hmm, isn’t the mission in Afghanistan a...NATO mission? Is that Europe taking care of itself?
and who pushed for Poland et al to become part of NATO... wasn’t that largely....us?
and who, for commercial and national security reasons probably wanted to protect missile defense shield technology in a proprietary way...would that be...us?
and if europe’s security is breached and europe gets attacked, where does that leave...us? It’s “their” problem?
Bamsters reasoning is nutty. It presumes the missile threat to europe comes from Iran and the russians can and will curb that if we leave europes flank exposed to the russians. What sense does that make? How is this little deal in europe’s interest?
With us reneging on decades of assurances and planning ... who or what curbs the russian missile threat against europe? yes, Putin and his generals might actually pose one.
The mission is Afghanistan is ostensibly an NATO mission, but in reality it's a U.S., Canadian, British one. With the Germans and French sitting in their barracks doing nothing but giving lipservice to the concept of NATO. They aren't even allowed in combat areas. It's absolutley Europe (Britain excluded) taking care of itself.
"and who pushed for Poland et al to become part of NATO... wasn’t that largely....us?"
Yes, as usual, we've pushed to expand NATO for reasons that remain unclear to me...insisting on expanding a north Atlantic partnership into a continental defense pact that would force the U.S. into military commitments it could not ever reasonably hope to fulfill. The Russian invasion of Georgia and the impotent western response should have made that clear to everyone.
"and who, for commercial and national security reasons probably wanted to protect missile defense shield technology in a proprietary way...would that be...us?" "
Well, if we want to be proprietary about it, we should sell it to Europe...not pay for it to be implemented. If we're worried about keeping the technology safe, then we should keep it in north American and not sell it at all.
"and if europe’s security is breached and europe gets attacked, where does that leave...us? It’s “their” problem?
If Europe gets attacked, yes, it's their problem...or should we drain the U.S. treasury and every precious drop of American blood in protecting the freedom of those who have the ability, but not the will, to provide for their own defense?
"Bamsters reasoning is nutty. It presumes the missile threat to europe comes from Iran and the russians can and will curb that if we leave europes flank exposed to the russians. What sense does that make? How is this little deal in europe’s interest?"
His reasoning is nutty if he actually believes the Russians will do what they claim. They won't. It's probably not in Europe's best interest either, but they seem not to care. Frankly, I'm concerned with what's in America's best interest, and I'm not sure that imposing a missile defense shield in eastern Europe is it. Only the Poles want it, the Russians are adamantly against it, as are the western Europeans, and many of those in eastern Europe too. It would be better to help Poland with a conventional military buildup and response capability than proceed down this universally unpopular path that does nothing for our own N. American defenses.
"With us reneging on decades of assurances and planning ... who or what curbs the russian missile threat against europe? yes, Putin and his generals might actually pose one."
Europe has reneged on its pledge to fight for democracy and western values in my opinion...what are it's consequences? I think the Russian threat to continential Europe is dramatically overblown. Frankly the deterrent on Russian missiles is what it has always been: UK and French nuclear capabilities, backed by the U.S.