Sept . 17 ,1939 The German national socialist and the Russian international socialists invade Poland after they made a secret deal to carve up the nation.

70 years later to the day.

Sept. 17,2009 The United States announced that they will cancel an anti-missile shield system designed to protect Eastern Europe ,including Poland , from missile attack .
U.S. to shelve Europe missile shield plans: report | U.S. | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58G0RT20090917?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)



If the United States does shelve its missile plans, it would please the Kremlin but likely raise alarm in eastern Europe, which is still deeply suspicions of Moscow.
Reports said an announcement would be made Thursday, the 70th anniversary of the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland.
"This is very saddening that it happens on September 17. I hope this is just a coincidence," said Witold Waszczykowski, deputy head of Poland's National Security Bureau, which advises to the president, told Reuters.
"This is very bad -- without the shield we are de facto loosing a strategic alliance with Washington. Let's hope the Patriots will arrive, but who knows," he said.


The NY Slimes reports :


Throughout the Bush administration, the East Europeans had supported the U.S. war on terrorism. They had broken ranks with many other European Union countries in supporting the invasion of Iraq by sending troops. They had turned a blind eye to renditions and interrogation centers (though there were also West European countries that did that).
“The East European countries went out on a limb for America during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Ron Asmus, director of the Brussels office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “Now they feel they are getting whacked.”
Indeed, Washington's special relationship with Eastern Europe seems to be over. Mr. Obama's dithering over whom to send to Poland last month to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the beginning of World War II confirmed that.

FINALLY!! OBAMA IS MAKING BUDGET CUTS!!

Of course it's to the military.

During a time of war.

Just at a time when we're worried about the possibility of attacks from Iran, North Korea and China with long-range missiles.

Perhaps cutting a long-range missile defense system was not the best strategic move he could have made right now.

But he's cutting the budget.

Remember what he called Kanye West? If the shoe fits, perhaps Obama should wear it.

Elliot

The President promised he'd rid the world of nuclear weapons so maybe he thinks the shield serves no purpose .

He is good at cutting the military . He took out the F-22 Raptor already . My guess is the Gerald R. Ford-class air craft carriers are next to go.

“The East European countries went out on a limb for America during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Ron Asmus, director of the Brussels office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “Now they feel they are getting whacked.” Hello tom:

Couple things. First off, I thought Ronnie Raygun WON the cold war... If he did, WHY do we still need missiles pointed at the Ruskies??

Next thing is your belief in quid pro quo, no matter the cost or the need. Then you rail about wasteful spending... Hmm..

Third thing... If THAT is how you define WINNING, no wonder you think we've won in Iraq. Bwa, ha, ha ha.

excon

We have found the new dufus and his name is Obama.

Ex
I call it throwing allies under the bus. The Eastern Europeans have been faithful allies since the fall of the Soviet Union.

I thought you knew history... guess not .

The Soviet Union is no more ,so yes ,the Cold War was won. But ; the Ruskies are still a threat to the former satellite nations they enslaved for 45 years .As we saw last year ,they still have ambitions to reconstitute their empire . The Eastern Europeans of course understand the history of betrayal they were subject to by the appeasers of the past . The President has just etched his name next to Neville Chamberlain in the history books.

Speaking of quid pro quo . The President said that he would have one on ones with the delusional homicidal regime in Tehran without preconditions . But it turns out that there are indeed preconditions. The Iranians will not talk if the discussion becomes one about their nuclear program
Some more quid pro quo. The Obots announce last week in a Friday evening news dump that they would abandon 6 party talks with the NORKS and would go one on one . Do you think it has anything to do with a deal Clintoon brought them when he got the journalists free?? Naaahhh .

Hello tom:

Couple things. First off, I thought Ronnie Raygun WON the cold war... If he did, WHY do we still need missiles pointed at the Ruskies??

1) We don't have them pointed at the Ruskies. We have them pointed at the Iranians and NK and China. The system is a LONG RANGE anti-missile system. It's not meant to defend against your next door neighbor, and wouldn't be effective for that purpose. It is meant to take out missiles at ranges of THOUSANDS of miles, not a few hundred.

Of course the system that Obama says he plans on putting into place instead IS a short-range system... one that IS a direct threat to Russia. But let's not talk about that...

2) After the Ruskies invaded Georgia (the country, not the state), you don't think that there's just the POSSIBILITY that the Ruskies MIGHT be aggressive, and that we should be weary of them? No... of course you don't.

3) Why should we care what the Ruskies think?


Next thing is your belief in quid pro quo, no matter the cost or the need. Then you rail about wasteful spending... Hmm..

So you are saying that we shouldn't support our allies... because it costs too much?

Sorry, but supporting allies is an investment in the future. It's an investment in security. If we don't support allies because it costs too much, we won't have allied for very long.

Remember how you railed long and hard against Bush's "unilateral" war actions, how we should be working with other countries so that we have an alliance in Iraq? Now you're saying we don't need allies cause supporting them is too costly.

There's a HUGE difference between spending money on a stimulus bill that everyone KNEW was going to be a massive failure and was going to quintuple the national deficit, and spending money on a missile defense system to protect ourselves and our allies that we know works.

But of course, you see no difference.


Third thing... If THAT is how you define WINNING, no wonder you think we've won in Iraq. Bwa, ha, ha ha.

Excon

We won WWI. WWII saw Germany rise again 20 years later.

Just because we won the Cold War doesn't mean that the Russians won't rise again to cause trouble... 20 years later.

But of course you don't learn any lessons from history, do you.

Elliot

Intelligence reported that Iran is not developing long range missiles they are concentrating on short range missiles. This is why they are getting rid of the project. Is it true I don't know.

I thought you knew history ...guess not Hello again, tom:

It's true. I don't know EVERY thing that's happened in the world... And, I am having trouble remembering details... That's why I didn't mention the little teeny scrap of memory that told me the missiles you're talking about DON'T WORK - NEVER WORKED - and NEVER WILL WORK.

They'll be about as effective as your favored F-22 - a plane that has NEVER been used in COMBAT and NEVER WILL.

Good for NK for doing the work.

excon

I hope none of our weapons are ever used in combat . The F-22 is so far advanced over anything else in the sky ;it's insane to not add it to the arsenal . We have maintained air superiority for generations and you would risk that advantage ? I don't get it . You were military on the ground.. right ? When was the last time one of our ground troops were killed by an enemy pilot ? Answer... the Korean war. Would you give up that ?

Would you give up that ?Hello again, tom:

I don't want to give up nothing...

And, I don't disagree with you about the F-22, either. It IS advanced... But, if you've noticed, we're not fighting "advanced" wars right now. We're fighting old style wars, and the F-22 doesn't work in that environment. That's why we haven't used ANY of the F-22's we already have in Afghanistan or Iraq..

If we ever have a conventional type war again, we SHOULD start the F-22 line up... But, the military thinkers, don't think we're going to be having any of those wars in the near future. So, they figure making weapons for a war they don't think will happen isn't a very good idea. I agree with them..

Same thing in terms of this missile shield - NO MATTER WHO IT'S AIMED AT, it doesn't work. It's a WASTE of money.

excon

I hope none of our weapons are ever used in combat . The F-22 is so far advanced over anything else in the sky ;it's insane to not add it to the arsenal .

To answer excon's point, the F16 wasn't used in combat either... until it was. Then it became the dominant aircraft in the sky for nearly 40 years. The F22 is so far advanced over the F16, so much of an air-combat force multiplier, that NOT using it would be insane... even criminal.


We have maintained air superiority for generations and you would risk that advantage ? I don't get it . You were military on the ground.. right ? When was the last time one of our ground troops were killed by an enemy pilot ? Answer... the Korean war. Would you give up that ?

The problem is that excon sees combat in two dimensions, not four. He looks at a map. He sees a flat picture with no depth, and no time movement. Combat takes place in FOUR dimensions... length, width, height and TIME. It takes training and a particular type of mind to be able to see the full picture of combat and understand it as an always-changing thing. Generals are trained to see war that way all the time. Civillians, for the most part, do not and can not see war the same way that military professionals do.

Problem is that excon sees HISTORY that way too. That's why he can point to the fact that Reagan won the Cold War and question why we need to be worried about the Ruskies if we already won. He can't see the intervening 20 years of history, and the possible permutations of the future stemming from that history. He sees pictures, but he has no ability to put those pictures into context.

Frankly, it's the same problem he has when he sees pictures of Palestinians wounded, supposedly by Israeli military, and judges it as an injustice. He cannot put those pictures into a larger context, can't see what happened prior or since, and can't place the wounded into their proper place in the larger picture. He sees a picture and fixates on it to the exclusion of everything else.

This isn't really a criticism of excon. Some people have the ability to see a larger context. Others don't. He happens to be one that doesn't.

Elliot

Hello again, tom:

I don't wanna give up nothing...

And, I don't disagree with you about the F-22, either. It IS advanced... But, if you've noticed, we're not fighting "advanced" wars right now. We're fighting old style wars, and the F-22 doesn't work in that environment. That's why we haven't used ANY of the F-22's we already have in Afghanistan or Iraq..

If we ever have a conventional type war again, we SHOULD start the F-22 line up again... But, the military thinkers, don't think we're going to be having any of those wars in the near future. So, they figure making weapons for a war they don't think will happen isn't a very good idea. I agree with them..

Same thing in terms of this missile shield - NO MATTER WHO IT'S AIMED AT, it doesn't work. It's a WASTE of money.

excon

First of all, there is a very good chance, given our current political climate, that we could end up at war with Iran, North Korea or China. All three of them have powerful air forces. We need that air capability, and we can't wait until we are at war to develop it and put it in place.

Second, the F22 is better at targeting ground targets than the F16. That means it is the better plane for the types of operations we are fighting today. It is also more maneuverable around mountains, making it better for combat ops support in Afghanistan than anything else we have.

As far as Iran's long range missiles are concerned, they have missiles that are capable of hitting targets over 1600 kilometers away... over 1,000 miles. From Mashad, they can fire missiles well into Europe, and from Abadan, they could hit targets as far away as Cairo. From Alborz, they could hit central Turkey. What they lack is a nuclear capability. They also don't have ICBMs. But their missiles, the ones they have now, are what the long-range missile system was developed to protect against.

You don't know what you're talking about. You have no understanding of the capapbilities of Iran or the capabilities of the systems you are speaking about.

Elliot

Intelligence reported that Iran is not developing long range missiles they are concentrating on short range missiles. This is why they are getting rid of the project. Is it true I don't know.

Spit . Just like Iran wants to use assets in Venezuela to advance their program,simularily they have been funding the NORK missile program and using them for R & D .
Iran, North Korea Deepen Missile Cooperation | Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_01-02/IranNK)

Second, the F22 is better at targeting ground targets than the F16. That means it is the better plane for the types of operations we are fighting today. It is also more maneuverable around mountains, making it better for combat ops support in Afghanistan than anything else we have.

You don't know what you're talking about. You have no understanding of the capapbilities of Iran or the capabilities of the systems you are speaking about.Hello again, El:

I don't understand you... On the one hand you support the military. On the other, you don't think they know what they're doing... We have 187 F-22's on hand or on order. Our generals are NOT using them in Afghanistan, WHY?? They're interested in LOSING??

YOU seem to know our capabilities and how deploy them BETTER than Defense Secretary Gates. In fact Gates would prefer to build F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and has been pushing for a shift in focus of military spending toward counterinsurgency preparedness. He calls the F-22 "a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios."

Frankly, I'm going to go with Secretary Gates over you, if you don't mind.

excon

Next thing is your belief in quid pro quo, no matter the cost or the need.

I do think there is some quid pro quo going on here. I brought it up when the President "negotiated " the flyover deal with the Ruskies to partly supply the troops in Afghanistan. At the time I predicted this move .
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obama-moscow-372441.html

This is from "Newsweek" for goodness sake:


How Nuclear Weapons Can Keep You Safe | Newsweek International | Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/id/214248)





A growing and compelling body of research suggests that nuclear weapons may not, in fact, make the world more dangerous, as Obama and most people assume.. .

There are more important measures the U.S. government can and should take to make the real world safer, and these mustn't be ignored in the name of a dreamy ideal (a nuke-free planet} that's both unrealistic and possibly undesirable.

The argument that nuclear weapons can be agents of peace as well as destruction rests on two deceptively simple observations. First, nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. Second, there's never been a nuclear, or even a nonnuclear, war between two states that possess them. Just stop for a second and think about that: it's hard to overstate how remarkable it is, especially given the singular viciousness of the 20th century. As Kenneth Waltz, the leading "nuclear optimist" and a professor emeritus of political science at UC Berkeley puts it, "We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states."





G&P

Same thing in terms of this missile shield - NO MATTER WHO IT'S AIMED AT, it doesn't work. It's a WASTE of money.


That's debatable but this goes beyond the question of effectiveness. This is sending a signal that should put chills down the spine of all our allies (actually the treatment of Honduras by the Obots should've already done that ) .One of the reasons the Poles wanted the missile defense system on its soil was the statement it made to the Russians. Essentially, the US was committed to the long term defense of Poland and the missile system was tangible proof of that fact.

If I'm a leader in the Balkans ,Ukraine ,or even Taiwan .I'm having 2nd thoughts about my nations relations with the US. Frankly the NATO folks should be doing the same . Already Merkel led Germany is hedging it's bets.

I do think there is some quid pro quo going on here..... If I'm a leader in the Balkans ,Ukraine ,or even Taiwan .I'm having 2nd thoughts about my nations relations with the US. Frankly the NATO folks should be doing the same . Already Merkel led Germany is hedging it's bets.Hello again, tom:

Yeah, it's getting all mixed up out there. I don't know how it's all going to work out. The world is changing pretty damn fast. But, I TRUST Obamas team far better than I trusted Bush's. I know you don't.

excon

Hello again, El:

I don't understand you... On the one hand you support the military. On the other, you don't think they know what they're doing... We have 187 F-22's on hand or on order. Our generals are NOT using them in Afghanistan, WHY?? They're interested in LOSING??

