US Shelves Europe Missile Plans

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
I’m happy that this occurred. From my understanding, missile defense systems are a waste of money as all they cause is a form of escalation on the other side. The only “defensive” measures we need are good relations with our neighbors and possibly a small number of offensive weapons we can deploy from home.

I do hereby request that I be shot at dawn if ever I get this lost.

Care to explain?

Your utopian fantasy is very loudly scoffed at by the whole of recorded history.[/quote]

Care to back that statement up with some proof?

Wouldn’t you consider the entire arms race of the Cold War and the interactions between Pakistan and India proof that my view point of missile defense against intercontinental threats to be a waste of money?

42

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
I’m happy that this occurred. From my understanding, missile defense systems are a waste of money as all they cause is a form of escalation on the other side. The only “defensive” measures we need are good relations with our neighbors and possibly a small number of offensive weapons we can deploy from home.

I do hereby request that I be shot at dawn if ever I get this lost.

Care to explain?

Just so I can explain my point in case you don’t get to this:

Missile defense systems are a waste of money. The reason being is that once they are built, they put pressure on the other side to develop a system that can penetrate it. This causes two things: 1) Puts two countries in a continual tech race that wastes money 2) Hurts relations considerably.

A better solution in my opinion would be to, first, promote better diplomatic relations with other countries as most problems in the world can be resolved without military action. And second, have a open policy on retaliation if any attacks are conducted against your country (this includes full use of nuclear weapons).

You have to realize that most of this spending on missile defense is a waste of money. It will never be used (against intercontinental weapons) because of the threat of retaliatory strikes.
[/quote]

So just to get this straight, your against anti missle systems but support using nuclear weapons?

43

[quote]tme wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Putin is happy, but is now requesting that Obama eliminate trade barriers between US and Russia.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0xBv8YQwWSZqAQgjd42RCvU1uEAD9APM6E00

Well, that didn’t take long.

Hey, tme, are you paying attention?

Give a putin an inch and he’ll demand a mile.

Keep an eye on the former soviet Republics.

It’s so sad that people don’t read their history.

Sorry, I always forget the “evil empire” bullshit dogma that you still live by. Thought we had moved on to other bad guys that we have to hate and not talk to now. My bad.

[/quote]

russia is reformed. They aren’t “bad guys.”

Signed,

Georgia

44

[quote]Ratchet wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
I’m happy that this occurred. From my understanding, missile defense systems are a waste of money as all they cause is a form of escalation on the other side. The only “defensive” measures we need are good relations with our neighbors and possibly a small number of offensive weapons we can deploy from home.

I do hereby request that I be shot at dawn if ever I get this lost.

Care to explain?

Just so I can explain my point in case you don’t get to this:

Missile defense systems are a waste of money. The reason being is that once they are built, they put pressure on the other side to develop a system that can penetrate it. This causes two things: 1) Puts two countries in a continual tech race that wastes money 2) Hurts relations considerably.

A better solution in my opinion would be to, first, promote better diplomatic relations with other countries as most problems in the world can be resolved without military action. And second, have a open policy on retaliation if any attacks are conducted against your country (this includes full use of nuclear weapons).

You have to realize that most of this spending on missile defense is a waste of money. It will never be used (against intercontinental weapons) because of the threat of retaliatory strikes.

So just to get this straight, your against anti missle systems but support using nuclear weapons? [/quote]

I’m in favor of a small nuclear arsenal for the use as a deterrent for war. I think it’s a highly effective solution. My evidence is that no all out war occurred between the U.S. and Soviet Union during the 50s-90s, and this was not because of missile shields. It was the threat of retaliation. The total amounts of weapons developed during that time was ridiculous though as only a few hundred are necessary for this effect.

45

And Georgia didn’t do something really, really stupid in the hope that The Dick would send in tanks to rescue them.

Saakashvili is lucky he isn’t working in a coal mine in Siberia right now.

So much for Cheney’s weak attempt to rekindle the cold war, though. At least he still has you to carry on the battle cry while he’s busy writing his historical revision.

46

Unless we’re talking Georgia, north of Florida, then who cares?

And, is our foreign policy really based on the idea that whatever might make Putin relieved, we do the opposite? Let the EU worry about it. If they even want to.

