we had treaty's with both Czech Republic and Poland for these bases
Russia scraps plan to deploy missles
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
naw, why dont you do that, since i dont believe we did break any unilaterally
the ABM treaty had an escape clause that either nation could use
and we did
now, you find the ones you are talking about and provide proof we broke them unilaterally
VaYank5150
Gold Member
Treaties? When were they signed and by whom? I thought treaties went into effect after you had gone to war?
VaYank5150
Gold Member
Fair enough. I was wrong yet again. Thanks for the head's up. I still don't know what treaties we signed with Poland and CZ that woud allow us to park missiles there?
It doesn't matter even short range missle these days have sufficient range to hit poland from the other side of the Urals. The only reason to move them closer was to shorten reponse time to a launch of Russia's offensive armament should the Russian choose to attack Poland.
Si modo
Diamond Member
Good idea. This is much easier than the quote function whenever discussing with someone who will not alter my words.
1. One of my original disagreements with this is that we got nothing in return from the Russians. Although this may appear to be something in return, I don't find it nearly adequate. First, what the Russians had planned for Kaliningrad Oblast was completely offensive and not comparable to our system. In fact, it was an escalation of offensive arms by the Russians. Thus, this is an inequitable trade of concessions. Secondly, considering the security issues in Kaliningrad with their anti-Moscow factions, the Russians' planned deployment of offensive arms in an unfriendly environment was not a given at all.
So, are you saying trading our DEFENSIVE weaponry for their OFEENSIVE weaponry is not equitable? I don't think I follow you on this one? By them not deploying their offensive weapons, we are not going to spend more money on a defensive countermeasure. Sounds like a good business decision to me.
I'm glad you picked up on that. As the world is interested in keeping the Cold War dead and in keeping arms escalation to a minimum, it should be an expectation that Russia will not resume an arms race. This expectation in this case is further magnified whenever one realizes that Russia's claim to escalate is in response to some offensive escalation on our part. That is not the case. It was a gratuituous arms escalation by Russia. And, as I said, they were planning a deployment of offensive missiles in an unfriendly environment. I find it difficult to imagine that Russia was not so insecure about that situation that they would have decided on their own to scrap deployment.
2. Part of the deal to the Poles was to give them Patriot missiles in return for their allowing us the use of their territory. We aren't getting that use any longer, but we are still shipping the Patriots to them. That's a ridiculous waste of our resources for nothing.
I agree. We should not be "giving" weapons systems to anyone, if we are getting nothing tangible in return.
Cool. Although, being accused of supporting the military corporate infrastructure (or whatever the catchy phrase for it is), I suppose I should be happy that we will need to manufacture more Patriots. But, I'm not.
3. As it became clear that we actually did piss off the Poles, still shipping the Patriots certainly makes them happier. However, any trust the Poles were willing to extend to the USA is less credible after this.
OK, but honestly, so what?
I view Poland as a strategic new ally, I prefer that we have well established trust with our allies. And, others may look at this and if we are involved in some deal with them in the future, this breaking of trust (or tendency to do so) will weigh into their decision to favorably deal with us.
4. Finally, with what appeared to me as backpeddling after realizing the ramifications of backing out of this deal, all of this seems poorly thought out and I belive that had we honored the original deal, we would be in a better position as far as goodwill is concerned with the countries involved. Russia and the USA will always have tentative goodwill, IMO, until another generation dies off.
What was the original deal with Russia?
I'm speaking of the deal with the Poles and the Czech Republic. We had no deal with the Russians as they never had any rational interest in this at all. They were not a player nor were they affected. YET, the Russian rhetoric (combined with the misinformation in the media affecting public opinion buying that our BDMS is offensive based on Russian rhetoric) allowed them to get into this for free. I mean free in the sense that there is not a valid grievance on their part with respect to this, yet they get in on it.
Bottom line, I believe there is much more to this that none of us will know publicly because so much of it does not jibe with me. I am going with public information and basing my analysis on that, as is what we all have done.
1. One of my original disagreements with this is that we got nothing in return from the Russians. Although this may appear to be something in return, I don't find it nearly adequate. First, what the Russians had planned for Kaliningrad Oblast was completely offensive and not comparable to our system. In fact, it was an escalation of offensive arms by the Russians. Thus, this is an inequitable trade of concessions. Secondly, considering the security issues in Kaliningrad with their anti-Moscow factions, the Russians' planned deployment of offensive arms in an unfriendly environment was not a given at all.
So, are you saying trading our DEFENSIVE weaponry for their OFEENSIVE weaponry is not equitable? I don't think I follow you on this one? By them not deploying their offensive weapons, we are not going to spend more money on a defensive countermeasure. Sounds like a good business decision to me.
I'm glad you picked up on that. As the world is interested in keeping the Cold War dead and in keeping arms escalation to a minimum, it should be an expectation that Russia will not resume an arms race. This expectation in this case is further magnified whenever one realizes that Russia's claim to escalate is in response to some offensive escalation on our part. That is not the case. It was a gratuituous arms escalation by Russia. And, as I said, they were planning a deployment of offensive missiles in an unfriendly environment. I find it difficult to imagine that Russia was not so insecure about that situation that they would have decided on their own to scrap deployment.
2. Part of the deal to the Poles was to give them Patriot missiles in return for their allowing us the use of their territory. We aren't getting that use any longer, but we are still shipping the Patriots to them. That's a ridiculous waste of our resources for nothing.
I agree. We should not be "giving" weapons systems to anyone, if we are getting nothing tangible in return.
Cool. Although, being accused of supporting the military corporate infrastructure (or whatever the catchy phrase for it is), I suppose I should be happy that we will need to manufacture more Patriots. But, I'm not.
3. As it became clear that we actually did piss off the Poles, still shipping the Patriots certainly makes them happier. However, any trust the Poles were willing to extend to the USA is less credible after this.
OK, but honestly, so what?
I view Poland as a strategic new ally, I prefer that we have well established trust with our allies. And, others may look at this and if we are involved in some deal with them in the future, this breaking of trust (or tendency to do so) will weigh into their decision to favorably deal with us.
4. Finally, with what appeared to me as backpeddling after realizing the ramifications of backing out of this deal, all of this seems poorly thought out and I belive that had we honored the original deal, we would be in a better position as far as goodwill is concerned with the countries involved. Russia and the USA will always have tentative goodwill, IMO, until another generation dies off.
What was the original deal with Russia?
I'm speaking of the deal with the Poles and the Czech Republic. We had no deal with the Russians as they never had any rational interest in this at all. They were not a player nor were they affected. YET, the Russian rhetoric (combined with the misinformation in the media affecting public opinion buying that our BDMS is offensive based on Russian rhetoric) allowed them to get into this for free. I mean free in the sense that there is not a valid grievance on their part with respect to this, yet they get in on it.
Bottom line, I believe there is much more to this that none of us will know publicly because so much of it does not jibe with me. I am going with public information and basing my analysis on that, as is what we all have done.
Last edited:
Si modo
Diamond Member
Just noticed. Thanks!
Neither party has the political courage to make the hard choices on budget priorities.
That's an interesting statement, since the deals with Poland and the Czech Republic were not part of a treaty.
Last edited:
really?
i do believe they were
and since we are still sending Poland Patriot missiles as a part of that treaty, i would say you are mistaken
It wasn't part of a treaty. There was a deal made between our government and theirs, but it was never approved on their end (and on our end, they took for the form of executive agreements).
i guess it depends on who's definition of "treaty" you use
In our system of government, treaty has a very specific definition. That being said, going back on these deals isn't likely to hurt our future relations with these states, as the deals were deeply unpopular in both of them.
unpopular?
really?
Sorry that for the Czech Republic, I couldn't find source polling that wasn't in Czech.
2/3rds of Czechs Oppose Missile Shield
(rozhodně means strongly, spÚe means more, souhlasà means agree, nesouhlasà means disagree)
Majority of Poles Oppose Deployment of Anti-Missile Shield
of course it depends on how the questions were worded as well
- Thread starter
- #58
Bullshit.
Clinton left office with a surplus.
It is the Reagan fantasy of tax cut and spend that bankrupted us. Bush adopted it, and included borrowing money from the Chinese.
WOW, you are really too fucking stupid
the surplus was a MYTH
and, even using those records, he didnt have that "surplus" every year he was in office
and he had a GOP controlled congress that didnt spend more thann he asked for
infact it spent LESS than what he asked for
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Florida brand differential study by Surgeon General shows how harmful shots were
- Started by PeterPilot
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
