"hk" wrote in message
.com...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
news

There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking
military measures against them. We can only beat up bitty nations,
and not even those sometime.


Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch
What, that we can only take on bitty nations, or what can be done with
big nations capable of fighting back ?



They way you originally stated your position (above), the two issues are
linked. If you are correct, what, if anything, would you do about it?

Eisboch





As I previously stated, for the situation currently at hand, urge our
European allies to join with us in condemning the Russian invaders, impose
diplomatic and commercial barriers, and also speed up the acceptance of
the former Soviet states that are now true democracies into NATO. Naked
militarism is no longer the answer.


All of that is currently being done. Now, consider this ....
What if Georgia was already accepted as a member of NATO and the Russians
did what they are doing.
What then? As a NATO ally, wouldn't we, along with other NATO members, be
obligated to respond militarily if required?

Meanwhile, Sam Nunn (D - the "other" Georgia) is advocating a substantial
reduction in American troops deployed overseas and wants to significantly
cut back the Navy. He claims that with the Soviet Union no longer being a
threat, we don't need to maintain the military strength recommended by the
current administration ..... which, by the way, has proposed cutbacks as
well, but not to the level Nunn advocates. Nunn also mumbles about the US
not maintaining a leadership role in NATO.

Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of Jimmy
Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a paper tiger,
it was during his administration. Reagan came along, reversed all Carter's
cutbacks and set in motion the events that ultimately led to the USSR's
collapse. Isn't it ironic that the reasons Sam Nunn gives as justification
to significantly cut back the military can be credited to Reagan's buildup
of the same?

Sam Nunn. On Obama's short list.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
.com...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
news

There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking
military measures against them. We can only beat up bitty nations,
and not even those sometime.

Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch
What, that we can only take on bitty nations, or what can be done with
big nations capable of fighting back ?


They way you originally stated your position (above), the two issues are
linked. If you are correct, what, if anything, would you do about it?

Eisboch




As I previously stated, for the situation currently at hand, urge our
European allies to join with us in condemning the Russian invaders, impose
diplomatic and commercial barriers, and also speed up the acceptance of
the former Soviet states that are now true democracies into NATO. Naked
militarism is no longer the answer.


All of that is currently being done. Now, consider this ....
What if Georgia was already accepted as a member of NATO and the Russians
did what they are doing.
What then? As a NATO ally, wouldn't we, along with other NATO members, be
obligated to respond militarily if required?

If Georgia and some of the other former Sov satellites were already in
NATO, and if Bush hadn't shot our diplomatic wad around the world.
Russia wouldn't have invaded.


Meanwhile, Sam Nunn (D - the "other" Georgia) is advocating a substantial
reduction in American troops deployed overseas and wants to significantly
cut back the Navy. He claims that with the Soviet Union no longer being a
threat, we don't need to maintain the military strength recommended by the
current administration ..... which, by the way, has proposed cutbacks as
well, but not to the level Nunn advocates. Nunn also mumbles about the US
not maintaining a leadership role in NATO.

Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of Jimmy
Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a paper tiger,
it was during his administration. Reagan came along, reversed all Carter's
cutbacks and set in motion the events that ultimately led to the USSR's
collapse. Isn't it ironic that the reasons Sam Nunn gives as justification
to significantly cut back the military can be credited to Reagan's buildup
of the same?

Sam Nunn. On Obama's short list.

Eisboch


We *are* a paper tiger as far as any nation capable of fighting back in
a big way. We aren't going to engage either Russia or China. Who are we
going to go to war with, Venezuela?

Oh...I don't buy the Reagan myths. Decades of the Soviets blowing
resources on the military (that began long before Reagan got into the
white house, a generational shift in who controlled the country, the
acts of Yeltsin, and many other factors were the cause of the collapse
of the old Soviet Union.

I'm not familiar with Nunn's proposals, so I cannot comment specifically
on them. I am, however, in favor of greatly reducing the size of the
U.S. military. We need to concentrate on developing relationships with
other nations that lead to the deployment of large multi-national
peacekeeping forces when necessary, and get out of the neocon-driven
warmongering business.

