Should Poland continue to support Bush's war on terror?

Better tiltle would be: Bush war of terror.
Terror - violent action, or a threat of it to intimidate or coerce population for military or political purposes.
The immediate consequnces are devastated Irak, diminished standing of the US, weaker dollar, wrecked US economy. Long term - US and "coalition members" being more or less permanent target for terrorists with very little sentiment from non participants, instilled hate lasting for generations toward US, mistrust of other nations, exposing military weakneses. Even Saudi regime so dependent on the US for its existence due to the own population pressures is distancing themselves from the US. Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo prison atrocities will be remembered for generations, it not only exposes US rulers hipocrisy but allows other regimes to ratched their own cruelties and became immune to the world codemnation.
On the personal note it makes me laugh seeing US politicians displaying saddness (in front of TV cameras) mourning death of US soldiers. These guys volunteered, they signed up, being trained, and getting paid to kill people, they are getting bonuses for it. The destruction they are causing will last for hundreds of years. They there to kill people they know nothing about, most of these geniuses do not know where Irak is. World is better off without them. The hilarious part is that the heroes who send this cannon fodder there were very careful to stay away from military when it was their turn (they had other things to do), now probably they hide their own sons.

this was the case before the war.. that isnt nothing new..

The new part is that the US agression added a new nation to the recruiting pool of terrorists, and a good personal cause in many instances as well.
It looks like a continuation of imperialist wars US military and CIA conducted in interest of international business (United Fruit Company in Central America). Now it is a Haliburton war, no surprise as the fellows having interest in the oil business are in charge.

well IMHO

they lured the oil hungry over there.. gave them a reason.. now
we ( American People) have to suffer. but.. good is in sight. I just
read on Lipinski signing a bill for renewable energy.. and it passed
so this is a good thing for America.. we dont have to depend on
foreign energy.

some positive for a change..

Really? I don't recall London being bombed by Islamic extremists prior to the illegal occupation of Iraq. In actual fact, I do believe the 7/7 bombers specifically cited Iraq as a primary cause for their actions.



There are a couple of scenes in Faranheit 9/11 which highlight this very sad fact.

Please try to read carefully.. I dont like my words twisted..




just FYI- Again.. here is a link for you to read.. yes terrorism was going on
prior to the war.. it went up in 2000 and 2001.. the link is in April of 2001
which shows a significant rise in terrorism which is pretty much a red Flag.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2420.htm
some of the so called terrorists came from the UK and were exradited <~cant spell to the U.S. for trial.

MY point was terrorism has been around for eons.. what is yours??
Another American bashing day.. well Im not hearing it.. sorry.. good try though.
my point and your point dont match.. so have a pleasent day...
http://cjc.delaware.gov/terrorism/history.shtml

Terrorism, usually, is an expression of desperate. This was a position of Palestinians for generations, nobody wanted to listen to their rightful grievances, even when resolutions were passed in their favor these were either vetoed, or ignored.
Now their problem became a world problem and is being addressed. Would they wait for a justice to prevail they would be no more. The US involvment in Irak was a result of interests of Neocons (an extension of the Israel's lobby) and oil business (top moron and vice). Regardless who is going to be your next president (McCain of course) the policy will continue, two franchises have a stranglehold on an election process, and will never let let it go.

Terrorism has been around forever but it took the international community an eternity to act with any conviction against it. All in the name of opportunism. Iraq has been a major money spinner and the Neocons know it.

what i don't understand is that why would poland's president say YES to america with regard to installation of warheads? he can easily say no to this. what does america give in return? nothing. can poles easily go to usa? never. usa is just using poland to corner russia. and what does russia say? if poland continues to support usa, russia will destroy poland. is this the ultimate goal of your president and then what does he do when the war breaks? he just goes skittering to america when russia starts to bomb poland and protects his own friggin' ass. poland is not a third world country that america can just command at their whim. poland is part of the eu and schengen. a union of countries that competes directly with america. a union that america wants to tear apart. i do not want my boyfriend to go back to poland, fight for his country to try and correct what your stupid president has done. if america wants to have a war with russia, let them fight their own battle. besides, they always create their own war. if you create your own war, you fight it - alone. if they do not have strategic location to place their warheads, then that is their friggin' problem. showbiz personalities can never be good leaders of a country. never. and that has been proven time and again.

A little background for you;

- Poland has the worst geopolitical situation in Europe, possibly in the world (maybe except Israel).

- Russian hatred and towards Poland has a long tradition. The feeling is somewhat mutual but Poland is much weaker than Russia to do anything about it.

- During communism Poland was continually robbed by Russia - i.e. systematically destroyed.

-Poland's role in the former Warsaw pact was to be come a nuclear barrier. The idea was simple. In case of NATO attack central Poland was to be nuked by... the Soviets to create an impenetrable nuclear wasteland at a cost of lives of over 10 million Poles (some security, eh?)

- EU is militarily toothless (although the US has suffered serious dental decay too), and about the only EU country with some semblance of power is UK. But then, the British honor their military agreements only selectively and thus cannot be counted on.

- Poland is small and in this day and age and cannot fend for itself. It cannot be neutral for various historic and geopolitical reasons, so it needs to side with a country it might (just might) count on. It won't be UK, certainly not Russia, nor Germany so the US is the only remaining option.

Bottom line, Poland's situation is complex but it can be summed up with a simple damned if you do damned if you don't. And there is nothing in between.

Direct involvement of American assets and personnel on Polish territory is not a guarantee of safety but this rather carefully weighed option comes as close to it as Poland's circumstance allows.

this is so saddening. i love poland already. who will save poland? =(

It could be one step too far to allow that. Russia was more accommodating in the last round of negotiations, not stubbornly refusing any installations as they did at the beginning. However, the Russians are very good card players and playing roulette against them is an exercise in futility. The hub of the problem is the perception of Iranian intentions. The Russians are sceptical and wary of them too but they grant them a wider berth to undertake certain action. They believe, with some justification, that the setting up of a shield is an antagonistic measure that will provoke a reaction, directly targetted at the source.

One seldom knows what the outcome will be. For example, I sometimes wondered why residents of Aberdeen weren't targetted, being the oil capital of Europe. In recent years, there have been moves towards trading more widely in Euros so striking at Aberdeen would represent a symbolic gesture against the European collective interest. It hasn't materialised to this day and won't, touch wood!! It's my home city.

re: Bush's war on terror

- What a nice euphemism - a genocidal aggressive war against and genocidal occupation of innocent people called a 'war on terror.' Is it subconscious, this calling the dirtiest crap positive names? Is 'hairball' American?

Time.
If things continue going the way they are going in Russia, with avg life expectancy in upper 50's the country will eventually be depopulated. Only thing is Poland may share a border with China. Not sure if would be good or bad. :)


There is a point when people realize their opposition will do nothing. To keep their face the Russians must pretend they're OK with the installations.

It will take more than that to trust Russia. Much more. The generation that is used to Russian dominance in Eastern and Central Europe is still alive and many of the old guard still pull the strings. Contrary to what Bush saw in Putin's eyes, there is no soul in them yet. There is hurt pride of a paper giant.

As I said, Russia plays its card very well, combining tact with daring when need be. It has no bones about entering into fresh rounds of talks as they are effective stalling measures which don't require the signing of agreements.

save Poland from what my dear???

Poland doesn't have to worry. I am reading more and more about Denmark's vulnerable position. There are many terrorist cells there and the cartoonist who rocked the boat has only served to rattle their cages. France has also been very vocal and they may be next in line

well, they are looking into his health issues,, I doubt he will win, maybe all of us
2nd gen Americans will all get on a boat and come back to europe.. let the
govt sort it out after they figure out there is no more * we the people*

:)
Is 'hairball' American?( quoting puzzy)

no, he is Polish, well British living in Poland with his wife.

McCain, he should stick to making chips, or French Fries as u guys call them. McCain oven chips, yummy...

wow..be glad America got involved in WWII or you wouldnt even have
a Boyfriend right now.. cause russia and Germany were killing everything in
their paths.. ask him about his ancestors

as for russia.. yeah they are mad, but i doubt they will try to bomb so close
to home.. imho

Just a clarification, the deal wasn't for warheads, but for interceptors. Big difference. Nobody is putting nukes or anything offensive in Poland other than Poland herself. Everyone seems to have the misconception that warheads/delivery vehicles are being placed there to attack Russia, when nothing is farther from the truth. Russia is PO'd that they wouldn't be able to shake their nukes at Poland and other European countries in the future, if Poland had the capability to shoot them down.
Your boyfriend is probably safe. Is he a soldier? to be honest (you wouldn't know from this forum, but) there's not a lot of work left to require his help again. Most of the heavy work is being done by Iraqi and American troops now. If he does end up going, do not cheapen his honor by doubting what he does. I have seen Polish troops perform ruthlessly perhaps but NEVER dishonorably.
Back to the shield comments.
Nothing in this world is free. Assuming America isn't crushed in the near future, it will be beneficial to Poland as well. It has to be. Lot better than the Soviet days, of using Poland as a "scorched Earth" buffer to prevent counter attack after Soviet tanks roll through into Germany...

This is a schoolyard bully tactic from the beginnings of time. Russia will do no such thing, they are just used to controlling Poland, and are trying to strong-arm Poland into doing what Russia wants. Notice Russia has not offered any protection for Poland, only fuel deals with the very country the shield is most likely expected to protect Poland from...Russia is looking after Russia, and her economic interests. This is to be expected. That doesn't mean Poland should roll over to them. A fair deal should leave both parties content with the arrangement, and politicians on both sides need to be able to show their respective countries what they accomplished.
Read some of the posts on here, it will become more clear. z_darius, seanus, and patrycja all make some good points that should help set you more at ease.

John P.

