Obama Plans to Scrap Missle Defense Shield?

June 3, 1997

"American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."
(continued below)
 
The principles are brought to you by those (below) who brought you Vietnam and the 2003 Invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.
If you agree with the principles, you must be a neoconservative.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz
 
I'd bet money, marbles and chalk that you silly bastards would be the FIRST people to scream bloody fucking murder if Russia put a "missile defense system" in Cuba. Guarenfuckingteed. The irony of your chicken little routine makes me laugh.
What nonsense. The Soviet missiles in Cuba were aimed at us - offensive. This sheild not only is not defensive of any Russian launches, it's not offensive at all. It's defensive to other threats, none of which are Russian.

yea, and the soviets are SO CRAZY to see that the MDS could NOT be aimed at them on a moments notice..

:cuckoo:


We all know how WE reacted to missiles in our back yard. You can't blame russians for acting in kind.

Well, you can.. but you'd be a dumbass.
 
I'd bet money, marbles and chalk that you silly bastards would be the FIRST people to scream bloody fucking murder if Russia put a "missile defense system" in Cuba. Guarenfuckingteed. The irony of your chicken little routine makes me laugh.
What nonsense. The Soviet missiles in Cuba were aimed at us - offensive. This sheild not only is not defensive of any Russian launches, it's not offensive at all. It's defensive to other threats, none of which are Russian.

Don't try to present logic to Shogun he is a mental midget!

says the frail little jew whose forum input amounts to crying on Jillian's shoulder from behind a block user apartheid wall.


:thup:
 
I'd bet money, marbles and chalk that you silly bastards would be the FIRST people to scream bloody fucking murder if Russia put a "missile defense system" in Cuba. Guarenfuckingteed. The irony of your chicken little routine makes me laugh.
What nonsense. The Soviet missiles in Cuba were aimed at us - offensive. This sheild not only is not defensive of any Russian launches, it's not offensive at all. It's defensive to other threats, none of which are Russian.

The once proposed system was defensive? ....
If you're speaking of this subject system, it was and is.
.... How do you know? ....
Because I read.
.... More importantly, how would the Russian's know? ....
If they had accepted our offer to inspect and participate, they would know.
.... How hard is it for a defensive missle to be outfitted as an offensive weapon?
For this system, not too effectively as it is designed to intercept ICBMs after a significant time-in-flight. Poland is not strategically located to Russia to address such a trajectory from the Russians.
 
What nonsense. The Soviet missiles in Cuba were aimed at us - offensive. This sheild not only is not defensive of any Russian launches, it's not offensive at all. It's defensive to other threats, none of which are Russian.

The once proposed system was defensive? ....
If you're speaking of this subject system, it was and is.
Because I read.
.... More importantly, how would the Russian's know? ....
If they had accepted our offer to inspect and participate, they would know.
.... How hard is it for a defensive missle to be outfitted as an offensive weapon?
For this system, not too effectively as it is designed to intercept ICBMs after a significant time-in-flight. Poland is not strategically located to Russia to address such a trajectory from the Russians.

Is that your opinion? Or, are you a rocket scientist? In either case you provide zero, no, none, not a bit, of evidence or source material.
 
The once proposed system was defensive? ....
If you're speaking of this subject system, it was and is.
Because I read.
If they had accepted our offer to inspect and participate, they would know.
.... How hard is it for a defensive missle to be outfitted as an offensive weapon?
For this system, not too effectively as it is designed to intercept ICBMs after a significant time-in-flight. Poland is not strategically located to Russia to address such a trajectory from the Russians.

Is that your opinion? Or, are you a rocket scientist? In either case you provide zero, no, none, not a bit, of evidence or source material.
Read and learn: BBC NEWS | Americas | How US missile defence system works

Come back with more questions after that primer.
 
I see, it's your opinion (I kind of knew you weren't a rocket scientist).
Not my opinion, just the facts. In the hope that you actually do want to correct your ignorance and are not willfully ignorant: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34051.pdf

If pictures are easier:

GBI_from_PL_Cannot_Catch_Ru.gif
 
Last edited:
Why is that? They were our direct allies during both World Wars and we never went to war with them.
I think it was after they split Berlin and adopted the "We will bury you!" attitude that we lost the desire to be real allies. We're no more allied with Russia than we are Communist China.

We outspent Russia in the space race and the Cold War. I'm sure they are pleased as punch that we are dropping our guard in Europe now...time to crank up the Cold War again.


the russians split berlin, huh?
How do you think we ended up with West Berlin, East Berlin and the Berlin Wall? Do you think the Americans came up with that stupid shit? Was Reagan talking to the wrong boss when he told Gorbachev to tear down the wall?

What caused the Berlin Air Lift?
 
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
Obama's plan will save money, but the cons want him to spend more.
 
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
Obama's plan will save money, but the cons want him to spend more.
So would gutting the IC. So would gutting the DoD. So would gutting DHHS. It's all a matter of priorities. Many conservatives view defense from nuclear attack as a critical expenditure.
 
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
Obama's plan will save money, but the cons want him to spend more.
So would gutting the IC. So would gutting the DoD. So would gutting DHHS. It's all a matter of priorities. Many conservatives view defense from nuclear attack as a critical expenditure.

Correct. It is a matter of priorities. I would rather have a defense system that works than a weapon that doesn't.
 
I've been reading comments over at the BBC message board. For the most part Europeans are estactic.. They plan to make nice with russia and get russia to "watch their backs." On this day in 1939 Russia invaded Poland.
Me? I'm personally glad we are not going to defend Europe anymore. It was a good decision.






BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Is the US right to cut missile defence plan?








Today its the 70th anniversay of the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union (Russia) in 1939. The Poles have very bad memories of Russian imperialism. The USA could not have chosen a worse day on which to make their announcement. The Poles and other recently freed east Europeans feel they have been "sold down the river" by the USA, with comments here like "its Tehran/Yalta all over again" (Stalin's empire building). From now on, buy European weapon systems and aircraft (military and civil)!

mike, Warsaw, Poland
 
I see, it's your opinion (I kind of knew you weren't a rocket scientist).
Not my opinion, just the facts. In the hope that you actually do want to correct your ignorance and are not willfully ignorant: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34051.pdf

If pictures are easier:

GBI_from_PL_Cannot_Catch_Ru.gif

Nice picture. But it is not evidence or on point, is it? I'm not being intentionally obtuse or willfully ignorant (which by the way, "willfully ignorant" is an expression I first used on the msnbc message board in response to the neocons there; imitation is the highest form of flatery, thank you).
 
I think it was after they split Berlin and adopted the "We will bury you!" attitude that we lost the desire to be real allies. We're no more allied with Russia than we are Communist China.

We outspent Russia in the space race and the Cold War. I'm sure they are pleased as punch that we are dropping our guard in Europe now...time to crank up the Cold War again.


the russians split berlin, huh?
How do you think we ended up with West Berlin, East Berlin and the Berlin Wall? Do you think the Americans came up with that stupid shit? Was Reagan talking to the wrong boss when he told Gorbachev to tear down the wall?

What caused the Berlin Air Lift?

the United States, Great Britain and Soviet Russia decided to divide post-war germany, and berlin and vienna, btw. the french just hopped onto the bandwagon. let's see if you can process that information.

and check under your bed, there might me an evil russian hiding.
 
Pentagon Confirms Major Adjustments to European Missile Shield - Political News - FOXNews.com

FOXnews.com said:
U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl released a statement Thursday morning accusing the administration of caving to Russia.

"The decision announced today by the administration is dangerous and short-sighted," the Arizona Republican said. "Not only does this decision leave America vulnerable to the growing Iranian long-range missile threat, it also turns back the clock to the days of the Cold War, when Eastern Europe was considered the domain of Russia. This will be a bitter disappointment, indeed, even a warning to the people of Eastern Europe."

Obama's top military adviser, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the administration was "very close" to the end of a seven-month review of a missile defense shield proposal, an idea that was promoted by the George W. Bush administration. Mullen would not divulge its results.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called the U.S. decision "a positive step."

WHAT? President Hussein has capitulated to the demands of the Communists...

Huh... Who could have seen this coming?
 
the United States, Great Britain and Soviet Russia decided to divide post-war germany, and berlin and vienna, btw. the french just hopped onto the bandwagon. let's see if you can process that information.

and check under your bed, there might me an evil russian hiding.

L.K.Eder: Proof that we should have given Germany to Stalin...
 
I'd bet money, marbles and chalk that you silly bastards would be the FIRST people to scream bloody fucking murder if Russia put a "missile defense system" in Cuba. Guarenfuckingteed. The irony of your chicken little routine makes me laugh.

ROFLMNAO...

Not that she's anti-American...


NOooooooo...


Why 'the Russians have a great point... who are we to help defend the nations which were swept into Soviet bondage for 70 years?'

LOL...













Leftists...
 
Last edited:
Good on Obama. It's about time someone acknowledged that we don't need it...it doesn't work...and we can afford it.

oh wait... it's health coverage we can't afford...

I forgot.
Yes, this was in the wrong thread, it applies to healthcare, cap & trade and the porkulous.

As for SDI, like all defensive systems the dems will be bean counters and tell us about savings, and I will laugh at them as they talk about spending trillions on things that can't work (like BO's healthcare plan) while practical tech is disgaurded.

And when a place like Honalulu is a smoking crater you will cry about how we didn't use our tech to protect us, which is the true concept behind 'provide for the common defense.'


But hey, the Russians love it so that makes it ok.
 

Forum List

Back
Top