Do you see a pattern here???????

[pimpdave]

Also, using the costs is a lame excuse. We have no problem burning through eleventy gazillion dollars for healthcare or cash for clunkers, but we object to a couple hundred million for a missile defense system that protects the way of life of our country and our allies?

Dude, the thing doesn't work. We could save a ton of money by just building a huge NERF missile defense shield, cause it's just as useful.

I'd be protesting cutting the program too, IF THE THING WORKED.

[72o]

Awesome jay, you say you don't follow a party, yet you use a Pube phrase, 'the one'! Awesome. Sure, pal, keep towing your wingnut line. At least I can respect GOP posters.

You? Nah. You are a hater of America in disguise.

He's obviously racist too.

Gotta love that line of reasoning. "You don't agree with Obama? Why do you hate America? You must be racist." Do all Obama-lovers make that leap easily, or just the stupid ones?

No one made that leap here. Why are you getting so defensive?

Angola did make the leap that Jay is a "hater of America" because he doesn't agree with him. He didn't play the race card yet, I just went ahead with what was most likely his next set of retorts that were obviously useless to the discussion at hand.

Iran could invade Israel at any time

...speaking of ...

You don't think this is a real possibility? Please explain. With the missile defense system dismantled, Iran could declare war on Israel and keep us and our allies at bay. with the threat of use of nuclear weapons against eastern Europe.

I hope your response is not, "Well, if they used nuclear weapons on our allies, then we would just blow them up." It's not a game of Risk. Our allies probably don't want to hear that they will be used as cannon fodder, especially when we could be pro-active at the prevention of such a situation with a defense system.

We have no problem burning through eleventy gazillion dollars for healthcare or cash for clunkers

Is that more, or less than twelvish bajillion?

I purposely used an imaginary number, because no one can seem to put a price tag on their magic-bullet healthcare plan. I guess you didn't get that. I'm sorry, next time I will try not to confuse you.

[pimpdave]

So, 72o, can you rebut what I said?

Cause your silence on the topic is rather revealing. Seems to me you just want to complain, but you have no valid reason to do so.

THE THING DOESN'T WORK.

Why should we keep building it? I'm all ears.

[beezer]

Russia is not a military threat to anyone. Their invasion of Georgia last year proves that.

[72o]

So, 72o, can you rebut what I said?

Cause your silence on the topic is rather revealing. Seems to me you just want to complain, but you have no valid reason to do so.

THE THING DOESN'T WORK.

Why should we keep building it? I'm all ears.

1. It's not finished yet.
2. If it's not finished yet, it can't be tested yet.
3. If it hasn't been tested yet, you can't say it doesn't work.
4. None of the countries the shield is supposed to defend against have launched any missiles at Europe yet.

Given the above, please explain to me, since you are the authority on this subject, what would have been considered sufficient proof to you that it does work?

Obama obviously understands the importance of a system (unfortunately some of his bootlickers on here don't), he just wants it to be his system.

Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," Obama said in announcing the shift.

The replacement system would link smaller radar systems with a network of sensors and missiles that could be deployed at sea or on land. Some of the weaponry and sensors are ready now, and the rest would be developed over the next 10 years.

The Pentagon contemplates a system of perhaps 40 missiles by 2015, at two or three sites across Europe. That would augment a larger stockpile aboard ships. The replacement system would cost an estimated $2.5 billion, compared with $5 billion over the same timeframe under the old plan. The cost savings would be less, however, because the Pentagon is locked into work on some elements of the old system.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_ ... le_defense

So instead of seeing the program through, he decides to scrap it and start his own plan. The only real result is delaying its implementation, to appease Russia, and to put his personal "property of BHO" stamp on it.

[GabonX]

The reason why he's scrapping the missile shield is to appease Russia at the expense of our Eastern European allies. It will also cut some much needed funds. I don't want to see the shield go, but Obama wants better relations with the rest of the world and this is one way he thinks he can improve the U.S.'s image.

QFT

Frankly I think that the biggest affect this will have is another dip in his approval rating.

Also, using the costs is a lame excuse. We have no problem burning through eleventy gazillion dollars for healthcare or cash for clunkers, but we object to a couple hundred million for a missile defense system that protects the way of life of our country and our allies?

Dude, the thing doesn't work. We could save a ton of money by just building a huge NERF missile defense shield, cause it's just as useful.

