Obama Plans to Scrap Missle Defense Shield?

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Pentagon Confirms Major Adjustments to European Missile Shield - Political News - FOXNews.com

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."

 

[KMAN]

Does anyone actually need anymore proof that this idiot in charge of our country is not really looking out for the security of this country????

 

[Liability]

Everyone knows that a defensive missle system can be viewed (by the other guys) as either offensive weapons system, in and of itself, or as a tool in making the offensive part of our side's weapons systems more secure -- which results in the defensive component serving the purpose of the offensive component.

In fact, political science labels this problem as part of the "sprial theory."

If Russia views what WE deem to be purely defensive in a light that makes it APPEAR to them to be outright offensive or inferentially offensive, then by moving ahead with our (honestly just) defensive system, we are rudely threatening poor old Putin and company. And as we all also know, the last thing President Obama wants to do is ANYTHING that might cause ANY other nation on Earth to view us in a dim light.

So, the only possible outcome from the perspective of President Jummy Carter Obama is <<drumroll>> to shelve the defensive shield plans.

Now, the world will FINALLY love us again. Thus, we will be safe and secure forevermore. Peace in our time!

 

[Lycurgus]

The Obama Klan and the Liberals will paint this in a positive fashion. Really, what else can they do?

The bottom line is this ............... Obama caved to outside pressure and did not have the backbone to show un daunting support for our friends abroad.

To try and paint this about something other than about Russia is laughable.

But the Worlds #1 Bull Shitter will stand before the world and do just that.

 

[eagleseven]

Feel the love

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Feel the love.

Birds of a Feather?

 

[GHook93]

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

 

[eagleseven]

Birds of a Feather?

If one is a dodo and the other a vulture...

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

 

[eagleseven]

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

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.

Russia is not on our side, and they are actively arming our enemies in both Iran and Venezuela with their best technology. Whether we admit it or not, Russia realizes that the Cold War is back.

 

[eagleseven]

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.

 

[Si modo]

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.

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.

 

[Navy1960]

maxim si vis pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war).

&#8220;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&#8230;. Great Heart must have his sword and armor to guard the pilgrims on their way.&#8221;
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.

 

[Si modo]

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.

Right. We got nothing as concession. [sarcasm] That's some brilliant negotiating on our part. [/end sarcasm]

 

[eagleseven]

Yes, it seems Obama has already forgotten that Russia invaded its neighbor a little over a year ago...

 

[Navy1960]

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.

Right. We got nothing as concession. [sarcasm] That's some brilliant negotiating on our part. [/end sarcasm]

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.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Feel the love.

Birds of a Feather?

sunglasses? check
tie? check
shirt? check
nose? check

putin and obama, separated at birth? you betcha

 

[Si modo]

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.

Right. We got nothing as concession. [sarcasm] That's some brilliant negotiating on our part. [/end sarcasm]

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.

Trust me, we are on the same page on this. It was a foolish move on our part, IMO.

 

[Sinatra]

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&#8217;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."

 

[ScreamingEagle]

.