The Resurection of the USSR

[quote]Limbic wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

They kept us at arms length and blackmailed us into giving them billions or else they would “accidentally” lose nuclear weapons to terrorists.

If I point a gun at your head will you pay me and thank me for the privilege? quote]

[/quote]

… and the parting point of the book: post-A.Q.Khan the proliferation continues with your newly-“elected” president of? … Pakistan, in charge.

Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons

Russia wants to be a regional hegemon, and took any expansion of “the West” into the old Iron Curtain as a “kick in the nuts.”

The problem, however, is that many of the countries in the old Eastern Block, and, to a lesser extent, the old USSR, wanted to strengthen their ties to the West and had no interest in being dominated by their traditional rivals, the Russians.

This article has some good background on how the expansion of NATO and the EU eastward in the 90s was taken by Russia as a “kick in the nuts.”

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87107/ronald-d-asmus/europe-s-eastern-promise.html

From the same issue, this article explores Putin’s domestic popularity - and concludes that it is based in the common voter fallacy of attributing economic results to the people in charge (irrespective of whether they have anything to do with them - both good and bad):

[quote]Limbic wrote:
Limbic wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

They kept us at arms length and blackmailed us into giving them billions or else they would “accidentally” lose nuclear weapons to terrorists.

If I point a gun at your head will you pay me and thank me for the privilege? quote]

… and the parting point of the book: post-A.Q.Khan the proliferation continues with your newly-“elected” president of? … Pakistan, in charge.

Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons

[/quote]

“Most global terrorist plots since 9/11 can be traced back to these areas. And Pakistan’s military regime, not Iran, has been the main source of rogue nuclear proliferation. It is therefore the U.S. partnership with military rulers in Pakistan that has been and is the problem, not the solution.”

“The Bush administration’s nightmare scenario – the convergence of terrorism and nuclear weapons – is happening right now, and in Pakistan, not in Iraq or Iran.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119888858644856743.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[quote]Limbic wrote:
Limbic wrote:
Limbic wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

They kept us at arms length and blackmailed us into giving them billions or else they would “accidentally” lose nuclear weapons to terrorists.

If I point a gun at your head will you pay me and thank me for the privilege? quote]

… and the parting point of the book: post-A.Q.Khan the proliferation continues with your newly-“elected” president of? … Pakistan, in charge.

Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons

“Most global terrorist plots since 9/11 can be traced back to these areas. And Pakistan’s military regime, not Iran, has been the main source of rogue nuclear proliferation. It is therefore the U.S. partnership with military rulers in Pakistan that has been and is the problem, not the solution.”

“The Bush administration’s nightmare scenario – the convergence of terrorism and nuclear weapons – is happening right now, and in Pakistan, not in Iraq or Iran.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119888858644856743.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
[/quote]

Why are you quoting me? What is your point? How does this relate to the topic or are you merely pointing out that an Islamic country developing the bomb is a bigger danger than than Russia?

If that is your point I agree.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why are you quoting me? What is your point? How does this relate to the topic or are you merely pointing out that an Islamic country developing the bomb is a bigger danger than than Russia? [/quote]

You did bring up the USSR “blackmailing” the US about nukes. So, Limbic’s post relates to the topic very much.

Anyway, the point - if any - should be that even a Rupert Murdoch publication acknowledges that the “nightmare scenario – the convergence of terrorism and nuclear weapons – is happening right now, and in Pakistan, not in Iraq or Iran.” So, maybe, just maybe, you should start questioning the real motives for the war on Iraq.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why are you quoting me? What is your point? How does this relate to the topic or are you merely pointing out that an Islamic country developing the bomb is a bigger danger than than Russia?

You did bring up the USSR “blackmailing” the US about nukes. So, Limbic’s post relates to the topic very much.

Anyway, the point - if any - should be that even a Rupert Murdoch publication acknowledges that the “nightmare scenario – the convergence of terrorism and nuclear weapons – is happening right now, and in Pakistan, not in Iraq or Iran.” So, maybe, just maybe, you should start questioning the real motives for the war on Iraq.[/quote]

Other than pointing out there is more than one threat it does not really have much to do with it.

Not really sure what you are trying to say. Do you propose we should let Iran get nukes because Pakistan already has them?

