Its time to invade Russia

[RubberDucky]

Looks like Russia has aided terrorists in recent history. Guess its time the US takes them out as we did Iraq, right?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30003

[Obtastic]

Does Russia have cheap oil?

[w1che]

We can't attack Russia or North Korea because they have nukes. That's why we couldn't take a chance on Iraq getting nukes because Saddam could have had his way in the middle east. Unless of course we would be willing to get a few hundred thousand troops killed or laying waste to most of the countries in that area.. I don't think that is an option.

[Obtastic]

You really think Russia would use nukes? I honestly don't. China is right on their doorstep, and every other nuclear armed nation in the world would probabely beat the Russians down. That's why North Korea doesn't attack, either. With China right there, they dare not attack South Korea.

[Sjax]

Originally posted by Obtastic
You really think Russia would use nukes? I honestly don't.
They might, and that's enough reason for me to stay out.
Russia is very proud, and still somehow see themselves as a superpower, even though they know it isn't going very well at this time. You don't want to mess with this pride by treating them as an inferior like Iraq or Afghanistan. That might make them show that they are not...

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Obtastic
You really think Russia would use nukes? I honestly don't. China is right on their doorstep, and every other nuclear armed nation in the world would probabely beat the Russians down. That's why North Korea doesn't attack, either. With China right there, they dare not attack South Korea. sorry but this is so idiotic. The reason N. korea does not attack is notbecause of Chine. Its because of AMERICA. China aided them in the Korean war remember .

The Russians do have cheap oil.More oil than the middle east.They also would use nukes and even had a plane for a dooms day ship at one point. Loaded with plutonium to be detanated into the atmospher to rasin down fallout .

Anyway, they practiced scourched earth with most all of their wars so there is no reason to think they would not use what ever it took to defend mother Russia.Why would China care. They would be taking out her chief rival.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I reserve the right to leave mis spelled and bad grammar just so w1 knows its me.

[w1che]

I know you were kidding about anyone attacking Russia because no one has an army large enough to even think about attacking Russia. Yes I do think if one were foolish enough to try an attack on Russia they could very well use tactical nukes on the battle field if needed. At the same time no one knows what that nut running North Korea would do, so an attack on North Korea is out of the question.

[MARINEGUY]

The only reason that the Korean War became a stand still was because of China. US forces had gone all the way up too the china N Korean border to defeat the N Korea Army then china sent 8 divisions down and pushed us to the 38 parallel, which the marines fought all the way from the chosen reservoir. Anyway N Korea is using the threat of force to try to accomplish its goals, just there standing army alone is a major threat but defeatable but a N Korea with nukes changes the whole scope of the problem. I feel that we need to pressure china to help us out whit this situation or at the least give us the go a head to do what ever we need to solve the Korea problem with out them interfering!. There are to many countries in the area that would go crazy if we just attacked with out giving them a heads up which cause problems too. Over all N Korea needs to be dealt with it is only going to get worse over time. The US probably should have just A bombed the country like big I wanted to and saved us the headacke we have now.

[RubberDucky]

Originally posted by w1che
I know you were kidding about anyone attacking Russia because no one has an army large enough to even think about attacking Russia. Yes I do think if one were foolish enough to try an attack on Russia they could very well use tactical nukes on the battle field if needed. At the same time no one knows what that nut running North Korea would do, so an attack on North Korea is out of the question.

But w1che, don't you remember.... The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were supposedly "Coalitions of the Willing." I'm sure such a coalition (which included the US and UK, 2 of the "Big Five") along with the support of several other nations (including Pakistan, which has its own nukes...) could attack Russia.

Heck, the Nazis invaded Russia twice. Russia (even under the communists) always relied on people rather than technology. Now that technology is even greater than before, Western technology is still far better.

India and Pakistan have had nuclear capabilities for several years, but they do not have the mechanisms to deliver the bombs globally. North Korea (from what I've gathered from news reports) is still early in their program.

The above article (from December 2002) says that Osama may have access to nukes. WE STILL invaded Afghanistan.

As to the question Obtastic presented about whether or not Russia would use their nukes: of course they would. I have little doubt at all that they would use their nukes if they were pressed, but for now they'd rather sell them to prop up their weak economy. ;)

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Anyway, they practiced scourched earth with most all of their wars so there is no reason to think they would not use what ever it took to defend mother Russia.
Exactly. Couldn't say it better myself. Historical references are always a plus.

As for the whole oil issue: there is no such thing as cheap oil, unless you are referring to the cost of extracting it. Anyway, be beginning to extract oil reserves you just drive down the price anyway, which makes refining and exracting the oil all the more less profitable. We didn't go into Afghanistan or Iraq in search of oil, though we will use it to offset some of the costs of the wars. If you look at the bottom line, the fiscal cost of the wars is greater than the predicted profits from extracting all the oil in the said countries. Bush and his advisors aren't that stupid.

The bottom line: why is the US only confronting nations which we believe we can bully? Why doesn't the US push in the UN for a more united effort against terrorism (even within our own countries!) and rely upon peaceful measures before resorting to violence?

[MARINEGUY]

oh ya and General Patton wanted to invade russia after germany was defeated that problay could have saved some troble for us too

[RubberDucky]

Originally posted by MARINEGUY
The only reason that the Korean War became a stand still was because of China. US forces had gone all the way up too the china N Korean border to defeat the N Korea Army then china sent 8 divisions down and pushed us to the 38 parallel, which the marines fought all the way from the chosen reservoir. Anyway N Korea is using the threat of force to try to accomplish its goals, just there standing army alone is a major threat but defeatable but a N Korea with nukes changes the whole scope of the problem. I feel that we need to pressure china to help us out whit this situation or at the least give us the go a head to do what ever we need to solve the Korea problem with out them interfering!. There are to many countries in the area that would go crazy if we just attacked with out giving them a heads up which cause problems too. Over all N Korea needs to be dealt with it is only going to get worse over time. The US probably should have just A bombed the country like big I wanted to and saved us the headacke we have now.

Wishful thinking. Truman is believed not only to have used the two atom bombs strictly for destroying the cities and forcing a Japanese surrender without the costs of invading the Japanese mainland, but also to show the Russian communists that we had a new weapon of phenomenal power. Ultimately I don't believe dropping another A bomb or Hydrogen bomb (I believe they had them by Ike's time?) in North Korea would have solved the long term problems of that country and the deep rift within general Korean society. I do agree with you that we should actively seek Chinese aid in diffusing the situation, and maybe should throw in Russia for good measure, as they have a border nearby. With the amount of poverty in N Korea, I'd be surprised if the people weren't willing to give a new regime a try. With sufficient International support any pre-emptive strike can be justified.

Maybe if the CTBT would be signed and ratified by all 32 nations with nuclear power plants this would be less of an issue.

[RubberDucky]

Originally posted by MARINEGUY
oh ya and General Patton wanted to invade russia after germany was defeated that problay could have saved some troble for us too

As long as we had all our troops over there, why not. ;)

Would have ultimately saved the whole world a lot of power... But at the cost of a significant number of American lives. :(

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by RubberDucky

Exactly. Couldn't say it better myself. Historical references are always a plus.

As for the whole oil issue: there is no such thing as cheap oil, unless you are referring to the cost of extracting it. Anyway, be beginning to extract oil reserves you just drive down the price anyway, which makes refining and exracting the oil all the more less profitable. We didn't go into Afghanistan or Iraq in search of oil, though we will use it to offset some of the costs of the wars. If you look at the bottom line, the fiscal cost of the wars is greater than the predicted profits from extracting all the oil in the said countries. Bush and his advisors aren't that stupid.

The bottom line: why is the US only confronting nations which we believe we can bully? Why doesn't the US push in the UN for a more united effort against terrorism (even within our own countries!) and rely upon peaceful measures before resorting to violence? but ducky, we did use peace.!2 yrs of it got us nothing.It did get us under table deals that bypassed sanctions which is also why the u.n. is a joke.

Here is more what we need:

U.N. reform
http://www.reason.com/rauch/032204.shtml
Imagine a better Washington. Imagine a conservative Republican administration working hand in glove with liberal congressional Democrats on a foreign-policy initiative designed to strengthen the United Nations while simultaneously increasing America's clout there. Imagine both parties and both branches bringing this initiative to fruition smoothly and unfussily, during an election year. Say, this year. Say, right now.

In 1945, when the U.N. was born, most of the world was non-democratic, and so a "league of democracies" would have been a rump group. Today, however, more than 60 percent of the world's countries are electoral democracies. Today it is absurd for Burma to vote as the moral and legal equivalent of Belgium; more absurd for Cuba and Zimbabwe to be members in good standing of the U.N. Human Rights Commission; and more absurd still for Libya to chair that commission, as it did last year.

To add injury to insult, democracies at the U.N. are disproportionately weak. The U.N. is dominated by a cluster of regional and ideological caucuses. African countries, for example, are pressured to vote together, with undemocratic governments often calling the shots and democracies going along to get along. Tyrants thus routinely exempt themselves from human-rights resolutions, while log-rolling ensures that condemnations of Israel sail through.

[RubberDucky]

Peaceful measures and peace are different things DZ. The US DID NOT exercise all viable options before choosing the last resort (war).

[DEAD ZONE]

yes we did. The history of cat and mouse and under the table violations of sanctions is clear evidence that we did.Not to mention the FACT as kays report shows that saddam was just waiting to restart all of it. France was already calling for lifting sanctions and some others were hinting at it. Saddaam gambled we would capitulate. He lost and than God Bush saw what he was trying to do.

[RubberDucky]

We aren't going to get anywhere in this argument because it will just boil down to speculation and "no we didn't, yes we did."

Oh well.

[DEAD ZONE]

I guess so.

[Obtastic]

Isn't that the core of all debates?