Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Obama White House is already back peddling from this - though the "new" plan remains a wimp out by this president, and the back peddling just more evidence of his inability to understand the complexities of American's international role. It appears this president has absolutely no real historical context.
And while the arguements in favor of the mobile defense system the White House is now appearing to advocate, there is no reason not to employ both systems. Well, no reason beyond Obama pissing all over himself over Russia's strong "NYET!" regarding the system American promised Europe would be put into place.
Indeed...
Dismay in Europe as Obama ditches missile defence - Times Online
This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence," said Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech Prime Minister. "It puts us in a position where we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that’s a certain threat."
Russia's Foreign Ministry said that it welcomed reports of the US decision but would wait for official confirmation before making a detailed response. A spokesman said: "Such a development would be in line with the interests of our relations with the United States."
This will be a bitter disappointment, indeed, even a warning to the people of Eastern Europe," said Mr Kyl, who pointed out that both Poland and the Czech Republic had sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. "Today the Administration has turned its back on these allies."
Mirek Topolanek, the former prime minister who negotiated the treaty with the Bush administration, said the announcement was proof that the United States under President Obama had lost interest in Central Europe.
"It puts us in a position that we in Central Europe have known for the last 100 years: we're not anchored by a strong security partner, a strong ally," said Mr Topolanek, leader of the centre-right Civic Democrats. "I see that as a threat."
On the left, Social Democrat leader Jiri Paroubek was jubilant, describing it as a "victory for the Czech people".
"I'm glad that we've been proven right by the course of events," added Mr Paroubek. "What we've been saying for three years has been confirmed: there's no need for a US missile defence shield."
The Obama White House is already back peddling from this - though the "new" plan remains a wimp out by this president, and the back peddling just more evidence of his inability to understand the complexities of American's international role. It appears this president has absolutely no real historical context.
And while the arguements in favor of the mobile defense system the White House is now appearing to advocate, there is no reason not to employ both systems. Well, no reason beyond Obama pissing all over himself over Russia's strong "NYET!" regarding the system American promised Europe would be put into place.
Indeed...
Dismay in Europe as Obama ditches missile defence - Times Online
This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence," said Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech Prime Minister. "It puts us in a position where we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and thats a certain threat."
Russia's Foreign Ministry said that it welcomed reports of the US decision but would wait for official confirmation before making a detailed response. A spokesman said: "Such a development would be in line with the interests of our relations with the United States."
This will be a bitter disappointment, indeed, even a warning to the people of Eastern Europe," said Mr Kyl, who pointed out that both Poland and the Czech Republic had sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. "Today the Administration has turned its back on these allies."
i am shocked, the conservative ex-leaders of poland and the czech republic are not amused. guess what, they are ex-leaders because they were voted out. mirek ("no confidence vote") topolanek. hahahah. the current leader of the czech republic is jubilant. this is pure politics.
mixed reactions:
Mirek Topolanek, the former prime minister who negotiated the treaty with the Bush administration, said the announcement was proof that the United States under President Obama had lost interest in Central Europe.
"It puts us in a position that we in Central Europe have known for the last 100 years: we're not anchored by a strong security partner, a strong ally," said Mr Topolanek, leader of the centre-right Civic Democrats. "I see that as a threat."
On the left, Social Democrat leader Jiri Paroubek was jubilant, describing it as a "victory for the Czech people".
"I'm glad that we've been proven right by the course of events," added Mr Paroubek. "What we've been saying for three years has been confirmed: there's no need for a US missile defence shield."
Unfortunately, Russia's best interests directly contradict our own. Russia is one of the leading producers of energy (gas, oil, etc.) and we're the largest consumer of energy. We want to keep energy prices low, and Russia wants them high. Thus, we will continue to be rivals on the world stage for the foreseeable future. There's no gentle compromise on this issue.
Missile defense in Eastern Europe mitigates the threat posed by Iranian missiles against Europe, dramatically reducing Iran's bargaining power when they finally develop nuclear weapons.
If you honestly believe international terrorists give a damn about nuclear geopolitics, you gravely misunderstand our foes.
