I didn't say there was nothing to stop Iran. SO is that the great idea-give them money?Really. We sell out our allies to Russia to do something we can do without them.
You have yet to lay out any options. Aside from military intervention, what can we do?
That's not the option.SO is that the great idea-give them money?
We can do it without Russia? 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.I didn't say there was nothing to stop Iran. SO is that the great idea-give them money?
Like what?Really?I, like almost everyone else not drinking Obama's koolaid, think Russia will invade Poland.
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.
like I said, a clown.
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.
Do you even understand what politics are? Honestly? Do you realize that sometimes, just sometimes, America may have to give up something?
Apart from developing massive instantaneous transportation technology, I don't see how it could happen. Any country develop teleporters yet?
It is amazing how far removed from reality your view is of this situation.I didn't say there was nothing to stop Iran. SO is that the great idea-give them money?
spursncowboys: Do you think there exists a real tangible threat of the Russian invasion and occupation of Europe?
US under neo-c*nts becoming more like France.
Missile defense ANYWHERE is USA's Maginot Line.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-21-2009 at 08:39 AM.
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 , 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 cir stance 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.
Iraq invaded Europe? They're stronger than I thought.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.We let Saddam keep Iraq and thought he would not violate 12 UN resolutions and not try to ethnically cleanse the Kurds.
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."sticking our nose where it doesn't belong"- In what instance in the past 70 years was the US involvement justified to you.
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.
...and pray tell, who is buying all Russia's oil/natural gas?
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?"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.
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 do ented 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?
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
How will ten anti-ballistic missile missiles stop a land invasion?
eh neoconservatives = s .
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.
A potpourri of opinions on the shift.
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....
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011...ver-substance/Ideology Over Substance
Daniel Larison June 22nd, 2011
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 su ion. 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 HansonHanson 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, 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote