Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal

[spursncowboys]

Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eastern_europe_missile_defense_22/print

By VANESSA GERA, Associated Press Writer Vanessa Gera, Associated Press Writer Fri Sep 18, 8:10 am ET

WARSAW, Poland – Poles and Czechs voiced deep concern Friday at President Barack Obama's decision to scrap a Bush-era missile defense shield planned for their countries.
"Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back," the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page.
Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama's new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous "gray zone" between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere.
Recent events in the region have rattled nerves throughout central and eastern Europe, a region controlled by Moscow during the Cold War, including the war last summer between Russia and Georgia and ongoing efforts by Russia to regain influence in Ukraine. A Russian cutoff of gas to Ukraine last winter left many Europeans without heat.
The Bush administration's plan would have been "a major step in preventing various disturbing trends in our region of the world," Kaczynski said in a guest editorial in the daily Fakt and also carried on his presidential Web site.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he still sees a chance for Poles and Czechs to participate in the redesigned missile defense system. But that did not appear to calm nerves in Warsaw or Prague.
Kaczynski expressed hopes that the U.S. will now offer Poland other forms of "strategic partnership."
In Prague, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout said he made two concrete proposal to U.S. officials on Thursday in hopes of keeping the U.S.-Czech alliance strong: for the U.S. to establish a branch of West Point for NATO members in Central Europe and to "send a Czech scientist on the U.S. space shuttle to the international space station."
An editorial in Hospodarske Novine, a respected pro-business Czech newspaper, said: "an ally we rely on has betrayed us, and exchanged us for its own, better relations with Russia, of which we are rightly afraid."
The move has raised fears in the two nations they are being marginalized by Washington even as a resurgent Russia leaves them longing for added American protection.
The Bush administration always said that the planned system — with a radar near Prague and interceptors in northern Poland — was meant as defense against Iran. But Poles and Czechs saw it as protection against Russia, and Moscow too considered a military installation in its backyard to be a threat.
"No Radar. Russia won," the largest Czech daily, Mlada Fronta Dnes, declared in a front-page headline.
Obama said the old plan was scrapped in part because the U.S. has concluded that Iran is less focused on developing the kind of long-range missiles for which the system was originally developed, making the building of an expensive new shield unnecessary.
The replacement system is to link smaller radar systems with a network of sensors and missiles that could be deployed at sea or on land. Some of the weaponry and sensors are ready now, and the rest would be developed over the next 10 years.
The Pentagon contemplates a system of perhaps 40 missiles by 2015, at two or three sites across Europe.
_____

[clambake]

"putin.......where does he go?"

[hater]

oh noes!!!

we have dissapointed the mighty Poles and Cheks!!!

[Cry Havoc]

It's America's job to protect European countries from Russia.

[spursncowboys]

oh noes!!!

we have dissapointed the mighty Poles and Cheks!!!
Chamberlain, I mean Obama, is doing such a good job. Our new allies like Argentina, Cuba and Russia are going to be so much more beneficial to us than Poland, Austria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, Bulgaria, Armania, Azerbaijan, Israel, Columbia, and Estonia. Capitalist countries are too mean to their people.
The Obama Doctrine is marching along.

[hope4dopes]

Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eastern_europe_missile_defense_22/print

By VANESSA GERA, Associated Press Writer Vanessa Gera, Associated Press Writer Fri Sep 18, 8:10 am ET

WARSAW, Poland – Poles and Czechs voiced deep concern Friday at President Barack Obama's decision to scrap a Bush-era missile defense shield planned for their countries.
"Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back," the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page.
Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama's new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous "gray zone" between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere.
Recent events in the region have rattled nerves throughout central and eastern Europe, a region controlled by Moscow during the Cold War, including the war last summer between Russia and Georgia and ongoing efforts by Russia to regain influence in Ukraine. A Russian cutoff of gas to Ukraine last winter left many Europeans without heat.
The Bush administration's plan would have been "a major step in preventing various disturbing trends in our region of the world," Kaczynski said in a guest editorial in the daily Fakt and also carried on his presidential Web site.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he still sees a chance for Poles and Czechs to participate in the redesigned missile defense system. But that did not appear to calm nerves in Warsaw or Prague.
Kaczynski expressed hopes that the U.S. will now offer Poland other forms of "strategic partnership."
In Prague, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout said he made two concrete proposal to U.S. officials on Thursday in hopes of keeping the U.S.-Czech alliance strong: for the U.S. to establish a branch of West Point for NATO members in Central Europe and to "send a Czech scientist on the U.S. space shuttle to the international space station."
An editorial in Hospodarske Novine, a respected pro-business Czech newspaper, said: "an ally we rely on has betrayed us, and exchanged us for its own, better relations with Russia, of which we are rightly afraid."
The move has raised fears in the two nations they are being marginalized by Washington even as a resurgent Russia leaves them longing for added American protection.
The Bush administration always said that the planned system — with a radar near Prague and interceptors in northern Poland — was meant as defense against Iran. But Poles and Czechs saw it as protection against Russia, and Moscow too considered a military installation in its backyard to be a threat.
"No Radar. Russia won," the largest Czech daily, Mlada Fronta Dnes, declared in a front-page headline.
Obama said the old plan was scrapped in part because the U.S. has concluded that Iran is less focused on developing the kind of long-range missiles for which the system was originally developed, making the building of an expensive new shield unnecessary.
The replacement system is to link smaller radar systems with a network of sensors and missiles that could be deployed at sea or on land. Some of the weaponry and sensors are ready now, and the rest would be developed over the next 10 years.
The Pentagon contemplates a system of perhaps 40 missiles by 2015, at two or three sites across Europe.
_____
Thanks for the article, I was under the impression from the Media that the Social Democrats spoke for all of europe.

[hater]

Chamberlain, I mean Obama, is doing such a good job. Our new allies like Argentina, Cuba and Russia are going to be so much more beneficial to us than Poland, Austria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, Bulgaria, Armania, Azerbaijan, Israel, Columbia, and Estonia. Capitalist countries are too mean to their people.
The Obama Doctrine is marching along.

well Argentine, Cuban and Russian women are hotter

[LnGrrrR]

Wait, I thought you conservatives didn't like the UN and didn't care about any European country except England?

[MannyIsGod]

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Putinsheadrears.jpg

[Supergirl]

wait, where is the evidence that the weapons program we were supporting was preventing Russia from invading Czechs and Poles?

Oh, right, Bush didn't rely on "evidence"...or congressional authority...or anything else remotely related to the democratic process.

The Cold War is over. It didn't really work. It was a stalemate. I for one am glad to have a leader who believes more in diplomacy than in trying to re-create the Cold War.

[hater]

cheks and poles are just pissed they are not getting the billions that Bush promised them.

[hope4dopes]

cheks and poles are just pissed they are not getting the billions that Bush promised them.
Having lived under the bootheel of Russia, they may have a few more concerns than that.

[hater]

Having lived under the bootheel of Russia, they may have a few more concerns than that.

cold war is over.

[angrydude]

I think its awesome that Obama is selling out one of our closest allies just for the warm fuzzy feeling it gives him.

This sure does improve our image across the world. People will be lining up to become our allies now.

[Kermit]

How much was this missle defense system going to cost?

[coyotes_geek]

I think its awesome that Obama is selling out one of our closest allies just for the warm fuzzy feeling it gives him.

This sure does improve our image across the world. People will be lining up to become our allies now.

If our missle defense system is so important to them, let them find a way to pay for it and then we can go back and set it up on their nickel. If that U.S. security blanket is really so important to them they'll still buddy up to us, even if they are pissed at us right now.

[Kermit]

The Pentagon contemplates a system of perhaps 40 missiles by 2015, at two or three sites across Europe. That would augment a larger stockpile aboard ships. The replacement system would cost an estimated $2.5 billion, compared with $5 billion over the same timeframe under the old plan. The cost savings would be less, however, because the Pentagon is locked into work on some elements of the old system.

So, they're still going to have a system. Just not in Poland or the C.R.

[Cry Havoc]

Having lived under the bootheel of the Soviet Union, they may have a few more concerns than that.

Ftfy.

