Posted on 03/02/2009 1:23:55 PM PST by icwhatudo
President Obama offered to consider scrapping plans for a missile defense shield in Europe if Russia helps rein in Iran's nuclear program, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported.
-------snip----
Obama inherited plans to build the system in Poland and the Czech Republic from the Bush administration, but the new administration has equivocated over the project. Though the plans were put in place to deter nations like Iran and North Korea from launching attacks and developing nuclear weapons, Russia has interpreted the planned installation as a threat.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Things have been said about protecting Europe as well. Which is nice. But the U.S. is always the defended target -- it had better be.
Oh I’m sure if I spent any time I could find additional polling data. The program just isn’t that popular in the countries that will have to host the hardware, moreover, since it’s not necessary for America’s own defense, I don’t support it.
And Old Europe wouldn't see a sufficient threat if it had a ticking timebomb in its lap. And it does.
Oh, we’re in agreement there, but this is their continent, and their Union, not ours, so if the Poles and Czechs and others in eastern Europe don’t feel their political alliance has sufficient military deterrent capability, then they need to talk to Brussels and beef it up.
My argument does no such thing. I didn't dismiss Iran at all. Both threats can be, and are, very real.
So…then you expect Tehran to launch missiles at Warsaw for some reason? Under no reasonable scenario can I envisage that, even if Iran had missiles capable of reaching Warsaw, which it doesn’t. Besides, if that were the real threat, then it would be better to place the interceptors in Russia as the Russians suggested, or in Turkey or even Israel. The ‘Iran attacks eastern Europe’ justification argument is ludicrous.
This comparison only holds true if the United States had invaded and occupied Cuba and Venezuela (for 40 and 20 years, respectively) under the most repressive, brutal totalitarian reign of terror modern history had ever seen. Since the U.S. has never done anything of the sort, the comparison is frivolous and disingenuous.
It doesn’t require that at all. It only requires that two large powers regard themselves as having respective spheres of influence, and react negatively when one enters the other.
But one would rightly expect the Russians to react with hostility... because it is their nature. That's why their old occupied-territories need our missiles to ensure their continuing freedom. Because the bastards haven't changed, and they're still right next door. "If Russia makes a move, it will be..." -- You say that with such certainty. Do you know something we don't know? Has Russia learned its lesson and committed itself to non-violent Marxist revolution... sort of like Billy Ayers?
Yes. Russia has changed in this respect: it’s far weaker than it was when it rolled into Czechoslovakia or dominated all eastern Europe. I having nothing but contempt for their history of ruthless domination, but I see no evidence of a desire to truly reconstitute the Iron Curtain as you suggest, and woefully inadequate means to accomplish it even if they did.
Marxists live for carnage and mayhem. Everything they do is a means to that end. There are a number of ways the Reds can achieve their goals in Poland and the Czech Republic (they want them back)... when we abandon the missile shield, they'll be one more.
You are wrong there of course. Carnage and mayhem was always a means to a utopian end for them, it was not an end in itself. That they were unable to achieve their utopian ideal is of course the great flaw of Marxism – the system is naturally dehumanizing, ruthless, bloody and eventually unsuccessful in achieving its stated goals because it is tyrannical, but its end, as designed, is not to create carnage and mayhem, that is just an inescapable result.
Maybe they can, maybe they should, but they don't. If the E.U. is the only thing standing between Russia and Poland or the Czechs, the E.U. will politely step aside before confronting the Bear militarily.
Well, like I said, I think it’s obvious hysteria to think Russian tanks and troops are somehow poised to roll into eastern Europe, but if they did, and the Russians were willing to risk nuclear holocaust with western Europe and the U.S., a limited missile defense system would quickly prove worthless wouldn’t it?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Yes, that’s one of the justifications, but Iran’s missiles can’t reach either the Czech Republic or Poland, so it’s rather an absurd argument. I suppose they could launch at Bulgaria or Greece, but to what end?
No, it isn't. He produced the better evidence. You challenged him, he made his point despite your gainsay. He punked you.
Yet. The Bush administration was quite explicit that they were preparing for future threats.
....so it’s rather an absurd argument.
Not hardly. It is sufficiently salient to have convinced the Bush Administration to commit the treasure and diplomacy of the United States to a significant effort, with the end in view of defending the People of the United States from a credible source of harm and blackmail.
Are you dense? Or a masochist? Enjoy leading with your chin?
You are totally, just totally punked.
Give it up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2197954/posts
"An Israeli missile defense expert explains Iran's global missile program."
You are refuted. Elenchus.
Of course. I've been trying desperately to warn family and friends ever since this bad actor burst on the scene. As we all know, it's been an uphill battle to fight hopey-changey feel-goodism with reason.
A bottle of Pilsner Urquell and a big plate of Pasta Putanesca. Now, that’s saying something.
It might only help by limiting Iranian access to Russian nuclear expertise ... but I agree, it doesn't much help us there, either.
February 14, 2009 "Few Czechs, however, have bought that argument. Public opposition to the radar installation has hovered at around two-thirds of the citizenry since polling began in September 2006. A new poll by the Czech-based Public Opinion Research Centre, released on February 11, found that 65 percent of Czech citizens oppose the base and 72 percent want a referendum on the subject. Moreover, the poll found, 77 percent of Czechs fear that the base could become the target of a military attack, and 67 percent are worried about a potential terrorist attack on it." http://www.mcclatchydc.com/nationalsecurity/story/62190.html
Yes, well, perhaps when the materialize, and you can come up with a realistic scenario about why Tehran would want to bomb Prague, then, perhaps those in the Czech Republic will be more willing to host a defense system, and we can spend your tax money on defending them then. Not hardly. It is sufficiently salient to have convinced the Bush Administration to commit the treasure and diplomacy of the United States to a significant effort, with the end in view of defending the People of the United States from a credible source of harm and blackmail. Well, nonexistent weapons of mass destruction were enough to commit the Bush Administration to war with Iraq, so that's hardly convincing, but again, since there is 5,000 miles between the U.S. and eastern Europe you are advocating a system that those in Europe do not want, that the U.S. does not need, regarding threats that do not currently exist. Where's the wisdom in that?
Are you dense? Or a masochist? Enjoy leading with your chin? You are totally, just totally punked. Give it up.Actually, I didn't. I've refuted everything both of you two have put together...including new polling data that supports my position. You are apparently intellectually committed to your position and unable to look at another point of view, which is unfortunate, since I think we both are interested in protecting the United States from harm, but merely disagree about the effectiveness of this platform. You're also extremely discourteous, so I frankly don't wish to speak with you anymore.
This is your problem. You are stuck in the cold war. The world doesn't operate that way anymore. Today, the US sphere of influence is the whole world, and Russia has no sphere of influence at all. When Russia reacts negatively to us, we don't care, because we are advancing our own interests, not Russia's. We are expanding NATO to expand our own sphere of influence, at Russia's expense. You need to pick a side, our side. The missile interceptors in Poland are for the defense of the USA, not Poland. That is a fact no matter how many times you deny it. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason why our missile shield should not cover the entire world. The only reason not to put it in Poland is to capitulate to Russia's demands, which we have absolutely no reason at all to do. Restricting the scope of our missile shield is not in America's interests in any way at all, it is only in the interests of our enemy, Russia.
Not at all. We refuted you, to the perfection of refutation.
This conversation is over. You're done. Thanks for contributing.
At what point does the European Union provide for its own defense?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.