George W. Bush has done this country great harm. It will take us years,
if not decades, to recover. We need smarter political leaders, not more
militarily aggressive little tyrants.




--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
e.com...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
news

There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking
military measures against them. We can only beat up bitty nations,
and not even those sometime.


Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch
What, that we can only take on bitty nations, or what can be done with
big nations capable of fighting back ?



They way you originally stated your position (above), the two issues are
linked. If you are correct, what, if anything, would you do about it?

Eisboch





As I previously stated, for the situation currently at hand, urge our
European allies to join with us in condemning the Russian invaders, impose
diplomatic and commercial barriers, and also speed up the acceptance of
the former Soviet states that are now true democracies into NATO. Naked
militarism is no longer the answer.


All of that is currently being done. Now, consider this ....
What if Georgia was already accepted as a member of NATO and the Russians
did what they are doing.
What then? As a NATO ally, wouldn't we, along with other NATO members, be
obligated to respond militarily if required?

Meanwhile, Sam Nunn (D - the "other" Georgia) is advocating a substantial
reduction in American troops deployed overseas and wants to significantly
cut back the Navy. He claims that with the Soviet Union no longer being a
threat, we don't need to maintain the military strength recommended by the
current administration ..... which, by the way, has proposed cutbacks as
well, but not to the level Nunn advocates. Nunn also mumbles about the US
not maintaining a leadership role in NATO.

Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of Jimmy
Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a paper tiger,
it was during his administration. Reagan came along, reversed all Carter's
cutbacks and set in motion the events that ultimately led to the USSR's
collapse. Isn't it ironic that the reasons Sam Nunn gives as justification
to significantly cut back the military can be credited to Reagan's buildup
of the same?

Sam Nunn. On Obama's short list.

Eisboch

Without the US, Nato is a not even a paper tiger. The forces in the
European countries are almost non-existent. As do most liberals, they
believe that the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, etc., are inherently good at
heart and won't harm anyone. In the case of Georgia, my good friend in
Holland believes they brought it on themselves, and we should do nothing.
When I ask him about the Ukraine, he thinks Russia will do nothing there.

We'll see.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.

Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.

Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


One of the Reagan Admin's goals was to so overspend on the military and
so encumber the country with debt, necessary social programs would have
to be cut.



--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:21:36 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:


For Putin it's a "national security" issue. The internal "Russian"
domestic issues were exacerbated by Bush's lame-ass missile defense
plans in that part of the world. Putin doesn't want American missiles
right on his border, and I don't blame him. I don't want Russian
missiles in Mexico or Canada. American missiles in the Czech Republic
today, Georgia tomorrow. Bush refused to listen to Putin's protests
about those missiles, and now is getting spanked.
Simple diplomacy and strategic vision could have avoided this BS. BTW, I
heard Putin talking the other day about the "Georgian Terroists" and
making equivalencies with our invasion of Iraq. Whether you buy that or
not, it was George Bush who gave Putin that card to play.

I wouldn't disagree that it could have been handled better by Bush.
Squeezing Russia isn't smart, but I don't see this as a reaction to
Bush's mishandling of the situation. I see this as Putin making a
statement. Russia was recently a world player, and Putin's statement is
that it is once again a world player that has to be listened to. We take
Putin, and Russia, for granted at our peril.

If you want to talk mishandling, Saakashvili is right at the top of the
list.

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.

Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by Carter
which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the seas by
members of Congress on both sides
..
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Eisboch

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


If Georgia and some of the other former Sov satellites were already in
NATO, and if Bush hadn't shot our diplomatic wad around the world. Russia
wouldn't have invaded.



Come on Harry. That is nothing but a grand assumption.

Here's the question, put more simply.

If a NATO member is attacked and invaded by Russia (or any other non-NATO
adversary), does the United States have an obligation to respond with
military action, if required?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.
Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by Carter
which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the seas by
members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Eisboch



Indeed, a colossal waste of taxpayer money...a 600-ship Navy. Boys and
their toys.

--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

"hk" wrote in message
. ..




One of the Reagan Admin's goals was to so overspend on the military and so
encumber the country with debt, necessary social programs would have to be
cut.



That was a *goal*?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Eisboch