Off Topic ForumThis is the place for mature discussions not necessarily related to cars. This is however also moderated and only registred members are allowed to post. No religion and no vicious attacks.
Evidently by not deploying a missile shield, it improves the ability to protect ourselves and our allies from the (now downgraded) threat of missile attacks. The logic is stunning. The Journal article also goes on to state that Russia sees no reason to make concessions now that we've dropped our pants.
Apparently, the administration thinks that planning for short and intermediate range missile attacks from Middle Eastern states precludes one from preparing for future longer range attacks from those same Middle Eastern states and one giant mother to the East...
This is pathetic...It is a ploy to get Russia to the table on economic sanctions against Iran. Doesn't the administration understand that Russian and Iran are inextricably connected economically?
Fools.
Last edited by glowrider; 17th September 2009 at 19:41.
I completely disagree with you. Obama (probably accidentally) is actually right here. Buchanan correctly addressed this issue here: Dying for...Estonia? - by Pat Buchanan
The US has no interest in protecting Poland (I was born there and have relatives there, BTW) and any attempt to do so would be terribly misguided and incredibly dangerous. Also, from a pragmatic view, the least useful thing in the world for Poland would be a missile shield.
When Poland pulls out of NATO, then the responsibility of defending it will cease to exist. Poland has troops on the ground in Afghanistan fighting our war. Just 15 days ago, US officials assured Poland that it was committed to protecting Polish territory. Lord knows what else we have going on in Poland with our more cloaked entities.
There's every reason in the world that America has interest in protecting Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.
Also, it is not inconceivable, as we saw in Georgia, that Russia will move further outwards in the future to make inroads in order to reacquire its satellites.
It is stunning to me why Moscow is so concerned with 10 Interceptors and a radar station...Wonder why they're so worked up about that?
Last edited by glowrider; 17th September 2009 at 20:20.
When Poland pulls out of NATO, then the responsibility of defending it will cease to exist.
We should pull out of NATO, today. Even with our existing ill-conceived obligation, there's certainly no reason to expand on the insanity.
Quote:
Poland has troops on the ground in Afghanistan fighting our war.
That's their stupid decision as it was for the US government to embark on the quixotic mission of regime change and reforming them along a US template; Really, really dumb. You might want to listen to award-winning war correspondent Eric Margolis: Eric Margolis Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette
Quote:
There's every reason in the world that America has interest in protecting Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.
And that reason is what? Afterall, Europe's GDP roughly equals ours and exceeds Russia's. Why should a nation thousands of miles and oceans away be responsible for protecting them.
Anyway, last time we protected Poland, we left in in ruins (by both Nazis and commies) and then ceded it to commie subjugation for 45 years. The old joke in Poland during the Iron Curtain days was that its big mistake was not declaring war on the US because those that did obviously fared better.
Quote:
Also, it is not inconceivable, as we saw in Georgia, that Russia will move further outwards in the future to make inroads in order to reacquire its satellites.
It is stunning to me why Moscow is so concerned with 10 Interceptors and a radar station...Wonder why they're so worked up about that?
Given my family's history, I'm certainly not a Russophile and am not going to expend too much energy defending them, but what would your response be if Russia put missiles (even just interceptors) in Mexico. People almost never look outside their own jingoistic perspective.
I sincerely doubt that Moscow has intentions of marching into Warsaw ala 1939....no Mr. Putin has enough shiit to concern himself with within the former CCCP.....moreover the Russian Military AS IT PERTAINS to Russia proper is NOT the juggernaut of man & machine it once was....any movement into Eastern Europe would be conventional IF there were any outward movement....no the only way Russia would do anything would be to undermine internally....
S
We should pull out of NATO, today. Even with our existing ill-conceived obligation, there's certainly no reason to expand on the insanity.
That's their stupid decision as it was for the US government to embark on the quixotic mission of regime change and reforming them along a US template; Really, really dumb. You might want to listen to award-winning war correspondent Eric Margolis: Eric Margolis Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette
And that reason is what? Afterall, Europe's GDP roughly equals ours and exceeds Russia's. Why should a nation thousands of miles and oceans away be responsible for protecting them.
Anyway, last time we protected Poland, we left in in ruins (by both Nazis and commies) and then ceded it to commie subjugation for 45 years. The old joke in Poland during the Iron Curtain days was that its big mistake was not declaring war on the US because those that did obviously fared better.
Given my family's history, I'm certainly not a Russophile and am not going to expend too much energy defending them, but what would your response be if Russia put missiles (even just interceptors) in Mexico. People almost never look outside their own jingoistic perspective.
I don't disagree with much of what you say in theory (except pulling out of NATO - I believe in NATO) - but that's not the world we live in. We have made these obligations and we should be keeping them. We shouldn't be in the United Nations, but we (mostly) play by those rules and expect others to do so as well. Why should it be different with NATO - an organization that is far more important. Poland has been our staunchest ally in Europe over the past several years. This administration seems keen on disrupting alliances forged in the past - mostly, it seems, to placate those countries in direct opposition to our values and goals. Doesn't seem like the best policy to bring in the little guys from the cold (no pun intended).