Right. We got nothing as concession. [sarcasm] That's some brilliant negotiating on our part. [/end sarcasm]
Russia is a 'natural ally' against terrorism but only terrorism that threatens them for the most part.Unfortunately, Russia's best interests directly contradict our own. Russia is one of the leading producers of energy (gas, oil, etc.) and we're the largest consumer of energy. We want to keep energy prices low, and Russia wants them high. Thus, we will continue to be rivals on the world stage for the foreseeable future. There's no gentle compromise on this issue.
Supplier and producer isn't necessarily an adversarial relationship and when it comes to the security threats of the 21st century, the simple fact is Russia is a natural ally. There are political pressures both here and there that prevent the creation of defense arrangements, but the key problem for both nations in the coming years is the same: the rise of China.
Right. We got nothing as concession. [sarcasm] That's some brilliant negotiating on our part. [/end sarcasm]maxim si vis pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war).
“The peace will not be preserved without the virtues that make victory possible in war. Peace will not be preserved by pious sentiments expressed in terms of platitudes or by official grimaces and diplomatic correctitude, however desirable these may be from time to time. It will not be preserved by casting aside in dangerous years the panoply of warlike strength…. Great Heart must have his sword and armor to guard the pilgrims on their way.”
Winston Churchill
In short when we abandon our allies to clearly appease Russian desires in the region we embolden Russia to carry on with it's efforts to dominate the region even further. There is a long history with this sort of thing and this president should learn lessons of the past. The best case for this was the deployment of the Pershing II missiles in Europe.
The increased range and pinpoint accuracy of the PERSHING II were major factors influencing the Soviet Union's decision to seek the Treaty on Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces in which the United States and the USSR agreed to eliminate an entire class of nuclear missiles.
THE PERSHING WEAPON SYSTEM AND ITS ELIMINATION
So what did we get for the elimination of missile defense in these nations? fly-over rights, and our promise not to interfere with illegal transfers of nuclear technology to Iran? This illustrates a weakness in this Administrations ability to deal with nations that are not prone to act in a civilized manner i.e. Russia, Iran, etc. So what have we gained here, other than fly over rights, well let me sum it up for you, we have emboldened Russia to act as it did in Georgia against other nations, we have lost what could have been two very close allies to our nations, and we have further allowed Iran which is the chief supplier and exporter to continue operations with Russian help and made ourselves weaker all in the hopes that the world will like us better. Someone asked how these missiles will make us safe, and let me point out that many missiles both SLBM's, GLCM's. ALCM's, and many other land based missiles have kept this nation safe for many years , want to know why? because they have never been used and because they existed and the mere thought what a nation would who dared send a missile to this nation or our allies would get in return was enough to deter them from donig so. When a President takes this away in the hopes that those nations will like is more and take the leap and dismantle thier own systems is not only showing a basic misunderstanding of this world it is also puts this nations in harms way.
Minus the sarcasm, your right in this case, and when it comes to dealing with Russia in general, unilateral concession as an effort to motivate Russia into acting in other than it has is naieve at best. Do you think for a moment Russia will simply say, " great the US has shown a peaceful gesture we need to stop our nuclear transfers to Iran and Venezula now" ? While this thinking process may get a good grade in Poly-Sci class in your local University it won't get any results in the real world. A President that was good at such unilateral concessions also sat in the White House and offerered diplomacy and concessions for over a year while Americans where paraded nightly in front of TV camera's . When he did authorize a rescue finally, at the first sign of any problem he called it off. Now you see the results. so please be my guest and support concessions such as these and then when you see an emboldened Russia and further American deaths as a reuslt of such nonsenese then do us all a favor and leave your sarcasm at the door.
sunglasses? check
tie? check
shirt? check
nose? check
putin and obama, separated at birth? you betcha
You can't possibly believe that.Maybe we should have elected osama bin ladin for president.
The Obama White House is already back peddling from this - though the "new" plan remains a wimp out by this president, and the back peddling just more evidence of his inability to understand the complexities of American's international role. It appears this president has absolutely no real historical context.
And while the arguements in favor of the mobile defense system the White House is now appearing to advocate, there is no reason not to employ both systems. Well, no reason beyond Obama pissing all over himself over Russia's strong "NYET!" regarding the system American promised Europe would be put into place.
Indeed...
Dismay in Europe as Obama ditches missile defence - Times Online
This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence," said Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech Prime Minister. "It puts us in a position where we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that’s a certain threat."
Russia's Foreign Ministry said that it welcomed reports of the US decision but would wait for official confirmation before making a detailed response. A spokesman said: "Such a development would be in line with the interests of our relations with the United States."
