You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Military chief says Russia not obliged to protect world from U.S.
MOSCOW, November 13 (RIA Novosti) - Yury Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, said in an interview with the Russia Today TV channel on Tuesday that the Russian Armed Forces were under no obligation to protect the world from the U.S.
Answering a question as to whether or not the world could count on Russia to defend it from "insidious American plans," Baluyevsky replied, "Today, there is no need to be afraid of the Russian Armed Forces. However, I do not believe that the Russian military is obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans".
Gen. Yury Baluyevsky is flying to Brussels later today to discuss with NATO chiefs of staff, among other things, Russia's suspension of its Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty obligations.
Baluyevsky said last Thursday that Russia would no longer be bound by current weapons and equipment limitations after its moratorium on the CFE Treaty comes into force.
The State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, voted on November 7 in favor of President Putin's bill to impose a moratorium on the CFE Treaty.
The moratorium is set to come into effect on December 12, after final approval by the upper house of parliament, expected to vote on the issue on November 16, and President Vladimir Putin.
The chief of Russia's military general staff also told the Russia Today TV channel that the CFE Treaty put Russia at a disadvantage.
"It was an onerous treaty for Russia. It was a treaty that Russia alone honored," he said.
Asked why Russia had signed the document in the first place, Baluyevsky said that at the time, in 1990, the goal was to avert a war, and the treaty effectively served its purpose.
He also said Russia's Armed Forces, like all militaries in the world, would be putting an emphasis on quality, not quantity.
"It will be a leaner but meaner, well trained and equipped, and professional force," the general said.
Re: Military chief says Russia not obliged to protect world from U.S.
polluxlm wrote:I'm excited to see how all of this pans out in the next few years.
The more I research this, the more I know how little I know. The mechanisms of the world are hard to grasp indeed. So many facets, so many lies, so many motives, so many factors.
I wonder if I'll ever get to the point where I can just read a news article and think to myself "aha, of course. devious bastards" and just see the big picture completely.
With my current rate, yeah, I probably will 
Re: Military chief says Russia not obliged to protect world from U.S.
Evil Americans? Are we that bad? I wonder if this is how Germany felt before everything hit the fan over there...
Yeah, we're that bad. We're a superpower in its death throes trying to force its will on other countries while having a currency almost worthless. VERY reminiscent of the Soviets before their collapse.
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Military chief says Russia not obliged to protect world from U.S.
Oh come on, there are blaring differences between us and the late-era Soviets. Look at our standard of living, for example. As a world power, yeah we're going down, but not into a state of panic if our leadership improves. We have enough food and water, making us much better off than a lot of the world.
Re: Military chief says Russia not obliged to protect world from U.S.
There's water shortages everywhere. In a few eastern stated they are now rationing. Food supplies are at a low as well. There are no longer huge surpluses of food like there used to be.
There's no going back. Once the Patriot Act was signed into law and then later on Habeus Corpus suspended, this country ceased to be a democracy. Also passed this year was a presidential directive allowing Bush(or a future president) to enact martial law, suspend the constitution, effectively destroying the executive-legislative-judicial chain of governing.
Our current congress already has virtually zero power, which is why they sign anything Bush sends them without even reading it. They've attempted to override one veto, and it was only Bush's second veto in 8 years. Thats mind boggling. If the country would stop watching reality shows and looking at britney's crotch for one second they would see that this country is no longer a democracy.
The US has a puppet legislative branch and a conservative yet idle supreme court with what will be a rotating dictatorship.
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Military chief says Russia not obliged to protect world from U.S.
Habeus Corpus is always suspended. The executive always takes more power than he's given, and the legislature always lies down, when it comes to a time of war or turmoil.
From the beginning of America this has happened. Adams had the Alien and Sedition Acts, imprisoned newspaper editors. Jackson fucking ignored a direct decision from the Supreme Court on the Cherokee removal ("John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"). Lincoln suspended habeaus corpus and basically put the Constitution on hold for the Civil War. If not for the supreme court then, military trials would've stayed the norm through the whole Reconstruction. Clinton even attacked Habeaus Corpus too, in 96 Congress lied down for him to make it much harder for appeals and got rid of any petitions that followed a failed attempt.
I am in no way a supporter of the Patriot Act but the precedents are there. Jackson's is most appalling. Do you think George W could ignore and overrule a Supreme Court decision? No fucking way. He doesn't have that power. But we survived when Jackson and Lincoln did these things, and actually those two are commonly called the greatest US presidents of all time.
Re: Military chief says Russia not obliged to protect world from U.S.
Habeus Corpus isn't always suspended. Where are you hearing this stuff?
What Supreme Court decisions are you suggesting Bush could have ignored and overruled? The Patriot Act(and all other provisions added later) are all Bush.
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Military chief says Russia not obliged to protect world from U.S.
Yes, they're all Bush. But in times of conflict and sometimes not, the Executive Branch takes more power than its given.
Deny any of those facts if you can. Lincoln threw out Habeaus Corpus. Jackson directly ignored Supreme Court rulings. Adams had newspaper editors imprisoned and undid freedom of the press.
My point is that what Buch has done is not unprecedented and therefore not fatal. They are ugly footnotes to those "great" presidencies, but they happened and the country survived.
My point about Bush being able to overrule the Supreme Court wasn't literal, he hasn't had need to as of yet. But if that situation were to arise, I do not believe he could get around it as Jackson did (twice, really.)