If this something has to be hidden from the scrutiny I am sure it is not worth supporting. The top moron is going too be replaced by McCain soon anyway so all quiet understandings will lose any value anyway. I hope that the Polish authorities learned about promises. While it is in the US interest to have foreign troops in Iraq, their numbers are small and military significance minimal. There is some propaganda value to show that the Americans are not the only ones there. Overall Poland has very little leverage to demand something in return. Poles in Poland have surprisingly strong unreciprocated love for America, could that be a reason for the government stupidity. Equally possible is that Poland is trying to attach itself to the superpower hoping to be defended in the case of the military attack (by vicious Danes?).
Tusk promised to defend Israel in the case of Iranian attack, thus it looks like an triangular alliance, if only Bolivia and Cook Islands will join we will cover the whole world. Or with a bit of help Poland will conquer Russia, Americans will have oil we will have all the glory. Polish Empire it has a nice ring to it (it was "Poland from sea to sea" some time ago).
Instead of concentrating on economy world politics came to their heads.

Hopefully whatever deal was arranged at is on paper e.g. a treaty or some other agreement, which would be between the United States and Poland, not respective of whoever the president happens to be. U.S. is still honoring the SALTII treaties with the Soviet Union, for instance, and they don't even exist as a nation...
There is possibly something to this now...but not in the beginnings for sure. Polish played a big part in the war, some of which is and will remain secret, but I guess it depends on what portions you consider "large parts". I don't know about the unreciprocated love or whatever for America, to be honest, the SOF troops we worked with while GROM was working with us had a lot of respect for them, and I think it was a two way street.

Otherwise, thanks for the humorous post. We take ourselves way to seriously sometimes, I think...


John P.

czesc. i would like to thank everyone who quoted/replied to what i wrote, especially, john p and patrycja. thank you for all these information. i guess i should read more about world history. dzienki bardzo =)

You are bringing us US sources, and one of themis the US State Department to give us informaton on 'terorrism'!!!!!

Total bollox! The EU is deeply intergrated now and Poland is an important part of it. The EU doesn't need America to defend it and as we don't have enough oil here they won't bother anyway.



More bollox!



I'm not American and I think the ironey went over your head!

There was even less oil in EU a few decades ago.
You may be right in what you write, but before WW2 Europe had two "super powers". One feel within weeks, actually sooner than weak Poland. The other was luck to have support from across the pond.

I'm an old fashioned type who believes that learning from history is not such a bad thing.

well, I would provide some off the wall site , but I thought maybe you could
do a better job at that.

It has the tag * official* but the real truth is within the boundries of Iraq
so they above all would know more Credible sources then anyone by far.

they live it. the people and the troops.

I agree with hairball, all this talk of needing to beef up security is perpetuated by the US. The reality is that Russia is not an enemy of Poland on an international scale. If Poland needs defending in the future, it will be because America has stirred things up to epic proportions. The EU has 2 nuclear powers and excellent anti-terrorism units. Poland is not in the firing line, stop the paranoia

Sylvia, for what little I may have helped, you are welcome. I am due to go back there very soon myself, and do not look forward to the prospect of being (mostly) bored to death the whole time. There's no guarantee it will always be that way of course.

I do think agree the U.S. has talked up security more lately, partly because of the way everyone went nuts over here after an attack killed thousands of civilians. Do I think stopping old ladies and children for their water bottles and nail files makes me safer, while "anti-profiling" laws prevent them from searching middle-eastern 23 year old men with no luggage?
Not really, but such is the nature of the beast here.

Knee-jerk laws to correct a problem in a way that is completely irrelevant.

I will say that the defense shield being offered was not suggested to be protection against Russia [although it could be]. Hate to say, but if Russia really wants to nuke Poland or anyone else, they can do it without launching a single rocket. Drive it through a border check point and wave at the guards on the way through. I've heard rumors that even in the 1980's and perhaps before, they had sent people to survey here in the U.S. for possible locations to "pre-position" nuclear weapons disguised as other objects, for remote detonation. No idea how far it went but congress apparently did hear testimony on the topic.

The bigger concern was for certain nation[s} more to the south which are believed to have gained delivery vehicles capable of reaching Europe (thanks N Korea and China...). Therefore leaving Europe unprotected leaves European leaders as well as their U.S. ally susceptible to coercion by whichever despot in the region wants to say "play by our rules or we nuke [Poland/Lithuania/Romania/Italy/Spain/Take your pick]".

The country that suggested it could do this would lose the coercion card if they know their missiles will never detonate over their targets. This is largely why I believe the shield is being pushed for (not just to give us more chances to see Europe-although that would be nice-seen way too much sand, mud, dust...)

Russia has a huge fuel agreement with this country, as well as concerns about Americans controlling any defense shield that could potentially shoot down RUSSIA'S missiles as well-so they are throwing up a smoke screen to 1) back their new friends and 2) if they can keep the shield unpopular enough to not be built, Russia even today likes the idea of being able to nuke the U.S.(or our allies) and a shield does not play well into this equation...

So Russia's resistance, IMHO is more about strategic power and money vice any real threat to Russia. They are (as every nation should, to be honest) looking after their own interests first. IMHO.

And I ramble...


John P.