Eastern Europe: No Missile Shield

[NJZag]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiYVO8efluc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxi65cIBJj0

[TexasZagFan]

Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...ssile-defence/

Excerpt:

This is bad news for all who care about the US commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the defence of Europe as well as the United States. It represents the appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency. A deal with the Russians to cancel missile defence installations sends a clear message that even Washington can be intimidated by the Russian bear.

What signal does this send to Ukraine, Georgia and a host of other former Soviet satellites who look to America and NATO for protection from their powerful neighbour? The impending cancellation of Third Site is a shameful abandonment of America’s friends in eastern and central Europe, and a slap in the face for those who actually believed a key agreement with Washington was worth the paper it was written on.

[SonofZagineer]

The real sad thing is that we gave up the shield and didn't get anything in return.

[kitzbuel]

Russia will be friends with us now. I think Obama is going to look Putin in the eye and get that 'sense of his soul.'

[Zagstad]

Neville Chamberlain, 1938:

However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html

Don't worry. The Czechs and Poles are used to being screwed over. But of course Obama got some "assurances" from the Russians.

[229SintoZag]

How is it that the Czechs and Poles have managed to survive without a missile attack from the Russians or Soviets for all of these years since 1945?

Amazing, isn't it, that the Russians did not attack for that whole time--even though there was no missile shield provided by the US?

Shocking.

[TexasZagFan]

Originally Posted by 229SintoZag

How is it that the Czechs and Poles have managed to survive without a missile attack from the Russians or Soviets for all of these years since 1945?

Amazing, isn't it, that the Russians did not attack for that whole time--even though there was no missile shield provided by the US?

Shocking.

I guess you never heard of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968...

[229SintoZag]

Please tell me how many nuclear missiles the Soviets lobbed into Prague during that invasion?

Note: my question was specifically directed toward "missile attacks."

I am well aware of the Iron Curtain and of the history of the Cold War.

Even if we broaden the topic to include all Soviet/Russky aggression, not just missile strikes--please explain how we got from 1989 to today without this magic missile shield. Dumb luck?

I personally think Poland and the Czech Republic are plenty well protected, being NATO members. I could be wrong, but I believe no NATO member has ever been attacked since NATO came to be. I don't see that changing. I also don't see any motivation whatsoever for the Russkies to attack any NATO country.

[SonofZagineer]

Sinto you have very valued points. But why would you give something up that could be used as leverage in the future for nothing now?

[LongIslandZagFan]

It was presented as being a defense against Iran... not Russia.

Which leads to the question as to why you wouldn't want that shield closer to Iran. In my opinion it was all about trying to restart the Cold War because it was good for business.

But I guess it was that great leader Bush who kept those dang Ruskies in line right? Like when they invaded Chechnya and Georgia... oh wait, he didn't.

[former1dog]

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

But I guess it was that great leader Bush who kept those dang Ruskies in line right? Like when they invaded Chechnya and Georgia... oh wait, he didn't.

And capitulating to them in this circumstances help us in this regard how? (I'm assuming you agree that Russia invading Chechnya and Georgia weren't good events?)

[TexasZagFan]

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

It was presented as being a defense against Iran... not Russia.

Which leads to the question as to why you wouldn't want that shield closer to Iran. In my opinion it was all about trying to restart the Cold War because it was good for business.

But I guess it was that great leader Bush who kept those dang Ruskies in line right? Like when they invaded Chechnya and Georgia... oh wait, he didn't.

Yeah, and Ike did one heckuva job keeping the Russkies out of Hungary, and LBJ really laid down the law on Brezhnev for invading Czechoslovaki...he cancelled a summit with him. So what's your point?

Here's my point: if I'm an ally of the US, I'm really having doubts about the strength of that friendship in light of this latest decision.

If I'm a Ukrainian, I'm defecating bricks, knowing that Putin's just been given the green light to bring me back into the Russian sphere.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Originally Posted by TexasZagFan

Yeah, and Ike did one heckuva job keeping the Russkies out of Hungary, and LBJ really laid down the law on Brezhnev for invading Czechoslovaki...he cancelled a summit with him. So what's your point?

Here's my point: if I'm an ally of the US, I'm really having doubts about the strength of that friendship in light of this latest decision.

If I'm a Ukrainian, I'm defecating bricks, knowing that Putin's just been given the green light to bring me back into the Russian sphere.

Right... and the shield was going to stop that.

I get it... anything to hate Obama.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Originally Posted by former1dog

And capitulating to them in this circumstances help us in this regard how? (I'm assuming you agree that Russia invading Chechnya and Georgia weren't good events?)

Don't see how it is capitulating... the money could be better spent elsewhere IMHO.

[TexasZagFan]

Originally Posted by 229SintoZag

Please tell me how many nuclear missiles the Soviets lobbed into Prague during that invasion?

Note: my question was specifically directed toward "missile attacks."

I am well aware of the Iron Curtain and of the history of the Cold War.

Even if we broaden the topic to include all Soviet/Russky aggression, not just missile strikes--please explain how we got from 1989 to today without this magic missile shield. Dumb luck?

I personally think Poland and the Czech Republic are plenty well protected, being NATO members. I could be wrong, but I believe no NATO member has ever been attacked since NATO came to be. I don't see that changing. I also don't see any motivation whatsoever for the Russkies to attack any NATO country.

Sinto, your ability to parse your words is fabulous.

In my world, an attack is an attack, whether it's from missiles, tanks, or spit-balls.

To try and explain how we got from 1989 to today w/o the shield would take volumes. You had the fall of the Soviet Union and its aftermath, for starters.

The main reason, though, can be summed up in three words:

Mutual...Assured...Destruction.

[former1dog]

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

Don't see how it is capitulating... the money could be better spent elsewhere IMHO.

Tell that to our European allies who were counting on us.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Originally Posted by TexasZagFan

Mutual...Assured...Destruction.

And that has changed how?

[229SintoZag]

Originally Posted by TexasZagFan

Sinto, your ability to parse your words is fabulous.

In my world, an attack is an attack, whether it's from missiles, tanks, or spit-balls.

To try and explain how we got from 1989 to today w/o the shield would take volumes. You had the fall of the Soviet Union and its aftermath, for starters.

The main reason, though, can be summed up in three words:

Mutual...Assured...Destruction.

There was no parsing. I specifically asked about missile attacks for a reason.

Moreover, if we broaden it to include all attacks, it does not change my analysis, because this missile shield, if in place then, I am certain would not have stopped the Soviet tanks from rolling into Prague--both because they are not anti-tank missile defenses, and because even if they were, in the standoff that was the Cold War, we would not have done anything to "protect" Prague at that point anyway, since they were not yet part of NATO and were part of the Soviet "sphere of influence."

I agree with you that mutual assured destruction was an effective deterrent during the Cold War. But is it not still as effective today when it comes to us and the Russians? And by proxy--our NATO allies?

Or are you actually claiming that these two missile sites in Poland and the Czech republic could stop all Russian missiles launched at us and our allies anywhere in the world?

[229SintoZag]

Originally Posted by former1dog

Tell that to our European allies who were counting on us.

Where have these allies been the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Just askin'


229

[LongIslandZagFan]

Originally Posted by former1dog

Tell that to our European allies who were counting on us.

Which Europeans exactly? I am sure that the Euros were happy to hear that in response the the shield that the Russians planned on deploying short range missles that the completely untested system would have been useless against.

Couple that with the fact that the Iranians are focusing on short and medium range missles and NOT ICBMs which is what the system is designed for.

But again, anything to hate Obama. I know.

[kitzbuel]

A key objective of this missile defense system was to demonstrate to the new Central European NATO members that the United States is committed to backing their move away from the old Soviet sphere of influence and into a set of international arrangements of their own choosing. Many of these countries, Czech Republic, Slovakia and even Hungary in particular a have traditionally had international interactions that revolved around western Europe and democratically minded nations.

While deciding on using a missile defense system as being the expression of this commitment was not necessarily the best choice, it has emerged as the symbol of American commitment to the partnership it is engaged in with these nations of their choosing. They now have a legitimate grounds for a building lack of confidence in America's commitment to a Central Europe that is free to act of its own accord.

