US Shelves Europe Missile Plans

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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]

That’s cool. Understood.

And you’re probably right that for some insane reason (school?) there are a significant number of citizens of this country who have no idea how good they have had it. Once we’ve succeeded in destroying ourselves and the Orion’s and Lixy’s of the world get a taste of the alternatives, they too will then see how good they also have had it.

62

Also this comes AFTER he cuts funding to aircraft based laser defense systems(which could protect the ENTIRE US and all aircraft in and outside the US from any missle strike):

63

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
<<< 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. >>>[/quote]

Krauthammer was talking about this and how we have dumped a bucket of shit over the heads of some of our most loyal friends, especially in eastern Europe. Isn’t it interesting how quick some people are to snuggle with our enemies and think nothing of kicking our allies in the nuts.

64

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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.[/quote]

That is an absurd claim. Self defense is important for sure. But I do not defend myself by setting up a cannon near where my enemies might live.

65

[quote]Tirivialus wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
<<< 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. >>>

Krauthammer was talking about this and how we have dumped a bucket of shit over the heads of some of our most loyal friends, especially in eastern Europe. Isn’t it interesting how quick some people are to snuggle with our enemies and think nothing of kicking our allies in the nuts.[/quote]

Krauthammer was also 100% absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD and conspired with AQ on the 9/11 attacks, and he was wrong then too.

It would be hard to find a source whose opinion on anything matters less than your own, but congrats, you did it!

66

Why, you are right. A missile interception system that can do nothing but intercept offensive missiles is just LIKE a cannon at the enemy’s border. What a terrible threat to them, that we could destroy their missiles after they launch them at our friends or ourselves! We should not do that. Their missiles had better be able to land and harm us or our friends. Only when that is the case will we have true peace.

And needless to say, opposing nations such as Iran or North Korea are not the problem. They are entitled of course! We should not set ourselves up to stop their weapons. That would be provocative.

It is just as during the Reagan years. There was nothing wrong with the Soviets bringing their theater nuclear-tipped missiles into East Germany. Peace protesters were never bothered by that. The Soviets were not the danger. They were entitled. But Reagan bringing in American short-range nuclear missiles into West Germany in response: why, Reagan will destroy us all! He was a madman. We are truly lucky to have survived Reagan, who was perhaps the greatest threat to peace of all time.

He was the problem. Not, of course, the Soviets.

Just as America was the problem here, but fortunately we have Obama, not Reagan. Lessening preparedness for war or attack is the best way to lessen the risk of it. Dismantling missile defense lets us all breathe easier.

67

[quote]tme wrote:
Tirivialus wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
<<< 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. >>>

Krauthammer was talking about this and how we have dumped a bucket of shit over the heads of some of our most loyal friends, especially in eastern Europe. Isn’t it interesting how quick some people are to snuggle with our enemies and think nothing of kicking our allies in the nuts.

Krauthammer was also 100% absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD and conspired with AQ on the 9/11 attacks, and he was wrong then too.

It would be hard to find a source whose opinion on anything matters less than your own, but congrats, you did it!
[/quote]

As usual you are floating out there somewhere other than here where the world happens. I am not going to rehash the weapons program being funded from oil for food or the collective intelligence of all of our international allies for instance again. All been done a million times, but a person would have to be susceptible to facts for that to matter.

68

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
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):

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.[/quote]

Good point. As with Bush, we have people so incredibly stupid that one would think that they are evil by intent. Either they are purely stupid or purely evil.

Israel is our first priority. That makes me think that we made the trade I described above.

69

.

70

OH NOES!!! Deescalation!!! This is a disaster! What next? Nuclear disarmament?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090919/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_missile_defense

Someone has to stop this bastard before peace happens!

71

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why, you are right. A missile interception system that can do nothing but intercept offensive missiles is just LIKE a cannon at the enemy’s border. What a terrible threat to them, that we could destroy their missiles after they launch them at our friends or ourselves! We should not do that. Their missiles had better be able to land and harm us or our friends. Only when that is the case will we have true peace.

And needless to say, opposing nations such as Iran or North Korea are not the problem. They are entitled of course! We should not set ourselves up to stop their weapons. That would be provocative.

It is just as during the Reagan years. There was nothing wrong with the Soviets bringing their theater nuclear-tipped missiles into East Germany. Peace protesters were never bothered by that. The Soviets were not the danger. They were entitled. But Reagan bringing in American short-range nuclear missiles into West Germany in response: why, Reagan will destroy us all! He was a madman. We are truly lucky to have survived Reagan, who was perhaps the greatest threat to peace of all time.

He was the problem. Not, of course, the Soviets.

Just as America was the problem here, but fortunately we have Obama, not Reagan. Lessening preparedness for war or attack is the best way to lessen the risk of it. Dismantling missile defense lets us all breathe easier.[/quote]

…i can remember my parents talking about this when i was a kid, and one thing i didn’t really understand at the time was my dad saying, “We’re a bufferzone!”. Ofcourse he meant that if shit went down, it would come down on us, hard. So it may have been the first line of defense for you guys, but it meant a blinding white light and death for us…

72

[quote]tme wrote:
OH NOES!!! Deescalation!!! This is a disaster! What next? Nuclear disarmament?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090919/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_missile_defense

MOSCOW â?? Russia said Saturday it will scrap a plan to deploy missiles near Poland since Washington has dumped a planned missile shield in Eastern Europe.

Someone has to stop this bastard before peace happens![/quote]

We’ll see

73

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why, you are right. A missile interception system that can do nothing but intercept offensive missiles is just LIKE a cannon at the enemy’s border. What a terrible threat to them, that we could destroy their missiles after they launch them at our friends or ourselves! We should not do that. Their missiles had better be able to land and harm us or our friends. Only when that is the case will we have true peace.

And needless to say, opposing nations such as Iran or North Korea are not the problem. They are entitled of course! We should not set ourselves up to stop their weapons. That would be provocative.

It is just as during the Reagan years. There was nothing wrong with the Soviets bringing their theater nuclear-tipped missiles into East Germany. Peace protesters were never bothered by that. The Soviets were not the danger. They were entitled. But Reagan bringing in American short-range nuclear missiles into West Germany in response: why, Reagan will destroy us all! He was a madman. We are truly lucky to have survived Reagan, who was perhaps the greatest threat to peace of all time.

He was the problem. Not, of course, the Soviets.

Just as America was the problem here, but fortunately we have Obama, not Reagan. Lessening preparedness for war or attack is the best way to lessen the risk of it. Dismantling missile defense lets us all breathe easier.[/quote]

Doesn’t matter what the instrument is. Only where it is.

74

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Why, you are right. A missile interception system that can do nothing but intercept offensive missiles is just LIKE a cannon at the enemy’s border. What a terrible threat to them, that we could destroy their missiles after they launch them at our friends or ourselves! We should not do that. Their missiles had better be able to land and harm us or our friends. Only when that is the case will we have true peace.

And needless to say, opposing nations such as Iran or North Korea are not the problem. They are entitled of course! We should not set ourselves up to stop their weapons. That would be provocative.

It is just as during the Reagan years. There was nothing wrong with the Soviets bringing their theater nuclear-tipped missiles into East Germany. Peace protesters were never bothered by that. The Soviets were not the danger. They were entitled. But Reagan bringing in American short-range nuclear missiles into West Germany in response: why, Reagan will destroy us all! He was a madman. We are truly lucky to have survived Reagan, who was perhaps the greatest threat to peace of all time.

He was the problem. Not, of course, the Soviets.

Just as America was the problem here, but fortunately we have Obama, not Reagan. Lessening preparedness for war or attack is the best way to lessen the risk of it. Dismantling missile defense lets us all breathe easier.

…i can remember my parents talking about this when i was a kid, and one thing i didn’t really understand at the time was my dad saying, “We’re a bufferzone!”. Ofcourse he meant that if shit went down, it would come down on us, hard. So it may have been the first line of defense for you guys, but it meant a blinding white light and death for us…

[/quote]

No. It was not that the Soviets had to go through you to attack us.

It was us protecting you from Communist rule.

Which you would be under today if not for the United States of America.

Yet the fear of blinding white light and death of so many of your countrymen was not from the Soviets bringing SS-20 nuclear missiles into East Germany, for the sole purpose of targeting Western Europe with atomic weapons – while simultaneously having vast numerical superiority in conventional weaponry and troops, exceedingly far beyond any defense needs – but the fear was from, of course, the US bringing in Pershing II’s to deter Soviet attack.

The Soviets were not the threat, the cause of fear, or the provocateurs to those of a given stripe, but the Americans.

And this pattern of “thought” continues to this day.

I of course have no way of knowing if your parents thought this way, as the “peace protesters” did, or whether they recognized that the real threat to peace was the Soviets, and had America not acted, you would have been subjugated just as Eastern Europe was. I hope it was the latter.

75

it’s the same syndrome that induces people to hate that kid in school that’s good at everything.

76

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Why, you are right. A missile interception system that can do nothing but intercept offensive missiles is just LIKE a cannon at the enemy’s border. What a terrible threat to them, that we could destroy their missiles after they launch them at our friends or ourselves! We should not do that. Their missiles had better be able to land and harm us or our friends. Only when that is the case will we have true peace.

And needless to say, opposing nations such as Iran or North Korea are not the problem. They are entitled of course! We should not set ourselves up to stop their weapons. That would be provocative.

It is just as during the Reagan years. There was nothing wrong with the Soviets bringing their theater nuclear-tipped missiles into East Germany. Peace protesters were never bothered by that. The Soviets were not the danger. They were entitled. But Reagan bringing in American short-range nuclear missiles into West Germany in response: why, Reagan will destroy us all! He was a madman. We are truly lucky to have survived Reagan, who was perhaps the greatest threat to peace of all time.

He was the problem. Not, of course, the Soviets.

Just as America was the problem here, but fortunately we have Obama, not Reagan. Lessening preparedness for war or attack is the best way to lessen the risk of it. Dismantling missile defense lets us all breathe easier.

…i can remember my parents talking about this when i was a kid, and one thing i didn’t really understand at the time was my dad saying, “We’re a bufferzone!”. Ofcourse he meant that if shit went down, it would come down on us, hard. So it may have been the first line of defense for you guys, but it meant a blinding white light and death for us…
[/quote]

Ah, the good old times.

50 km from the Iron curtain, surrounded by Warshaw Pact and Nato states and all with invasion plans in case it all went down.

Hurray for buffer zones!

77

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
it’s the same syndrome that induces people to hate that kid in school that’s good at everything.[/quote]

Nobody hates Switzerland so what is your point?

78

[quote]orion wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
it’s the same syndrome that induces people to hate that kid in school that’s good at everything.

Nobody hates Switzerland so what is your point?

[/quote]

Switzerland?

79

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
it’s the same syndrome that induces people to hate that kid in school that’s good at everything.[/quote]

I should read the book in which a psychiatrist devotes the entire content to the mental disorder in question.

Not having read it, and not being able to at-all fully puzzle it out myself though I have observed the constellation of symptoms many times, I can’t give a satisfactory explanation as to where it really derives from and what it is most similar to.

But I don’t think it is at all the same as jealousy. Not even related. (Not that there aren’t other international issues where that does play a factor.)

Rather it is related to – I believe it is part of the same disorder – where people of a given stripe empathize much more with a murderer and are far more concerned with finding excuses for his punishment to be light or entirely escaped, or that he have one hundred channels of cable TV while imprisoned, or are in such horror of a murderous terrorist having the slightest thing done to him, than they are for justice, for the past victims, or for future victims.

Replace the murderer with the Soviets, and likewise those having this disorder will sympathize with the Soviets and find objection to every method of containing them. (This of course is in reference to when the Soviet Union existed.)

Not jealousy.

80

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
it’s the same syndrome that induces people to hate that kid in school that’s good at everything.

Nobody hates Switzerland so what is your point?

Switzerland? [/quote]

The kid at school thats good at everything?

Low taxes, small political units, armed to the teeth, no wars since Napoleon, discreet banks, beer, chocolate and cuckoo clocks!