Reply With Quote
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?
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
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
Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian. Heywood Broun
The one sure way to conciliate a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured. Konrad Adenauer
You may gain temporary appeasement by a policy of concession to violence, but you do not gain lasting peace that way. Anthony Eden
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?
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 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?
You're right. The only way to stop the Russians is with a missile defense program (that doesn't work) right on their borders.
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.
Washington Times, via http://www.myantiwar.org/view/187969.htmlThe 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."
I don't give a .
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?
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 ed anyway. The politicians there are just trying to "calm the herd" if you will.
What security comes from being members of NATO and EU?
All members will fight for any other member that is attacked.
That includes two nuclear powers: the USA and France.
Not only guarantee of member support but also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_NA...nd_Herzegovina
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.
I put it to you, spursncowboys: why is it still our responsibility to make sure Europe is secure?
What European countries do you think will counterstrike Russia? For Poland?
All the ones in NATO. What is NATO for?
Why do you think Russia will attack Poland? Seems a bit far fetched to me.
It seems to me the missiles we're sending to Turkey would be strategically better placed to counter Russia's contemporary geopolitical thrust.
As well as the threat from Iran, which was the stated rationale for the missiles we were going to deploy in Poland and Czech.
Are you seriously admitting to us you don't know?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
