Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FreedomCalls
From the article -

"It would be the first American strategic missile defence site outside U.S. territory, and would be designed to defend all of Europe against intercontinental-range missiles - primarily those launched from the Middle East."

I think you are missing the strategy here.

145 posted on 11/19/2005 10:45:13 PM PST by dervish (no excuse s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]


To: dervish
That's what they say now. They said the Interstates were to allow the quick mobilization of defense resources. In the end it turned out to be something different altogether. They said red light cameras were to prevent accidents, not to raise revenue. They said the Assault Weapons Ban would reduce violent deaths in American cities. And so forth.

You need to read between the lines. If it were to defend Western Europe, then it would be a NATO base, or other European military installation, but given that is is going to be a United States site, you need to look at why it would need to be there.

146 posted on 11/20/2005 12:02:46 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson