[tomder55]

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

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.

[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

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

“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

[speechlesstx]

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[ETWolverine]

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

[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.

[excon]

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

[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 . 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 ?

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[tomder55]

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

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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

[inthebox]

This is from "Newsweek" for goodness sake:


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

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

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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