[quote]lixy wrote:

Anyway, the point - if any - should be that even a Rupert Murdoch publication acknowledges that the “nightmare scenario – the convergence of terrorism and nuclear weapons – is happening right now, and in Pakistan, not in Iraq or Iran.” So, maybe, just maybe, you should start questioning the real motives for the war on Iraq.[/quote]

So, since it is a Rupert Murdock publication, and everything Rupert Murdock publishes is b.s., it must mean that you agree with Zap. . . .

If Iran gets the bomb, then the convergence will be there as well, but since you hang on Iran’s nuts, to you, it must be a good thing.

It is equally as dangerous to me.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
It is equally as dangerous to me.[/quote]

Not even close.

On the one hand, we have an extremely unstable country with nukes and lots of terrorists. On the other hand, there’s this relatively VERY stable other country whose supreme leader condemned nuclear weapons and which - in the event their leader’s full of hooey - wouldn’t be able to make a nuke for at least 5 years.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
It is equally as dangerous to me.

Not even close.

On the one hand, we have an extremely unstable country with nukes and lots of terrorists. On the other hand, there’s this relatively VERY stable other country whose supreme leader condemned nuclear weapons and which - in the event their leader’s full of hooey - wouldn’t be able to make a nuke for at least 5 years.[/quote]

Condemned publically yet still takes all the steps to build them.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Condemned publically yet still takes all the steps to build them. [/quote]

It goes farther than a mere public condemnation. He passed a fatwa that prohibits nuclear technology use in the military.

And what steps are you talking about? Their civil nuclear program?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Condemned publically yet still takes all the steps to build them.

It goes farther than a mere public condemnation. He passed a fatwa that prohibits nuclear technology use in the military.

And what steps are you talking about? Their civil nuclear program?[/quote]

Wow! A fatwa! Did he pass a fatwa t stop murdering gays?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Limbic wrote:
Limbic wrote:
Limbic wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

They kept us at arms length and blackmailed us into giving them billions or else they would “accidentally” lose nuclear weapons to terrorists.

If I point a gun at your head will you pay me and thank me for the privilege? quote]

… and the parting point of the book: post-A.Q.Khan the proliferation continues with your newly-“elected” president of? … Pakistan, in charge.

Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons

“Most global terrorist plots since 9/11 can be traced back to these areas. And Pakistan’s military regime, not Iran, has been the main source of rogue nuclear proliferation. It is therefore the U.S. partnership with military rulers in Pakistan that has been and is the problem, not the solution.”

“The Bush administration’s nightmare scenario – the convergence of terrorism and nuclear weapons – is happening right now, and in Pakistan, not in Iraq or Iran.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119888858644856743.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Why are you quoting me? What is your point? How does this relate to the topic or are you merely pointing out that an Islamic country developing the bomb is a bigger danger than than Russia?

If that is your point I agree.[/quote]

Has it occurred to Zap that the Russians know who caused their defeat in Afghanistan, and that for the problem that Pakistan has become may become another Vietnam for the U.S. Some in Russia may find that poetic?

Knowledge of the proliferation has been around for over a decade in spite of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. You would do well to read the book I referenced. There are more dimensions to this than streamlining Zap’s thread experience on T-Nation.

Focus on this Zap: prollferation by Pakistan is on-going by our ally in the “War on Terror”.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Damici wrote:
Agreed. However, Putin apparently enjoys massive popularity there. He’s seen as the great strong leader who is “bringing the nation back to greatness.”

Truthfully, the U.S. really fucked this one up over the past decade or decade and a half. Bush especially, but the Clinton administration too. When the curtain fell we should’ve been so loudly and warmly in their faces, embracing them with hugs and kisses, about how much we wanted to team up with them and be their friends and partners and do everything together (trade, military, environment, etc., etc.) that it should’ve gotten to the point that people were almost sick of hearing it. But instead we managed to slowly turn them back into an enemy. It’s not fully our fault, don’t get me wrong. Putin has always been of the old-school, cold war mindset, but we did just about everything we could to create reason in his mind to be suspicious and distrusting of us.

LiftSmart wrote:
Russian history is just one shit storm after another. I pity the average Russian workers who’ve had to endure dictatorships and incompetent monarchies for so long.

Not to mention the ass-freezing winters!

It was all Russia’s choice. They kept us at arms length and blackmailed us into giving them billions or else they would “accidentally” lose nuclear weapons to terrorists.

They had no interest in being friendly.[/quote]

You’re right on…

[quote]Limbic wrote:

Has it occurred to Zap that the Russians know who caused their defeat in Afghanistan, and that for the problem that Pakistan has become may become another Vietnam for the U.S. Some in Russia may find that poetic?
[/quote]

Has it occured to the Ruskies that they caused our defeat in Vietnam? Perhaps we will find another Afghanistan for them as well when the Islamists begin moving in from the Caucasus.

They have as much to fear from the islamists in Paksitan.

[quote]Limbic wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Limbic wrote:
Limbic wrote:
Limbic wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

They kept us at arms length and blackmailed us into giving them billions or else they would “accidentally” lose nuclear weapons to terrorists.

If I point a gun at your head will you pay me and thank me for the privilege? quote]

… and the parting point of the book: post-A.Q.Khan the proliferation continues with your newly-“elected” president of? … Pakistan, in charge.

Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons

“Most global terrorist plots since 9/11 can be traced back to these areas. And Pakistan’s military regime, not Iran, has been the main source of rogue nuclear proliferation. It is therefore the U.S. partnership with military rulers in Pakistan that has been and is the problem, not the solution.”

“The Bush administration’s nightmare scenario – the convergence of terrorism and nuclear weapons – is happening right now, and in Pakistan, not in Iraq or Iran.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119888858644856743.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Why are you quoting me? What is your point? How does this relate to the topic or are you merely pointing out that an Islamic country developing the bomb is a bigger danger than than Russia?

If that is your point I agree.

Has it occurred to Zap that the Russians know who caused their defeat in Afghanistan, and that for the problem that Pakistan has become may become another Vietnam for the U.S. Some in Russia may find that poetic?

Knowledge of the proliferation has been around for over a decade in spite of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. You would do well to read the book I referenced. There are more dimensions to this than streamlining Zap’s thread experience on T-Nation.

Focus on this Zap: prollferation by Pakistan is on-going by our ally in the “War on Terror”.[/quote]

You seem to be rambling here.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
It is equally as dangerous to me.

Not even close.

On the one hand, we have an extremely unstable country with nukes and lots of terrorists. On the other hand, there’s this relatively VERY stable other country whose supreme leader condemned nuclear weapons and which - in the event their leader’s full of hooey - wouldn’t be able to make a nuke for at least 5 years.[/quote]

Hey, you’re the one who said Iran is a nuclear power so deal with it. You are also the one who said if we attack Iran, bombs will go off in American cities. You are also the one who said that Iran does not support terrorists.

So if bombs are going to go off in New York city isn’t this essencially using terrorism to attack us?

If they would attack us using terrorism, which they deny using, why should we believe them if they say they will not create or use nuclear weapons? Why should we take these people at their word?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wow! A fatwa! Did he pass a fatwa t stop murdering gays?[/quote]

How’s that relevant to our discussion?

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Hey, you’re the one who said Iran is a nuclear power so deal with it. [/quote]

So…?

And you feel the need to comment on that why exactly?

Dare tell me that if Iran attacked you, bombs will not go off in Iranian cities.

I never said that.

Of course not. That’ll be self-defense.

I wouldn’t call it terrorism, and certainly not an attack. If they blow up Washington after you blow up Tehran, they come up as the good guys.

Don’t. Start WWIII for all I care.

That said, in light of the catastrophic “failure” of intelligence with regards to Iraq, it may be wise to avoid the guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude.

Regardless, my point was that Pakistan and Iran are not “equally as dangerous”, and far from it. Ironically, international polls put the USA as the most dangerous of the lot. It’s all a matter of perspective.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wow! A fatwa! Did he pass a fatwa t stop murdering gays?

How’s that relevant to our discussion?[/quote]

The topic is the USSR and Russia. How is your drivel about some false fatwa designed to deceive the infidel relevant?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The topic is the USSR and Russia. How is your drivel about some false fatwa designed to deceive the infidel relevant?[/quote]

I know what the topic is. I brought up the fatwa to counter Ghensis’ “equally as dangerous” assertion.

Now, explain what “gays” have to do with anything in this thread.