YOU seem to know our capabilities and how deploy them BETTER than Defense Secretary Gates.

Not surprising. I knew how to deploy our capabilities better than Donald Rumsfeld too. In fact, I tend to know our capabilities and how to deploy them better than MOST politicians. Because I'm not a politician. I'm a student of military history and strategy. I don't know why this surprises you.


In fact Gates would prefer to build F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and has been pushing for a shift in focus of military spending toward counterinsurgency preparedness. He calls the F-22 "a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios."

He's wrong. The F35 tries too hard to be the solution to every problem, and therefore fails at most. Don't get me wrong, it's a good plane. But it lacks the maneuverability and speed of the F22. It trades short-range combat ability for ground-strike ability. The weapons it has available are medium strike range rather than either long or short range, which is where most combat will take place. It makes too many compromises in too many areas to be great at any of them. It is neither bird nor fish... it tries too hard to be everything to everyone. It's a GOOD plane... it is NOT a GREAT plane. The F22 is a GREAT plane, and would wipe the floor with the 35 in air combat.

In essence, Gates makes the same mistake with the F35 that Rummy made in Iraq. He thinks that "tech" and "gadgetry" is the solution to combat. He forgets that winning a war means having the right people on the ground (or in this case in the air) with the right tools to do the job. He assumes that a plane with enough cool gadgets is the way to get the right tool for the job. Problem is that the "right" tool is usually a very specialized one, not a one-size-fits-all item. Because history has shown that one size usually doesn't fit all very well at all.

If the tool cannot do the job WELL but rather only mediocre, the results are going to be mediocre. The F35 is a mediocre tool.


Frankly, I'm going to go with Secretary Gates over you, if you don't mind.

Excon

Not surprising... you have a history of picking the side that's wrong.

Elliot

Remember when Carter scrapped the B1 because of shifting priorities ? Thankfully Reagan brought it back on line and it has served us well since 1986 . It was retooled after the Cold War to have conventional capabilities just as most planes get upgraded .

Elliot is right . I think Gates would be happy with UAV being our only air cover .

The F-35 would not do as good a job penetrating advanced air defenses as the Raptor .A study published earlier this year by Air Power Australia (Australia is one of the F-35 partners ) concluded that the Joint Strike Fighter is "demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft in the sense of designs like the F-117A, B-2A, and F-22A."
Aussie air zealot savages prêt-à-porter stealth fighter ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/f35_controversy_kopp_latest/)

The F-22 can also fly higher, faster, and farther than the F-35 and all while carrying twice as many air-to-air weapons in stealth mode.

Simularily the President and Gates have been promoting a cheaper and more mobile anti-missile system . They have exposed themselves . They are not concerned about effectiveness at all. They are concerned about how the Ruskies think about permanent installations in Eastern Europe.

If I'm a leader in the Balkans ,Ukraine ,or even Taiwan .I'm having 2nd thoughts about my nations relations with the US. Frankly the NATO folks should be doing the same . Already Merkel led Germany is hedging it's bets.

You'd be right...


Some of America's staunchest allies are the East Europeans - and on Thursday, they expressed dismay (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_EASTERN_EUROPE_MISSILE_DEFENSE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-09-17-05-08-36) at what many see as a slight after decades of their support for the U.S.

Among them were some famous names, including Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Polish ex-president. "I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing toward this part of Europe," he said ruefully, adding: "The way we are being approached needs to change..."

Former Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose government signed treaties with the Bush administration to build the radar system - and took a lot of heat from Czechs who feared it would make their country a terrorist target - went on Czech radio to vent his frustrations.

"The Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before," he said. "It's bad news for the Czech Republic..."

"If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it," said Jan Vidim, a lawmaker with the conservative Civic Democratic Party.

And on another note in a perfectly timed report, in a story published today (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iran_nuclear), the same day Obama threw more of our allies under the bus, we find indeed that the morons at the UN know that "Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and worked on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead."

FINALLY!!! OBAMA IS MAKING BUDGET CUTS!!!

Of course it's to the military.

During a time of war.

Just at a time when we're worried about the possibility of attacks from Iran, North Korea and China with long-range missiles.

Perhaps cutting a long-range missile defense system was not the best strategic move he could have made right now.

But he's cutting the budget.

Remember what he called Kanye West? If the shoe fits, perhaps Obama should wear it.

Elliot

Hey, chicken little, you worry too much, Obama knows he can't afford to protect two continents. America has overspent its budget and it's time Europe paid for their own defense, they are big enough and have the money. Maybe if they had to pay for their own defense they wouldn't be able to afford outlandish subsidies to farmers. If Europe is really worried about Iran they can put pressure on Iran to drop its nuclear program and if they are worried about Russia they should remember without Europe, Russia is bankrupt.

If Iran attacks the US it won't be in a fly over Poland, if NK or China attack the US it won't be in a fly over Poland, so Obama has made the right decision, cut the cloth and make the suit fit

Clete .that opinion is not foreign in this country . There are still those... not "chicken littles " but certainly "ostriches with their heads buried in the sand " ,who "parrot" similar "bird droppings" .

The fact is the attitude of retreat from world affairs and hide behind fortress America is a quaint 19th century notion that was discreditted at least twice in the last century . Sure we could leave the Europeans to their own devices ;and in fact I agree with you that they should put up more for their defense ,and less for the nanny states they've built,but in the end we again will be called on to pull them out of the fire.
Also ,we are not talking about the defense of old Western Europe here . We are talking about people who were enslaved by the Ruskies and still live under their shadow. They supported us when we called on them ,and we should do the same. Just like we would with the Aussies .

the morons at the UN know that "Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and worked on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead."

So now we find that not only are the Iranians further advanced in developing a nuclear bomb ,but that they have also made progress on miniaturization capable of putting it on a warhead .

The IAEA, the supposed watchdog organization for proliferation ,has been asleep at the wheel the whole tenure of Muhammad al-Baradi . They have been running cover for the Iranians the whole time. Thankfully his term is coming to a close November ,and perhaps (I have a dream) some integrity can come to one of the UN agencies that actually serves a purpose.

Further , AP reported that this information came out in a "secret annexe" to a report on the Iranian nuclear program which convinces me that al-Baradi is complicit in a coverup of their capabilities.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/iran-nuclear-warhead-iaea-report

John Batchelor observes :


The Obama administration's decision to stand down from strategic defense in Europe is an admission of weakness. Will it also be seen as a resignation from the contest against Tehran's nukes? Yes. Will Tehran back off now that the US has drawn in its talons? No. Is NATO safer because there is no answer to rogue arrows? Let NATO decide. America has gone jaw-jaw. The Twelver regime in Tehran has gone war-war.

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/jb/2009/09/the-threat-posed-by-irans-missile-program/

hey, chicken little, you worry too much, Obama knows he can't afford to protect two continents.

But every OTHER president mistakenly thought they could? Is that your argument?

The only reason we can't "afford" it is because this President has quadrupled the budget deficit, nearly doubled the national debt and is spending money that doesn't even exist yet. The missile defense system WAS affordable until Obama came to office.


America has overspent its budget

No, OBAMA overspent the budget.


and it's time Europe paid for their own defense, they are big enough and have the money. Maybe if they had to pay for their own defense they wouldn't be able to afford outlandish subsidies to farmers.

You mean the farmers that need subsidies because they are being paid NOT to grow the food that Europe needs to survive? Yeah, I agree, it's stupid to pay farmers NOT to farm. Especially when the food is NEEDED.


If Europe is really worried about Iran they can put pressure on Iran to drop its nuclear program

What are they doing now? Are they telling Iran to go forward with their nuclear program?


and if they are worried about Russia they should remember without Europe, Russia is bankrupt.

And without Russia, Europe has no oil. Europe and Russia are inextricably linked. That's what makes Russia such a dangerous player in the international economic community. The EU can't just simply tell Russia to off without significant economic and industrial consequences to themselves. Your position on this is naïve.


If Iran attacks the US it won't be in a fly over Poland, if NK or China attack the US it won't be in a fly over Poland, so Obama has made the right decision, cut the cloth and make the suit fit

Really?

And what if the target isn't the USA, but rather the EU?

Do you think we should just leave allies to fend for themselves?And once they are done with attacking the EU, do you think that it ends there?

That if the USA is a target, the EU is not, and if the EU is a target, the USA is not?

Iran, NK and China don't have one single target in mind. Their goals are world domination... that is the Communist goal and that is the Islamic Fundamentalist goal. That is part of the ideology of their respective systems. Which means that an attack on one of our allies is an attack on ALL of us.

Which means that the best strategy is a COMBINED DEFENSIVE STRATEGY that includes the USA and its European allies, as well as Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Australia (you didn't think you'd be left out, did you Clete?). Each of these allies watches out for the others. Each has the most highly developed missile detection and defense system available so that they can have the earliest warning available for a combined defensive action. Each ally has a "zone" to cover. Each ally covers its own zone and each relies on the others to cover THEIR zones. THAT is how a successful defense is established.

The concept is the same as the concept of how fire-teams are set up during combat. Each soldier watches his assigned fire-zone. He relies on his teamate to watcch HIS fire-zone. The zones overlap so that there is no break in the defensive line. This is repeated by each fire team (three to a platoon), by each platoon (three to a company) and by each company... all the way up to the Brigade level. Each watches its assigned area and trusts the others to watch their assigned area.

This setup allows for the earliest detection of enemy action, the tightest defense against that enemy action, the best protection of your buddy's flanks so that he can worry about HIS zone and protect YOUR flanks, and relies completely on teamwork.

That is how an effective missile defense system works... everyone knows the area they are supposed to protect and watch, everyone knows that the other guy is going to do HIS job.

The mobile missile defense sysytem that Obama is proposing is idiotic. Because it is mobile it has several inherent disadvantages.

1) It is shorter ranged than the system that Obama is denying to the Pols and Chech, which means it has a less effective warning radius.

2) It is MOBILE, which means that our allies will never know where it is, which means that they cannot trust us to be in the proper position to protect their flanks while they cover their zone which protects OUR flanks.

3) The system is less effective at actually stopping missiles. The tracking systems are less effective. The anti-missile missiles themselves are shorter ranged, slower, and less able to track on an incoming missile.

In short, what Obama has planned isn't just something that hurts Europe. It hurts us as well, because we need the support Europe provides in order to an effective missile defense system to work to protect us. Cutting off Europe in order to save a few bucks is penny wise and pound foolish. He's cutting spending in EXACTLY the wrong place.

Elliot

No, OBAMA overspent the budget....

In short, what Obama has planned isn't just something that hurts Europe. It hurts us as well, because we need the support Europe provides in order to an effective missile defense system to work to protect us. Cutting off Europe in order to save a few bucks is penny wise and pound foolish. He's cutting spending in EXACTLY the wrong place.Hello clete:

THIS, brought to you by the same people who sponsored our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... Need I say more?

Probably not, but I will.

Anyone who WRONGLY classifies our economic woes as an OBAMA phenomenon, and excuses the excess's and horrific deficit spending of the previous administration, is NOT a person to be believed on ANY subject.

excon

Clete .that opinion is not foreign in this country . There are still those ....not "chicken littles " but certainly "ostriches with their heads buried in the sand " ,who "parrot" simular "bird droppings" .

The fact is the attitude of retreat from world affairs and hide behind fortress America is a quaint 19th century notion that was discredited at least twice in the last century . Sure we could leave the Europeans to their own devices ;and in fact I agree with you that they should put up more for their defense ,and less for the nanny states they've built,but in the end we again will be called on to pull them out of the fire.
Also ,we are not talking about the defense of old Western Europe here . We are talking about people who were enslaved by the Ruskies and still live under their shadow. They supported us when we called on them ,and we should do the same. Just like we would with the Aussies .

Hey Tom I'm not against support, but Europe, and those new members of the EC are included, is an industrial powerhouse and quite capable of looking after themselves without American help. It is not for nothing they have the same sort of illegal alien problem as the US does. How did the poles and the chec's support the US, by sending a few troops to Iraq? The whole world knows the way to butter up the US is give token support to one of their little escapades. I expect we will be asked to invade Somalia next

It isn't just about Poland . It's about our commitment . These handful of missiles were never going to be a threat to Ivan . But they represented a tripwire signalling our support for their democracies. They ;and all the former Soviet conquered states have now been effectively Finlandized.

What were the Ruskie concessions for this move ? Nada.. in fact we have been greeted with an escalation of Ruskie military muscle in our hemisphere instead. Chavez met with Dmitry Medvedev to complete their military pact.

Medvedev promised to keep on supplying weapons and military equipment to Venezuela. The technical-military cooperation is an important component in our relations; we do not hide it," the Russian president said, DPA quoted.

"Of course we will provide them with arms. Why not? We have good tanks and if our friends ask for them, we will give them," he added.

Chávez, Medvedev sign military and oil cooperation agreements - Daily News - EL UNIVERSAL (http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/09/10/en_pol_art_chavez,-medvedev-sig_10A2723527.shtml)

The Ruskies stick by their allies so good luck to our naiive President who thinks he can garner help from them with Iran.

And since we are going soft ,the Western Europeans are also hedging their bets.


One day after Washington scrapped a missile defense plan for Europe which Russia opposed, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Russia and the Western defense alliance should conduct a joint review of the security challenges they face.

"I would like Russia and NATO to agree to carry out a joint review of the new 21st century security challenges, to serve as a firm basis for our future cooperation," Rasmussen said in a speech in Brussels.

NATO wants to work with Russia on missile defense | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58H1OH20090918?sp=true)

Add to that the German-Russian pact that Germany's Merkel and Putin began after our President's extremely clumsy summit in Moscow (Merkel called their hasty meeting immediately after our President's embarrassing performance the "Repair Summit." ),their meeting in Poland at the anniversary of WWII (oh the irony) which concluded in an deal signed last month ( the part that made the news was the Opal purchase by Germany using Russian money ).

These events show that with a weak POTUS ,Europe is more willing to cut ties with the US out of necessity. But ;unlike what you claim... they are hardly going to go it alone.
As Elliot pointed out they are dependent on Russian energy supplies ,and since we have show fecklessness in our commitments ;they may as well make their own deal with Moscow.

So we are back To MAD and the enemy is a few towel heads in Iran get real america

http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/galleries/Holberts09_18.jpg

so we are back To MAD and the enemy is a few towel heads in Iran get real america

yes we are back to MAD . The problem with it this time however is the people about to get their hands on nukes do not value life on earth as much as we do so the deterent value of MAD is diminished.

Look ; it is an almost certainty that Iran will get their nukes because the nations of the earth that could prevent it have lost their backbones and a significant percentage of their testosterone. That means there will be proliferation of nukes in the most volatile region of the earth . Does anyone really think the Islamic Bomb will end with Iran getting it ?

There needs to be a defense against them beyond the idea that they fear massivie retaliation.

Hello clete:

THIS, brought to you by the same people who sponsored our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... Need I say more?

Probably not, but I will.

Anyone who WRONGLY classifies our economic woes as an OBAMA phenomenon, and excuses the excess's and horrific deficit spending of the previous administration, is NOT a person to be believed on ANY subject.

excon

Anyone who can excuse QUINTUPLING the budget deficit, DOUBLING the national debt, increasing taxes during a recession, and bringing real unemployment to 16.8% despite promissing that it would never rise above 8%, all within 9 months, by blaming it on the prior Republican administration who's worst mistake was allowing itself to go along with the DEMOCRAT economic agenda that a majority of Democrats made into law, has no credibility on any subject.

so we are back To MAD and the enemy is a few towel heads in Iran get real america

Problem with MAD, clete, is that BOTH sides have to fear nuclear annihilation for it to work as a nuclear deterrent.

Ahmadinejad DOESN'T fear annihilation. He doesn't care if the peons in his country die by the millions. He KNOWS he's following the will of god, and that if it comes down to brass tacks, HE'LL be in a bunker somewhere well protected while the people of his country are killed quickly in a nuclear fireball or die slowly from radiation poisoning. And if worse comes to worse, he'll have died a martyr.

In other words, he has no fear of annihilation. Therefore, the threat of mutually assured destruction is no threat at all.

That's why it is so dangerous for a guy like Ahmadinejad to get nukes.

And please don't tell me that the Mullahs won't let such a nuclear war happen. They're the ones who rigged the most recent ellection to make sure that Ahmadinejad stayed in office. They WANT a nuclear incident.

And please don't try to argue that the people of Iran won't let it happen. Without the US support that was denied them by Obama, they have no power to affect anything in their country... they couldn't even keep the election honest.

So you have a potentially suicidal religious kook trying to get nukes, supported by a bunch of religious kooks with a similar agenda with military backing, with nobody either capable or willing to oppose them, who want to start a nuclear war with Israel and the USA. And they don't mind dying, as long as they get the first strike in.

MAD won't work.

Elliot

... who want to start a nuclear war with Israel and the USA. Just Israel, what does the US have to do with it?

Does anyone really think the Islamic Bomb will end with Iran getting it ?

There needs to be a defense against them beyond the idea that they fear massive retaliation.

In case you missed it, Tom, the Islamic bomb has been a reality for years now. It hasn't resulted in a war between two nuclear powers on the sub-continent, in fact, MAD could be said to have worked once again. However, the US has nothing to fear from Iran even if they have the bomb. Israel on the other hand does, and all of this is about Israeli fears, not a real threat to the US

Just Israel, what does the US have to do with it?

NK,

Israel is the LITTLE Satan in Islamic Fundamentalist thinking. The USA is the GREAT Satan. WE... the USA... are the real target. Israel is just more convenient and easier to reach with their current missile technology.

Unless, of course, they DO manage to get the long-range missile capability and the nuclear capability they really want. Then that anti-missile defense system that Obama has now scrapped would become MUCH MORE IMPORTANT to our national defense, wouldn't it?

Elliot

Then that anti-missile defense system that Obama has now scrapped would become MUCH MORE IMPORTANT to our national defense, wouldn't it?Hello again, El:

Only if it works - but it don't.

excon

Why do they hate you so much? Is it your freedoms?

In case you missed it, Tom, the Islamic bomb has been a reality for years now. It hasn't resulted in a war between two nuclear powers on the sub-continent, in fact, MAD could be said to have worked once again. However, the US has nothing to fear from Iran even if they have the bomb. Israel on the other hand does, and all of this is about Israeli fears, not a real threat to the US


Ridiculous.

First of all, if Iran gets nukes, those nukes WILL proliferate. They will be obtained by terrorists who will use them on their enemies... Israel and the USA and the EU. Nobody doubts that fact. Even Obama doesn't deny it. He just thinks he has the ability to control Iran with his magical speeches and kind words. Obama doesn't realize that he isn't quite as dazzling a speaker as he thinks he is and isn't quite as messianic as he believes. He truly thinks that he has powers beyond those of mortal men and can stop Ahmadinejad from getting nukes by talking to him. But even he doesn't doubt the consequences if he fails... he just doesn't believe he can fail.

Second, even if Iran doesn't give nukes to terrorists, that won't stop them from using them themselves via their own agents.

Third, Israel would not be Iran's only target. Turkey is a secularist nation that Iran believes ought to be Islamist... they would have no problem taking out Turkey with nukes in order to "consecrate it to Allah". Ditto for Saudi Arabia. The Mullahs have a particular mad-on against the House of Saud. Then there's various parts of the EU... Georgia would be a nice target since they are fighting against the Chechnyans, their fellow Islamist-Fascists-in-Arms.

In short, it ain't just about Israel.

Nevertheless, Israel is an ally. Even if it was just about Israel, that SHOULD be enough of a reason to keep it from happening... that's what alliances are about. You protect your allies and they protect you.

Elliot

Why do they hate you so much? Is it your freedoms?

Oh... it's not just us... they hate all non-Islamics. We're just the biggest boys on the block and they resent it.

Elliot

You protect your allies and they protect you.
How does Israel protect the US? By sucking in billions of dollars a year? What's the ROI there?

Oh... it's not just us... they hate all non-Islamics. We're just the biggest boys on the block and they resent it.

Elliot
I don't see them planning attacks on Japan or the Soviet Union.

How does Israel protect the US? By sucking in billions of dollars a year? What's the ROI there?

Actually, they protect us by providing the intelligence information that every other country in the world has consistently FAILED to obtain. Israeli intelligence hass consistently been able to infiltrate Arab countries' militaries and intelligence aparatus where everyone else has failed to do so. They even have people within the terrorist organizations, which is why terrorism is way down in Israel from where it was in the 90s and the early part of the decade. There are still MISSILE attacks against Israel, but terrorism is WAY down... in part because of the fence, and in part because of REALLY good intelligence on the terrorists.

They also provide an early warning system that we lack in the Middle East... a warning of any military movements in the area.

And then there's the Osirak bombing... and the Syria bombing in 2007... Israel has consistently proven itself willing and able to do the military jobs that America needs done but can't get caught doing.