[former1dog]

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

But again, anything to hate Obama. I know.

Dude, I'm calling you out on this once and for all. Hopefully you'll get the message and cut it out.

The OCC is a place for debate and discussion. This statement is akin to calling me a racist or a homophobe (as our friend Sili insisted on doing). Bottom line, its a bull#### statement and bull#### logic and does nothing to advance the conversation.

Every single time I have had an objection to a policy espoused by this President, my opinion is based on some analysis of the situation and almost without exception is based on statistical evidence from a reputable source. I invite you to logically pick apart my arguments and refute my sources with your own. Have a field day with that, but stop the baloney about hating Obama. I no more hate Obama than I hate you. Hate isn't part of the equation, capeche?

[LongIslandZagFan]

Originally Posted by former1dog

Dude, I'm calling you out on this once and for all. Hopefully you'll get the message and cut it out.

The OCC is a place for debate and discussion. This statement is akin to calling me a racist or a homophobe (as our friend Sili insisted on doing). Bottom line, its a bull#### statement and bull#### logic and does nothing to advance the conversation.

Every single time I have had an objection to a policy espoused by this President, my opinion is based on some analysis of the situation and almost without exception is based on statistical evidence from a reputable source. I invite you to logically pick apart my arguments and refute my sources with your own. Have a field day with that, but stop the baloney about hating Obama. I no more hate Obama than I hate you. Hate isn't part of the equation, capeche?

Really? Justify the deployment of a system that is useless for its intent. It is ONLY good against ICBMs... of which Iran had NONE of and have NONE in development.

You have already said more than once you are mad as hell... you certainly don't get and stay mad as hell at someone you respect or like. I have no problems saying I hated GWB... I still do. He screwed this country over royally. Which based on your posts you think Obama is doing the same.

BTW... typically there is no conversation... you tell us how it is and if we don't agree you tell us we are wrong... using, many times, biased sources to back up your feelings. There is a good reason most on the left no longer post here... they got tired of being talked down to.

[Zagstad]

Good grief, does the White House have nobody on staff who has a history background? They announced the decision to drop the plans on the 70th anniversary of the date Soviet troops invaded Poland (Sept. 17, 1939) pursuant to the terms of the Nazi-Soviet Pact (The Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement).

I would bet the Poles are darned aware of the significance of the date and they take it as a gratuitous slap in the face from Obama.

Surely somebody should have been discussing the topic with the Embassy to Poland, or the State Dept. who would have alerted the White House to pick a different date.

[former1dog]

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

You have already said more than once you are mad as hell... you certainly don't get and stay mad as hell at someone you respect or like.

In high school, my parents neglected to make it to senior day on time during our last home football game. They got held up at work and Dad made it to the game eventually, but still I was mad as hell at him for about a month because it was important to me at the time. In college, I had a disagreement with a teammate that almost led to a fist fight. I was mad as hell at this guy. 5 years ago, he was the best man at my wedding. So, no, being mad as hell at someone doesn't automatically equal a lack of respect or a personal dislike of someone.

(BTW - for senior day I was accompanied in the senior ceremony by the hottest cheerleader on the squad, so it didn't turn out 100% bad )

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

BTW... typically there is no conversation... you tell us how it is and if we don't agree you tell us we are wrong... using, many times, biased sources to back up your feelings.

Recently, my favorite source has been the text of the most recent Presidential address to congress and the CBO website. I used a recent Heritage foundation graph in another post. The graph was based on data garnered entirely from the White House's website. (the Obama White House). I've used the IRS website a lot for data. The Treasury department website. I've enjoyed visiting the website for the Bureau of Labor Statistics quite a bit. I know, all of the these sites are nefarious and evil right wing conspirators, but try as I might I can't find less biased sources of information. Perhaps I should get my information from the Huffington post, like Gamagin posted recently and you squawked about only to find out in was third hand information from a CBO study that was 3 months old and no longer valid to the conversation?

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

There is a good reason most on the left no longer post here... they got tired of being talked down to.

I can't account for anyone's self esteem issues.