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

Quote:

---

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 :

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

“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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

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/curren...ow-372441.html

This is from "Newsweek" for goodness sake:


How Nuclear Weapons Can Keep You Safe | Newsweek International | Newsweek.com

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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...

Quote:

---

Some of America's staunchest allies are the East Europeans - and on Thursday, they expressed dismay 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, 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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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 .

Quote:

---

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...ad-iaea-report

John Batchelor observes :

Quote:

---

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...ssile-program/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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.

Quote:

---

America has overspent its budget

---

No, OBAMA overspent the budget.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

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

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....berts09_18.jpg

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

... who want to start a nuclear war with Israel and the USA.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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