[z0sa]

Obama absolutely recanted a "done" deal. The big problem is that the governments were for it against the majority of their people's wishes. Now that it won't be happening, or not for a while, those politicians' efforts were in vain and may cost them their positions. Politicians don't like putting their ass on the line only to get burned.

[hope4dopes]

"The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles."

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

[George Gervin's Afro]

Obama said the old plan was scrapped in part because the U.S. has concluded that Iran is less focused on developing the kind of long-range missiles for which the system was originally developed, making the building of an expensive new shield unnecessary.
The replacement system is to link smaller radar systems with a network of sensors and missiles that could be deployed at sea or on land. Some of the weaponry and sensors are ready now, and the rest would be developed over the next 10 years.
The Pentagon contemplates a system of perhaps 40 missiles by 2015, at two or three sites across Europe.

[NoOptionB]

Putin laugh at idea a Missle Defense Shield can stop him. He is like Mighty Thor.

http://loanmeyoursister.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/putinfirstblood.jpg

[TacoCabanaFajitas]

According to numerous news sources something like 70% of Poles and Czechs were against these systems and bases being put up in the first place

[Yonivore]

I don't have any heartburn of this decision. Especially if, according to the DoD, we have other systems to compensate.

But, damn, doing this on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland is a bit insensitive, don't'cha think? And, the President of the Czech Republic says President Obama woke him at midnight to break the news.

But, I don't know enough to know if this is betrayal or not. Just another example of the Obama administration's stellar diplomacy.

[spurster]

Probably this is to get Russia's cooperation on Iran.

I think Poles and Czechs were against putting this in their countries right up until Russia invaded Georgia, at which point they changed their minds in a hurry. Anyway, Poland and Czech are in NATO and halfway in the EU, so it's not like they are now part of the Eastern Bloc.

[spursncowboys]

Here are some quotes from war mongers:

http://chatna.com/theme/appeasement.htm

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Winston Churchill (http://chatna.com/author/churchill.htm)

No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb. Franklin D Roosevelt (http://chatna.com/author/rooseveltfd.htm)

Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian. Heywood Broun (http://chatna.com/author/broun.htm)

The one sure way to conciliate a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured. Konrad Adenauer (http://chatna.com/author/adenauer.htm)

You may gain temporary appeasement by a policy of concession to violence, but you do not gain lasting peace that way. Anthony Eden (http://chatna.com/author/edenanthony.htm)

[ChumpDumper]

wait, where is the evidence that the weapons program we were supporting was preventing Russia from invading Czechs and Poles?This.

I guess the only thing it would have likely guaranteed is US military intervention in the case of such an invasion -- but isn't that what NATO is for in the first place?

[Marcus Bryant]

n0iqZbM1Pdc

[spursncowboys]

wait, where is the evidence that the weapons program we were supporting was preventing Russia from invading Czechs and Poles?

Oh, right, Bush didn't rely on "evidence"...or congressional authority...or anything else remotely related to the democratic process.

The Cold War is over. It didn't really work. It was a stalemate. I for one am glad to have a leader who believes more in diplomacy than in trying to re-create the Cold War.
Yeah exactly. Great point. The Cold War is over. The Cold War didn't work anyway. Those millions of people that were killed for owning property or being a religious leader or being a certain race and/or religion(20 million alone by Stalin) were eggs being broken to make omelets. WHo cares that when Russia fought Nazis and the Russians would take over these countries in their march, they would kill or send to the Gualg all the people they believed would pose a threat to their communist party. Just because these small countries would send their men to liberate Iraq, because they realize how great a free-elected capitalist society is, doesn't mean we should help them. They should just fight their own battles. They are war mongers because they go to war for their freedoms. They should just have an assembly or use their editorial page in their newspaper to maintain their freedoms. War is ALWAYS wrong. What is it good for? Slavery, human bondage, civil rights, equal opportunity, the Bill of Rights-these we would have gotten if we just asked the government for it. These Pols need to just realize that we, the greedy members of our society in which have to pay theirs and our share, are not going to pay for their government to be propped up by us.

[ChumpDumper]

You're really not good at that.

Why do Poland and the Czechs need more reassurance than they already have as members of NATO and the EU?

[Cry Havoc]

Yeah exactly. Great point. The Cold War is over. The Cold War didn't work anyway. Those millions of people that were killed for owning property or being a religious leader or being a certain race and/or religion(20 million alone by Stalin) were eggs being broken to make omelets. WHo cares that when Russia fought Nazis and the Russians would take over these countries in their march, they would kill or send to the Gualg all the people they believed would pose a threat to their communist party. Just because these small countries would send their men to liberate Iraq, because they realize how great a free-elected capitalist society is, doesn't mean we should help them. They should just fight their own battles. They are war mongers because they go to war for their freedoms. They should just have an assembly or use their editorial page in their newspaper to maintain their freedoms. War is ALWAYS wrong. What is it good for? Slavery, human bondage, civil rights, equal opportunity, the Bill of Rights-these we would have gotten if we just asked the government for it. These Pols need to just realize that we, the greedy members of our society in which have to pay theirs and our share, are not going to pay for their government to be propped up by us.

You're right. The only way to stop the Russians is with a missile defense program (that doesn't work) right on their borders.

[Winehole23]

At any rate, Gates isn't giving up on European missile defense, just rejiggering it for short/medium range Iranian ballistics, which are the real threat. There's talk about new missile systems to replace the one previously proposed, so characterizing the new policy as a strategic retreat is a bit misleading.

[DarkReign]

you're really not good at that.

+1

[Winehole23]

The decision to scrap the deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic came days after the administration announced the proposed sale of $7.8 billion in Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile batteries and related gear to Turkey.



A European diplomat who asked not to be named because he was discussing intergovernmental discussions said the United States was looking for a less costly alternative more in tune with its evaluation of Iran's missile program.



"This was a costly program," he said of the scrapped deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic. "They may find other ways to do this was less cost . . . with missiles of a different type in theater."
Washington Times, via http://www.myantiwar.org/view/187969.html

[DMX7]

Having lived under the bootheel of Russia, they may have a few more concerns than that.

I don't give a shit.

[spursncowboys]

You're really not good at that.

Why do Poland and the Czechs need more reassurance than they already have as members of NATO and the EU?
SOme would say that they don't need assurance but rather security.

[ChumpDumper]

SOme would say that they don't need assurance but rather security.OK, why do Poland and the Czechs need more security than they already have as members of NATO and the EU?

[nuclearfm]

OK, why do Poland and the Czechs need more security than they already have as members of NATO and the EU?

I could tell you this, but it really makes no difference. A missile shield is a much better deterrent,without it a much higher response time is in effect.

The truth is that if anything badt happens, they're fucked anyway. The politicians there are just trying to "calm the herd" if you will.

[spursncowboys]

OK, why do Poland and the Czechs need more security than they already have as members of NATO and the EU?
What security comes from being members of NATO and EU?

[Winehole23]

All members will fight for any other member that is attacked.

[Winehole23]

That includes two nuclear powers: the USA and France.

[nuclearfm]

What security comes from being members of NATO and EU?

Not only guarantee of member support but also...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_NATO_bombing_campaign_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovi na

[Winehole23]

Keep in mind that Trident missiles on mobile platforms can protect Poland and the Czech republic too, at far less cost than the Bush's proposal.

[Winehole23]

I put it to you, spursncowboys: why is it still our responsibility to make sure Europe is secure?

[spursncowboys]

All members will fight for any other member that is attacked. What European countries do you think will counterstrike Russia? For Poland?

[Winehole23]

All the ones in NATO. What is NATO for?

Why do you think Russia will attack Poland? Seems a bit far fetched to me.

[Winehole23]

It seems to me the missiles we're sending to Turkey would be strategically better placed to counter Russia's contemporary geopolitical thrust.

[Winehole23]

As well as the threat from Iran, which was the stated rationale for the missiles we were going to deploy in Poland and Czech.

[Winehole23]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE58H5T720090918

[ChumpDumper]

What security comes from being members of NATO and EU?Are you seriously admitting to us you don't know?

[Nbadan]

Are you seriously admitting to us you don't know?

Common...they are obviously in on the Islamo-Commie take-over of Europe...they aren't gonna do anything but wave the Ruskies through...

[spursncowboys]

Are you seriously admitting to us you don't know?
Admitting what? What actual security, besides some piece of paper, comes from EU and NATO. Good deals with using the Euro and trading with other NATO countries, but what keeps them secure? I am still on yall's side comrad, I just want to know so I can blog it on DailyKOS.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Chamberlain, I mean Obama, is doing such a good job. Our new allies like Argentina, Cuba and Russia are going to be so much more beneficial to us than Poland, Austria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, Bulgaria, Armania, Azerbaijan, Israel, Columbia, and Estonia. Capitalist countries are too mean to their people.
The Obama Doctrine is marching along.

The fuck?? Since when is Argentina a socialist country the likes of Cuba or Russia? Are you on crack or just ignorant? Not that we're not on our way, but don't jump the gun.

[ChumpDumper]

Admitting what?Your ignorance.
What actual security, besides some piece of paper, comes from EU and NATO.You really don't know?
Good deals with using the Euro and trading with other NATO countries, but what keeps them secure?Holy shit -- you really don't know what NATO is!
I am still on yall's side comrad, I just want to know so I can blog it on DailyKOS.I meant it when I said you suck at this, turns out you suck at any knowledge of NATO and the EU as well.

[spursncowboys]

Your ignorance. You really don't know?Holy shit -- you really don't know what NATO is!I meant it when I said you sick at this, turns out you suck at any knowledge of NATO and the EU as well.
Wow chumpDumper. You cannot answer my question. Instead you try and turn it around to spin it like I do not understand an acronym. You have done this over and over. Is this an Alinsky thing? This is the type of adolescent nonsense that works with kids. So for the retards like ChumpDumper
What ACTUAL, measurable amount, of security will being a member of NATO and EU get Poland?
I sick at what? What do you mean I sick at?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

The answer was even given to you earlier in this thread.

Sorry, I meant to say you suck. I'll edit that one. Thanks for pointing it out.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, if you want to know the "actual, measurable amount" of security available to Poland and the Czech Republic, I suppose you could go and add up all the military forces and equipment belonging to those two countries and the other 26 members of NATO and that will give you a rough idea.

You're welcome.

[spursncowboys]

Seriously, if you want to know the "actual, measurable amount" of security available to Poland and the Czech Republic, I suppose you could go and add up all the military forces and equipment belonging to those two countries and the other 26 members of NATO and that will give you a rough idea.

You're welcome.
You don't get it do you?

[Shastafarian]

Instead you try and turn it around to spin it like I do not understand an acronym.

You obviously don't.

[spursncowboys]

They should have an elitist emoticon for chumpdump and shasta so they can perpetuate their status on us with emoticons. Have it a smiley face with a big upward pointing noise. Maybe in a robe. So when they make their elitist remarks which have no facts, just belittle, (try to)discredit, and ridicule.

[spursncowboys]

You obviously don't.
Thank you for making my point.

[Shastafarian]

Do you really think NATO is just a piece, or series of sheets (ream 'em) of paper?

[spursncowboys]

Do you really think NATO is just a piece, or series of sheets (ream 'em) of paper?
I do not know. I was asking if maybe someone did.
"During most of the Cold War, NATO maintained a holding pattern with no actual military engagement as an organization." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
"Many NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan have 'national caveats' that restrict how their troops may be used. While the Riga summit relaxed some of these caveats to allow assistance to allies in dire circumstances, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and the U.S. are doing most of the fighting in southern Afghanistan, while French, German, and Italian troops are deployed in the quieter north.
It is difficult to see how NATO can succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan unless it is willing to commit more troops and give commanders more flexibility."
Joseph Nye (2006).
ISAF=I Saw America Fight makes me think that maybe if we had shields, that if Russia (a Oligopoly/Dictatorship) attacked an democratic allie, we would not have to send the ISAF (US soldiers) in and would just instead keep the attack from happening. Seems like a liberal stance if you ask me.

[Cry Havoc]

I do not know. I was asking if maybe someone did.
"During most of the Cold War, NATO maintained a holding pattern with no actual military engagement as an organization." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
"Many NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan have 'national caveats' that restrict how their troops may be used. While the Riga summit relaxed some of these caveats to allow assistance to allies in dire circumstances, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and the U.S. are doing most of the fighting in southern Afghanistan, while French, German, and Italian troops are deployed in the quieter north.
It is difficult to see how NATO can succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan unless it is willing to commit more troops and give commanders more flexibility."
Joseph Nye (2006).
ISAF=I Saw America Fight makes me think that maybe if we had shields, that if Russia (a Oligopoly/Dictatorship) attacked an democratic allie, we would not have to send the ISAF (US soldiers) in and would just instead keep the attack from happening. Seems like a liberal stance if you ask me.

No offense, but to suggest that NATO would remain constricted if Russian troops and tanks started pouring across the border into Poland or the C.R. is absolutely preposterous. You would see an instant, massive reaction to halt the aggression, with the combined might of the EU, and at that point, the U.S. would be very involved.

They're posturing and you're playing right into that fear by looking at a bunch of theoretical possibilities for how the EU could be stalled into complacency.

Furthermore, your responses to people are a little too subtle. What you seem to be suggesting does not have a firm place in reality. It seems that you are being intentionally deceptive either to cause someone to overreact, or to say something that's potentially assailable from your point of view.

Again, what you are proposing is not possible. Russia's economy is coming back, it would be completely against their interests to go to war now and get crushed by the combined might of the EU and the USA. Their military clout is not what it used to be, and risking relations with the EU would potentially bankrupt them.

[mogrovejo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/6207696/Barack-Obama-is-gambling-with-Europes-security.html


Barack Obama is gambling with Europe's security


When Barack Obama was running for the White House, he posed as a man with a cool head in a crisis who would display calm resolve in the face of any thuggery from the world's rogue states. The candidate described by his aides as "no drama Obama" would have despised the label of a gambler. Yet his decision to abandon plans for a missile defence shield in central Europe amounts to nothing less than a colossal gamble – and one that history may yet condemn as irresponsible and reckless.
Be in no doubt about the stakes: the defensive system that Mr Obama has chosen to scrap was the West's ultimate insurance policy against a nuclear-armed Iran. If all our efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal were to fail, this anti-missile shield would have provided a measure of assurance.


All that has gone by the board. Mr Obama offered a plea in mitigation, promising that America would still deploy sophisticated defences against missile attack, probably based at sea and designed to counter the short- and medium-range weapons that Iran already possesses. Any long-range variants, the President seemed to claim, amounted to insignificant gleams in the eyes of Tehran's ruthless rulers and will take many years for Iran to perfect.


This case is wholly specious: it places too much reliance on intelligence assessments which we know, from bitter experience, have a mixed record – at best – when it comes to forecasting the technical progress of weapons programmes in hostile states. What if Iran deploys long-range missiles sooner than America now predicts – and the only defences available are designed to deal with short- and medium-range weapons? Highly sophisticated anti-missile systems cannot be rustled up in a hurry.


A prudent defence policy guards against every realistic menace, not a selection of threats. Mr Obama is behaving like an eccentric homeowner who refuses to lock his front door, but points out that a gleaming smoke detector will protect against fire. Just as the answer is to install the smoke alarm and use a latchkey, so a defensive shield should be able to counter any kind of missile, not merely those your potential adversary presently deploys.


Mr Obama's decision to gamble with Europe's security – for this is what it means – can only be defended if he now secures a real and incontestable gain. That hinges on Russia. The Kremlin, which bitterly opposed the missile-defence scheme, has had its way. In the next few weeks, we will all learn the answer to the burning question: what will Russia give in return? There is no doubt about what Mr Obama wants. Iran's nuclear programme continues apace and the underground centrifuges in Natanz are still enriching uranium in brazen defiance of five United Nations resolutions. Only yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country would "never" halt this highly sensitive process, which could be used to produce nuclear weapons.


We are nearing the endgame of diplomacy towards Iran. On October 1, Tehran's chief negotiator will meet an American official at a gathering of the world's leading powers. If those negotiations fail – and no one is predicting success – Mr Obama will place a new sanctions resolution before the Security Council. This time, America will probably seek to target Iran's oil and gas industries, perhaps by imposing a UN ban on any investment in this vital sector.