I'd be protesting cutting the program too, IF THE THING WORKED.

The systems are imperfect, but they do work.

Currently I know of at least three anti missile platforms that all "work" but are just entering the operational phase. They are Metal Storm, the laser programs, and the anti missile missiles. They all "work" but they all need fine tuning.

Riddle me this Dave..
.. If they are so completely ineffective, why did the Russians so vehemently oppose their installation?

[Rustovitch]

Reagan starts "Star Wars" missile defense program.......... Clinton scarps it.


Bush starts "European missile defense" umbrella ........ Obama scraps it.


Who is weak on defense?????

The Republicans?

I was hoping Obama would be a decent president, it's not looking good though.

What you want America to spend billions to decrease her safety?

[Symmetry]

I posted this in the "Russia Wins" thread, but this thread is more active, and there's no point having two on the same topic so:

It's a pretty complicated issue.

First, yeah, there is the issue of a return to a cold war style arms race. Taking away another country's nuclear deterrent is a pretty radical move. While it might be portrayed as a purely defensive measure, the placement of the system basically suggested that Russia's nuclear arsenal was to be neutralised. The system that Gates and Obama seem to want now is far more defensive in nature.

Second, there is the issue of spheres of influence. Russia may be holding on to a backwards cold-war era mode of thinking in this respect, but several countries in the region have been making overtures towards NATO, so there is a certain justification for their paranoia. They don't want to be encircled by a military alliance hostile to their interests. Georgia is a good case in point. I remember following it and being disgusted at Russian actions. Then slowly the full story emerged, and it turned out that Georgia had attacked an ethically Russian region that had been independent for 15 years. Whether the Russian response was justified or not, they clearly felt that they were stepping in to protect Russians. NATO nations condemned Russia, but it rapidly became clear that Georgia had started the war and expected NATO support.

Anyway, the third issue I think regards Iran itself. Russia has taken a much softer line with Iran, seeking to form diplomatic and economic ties with the country. A missile shield ostensibly for use against Iran was never going to be something they would support. Indeed, some commentators have pointed out that removing the plan for the missile shield might actually help bring Russia on board in terms of dealing with Iran, leaving China isolated.

Basically, I think it was a dumb and antagonistic move in the first place, mostly founded on "Russia is bad, m'kay" thinking. Removing it and switching to an alternate plan was diplomatically a smart move.

[GabonX]

I posted this in the "Russia Wins" thread, but this thread is more active, and there's no point having two on the same topic so:

It's a pretty complicated issue.

First, yeah, there is the issue of a return to a cold war style arms race. Taking away another country's nuclear deterrent is a pretty radical move. While it might be portrayed as a purely defensive measure, the placement of the system basically suggested that Russia's nuclear arsenal was to be neutralised. The system that Gates and Obama seem to want now is far more defensive in nature.

Second, there is the issue of spheres of influence. Russia may be holding on to a backwards cold-war era mode of thinking in this respect, but several countries in the region have been making overtures towards NATO, so there is a certain justification for their paranoia. They don't want to be encircled by a military alliance hostile to their interests. Georgia is a good case in point. I remember following it and being disgusted at Russian actions. Then slowly the full story emerged, and it turned out that Georgia had attacked an ethically Russian region that had been independent for 15 years. Whether the Russian response was justified or not, they clearly felt that they were stepping in to protect Russians. NATO nations condemned Russia, but it rapidly became clear that Georgia had started the war and expected NATO support.

Anyway, the third issue I think regards Iran itself. Russia has taken a much softer line with Iran, seeking to form diplomatic and economic ties with the country. A missile shield ostensibly for use against Iran was never going to be something they would support. Indeed, some commentators have pointed out that removing the plan for the missile shield might actually help bring Russia on board in terms of dealing with Iran, leaving China isolated.

Basically, I think it was a dumb and antagonistic move in the first place, mostly founded on "Russia is bad, m'kay" thinking. Removing it and switching to an alternate plan was diplomatically a smart move.

The conflict began before Georgia move (which was essentially a police maneuver). What kind of country can function with internal communities taking arms against the government and proclaiming allegiance to a rival nation?

If Russia's actions were a reaction to Georgian aggression, why was the physical war preceded by a cyber war which occurred before the physical conflict. The cyber attacks severely disrupted the Georgian government's infrastructure..

Why are there people who claim to be Russian citizens living in Georgia in the first place? Is this not an invasion of sovereignty in itself?


Why should the United States step down it's military efforts and development of anti missile systems while Russia is not?

[Symmetry]

Hah- right- I'm sticking to this thread from now on. Sorry again for any confusion:

The conflict began before Georgia move (which was essentially a police maneuver). What kind of country can function with internal communities taking arms against the government and proclaiming allegiance to a rival nation?

If Russia's actions were a reaction to Georgian aggression, why was the physical war preceded by a cyber war which occurred before the physical conflict. The cyber attacks severely disrupted the Georgian government's infrastructure..

Why are there people who claim to be Russian citizens living in Georgia in the first place? Is this not an invasion of sovereignty in itself?

Why should the United States step down it's military efforts and development of anti missile systems while Russia is not?

A few good points there. Firstly, it really depends on how far back you want to stretch the conflict. There was certainly provocation from both sides. I'm not sure about the cyber-war stuff. I think you might be thinking of Estonia. All the sources I can find suggest that internet based attacks on Georgian websites occurred during the conflict itself. Daily Telegraph story here

Clearly Georgia's actions were military, and not police based. Georgian forces began shelling the city of Tskinvhalli, placing civilians and Russian peacekeepers under threat. Georgian forces claimed that they had been shelled first, but independent monitors all deny that any fire came from the South Ossetians.

As for why Russian citizens were living in South Ossetia- it's purely a case of the ethnic divisions still present after the break up of the USSR. The South Ossetians identify more with Russian culture than Georgian. They formed their own government. They did not feel part of Georgia. Much the same as Taiwanese people don't feel part of China. If you want to justify Georgia's claim to South Ossetia, then China has a right to march in to Taiwan.

Finally- (and you do ask a lot of questions), the US has every right to develop missile defence technology, and will, I presume, continue to do so. The placement of the technology was the issue, and I hope I roughly outlined why it was a problem in my post above.

[Symmetry]

Just as an update- looks like Russia is now going to be cooperating with NATO on defence planning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/se ... e-planning

Russia is putting it's own counter-plans for missile defence installations on hold. Looks like a sensible start to me.

[jay_a2j]

Who is weak on defense?????

The Dolphins.

Are you serious? What other team can turn the ball over 4 times and yet still hold their opponent to just 19 points? Their defense is the least of their worries.

[Titanic]

1. It's not finished yet.
2. If it's not finished yet, it can't be tested yet.
3. If it hasn't been tested yet, you can't say it doesn't work.
4. None of the countries the shield is supposed to defend against have launched any missiles at Europe yet.

It does not work. Look at any written reports from military experts and they will tell you that the theory is dodgy at best and in practice it will be next to useless.

[GabonX]

A few good points there. Firstly, it really depends on how far back you want to stretch the conflict. There was certainly provocation from both sides. I'm not sure about the cyber-war stuff. I think you might be thinking of Estonia. All the sources I can find suggest that internet based attacks on Georgian websites occurred during the conflict itself. Daily Telegraph story here

Last year I took a weekend class which was taught by a Colonel from the US Army and he mentioned that a cyber attack had preceded the Georgian invasion by several months. I'm having trouble finding an online source for this so I'll withdrawal this for now.

Clearly Georgia's actions were military, and not police based. Georgian forces began shelling the city of Tskinvhalli, placing civilians and Russian peacekeepers under threat. Georgian forces claimed that they had been shelled first, but independent monitors all deny that any fire came from the South Ossetians.

As for why Russian citizens were living in South Ossetia- it's purely a case of the ethnic divisions still present after the break up of the USSR. The South Ossetians identify more with Russian culture than Georgian. They formed their own government. They did not feel part of Georgia. Much the same as Taiwanese people don't feel part of China. If you want to justify Georgia's claim to South Ossetia, then China has a right to march in to Taiwan.

Perhaps the actions were military in nature but they were still police actions.

People don't have the right to proclaim nations wherever they choose. The reason that China is not entitled to Taiwan is precisely the same reason that Russia had no claim in Georgia, that being that there are borders which are very well established. Chinese expansion is actually quite similar to Russian expansion in this regard.

Despite crocodile tears for the inhabitants of the disputed regions, it seems much more likely that the Russian involvement has more to do with gaining access to the natural resources there.

Perhaps if Russia is in the business of recognizing breakaway regions, they should reflect on their actions regarding the Chechen question...

