US Shelves Europe Missile Plans

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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 of this disordered mindset 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.

[/quote]

Stockholm syndrome and better to identify with the aggressor than admit to also being his victim.

Interestingly enough I think that that describes a lot of Americans relationship to their federal government quite well.

82

I agree. Well put, and great point, the latter of which I’d never considered.

83

"The possibility of a U-turn will come as a huge relief to Western diplomats who had largely given up on Russia supporting them. Trade sanctions against Iran would need the support of all five permanent members of the UN Security Council â?? the US, Britain, China, France and Russia. If Russia joined the Western nations, Beijing would be expected to drop its objections.

Reaching an international consensus on Iran is seen by many as the only way to force the regime into serious negotiations and avoid the threat of a unilateral military strike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities before the country can build its first atomic bomb.

Mr Medvedev appeared relaxed and more confident about his leadership when he met journalists and academics of the Valdai Discussion Club at the GUM department store in Moscow next to the Kremlin."

This is international language for: ‘You may now do what you want without interference from us.’

October.

84

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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…

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.[/quote]

I do not think that you quite get the feeling of that area.

We knew that if a war broke out we were fucked.

People in the US and SU were relatively safe compared to us because we would be gone in an instant.

We did not really care who started it, we wanted the sword that dangled above us to be gone and every escalation, no matter from what side, was very unwelcome.

You might be able to think that in terms of party politics, for us it was “when one of them loses it it is all over”.

And, as we know now we came close to it a few times just because some birds shat on a radar.

Well, not exactly but more or less.

It is like someone pointing a gun to your head while announcing that he really only has the best of intentions.

85

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ephrem wrote:…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…

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.[/quote]

…i’m not going to defend or attack anyone or anything in this post, but let’s look at history from above and from both sides for a moment. For instance, i never knew the Marshall-plan was designed to rebuild wester-European nations as quickly as possible, more or less as a form of a bribe, and to tie those nations to the USA to form the Western block…

…honestly, this wasn’t based on altruistic motives Bill, surely you realise that. I also think that, if given the chance, Russia would have marched on in an attempt to seize as much of Germany as possible, but let’s pause here for a moment. In those last days of the war, either side suffered from fatigue and were glad it ended. Western-Europe would’ve been out of Russia’s reach anyway…

…virtually all the countries that formed the Eastern block bordered on Russia, and when the cold war really took off placing nuclear missiles on both sides were just moves on a grand chess board, not protection against the Red scourge…

…we will never know what would’ve happened if those missiles weren’t stationed in Europe. A few years later Gorbatsjov was instated, and as they say, the rest is history…

86

Europeans have long been ingrates and so nothing is new here. I did not remotely expect recognition of what the United States of America has done for you, or of what you have been saved from by us, or the reality of where the aggression came from.

It doesn’t surprise me that a European would fantasize that Gorbachev would have dismantled the Soviet Union if Reagan had not done as he had, if instead the US had, both then and in previous decades, exhibited European-style lack of backbone and failure to do more than even a pittance to defend even their own freedom let alone that of others.

Other than the British, who of course aren’t European, the idea of NATO as real allies is a joke. They took but contributed hardly significantly themselves to their own defense. And to this day, the same “philosophy” is widely maintained: hence, opposition to missile defense as one example.

Those I am speaking of are much more bothered by American missile defense – that can do nothing but and have no purpose but to stop offensive nuclear missiles aimed at you or us – than they are by the nuclear missiles. Stop and think about how bizarre that is. This is mental derangement.

87

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Europeans have long been ingrates and so nothing is new here. I did not remotely expect recognition of what the United States of America has done for you, or of what you have been saved from by us, or the reality of where the aggression came from.

It doesn’t surprise me that a European would fantasize that Gorbachev would have dismantled the Soviet Union if Reagan had not done as he had, if instead the US had, both then and in previous decades, exhibited European-style lack of backbone and failure to do more than even a pittance to defend even their own freedom let alone that of others.

Other than the British, who of course aren’t European, the idea of NATO as real allies is a joke. They took but contributed hardly significantly themselves to their own defense. And to this day, the same “philosophy” is widely maintained: hence, opposition to missile defense as one example.

Those I am speaking of are much more bothered by American missile defense – that can do nothing but and have no purpose but to stop offensive nuclear missiles aimed at you or us – than they are by the nuclear missiles. Stop and think about how bizarre that is. This is mental derangement.[/quote]

…in many cases the USA has been the agressor Bill, and all they’ve done, no matter what good came out of it, it was done out of self preservation. I can’t fault the US for that, and i don’t because as a result of that we’re a free nation. But that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye and believe that what the USA does is for the best of this planet. What the USA does is for the best of the USA.

88

It’s too bad you can’t spend one week living in an alternate reality where the US went isolationist and you got to enjoy the life under Communism you absolutely would be living without us.

