To: foxy_maiden
And Europe will be charged how much for this service?? Why do we need to continue to pay for Europe's defense?? Let them develop their own missile shield.
2 posted on
07/05/2006 12:19:38 PM PDT by
MikeA
(Not voting in November because you're pouting is a vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House)
To: foxy_maiden
Let's face it, this shield is not going to be much use against Russia. It's only real use to Europe would be vis a vis Iran, or maybe Pakistan.
5 posted on
07/05/2006 12:28:10 PM PDT by
Brilliant
To: foxy_maiden
If Europe is interested in paying for these sites, fine. But for free? No way.
8 posted on
07/05/2006 12:30:27 PM PDT by
rhombus
To: foxy_maiden
excuse me but I see no reason to put up a missile shield for EU... they're all a bunch of ingrate dollar sucking bastards who's only reason to exist is to critisize America, EU UN same crowd... we should be building a 50 ft. wall on our south border, which is the more pressing issue atm, not caring for the bastards across the pond.
10 posted on
07/05/2006 12:38:35 PM PDT by
Cinnamon
To: foxy_maiden
Why piss more of my taxpayers money away?
11 posted on
07/05/2006 12:40:40 PM PDT by
taxed2death
(A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
To: foxy_maiden
Frist is an idiot... Why should we spend American taxpayer dollars on a European defense system?? Shouldn't they make/fund their own?
To: foxy_maiden
Europe? How about near N. Korea?
To: foxy_maiden
Well that'll sure make the euro-weenies wet themselves.
14 posted on
07/05/2006 12:53:58 PM PDT by
ElkGroveDan
(California bashers will be called out)
To: foxy_maiden
If any FReeper has access to LexusNexus, now would be an excellent time to revisit some of the reasons the left lectured us all on for why exactly it would be a bad idea to work on an Anti-Ballistic Missile system.
To: foxy_maiden
How about we enlarge the sites in Alaska and California and put one in the south to perhaps deal with Chavez in the future.
17 posted on
07/05/2006 1:07:05 PM PDT by
jbwbubba
To: foxy_maiden
If it would benefit the US to have a shield in Europe by improving our ability to intercept missiles inbound to the US then I'm for it.
If it is for the benefit of Europe then let Europe formally ask the US for such a shield and let them propose a formal plan that would address location, cost, political fallout, etc. In other words, it would be a service we would be willing to provide given they pay for such a service. Our NATO allies didn't have our back against the regime in Iraq so why should we have their back against the regime in Iran? They must realize that everything comes at a cost, including the protection we are willing to provide as an ally.
Of course France is excluded from having the right to any protection we might be able to provide as they are not an ally in any sense. Besides, France will be imploding any day now and no one will want to waste a good missile on them anyway.
To: foxy_maiden
To: foxy_maiden
The excerpt is very misleading and omits important information.
24 posted on
07/05/2006 1:53:06 PM PDT by
familyop
("Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists." --President Bush)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson