russia/ georgia

I'm not sure if there's anyone left who will argue that Bush has been a great president. I voted for the guy, and I'm more than happy to tell you he's been a disaster.

Unfortunately some people have such a blind hatred of Bush that they simply look past everything else. Bush is bad, therefore he's to blame for everything: your flat tire, your dog that isn't housebroken and your wife who just left you.

Bush has been a miserable president, but to attribute every random crisis to him is just asinine and shows a complete inability to reason through a particular situation.

Like SmootSmack said, it's a complex situation involving a number of countries - simply saying "It's all Bush's fault" is an absurd oversimplification.

In 2004 the military was considering reinstituting the Draft.

U.S. considering mandatory draft - Opinion (http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2004/04/19/Opinion/U.s-Considering.Mandatory.Draft-664493.shtml)

And again in 2007

Iraq war czar: Consider a draft - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/10/war.adviser.draft.ap/)

In 2007 it was explained why they didn't.

US not considering draft: Pentagon (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070813150223.tj19y2s7&show_article=1)

Conclusion: It is not a strectch of the imagination that reinstituting the Draft is considered by our government and military from time to time. However, they always revert back to the "An all volunteer Army is a better Army" theory.

The issues gets brought up on a regular basis by, usually by Rep. Rangel or someone else. It always gets defeated and isn't considered a viable option by hardly any military experts.

The modern U.S. military isn't what is was back in WW2. The amount of training and time that goes into a U.S. soldier is astronomical. They don't just grab a few guys, show them which end of the gun to point toward the enemy and send them on their way. These guys are operating complex pieces of technology on a daily basis and require an incredible amount of training.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but reinstating the draft is VERY unlikely. It's usually brought up as a way to strike some fear into people so we don't get into a war or extend ourselves. Kind of along the lines of, "Oh, you want to go to war huh? How about we reinstate...the DRAFT!" And Rangel jumps out of a closet waving his arms...

This is actually a good thread. Just skimming the posts, I don't if it's already been mentioned what Russia's true justification is for invading South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

For the past ten years or so Russia has been sending passports to the citzens of both regions. Thereby making both of these regions pro-Russia in many ways. So when Georgia, allegdly, got into a conflict with the citzens of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia felt justified in "protecting" their people. See they don't see this as an invasion, but rather protecting Russian citizens. And the fact that the U.S. needs Russia to help us with the situation in Iran, further ties our hands to act in any meaningful way.

This is a european problem if you ask me. I just don't see how this Administration or the next one, for that matter, can do much about Russia's designs on becoming a world power once again.

Just to add to the my last point, oil and energy is also in play here. It's just plain old messy.

I think you mean dmek's post starting the thread, not saden's.
Ok I'm all backwards right now.

They don't just grab a few guys, show them which end of the gun to point toward the enemy and send them on their way.

Unless they score poory on their ASVAB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASVAB), then that's pretty much what happens.

Well, this is more serious (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_missile_defense):

A top Russian general said Friday that Poland's agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported.

The statement by Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn is the strongest threat that Russia has issued against the plans to put missile defense elements in former Soviet satellite nations.

Poland and the United States on Thursday signed a deal for Poland to accept a missile interceptor base as part of a system the United States says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations. Moscow, however, feels it is aimed at Russia's missile force.

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

He added, in clear reference to the agreement, that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them." Nogovitsyn that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems, he said, according to Interfax.

If I was Poland I would return those missiles and try to make peace with the Russians...god knows no one in this country or Europe cares about you.

International poltics is so complicated that I would not even begin to discuss this topic without reading newspapers from several countries, reading the history of Georgia, understanding the culture, and try and figure out any behind door deals that were done.

Well, this is more serious (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_missile_defense):



If I was Poland I would return those missiles and try to make peace with the Russians...god knows no one in this country or Europe cares about you.

Sabre rattling at it's best. What else is Russia supposed to say? "No big deal. We like having neighboring countries with missile launching and intercepting capabilities." How would you react if your neighbor chains up 3 or 4 pitbulls right up against your property, just in case you decide to break in and steal his Patrick Ramsey rookie card collection. You'll probably say: "If one of those dogs sh*ts in my yard, I'm filling it full of lead." But, you're not going to kill the dogs unless provoked. You've made it clear to your neighbor that you're not intimidated and will react with appropriate measures. Insanely simple analogy but I have a limited imagination.

For the record, I think the missile defense shield is a bad move. Russia's equivalent of NORAD will detect a launch by an interceptor missile, calculate it's course and have a projected area of impact in about 1 minute. All it takes is for one missile of ours to malfunction and, instead of hitting a rogue state's incoming missile, winds up heading eastward into russian territory. That's when it starts getting a little hairy. Better have a good diplomat on hand, like Ben Affleck's character Jack Ryan in The Sum Of All Fears.

Speaking of which, I can't help but marvel at Tom Clancy's nostradamus-like ability to write a fictitional story and watch parts of it unfold in real life. In Debt of Honor he has a Japanese airline pilot attack the Capitol building during a State of the Union address, which is reminiscent of the 9/11 attacks. In Red Storm Rising, Russia attacks it's southern oil rich neighbors in order to combat an attack by terrorists on their own major oil refinery. Not exactly the same... but still.

If you want to criticize Bush, his pulling out of the ABM Treaty was a tremendous mistake, imo. First, the technology is still a long way away from working properly, and may never function at the level needed for serious protection. Moreover, in this age of terrorism the threat of an open nuclear assault from a sovereign nation is minimal. This was, I believe, always about the defense contracts because the technology is so dubious.