Will Russia allow such a resolution to pass – or will Moscow follow its usual practice and ally with China to shield Iran? If the Kremlin vetoes or dilutes a sanctions resolution, this will make a peaceful resolution of the confrontation with Iran far less likely, and shorten the odds on a war in the Middle East next year. It will also show that Mr Obama's monumental gamble has failed. The President has effectively placed the fate of a vital element of his foreign policy in the hands of the Kremlin. That is a sorry pass for a superpower to reach.

[spursncowboys]

No offense, but to suggest that NATO would remain constricted if Russian troops and tanks started pouring across the border into Poland or the C.R. is absolutely preposterous. You would see an instant, massive reaction to halt the aggression, with the combined might of the EU, and at that point, the U.S. would be very involved. What precedent leads you to conclude that? If you read what I posted, it talked about the ISAF, besides US and GB, is filled with non-combat soldiers. This is why American soldiers nickname them I Saw America Fight, or I Suck At Firing. When Russia shut oil pipelines to Europe, what did EU and NATO do?


They're posturing and you're playing right into that fear by looking at a bunch of theoretical possibilities for how the EU could be stalled into complacency.

Furthermore, your responses to people are a little too subtle. What you seem to be suggesting does not have a firm place in reality. It seems that you are being intentionally deceptive either to cause someone to overreact, or to say something that's potentially assailable from your point of view. I don't want to be that douchbag with the "what" comment but I do not understand exactly what this has to do with my comment which for the most part is a question.


Again, what you are proposing is not possible. Russia's economy is coming back, it would be completely against their interests to go to war now and get crushed by the combined might of the EU and the USA. Their military clout is not what it used to be, and risking relations with the EU would potentially bankrupt them.
*All my views come from "the NExt 1oo years". That is the basis for my ideas.
You are trying to put common sense on a country ran by a dictator or a small party. Much like Hitler, Moussalini, Lenin, Stalin, Gadafi, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, and the Mullahs. This appeasment never works out how it should. Security is Russia's interest. Like when they invaded Georgia and everyone still maintains trade with them. Most countries will still trade with Russia if they invaded Poland. Also Russia is a huge nuclear power. I doubt for that reason alone, there would not pe a counterstrike. The only country in Europe that would have a huge incentive to fight Russia would be Germany. From Berlin to Moscow, there are no real geographical boundaries. The only thing that keeps Germany safe is Poland. I believe Putin wants Russia's sphere of influence back. Also the Poland economy was doing great in the free market.

[Winehole23]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/6207696/Barack-Obama-is-gambling-with-Europes-security.htmlIran doesn't have ICBM's. Even it did, using them on Europe would be tantamount to signing its own death warrant. Even Ehud Barak and Bibi are saying now that the Iranian threat isn't existential. Israel deters it ahead of the fact and the US would quickly adjust if Iran made a leap in its nuke capabilities.

The op-ed pretends that the US shift in strategy was aimed only at getting Russian cooperation on Iran, but ignores the possibility that that the shift is a move to a better, and cheaper, missile strategy. The system Bush wanted to put in place was geared to ICBMS the Iranians don't have and would have been useless against a swarm of smaller projectiles according to Sec'y Gates. This shift addresses that weakness.

BTW, mogrovejo, I'd be interested to hear your opinion about why it still ought to be the US's responsibility to assure and pay for the defense of Europe. Why can't Europe carry its own weight?

[Nbadan]

BTW, mogrovejo, I'd be interested to hear your opinion...

..bet he's never heard that before...

[xeromass]

Idea of Russian invasion of Poland and Czech Republic is beyond crazy - for starters none of them borders directly with Russia, altrough Poland does with Kaliningrad (basically large Russian navy base on Baltic coast) and Belarus (very friendly relations with Russia).
Idea of ballistic missile threat to them is even crazier. Really, let just put both things off the table.

Whole point of shield would be protection of Western Europe (showed no interest in it) and USA with both host countries taking most of risk. After all any intercepted missile has to land somewhere and raining nuclear material does not sound like fun. Things would get especially interesting for all if it happened over Russian sphere of influence.
There is also problem of pissing them off from economic standpoint. It's a large market both republics are historically well positioned to do business with.

[ChumpDumper]

What precedent leads you to conclude that?The precedent that Russia never invaded a country while it was a member of NATO.

You don't seeem to know why NATO exists in the first place, so your arguments seem quite obtuse and you seem to be a complete idiot. I say "seem" because I have a difficult time believing someone could be this stupid. Maybe you have some other kind of agenda, or you really think that ten missiles is enough to stop a land invasion by Russia.

Please explain yourself fully to dispel our belief that you could be the stupidest poster on this board.

[spursncowboys]

The precedent that Russia never invaded a country while it was a member of NATO.Russia is not a member of NATO.


You don't seeem to know why NATO exists in the first place, so your arguments seem quite obtuse and you seem to be a complete idiot. I say "seem" because I have a difficult time believing someone could be this stupid. Maybe you have some other kind of agenda, or you really think that ten missiles is enough to stop a land invasion by Russia. You do not know who is in NATO. I think you need to brush up on what you talk about a little more often. Don't assume Huffington Post will set you up for success. I think if you ask twenty different ambassadors in America why NATO exists, you would get twenty different answers. Wow you bring nothing to a discussion.


Please explain yourself fully to dispel our belief that you could be the stupidest poster on this board.You calling me the stupidest poster is like communists calling capitalists evil.

[Winehole23]

The indefinite pronoun reference threw you off. It referred to countries, not Russia.

[ChumpDumper]

Russia is not a member of NATO.:lmao There is a reason for that you haven't quite picked up on yet. I got a feeling you should be able to, but may be even more stupid than I think.

And I think you are very stupid. You couldn't even figure out that first sentence.


You do not know who is in NATO.Of course I do.
I think you need to brush up on what you talk about a little more often. Don't assume Huffington Post will set you up for success. I think if you ask twenty different ambassadors in America why NATO exists, you would get twenty different answers. Wow you bring nothing to a discussion.I can't help but notice you didn't even attempt to answer the question -- why does NATO exist in the first place? Why was it created?


You calling me the stupidest poster is like communists calling capitalists evil.Nah, it's like anyone calling you stupid -- they'd be right.

I'll ask again -- why was NATO formed?

[jman3000]

SnC... I've come to the conclusion you're about 15 years old.

[ChumpDumper]

The indefinite pronoun reference threw you off. It referred to countries, not Russia.He can't be that stupid, can he?

Jeez, let's dumb it down some more:


Russia never invaded a country while that country I am referring to in the object of the first phrase of this sentence (that is not Russia because Russia is the subject and anyone thinking that I was referring to Russia's being a member of NATO would have to be the stupidest poster on the board) was a member of the organization you may or may not know is NATO.

[spursncowboys]

The indefinite pronoun reference threw you off. It referred to countries, not Russia.:toast Thank you.

[Winehole23]

spursncowboys just catches at words and free associates. There's not much evidence he pays attention to what people actually say. He just likes to belittle others for not sharing his viewpoint.

[Winehole23]

Prove me wrong, spursncowboys.

[spursncowboys]

:lmao There is a reason for that you haven't quite picked up on yet. I got a feeling you should be able to, but may be even more stupid than I think.

And I think you are very stupid. You couldn't even figure out that first sentence.

Of course I do.I can't help but notice you didn't even attempt to answer the question -- why does NATO exist in the first place? Why was it created?

Nah, it's like anyone calling you stupid -- they'd be right.

I'll ask again -- why was NATO formed?
Proverbs 26:4 When arguing with fools, don't answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are.

[clambake]

saved by the bible?

[ChumpDumper]

Why was NATO formed, spursncowboys?

[spursncowboys]

spursncowboys just catches at words and free associates. There's not much evidence he pays attention to what people actually say. He just likes to belittle others for not sharing his viewpoint.
How am I belittling? I say what I think. I am not trying to win people over or to exist in a higher realm of intellect. Why so much of this attack at personal things. Why not go after what comments on my post? Does chumpdump and shasta get pushed around at work so they have to exert testoterone through a computer? I like liberals. I've had three liberals in my house before.

