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