I would not wish on you to permanently live under that despite your attitudes, and those of it seems most of your countrymen and fellow Europeans, could arguably have you all deserving it, but for the fact that no one deserves to live under that.

But if only you could live under the alternate reality with the sort of America that you think should be, you’d learn a lot, I believe.

Any idea that but for the United States, the Soviets wouldn’t have ruled you is just utterly unrealistic.

And any idea that, well, maybe they might have rolled over you and oppressed you the same as they did with Eastern Europe, but by your day, Gorbachev would have just sweetly given you freedom is pretty deluded as well.

But what can we expect when America has liberated very, very many tens of millions of people from the most severe oppression, and has never oppressed any nation (except to the deranged who wish to claim that exchanging hundreds of billions of dollars for, for example, their oil in a market exchange constitutes “oppressing” them), but the only nation you call an aggressor is America.

While somehow not referring to a nation that oppressed hundreds of millions – as well as killed 50 million plus of their own people for political reasons – as being an aggressor. (“Well, they may have treated their own people that way, and they may have ground the Eastern European peoples under an iron fist, but surely they would have treated our people sweetly, don’cha know.”)

Try to imagine what your life would be like without America. But perhaps that creates a cognitive dissonance out of not wanting to recognize the reality of whether your freedom was earned by your people, or made possible at enormous cost over many decades to America, with your nations never shouldering your share. I suppose it is psychologically preferable to imagine that the defense was unnecessary and the Soviets were really your friends and in fact America was the problem and the aggressor.

89

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s too bad you can’t spend one week living in an alternate reality where the US went isolationist and you got to enjoy the life under Communism you absolutely would be living without us.

I would not wish on you to permanently live under that despite your attitudes, and those of it seems most of your countrymen and fellow Europeans, could arguably have you all deserving it, but for the fact that no one deserves to live under that.

But if only you could live under the alternate reality with the sort of America that you think should be, you’d learn a lot, I believe.

Any idea that but for the United States, the Soviets would have ruled you is just utterly unrealistic.

And any idea that, well, maybe they might have rolled over you and oppressed you the same as they did with Eastern Europe, but by your day, Gorbachev would have just sweetly given you freedom is pretty deluded as well.[/quote]

…whatever Bill, we’ll never know, so let’s leave it at that…

90

Gentleman the issue was never placing missiles in Europe to shoot at the Russians. The issue was Pershing 2 missiles that were accurate enough to hit Russian command and control centers. Once that goal was realized it was game over for the leadership. The entire “no nukes” movement was driven by the Soviets as an attempt to avert disaster.

By the mid 80’s the Russians would also have lost a conventional war that didn’t go nuclear. US ground forces were reinforced with effective armor and leadership as well as air to ground capability that would have ground the Russians to dust much as they did the Iraqi army a few years later.

Europe was more of a prize for the Russians. The prize came at an expensive price however and the US never reduced that price and the Russians were never willing to pay it. For me I was most worried when things started to unravel. I never thought they would go quietly, expected them to make a lot more noise…glad they didn’t.

91

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

While somehow not referring to a nation that oppressed hundreds of millions – as well as killed 50 million plus of their own people for political reasons – as being an aggressor. (“Well, they may have treated their own people that way, and they may have ground the Eastern European peoples under an iron fist, but surely they would have treated our people sweetly, don’cha know.”)
[/quote]

There were admittedly quite a lot of those.

But there were others that looked sycophantically up to the US.

Most of is just did not want any of it. We really had no intention of dying as pawns in a global game.

We basically just wanted you and the Russians gone out off Europe and if you had to off each other we would have preferred if you nuked just yourselves.

92

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s too bad you can’t spend one week living in an alternate reality where the US went isolationist and you got to enjoy the life under Communism you absolutely would be living without us.

I would not wish on you to permanently live under that despite your attitudes, and those of it seems most of your countrymen and fellow Europeans, could arguably have you all deserving it, but for the fact that no one deserves to live under that.

But if only you could live under the alternate reality with the sort of America that you think should be, you’d learn a lot, I believe.

Any idea that but for the United States, the Soviets would have ruled you is just utterly unrealistic.

And any idea that, well, maybe they might have rolled over you and oppressed you the same as they did with Eastern Europe, but by your day, Gorbachev would have just sweetly given you freedom is pretty deluded as well.

…whatever Bill, we’ll never know, so let’s leave it at that…
[/quote]

That’s it huh?

To carry this thought a bit further, it’s too bad we couldn’t have an accurate, “It’s a Wonderful Life” style movie where the world got to see 2009 after a 20th century without the the United States.

There’s a good chance none of us would even know each other on these forums to argue about any of this because who knows if the technology would have been there and even if it was, it’s doubtful the “workers” would have meaningful access to it.

Hell, in a 20th century minus the US who knows if any of us would have even been born or if born, lived past infancy?

EVERY nation works in it’s own best interest. that’s how the world is. However with us, we have managed to do a lot of good for a lot of other peoples in the process. Some got screwed. That’s also how the world works. Unlike any other nation in history, we have made a concerted effort where possible to keep the scales tipped for the good.

For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over our involvement in Vietnam for instance, we were barely off the planes while the communists moved in to slaughter 2 million people, but we were the evil party there as well. Where was the outrage for that? Again, as an example.

93

[quote]orion wrote:
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?

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!

[/quote]

And an absolutely inert spot on the map. You kid is one nobody notices. The kid I was talking about is the academic, athletic and social champion.

94

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
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?

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!

And an absolutely inert spot on the map. You kid is one nobody notices. The kid I was talking about is the academic, athletic and social champion.[/quote]

…quite an astute observation there Trib. The US is the jock, the teamcaptain, the valedictorian and the most popular kid in school. Twenty years later he’s Al Bundy…

95

[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.
[/quote]

If you two have missiles pointed at each other and install a defense system it changes the balance of power and Russia must react because it makes an attack more likely.

96

Yes, it would never do for 40 of Russia’s nuclear missiles to be unable to deliver their nuclear weapons and fail in killing all the people they targeted. Very aggressive and provocative of America to have a system to defend against an Iranian missile or the first small percent of Russian missiles. You’re right, naturally, and have correctly identified the threat: America, as usual.

Same as how we are to blame for World Wars I and II, as you have so frequently informed us, from Austria.

Your concerns are well-placed in being so concerned about how this is onerous on Russia and threatening to them.

97

[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

While somehow not referring to a nation that oppressed hundreds of millions – as well as killed 50 million plus of their own people for political reasons – as being an aggressor. (“Well, they may have treated their own people that way, and they may have ground the Eastern European peoples under an iron fist, but surely they would have treated our people sweetly, don’cha know.”)

There were admittedly quite a lot of those.

But there were others that looked sycophantically up to the US.

Most of is just did not want any of it. We really had no intention of dying as pawns in a global game.

We basically just wanted you and the Russians gone out off Europe and if you had to off each other we would have preferred if you nuked just yourselves.
[/quote]

If the Europeans could have handled their problems internally we wouldn’t have had to save you…twice…and then hold your hands for 60 years so the big old Russian bear didn’t eat you.

Let’s not forget who put the Soviets in power to hurt the Russian war effort in WW1.

98

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes, it would never do for 40 of Russia’s nuclear missiles to be unable to deliver their nuclear weapons and fail in killing all the people they targeted. Very aggressive and provocative of America to have a system to defend against an Iranian missile or the first small percent of Russian missiles. You’re right, naturally, and have correctly identified the threat: America, as usual.

Same as how we are to blame for World Wars I and II, as you have so frequently informed us, from Austria.

Your concerns are well-placed in being so concerned about how this is onerous on Russia and threatening to them.[/quote]

You installing a defensive system shifts the existing balance and requires a reaction, period.

You can call that anything you like, Russia must and will react when it happens on her doorstep.

Or do you really feel that their version of the Pentagon is convinced by “oh, if its just defensive its alright then?”.

You know other people have armies with professional paranoids too!

99

[quote]hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

While somehow not referring to a nation that oppressed hundreds of millions – as well as killed 50 million plus of their own people for political reasons – as being an aggressor. (“Well, they may have treated their own people that way, and they may have ground the Eastern European peoples under an iron fist, but surely they would have treated our people sweetly, don’cha know.”)

There were admittedly quite a lot of those.

But there were others that looked sycophantically up to the US.

Most of is just did not want any of it. We really had no intention of dying as pawns in a global game.

We basically just wanted you and the Russians gone out off Europe and if you had to off each other we would have preferred if you nuked just yourselves.

If the Europeans could have handled their problems internally we wouldn’t have had to save you…twice…and then hold your hands for 60 years so the big old Russian bear didn’t eat you.

Let’s not forget who put the Soviets in power to hurt the Russian war effort in WW1.[/quote]

Well you “saved” “us” only once, the first time neither Germany nor Austria needed any “saving”.

Do you know who was able to accept Mussolinis resignation?

Italy’s KING.

Do you know who was still around to be a center of resistance to Hitler after the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollern were removed because the world was made save for democracy?

No one.

Do you also know who or what was made save for democracy?

Certainly not Germany, Austria, the Germans in Czecho-Slovakia that outnumbered the Slovaks, the colonies of England, France and the US and the UK remained of course a Monarchy.

So basically you laid the groundwork for Hitlers rise to power, removed the Monarchs who could have stopped him and all in the name of spreading democracy that was then denied pretty much every time it conflicted with British or French interests.

Thanks for your help!

100

Justify Hitler any way you want.

If it makes you sleep better.