NATO Backs Bush's Missile Defense System (Breaking)

AP ^ | Apr 3, 2008 | MATTHEW LEE

[Just A Nobody]

LOL! I didn’t have time to post this info when I saw that post. Thanks for doing so!!!

[Just A Nobody]

Thanks! ;*)

[meandog]

>> Where did those so-called "facts" come from? <<

I provided the link to the NY Times article proving that "Read My Lips" Bush slashed the Reagan SDI budget; I also provided the proof that "Mission Accomplished" Bush followed in his old man's footsteps on refusing to bring SDI back to the Reagan levels of funding. Now, you can do the research as well as I, and your constant denial of facts falls on weary fingers and the insults I've gotten in return questioning my veracity has made them more weary...succinctly, I shall not do the fact-finding for you or jrooney any longer. You should feel free as to drink all the Bushbot koolaid available...

[longtermmemmory]

and yet the AP fails to report the balkan defeat handed the Bush administration with the FYROM rejections.

[longtermmemmory]

last I checked there was NO support for SDI.

In fact when Ronal Reagan said the video game players of today would be using those skill in the future, he was soundly ridiculed by the drive by media. TODAY we have those kids flying predator drones in one hemisphere while controlling them in another hemisphere.

[lentulusgracchus]

I seriously doubt USA-defense is the main purpose of that ABM system. Defense of American bases in Europe maybe, most of which are not needed.

Well, the answer to that difference of opinion is locked up in a Pentagon safe somewhere, but I think the longer-range purpose of the system is to serve as a cornerstone of continental defense against threats from jihadi-land (Iran, for now). That is the corner of the world nuts enough to start a nuclear war on general principles -- like the black joke about the frog and the scorpion.

If you have another theory that would explain why the U.S. would go so far out of its way to build SDI in Europe when we can hardly get it approved here because of all the liberal obstruction, I would like to hear it.

We are obviously not defending Israel, one can observe that from the alignment of the component systems. And yet, if we were going to defend a politically sensitive, high-priority Islamist target, why would we opt to protect Europe ahead of Israel? Europe is a much lower-priority target for the Islamofascists. So please explain the location and orientation of the radars and launchers.

[lentulusgracchus]

With enough strap-on SRB's, you can lift just about anything.

[neutronsgalore]

“If you have another theory that would explain why the U.S. would go so far out of its way to build SDI in Europe when we can hardly get it approved here because of all the liberal obstruction, I would like to hear it.......So please explain the location and orientation of the radars and launchers.”

Because the lobbyists for NATO and the EU nations are doing a far better job at bri...ahem..convincing the Dems and pro-NATO GOP members that it’s better to put the ABM defense system in Europe since Iranian missile developments will put them within range long before the USA. As for Israel, with it’s Arrow system it’s already well on it’s way towards ABM defense for it’s territory.