was American. Try to get business back in shape... Not on provocative and pointless projects like this!

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

I think it would be best for the US to pull out of many of the countries we currently hold bases and troops in, we are trying to reduce spending and this surely isn't helping with costs and it definitely doesn't help with our relations.

I agree and have said that for years. If anybody does not want us there, then stuff them! We should return to our Constitution which did not even provide for a "standing army in time of peace".

The trouble is that we don't really know who wants us there or not. i.e. Some factions in the foreign governments want us and some don't. Compounding the situation is the fact that the citizens of those countries are indoctrinated by their extreme anti-US socialist media, education system and pop-culture, like our "communist" friend Johanna here. Therefore we don't know how much weight we should put in their opinions, compared to the opinions of those people in their country who do want the US bases on there soil.

Like when we talked about pulling our bases out of S Korea after some Korean chick was raped and murdered by a US serviceman. A lot of Koreans decided that it would be bad for "business" at the last minute. Big business has developed around US bases, for local businessmen.

Originally Posted by DDT

The trouble is that we don't really know who wants us there or not. i.e. Some factions in the foreign governments want us and some don't.

Convenient, isn't it? Of course there should be factions that support the US presence simply because the US supports them in return and maybe even pays.

I don't get any illusions here. If US sends soldiers somewhere it's not for the benefit of people who lives in this part of the world, but for the benefit of some American purse.

'Defending human rights', 'democracy', etc is bullsh|t.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by DDT

The trouble is that we don't really know who wants us there or not. i.e. Some factions in the foreign governments want us and some don't.

Convenient, isn't it? Of course there should be factions that support the US presence simply because the US supports them in return and maybe even pays.

I don't get any illusions here. If US sends soldiers somewhere it's not for the benefit of people who lives in this part of the world, but for the benefit of some American purse.

'Defending human rights', 'democracy', etc is bullsh|t.

Yes, and this is precisely why the Founding fathers of America did not forsee a "standing army" for America. They believed that we should only have an army in time of war. In the mean time the American citizens were to "keep and bare arms" and be prepared at all times to defend themselves and country!

But now we have a big bureaucratic government who does not care what the Constitution says, and who wants to squash every citizen into submission.

Lec Walescka in Poland, said the other day that the world used to look towards USA as a leader of freedom, but now America has lost her way and cannot be looked to for moral leadership any longer.

Originally Posted by DDT

[...] In the mean time the American citizens were to "keep and bare arms" and be prepared at all times to defend themselves and country!

And what does "be prepared" would practically mean these days? Should I have a private jet in my backyard and learn how to fly it once in a while in case I would need to defend the country?

Originally Posted by Ramil

I don't get any illusions here. If US sends soldiers somewhere it's not for the benefit of people who lives in this part of the world, but for the benefit of some American purse. 'Defending human rights', 'democracy', etc is bullsh|t.

I think it would be fair to mention that the same is applicable to any country (unless being invaded).

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

I don't get any illusions here. If US sends soldiers somewhere it's not for the benefit of people who lives in this part of the world, but for the benefit of some American purse. 'Defending human rights', 'democracy', etc is bullsh|t.

I think it would be fair to mention that the same is applicable to any country (unless being invaded).

Yes, but we were speaking about US. Of course it's true for any country.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by DDT

[...] In the mean time the American citizens were to "keep and bare arms" and be prepared at all times to defend themselves and country!

And what does "be prepared" would practically mean these days? Should I have a private jet in my backyard and learn how to fly it once in a while in case I would need to defend the country?

That means to possess the basic weapon of an infantry soldier the rifle and be well practised at shooting with it! The Navy and presumably the Airforce are not part of a "standing army". The Founders had no intention of doing away with the protection of a navy. They did not however want a police state by having a regular army used as government enforcers on the will of the people! So, you don't need an F15, but you do need an AR15.

Here are just a few quotes on this. I suggest you make yourself familiar with them since the truth of this matter is no longer being taught in the educational system.

Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


Tench Coxe: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

Patrick Henry: "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.



Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-178

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 178



James Madison: "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Joseph Story: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." – Joseph Story. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice): “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic...”

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped" and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "standing army" or "regulars" to describe a professional army. Therefore, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline.

That sums up our Republic for any of you with doubts as to why the USA is the way it is, why we have high gun ownership. Because we are free to defend ourselves as individual sovereign people from intruders form without and from powers within. We designed it this way to be ahead of and more enlightened than the European systems. We had no intentions of repeating the same mistakes of Europe. No other people have such rights! So get off our backs, we don't want to be like you!

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by DDT

[...] In the mean time the American citizens were to "keep and bare arms" and be prepared at all times to defend themselves and country!

And what does "be prepared" would practically mean these days? Should I have a private jet in my backyard and learn how to fly it once in a while in case I would need to defend the country?

That means to possess the basic weapon of an infantry soldier the rifle and be well practised at shooting with it! The Navy and presumably the Airforce are not part of a "standing army". The Founders had no intention of doing away with the protection of a navy. They did not however want a police state by having a regular army used as government enforcers on the will of the people! So, you don't need an F15, but you do need an AR15.

Here are just a few quotes on this. I suggest you make yourself familiar with them since the truth of this matter is no longer being taught in the educational system.

Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


Tench Coxe: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

Patrick Henry: "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.



Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-178

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 178



James Madison: "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Joseph Story: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." – Joseph Story. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice): “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic...”

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped" and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "standing army" or "regulars" to describe a professional army. Therefore, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline.

That sums up our Republic for any of you with doubts as to why the USA is the way it is, why we have high gun ownership. Because we are free to defend ourselves as individual sovereign people from intruders form without and from powers within. We designed it this way to be ahead of and more enlightened than the European systems. We had no intentions of repeating the same mistakes of Europe. No other people have such rights! So get off our backs, we don't want to be like you!

DDT,

Excellent!

Scott

Originally Posted by DDT

That means to possess the basic weapon of an infantry soldier the rifle and be well practised at shooting with it! [...]

Which is not bad, but surely is not enough to qualify as an army. A bunch of people who can aim and pull the trigger are not soldiers yet. It takes about a week for a tyro to start shooting his rifle somehow, but it usually takes a good couple of months of the VERY INTENSIVE TRAINING to become anything resembling of a soldier. Even the simplest infantry man has to know all kinds of things to be any useful: combat movements; coordination with other soldiers, artillery, and armored forces; basics of fortification; hand grenades and mines; chemical/biological warfare; discipline; communication; night warfare; open-field and city combat tactics; physical fitness. And all of the above has to be applied instantly at war as there's no time to teach and practice all those under fire.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by DDT

That means to possess the basic weapon of an infantry soldier the rifle and be well practised at shooting with it! [...]

Which is not bad, but surely is not enough to qualify as an army. A bunch of people who can aim and pull the trigger are not soldiers yet. It takes about a week for a tyro to start shooting his rifle somehow, but it usually takes a good couple of months of the VERY INTENSIVE TRAINING to become anything resembling of a soldier. Even the simplest infantry man has to know all kinds of things to be any useful: combat movements; coordination with other soldiers, artillery, and armored forces; basics of fortification; hand grenades and mines; chemical/biological warfare; discipline; communication; night warfare; open-field and city combat tactics; physical fitness. And all of the above has to be applied instantly at war as there's no time to teach and practice all those under fire.

Even so, the regular standing army was originally intended to be small.This prevents presidents and congress from using US military for unlawful purposes. Something which the Founding Fathers were sorely afraid of. More like it was when WWI broke out. There was a core of regulars enough to teach basic training to new recruits. However, if the militia (the citizens of this country) did their part, if war broke out, all new recruits would already be well able to handle all types if firearms, basic maneuvers and discipline. (That's what "well regulated" means) Right now, what we have on average are know nothing teenagers who have never even held a gun in their hands before in their life signing up.
This is because of an anti gun bias in education and the media. It was not so, a few short decades ago. Average American grade school boys in the 50s and 60s used to bring their rifles to school with them for "show and tell" and some schools had shooting ranges on them.

It was said that the reason in WWII that American soldiers were so deadly is because all the "country boys" were such deadly shots from growing up in a gun culture environment.

Japanese Admiral Yamamoto said that I would be too dangerous to ever land Japanese troops on USA because, "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Or, maybe you prefer to have American soldiers perpetually in Iraq? I don't. This is not what our Army is for.

PS: Current Army basic training is inadequate at best. There is no way that they can pay enough attention to actual riflemanship and close combat and unarmed fighting. All these skills take longer to acquire than even the army has time for. Even Navy SEALS are seen taking firearms instruction from private schools, like "Front Sight" who run training programs for citizens.