[spursncowboys]

Why was NATO formed, spursncowboys?
You did this to me before where I spent half my time explaining things to you. This is your silly game you do. Im not wasting my time doing it. If you want to know google it or go to nato.org. or wikipedia. It's not that hard.

[ChumpDumper]

No, I already know -- I don't think you know.

Why was NATO formed, spursncowboys?

[Yonivore]

Well, Russia is expressing it's gratitude for the U. S. dropping the missile defense shields for Eastern Europe.

Russia to modernize Cuba’s military (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/19/10086/)

We're.in.the.best.of.hands.

Smartest.diplomacy.ever.

Seriously, it's as if Russia said, "Thanks for exposing Eastern Europe at our request now, as a return favor, we're going to bring the nearest communist country, to your shores, up to speed militarily."

[ChumpDumper]

Well, Russia is expressing it's gratitude for the U. S. dropping the missile defense shields for Eastern Europe.

Russia to modernize Cuba’s military (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/19/10086/)

We're.in.the.best.of.hands.

Smartest.diplomacy.ever.

Seriously, it's as if Russia said, "Thanks for exposing Eastern Europe at our request now, as a return favor, we're going to bring the nearest communist country, to your shores, up to speed militarily."So you are afraid Cuba is going to invade the US?

[clambake]

Well, Russia is expressing it's gratitude for the U. S. dropping the missile defense shields for Eastern Europe.

Russia to modernize Cuba’s military (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/19/10086/)

We're.in.the.best.of.hands.

Smartest.diplomacy.ever.

Seriously, it's as if Russia said, "Thanks for exposing Eastern Europe at our request now, as a return favor, we're going to bring the nearest communist country, to your shores, up to speed militarily."

:lol

[Winehole23]

Proverbs 26:4 When arguing with fools, don't answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are.


For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.

[Winehole23]

How am I belittling? I say what I think. I am not trying to win people over or to exist in a higher realm of intellect. Clearly.

Everybody says what they think. It just seems you can't countenance contrary views without calling posters appeasers or referring to Saul Alinsky. This is dishonest, and it raises questions about whether you pay attention to what people really say. If you relied less on off the rack political cant and cliche, weren't so quick to dismiss posters as deluded radicals, and paid more attention to the actual topics, you'd have more credibility in my book.


Why so much of this attack at personal things. Why not go after what comments on my post? Does chumpdump and shasta get pushed around at work so they have to exert testoterone through a computer? I like liberals. I've had three liberals in my house before.I did above, and you ignored me.

If you care to start addressing the topic, spurncowboys, I'm more than willing to discuss it with you.

[spursncowboys]

Clearly.

Everybody says what they think. It just seems you can't countenance contrary views without calling posters appeasers or referring to Saul Alinsky. This is dishonest, and it raises questions about whether you pay attention to what people really say. If you relied less on off the rack political cant and cliche, weren't so quick to dismiss posters as deluded radicals, and paid more attention to the actual topics, you'd have more credibility in my book.

I did above, and you ignored me.

If you care to start addressing the topic, spurncowboys, I'm more than willing to discuss it with you.
I would very much like to stay on topic. It is hard with these "your stupid" comments and then its more about you defending yourself than staying on topic. Every forum I have been is loaded with these type of people.
I respect your opinion. I would like to hope that you keep that kind level of standard to all on here. About the Alinskey and appeaser comment. I will try and not to name call. If I use one of these loaded phrases, I will make sure it is my view they are that.

[ChumpDumper]

On topic:
Why was NATO formed, spursncowboys?

[spursncowboys]

KJV is for southern baptist and priests. NIV 4 Life!!
What I get from that is that even though fools are having a good time, theres no worth to it.
Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless. - NIV

[spursncowboys]

On topic:
You're a troll

[Winehole23]

I would very much like to stay on topic. It is hard with these "your stupid" comments and then its more about you defending yourself than staying on topic. Every forum I have been is loaded with these type of people.If you're not careful, you could turn into one too.


I respect your opinion. I would like to hope that you keep that kind level of standard to all on here. I pick and choose my battles. Everyone does really. In fairness though, you're the one who started the name calling in this thread.


About the Alinskey and appeaser comment. I will try and not to name call. If I use one of these loaded phrases, I will make sure it is my view they are that.Why not just argue for your own views? Is that so hard for you?

[ChumpDumper]

Your a trollI won't even go into spelling smack in an attempt to stay on topic.

Why was NATO formed, spursncowboys?

[spursncowboys]

If you're not careful, you could turn into one too.

I pick and choose my battles. Everyone does really. In fairness though, you're the one who started the name calling in this thread.

Why not just argue for your own views? Is that so hard for you?
If someone fits the definition of an apeaser, then what is so wrong about me calling him an appeaser? It's not about calling someone a name.

[Winehole23]

If someone fits the definition of an apeaser, then what is so wrong about me calling him an appeaser? It's not about calling someone a name.Ok. Define your term, then define the appeasement. Then show how it applies to posters here.

So far, you haven't made your case.

[spursncowboys]

Obama dropping the missile defense system to have better relations with Russia is appeasement.

[ChumpDumper]

How much territory was ceded to Russia because of this?

[Winehole23]

Obama dropping the missile defense system to have better relations with Russia is appeasement.I guess you missed the Washington Times article about our missile deal with Turkey, or Sec'y Gates's intention to use Trident missiles we have on submarines right now to do the same thing as missile defense systems we haven't even deployed yet.

Would any of the foregoing -- all verifiable and linked in the thread -- cause you to reexamine your premises?

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, what's the difference between having ten imaginary missiles inside Poland and many more real missiles parked in the Balitic Sea just off the coast of Poland?

[Winehole23]

Also, spursncowboys, you seem to have ignored Sec'y Gates contention that new missile defense systems are in the works.

Your claim that Obama "has dropped" missile defense in Europe appears to be factually challenged.

[Winehole23]

In the interest of even handedness: the switch in policy obviously has something to do with Russia. But it obviously has more to do with geopolitical situations in central and south Asia, than with ceding Europe to the Russians.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, it also kept Russia from deploying missiles in Kaliningrad that could pretty much only be used on Poland and the Baltic states.

[spursncowboys]

From an article I just posted in this forum:
About Sec. Gates talking about a new missile defense sys:-"terminate a number of missile defense programs earlier this year and justify a $1.6 billion cut to the overall program in fiscal year 2010 compared to fiscal year 2009. - Now, he is using the opposite argument to justify the termination of plans to install missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland."

"the sea-based and Standard missile programs can be matured during the time period cited by the fact sheet.[5] (http://www.heritage.org/Research/BallisticMissileDefense/WM2621.cfm#_ftn5) But such maturation can be realized only if there is a sustained commitment to the program over the entire developmental period.
Nowhere in the description of the program is such a commitment made, and long-term funding levels are not revealed. There is no guarantee that arms control considerations will not be allowed to interfere with this program, just as they led to the termination of the system intended for the Czech Republic and Poland."

[ChumpDumper]

So the Heritage Foundation is saying "boo!" about things it doesn't know.

Sounds about right.

See how your third thread was superfluous?

[mogrovejo]

Iran doesn't have ICBM's. Even it did, using them on Europe would be tantamount to signing its own death warrant. Even Ehud Barak and Bibi are saying now that the Iranian threat isn't existential. Israel deters it ahead of the fact and the US would quickly adjust if Iran made a leap in its nuke capabilities.

The op-ed pretends that the US shift in strategy was aimed only at getting Russian cooperation on Iran, but ignores the possibility that that the shift is a move to a better, and cheaper, missile strategy. The system Bush wanted to put in place was geared to ICBMS the Iranians don't have and would have been useless against a swarm of smaller projectiles according to Sec'y Gates. This shift addresses that weakness.

You do make some risky assumptions there. One of the points of the article is that it'd make sense to create a defensive system that covers plausible future threats by Iran. And in any case, this strategical shift will be read as a move to placate Moscow - even by the Kremlin.


BTW, mogrovejo, I'd be interested to hear your opinion about why it still ought to be the US's responsibility to assure and pay for the defense of Europe. Why can't Europe carry its own weight?