Finally- (and you do ask a lot of questions), the US has every right to develop missile defence technology, and will, I presume, continue to do so. The placement of the technology was the issue, and I hope I roughly outlined why it was a problem in my post above.

If the United States has a right to a missile defense system than why not Poland? We agree that these technologies will be developed, but I don't see how a nation with an aggressive neighbor which has not demonstrated itself to be an aggressor can be argued to have less of a need or right to sovereign defense than the United States.

Where is the consideration of the Polish perspective?

[Symmetry]

Clearly Georgia's actions were military, and not police based. Georgian forces began shelling the city of Tskinvhalli, placing civilians and Russian peacekeepers under threat. Georgian forces claimed that they had been shelled first, but independent monitors all deny that any fire came from the South Ossetians.

As for why Russian citizens were living in South Ossetia- it's purely a case of the ethnic divisions still present after the break up of the USSR. The South Ossetians identify more with Russian culture than Georgian. They formed their own government. They did not feel part of Georgia. Much the same as Taiwanese people don't feel part of China. If you want to justify Georgia's claim to South Ossetia, then China has a right to march in to Taiwan.

Perhaps the actions were military in nature but they were still police actions.

People don't have the right to proclaim nations wherever they choose. The reason that China is not entitled to Taiwan is precisely the same reason that Russia had no claim in Georgia, that being that there are borders which are very well established. Chinese expansion is actually quite similar to Russian expansion in this regard.

Despite crocodile tears for the inhabitants of the disputed regions, it seems much more likely that the Russian involvement has more to do with gaining access to the natural resources there.

Perhaps if Russia is in the business of recognizing breakaway regions, they should reflect on their actions regarding the Chechen question...

Finally- (and you do ask a lot of questions), the US has every right to develop missile defence technology, and will, I presume, continue to do so. The placement of the technology was the issue, and I hope I roughly outlined why it was a problem in my post above.

If the United States has a right to a missile defense system than why not Poland? We agree that these technologies will be developed, but I don't see how a nation with an aggressive neighbor which has not demonstrated itself to be an aggressor can be argued to have less of a need or right to sovereign defense than the United States.

Where is the consideration of the Polish perspective?

I really don't agree that these were police actions. The flashpoint for the was was the Georgian bombardment of a city, with significant indications that civilians were deliberately targetted. Later in the war, there is a good deal of evidence that Russia also targeted civilians, but let's not be naive about what kicked things off. The borders were, of course, not well established. That being most of the problem. Either side you choose, the fact is that the region had been independently governed for 15 years before Georgia shelled it. If we're talking in terms of land-grab, then it's Georgia who was seeking to take control.

Nevertheless, I completely agree with you about the situation in Chechnya.

The situation with placing a missile defence in Poland I covered above. One kind of analogy might be that you are suggesting that the right to own a gun for self-defence is equivalent to holding a gun to the head of a person you don't trust. Forever. Essentially, as I've said before, the position was antagonistic.

As for the Polish perspective, I can't say. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place, but they get little sympathy from me while they're governed by twins who alternate president and prime minister. That plus the failure to acknowledge WWII war crimes in favour of highlighting suffering at the hands of the Soviet Union smacks of opportunism to me. "Russia bad".

Anyway, now it looks like Russia and NATO are actually willing to work together on external threats. Maybe an end to the Mexican stand-off.

[Snorri1234]

Perhaps the actions were military in nature but they were still police actions.

The US police must be fucking awesome.

People don't have the right to proclaim nations wherever they choose. The reason that China is not entitled to Taiwan is precisely the same reason that Russia had no claim in Georgia, that being that there are borders which are very well established. Chinese expansion is actually quite similar to Russian expansion in this regard.

Dismissing you're comments about delicate situations about who owned what land for the silly bullshit that it is, the situation in Georgia was way more complex. Saying "borders were established" is just such a colossal joke, because it makes the whole thing seem retarded and the nations involved don't even agree with you. Neither Russia or Georgia agreed that the region we're discussing was russian or georgian. Georgia just thought: "f*ck it, that shit is ours" and Russia retaliated.

This is not simply a case of "guys who attacked are the bad guys" because neither side really has much of a claim to the region. I would leave it up to the populace to decide who they want to be a part of, but it's way too complex to say Georgia certainly has all the rights to it.

