Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liberals win in Poland

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Liberals win in Poland

    Poland's liberal opposition party Civic Platform has won the elections.

    This could jeopardize the American missile shield project. Donald Tusk, the leader of Civic Platform who's almost guaranteed to become prime minister wants better relations with Russia.

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    Originally posted by MonsterZero View Post
    Poland's liberal opposition party Civic Platform has won the elections.

    This could jeopardize the American missile shield project. Donald Tusk, the leader of Civic Platform who's almost guaranteed to become prime minister wants better relations with Russia.
    Putin is bringing back the cold war.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by medivac View Post
      Putin is bringing back the cold war.
      The Poles have a thousand year animosity going with the Russians. No danger of them aligning too closely with Russia. It will not happen.

      Commercial deals may be made and many types of arrangements, but in the end the Poles don't trust the Russians and that has not changed. They may make policies designed not to provoke the Russians, which is why they are worried about the shield, but they will never get cozy with them of their own volition. Putin May bring back the Cold war, but the Poles will not help him.

      This is all reminiscent of Polish Policy in the thirties. They were very worried about Russia, but had to do their best to make nice because of the bear sitting on the border. "Better relations with Russia" doesn't mean "Pro Russian" against the US. The Poles are very Pro US, but they have their own security concerns. My guess is that they think this sheild may increase US security but decrease theirs. As their defense minister said, they are interested in arrangements that will increase their security, and they have reason to fear this shield will not.

      Also, Polish resistence to the shield might have more to do with US recent congressional cuts in funding for the proposed package to Poland than opposition to the shield. They are probably not happy with the scaled down version if the congress gets its way.
      Last edited by Miss Saigon; 22 Oct 07, 19:41.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Miss.Saigon View Post
        This is all reminiscent of Polish Policy in the thirties. They were very worried about Russia, but had to do their best to make nice because of the bear sitting on the border. "Better relations with Russia" doesn't mean "Pro Russian" against the US. The Poles are very Pro US, but they have their own security concerns.
        I agree. Poland sees Putins movements towards forming a Dictatorship hidden under a venere of Democracy, and knows that there is no need to needlessly provoke Russia.

        Especially when the US still has large numbers of troops stationed in Europe. I don't think they are afraid of a Russian 'invasion' so much as Russia taking economic actions against Poland in retaliation for the missile shield.

        And a US missile shield isn't likely to protect Poland, really. I mean, who wants to blow up a whole bunch of Polaks?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MonsterZero View Post
          Poland's liberal opposition party Civic Platform has won the elections.

          This could jeopardize the American missile shield project. Donald Tusk, the leader of Civic Platform who's almost guaranteed to become prime minister wants better relations with Russia.
          I don't know if they are liberals in the sense that the US labels liberals. but from what you write that's only good news.

          Russia has always been a natural friend of europe.
          we don't want those silly missiles
          the former polish government was nto too nice

          that said, I dont' know what else

          as for Putin's starting the cold war again, read this:


          Who Restarted the Cold War?
          by Patrick J. Buchanan
          "
          Putin's Hostile Course," the lead editorial in the Washington Times of Oct. 18, began thus:

          "Russian President Vladimir Putin's invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Moscow is just the latest sign that, more than 16 years after the collapse of Soviet communism, Moscow is gravitating toward Cold War behavior. The old Soviet obsession fighting American imperialism remains undiluted. ...

          "(A)t virtually every turn, Mr. Putin and the Russian leadership appear to be doing their best in ways large and small to marginalize and embarrass the United States and undercut U.S. foreign policy interests."

          The Times pointed to Putin's snub of Robert Gates and Condi Rice by having them cool their heels for 40 minutes before a meeting. Then came a press briefing where Putin implied Russia may renounce the Reagan-Gorbachev INF treaty, which removed all U.S. and Soviet medium-range missiles from Europe, and threatened to pull out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, whereby Russia moved its tanks and troops far from the borders of Eastern Europe.

          On and on the Times indictment went. Russia was blocking new sanctions on Iran. Russia was selling anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Russia was selling weapons to Syria that found their way to Hezbollah and Hamas. Russia and Iran were talking up an OPEC-style natural gas cartel. All this, said the Times, calls to mind "Soviet-era behavior."

          Missing from the prosecution's case, however, was the motive. Why has Putin's Russia turned hostile? Why is Putin mending fences with China, Iran and Syria? Why is Putin sending Bear bombers to the edge of American airspace? Why has Russia turned against America? For Putin's approval rating is three times that of George Bush. Who restarted the Cold War?

          To answer that question, let us go back those 16 years.

          What happened in 1991 and 1992?

          Well, Russia let the Berlin Wall be torn down and its satellite states be voted or thrown out of power across Eastern Europe. Russia agreed to pull the Red Army all the way back inside its border. Russia agreed to let the Soviet Union dissolve into 15 nations. The Communist Party agreed to share power and let itself be voted out. Russia embraced freedom and American-style capitalism, and invited Americans in to show them how it was done.

          Russia did not use its veto in the Security Council to block the U.S. war to drive Saddam Hussein, an ally, out of Kuwait. When 9-11 struck, Putin gave his blessing to U.S. troops using former republics as bases for the U.S. invasion.

          What was Moscow's reward for its pro-America policy?

          The United States began moving NATO into Eastern Europe and then into former Soviet republics. Six ex-Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, as are three ex-republics of the Soviet Union. NATO expansionists have not given up on bringing Ukraine, united to Russia for centuries, or Georgia, Stalin's birthplace, into NATO.

          In 1999, the United States bombed Serbia, which has long looked to Mother Russia for protection, for 78 days, though the Serbs' sole crime was to fight to hold their cradle province of Kosovo, as President Lincoln fought to hold onto the American South. Now America is supporting the severing of Kosovo from Serbia and creation of a new Islamic state in the Balkans, over Moscow's protest.

          While Moscow removed its military bases from Cuba and all over the Third World, we have sought permanent military bases in Russia's backyard of Central Asia.

          We dissolved the Nixon-Brezhnev ABM treaty and announced we would put a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

          Under presidents Clinton and Bush, the United States financed a pipeline for Caspian Sea oil to transit Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea and Turkey, cutting Russia out of the action.

          With the end of the Cold War, the KGB was abolished and the Comintern disappeared. But the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and other Cold War agencies, funded with tens of millions in tax-exempt and tax dollars, engineered the ouster of pro-Russian regimes in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia, and sought the ouster of the regime in Minsk.

          At the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred.

          We blew it.

          We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our "indispensable-nation" arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles.

          Who restarted the Cold War? Bush and the braying hegemonists he brought with him to power. Great empires and tiny minds go ill together.
          "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

          Comment


          • #6
            Did you ever read, understand, agree with, and quote Pat Buchanan prior to 9/11?

            <crickets chirping>

            I didn't think so. Disingenuous and hypocritical to the extreme.

            Comment


            • #7
              When I was in Poland the attitude of most of the people I talked to was something like this.

              "We are much closer allies to the US than Germany, yet you seem to care more about the Germans than the Poles. Plus you put all that money in Germany by your military presence there. Why not close those bases in Germany and move them to Poland where you are more appreciated and the money will go to more friendly people."

              Now my reading about the current winners in the election in Poland was not that they are anti shield, but they believe that the previous government did not bargain hard enough to get more in the deal for Poland than they could have. It was part of their campaign message, and is also consistent with my experience talking among the poles and what I hear from friends in Poland now.

              It seems that the Poles are not willing to take this step unless there is more in it for them. The US congress is cutting the funding for this, so the Poles are less interested in taking the system.

              I understand the Polish position. They are not interested in taking steps that are going to be a pravocation with the Russians unless there is something significant in it for them and it helps improve their security.

              The Poles do not consider the Russians "Friends". They consider them a menace they have to deal with. The acrimony between the two nations is mutual.
              Last edited by Miss Saigon; 25 Oct 07, 18:25.

              Comment


              • #8
                Also, I don't think that Donald Tusk, or the Civic Platform, are liberal. They describe themselves as centre-right, it's just that Jaroslaw Kaczynski was like something out of the Dark Ages.
                "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                Comment


                • #9
                  The term "liberal" and "conservative" depends on where you are. For instance, in the USA a 'liberal' knows how to take better care of yourself than you do and will take your money in taxes just to make sure, while a 'conservative' thinks people know what is best for themselves. While in Iran a 'liberal' is one who wants to bring down the existing government and have it remolded in a western democratic government while a 'conservative' there is one who turns in women for not being adequately 'covered' from head to toe.
                  "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X