I don't think the US should be paying for Europe's defence (I don't even agree with the concept of an "European defence"). However, one has to consider the American military presence in Europe is not exclusively a mean to defend their European allies but also a frontline in America's national defensive system. We don't live in the 19th century any more. But I do believe that aspect is immaterial for this question.

The biggest problem with this decision is the kind of signals it sends. Using Bernard Lewis words, America can be seen in the future as a "weak enemy and a treacherous friend". America had a diplomatic and military commitment and one ought to be very careful. Just a few months ago, while delivering a speech in Prague, Obama himself publicly praised the Poles and the Czechs for their courage for agreeing to host the interceptors and the radar. And now suddenly he takes this decision without even previously consultating his allies? That's not the proper way for a statesman to behave. Even if he has good reasons to believe that a strategical change was needed, the method used was amateurish, to say the least.

[ChumpDumper]

OK, say Poland gets it's ten missiles.

Russia then moves a a few dozen Iskander missiles into Kaliningrad.

Now what?

Is Poland now more safe or less safe?

[Winehole23]

I don't think the US should be paying for Europe's defence (I don't even agree with the concept of an "European defence"). However, one has to consider the American military presence in Europe is not exclusively a mean to defend their European allies but also a frontline in America's national defensive system.You're talking about ICBM's, right?

How does the decision to use Trident missiles we have now (and a new missile defense system somewhere down the road) instead of systems we haven't even deployed yet, materially harm US mainland defense?


And now suddenly he takes this decision without even previously consultating his allies? That's not the proper way for a statesman to behave. Even if he has good reasons to believe that a strategical change was needed, the method used was amateurish, to say the least.I was unaware of this. If this is true, I absolutely agree.


And in any case, this strategical shift will be read as a move to placate Moscow - even by the Kremlin. So what? If the same strategic objectives can be acheived more cheaply and more quickly thereby, what's the big deal?

If we get more cooperation from Russia in Central Asia (a big if, I will admit), that's only icing on the cake.

[Winehole23]

One of the points of the article is that it'd make sense to create a defensive system that covers plausible future threats by Iran.Sure, but Gates addressed this too, and seriously I doubt DOD plans/projects fail to take it into account.

[mogrovejo]

You're talking about ICBM's, right?

How does the decision to use Trident missiles we have now (and a new missile defense system somewhere down the road) instead of systems we haven't even deployed yet, materially harm US mainland defense?

Not necessarily. I don't think the "Third Site" was ever projected as necessary to defend US mainland. But what about the American troops stationed in Europe, for example?


I was unaware of this. If this is true, I absolutely agree.

He tried to call the Polish prime-minister Wednesday night to announce the decision. There are some unwritten rules when it comes to diplomatic and military cooperation.


So what? If the same strategic objectives can be acheived more cheaply and more quickly thereby, what's the big deal? If we get more cooperation from Russia in Central Asia (a big if, I will admit), that's only icing on the cake.

It remains to be seen is the same strategic objectives can be achieved more cheaply and more quickly. So far, only the WH sustains that POV, in a direct contradiction to some of their previous and very recent stances. For example, according to an European analyst talking right now on the television, this was just a way Obama found to divert attetions from his domestic problems. And it's about the signals it sends. As the recent years proved well enough, perceptions are very important in the diplomatic game. One of the fundamentals axis of the Reagan Administration policy was that it was essential to make clear to those who could constitute a threat to the American interests that resources would be wasted in missilles and defensive systems and that there were the means and the will to contain them. Nicolau Maquiavel 101. That's a very important lession that shouldn't be forgotten.

[Winehole23]

The biggest problem with this decision is the kind of signals it sends. Using Bernard Lewis words, America can be seen in the future as a "weak enemy and a treacherous friend". America had a diplomatic and military commitment and one ought to be very careful.Perhaps. I don't really see the treachery here. Can you flesh it out for me?

[mogrovejo]

Perhaps. I don't really see the treachery here. Can you flesh it out for me?

I can't flat out call it treachery, stricto sensu, either, that's why I used the "can be seen" expression. I mean, Obama could announce tomorrow that the US will leave NATO: would that constitute a betrayal? Not really. But this is just semantycs. There was a military commiment made to some allies; it was abruptly and suddenly cancelled completely disregarding those same allies and invocking some new circunstances that apparently nobody except the Administration was aware of. If I were an American Congressman, I'd have a lot of questions to make to the Administration on this decision. It may be the right one, but the entire process is dubious.

[Winehole23]

I see what you mean. European views get little play here, and still less do Americans take account of process. It's nice to get a "continental" perspective, and I can certainly see how this abrupt volte-face might raise some eyebrows.

[spursncowboys]

A February 2009 New York Times report quotes unamed U.S. officials claiming Obama offered to halt deployment (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03prexy.html) of a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow aided Washington in curbing Iran's nuclear program.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/18792/
Obama is selling people's freedom to keep his numbers up.

[George Gervin's Afro]

A February 2009 New York Times report quotes unamed U.S. officials claiming Obama offered to halt deployment (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03prexy.html) of a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow aided Washington in curbing Iran's nuclear program.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/18792/
Obama is selling people's freedom to keep his numbers up.

that's how politics work moron. I know you probably think kennedy didn't negotiate with the russians during the cuban missile crisis. how did that work out?

[Shastafarian]

Obama is selling people's freedom to keep his numbers up.

Your logic here is that if there's no missile defense system, Russia will invade Poland? I thought you conservatives hated Iran and were scared of them having a nuclear program.

[spursncowboys]

Your logic here is that if there's no missile defense system, Russia will invade Poland? I thought you conservatives hates Iran and were scared of them having a nuclear program.
There are other ways of getting Iran to not have a nuclear weapon besides selling out our allies. I, like almost everyone else not drinking Obama's koolaid, think Russia will invade Poland.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Your logic here is that if there's no missile defense system, Russia will invade Poland? I thought you conservatives hated Iran and were scared of them having a nuclear program.

he didn't think that all the way through but don't worry he'll come back with a caveat.

[George Gervin's Afro]

There are other ways of getting Iran to not have a nuclear weapon besides selling out our allies. I, like almost everyone else not drinking Obama's koolaid, think Russia will invade Poland.

what other ways?

[Shastafarian]

I'll keep this to one thread, no matter how many you think necessary.


The Iranian regime has an active nuclear energy program, and although U.S. intelligence reports say Iran is not developing an atomic weapon, a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded Thursday that Tehran has the ability to make a bomb. That news, reported by the Associated Press, also said Iran is on its way to developing a missile system able to carry a nuclear warhead.

Obama is trying to negotiate with Iran. But if those talks fail, his administration will seek to impose "crippling sanctions," in the words of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Russia, whose president, Dmitry Medvedev, will meet Obama at the United Nations next week, is key to any such effort. So far, it has resisted further sanctions on Iran, which it supplies with weapons and other technology.

So basically we're trading a missile defense system that really has no use (if the Russians want to invade, they'll invade) for help stopping Iran from developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.

[Shastafarian]

There are other ways of getting Iran to not have a nuclear weapon besides selling out our allies.Such as?


I, like almost everyone else not drinking Obama's koolaid, think Russia will invade Poland.
Then you're dumber than I thought.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[spursncowboys]

I'll keep this to one thread, no matter how many you think necessary.



So basically we're trading a missile defense system that really has no use (if the Russians want to invade, they'll invade) for help stopping Iran from developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.
What exactly do you think Obama is going to do to Iran? :rollin Buy them off like Bill did to N. Korea? That worked out for us.

[Shastafarian]

What exactly do you think Obama is going to do to Iran? :rollin Buy them off like Bill did to N. Korea? That worked out for us.

Wait so you think there's nothing to do to stop Iran, but you also get your panties in a bunch when we stop funding on a useless missile system to defend against Russia? Logic, yer deficient.

[spursncowboys]

Wait so you think there's nothing to do to stop Iran, but you also get your panties in a bunch when we stop funding on a useless missile system to defend against Russia? Logic, yer deficient.
I didn't say there was nothing to stop Iran. SO is that the great idea-give them money?:lmao Really. We sell out our allies to Russia to do something we can do without them.

[Shastafarian]

I didn't say there was nothing to stop Iran. You have yet to lay out any options. Aside from military intervention, what can we do?

SO is that the great idea-give them money?:lmao Really.That's not the option.

We sell out our allies to Russia to do something we can do without them.We can do it without Russia? Really?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I didn't say there was nothing to stop Iran. SO is that the great idea-give them money?:lmao Really. We sell out our allies to Russia to do something we can do without them.

you've never told us what our allies have to fear.

[ChumpDumper]

There are other ways of getting Iran to not have a nuclear weapon besides selling out our allies.Like what?
I, like almost everyone else not drinking Obama's koolaid, think Russia will invade Poland.Really?

I'm sure you can find several writers' articles that say just that.

And please tell us how 10 anti-ballistic missile missiles will stop a land invasion.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

There are other ways of getting Iran to not have a nuclear weapon besides selling out our allies. I, like almost everyone else not drinking Obama's koolaid, think Russia will invade Poland.

:lmao

like I said, a clown.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Its stupid to assume any major country outside of the US will conduct any major invasion in the near future without some sort of crazy random 9/11esque event happening first.

[LnGrrrR]

Obama dropping the missile defense system to have better relations with Russia is appeasement.

Do you even understand what politics are? Honestly? Do you realize that sometimes, just sometimes, America may have to give up something?

[LnGrrrR]

Its stupid to assume any major country outside of the US will conduct any major invasion in the near future without some sort of crazy random 9/11esque event happening first.

Apart from developing massive instantaneous transportation technology, I don't see how it could happen. Any country develop teleporters yet?

[Cry Havoc]

I didn't say there was nothing to stop Iran. SO is that the great idea-give them money?:lmao Really. We sell out our allies to Russia to do something we can do without them.

It is amazing how far removed from reality your view is of this situation.

spursncowboys: Do you think there exists a real tangible threat of the Russian invasion and occupation of Europe?

[boutons_deux]

US under neo-c*nts becoming more like France.

Missile defense ANYWHERE is USA's Maginot Line. :lol

[spursncowboys]

It is amazing how far removed from reality your view is of this situation.

spursncowboys: Do you think there exists a real tangible threat of the Russian invasion and occupation of Europe?
They said the same thing about Nazi's, USSR, Iraq after O. Desert Storm.

[Cry Havoc]

They said the same thing about Nazi's, USSR, Iraq after O. Desert Storm.

How are the situations similar at all, though? Please use evidence, otherwise I could counter by saying the French are by far the biggest threat to conquer Europe, citing Napoleon as an example. Or hell, the Greeks could rule us all soon -- have you seen how those Spartans fight?

This is why people are dismissing you. You are attempting to use past wars to predict future events with absolutely no analysis of the present situation and no evidence to support your claims. You are basing an argument on why the US should stand up to a massive Russian land invasion of Europe using Iraq as an example? I fail to see any relation between either circumstance other than the fact that we are sticking our nose where it doesn't belong and then proceeding to dump money we can't afford on a solution that will not work in the first place.

[spursncowboys]

How are the situations similar at all, though? Please use evidence, otherwise I could counter by saying the French are by far the biggest threat to conquer Europe, citing Napoleon as an example. Or hell, the Greeks could rule us all soon -- have you seen how those Spartans fight?

This is why people are dismissing you. You are attempting to use past wars to predict future events with absolutely no analysis of the present situation and no evidence to support your claims. You are basing an argument on why the US should stand up to a massive Russian land invasion of Europe using Iraq as an example? I fail to see any relation between either circumstance other than the fact that we are sticking our nose where it doesn't belong and then proceeding to dump money we can't afford on a solution that will not work in the first place.
Every major nation in Europe thought the Nazi's would not invade the Checks, France, Belgium, etc. You are dismissing me because you live in a forum where you and your small group of like minded people seem to think your way of thinking is the only logical way. We let Saddam keep Iraq and thought he would not violate 12 UN resolutions and not try to ethnically cleanse the Kurds.

"sticking our nose where it doesn't belong"- In what instance in the past 70 years was the US involvement justified to you.

[spursncowboys]

Do you even understand what politics are? Honestly? Do you realize that sometimes, just sometimes, America may have to give up something?
Yes.

[LnGrrrR]

They said the same thing about Nazi's, USSR, Iraq after O. Desert Storm.

Iraq invaded Europe? They're stronger than I thought.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes.

Well, that's a starting point.

Now, keep in mind that Russia is still strong, but much weaker than they once were. Still Russia and China usually come together against the US. If we can kill a missile program that a) would cost us money, b) the majority of citizens in the country are not in favor for and c) it might get Russians to help us with another area, then the President should at least weigh the options. The President did, and sided with taking the missile defense system out.

This will, of course, have repercussions. But that's how it goes with international politics. You can't please everyone.

[Cry Havoc]

Every major nation in Europe thought the Nazi's would not invade the Checks, France, Belgium, etc.

And you still have not provided one shred of evidence or research that states how that situation compares with modern day Europe. Saying "people didn't think it would happen" is absolutely not a basis for an argument, as it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.


You are dismissing me because you live in a forum where you and your small group of like minded people seem to think your way of thinking is the only logical way.

No. I'm openly asking you to share your viewpoint on exactly how it could happen, what the conditions in Europe would need to be, and how the events could lead to a Russian occupation of Europe. I've asked you how this would be possible repeatedly, and your single, dogged response remains that people don't think it will happen (and therefore it's an apparent certainty that it will). People probably don't think Venezuela will invade and take over the United States -- is that sufficient evidence to start bolstering our troops along the Central American border and sending tanks through Mexico?


We let Saddam keep Iraq and thought he would not violate 12 UN resolutions and not try to ethnically cleanse the Kurds.

Again. Please tell me how the actions of one dictator in an impoverished third-world nation compares to a major land war in one of the most technologically developed areas of the world. This is again a request I'm making of you. Explain to me how you think this could even have the slightest, vaguest possibility of happening.


"sticking our nose where it doesn't belong"- In what instance in the past 70 years was the US involvement justified to you.

I'll make this one simple. If the people don't want you to be there, you shouldn't be there. Korea was debatable. Vietnam was a ridiculous war. The first Iraq war was very debatable -- the second one was nothing less than a bid by our president and VP to hand some money over to American oil companies by taking advantage of a populace that was still reeling from the events of 9/11.

[spursncowboys]

Well, that's a starting point.

Now, keep in mind that Russia is still strong, but much weaker than they once were. Still Russia and China usually come together against the US. If we can kill a missile program that a) would cost us money, b) the majority of citizens in the country are not in favor for and c) it might get Russians to help us with another area, then the President should at least weigh the options. The President did, and sided with taking the missile defense system out.

This will, of course, have repercussions. But that's how it goes with international politics. You can't please everyone.
Russia and China have never agreed on what to do with America in the Cold War, after Vietf*ckingNam. Also Russia isn't powerful right now. But they have a large amount of oil for sale and are making claims for most of the Northpole. They also still have all their nukes from the cold war era. a.) Money spent now to save on in the future. This shield can be an investment. b.) When Georgia was invaded, or when Russia cut off their oil pipeline to Europe, I think they did a new survey and found that most. Poland people were for it...Gotta go to work.

[DarkReign]

Russia and China have never agreed on what to do with America in the Cold War, after Vietf*ckingNam. Also Russia isn't powerful right now. But they have a large amount of oil for sale and are making claims for most of the Northpole.

...and pray tell, who is buying all Russia's oil/natural gas?


They also still have all their nukes from the cold war era. a.) Money spent now to save on in the future. This shield can be an investment. b.) When Georgia was invaded, or when Russia cut off their oil pipeline to Europe, I think they did a new survey and found that most. Poland people were for it...Gotta go to work.

So? Poll the French with something like "Would you oppose the United States defending your country and continent as long as they're paying for the entire operation?"

I'd be for it, too. We are not the world's policeman. I only wish this foreign policy shift was the first of many for the US, but sadly, this is just a back-room deal about Iran.

We're members of NATO, we're economic allies to the EU, we're bound by treaty to the protection of Japan and South Korea. Our global interests are obvious and well documented for any and all potential threats.