Despite crocodile tears for the inhabitants of the disputed regions, it seems much more likely that the Russian involvement has more to do with gaining access to the natural resources there.

And you think the Georgian involvement doesn't have anything to do with the same?



Russia has done a lot of questionable things, but you seem way too determined to blame everything on them.

[GabonX]

Dismissing you're comments about delicate situations about who owned what land for the silly bullshit that it is, the situation in Georgia was way more complex. Saying "borders were established" is just such a colossal joke, because it makes the whole thing seem retarded and the nations involved don't even agree with you. Neither Russia or Georgia agreed that the region we're discussing was russian or georgian. Georgia just thought: "f*ck it, that shit is ours" and Russia retaliated.

This is not simply a case of "guys who attacked are the bad guys" because neither side really has much of a claim to the region. I would leave it up to the populace to decide who they want to be a part of, but it's way too complex to say Georgia certainly has all the rights to it.

It really is that simple. If you had walked into the UN or looked at virtually any map in the world prior to this event the disputed regions would have been within he borders of Georgia. If the people there identified with Russia so greatly they should have went there.

Despite crocodile tears for the inhabitants of the disputed regions, it seems much more likely that the Russian involvement has more to do with gaining access to the natural resources there.

And you think the Georgian involvement doesn't have anything to do with the same?

I think that most nations would defend the integrity of their borders if the need arose. The natural resources there probably did play a role, but this is irrelevant.

The people of Georgia have a right to them while the people of Russia do not. The Georgian citizens living outside of the disputed regions have just as much of a right to their nations resources as the people who live directly next to them.

[Simon Viavant]

Tell that to the teabaggers Gabon

[Symmetry]

It really is that simple. If you had walked into the UN or looked at virtually any map in the world prior to this event the disputed regions would have been within he borders of Georgia. If the people there identified with Russia so greatly they should have went there.

Maps do not a nation make. A change of borders made them Georgian on a map after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. They fought for independence and gained it after a war from 1991-2. Since then they've had their own government, and the territory has been disputed. Not between Russia and Georgia, but between the people of South Ossetia and Georgia, with Russia supporting the South Ossetians.

I don't really believe that people of Russian ethnicity should remove themselves on the basis of Georgia being in charge for a few months over fifteen years ago.

[Phatscotty]

The Official Russian reply to Obama's removing the defense shield.....

"There is a god"

[jay_a2j]

The Official Russian reply to Obama's removing the defense shield.....

"There is a god"

cause he's "the one"?

[Frigidus]

You know, what we really need between us and those Ruskies is a hazmat suit. They're stealing our precious bodily fluids!

[Hologram]

Ooo, I know. Maybe "Star Wars" was unfeasible and a gigantic waste of money.


Ooo, and maybe, just maybe, putting an umbrella over Europe is a bad idea, diplomatically. First of all, the Cold War is over, second, the reason we haven't destroyed ourselves yet is just that, if one attacked the other, we'd both destroy ourselves. But if all the sudden Russia can't hit us while we can take all the potshots we want at Russia, don't you think that might make the playing field a little bit imbalanced and could possibly force Russia to do something, oh, I don't know, drastic?


They're not being soft on defense, they're being smart on wallets and diplomacy. As much as you like to think so, America is not the end all be all and certainly can't stand alone diplomatically, so pissing off allies and making enemies doesn't make us look strong, it makes us look big, stupid, and alone.

[Snorri1234]

It really is that simple. If you had walked into the UN or looked at virtually any map in the world prior to this event the disputed regions would have been within he borders of Georgia.

Are you really so thick?

[Titanic]

Ooo, I know. Maybe "Star Wars" was unfeasible and a gigantic waste of money.


Ooo, and maybe, just maybe, putting an umbrella over Europe is a bad idea, diplomatically. First of all, the Cold War is over, second, the reason we haven't destroyed ourselves yet is just that, if one attacked the other, we'd both destroy ourselves. But if all the sudden Russia can't hit us while we can take all the potshots we want at Russia, don't you think that might make the playing field a little bit imbalanced and could possibly force Russia to do something, oh, I don't know, drastic?


They're not being soft on defense, they're being smart on wallets and diplomacy. As much as you like to think so, America is not the end all be all and certainly can't stand alone diplomatically, so pissing off allies and making enemies doesn't make us look strong, it makes us look big, stupid, and alone.

QFT.