What rifles? Get real, it 21st century. Urban warfare requires more than having a fore finger to pull the trigger. We don't have global conflicts any more. Local conflicts require much more skill from a modern soldier simply because he handles brazillion dollar worth equipment and ammunition. If at the beginning of 20th century killing an enemy soldier cost less than $1 now in order to kill some mountain shepherd with an AK-47 your government will spend over $150,000.
Most of the time, except for rather infrequent occasions, opposing forces don't even see each other. Nobody can openly confront a well-equipped army so the tactics shifted more to the guerrilla warfare.

EDIT: A funny typo - sh|ted instead of shifted

Originally Posted by DDT

It was said that the reason in WWII that American soldiers were so deadly is because all the "country boys" were such deadly shots from growing up in a gun culture environment.

Japanese Admiral Yamamoto said that I would be too dangerous to ever land Japanese troops on USA because, "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Or, maybe you prefer to have American soldiers perpetually in Iraq? I don't. This is not what our Army is for.

Well, I've never used to be in a favour of the second Iraq war (even though I didn't in particular like Saddam Hussein). I think he should have been ousted during the first Iraq war when there were lots of opposition in Iraq. The rule here is you either finish off your enemy or don't start the war.

Having said that, the interpretation of why "in WWII that American soldiers were so deadly" is highly speculative. There were others who said that the alliance of the US Army + British Army + Canadian Army was so successful in the West Front because the best, most experienced forces of Wehrmacht were pulled off to the East Front. The fierce land battles between the US and Japan over the islands were the intermittent success for both belligerents, until the US Navy finally got the supremacy on the sea which adversely influenced the Japanese supply of its armed forces with the well-known results. Also, Admiral Yamamoto's words are true for any partisan war. The US Army suffered heavy losses in Vietnam without the Vietnamese adopting the "rifle" culture. Be realistic: if you drop a regiment of the well-trained airbone forces on a modern city (with the prior moderate-level chemical assault) the self-proclaimed militia would just shoot each other.

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

Don't forget that if you use the Army to "trample upon the rights of the people" you in fact "fix it" so that it won't be good next time it would fight the real enemy (another army). For example, the USSR had the special NKVD divisions to fight the insurgency (of its own citizens and the foreign citizens). The Nazi Germany had the SS divisions for the similar purpose.

In general I thought Croc's post was great. But I really don't see why there was any need to go to war in Iraq in the first place, not to mention going there for the second time.

It was an economically motivated war! How could you support it? Some points:

1) Saddam Hussein never had any hostile intentions that he could realistically carry out towards either Europe or the US. As it turned out he never even had WMDs --- the public in the UK and US were tricked!

2) He had previously been propped up(!!!) by the US when he was "the enemy of the enemy", i.e. the Khomeini regime in Iran. The opportunism of first helping someone, then go to war against him is beyond words in terms of cynicism. Saddam's policies were the same all along.

3) Additionally Kuwait had been effectively stealing oil from Iraq, to sell on the world market, and ignored Iraq's requests to stop or pay for the oil it took. Iraq had warned that this would lead to war unless it stopped. If Kuwait had not been so greedy for this Iraqi oil, or at least tried to negotiate, the invasion probably would never had happened.

4) Kuwait had previously been part of Iraq and the attempt to conquer it back was no stranger or more shocking than Argentina trying for the Falklands, China wanting Taiwan or the USSR trying for Finland . It was not a black and white issue although I personally of course don't think it was acceptable for Iraq to invade.

Seven years later, thousands of Western soldiers have died, and many millions of Iraqis since the first war; in battle, as civilian war casualties, as a result of sanctions, through general hardship and in terrorist attacks.

Essentially to ensure a steady and affordable oil supply to the US (mainly) and the UK (to a much lesser degree).

The civilians are worse off than before the war, millions have fled the country and are now in Europe (mainly) or living in refugee camps. The war in Iraq has spurred on terrorism and created an incredibly cynical and hostile view of the West among Moslems.

I am 100% for a country defending itself if it gets attacked, but this had nothing to do with peacekeeping or patriotism. It was always an economical war where most of the victims are civilians and coalition soldiers in their early twenties. In my view it's only marginally less bad than the Vietnam war.