We're not exactly a hard target or known for appeasement, we dont need to be everywhere for everyone.

Especially Europe. Theyre not still beating crude drawings in cave's are they? Ever looked at what the Earth looks like at night? Europe is by far the Earth's Lightbulb...highly developed...far beyond the US per acre.

Theyre fine...theyre also a giant Alliance. That Alliance is only an economic one, but tell me, is there anything more important?

[LnGrrrR]

a.) Money spent now to save on in the future. This shield can be an investment. b.) When Georgia was invaded, or when Russia cut off their oil pipeline to Europe, I think they did a new survey and found that most. Poland people were for it...Gotta go to work.

Responses:

A) Yes, but it's only an investment for a "What if" scenario in case Russia attacks Europe. Even if Russia were to do so, Europe should be able to take care of it without a large amount of help from us. And also, money spent on this missile system is money not spent somewhere else, where it might be used more effectively.

B) I'd have to see that poll. If so, then we have two conflicting polls, and it's not a positive nor negative.

And no mention of C, so no need to rebut that.

See? If you speak clearly and rationally, I'm more than willing to share a conversation :D

[ChumpDumper]

How will ten anti-ballistic missile missiles stop a land invasion?

[nuclearfm]

eh neoconservatives = scum.

If any of you are so interested in protecting other countries from Russia, move to them and plant your seeds of liberty and defense. After your done, you can finish up the crap you instigated in Iraq.

[Winehole23]

A potpourri (http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/the-fallout-of-a-reversal-on-missile-defense/)of opinions on the shift.

[TDMVPDPOY]

How will ten anti-ballistic missile missiles stop a land invasion?

i find anti or land-2-air missiles are useless, when the other side could j ust spam all its missiles out of desperation, cant stop all....

[Winehole23]

Ideology Over Substance (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/06/22/ideology-over-substance/)


Daniel Larison June 22nd, 2011
[/URL]


(http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=amconmag)[URL="http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/06/22/ideology-over-substance/#"] (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/06/22/ideology-over-substance/#)



Whatever the respect that must be accorded to Putin’s Russia — given that it is vast, nuclear, rich with oil, and still a strategic player — it is hardly a society analogous to the new democracies of Eastern Europe such as Poland or the Czech Republic. But in all discussions about the thorny issues of missile defense, that fundamental fact was lost. It was almost as if Russia’s past anger at the U.S., and Eastern Europe’s support for the Bush administration, earned the one respect from the Obama administration, and the other suspicion. It seems too surreal to even suggest the following, but it is nevertheless likely: The degree to which a nation opposed the United States between 2001 and 2009 now wins it exemption from judgment; the degree to which it once supported us earns it present distrust. ~Victor Davis Hanson (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270192/obama-s-illiberal-foreign-policy-victor-davis-hanson)
Hanson has made some version of this argument for most of the last two years, and it still doesn’t seem to bother him that it is painfully wrong. It was not lost on anyone that Poland and the Czech Republic are democratic members of NATO and Russia is an illiberal authoritarian state. It doesn’t matter to Hanson that the missile threat against which the Polish and Czech installations were supposed to be defending didn’t exist. It doesn’t give him pause that most Poles didn’t want the installation (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/27/the_polish_tiger), or that the Polish government’s decision to accept the arrangement was part of a confrontational foreign policy with its neighbors that the current government has been steadily working to undo. Poland’s relations with its neighbors, including Russia, are much better today than they were in 2008, and the decision not to proceed with the missile defense plan contributed to this desirable outcome.



On top of all of this, the decision removed an unnecessary, pointless provocation, and U.S.-Russian relations have since improved considerably to the benefit of both countries. In addition to being the correct one as far as American interests are concerned, the missile defense decision has so far not had any obviously negative effects on the security or interests of the two allies that the decision supposedly “sold out.” Indeed, far from “selling out” these allies, the decision has allowed them to resume more normal, less antagonistic relations with Russia than would have been possible had the missile defense installation gone ahead as planned. Instead of making them into front-line states that would become the focus of Moscow’s ire, the decision freed them from commitments to a plan that actually made them less secure.



Hanson seems to think that a substantive decision on where or whether to place missile defense installations ought to be driven primarily by the degree of ideological sympathy we have with the governments in the region. Presumably, if Russia were a liberal democratic state and its smaller neighbors to the west were all authoritarian regimes, Hanson would insist that U.S. policy favor Russia regardless of whether that policy serves U.S. interests. Likewise, he seems to judge such decisions not according to whether they enhance or damage U.S. and allied security, but whether they send ideologically appropriate signals of solidarity with other democratic governments. It hardly needs to be said that this way of judging decisions on security policies is absurd.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/06/22/ideology-over-substance/

[ChumpDumper]

It is amazing how far removed from reality your view is of this situation.

spursncowboys: Do you think there exists a real tangible threat of the Russian invasion and occupation of Europe?


They said the same thing about Nazi's, USSR, Iraq after O. Desert Storm.lol Iraq

Miss this guy.

[Winehole23]

When he posted here last he said was in Afghanistan. If he was part of the surge there, maybe he'll be coming back soon.

[coyotes_geek]

snc was always good for sparking a lively conversation. if memory serves, he was going to be going to iraq or afghanistan. can't remember which. i hope the guy is safe and well.

[Winehole23]

However, one has to consider the American military presence in Europe is not exclusively a mean to defend their European allies but also a frontline in America's national defensive system.
The United States has repeatedly shown through flight-testing, exercises, and experiments that missile defense systems can accept, integrate, and fuse data from a wide spectrum of sensor data. It is clear that European capabilities can be leveraged to create a wider and more dense transatlantic web of sensors. Linking them to the US sensor network and missile defense command and control systems would enhance the tracking and discrimination of long-range missiles traversing Europe, from the Middle East to North America, and thereby increase the probability of an intercept. Exploiting this European capability, especially in the mid-Atlantic ocean region, has the potential to enhance the shoot-look-shoot capability of Alaska-based interceptors against incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. This same integration of sensors would also strengthen Europe’s defense against missile attack, including large size missile raids.

Linking these sensors is relatively inexpensive, but does require the political willingness of contributing NATO allies to be a recognized part of NATO’s missile defense network. Yet is that not what NATO is all about: the sharing of risks and burdens to enhance common defense?The United States has repeatedly shown through flight-testing, exercises, and experiments that missile defense systems can accept, integrate, and fuse data from a wide spectrum of sensor data. It is clear that European capabilities can be leveraged to create a wider and more dense transatlantic web of sensors. Linking them to the US sensor network and missile defense command and control systems would enhance the tracking and discrimination of long-range missiles traversing Europe, from the Middle East to North America, and thereby increase the probability of an intercept. Exploiting this European capability, especially in the mid-Atlantic ocean region, has the potential to enhance the shoot-look-shoot capability of Alaska-based interceptors against incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. This same integration of sensors would also strengthen Europe’s defense against missile attack, including large size missile raids.

Linking these sensors is relatively inexpensive, but does require the political willingness of contributing NATO allies to be a recognized part of NATO’s missile defense network. Yet is that not what NATO is all about: the sharing of risks and burdens to enhance common defense?http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2013/10/28/leveraging_europes_potential_for_transatlantic_mis sile_defense_106937.html

[Winehole23]

missile shield in Romania causes Russia to rattle its saber:


A ballistic missile defense shield which the United States has activated in Europe is a step to a new arms race, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday, vowing to adjust budget spending to neutralize "emerging threats" to Russia.The United States switched on the $800 million missile shield at a Soviet-era base in Romania on Thursday saying it was a defense against missiles from Iran and so-called rogue states.


But, speaking to top defense and military industry officials, Putin said the system was aimed at blunting Russia's nuclear arsenal.


"This is not a defense system. This is part of U.S. nuclear strategic potential brought onto a periphery. In this case, Eastern Europe is such periphery," Putin said.


"Until now, those taking such decisions have lived in calm, fairly well-off and in safety. Now, as these elements of ballistic missile defense are deployed, we are forced to think how to neutralize emerging threats to the Russian Federation," he saidhttp://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/05/13/world/europe/13reuters-nato-shield-russia.html?_r=0