This will be a bitter disappointment, indeed, even a warning to the people of Eastern Europe," said Mr Kyl, who pointed out that both Poland and the Czech Republic had sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. "Today the Administration has turned its back on these allies."
i am shocked, the conservative ex-leaders of poland and the czech republic are not amused. guess what, they are ex-leaders because they were voted out. mirek ("no confidence vote") topolanek. hahahah. the current leader of the czech republic is jubilant. this is pure politics.
mixed reactions:
Mirek Topolanek, the former prime minister who negotiated the treaty with the Bush administration, said the announcement was proof that the United States under President Obama had lost interest in Central Europe.
"It puts us in a position that we in Central Europe have known for the last 100 years: we're not anchored by a strong security partner, a strong ally," said Mr Topolanek, leader of the centre-right Civic Democrats. "I see that as a threat."
On the left, Social Democrat leader Jiri Paroubek was jubilant, describing it as a "victory for the Czech people".
"I'm glad that we've been proven right by the course of events," added Mr Paroubek. "What we've been saying for three years has been confirmed: there's no need for a US missile defence shield."
____
From you own article link:
Former Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg was more phlegmatic, saying US President Barack Obama's decision to scrap the European elements of the shield was obviously a gesture towards Moscow and Tehran ahead of talks with Iran in Turkey.
"As gestures go, however, it's pretty cheap," added Mr Schwarzenberg.
However, the news came as a disappointment to the president's circle. President Lech Kaczynski is a keen supporter of the system. The head of the country's national security office, Aleksander Szczyglo, told TVN24 news channel that it would be a "failure in the long-term thinking of the US administration about the situation in this part of Europe".
Former President Lech Walesa told the same channel: "We should reconsider our approach to the US."
In July Walesa signed an open letter along with Vaclav Havel and others warning that the US's credibility in the region could be undermined if it abandoned the missile shield without consulting Warsaw and Prague.
Bartosz Weglarczyk, foreign editor at Gazeta Wyborzca, a leading Polish daily, told the BBC the decision represents the most important shift in US-Polish relations since 1989.
"Nothing will be the same," he said. "I think we will have to look at the US from the European perspective and focus on Europe more now."
The message is clear - the Obama White House capitulated to Russia's demands.
What remains to be determined are the impacts of this capitulation...
That, but more importantly, this shields the USA from any ICBM that may be launched from Pakistan or Iran. The trajectory of such a launch would travel over Europe. As this system requires a certain time-in-flight for the method of detection and interception, Poland is a strategic spot for this system.It's amazing to me that some believe more weapons - defensive or offensive - are necessary. When is enough, enough?
If Iran, or N. Korea chooses to attack the US with a weapon of mass destruction, does anyone believe such an act of war would not result in a rapid overwhelming response? The biggest threat to our nation comes not from a nation-state, but from those who offer their lives as terrorists. Anti-
missile defense will not stop weapons of mass destruction, those with the intent to do us harm have others ways to inflict terror and death, as has been shown; not doing the things that cause others to hate us will reduce the number of recruits to their cause, at a dollar cost much less than what has been spent, and will be spent, in weapon procurement.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand why we, and the west in general, has become victim to terrorism.
Missile defense in Eastern Europe mitigates the threat posed by Iranian missiles against Europe, dramatically reducing Iran's bargaining power when they finally develop nuclear weapons.
If you honestly believe international terrorists give a damn about nuclear geopolitics, you gravely misunderstand our foes.
Actually, no. It works just not yet at the kill rate of other similarly defensive systems.That, but more importantly, this shields the USA from any ICBM that may be launched from Pakistan or Iran. The trajectory of such a launch would travel over Europe. As this system requires a certain time-in-flight for the method of detection and interception, Poland is a strategic spot for this system.Missile defense in Eastern Europe mitigates the threat posed by Iranian missiles against Europe, dramatically reducing Iran's bargaining power when they finally develop nuclear weapons.
If you honestly believe international terrorists give a damn about nuclear geopolitics, you gravely misunderstand our foes.
Missle defense is unproven, ....
Almost all development is expensive, that's a given and it's as provocative as a bullet proof vest..... expensive and provocative;....
Not this sytem at all. This system destroys in-midflight ICBMs..... our strategic defense is the power to destroy - not defeat - destroy, any nation on earth with a retalitory nuclear strike. ....
Almost all development is expensive, that's a given and it's as provoctaive as a bullet proof vest.
Wu-Tang Clan mad man, the Ol' Dirty Bastard has picked up yet another 2 years in Los Angeles over the possession of body armour, which is illegal if you are a convicted felon. ODB picked up the charge late 99, when he was stopped by police and was found to be wearing a bulletproof vest. ODB won't have to suffer any further prison time as he will serve this new sentence and his current sentence concurrently as well as pick up nearly a year of credit from the times he had already spent in prison prior to the sentencing. He will be eligible for parole next year.
Dems have been looking to kill SDI for years.
The system is completly defensive and would save millions of people from the possibility of nuclear holocaust, so naturally the boiking wants to appease Russia (and his long standing party members) while spitting in the eye of the eastern Europeans who actually like us (like Poland).
SDI is the REAL road to nuclear disarmament as it makes a major delivery system unreliable.
Hey, let's go back to the cold war and MAD, that was so much fun for 50 years.
A direct alliance with Russia is less likely to happen than the resurrection of Elvis.How does a missile defense sheild in Eastern Europe keep us safe? Especially from Iran?
First its doubtful that it will keep Europe safe, but if that was the intentions, then LET EUROPE TAKE CARE OF HERSELF!
Second, even it even logical to think Iran would attack us with missiles? I mean if they are going to attack us, it would be grated rowed up to our ports or dragged across the US/Mexican border!
Third, if we want Russia to be on our side on issues like NK and Iran, is it really smart to piss them off with a shield that really does nothing for us!
I think the US should move more to having a direct alliance with Russia, rather than have an alliance with weak European countries (other than the UK)! Just my 2 cents
You should not make the mistake of believing that we caused the terrorism. It is caused by the tribal mentality, the religious misguides and the lack of respect for human life of the radical Muslim leaders that are centuries behind in realizing the smallness of the earth we inhabit.It's amazing to me that some believe more weapons - defensive or offensive - are necessary. When is enough, enough?
If Iran, or N. Korea chooses to attack the US with a weapon of mass destruction, does anyone believe such an act of war would not result in a rapid overwhelming response? The biggest threat to our nation comes not from a nation-state, but from those who offer their lives as terrorists.
Anti-missile defense will not stop weapons of mass destruction, those with the intent to do us harm have others ways to inflict terror and death, as has been shown; not doing the things that cause others to hate us will reduce the number of recruits to their cause, at a dollar cost much less than what has been spent, and will be spent, in weapon procurement.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand why we, and the west in general, has become victim to terrorism.
Seeing diplomacy, fair trade, respect for other cultures, religions and ideas as a sign of weakness does not automatically accompany a desire to have a strong military defense (or offense). Just because one favors having superior weapons and defense mechanisms does not translate to being isolationist or bigoted. The possession of an effective shield merely keeps the weapons of others from being so effective when used. A shield is not generally used as a weapon. It is used to deflect weapons. There is no harm in staying behind shields. The nature of the missile defense shield requires that smaller missiles be used to shoot down larger missiles. This facet is inappropriately characterized by opponents of the system as nuclear proliferation.That, but more importantly, this shields the USA from any ICBM that may be launched from Pakistan or Iran. The trajectory of such a launch would travel over Europe. As this system requires a certain time-in-flight for the method of detection and interception, Poland is a strategic spot for this system.Missile defense in Eastern Europe mitigates the threat posed by Iranian missiles against Europe, dramatically reducing Iran's bargaining power when they finally develop nuclear weapons.
If you honestly believe international terrorists give a damn about nuclear geopolitics, you gravely misunderstand our foes.
Missle defense is unproven, expensive and provocative; our strategic defense is the power to destroy - not defeat - destroy, any nation on earth with a retalitory nuclear strike. Many of you continue to believe, even after 9/11, that as the strongest military power on earth we have exclusive rights, rights which we can deny others even as we feign human rights for all.
I do not reject defense or military strength as an important aspect of our foreign policy; I do reject the idea that might makes right or that the power we possess allows us to determine the fate of other people. It seems most of you applaud brinkmanship and the Principles for a New American Century, and reject the idea that diplomacy, fair and equal trade, & respect for the diversity of cultures, religions and ideas as a sign of weakness. The irony is, if what I suspect is true, is that you (those who posted in response to my short note) are not conservatives in the traditional sense, but neoconservatives and thereby (IMHO) no different than those who at other times hoped to conquer the world. And we know how that turned out.
A direct alliance with Russia is less likely to happen than the resurrection of Elvis.How does a missile defense sheild in Eastern Europe keep us safe? Especially from Iran?
First its doubtful that it will keep Europe safe, but if that was the intentions, then LET EUROPE TAKE CARE OF HERSELF!
Second, even it even logical to think Iran would attack us with missiles? I mean if they are going to attack us, it would be grated rowed up to our ports or dragged across the US/Mexican border!
Third, if we want Russia to be on our side on issues like NK and Iran, is it really smart to piss them off with a shield that really does nothing for us!
I think the US should move more to having a direct alliance with Russia, rather than have an alliance with weak European countries (other than the UK)! Just my 2 cents
The MDS is designed to destroy long range missiles in flight...before they reach and destroy their targets. It therefore makes a long range missile system less effective, thus weakening the country that tries to use missiles.
We are wise to protect our allies with such equipments, especially if we are also to preclude their becoming a nuclear power themselves.
You should not make the mistake of believing that we caused the terrorism. It is caused by the tribal mentality, the religious misguides and the lack of respect for human life of the radical Muslim leaders that are centuries behind in realizing the smallness of the earth we inhabit.It's amazing to me that some believe more weapons - defensive or offensive - are necessary. When is enough, enough?
If Iran, or N. Korea chooses to attack the US with a weapon of mass destruction, does anyone believe such an act of war would not result in a rapid overwhelming response? The biggest threat to our nation comes not from a nation-state, but from those who offer their lives as terrorists.
Anti-missile defense will not stop weapons of mass destruction, those with the intent to do us harm have others ways to inflict terror and death, as has been shown; not doing the things that cause others to hate us will reduce the number of recruits to their cause, at a dollar cost much less than what has been spent, and will be spent, in weapon procurement.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand why we, and the west in general, has become victim to terrorism.
You should also think about the wisdom in waiting for a missile strike to respond to as opposed to preventing the strike from happening. Maybe the attacker would get in only one good shot, but an entire city might be destroyed before your overwhelming response gets the attackers attention. I would rather be able to destroy the attacking missiles in the air and then pepper the attacker with enough conventional weapons to put it out of commission for a few more years.
Seeing diplomacy, fair trade, respect for other cultures, religions and ideas as a sign of weakness does not automatically accompany a desire to have a strong military defense (or offense). Just because one favors having superior weapons and defense mechanisms does not translate to being isolationist or bigoted. The possession of an effective shield merely keeps the weapons of others from being so effective when used. A shield is not generally used as a weapon. It is used to deflect weapons. There is no harm in staying behind shields. The nature of the missile defense shield requires that smaller missiles be used to shoot down larger missiles. This facet is inappropriately characterized by opponents of the system as nuclear proliferation.That, but more importantly, this shields the USA from any ICBM that may be launched from Pakistan or Iran. The trajectory of such a launch would travel over Europe. As this system requires a certain time-in-flight for the method of detection and interception, Poland is a strategic spot for this system.
Missle defense is unproven, expensive and provocative; our strategic defense is the power to destroy - not defeat - destroy, any nation on earth with a retalitory nuclear strike. Many of you continue to believe, even after 9/11, that as the strongest military power on earth we have exclusive rights, rights which we can deny others even as we feign human rights for all.
I do not reject defense or military strength as an important aspect of our foreign policy; I do reject the idea that might makes right or that the power we possess allows us to determine the fate of other people. It seems most of you applaud brinkmanship and the Principles for a New American Century, and reject the idea that diplomacy, fair and equal trade, & respect for the diversity of cultures, religions and ideas as a sign of weakness. The irony is, if what I suspect is true, is that you (those who posted in response to my short note) are not conservatives in the traditional sense, but neoconservatives and thereby (IMHO) no different than those who at other times hoped to conquer the world. And we know how that turned out.
I do not believe that the MDS system will protect us from radical Muslim terrorism. It will protect our allies in Europe from missile attacks from the radical fucking idiots running Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Russia, ...our whoever decides to launch a missile attack.
To drop this program just because Putin asks us to is total fucking LUNACY!