47

Yes, obviously the American missile defense system is precisely what has provoked North Korea and Iran to work to develop long-range missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and to work on (and in the case of North Korea, in fact build) nuclear weapons.

If only not for the warmonger chickenhawks who ordered these missile defense systems be built, these countries would never have developed or worked to develop the means to launch a nuclear weapon at the United States.

It is, as always, the fault of America. That is where the evil lies and the problem lies, not with the Iranian subscribers to the Religion of Peace nor with the North Korean peace-loving Communists.

America need only not have such defenses, and then peace will reign.

This is obvious to any non-chickenhawk.

Of course Backinaction is correct. There is no way that an Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il would gamble that Obama doesn’t have the balls to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike.

And anyway, 10 years from now or maybe 20 why don’cha know we’ll have lasers to shoot them down.

And of course the Backinactions and Obamas of that day will like defensive lasers. Why, they’re not “provocative.” Missiles that exist solely for the purpose of stopping offensive launches of nuclear weapons are “provocative,” but lasers for the same purpose, oh they would never be opposed by American leftists. Why, Obama – the man who spends a new trillion at the drop of a hat – has put new billions into laser missile defense, hasn’t he now. Or if not, why, he will do it any day now.

Just any day now. Yes he will, don’cha know.

48

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If only not for the warmonger chickenhawks who ordered these missile defense systems be built, these countries would never have developed or worked to develop the means to launch a nuclear weapon at the United States.[/quote]

I never said the reason why these countries are developing these systems is a response to our missile shield. I was suggesting that missile defense systems worsen tensions with other countries and are a waste of money.

The reason why these two countries are developing these weapon systems is for deterrence reasons against both their neighbors and the U.S. Remember, it wasn’t too long ago that we suggested launching an attack against Iran. Do you blame the Iranians for wanting a system that has the potential to halt or prevent that attack?

49

Of course not!

Why would anyone think that we should have the means of defending ourself against their missiles and nuclear weapons (when developed), or North Korea’s.

And of course it is the fault of not only the United States, but Israel, both of whom need to be deterred from their murderous ways. You could not be more correct. Where do I fault the Iranians above, or say that I blame them? I didn’t and of course neither do you. Their ambitions to develop nuclear weapons and their declared desire to completely destroy Israel by no means make them the cause of efforts to stop their successfully doing any such thing.

The cause is the US, as always. (Plus Israel.) Like you, I certainly don’t blame Ahmadinejad, the ayatollahs or the mullahs, or for that matter Kim Jong Il, whom the United States has provoked so severely and is in such risk of invasion and has such need of nuclear weapons. Just as you do not blame them, but the United States.

50

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
I’m happy that this occurred. From my understanding, missile defense systems are a waste of money as all they cause is a form of escalation on the other side. The only “defensive” measures we need are good relations with our neighbors and possibly a small number of offensive weapons we can deploy from home.

I do hereby request that I be shot at dawn if ever I get this lost.

Care to explain?

Just so I can explain my point in case you don’t get to this:

Missile defense systems are a waste of money. The reason being is that once they are built, they put pressure on the other side to develop a system that can penetrate it. This causes two things: 1) Puts two countries in a continual tech race that wastes money 2) Hurts relations considerably.

A better solution in my opinion would be to, first, promote better diplomatic relations with other countries as most problems in the world can be resolved without military action. And second, have a open policy on retaliation if any attacks are conducted against your country (this includes full use of nuclear weapons).

You have to realize that most of this spending on missile defense is a waste of money. It will never be used (against intercontinental weapons) because of the threat of retaliatory strikes.
[/quote]

Here’s a little tidbit that you will not want to hear. All unconventional weapons systems are funded, developed and deployed exactly so as to never have to use them. Welcome to the big bad world. The idea that major international conflicts can be settled without either one side acquiescing (Obama) or one side winning, (reality) again, flies int he face of the whole of human history and those who delude themselves into believing otherwise are not long for this world. That really REALLY… uuuhhhh… sucks, but like I say welcome to the big bad world.

