Russia flexing its muscles?

[lazur]

I'm sure this will make its way into the political debate between the candidates:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426184,00.html

Russia Sends Warships to Caribbean, a First Since Cold War

Monday, September 22, 2008

Russia flexed its muscles in America’s backyard Tuesday as it sent one of its largest warships to join military exercises in the Caribbean. The nuclear-powered flagship Peter the Great set off for Venezuela with the submarine destroyer Admiral Chabanenko and two support vessels in the first Russian naval mission in Latin America since the end of the Cold War.

“The St Andrew flag, the flag of the Russian Navy, is confidently returning to the world oceans,” said Igor Dygalo, a spokesman for the Russian Navy. He declined to comment on Russian newspaper reports that nuclear submarines were also part of the expedition.

The voyage to join the Venezuelan Navy for operations came only days after Russian strategic nuclear bombers made their first visit to the country. Hugo Chavez, the President, said then that the arrival of the strike force was a warning to the U.S. The anti-American Venezuelan leader is due to visit Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow this week as part of a tour that includes visits to Cuba and China.

Peter the Great is armed with 20 nuclear cruise missiles and up to 500 surface-to-air missiles, making it one of the most formidable warships in the world. The Kremlin has courted Venezuela and Cuba as tensions with the West soared over the proposed U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe and the Russian invasion of Georgia last month.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said recently that Russia should “restore its position in Cuba” — the nation where deployment of Soviet nuclear missiles in 1962 brought Russia and the United States to the brink of nuclear war.

Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin made clear that Russia would challenge the U.S. for influence in Latin America after visits to Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba last week. He said: “It would be wrong to talk about one nation having exclusive rights to this zone.”

Click here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4804157.ece) to read more on this story from the London Times.

 

[The Senator]

Yeah, we're supposed to take a "fair and balanced" article like this seriously when it contains objective language such as "flexing its muscles."

I mean, the United States has warships all over the world, why is this a story?

Also, I didn't realize the United States owned the Caribbean, and that it was "America's backyard."

 

[Franklin Richards]

We own the seas anyway. Those ships only go where we let them. If they want to take a cruise that's fine.

As long as they don't take missles to Cuba or Venezuela.

 

[Yerzrinot]

Last time I checked we didn't own the oceans (we just think we do) Russia can go wherever the **** they like.

 

[Franklin Richards]

What they can't do is park nuclear wessels off our coast.

 

[lazur]

Yeah, we're supposed to take a "fair and balanced" article like this seriously when it contains objective language such as "flexing its muscles."

I mean, the United States has warships all over the world, why is this a story?

Also, I didn't realize the United States owned the Caribbean, and that it was "America's backyard."

Um, that story came from the Times Online (a UK news agency). I'm not sure if that particular news agency is slanted right or not, but all Fox did was borrow the story and give them credit...

And it's a story because it's the first time in 30 years Russia has taken a warship out onto the sea, much less cruised it right by our country during a time when the U.S. and Russia are at odds.

 

[jaguarr]

See, here's the thing with Russia, though: they can no more afford (literally) to go to war than we can. There's a lot of barking coming out of Putin but the economics of Russia don't lend themselves to massive, prolonged military action. And if they piss of EMEA, EMEA will find other energy solutions (EMEA currently purchases a huge amount of energy from Russia, to the point that it's Russia's primary export) and stop buying from Russia, which would probably bankrupt Russia altogether and destroy their economy. Putin knows this. He's not about to do anything more than rattle his sabre (that didn't sound quite right, now that I read it again).

jag

 

[Mr Sparkle]

so, if Hugo Chavez speaks against the Bush Government, well he is "anti-american"
does that make Bush "Anti-Korean" or "Anti-Iranian" or "Anti-Venezuelan" or is just a one way sort of deal?

 

[Matt]

See, here's the thing with Russia, though: they can no more afford (literally) to go to war than we can. There's a lot of barking coming out of Putin but the economics of Russia don't lend themselves to massive, prolonged military action. And if they piss of EMEA, EMEA will find other energy solutions (EMEA currently purchases a huge amount of energy from Russia, to the point that it's Russia's primary export) and stop buying from Russia, which would probably bankrupt Russia altogether and destroy their economy. Putin knows this. He's not about to do anything more than rattle his sabre (that didn't sound quite right, now that I read it again).

jag

I was really tempted to post that picture of Putin blowing on the little kid's stomach but realized just how inappropriate that would be.

But yeah, I agree with the essentials here. Vladimir Putin is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is not a nut job. He may be power hungry, but he is not crazy. He is very very smart. He will use intimidation, but he knows he can only go so far.

 

[jaguarr]

I was really tempted to post that picture of Putin blowing on the little kid's stomach but realized just how inappropriate that would be.

But yeah, I agree with the essentials here. Vladimir Putin is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is not a nut job. He may be power hungry, but he is not crazy. He is very very smart. He will use intimidation, but he knows he can only go so far.

Oh, I think Putin's a little bit crazy. Definitely very smart. But he's not full blow insane like Ahmadinejad, though if he's hanging out with Chavez at all he might get some insanity rubbed off on him.

jag

 

[Matt]

After all, you've gotta be crazy to do this at a rally:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/07/07/putin_wideweb__470x351,0.jpg

(couldn't resist.)

Yeah, he's a little nuts...but I don't think he has reached the point where he will throw logic out the door in the name of rebuilding the Soviet Empire or anything like that.

 

[jaguarr]

Pic no worky, Matt.

jag

 

[Matt]

Bah, URL-ized it.

 

[jaguarr]

LOL! I've never seen that pic before. That's....awkward.

jag

 

[Reaper]

so, if Hugo Chavez speaks against the Bush Government, well he is "anti-american"
does that make Bush "Anti-Korean" or "Anti-Iranian" or "Anti-Venezuelan" or is just a one way sort of deal?

Well, one good thing about if Obama becomes president. Maybe you'll feel compelled to say something in support of The U.S. from time to time. In fact, I bet you will.

I bet you (and if not you, then most of the other libs on here) wouldn't say jack about Obama if He did the EXACT same things that Bush does foriegn policy wise, just so long as his domestic and social policies were far far left like most of yours.

 

[jaguarr]

Well, one good thing about if Obama becomes president. Maybe you'll feel compelled to say something in support of The U.S. from time to time. In fact, I bet you will.

I bet you (and if not you, then most of the other libs on here) wouldn't say jack about Obama if He did the EXACT same things that Bush does foriegn policy wise, just so long as his domestic and social policies were far far left like most of yours.

Maybe you can explain to me, then, given your distaste for "far, far left" policies (including foreign policy, apparently) why the Bush administration and now the McCain Campaign are starting to latch on to Obama and Biden's foreign policy philosophies of late.

jag

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Well, one good thing about if Obama becomes president. Maybe you'll feel compelled to say something in support of The U.S. from time to time. In fact, I bet you will.

I bet you (and if not you, then most of the other libs on here) wouldn't say jack about Obama if He did the EXACT same things that Bush does foriegn policy wise, just so long as his domestic and social policies were far far left like most of yours.

you just wrote something that is quite inaccurate.
I don't disagree with Bush because he is a republican ( in fact I agreed with McCain back in 2000 in some issues) I disagree with him because we hold different views on solutions to problems in the US and abroad.
Obama reflects my views more right now, certainly, and I disagree with him on some issues, and if he strays from my ideology I will be as displeased as I am with Bush right now.
I think that would be pretty obvious.
however, if the GOP were to attack Obama for doing things that they have protected the current admin. for?
then, really the hypocrisy would be apparent wouldn't it?

 

[Hobgoblin]

We own the seas anyway. Those ships only go where we let them. If they want to take a cruise that's fine.

As long as they don't take missles to Cuba or Venezuela.

Exactly. This is a lot of showboating. Thats not to say we ignore them either. Sailing the Russian navy through the Caribbean is one thing, building nuke launch sites in Cuba or Venezuela is something else.

 

[The Senator]

Well, one good thing about if Obama becomes president. Maybe you'll feel compelled to say something in support of The U.S. from time to time. In fact, I bet you will.

I bet you (and if not you, then most of the other libs on here) wouldn't say jack about Obama if He did the EXACT same things that Bush does foriegn policy wise, just so long as his domestic and social policies were far far left like most of yours.

I know I personally hold this country to a higher standard than most people. I also believe this country is one of the most hypocritical nations in the world right now, in terms of its rhetoric.

We slam other countries for 'anti-American rhetoric,' yet our president gets in front of a camera and says that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are part of an "Axis of Evil."

We call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization," as our troops are overseas gunning down innocent Iraq civilians and bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan-- unapologetically, of course.

We say that Hugo Chavez is "indecent" for calling George W. Bush "the devil," yet several of our leaders call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "evil," and Bush himself says that he cannot wait for the day when Fidel Castro leaves this earth.

And, of course, we get all up in arms when Russia sails its naval vessels into the Caribbean, when we have navy operations in every ocean, off the coast of every continent, and it has been that way for decades.

If Obama took three nations and referred to them as an "Axis of Evil," I would call him a fear mongerer.

If Obama called the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, or started singing a song where he called for the bombing of Iran, I would consider him showing "warlord" qualities.

The rhetoric we spew, the actions we pride ourselves in, the military activities of the United States in the past forty years-- all of that does not give us room to consider ourselves "better" than other nations. It doesn't give us free reign to point out the mobilization of the Russian military, when we have been mobilized for decades; we don't get to call other militaries "terrorist organizations" when they haven't fought in battle for over a decade, as we're killing innocent civilians in two countries overseas; we don't get to play the "victim" card when other countries' leaders call our leaders names, when we have done the exact same thing.

If we were a "better" country, we would be above such childish finger pointing. But we're just as bad as, if not worse than, the countries we consider "enemies" of the United States.

 

[chamber-music]

They where planning to put Putin in a canon and fire him at America!