Then there's the civilian stuff that you enjoy but don't even know about. The computer you are reading this on was probably developed in Israel. The software was written there for Microsoft, and the hardware was likely perfected there. The cell phone you use is probably based on Israeli technology. Most of the hospital equipment you see in the typical hospital was developed on behalf of American companies in Israel by Israeli R&D specialists. If you watch DVDs, keep in mind that the coding for DVDs was developed by Israelis. Many of your common medications were developed by Israeli pharmaceutical companies using American R&D money.

In short, what we get from Israel in civilian application more than outweighs the amount of money being spent in Israel by the US government.

There's a reason that Israel is called our greatest ally in the Middle East. They don't suck our money from us... if anything, we suck from their R&D establishment and their military/intelligence establishment.

Elliot

I don't see them planning attacks on Japan or the Soviet Union.

First, there is no Soviet Union. Go back to the 80s.

Second, did you read the part about them attacking Georgia because Georgia is at war with the Chechnyans?

Well, Russia is at war with the Chechnyans too. In fact, Russia attacked Georgia earlier this year because Georgia supposedly wasn't doing enough to stop the Chechnyans from getting through the Pankisi Gorge into Russia.

So if Iran has a hankering to help the Chechnyans, they would attack both Georgia AND Russia. Problem is their current missile technology is ONLY capable of attacking Georgia right now. Russia is too far away. But Russia is a prime target if Iran ever gets longer range missiles.

Japan actually IS a target of Muslim fundamentalists as well... the Uyghur terrorists want to take out Japan just as much as they want to take out China. And they want to take out every other non-Islamic country in Asia too.

Remember, the goal of Islamic fundamentalists is to make the entire world Islamic. That doesn't end with just one or two countries... they are out for world domination. You think that they dislike specific countries and want to attack them because someone did something to them. But the truth is that their goal is to take over the world, REGARDLESS of who started something with them or not.

You think Canada is off the hook? That the Muslims in Iran would be satisfied with taking out the USA but leaving Canada alone?

You misunderstand the nature of the Islamic fundamentalist if you can argue that some countries are targets while others are not. ALL countries are targets, whether they are "friendly" or "neutral" or avowed enemies of the Islamic fundamentalists. And the sooner you accept that, the better.

Elliot

In short, what we get from Israel in civillian application more than outweighs the amount of money being spent in Israel by the US government.
That's called trade. Normally we don't send billions in cash and weapons to the people we trade with. Israel would be just fine without that money - doesn't your country need an influx of cash right now?

That's called trade. Normally we don't send billions in cash and weapons to the people we trade with. Israel would be just fine without that money - doesn't your country need an influx of cash right now?

First of all, what makes you so certain that we don't send billions in cash to other countries that we trade with?

Leaving aside Iraq, with $18.4 billion of aid, there's also Egypt ($1.87 billion), Afghanistan ($1.77 billion), Colombia ($570 million), Jordan ($560 million), Pakistan ($390 million), Liberia ($210 million), and manyu others. And that's just straight economic aid.

Then there's aid for specific purposes:

$2.4 billion to improve responsiveness to humanitarian crises worldwide,

$938 million to strengthen USAID’s operational capacity (whatever that means)

$2.3 billion to help Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and West Bank/Gaza achieve economic, democratic, security and political stabilization and to advance their overall development

$2.1 billion for programs in Africa to address non-HIV/AIDS health issues, and to help promote stability in Sudan, Liberia, Zimbabwe and Somalia

$4.8 billion for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative in Africa and worldwide

$550 million to support the Mérida Initiative to combat the threats of drug trafficking, transnational crime, and terrorism in Mexico and Central America

$1.7 billion to promote democracy around the world, including support for the President’s Freedom Agenda

$385 million to support the Malaria Initiative to reduce malaria-related deaths in 15 target African countries

$94 million for the International Education Initiative to provide an additional 4 million students with access to quality basic education worldwide

$64 million to support the Climate Change Initiative to promote the adoption of clean energy technology, help countries adapt to climate change, and encourage sustainable forest management

$4.8 billion for foreign military financing to the Middle East, Latin America, Europe and Eurasia,

$2.2 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation to improve agricultural productivity, modernize infrastructure, expand private land ownership, improve health systems, and improve access to credit for small business and farmers

In short, the USA has a very long-standing tradition of giving lots of money to its allies for various purposes.

Israel is neither the only ally to receive such money, nor is it the largest dollar amount. And we trade with all the countries that we give aid to.

Are you saying that Israel should be different from all those other countries? That they should receive aid, but Israel shouldn't?

Elliot

I see you copy/pasted from here: United States Agency for International Development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development ) next time say so.

And yes Israel is by far the biggest single recipient of American money. I notoced that you copy/pasted the point form word for word... except you purposefully cut out the part that says "including $2.6 billion for Israel". Are you ashamed of that?

I see you copy/pasted from here: United States Agency for International Development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development ) next time say so.

And yes Israel is by far the biggest single recipient of American money. I notoced that you copy/pasted the point form word for word...except you purposefully cut out the part that says "including $2.6 billion for Israel". Are you ashamed of that?

Nope. But it doesn't compare to the $18 billion to Iraq, the total to Colombia which exceeds $4 billion, the total to Egypt which also exceeds $4 billion (including military aid, development moneys, drug enforcement money, etc.).

So again, Israel receives the most DIRECT aid (after Iraq), but they don't receive the most TOTAL MONEY. Not even close. They are dwarfed by Iraq, Africa, Afghanistan, West Bank, Gaza, Mexico, etc.

Plus, there's the fact that Israel gives back MUCH MORE than it receives... much more than any other country the USA gives money to... something you have yet to acknowledge.

And again, I ask a simple question that you refuse to answer.

Are you saying that Israel should be different from all those other countries? That they should receive aid, but Israel shouldn't?

Why did you intentionally leave out the text I showed?

Ridiculous.

First of all, if Iran gets nukes, those nukes WILL proliferate. They will be obtained by terrorists who will use them on their enemies... Israel and the USA and the EU. Nobody doubts that fact. Even Obama doesn't deny it. He just thinks he has the ability to control Iran with his magical speeches and kind words. Obama doesn't realize that he isn't quite as dazzling a speaker as he thinks he is and isn't quite as messianic as he believes. He truly thinks that he has powers beyond those of mortal men and can stop Ahmadinejad from getting nukes by talking to him. But even he doesn't doubt the consequences if he fails... he just doesn't believe he can fail.

Second, even if Iran doesn't give nukes to terrorists, that won't stop them from using them themselves via their own agents.

Third, Israel would not be Iran's only target. Turkey is a secularist nation that Iran believes ought to be Islamist... they would have no problem taking out Turkey with nukes in order to "consecrate it to Allah". Ditto for Saudi Arabia. The Mullahs have a particular mad-on against the House of Saud. Then there's various parts of the EU... Georgia would be a nice target since they are fighting against the Chechnyans, their fellow Islamist-Fascists-in-Arms.

In short, it ain't just about Israel.

Nevertheless, Israel is an ally. Even if it was just about Israel, that SHOULD be enough of a reason to keep it from happening... that's what alliances are about. You protect your allies and they protect you.

Elliot

And the rest of the world will just be standing around watching while the mad mullahs commit mayhem? Protection should not mean preemption. Iran has been blown up in the US psyche to be a nation of equal strength to the US but they are far from it. The US is a 50 times larger economy and there is no comparison in industrial capacity or capability. If we followed your logic the US would march into any country that they thought might be a threat to whoever

Why did you intentionally leave out the text I showed?

Because we had already mentioned what Israel gets... it was already part of the conversation. My POINT, which you are either ignoring or simply unable to understand, is that OTHER countries are getting as much or more aid.

Which again brings me back to the question I asked yesterday... why should Israel be different from every other country that receives aid from the USA, especially since they give back much more than they receive?

Are you prepared to answer that question?

Elliot

It's what involves you in the conflict in the Middle East - I thought that was obvious.

and the rest of the world will just be standing around watching while the mad mullahs commit mayhem?

What would they do to stop it?

If Iran launches a nuclear strike at Israel, what will the rest of the world do to keep that strike from landing... in the roughly 3 minutes it would take for that strike to hit its target? What action can the rest of the world take that will keep Israeli citizens alive in that very credible scenario?


Protection should not mean preemption.

In this case the ONLY MEANS of prevention is preemption. How else do you stop a nuclear strike that is in the air, moving at supersonic speeds, and has only 3 minutes before it hits?


Iran has been blown up in the US psyche to be a nation of equal strength to the US but they are far from it. The US is a 50 times larger economy and there is no comparison in industrial capacity or capability. If we followed your logic the US would march into any country that they thought might be a threat to whoever

Iran doesn't have to be the USA's equal to be a credible threat to civilian lives. They aren't trying to win an economic war. They aren't trying to fight a battle of attrition over the long term the way the Cold War was fought. They are trying to get nukes so that they can use them in a single, glorious strike at their enemies and go down in a blaze of glory.

They aren't trying to win in the long term. They aren't even trying to win in the short term. What they are trying to do is get in ONE good strike at as many targets as they can before they die.

THEY ARE SUICIDAL!!

That's the point you are missing. They are the equivalent of a suicide bomber on a grand scale. That's why MAD can't and won't deter them. That's why they can't be stopped once they have nuclear capability. They don't CARE what the rest of the world does to them AFTER they hit us or Israel or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Georgia or wherever else they decide to hit. They just want that one shot...

And against an enemy like that, the ONLY option for protection and prevention is preemption.

Elliot

It's what involves you in the conflict in the Middle East - I thought that was obvious.

That doesn't answer my question.

What makes Israel different from every other recipient of US aid that you call THEM a group that "sucks" money from the USA and say that the USA should stop granting them aid when it doesn't stop aid to any other nation? Especially since Israel gives back more than it receives.

USA grants aid in various forms to Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria, and a whole host of other countries in the region. The amount going to Israel is a relative pittance by comparison. What makes Israel a special case in your mind that the USA should stop granting THEM aid, but not any of the other nations in question?

Elliot

In this case the ONLY MEANS of prevention is preemption. How else do you stop a nuclear strike that is in the air, moving at supersonic speeds, and has only 3 minutes before it hits?Hello again, El:

Couple things... If antibullistic missile shields worked, doncha think the Israeli's have one? But, you want to spend our money building one anyway in OTHER parts of the globe... But, I digress - or do I??

Next is your view that preemption is the ONLY means of prevention... Personally, before we, or the Israeli's, fry a bunch of innocent Iranian citizens, I think we should talk to 'em.

You don't. You just want to fry 'em. What's the matter with you?

excon

Iran has been blown up in the US psyche to be a nation of equal strength to the US but they are far from it.

By who? Who thinks that, Clete? I think we all know we could turn Iran into the land of glass in short order.


The US is a 50 times larger economy and there is no comparison in industrial capacity or capability.

And that's relevant, how?


If we followed your logic the US would march into any country that they thought might be a threat to whoever

What logic? The logic that says nukes in the hands of the Mullahs and a nutjob like the Mahdi Hatter is a bad thing?

Hello again, El:

Couple things... If antibullistic missile shields worked, doncha think the Israeli's have one?

Anti-missile shields require large areas to be effective. They require enough land area to pick up the missile, track it, fire the anti-missiles and reach the missiles before the missile strikes its target. Israel is the size of New Jersey... way too small for an effective anti-missile shield. That's why they have a policy of preemption.


But, you want to spend our money building one anyway in OTHER parts of the globe... But, I digress - or do I??

I want to spend the money to put a missile system where it will be most effective... spread across ALL OF EUROPE.


Next is your view that preemption is the ONLY means of prevention... Personally, before we, or the Israeli's, fry a bunch of innocent Iranian citizens, I think we should talk to 'em.

You don't. You just want to fry 'em. What's the matter with you?

Excon

Gee, like the talks over the past 15 years have been so effective at getting the Iranians to stop their nuclear ambitions. We've been talking to them since the Clinton years, excon... where have you been. We've tried unilateral talks, bi-lateral talks, talks through third parties, three-way talks, talks in which we let OTHERS do the negotiating and stayed out of it, talks in which we took charge and made everyone else stay out of it. We have tried every single permutation and combination of talks possible. We've tried to bribe them, threaten them, cajole them, beg them, bow to them, and treat them like kings. IT HAS FAILED EVERY TIME FOR 15 YEARS!!

But you've come to the conclusion that The Messiah Obama is the Great Communicator who is going to miraculously talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and get him to see reason and get him to join the rest of civilization, where all those who have come before him (including Bill Clinton, who was no slouch at communication) have failed. All Hail The Chosen One!!

There will come a point in time when Iran WILL have nukes and missile capability. If we keep talking without taking action, that time will be SOONER rather than later. And once that happens, it will be too late, because he WILL use them.

As for "frying Iranian civillians"... I seem to remember Israel taking out the Osirak nuclear facility without any civilian casualties whatsoever. You think that either Israel or the USA couldn't do the same in Iran? Or a combination of the Israelis, the Americans and the Brits in a joint operation? The USA maintaining air superiority against the Iranian Air Force and the air forces of any other country that wants to get in our way, the Israelis doing the precision bombing (their particular specialty), and the Brits as backup to our air superiority force and Israel's bombers, and for logistical support.

You think we couldn't pull it off without significant civilian casualties?

There don't have to be "frying Iranians" to pull this off. It's been done before.

Elliot

That's the point you are missing. They are the equivalent of a suicide bomber on a grand scale. That's why MAD can't and won't deter them. That's why they can't be stopped once they have nuclear capability. They don't CARE what the rest of the world does to them AFTER they hit us or Israel or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Georgia or wherever else they decide to hit. They just want that one shot...

And against an enemy like that, the ONLY option for protection and prevention is preemption.

Elliot

Then by your own argument building a missile shield in Poland is pointless. The US should make one massive nuclear strike on Iran and take them out, and of course, the rest of the world with them

Then by your own argument building a missile shield in Poland is pointless. The US should make one massive nuclear strike on Iran and take them out, and of course, the rest of the world with them

If it hadn't been for Mr. Peanut in 1979 allowing an act of war to go unremarked, Persia would already be a glass lake.

If it hadn't been for Mr. Peanut in 1979 allowing an act of war to go unremarked, Persia would already be a glass lake.

Yes, remarkably perceptive of him wasn't it

Then by your own argument building a missile shield in Poland is pointless. The US should make one massive nuclear strike on Iran and take them out, and of course, the rest of the world with them

First of all, please keep in mind that the area of Poland is 121,000 square miles, compared to Israel's 20,000 square miles of area... Poland is over 6 times larger than Israel.

Second, Poland's missile defense system was to be integrated into a larger missile system that covered a large portion of Europe. Poland was not the only one slated to receive the missile defense system... it was to be an INTERNATIONAL system that integrated several countries into the system... thus widening the effective area. That's why I spoke about a multi-tiered defensive system wherein one country covers another country's flank and vice versa. Israel, however, is a stand-alone country in the Middle East. No other Middle Eastern country would want to integrate its defense with Israel, and you know it. So an integrated anti-missile system for Israel is out of the question, where it is perfectly feasible for European countries to work together.

Third, who's talking about nuclear strikes against Iran? You and excon and NK are the only ones calling for nuclear strikes on Iran. I'm talking about conventional strikes to take out their nuclear facilities, and you are equating that with a nuclear strike. Why are you drawing that conclusion? Why are you stuck on nuking Iran? It sure wasn't anything I said or even intimated.

Elliot

yes, remarkably perceptive of him wasn't it

So you're saying you LIKE terrorists in charge of large countries and working to obtain nuclear weapons. You like the fact that Carter didn't nip the Mad Mullahs in the bud before they took a foothold in Iran.

So you're saying you LIKE terrorists in charge of large countries and working to obtain nuclear weapons. You like the fact that Carter didn't nip the Mad Mullahs in the bud before they took a foothold in Iran.Look, you're putting words in people's mouths again. Why do you feel the need to do that? It doesn't lend well to civil discourse.

Look, you're putting words in people's mouths again. Why do you feel the need to do that? It doesn't lend well to civil discourse.

My post was directed to Paraclete. Look at who I was quoting in my post. Please pay attention. And stop making unfounded accusations.

My post was directed to Paraclete. Look at who I was quoting in my post. Please pay attention. And stop making unfounded accusations.I know. Doesn't stop the fact that your tactics are very juvenile.

I know. Doesn't stop the fact that your tactics are very juvenile.

What "tactic" do you think I'm using? Clete said that he thought Carter was being very perceptive when he didn't take stronger actions against Iran during the Iran Hostage Crisis. That means that he approves of Carters actions, or lack thereof.

Do you have a different way of interpreting his comments?

In what way is my interpretation juvenile?

Elliot

So you're saying you LIKE terrorists in charge of large countries and working to obtain nuclear weapons. You like the fact that Carter didn't nip the Mad Mullahs in the bud before they took a foothold in Iran.

I can see sarcasm is lost on you

I can see sarcasm is lost on you

Sorry... It's hard to tell sometimes.

My mistake.

It appears Obama has re-reversed his support for missile defense in Poland (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/21/biden-polish-leaders-agree-revised-missile-plan/). In April he was for it, last month he was against it, now he's for it again. At least he's finally headed in the right direction again but it sure is confusing trying to keep up with wherever it is he stands on anything.

It appears Obama has re-reversed his support for missile defense in Poland (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/21/biden-polish-leaders-agree-revised-missile-plan/). In April he was for it, last month he was against it, now he's for it again. At least he's finally headed in the right direction again but it sure is confusing trying to keep up with wherever it is he stands on anything.

This is of course in response to Russia's recent sabre rattling. Things change, foreign policy is fluid, particularly when it's not your long suit or you failed to realise that any concession to Russia will be seen as weakness. Now I wonder what would have happened if Evita were in the chair

This is of course in response to Russia's recent sabre rattling. Things change, foreign policy is fluid, particularly when it's not your long suit or you failed to realise that any concession to Russia will be seen as weakness. Now I wonder what would have happened if Evita were in the chair

Clete, ALL of Obama's policy is fluid just like the last Democrat. Clinton got out of bed every morning and stuck his finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing before deciding where he stood that day.

Obama should have known how the Russians would respond and he probably did, but he's too idealistic to deal with the reality on the ground.

I would much rather be discussing how Evita was handling things than Obama. That is if she's not still making stuff up (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/evita-has-another-oldzheimers-moment-407901.html).

Good God! Does Joe Biden ever read the Obama playbook before he goes out on junkets ?

If the President gets tough on the Ruskies and escalates in Afghanistan will he have to decline the peace prize ? The peace prize is going to be an albatross hanging on the President's foreign policy for the rest of his term.

Good God !! Does Joe Biden ever read the Obama playbook before he goes out on junkets ?

If the President gets tough on the Ruskies and escalates in Afghanistan will he have to decline the peace prize ? The peace prize is going to be an albatross hanging on the President's foreign policy for the rest of his term.

Might have been an excellent method of emascalating him, very suble those Europeans and Biden has his own agenda which probably includes jumping in the chair.

Obama will have to do something spectacular to justify that prize. Could it be that the quiet winddown of the Iraqi occuption is part of that justification or is it just budget reality. If he has an sense, and the jury is out on that one, he will hold the Afghan occupation at its present level and slowly step back from the corrupt regime of Khazai

the quiet winddown of the Iraqi occuption is part of that justification or is it just budget reality

Have to be careful here. Yes there is an opportunity to an orderly withdrawal from Iraq .But, if there is a perception of abandonment then there is no chance of achieving anything in either Afghanistan ,or the whole ummah.


If he has an sense, and the jury is out on that one, he will hold the Afghan occupation at its present level and slowly step back from the corrupt regime of Khazai

The support for a run-off election is an important step. Th big mistake in the 1st try was letting the UN be the lead agency in monitoring the election.

This article might be an explanation for Joe Biden's lampoon-like East European vacation .
RealClearWorld - The Cleaner Goes to Europe (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/10/21/joe_biden_the_cleaner_goes_to_europe_97278.html)

At least it seems to... I can never tell if he is going rogue or is just not schooled on the policy of the administration he serves.
While in Poland I wonder if the Bob Uecker look-a-like unleashed a dumb Polish joke... or maybe they entertained him with dumb Biden jokes.
How many Joe Bidens does it take to screw in a light bulb?

At least it seems to ....I can never tell if he is going rogue or is just not schooled on the policy of the administration he serves.
While in Poland I wonder if the Bob Uecker look-a-like unleashed a dumb Polish joke...or maybe they entertained him with dumb Biden jokes.
How many Joe Bidens does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Two, one to screw it in and one to screw it up.

Two, one to screw it in and one to pry his foot out of his mouth before he climbs the ladder.

How many Joe Bidens does it take to screw in a light bulb?Two, one to screw it in and one to screw it up.

Two, one to screw it in and one to pry his foot out of his mouth before he climbs the ladder.

Or None... he hires the Indians from the 7-11 to do the job.