51

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a little tidbit that you will not want to hear. All unconventional weapons systems are funded, developed and deployed exactly so as to never have to use them. Welcome to the big bad world. The idea that major international conflicts can be settled without either one side acquiescing (Obama) or one side winning, (reality) again, flies int he face of the whole of human history and those who delude themselves into believing otherwise are not long for this world. That really REALLY… uuuhhhh… sucks, but like I say welcome to the big bad world.[/quote]

But a good leftist gets a tingle running up and down his thigh when the US acquiesces, or even from contemplating their hopes that it will happen.

"Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is going to [b]WIN!!![/b]

With tears of joy streaming down their faces at the wonderful thought of it!

Surely you didn’t imagine that American acquiescence would disappoint them?

52

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
I’m happy that this occurred. From my understanding, missile defense systems are a waste of money as all they cause is a form of escalation on the other side. The only “defensive” measures we need are good relations with our neighbors and possibly a small number of offensive weapons we can deploy from home.

I do hereby request that I be shot at dawn if ever I get this lost.

Care to explain?

Just so I can explain my point in case you don’t get to this:

Missile defense systems are a waste of money. The reason being is that once they are built, they put pressure on the other side to develop a system that can penetrate it. This causes two things: 1) Puts two countries in a continual tech race that wastes money 2) Hurts relations considerably.

A better solution in my opinion would be to, first, promote better diplomatic relations with other countries as most problems in the world can be resolved without military action. And second, have a open policy on retaliation if any attacks are conducted against your country (this includes full use of nuclear weapons).

You have to realize that most of this spending on missile defense is a waste of money. It will never be used (against intercontinental weapons) because of the threat of retaliatory strikes.

Here’s a little tidbit that you will not want to hear. All unconventional weapons systems are funded, developed and deployed exactly so as to never have to use them. Welcome to the big bad world. The idea that major international conflicts can be settled without either one side acquiescing (Obama) or one side winning, (reality) again, flies int he face of the whole of human history and those who delude themselves into believing otherwise are not long for this world. That really REALLY… uuuhhhh… sucks, but like I say welcome to the big bad world.[/quote]

Ah, then you agree with me? Why develop a missile defense system to protect against threats that will never be used? :slight_smile:

53

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
<<< Ah, then you agree with me? Why develop a missile defense system to protect against threats that will never be used? :)[/quote]

You’re missing the ugly, but starkly inevitable double edged sword here pal. It has been the case since time immemorial, only technology has raised the stakes exponentially in the last 100 years and you can bet your John Lennon poster the stakes will continue to be raised yet higher.

Where there are even roughly matched and resolved conflicting powers the choice is escalation or defeat. Or a bloodbath. We won the cold war because our way of life, weakened though it is, enabled us to outspend the Soviets. The first party to offer the glorious hand of peace loving friendship in the form of concessions and reducing it’s might will be the first to get it’s ass shot off by one of the other parties not so naive.

See, the difference between myself and some of the other guys here who I may even agree with on many fronts is that I DO NOT believe that any of the other players will leave us alone if we just came home and minded our own business. When you’re on top YOU decide what your business is. That’s the way the world works friend. I like being on top considering the alternatives.

As for cost? We would have enough money to fully fund effective militaries for every one of our major allies and a couple more of our own if we would just quit wasting mountains and mountains of money on social programs that are doing our enemies work for them.

54

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a little tidbit that you will not want to hear. All unconventional weapons systems are funded, developed and deployed exactly so as to never have to use them. Welcome to the big bad world. The idea that major international conflicts can be settled without either one side acquiescing (Obama) or one side winning, (reality) again, flies int he face of the whole of human history and those who delude themselves into believing otherwise are not long for this world. That really REALLY… uuuhhhh… sucks, but like I say welcome to the big bad world.

But a good leftist gets a tingle running up and down his thigh when the US acquiesces, or even from contemplating their hopes that it will happen.

"Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is going to [b]WIN!!![/b]

With tears of joy streaming down their faces at the wonderful thought of it!

Surely you didn’t imagine that American acquiescence would disappoint them?[/quote]

No doubt the authentic Obama camp fits this description, but I gotta say. I don’t sense this guy is there. I think he’s just a naive 100 mile limit dreamer.

55

Their citizens didn’t seem to want to 'em anyways. Case closed.

