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.
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.