People are so worried about us regaining credibility and popularity throughout the world (read: Europe mostly) - rejecting our obligations and throwing the rabbits to the wolves is not the way to conduct foreign policy. Isolationism is bad news.
And as for your last comment - when Russia enters into a strategic defense treaty with Mexico, then we can discuss that. Fact is, they haven't and we have an obligation to uphold. Russia is concerned about us interfering with their ICBM capability - not us invading them.
Furthermore, not putting these in place is shortsighted. If Iran (which is being brought up by the administration) is really the target from which we are concerned about, develops long-range missiles (easier just to buy 'em from Russia or NK), having those Interceptors in place to protect our own interests in Europe is important. We've got major bases in Europe that this defense-shield would be involved with protecting from all directions.
The administration says it is doing this so they can redeploy assets to the south...So they're going to leave open the side door. Real smart...
Last edited by glowrider; 18th September 2009 at 01:43.
I don't disagree with much of what you say in theory (except pulling out of NATO - I believe in NATO) - but that's not the world we live in. We have made these obligations and we should be keeping them.
So we should be perpetuating terrible mistakes indefinitely? While NATO had some rationale (albeit wrong) during the cold war with the Soviets, even this tenuous reason is about 20 years out of date.
[/quote]We shouldn't be in the United Nations, but we (mostly) play by those rules and expect others to do so as well. Why should it be different with NATO - an organization that is far more important.[/quote]
We should withdraw from the UN. Again, NATO lost any importance it had a couple of decades ago.
Quote:
Poland has been our staunchest ally in Europe over the past several years. This administration seems keen on disrupting alliances forged in the past - mostly, it seems, to placate those countries in direct opposition to our values and goals. Doesn't seem like the best policy to bring in the little guys from the cold (no pun intended).
If, by ally, you really mean interventionist enabler, then that dubious prize certainly goes to Britain.
Basing missiles in Poland will do as much good for them as Khrushchev's missiles did for Cuba.
Quote:
People are so worried about us regaining credibility and popularity throughout the world (read: Europe mostly) - rejecting our obligations and throwing the rabbits to the wolves is not the way to conduct foreign policy. Isolationism is bad news.
Your view of obligation here is that we are somehow deeply indebted to the rest of the world and we must repay them with our military forces? Sorry, this is bizarre on so many levels. We have the right to terminate all of them, and should do so.
I am not an isolationist. I believe in richly engaging with the world via free trade, tourism, cross-immigration, social exchange, etc., but am also a military non-interventionist as were the American founding fathers, who hated European wars and the inherent danger of being dragged into them via ill-conceived alliances.
Not only does military interventionism fail at making us safer (it does the opposite), but is also bankrupting us. The US has bases/troops in 135 countries, and they never seem to leave regardless of the changing circumstance. For example, we still have tens of thousands of troops in Korea over 50 years following the end of the war there.
Too many people get their thinking stuck and prolong pathological policies just because that's how we've done things. It's true in personal relationships as well.
When Poland pulls out of NATO, then the responsibility of defending it will cease to exist. Poland has troops on the ground in Afghanistan fighting our war. Just 15 days ago, US officials assured Poland that it was committed to protecting Polish territory. Lord knows what else we have going on in Poland with our more cloaked entities.
There's every reason in the world that America has interest in protecting Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.
Also, it is not inconceivable, as we saw in Georgia, that Russia will move further outwards in the future to make inroads in order to reacquire its satellites.
It is stunning to me why Moscow is so concerned with 10 Interceptors and a radar station...Wonder why they're so worked up about that?
I do like some of the stuff you do write on here, but in this case you are wrong.
All that Poland would get from the missle defence would be to get levelled to the ground in the first strike, as to US helping them, yes just as they did in 1943 to to 1986, I will take my chances with the Russians and the germans at least you know what you will get.
As to the obligations lets see as Poles were dying in Nth Africa, in the Nth Atlantic, Italy and Western Europe the US sold them out, the other poster is smarter we should of declared war on the US so at least we would be the 3rd larges power after germany and japan.
BobZ
__________________
E46 M3 Phoenix Yellow, with Remus Exhaust
E34 M5 3.6 with 6 speed with SSK, OEM Clears, OEM BBK and OEM 18's (when I get around to fiting them)
AUDI TTQ Roadster silver as well
SAAB 9000GLE Gold and a hatchback so I can cart stuff around
Mitsubishi FTO GPX Its white and full of ICE.
K1200LT Burgundy with all the fruit (I don't know why either but it made sense when I signed)
I sincerely doubt that Moscow has intentions of marching into Warsaw ala 1939....no Mr. Putin has enough shiit to concern himself with within the former CCCP.....moreover the Russian Military AS IT PERTAINS to Russia proper is NOT the juggernaut of man & machine it once was....any movement into Eastern Europe would be conventional IF there were any outward movement....no the only way Russia would do anything would be to undermine internally....
S
See you all at the:
Linear Mode
