Democrat foreign policy

[Si modo]

I answered the question EXACTLY as you worded it. Your "expanded" question is also answered by my previous post.

You did? How did the USA cause thousands, millions, whatever of Poles to be refugees? And, what specifically are the fences that the USA needs to mend with Russia? Your just saying that there are fences of policy is not an answer. What policy of the USA was so offensive to the Russians (other than ones that were already reciprocated by them)?

You have been non-responsive.

No, you have been non-comprehending

Please re-read my posts concerning Bush & Russia on the defense shield and Poland membership in NATO

your questions have already been answered.

Oh. You were just talking out of your ass when you went on about millions of refugees and you have nothing specific about policy with Russia that caused the Russians to need to be coddled. Perhaps if the Poles join Nato, the Russians will bitch-slap them as they did when Georgia was proposing to join. Or we could just coddle their irrelevant whining with captitulation and nothing in return.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The true point is - without Russian participation, it is fool-hearted to propose a missile defense system in such close proximity to their borders. Remeber when Cuba tried to put Russian missiles in?????

How do you think we should respond if Russian wanted to put a missile defense system in Mexico AND have Mexico join the Warsaw Pact??????

Bush tried to pull that crap on the Russians and guess what? They didn't like it. Ewwww there's a newsflash. But Bush wouldn't back down. He pushed his foolishness to the brink of conflict between the U.S. and Russia. We either could jump into the fray or we could abandon the stupid, saber-rattling Bush policies.

Obama made the right call.

Simpletons who think the real secret to foreign relations is to be ready, willing and able to kick anybody's butt who disagrees with you have killed enough American soldiers needlessly. It's a new day - bullying and blustering your way around the world doesn't cut it.

If some folks just don't get it - tough. We going to enter this new day with or without them.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Oh. You were just talking out of your ass when you went on about millions of refugees and you have nothing specific about policy with Russia that caused the Russians to need to be coddled. Perhaps if the Poles join Nato, the Russians will bitch-slap them as they did when Georgia was proposing to join. Or we could just coddle their irrelevant whining with captitulation and nothing in return.

The fact that you substitue "millions" for the thousands I actually wrote is very telling. Just pulling crap out of your ass - Is this where I act surprised?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I see the cause of confusion and it is my fault - I mistakenly switched Poles for Georgians and visa-versa (I think) a couple of times. My bad - I apologize.

 

[Si modo]

The true point is - without Russian participation, it is fool-hearted to propose a missile defense system in such close proximity to their borders. Remeber when Cuba tried to put Russian missiles in????? ....

That's a completely irrelevant analogy.

.... How do you think we should respond if Russian wanted to put a missile defense system in Mexico AND have Mexico join the Warsaw Pact?????? ....

I wouldn't give a shit if Russia wanted to put such a system as this in Mexico. "Have Mexico join the Warsaw Pact"? What an inane question on so many levels.

As I said to another, at this point you haven't demonstrated much talent for accuracy and correcting is tedious. There is plenty of information in this thread and the other about scrapping the defense shield for those who want to learn more. For those who have no such desire, they will remain willfully ignorant and demonstrate as much to thinking posters.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The true point is - without Russian participation, it is fool-hearted to propose a missile defense system in such close proximity to their borders. Remember when Cuba tried to put Russian missiles in????? ....

That's a completely irrelevant analogy.

It's a completely accurate analogy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm relieved to know that people who do understand are the ones NOW calling the shots.

 

[Si modo]

The true point is - without Russian participation, it is fool-hearted to propose a missile defense system in such close proximity to their borders. Remember when Cuba tried to put Russian missiles in????? ....

That's a completely irrelevant analogy.

It's a completely accurate analogy.

Hardly. The missiles in Cuba were aimed at the USA and had nuclear warheads. The interceptor missiles in the system in Poland have no nuclear warheads, are not aimed at Russia, and cannot even be used against Russia.

 

[Navy1960]

In addition to that, if you use the same type of logic that Russia used to argue against this Missile defense system, in that they have a sphere of influence surrounding their territory. If this is the case and considering the Cuban argument let's set aside the systems are completely different for a moment, then has any seen Russia unilaterally stop exporting nuclear and missile technology to South America? In fact you haven't, and on the very same day in violation of a truce, Russia signed an agreement to build bases in and supply troops to breakaway Georgian territories. All this decision has done has shown a basic weakness in this Presidents ability to deal with Russia and Russia will take full advantage of it.

 

[Si modo]

In addition to that, if you use the same type of logic that Russia used to argue against this Missile defense system, in that they have a sphere of influence surrounding their territory. If this is the case and considering the Cuban argument let's set aside the systems are completely different for a moment, then has any seen Russia unilaterally stop exporting nuclear and missile technology to South America? In fact you haven't, and on the very same day in violation of a truce, Russia signed an agreement to build bases in and supply troops to breakaway Georgian territories. All this decision has done has shown a basic weakness in this Presidents ability to deal with Russia and Russia will take full advantage of it.

Yes. By far, this move by BHO is the greatest disappointment I have to date. We've pissed on allies - broken trust; we've nothing to show for this appeasement from the Russians; and our defense is less than it could be. I see nothing positive from this, in fact, I see destructive.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This blunder was made by Bush who backed the U.S. into a completely indefensible position. Bush tried to bluster the Russians - they called his bluff. Bush then handed the cards to Obama and Obama (correctly) saw that it was a losing hand and refused to sacrifice more U.S. prestige by continuing to press an unwinnable situation.

Obama's credibility and the credibility of the U.S. abroad is enhanced tremendously. Obama has his faults, but he continues to be spot-on in terms of foreign policy.

 

[Si modo]

.... Bush tried to bluster the Russians ....

What do you mean? Please explain.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure I do. The Republicans say every day that we can't afford healthcare reform. So, how in the world could we afford a missile defense shield in Poland and CZ?

What would the missile shield cost? What would healthcare ala Obama cost? Can the goals of the missile defense be met any other way? (Answer no). Can the goals of Obama's health care reform be met any other way? (Answer, yes).

To date, we have spent over $62 billion on the system, which by the way, still does not work. Why do we need a site in Poland or CZ in order to protect the US, anyway?

Missile shields do not work effectively.

The larger issue is why are we still protecting Europe? The European Union has an economy that is equivalent in size to the US. They should bear the burden of protecting Europe.
However, if the want to buy the system from the US, let us sell it to them. But the US deploying the defense system and soldiers for free makes no sense

 

[Si modo]

What would the missile shield cost? What would healthcare ala Obama cost? Can the goals of the missile defense be met any other way? (Answer no). Can the goals of Obama's health care reform be met any other way? (Answer, yes).

To date, we have spent over $62 billion on the system, which by the way, still does not work. Why do we need a site in Poland or CZ in order to protect the US, anyway?

Missile shields do not work effectively.

The larger issue is why are we still protecting Europe? The European Union has an economy that is equivalent in size to the US. They should bear the burden of protecting Europe.
However, if the want to buy the system from the US, let us sell it to them. But the US deploying the defense system and soldiers for free makes no sense

The primary purpose of this system is not to protect Eurpoe, but to protect the USA.

 

[nodoginnafight]

.... Bush tried to bluster the Russians ....

What do you mean? Please explain.

Bush rejected the Russians offer of participation and tried to bluff the Russians that he could build the system over their objections.

 

[Si modo]

.... Bush tried to bluster the Russians ....

What do you mean? Please explain.

Bush rejected the Russians offer of participation and tried to bluff the Russians that he could build the system over their objections.

Bush rejected the Russian participation because what the Russians offered were not applicable to this layer of defense. (NYT) Rejecting offers because they don't apply to need has nothing to do with bluster. I suppose when I hang up on telemarketers offering something I don't need, that's bluster.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So you equate Russian influence in that region of the world to the amount of influence a telemarkerter has?
That's pretty poor foreign policy. Calling Russian suggestions (that were actually MORE effective to achieveing the stated goals) the same as some intrusive, suplicant is just racheting up all those old cold war animosities all over again. The same mistake Bush was making.

The man who served under Reagan as ambassador to Soviet Union/Russia seems to think that Reagan would have accepted the offer. (He said so in an NPR interview anyway) and I think that is pretty compelling. I think Reagan achieved a great deal of success in that part of the world - at least mho is that millions of people there are enjoying a lot more freedom today than they had during the pre-Reagan era.

 

[Navy1960]

What would the missile shield cost? What would healthcare ala Obama cost? Can the goals of the missile defense be met any other way? (Answer no). Can the goals of Obama's health care reform be met any other way? (Answer, yes).

To date, we have spent over $62 billion on the system, which by the way, still does not work. Why do we need a site in Poland or CZ in order to protect the US, anyway?

Missile shields do not work effectively.

The larger issue is why are we still protecting Europe? The European Union has an economy that is equivalent in size to the US. They should bear the burden of protecting Europe.
However, if the want to buy the system from the US, let us sell it to them. But the US deploying the defense system and soldiers for free makes no sense

"This is an agreement that will establish a missile defense site here in Poland that will help us to deal with the new threats of the 21st century, of long range missiles...from countries like Iran or North Korea," Rice told reporters in Warsaw.

U.S., Poland Sign Missile Defense Agreement | Online NewsHour | August 20, 2008 | PBS

U.S. dealings with Poland have been much more geopolitically significant — more extensive in terms of arms sales and much more disconcerting to Russia. The most significant was the sale of 48 late-model F-16C/D fighter jets. The delivery of these fighters was completed late last year; AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-120C AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, laser guided bombs, GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), AGM-64 Maverick air-to-ground missiles, Sniper ER targeting pods and DB-110 aerial reconnaissance pods have already arrived. Joint Stand-Off Weapons (JSOWs) are also on contract. Overall, this gives Poland’s air force considerable offensive strike capability (at least in hardware terms), and one that deeply troubled Russia as a potential sign of Washington’s extensive arming of Warsaw. Sales of so many technically complex aircraft, ordnance and subsystems include a number of provisions for maintenance and training, and there is no sign that the United States is backing away from F-16 training and support (some of this will take place with Polish pilots in the United States, other portions will be fulfilled largely by civilian contractors).

Free Article for Non-Members | STRATFOR


While I agree with you on the point that European nations should share more of the burden of of their own defense needs. It's a little off the mark to imply that the United States is completely funding these nations defense needs. In fact the United States entered into an "agreement" with two NATO allies to provide this missile defense shield that took over 18 months to put together. In the middle of the night the current president unilaterally backed out of this agreement without so much as any talks with the two NATO nations involved other than to call them in the Middle of the night informing them shortly before making a press release. Your claim that this technology does not work is also wrong and is being debated in another thread as of this moment. In fact since 2001 these systems have made 41 of 50 intercepts in testing and continue to with each test to move closer to an even higher % of kills.

 

[Si modo]

So you equate Russian influence in that region of the world to the amount of influence a telemarkerter has? ....

Not quite, but that's a fascinating demonstration of your thought process.

You called our refusal of a Russian offer to us of something we don't need as bluster. That's an odd view.

.... That's pretty poor foreign policy. Calling Russian suggestions (that were actually MORE effective to achieveing the stated goals) the same as some intrusive, suplicant is just racheting up all those old cold war animosities all over again. The same mistake Bush was making. ....

What the Russian's offered were not anything we needed.

.... The man who served under Reagan as ambassador to Soviet Union/Russia seems to think that Reagan would have accepted the offer. ....

First you talk about something the Russians offered to us, now you talk about what we offered to the Russians. Try focus on what you want to discuss.

 

[VaYank5150]

To date, we have spent over $62 billion on the system, which by the way, still does not work. Why do we need a site in Poland or CZ in order to protect the US, anyway?

Missile shields do not work effectively.

The larger issue is why are we still protecting Europe? The European Union has an economy that is equivalent in size to the US. They should bear the burden of protecting Europe.
However, if the want to buy the system from the US, let us sell it to them. But the US deploying the defense system and soldiers for free makes no sense

The primary purpose of this system is not to protect Eurpoe, but to protect the USA.

Fair enough. IF this is the case, why do we have to have these shields deployed anywhere other than on our own soil, since we are only trying to protect the USA.