TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- So long, European Missile Shield Plan (and f*ck you, Bush)
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby This was the right decision, full stop. If anyone wants to argue the technical merits of this then by all means try me. I am obsessed with anything regarding nuclear weapons, ICBM, and ABM. First please read this article in Newsweek though and come back to me: http://www.newsweek.com/id/215620

This is the correct response.

quote:

Originally posted by Brahman The idea that Iran is considering launching missiles at the NATO alliance is absolutely absurd. That would be national suicide. Like us thinking about preemptively launching missiles at Russia. No way in hell we'r going to do it. There is ZERO need for a missile defense system in eastern Europe. It's bullshit. Is it no wonder Russia is so vehemently against it? They aren't idiots, they know.

That's not the point. Our real allies in NATO and eastern europe feel totally underminded and betrayed. A perfect example is this: when the Czech Republic signed their end of the missle shield deal in July, suddenly their gas supply from Russia got cut 50% over night. Russia can and will exert control over those countries to keep them within their sphere of influence without any balance the U.S. provides them.

quote:

Actually the lesson is Russia won't take it up the ass.

Russia won't take it up the ass? lol... they continue to get what they want and do what they want, with no concessions. Should be a two way street.

quote:

Cuba can do whatever they want in their territorial waters.

You're changing the subject. Someone challenged the fact that Russia is not drilling 45 miles from Cuba, and I provided evidence otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby How come when I am right none of the conservative members of this forum respond. I kick arse.

Some of us don't live in the forum 24/7 man. It takes a few days to go back through and read the posts.... for some of us at least. Anyway, your opinionated rebuttals don't hold a lot of water... when did you become a military expert and nuclear technology savant?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss That's not the point. Our real allies in NATO and eastern europe feel totally underminded and betrayed. A perfect example is this: when the Czech Republic signed their end of the missle shield deal in July, suddenly their gas supply from Russia got cut 50% over night. Russia can and will exert control over those countries to keep them within their sphere of influence without any balance the U.S. provides them.

So you admit this whole "we got to protect Europe against Iran's shitty missiles" is total bullshit? Russia seems justified then in being against it.

quote:

Russia won't take it up the ass? lol... they continue to get what they want and do what they want, with no concessions. Should be a two way street.

So Russia should accept US bases surrounding them along with "missile defense shields" which are blatantly aimed at them. This has nothing to do with Iran.

quote:

You're changing the subject. Someone challenged the fact that Russia is not drilling 45 miles from Cuba, and I provided evidence otherwise.

No I'm not. Your mad that Cuba is hiring Russian companies to drill for oil in their own waters, which is completely within their rights. Are you mad it isn't Exxon Mobil doing it?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Some of us don't live in the forum 24/7 man. It takes a few days to go back through and read the posts.... for some of us at least. Anyway, your opinionated rebuttals don't hold a lot of water... when did you become a military expert and nuclear technology savant?

Since I turned 7 and found out about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and my dad decided that it would be good to sit me down and make me watch The Day After. He thought it would scare me straight, it just made me horribly obsessed.

They are opinionated because it is an opinion, politically at least. From a strategic and logical point of view it is all fact. Aegis and SM-3 works, is deployed, and can be readily expanded. It also suits the current threat more than anything else.

quote:

Originally posted by Brahman So you admit this whole "we got to protect Europe against Iran's shitty missiles" is total bullshit? Russia seems justified then in being against it. So Russia should accept US bases surrounding them along with "missile defense shields" which are blatantly aimed at them. This has nothing to do with Iran.

Read my sig.


You guys aren't looking at the big picture. Obama capitulated to Russia in the same disheartening fashion in which he supported Castro, Chavez, and Ortega in selling out Honduras... stick it to fledgling democricies trying to make it on their own in support of the powers who favor dictatorial power, communism, and oppressive rule. And for what? Do we really want our allies publicly saying the U.S. has sold them to Russia and stabbed them in the back, as Poland did?

If Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, et. al... our allies... are undermined by Obama's desire to prove he's not George Bush, that will only embolden those who, trust me, do NOT have American's interests at heart. You think Russia, China, Iran, etc. are content with sharing influence with America? Russia controls the energy that flows into Eastern Europe... and they have shown with alarming predictibility they aren't afraid to cut them off for their own ends. And why does everyone keep discounting Iran? They just repeated again the other day that Israel's days are numbered. As I said... we have Neville Chamberlin in the white house.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Read my sig. You guys aren't looking at the big picture. Obama capitulated to Russia in the same disheartening fashion in which he supported Castro, Chavez, and Ortega in selling out Honduras... stick it to fledgling democricies trying to make it on their own in support of the powers who favor dictatorial power, communism, and oppressive rule. And for what? Do we really want our allies publicly saying the U.S. has sold them to Russia and stabbed them in the back, as Poland did? If Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, et. al... our allies... are undermined by Obama's desire to prove he's not George Bush, that will only embolden those who, trust me, do NOT have American's interests at heart. You think Russia, China, Iran, etc. are content with sharing influence with America? Russia controls the energy that flows into Eastern Europe... and they have shown with alarming predictibility they aren't afraid to cut them off for their own ends. And why does everyone keep discounting Iran? They just repeated again the other day that Israel's days are numbered. As I said... we have Neville Chamberlin in the white house.

Yea, but a multibillion dollar boondoggle that helps no one is not the way to go supporting them.

I do not get you conservative types, you will be totally willing to spend billions on a foreign countries defense against a former and now semi-dormant foe, but god forbid we spend that money here at home trying to fix health care.

Are your priorities with the people of the US or the Czechs and Poles?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Yea, but a multibillion dollar boondoggle that helps no one is not the way to go supporting them. I do not get you conservative types, you will be totally willing to spend billions on a foreign countries defense against a former and now semi-dormant foe, but god forbid we spend that money here at home trying to fix health care. Are your priorities with the people of the US or the Czechs and Poles?

Is it really that black and white to you? A semi-dormant foe? We are placating Russia at the expense of our allies, bottom line. As long as Russia perceives America as weak, they will continue to exert control over the neighboring countries who have been trying to get out from under their influence for decades. Mark Steyn gives some good perspective on the matter:

quote:

Diplomacy used to be, as Canada's Lester Pearson liked to say, the art of letting the other fellow have your way. Today, it's more of a discreet cover for letting the other fellow have his way with you. The Europeans "negotiate" with Iran over its nukes for years, and, in the end, Iran gets the nukes, and Europe gets to feel good about itself for having sat across the table talking to no good purpose for the best part of a decade. In Moscow, there was a palpable triumphalism in the news that the Russians had succeeded in letting the Obama fellow have their way. "This is a recognition by the Americans of the rightness of our arguments about the reality of the threat or, rather, the lack of one," said Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma's international affairs committee. "Finally the Americans have agreed with us." There'll be a lot more of that in the years ahead. There is no discreetly arranged "Russian concession." Moscow has concluded that a nuclear Iran is in its national interest � especially if the remorseless nuclearization process itself is seen as a testament to Western weakness. Even if the Israelis are driven to bomb the thing to smithereens circa next spring, that, too, would only emphasize, by implicit comparison, American and European pusillanimity. Any private relief felt in the chancelleries of London and Paris would inevitably license a huge amount of public tut-tutting by this or that foreign minister about the Zionist Entity's regrettable "disproportion." The U.S. defense secretary is already on record as opposing an Israeli strike. If it happens, every thug state around the globe will understand the subtext � that, aside from a tiny strip of land on the east bank of the Jordan, every other advanced society on earth is content to depend for its security on the kindness of strangers. The Europe Putin foresees will be one not only ever more energy-dependent on Moscow but security-dependent, too � in which every city is within range of missiles from Tehran and other crazies, and is, in effect, under the security umbrella of the new czar. As to whether such a Continent will be amicable to American interests, well, good luck with that, hopeychangers. In a sense, the health care debate and the foreign policy debacle are two sides of the same coin: For Britain and other great powers, the decision to build a hugely expensive welfare state at home entailed inevitably a long retreat from responsibilities abroad, with a thousand small betrayals of peripheral allies along the way. A few years ago, the great scholar Bernard Lewis warned, during the debate on withdrawal from Iraq, that America risked being seen as "harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend." In Moscow and Tehran, on the one hand, and Warsaw and Prague, on the other, they're drawing their own conclusions.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Is it really that black and white to you? A semi-dormant foe? We are placating Russia at the expense of our allies, bottom line. As long as Russia perceives America as weak, they will continue to exert control over the neighboring countries who have been trying to get out from under their influence for decades. Mark Steyn gives some good perspective on the matter:

I have long argued on this forum that the missile shield Bush wanted to establish in Poland posed absolutely no threat to Russia ... but let me get this straight. Despite the facts on the ground, you want us to spend billions on an ineffective weapons system designed to counter a threat that doesn't exist (ICBMs) and ignores a threat that does exist and is growing (SRBMs and MRBMs) and this ineffective and more costly weapons system will be deployed at a later date than a more effective, proven standard missile 3 system because of marginal geo-political reasons?

A) The US could simply reaffirm article 5 of the NATO treaty which covers Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and the Czech Republic
B) While the US is not sending THAAD interceptors to Poland it is still sending patriot missile batteries administered by US forces
C) Instead of a billion dollar missile boondogle the US could simply establish a base in Poland and accomplish the very same effect

In other words why are you proposing an expensive and retarded military solution to achieve a geo-political solution when any number of alternative and more effective solutions are available to us? Hey, why don't we revive a Reagan-esque star wars ABM system at the cost of TRILLIONS of dollars and base the janitorial staff in Poland not because we actually care about nuclear deterrance but ummm yea so Poland won't get attacked??? FFS no wonder why the GOP is so out of touch with reality. Talk about black and white ... it's like they have no concept of Realpolitik at all.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Read my sig. You guys aren't looking at the big picture. Obama capitulated to Russia in the same disheartening fashion in which he supported Castro, Chavez, and Ortega in selling out Honduras... stick it to fledgling democricies trying to make it on their own in support of the powers who favor dictatorial power, communism, and oppressive rule. And for what? Do we really want our allies publicly saying the U.S. has sold them to Russia and stabbed them in the back, as Poland did? If Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, et. al... our allies... are undermined by Obama's desire to prove he's not George Bush, that will only embolden those who, trust me, do NOT have American's interests at heart. You think Russia, China, Iran, etc. are content with sharing influence with America? Russia controls the energy that flows into Eastern Europe... and they have shown with alarming predictibility they aren't afraid to cut them off for their own ends. And why does everyone keep discounting Iran? They just repeated again the other day that Israel's days are numbered. As I said... we have Neville Chamberlin in the white house.

So you want us to spend billions, (I thought you were against our debt-ridden government), on an ineffective missile system so we can stick it to Russia? Gotta love the Neville Chamberlain (just another way to compare Obama to Hitler) metaphor.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Since I turned 7 and found out about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and my dad decided that it would be good to sit me down and make me watch The Day After.

Good ol' Lawrence, Kansas! Aside of the 'Hawks basketball, that was quite a strange way to put us on the map.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Good ol' Lawrence, Kansas! Aside of the 'Hawks basketball, that was quite a strange way to put us on the map.

Yea...

quote:

Originally posted by Brahman So you want us to spend billions, (I thought you were against our debt-ridden government), on an ineffective missile system so we can stick it to Russia? Gotta love the Neville Chamberlain (just another way to compare Obama to Hitler) metaphor.

Neville Chamberlain = Hitler now for the sake of my comparison? That's weak as fuck. I'm comparing the folly of appeasement to the folly of appeasement... doesn't matter who the dicatatorial character in the story is.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Neville Chamberlain = Hitler now for the sake of my comparison? That's weak as fuck. I'm comparing the folly of appeasement to the folly of appeasement... doesn't matter who the dicatatorial character in the story is.

No, Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler is the comparison. Putin is not Hitler. Admedinijad is not Hitler. Neither country is preparing for world conquest. To say Obama is being a Neville Chamberlain when we are no where close to an imminent world war, or anywhere close to the scenario of 1938 is pretty lame.

quote:

Originally posted by Brahman or Afghanistan..

or Canada ...

...


doh! I mean love Canada we have beavers.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r or Canada...wait what?

LOL - looks like Canadian humour isn't all that original.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Crazy. It's not a coincidence either that Obama made the announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland... he's sending a message that he's so much unlike his predecessor, that he'll capitulate to anyone; by doing so he's letting the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. They must be laughing their asses off in the Kremlin right now. Ukraine, Poland, and other fledgeling eastern european democracies trying to escape Russian influence and control for decades are breathing a little easier today... just kidding. Russia already said they won't vote to sanction Iran, which would be the point of scrapping the sheild for Russia's approval. This just a few days after Iran said, "we won't stop our nuclear program" and France said, "yeah we know they're on schedule to make the bomb... we've known for some time now." Fucking Neville Chamberlain in the White House. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblo...ials_head_t.asp

The missle shiled was a waste of money. The only thing that the Russians were laughing at was the fact that the US was going to poney up and pay for that shit as the country goes bankrupt and the states send out IOUs to thier cops.

If Russia wanted Poland and felt that the world would stand by as it moved in (which would not happen) then the Russians would just roll the tanks in.

The only country that currently wages wars of agression is the US.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Why should we care? In a nutshell, it serves our interests to be on good terms with foreign allies.

You mean like the Russians?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I have long argued on this forum that the missile shield Bush wanted to establish in Poland posed absolutely no threat to Russia ... but let me get this straight.

We can cut the rest of bullshit, because this statement of your is already bogus.

The missle shield is a thread to Russia and power balance in that region.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss That's not the point. Our real allies in NATO and eastern europe feel totally underminded and betrayed. A perfect example is this: when the Czech Republic signed their end of the missle shield deal in July, suddenly their gas supply from Russia got cut 50% over night. Russia can and will exert control over those countries to keep them within their sphere of influence without any balance the U.S. provides them.

What the gas supply has to do with a missle shield which was a direct threat to Russia?

What Gazprom should have done if Ukraine was stealing european gas on it's territory? Pump it at 150% rate?
The days of planned-economy are over boy, you don't pay, go into a wonderful world of f-word.


Who cares about those puddle-like nations anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by otec We can cut the rest of bullshit, because this statement of your is already bogus. The missle shield is a thread to Russia and power balance in that region.

No. It wasn't. Russia played smart and bitched that it was when really they just didn't like the idea of more western influence in their former satellite states.

The missile shield was never a threat to the Russian who could have easily overwhelmed the system. No missile shield could withstand a motivated and dedicated assault by the Russians.

quote:

Originally posted by otec We can cut the rest of bullshit, because this statement of your is already bogus. The missle shield is a thread to Russia and power balance in that region.

Thanks for your tremendous insight. Feel free to respond to any of the arguments I made in this thread:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=2

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Thanks for your tremendous insight. Feel free to respond to any of the arguments I made in this thread: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=2

Stephen Walt, Realist:

quote:

Just when you think the wingnuts are taking over the asylum, something happens to restore one's faith in rational analysis. Here are one and a half items that offered me some solace. The half-full glass is the Obama administration's decision to replace the planned deployment of missile defenses in Eastern Europe with "a reconfigured system aimed more at intercepting short- and medium-range Iranian missiles." The original scheme was always a pretty silly idea, insofar as it was allegedly supposed to protect Europe from a presently non-existent "Iranian threat." If Iran ever did get nuclear weapons and missiles with sufficient range, why would they aim them at Poland or Czechoslovakia or other European targets? Plus, if those dastardly Iranians could develop a missile and warhead to do that, they could undoubtedly find some way to sneak a nuclear device (i.e., one small enough to fit on a missile) into Europe via clandestine means, thereby negating any benefit we might derive from being able to knock down a few incoming ballistic missiles. Spending billions on that task always struck me as like spending thousands on a sophisticated burglar alarm while leaving your doors and windows unlocked. We had this program because missile defenses have been a sacred cause for the GOP ever since Reagan launched the old "Strategic Defense Initiative." Because building effective missile defenses is hard, expensive, and potentially open-ended, it is an appealing full-employment policy for government weapons labs and certain sectors in the U.S. defense industry. These corporations are happy to take some of their profits and give it to think tanks and lobbyists who will push the idea to the public and to Congress. There are also some diehards who saw deployments in Eastern Europe as a way to stick a thumb in Moscow's eye, ignoring the fact that Putin & Co. could and would cause trouble for us if we did. And of course our Eastern Europe allies liked it, less because they were worried about Iran than because they saw it as a way to strengthen overall ties with Washington. To be sure, Obama has bowed to these political realities and sought to preempt criticism, reiterating that there's still an Iranian threat and that he's merely decided to replace the original system with one based on different architecture. Secretary of Defense Gates and the JCS have backed him up, the former remarking that "those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing." So this glass is only half-full. But I'm going to hope that this decision is the first step towards abandoning the whole idea, so that we can spend those billions on weapons we might actually need. Which brings me to Item No. 2: Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak's declaration that Iran is not in fact an "existential threat" to Israel. He's right, and he deserves praise for saying so forthrightly. Iran remains an obvious national security problem for Israel for a number of reasons, but the frankly hysterical talk about "existential threats" was becoming counterproductive, unless your aim is to persuade people that war is necessary and that it will make everything better. Exaggerating the potential impact of an Iranian bomb may have been more dangerous than the capability itself would be, especially if it began to convince worried Israelis it was time to emigrate or led Iran's leaders to mistakenly think that getting a weapon would suddenly give them a lot of additional influence or leverage. So kudos to Barak for reminding us that Israel is strong and offering a saner perspective. These two moments of sanity reinforce each other, of course. If a future Iranian nuclear weapon isn't an existential threat to Israel then it isn't a politically meaningful threat to anyone, save countries that might be tempted to conquer Iran at some point in the future. So if Barak is right (and I obviously think he is), then the case for missile defense deployments in Eastern Europe is weaker than Obama is admitting.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.