Washington talking to Warsaw about possible U.S. missile base in Poland

CNEWS ^ | November 16, 2005 | ROBERT BURNS

[anonymoussierra]

this is for you

-__________________________________________________________-

http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/fil/pages/listimmigratli.html

-__________________________________________________________-

thank you

[Freelance Warrior]

Poland consisted of many nations, including Ukrainians and Belorussians among them. There were some Ukrainian and Belorussian lands occupied by the soviet union.

I think the fact who has the majority matters otherwise Czechoslovakia had the rights for Poland since they had some Polish population in Teszen.

I know. Shouldn't have been allowed = should have been stopped by force.

The Nazi tried but failed.

BTW Fortunately we may only wonder how many Ukrainians and Belorussians would have been starved to death in 20's and 30's If these lands weren't liberated from a cancer of bolshevism And oppressed in other ways. How do you think why some people in Soviet Union starved in 30's and why it was in certain (not all) regions?

[GOP_1900AD]

Poland need to be wary. The dark forces who, sadly, hold far too much sway in Moscow these days, will attempt to equate Poland and Chechnya even more than they do already. What we see with Grozny, as you well know, my friend, has happened in the past to Warsaw. Sadly, there are those who would have no qualms about making it happen again. Be ever vigilant!

[dervish]

"Where should the Chechen defenders should hide themselves with all those primitime shotguns against laser guided 1-ton Russian bombs? Where?!!"

Ah, so you justify hiding behind chidren, the old and the sick. That explains your sympathy. You are immoral just like them.

If they are soldiers, as you claim that they "heroically defend their children, sisters and mothers," then why are they risking the lives of "their children, sisters and mothers" by hiding among them?

It is you, not I, that does not value Muslim lives when you justify grown men who are supposedly warriors fighting in the midst of non-warriors for protection. That's disgusting, and also wholly agaist the Geneva Convention. And it shows a basic premise that explains the entire difference between the Muslim and Judeo-Christian value system, a difference which you do not seem to get despite your repeated references to your supposedly "Christian conscience," -- that all human life is valuable even the lives that Muslims consider disposable, women, children, and Jihadists.

It is because Muslims do not value lives that they hide behind civilians, practice Jihad, fight interminable wars for all sorts of reasons all over the globe against their own co-religionists. Jihad is unique to the Muslim terrorist. They pursue it the way some in the the West flocked to Spain to fight Fascism they run to Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Iraq to fight to keep people opressed.

"I know that a muslim's life is a piece of shit to you. To kill a muslim child would be surely a piece of cake to you. Maybe you'd even make a proud cut on your rifle for each shot kid."

Nothing in any of my words suggests that this is how I feel. But don't let the truth stop your slander. I wonder why you don't mention the true innocent Muslims who are dying in the hundred thousands in Sudanese Genocide for just being black and alive, and defenseless. Killed by the same take-it-by-the-sword mentality as the Chechens. But I suspect their lives are not significant because it is not Russia doing the killing.

Your anti-Russia agenda is showing. Which is even more pathetic than if you really cared about the killing of innocents.

[Grzegorz 246]

"I think the fact who has the majority matters"

So Ukrainians were majority in the soviet union ?

"The Nazi tried but failed."

But fortunately the whole shit fall down anyway.

"How do you think why some people in Soviet Union starved in 30's and why it was in certain (not all) regions?"

I know but I would like to hear your version.

[Freelance Warrior]

Are you aware of what happened in Chechnya in 1990-1993? Why there have been 300k Russians, Ukrainians, Armenians, etc. before and why there're currently only Chechens?

[Freelance Warrior]

So Ukrainians were majority in the soviet union ?

The majority of Ukrainians lived in the USSR.

"How do you think why some people in Soviet Union starved in 30's and why it was in certain (not all) regions?"

Here you are. The Bolshevicks were keen about industrialisation but in fact the country was predominantly agricultural - 75% of total workforce were employed there. No machinebuilding so the machines had to be imported and there was nothing to export except for bread.

As Bolshevicks were never restrained to pay the price in human lives they confiscated grain in the most productive regions (Lower Volga regions, Ukraine) etc.

But that allowed to fight Nazi with bad but warplanes and tanks, while Poland fought with bolt-action rifles and cavalry swords. The results are well known and you can compare. This issue distracts me from non-conditional blaming.

[twinself]

But that allowed to fight Nazi with bad but warplanes and tanks, while Poland fought with bolt-action rifles and cavalry swords.

Just for the matter of accuracy. I don't know what point you'd been trying to prove but your words seem to be nothing more than repeating Nazi and Soviet war propaganda. Actually apart from swords and bolt-action guns in September '39 Poland had more than 500 tactical tanks and about 300 lighter type ones, 40.000 of machine guns, 280 fighter planes. You read Polish, right? There's some interesting stats and facts about Polish, German and Soviet weaponry during the September campaign:

http://www.1939.pl/uzbrojenie/polskie/pojazdy/index.html

[Freelance Warrior]

I'll write later on my point. Not enough time now. As for the state of the armies I'll quote this:

The Armies

The two armies were not evenly matched. Germany’s forces were larger, more modern and well balanced. They were also expert in the doctrine of combined arms. About 1.8 million Germans participated in the campaign including Luftwaffe and Navy. Along with modern communications equipment, he Germans enjoyed a vast superiority in weapons and employed some 2,600 tanks and over 2,000 aircraft of all types.

The Polish Army, on the other hand, was well thought of in Europe and was reputed to have the continent’s finest cavalry. The infantry were tough, resourceful and brave. They were practiced in the arts of anti-tank warfare and heavy German losses of armor during the campaign would point this out. In a man to man infantry fight the Germans had no advantage over the Poles. Polish tactical style was based upon their experiences in the Russian-Polish War and emphasized maneuver and the use of combined arms. Unfortunately for Poland, maneuver meant at the speed of the slowest horse and their combined arms doctrine looked back to the First World War. The Polish Army moved on foot or horseback. A German signal battalion had twice as many trucks as an entire Polish infantry division. Another critical weakness was the complete lack of modern communications equipment even at the highest command levels. Poland did possess about 1,000 armored vehicles however three quarters of them were small tankettes of questionable value. Two brigades of 7TP Light Tanks comprised the bulk of Poland’s modern tank force. While these tanks were to prove superior to the PzI and PzII and were a near match for the PzIII, the Poles were hopelessly outclassed in the tactical use of armor. [Against 2600 German tanks -FW]

The Polish Air Force numbered about 900 aircraft of all types, most of which were obsolete [against 2000 of world best German ones -FW]. The Air Force was under the direct control of the Army and mostly limited to ground support missions. The pilots were well trained and got the most out of their outdated aircraft but could not overcome organizational and equipment shortcomings much less the sheer size and excellence of the Luftwaffe.

[Freelance Warrior]

Reference

I don't read in Polish (I understand at the degree of likelyness between Russian and Polish languages) while I understand the technical data on the page you referenced.

[twinself]

Thanks for the correction. The information you provided right now is much more accurate than the previous suggestion that Poland fought ONLY swords and old-type guns against the tanks and aircrafts. The proportion that 3/4 of Polish tanks were useless in September '39 can be easily taken to describe the state of SU heavy equipment usability in June 1941, before Hitler broke the Ribbentropp-Molotov pact (great T34 was only a small fraction of all Soviet tanks).

[RusIvan]

It was the Chechen people brutally assaulted by Russians in their own country.==

What is thier "own country". DO you know that town Groznii was founded by kazaks? Even word "Groznii" means "Dreadful" on russian.
How so "chechen's" town carries russian name? DO you know that this town and territory around him belonged to Terek Kazaks before 1917? Commies gave those teritories to chechens for thier help during Civil war.

Vox_PL you problem is that you know less and understand even lesser. But your have biggest aplomb with which you try to judge other people. Remeber Bible: "Don't judge and won't be judged" especcialy if you are illiterate in those problems.

[RusIvan]

Your pictures are grim. But town you depicted was founded by russian kazaks in 19 century and called "Groznii" which is 'dreadful ' on russain.
Later after Civil war of 1917-22 between russian nationalists and international commies, this town was handed to chechens by commie Stalin. Same Stalin who endorsed Molotov-Rebbentrop pact.

I feel for suffer of chechen civilians. I regret that it came to this.
But fact of matter is that chechen islamist bandits who hide behind thier backs are MORE guilty of this then troops who fought them.
We may see same tactics in Iraq. The bandits hide behind backs of thier own civilians so americans inflict casulties civilians.
Then come some liberals like you and same way like you start to cry over thier losses and condemn american tropps like you condemn russian troops here.
We all saw this liberal tactics and easy recognize it.

If someone post the pictures from Feludzha recently which are all over Inet now then we see same kind of sufferings like you love to cry over.

So pictures themselves just prove that civilians suffer and nothing more. But nothing to do with truth of WHY they suffer.

If for you russian troops are guilty of that in Groznii then with same logic you may say that american troops are guilty for sufferings in Feludzha and other Iraqi towns.

But I thing opposite. Neither russian not american troops are guilty but those bandits who hide hebind back of civilians.

You problem is that you as trully hypocrite like to cry over sufferings of one civilians and compeletely ignore others.

You posted the picture of Warsaw iin 1944 but could you please to post the picture of Drezden, Berlin or Tokyo of 1945? Or those civilians are out of your sympathy? Exactly because you are hypocrite.

You post picture of Groznii but what about pictures from Iraq? Do iraqi civilians out of your sympathy too?

Again you petty hypocrite moralist:).

You just stop to speculate on civilian sufferings and find out who is really guilty of whole things which cause civilian sufferings.

Why Chechen wars started? How it would happened that russian town Groznii ended in hands of chechen islamists in 1992.
THEN maybe you start to understand things instead.
But for hypocritic and very weak mind like yours these are very difficult. You rather express your stupid anti-russian hatred once more.

P.S. See lizol how low fell your compatriot in his hatred. Is he "civilized europian" who have to show us "barbarians" a "good sample"? I don't think so:))).

[RusIvan]

As you can see - due to Munich agreement Germans took only Sudetenland, not entire Czechoslovakia. The took the rest in March 1939.
The reason of their claims was that Sudetenland was populated mainly by German people.

At the same time Zaolzie (Cieszyn region) was populated mainly by the Poles (more than 75% of entire population).

So what the hell Germans would need such an area at that time for???===

SO lizol if I understaood you correctly you say taht if germans used as precondition of annexation the german population in SUdetens. Then Poland could do the same.

Hence you disgree with me that there wasn't no conspirancy between Hilter and Poland in 1938 on splitting of Checkoslovakia but just silent consent of 2 or 3 patries (Hunguray too!) who just went and took under same presumptions the desired chunk of territory of Checkoslovakia?

If it is so that you may say it is morally better then what Hitler and Stalin did in 1939?

Remember that Stalin explained the western Ukraine and Beloruss annexation same way like you with Teshin. There lived predominatly ukranians and belorusses and they were connected with thier other people.
I note that well connected since neither Ukarine nor Bellorus agree to return those lands to Poland now. No more Stalin and commies but still they want to keep those lands. How so?

[lizol]

SO lizol if I understaood you correctly you say taht if germans used as precondition of annexation the german population in SUdetens. Then Poland could do the same.

No, you did not understand me correctly, I didn't say anything like that. It's another one of your "conslusions".

You just said, that Poland must have been in conspiracy with Germans (some secret one probably), as in other case they wouldn't let Poles take Zaolzie.

And I said, that Germans justified annexation of Sudetenland with the fact, that it was populated mainly by Germans. And such an annexation was accepted by France and UK in Munich.
So if they took Zaolzie (populated mainly by Poles), that "justification" would fail. And this might be the reason why they didn't do it.
But this is only my speculation.

Another thing is, that - if I'm wrong, and Germans actually wanted to take Zaolzie - Polish troops might enter that area against their will - to be first and not to let them take it.

But I know, you're going to maintain anyway, that it was Polish-German co-operation.

[Grzegorz 246]

"The majority of Ukrainians lived in the USSR."

So a fact that soviet Russia had seized two thirds of Ukrainian lands means that was justified to seize the rest ?

"The Bolshevicks were keen about industrialisation..."

And what ? My point was that If Soviet Russia had seized all Ukrainian and Belorussian lands already during Polish-soviet war in 1919-21 then many more people would have been starved.


"But that allowed to fight Nazi with bad but warplanes and tanks, while Poland fought with bolt-action rifles and cavalry swords."

What a good explanation of soviet genocide. If you hadn't helped them since 20's and hadn't signed a pact with them, maybe there wouldn't have been need to fight.

" The results are well known and you can compare."

Soviet army was still a piece of shit even in 41, that's why you lost millions and land 15 times bigger than Poland within few months.

"This issue distracts me from non-conditional blaming."

What ?

[Grzegorz 246]

I think that this discussion is pointless because we defend Polish point of view and you defend soviet point of view so we just can't agree.

[lizol]

Remember that Stalin explained the western Ukraine and Beloruss annexation same way like you with Teshin. There lived predominatly ukranians and belorusses and they were connected with thier other people.
I note that well connected since neither Ukarine nor Bellorus agree to return those lands to Poland now. No more Stalin and commies but still they want to keep those lands. How so?

I will refer only to the first sentence, as the latter one is just another stupid provocation, that you still keep repeating (like that Russo-German "something" around Kaliningrad).

You can't see the difference, because you don't want to, as your anti-Polish prejudice covers your sight.

On one side we have Poland, Czechoslovakia and the argument about Zaolzie

The area was populated by Polish majority. Czechoslovakia in 1919 took that land by force, when Poland was engaged in fightings in the east. Later they agreed to hold a plebiscite there, but they cheated and using the fact, that Poland was under deadly thraet by Tukhachevski's armies approaching Warsaw - they announced the border line on the Olza river. The planned plebiscite never took place.
Poland was forced to accept the situation settled this way, because it was engaged in deadly fightins with Bolsheviks (whereas Czechoslovakian railmen blocked military aid transports to Poland).
The relations between Poland and Czecholsovakia were very tense because of that during all inter-war period.

And in 1938 - when the Western powers let Hitler take Sudetenland because it was populated mainly by Germans - Poland took that possibility and did the same with Zaolzie. Poland took piece of land of the size of - I don't know, but you can see it on the map above. Without a single shot, without anybody getting killed. And Czechoslovakia still existed after that.

And now we go to Poland and Soviet Union and pact Ribbentrop - Molotov.

In 1921 Poland and Soviet Union signed a peace treaty. SU recognized Polish border line as it was until 1939.
On 23.08.1939 Nazi Germany and SU signed the Ribbentrop -Molotov treaty, setting the rules for the 4th Russo-German partition of Poland.
It was aimed clearly to destroy Poland and erase Polishness. As Vyatcheslav Molotov pointed it - we'll eliminate Poland - that hideous bastard of the Versailles treaty.
Executing the agreement Germany attacked Poland on 01.09.1939, and their faithful Soviet ally did the same 17 days later - starting the WW2. (BTW - this was actually the day when SU entered the war, not 22.06.1941).
Both parties of the pact torn Poland apart, destroying the country, deporting and murdering millions of its citizens.

If you really don't see the difference - then sorry, I can't do anything about it.

One more thing, that I find as very amusing about you.

All of you - yourself, jb6, garyspfc etc. - defend strictly the view, that SU had nothing to do with Russia, that those are 2 completely separate entities.

And at the same time you're obviously doing your best to defend and justify every hostile action of SU against Poland. Or - if something is impossible to justify (like Ribbentrop - Molotov pact, or Katyn massacre) - you rise some nonsense arguments, that are supposed to be a Polish counter-balance.

It's really funny, but if I post some article about Polish - Soviet struggle, I can be almost 90% sure, that one of you will show up, starting sometning like: oh, Ribbentrop - Molotov pact means nothing, take a look at Zaolzie issue, it's exactly the same.