Democrat foreign policy

[Si modo]

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.

Good question. A few years ago the MDA decided to combine all ballistic missile defense efforts into a multi-layered defense - mid-range, high latitude, sea-based, etc. - to focus on the larger goal of homeland ballistic missile defense. This subject system is just one of those layers. As it is the mid-range layer, detection and interception venues will be at a location that is mid-range between the threat and the USA. For threats from the mideast and Pakistan, for example, mid-range is Europe.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

I am losing the thread of the conversation here. The Russians suggested an alternative place for the missle defense system. Are you are saying we did not need that missle defense system??

 

[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.

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.

I am losing the thread of the conversation here. The Russians suggested an alternative place for the missle defense system. Are you are saying we did not need that missle defense system??

The Russians offered use of their Azerbaijan radar facilities. For our goal of establishing a layer of defense against midrange threats to launches from the mideast and Pakistan, their facilities do not meet that need. It is the wrong type of radar for detecting a mid-range threat to the USA and would be of little to no use to our mid-range interceptors.

 

[VaYank5150]

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.

Good question. A few years ago the MDA decided to combine all ballistic missile defense efforts into a multi-layered defense - mid-range, high latitude, sea-based, etc. - to focus on the larger goal of homeland ballistic missile defense. This subject system is just one of those layers. As it is the mid-range layer, detection and interception venues will be at a location that is mid-range between the threat and the USA. For threats from the mideast and Pakistan, for example, mid-range is Europe.

While tacticly, I understand this position, but to be fair, IF we wanted, there is no reason our missiles could not be based only on US soil, correct?

 

[Si modo]

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.

Good question. A few years ago the MDA decided to combine all ballistic missile defense efforts into a multi-layered defense - mid-range, high latitude, sea-based, etc. - to focus on the larger goal of homeland ballistic missile defense. This subject system is just one of those layers. As it is the mid-range layer, detection and interception venues will be at a location that is mid-range between the threat and the USA. For threats from the mideast and Pakistan, for example, mid-range is Europe.

While tacticly, I understand this position, but to be fair, IF we wanted, there is no reason our missiles could not be based only on US soil, correct?

Not if we are interested in a multilayered ballistic misslile defense, no. I agree with the goal of a multilayed BMD because when it comes to nuclear attacks, I want more than one or even two layers of defense.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

What did I say we offered the russians???????? And you claim someone else is struggling to keep up???????

Your tripping all overself -

What the Russians offered DID meet the stated goals. But neither that nor what Bush proposed meets those needs as effectively or as economically as the mobile units.

What Bush proposed was wasteful spending AND it unecessarily antagonized the Russians - a true lose-lose proposal. I'm very grateful that it's in the scrapheap where it belongs.

 

[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.

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.

What did I say we offered the russians???????? And you claim someone else is struggling to keep up??????? ....

Here, as a reminder to you:

.... 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.

[Emphasis added to assist your focus]

.... Your tripping all overself - ....

Actually, I tend to avoid the trips of those who cannot even recall what they type.

.... What the Russians offered DID meet the stated goals. ....

How ironic, now you again say there was a Russian offer, but claim ignorance of it in the same post? How very bizarre of you.

What the Russians offered did not meet our goals and I provided that link to you where the director of the MDA explicitely stated as much (the NYT link).

.... But neither that nor what Bush proposed meets those needs as effectively or as economically as the mobile units.

Interesting your bringing that up. We do have the type of radar necessary for mid-range detection in a mobile form - sea. We don't have one for land as it is quite huge and not suitable for rail/road transport. But, whenever the North Koreans were making their last launch, BHO himself refused to deploy this mobile radar unit. We could have had much additional intelligence on that launch had he not explicitely refused deployment. Thanks for bringing up that important point.

 

[nodoginnafight]

again what did I say WE OFFERED THE RUSSIANS?
Caps added to emphasize the unanswered question.

 

[VaYank5150]

Good question. A few years ago the MDA decided to combine all ballistic missile defense efforts into a multi-layered defense - mid-range, high latitude, sea-based, etc. - to focus on the larger goal of homeland ballistic missile defense. This subject system is just one of those layers. As it is the mid-range layer, detection and interception venues will be at a location that is mid-range between the threat and the USA. For threats from the mideast and Pakistan, for example, mid-range is Europe.

While tacticly, I understand this position, but to be fair, IF we wanted, there is no reason our missiles could not be based only on US soil, correct?

Not if we are interested in a multilayered ballistic misslile defense, no. I agree with the goal of a multilayed BMD because when it comes to nuclear attacks, I want more than one or even two layers of defense.

And who are WE to say where WE are going place OUR missile silos except on our own soil? I get so tired of the adage that because we are some super power, we get to do whatever the hell we want? WHo is paying for all of this shit again?

 

[nodoginnafight]

knock yourself out yank - this guy seems like he'd rather write what he WANTED me to say and argue with THAT rather than actually respond to what I said. It's all too common on these boards and it's such a boring and futile waste of time to get sucked into crap like that.

Take care

 

[Si modo]

While tacticly, I understand this position, but to be fair, IF we wanted, there is no reason our missiles could not be based only on US soil, correct?

Not if we are interested in a multilayered ballistic misslile defense, no. I agree with the goal of a multilayed BMD because when it comes to nuclear attacks, I want more than one or even two layers of defense.

And who are WE to say where WE are going place OUR missile silos except on our own soil? ....

The Poles agreed to it. I sincerely doubt we would force it on them.

.... I get so tired of the adage that because we are some super power, we get to do whatever the hell we want? ....

Again, the Poles agreed, so I don't understand your anger.

.... WHo is paying for all of this shit again?

We are, although I don't consider multilayered BMD as shit.

 

[VaYank5150]

Not if we are interested in a multilayered ballistic misslile defense, no. I agree with the goal of a multilayed BMD because when it comes to nuclear attacks, I want more than one or even two layers of defense.

And who are WE to say where WE are going place OUR missile silos except on our own soil? ....

The Poles agreed to it. I sincerely doubt we would force it on them.

.... I get so tired of the adage that because we are some super power, we get to do whatever the hell we want? ....

Again, the Poles agreed, so I don't understand your anger.

.... WHo is paying for all of this shit again?

We are, although I don't consider multilayered BMD as shit.

Well, it IS possible that you and I can disagree on shit. However, my point being, IF we wanted, there is absolutely no reason we couldn't keep our missiles to ourselves in order to protect only the USA as you have suggested. Let me ask you this. IF France decided it wanted to park their own missiles on the coast of Florida to protect themselves from Mexico, how would we react?

 

[Si modo]

And who are WE to say where WE are going place OUR missile silos except on our own soil? ....

The Poles agreed to it. I sincerely doubt we would force it on them.
Again, the Poles agreed, so I don't understand your anger.

.... WHo is paying for all of this shit again?

We are, although I don't consider multilayered BMD as shit.

Well, it IS possible that you and I can disagree on shit. However, my point being, IF we wanted, there is absolutely no reason we couldn't keep our missiles to ourselves in order to protect only the USA as you have suggested. Let me ask you this. IF France decided it wanted to park their own missiles on the coast of Florida to protect themselves from Mexico, how would we react?

Of course it's OK to disagree on shit. Just as you state your view, I state mine.

I'm not seeing your analogy. We wanted to park our interceptors and radar in Poland to protect ourselves from a threat - a threat from someone who is not their neighbor. Poland agreed.

If France did want to park some interceptors in Florida to protect from our neighbor, and if Mexico had nuclear weapons, and if Mexico was antogonistic to France, I would not have an issue with that. I am not seeing much of a parallel.

 

[VaYank5150]

The Poles agreed to it. I sincerely doubt we would force it on them.
Again, the Poles agreed, so I don't understand your anger.
We are, although I don't consider multilayered BMD as shit.

Well, it IS possible that you and I can disagree on shit. However, my point being, IF we wanted, there is absolutely no reason we couldn't keep our missiles to ourselves in order to protect only the USA as you have suggested. Let me ask you this. IF France decided it wanted to park their own missiles on the coast of Florida to protect themselves from Mexico, how would we react?

Of course it's OK to disagree on shit. Just as you state your view, I state mine.

I'm not seeing your analogy. We wanted to park our interceptors and radar in Poland to protect ourselves from a threat - a threat from someone who is not their neighbor. Poland agreed.

If France did want to park some interceptors in Florida to protect from our neighbor, and if Mexico had nuclear weapons, and if Mexico was antogonistic to France, I would not have an issue with that. I am not seeing much of a parallel.

I guess this is where you and I disagree. Russia did not want our silos that close to their lands. Americans are way too Independent to allow France to park their missiles on our land. Both policies should fail to produce missile silos on foreign land.

 

[ozzmdj]

By Ken Blackwell

It is very nearly the seventy-first anniversary of the infamous Munich agreement. That was the 1938 summit conference in the strongly Nazi Bavarian city that brought together Germany's Hitler, Italy's Mussolini, Britain's Chamberlain, and France's Daladier.


Hitler demanded that the Western democracies give him a free hand in Central Europe. Chamberlain and Daladier, bullied and threatened, gave in. It seemed that war had been averted. Chamberlain touted "peace in our time."


The British people were so relieved that they had averted war that hundreds of thousands crowded into the plaza in front of Buckingham Palace to cheer and weep for joy. Winston Churchill rose up in the House of Commons to speak on the disaster of the first magnitude that had occurred in Central Europe. He did not blame the British people for their outpouring of emotion. He understood their abhorrence of another bloodletting like the four-year nightmare of what was then called "The Great War." That was Britain and France's death struggle against Germany of 1914-1918.


In 1938, Churchill spoke of Czechoslovakia, then one united nation, whose freedom and independence had just been sacrificed.


"Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia receded into darkness. She has suffered in every respect by her association with the Western democracies and the League of Nations."


Churchill said a terrible judgment had been rendered on the Western democracies. Quoting the Book of Daniel, he said: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting."


President Obama has chosen this day -- the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland -- to announce the abandonment of U.S.-backed missile defense for Eastern Europe.


It's worth looking back at how we got here. After the 1989 breakup of the Soviet Empire -- that "evil empire" Ronald Reagan had done so much to end-the newly free states of Central and Eastern Europe naturally looked to the United States, and to a lesser extent, to their Western European brethren, to safeguard their long sought freedom. Poland and the Czech Republic were among the first to apply for membership in NATO.


The U.S., it seemed, would extend it's nuclear umbrella of protection over these newly independent states. In these free states, streets and squares were being named for Ronald Reagan -- after the joyous people first pulled down statues of Lenin.


We should remember not just Munich, and not just the largely peaceful revolution of 1989. We should remember that Soviet invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939, seventy years ago.


Less than a month earlier, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin had concluded the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact with Adolf Hitler. That pact gave Hitler a free hand to invade Poland from the West. It also secretly approved Stalin's plan to invade Poland from the East.


Young Karol Wojtyla -- later to become Pope John Paul II -- fled eastward when the Germans invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, igniting World War II. Karol and his ailing father sought refuge from Nazis so brutal, so inhuman that they shot Poles who failed to step into the streets to let their German overlords pass them on the sidewalks.


But when, on September 17, 1939, Karol and his father learned that the Soviets had invaded Poland from the East, they returned to their little town. They were more willing to face death and enslavement under the Nazis than to take their chances under the Russian domination.


It was a good decision. A Polish website reports what happened to the Poles under Russian occupation.


From September 17, 1939 tens of thousands of Polish people were deported into the Soviet Union. Many of them disappeared in the turmoil of war and its aftermath. Most of them now lie in Soviet soil unknown and unpitied, lost to an unbridled force which exploited the opportunity to eradicate them.



The fate of some is known. For example, 3,000 died at the Chukotsk lead mines in August 1940. Some 4,500 are buried at Katyn, and another 10,000 are reported as buried at Kalinin [Tver] and Kharkov.


Of the original eight mass graves reported at Katyn in 1943, seven were exhumed and the bodies reburied in smaller graves after identification [where possible], and a religious service.


In all, Poland alone suffered the loss of 22% of her people in World War II. These are the brave people we are now abandoning with this latest move.


Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981 wearing brown suits and talking about freedom for Eastern Europe. Neither move was fashionable then. He changed the world.


Now, Barack Obama is changing it back again. The Obamaphile media is reporting that the Russians will be "pleased" by the latest U.S. move. No doubt. They are regaining a position of predominance without firing a shot. Reagan is repealed. Barack Obama is proving to be indeed what he promised to be: a transformational President.


The American people are still cheering Barack Obama's foreign policy, just as the British once cheered Neville Chamberlain. But there will come a reckoning.


As Churchill said of Munich:


"This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."


Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law.

Page Printed from: American Thinker: Munich of the Skies at September 18, 2009 - 01:41:28 PM EDT

 

[Si modo]

Well, it IS possible that you and I can disagree on shit. However, my point being, IF we wanted, there is absolutely no reason we couldn't keep our missiles to ourselves in order to protect only the USA as you have suggested. Let me ask you this. IF France decided it wanted to park their own missiles on the coast of Florida to protect themselves from Mexico, how would we react?

Of course it's OK to disagree on shit. Just as you state your view, I state mine.

I'm not seeing your analogy. We wanted to park our interceptors and radar in Poland to protect ourselves from a threat - a threat from someone who is not their neighbor. Poland agreed.

If France did want to park some interceptors in Florida to protect from our neighbor, and if Mexico had nuclear weapons, and if Mexico was antogonistic to France, I would not have an issue with that. I am not seeing much of a parallel.

I guess this is where you and I disagree. Russia did not want our silos that close to their lands. Americans are way too Independent to allow France to park their missiles on our land. Both policies should fail to produce missile silos on foreign land.

Yes, we do disagree on this and that is fine as you seem informed. It's not as if we do not have military presense on foreign soil. But, if silos are the concern we certainly can look into non-silo based interceptors. They would need radar to go with them.

I'm not saying this needs to be all our way when it comes to the Russians, but it does not need to be all the Russians' way either, especially when the Russians' whine is based on facts not in evidence. Compromise is not off the table, but now it is. I don't like wasted opportunities and that's how I view this capitulation.

But, what bothers me the most is the rhetoric associated with this issue. Most of the press on this is beyond incomplete - it's been grossly inaccurate - and most public opinion has been based on nothing of substance. The misinformation is staggering to me. I respect your view as you have an informed view, though.

 

[Contumacious]

OBAMA KILLS MISSILE DEFENSE FOR POLAND, CZECH......Obama phones Czech PM on missile defense decision - Yahoo! News This country and the world can not with stand another Democrat in the White House

The US has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to defend Poland, Czechoslovakia, Israel.......

NONE.

.

 

[ozzmdj]

OBAMA KILLS MISSILE DEFENSE FOR POLAND, CZECH......Obama phones Czech PM on missile defense decision - Yahoo! News This country and the world can not with stand another Democrat in the White House

The US has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to defend Poland, Czechoslovakia, Israel.......

NONE.

.

Men like you that have NO HONOR ignore treaties

 

[VaYank5150]

Of course it's OK to disagree on shit. Just as you state your view, I state mine.

I'm not seeing your analogy. We wanted to park our interceptors and radar in Poland to protect ourselves from a threat - a threat from someone who is not their neighbor. Poland agreed.

If France did want to park some interceptors in Florida to protect from our neighbor, and if Mexico had nuclear weapons, and if Mexico was antogonistic to France, I would not have an issue with that. I am not seeing much of a parallel.

I guess this is where you and I disagree. Russia did not want our silos that close to their lands. Americans are way too Independent to allow France to park their missiles on our land. Both policies should fail to produce missile silos on foreign land.

Yes, we do disagree on this and that is fine as you seem informed. It's not as if we do not have military presense on foreign soil. But, if silos are the concern we certainly can look into non-silo based interceptors. They would need radar to go with them.

I'm not saying this needs to be all our way when it comes to the Russians, but it does not need to be all the Russians' way either, especially when the Russians' whine is based on facts not in evidence. Compromise is not off the table, but now it is. I don't like wasted opportunities and that's how I view this capitulation.

But, what bothers me the most is the rhetoric associated with this issue. Most of the press on this is beyond incomplete - it's been grossly inaccurate - and most public opinion has been based on nothing of substance. The misinformation is staggering to me. I respect your view as you have an informed view, though.

Silos are just the latest thing. While I am no Ron Paul supporter, I believe some of his ideas on how much money we spend to keep our military presence on foreign soil have some merit. Since we are arguably the richest nation in the world, and yet still have people (including many veterans) sleeping in our streets and we can't afford to provide adequate healthcare for all of our own citizens, how can we afford the amount of money we spend to keep our military presence in all of these foreign countries, if our only priority is to keep the USA safe?

 

[Si modo]

I guess this is where you and I disagree. Russia did not want our silos that close to their lands. Americans are way too Independent to allow France to park their missiles on our land. Both policies should fail to produce missile silos on foreign land.

Yes, we do disagree on this and that is fine as you seem informed. It's not as if we do not have military presense on foreign soil. But, if silos are the concern we certainly can look into non-silo based interceptors. They would need radar to go with them.

I'm not saying this needs to be all our way when it comes to the Russians, but it does not need to be all the Russians' way either, especially when the Russians' whine is based on facts not in evidence. Compromise is not off the table, but now it is. I don't like wasted opportunities and that's how I view this capitulation.

But, what bothers me the most is the rhetoric associated with this issue. Most of the press on this is beyond incomplete - it's been grossly inaccurate - and most public opinion has been based on nothing of substance. The misinformation is staggering to me. I respect your view as you have an informed view, though.

Silos are just the latest thing. While I am no Ron Paul supporter, I believe some of his ideas on how much money we spend to keep our military presence on foreign soil have some merit. Since we are arguably the richest nation in the world, and yet still have people (including many veterans) sleeping in our streets and we can't afford to provide adequate healthcare for all of our own citizens, how can we afford the amount of money we spend to keep our military presence in all of these foreign countries, if our only priority is to keep the USA safe?

Certainly reasonable questions, but I believe the fundamental differences between some is what spending gets priority. We always have to prioritize spending with limited resources. So, different opinions on what are priorities. C'est le piment de la vie.