56

[quote]lixy wrote:

Thank you Americans for putting the warmongers on hold. Thank you Czech people for voicing your discontent. Thank you crisis for shifting priorities.[/quote]

Made a deal with Russia for us to give the ‘green light’ to Israel to attack Iran. Russia will not interfere now. This should happen in early/mid October.

Do not be in any major cities once this commences.

57

[quote]makkun wrote:
Mark that day in the calendar - almost all of us here on PWI, from both (or all four) sides, seem to agree for once that this is rather a good thing. Is there a god after all? :wink:

Makkun

PS: Oh, hi JeffR - haven’t seen you in a long time. Not that I missed you… ;-)[/quote]

Fooled you too; I’m surprised. This was NOT a good thing…now the attack on Iran can commence.

I’m not against that, but it’ll be a half-assed effort. Only a true strike that fire bombs their cities will convince them to stop fucking with the West.

Maniacs are not stopped with a slap on the wrist.

58

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:

Thank you Americans for putting the warmongers on hold. Thank you Czech people for voicing your discontent. Thank you crisis for shifting priorities.

Made a deal with Russia for us to give the ‘green light’ to Israel to attack Iran. Russia will not interfere now. This should happen in early/mid October.

Do not be in any major cities once this commences.

[/quote]

You do love your conspiracies, HH

59

I should be clear that when I write this way, it is never intended to be a representation of any specific person posting. Rather I am presenting the thinking of many that do in fact exist. I don’t know the full philosophy of any given person posting, but have seen the philosophy of many that are out there, and that’s what I refer to.

However, that said, I’d bet that we could not find a single post by those applauding the dismantling of this missile defense where they express disappointment at America not achieving a victory or win, or any at-all fervent hope that America will achieve such. But pleasure at what they perceive as an American failure or backing-down, or pleasure at the dismantling of any effective program, for that there will be no shortage of posts to be found.

And I’ll bet you’d be hard-pressed to find where they have posts blaming international problems or problems of other countries on parties other than the United States, but no difficulty at all finding many where they blame the United States for any trouble found anywhere.

Opposition to defense which actually works, and which other countries with nuclear missiles opposes precisely because they believe it works, is generally a part of all of the above, rather than being an isolated thing.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a little tidbit that you will not want to hear. All unconventional weapons systems are funded, developed and deployed exactly so as to never have to use them. Welcome to the big bad world. The idea that major international conflicts can be settled without either one side acquiescing (Obama) or one side winning, (reality) again, flies int he face of the whole of human history and those who delude themselves into believing otherwise are not long for this world. That really REALLY… uuuhhhh… sucks, but like I say welcome to the big bad world.

But a good leftist gets a tingle running up and down his thigh when the US acquiesces, or even from contemplating their hopes that it will happen.

"Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is going to [b]WIN!!![/b]

With tears of joy streaming down their faces at the wonderful thought of it!

Surely you didn’t imagine that American acquiescence would disappoint them?

No doubt the authentic Obama camp fits this description, but I gotta say. I don’t sense this guy is there. I think he’s just a naive 100 mile limit dreamer.[/quote]

60

I’m surprised the huge cultural gaff committed by this administration slipped under the radar here (and not a word on any network news of course):

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/17/a-missile-diplomacy-timing-disaster/

Of all the days President Obama could have chosen to announce that the United States will abandon its plans for a missile defense site in the Czech Republic and Poland, September 17 was possibly the worst he could have chosen. As any Pole could tell you, this was the date the Soviet army invaded Poland in World War II, after Nazi Germany had launched its assault on the country on September 1. Doesnâ??t anyone at the State Department, the Pentagon or the National Security Council engage in cultural intelligence at all? In addition to the implications for U.S. and European vulnerability to missile attack, from a public diplomacy standpoint, the decision as well as the timing is a disaster.

Regardless of your stance whether this is the right or wrong thing to do, the timing was awful and a true slap in the face of one of our staunchest allies-- it’s still amateur hour in the White House.

I know several Polish families (ie migrated from the Communist Poland) and my cousin does mission work there. Staunch Libertarians (capital and small “L”) all of them. They experienced, first hand, Russian ‘governance’. No love lost there from the Ukranian families, either.