Eastern Europe: No Missile Shield

[229SintoZag]

Originally Posted by 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.

I actually agree that announcing this on Sept. 17 was bad judgment or an unfortunate lapse.

[NJZag]

Reactions in Russia, Czech Republic, Poland ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8260969.stm

[NJZag]

Originally Posted by 229SintoZag

I actually agree that announcing this on Sept. 17 was bad judgment or an unfortunate lapse.

Seems like there might be a "trail of snubs" perceived by the Polish folks


http://www.bloggernews.net/122294

[kitzbuel]

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

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.

Anyway, as I was saying:

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.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Contrary to the opinion of many... NATO actually supports this move.

Note, that it isn't so much being scrapped but rather replaced with something that is:

a) proven and tested
b) actually addresses the need given to build the original shield in the first place based on more valid intelligence.

But all that aside I agree that the choice of dates was absolutely horrid.

[TexasZagFan]

Originally Posted by 229SintoZag

I actually agree that announcing this on Sept. 17 was bad judgment or an unfortunate lapse.

As Jon Stewart might say, "are you $*&%#@^ kidding me?"

Which czar is going to get thrown under the bus for this, because Hillary's sure not going to take the hit?

[former1dog]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...-As-Delivered/

President Obama speaking in the Czech Republic, April of this year.

So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. (Applause.) If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed. (Applause.)

[LongIslandZagFan]

Originally Posted by former1dog

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...-As-Delivered/

President Obama speaking in the Czech Republic, April of this year.

The system that WAS supposed to be installed has NOT been proven to actually work and does not address short to medium range missiles. If you are somehow implying that he is being trapped by his own words... he is not.

[former1dog]

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

The system that WAS supposed to be installed has NOT been proven to actually work and does not address short to medium range missiles. If you are somehow implying that he is being trapped by his own words... he is not.

There was no doubt or debate about what he was referring to in the speech, LIZF, only an uber partisan like yourself would invent doubt. Let me be clear, I think you really believe what you wrote, so I'm not calling you a liar.

[NJZag]

CBS News carries a report on the overseas headlines:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5320000.shtml

CBS/AP) President Obama is feeling heat from some quarters after deciding to drop the Bush administration's missile defense plans in Eastern Europe.

Republicans say the president's decision is naïve, while Democrats say the new plans will do more for defense and diplomacy with both Iran and Russia than the missile program, which had increased tensions in the region.

"Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back," the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page, while the Czech paper Mlada Fronta Dnes declared, "No Radar. Russia won." (CBS/AP)

Washington Unplugged video has some decent interviews:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...ted;photovideo

Points to an intelligence report about Iran's needing probably another decade to develop an ICBM and they've got hundreds of short-range missiles which 10 of our defensive missiles wouldn't counteract, and a substitution and not an abandonment, as the "submerged headline" of the entire saga. Heritage Foundation analyst brings up the point that Administration failed to gain any bargaining chips in making and announcing the decision. Further points: The lack of any heads-up to allies will create diplomatic fallout; the timing is challenged as a "surprise" without trial balloon.

Meanwhile ... over in Iran ...
Three U.S. hikers who wandered over the border "needed to be punished" according to Iran's President.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32900376...deastn_africa/

Holocaust is a myth

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-18-voa6.cfm

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has again called the Holocaust a lie by Western nations designed to create a pretext for the creation of the Jewish state of Israel. Mr. Ahmadinejad made the comment Friday as tens of thousands of Iranians filled the streets of the capital, Tehran, for an annual government-sponsored rally to express support for Palestinians and condemn Israel.

The Iranian president called the Holocaust a myth and an unproveable lie designed to promote support for Israel.

Quds Day solidarity rally to support Palestinians is marked by opposition protesters coming out, despite threat that they might be dealt with harshly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...-iran-quds-day

[LongIslandZagFan]

Originally Posted by former1dog

There was no doubt or debate about what he was referring to in the speech, LIZF, only an uber partisan like yourself would invent doubt. Let me be clear, I think you really believe what you wrote, so I'm not calling you a liar.

Again, I would really like to see where we aren't protecting Europe from Iranian missiles with the new setup.

[Once and Future Zag]

Yep - we sure offended the Poles - slap in the face, a regular "pierogi-punch" as it were.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...t.html?showall



If the google-translation is correct the blue chunk is "good for poland" the red is "bad for poland"

I guess the pole-on-the-street doesn't seem to mind.

[former1dog]

Originally Posted by Once and Future Zag

Yep - we sure offended the Poles - slap in the face, a regular "pierogi-punch" as it were.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...t.html?showall



If the google-translation is correct the blue chunk is "good for poland" the red is "bad for poland"

I guess the pole-on-the-street doesn't seem to mind.

You misinterpret who we offended. The Polish and Czech officials put themselves at a political risk (evidenced by the poll you posted, thanks) to agree to the missile defense system. We pulled the rug out from under those folks and it is my understanding that we didn't even give those folks the courtesy of a heads up prior to the announcement. IMO, just bad manners.

Beyond the implications of the defense system, we also damaged a potential stick (ala sticks and carrots) in our "negotiations" with Iran and Russia realized success in their bullying tactics with us. A win for Iran, a win for Russia, damaged relations with the Czech Republic and with Poland and when Iran develops ICBM's, our soon to be formal allies in Central Europe will not have protection.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Again, please explain how Europe is MORE threatened by Iran now as opposed to the system that was going to be put in place. I guess you think it is wise to spend billions to put in an unproven system that ISN'T going to protect our allies to give Poland and the Czech Republic warm and fuzzies. Not terribly fiscally conservative of you.

Lets review:

So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat - Yes, with short and medium range missiles which the shield was not designed for. That flaw in strategy was fixed with this change.
As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. - The planned system was NOT proven and if it doesn't stop the threat it isn't terribly cost effective. The new system has been proven.

Sorry... you DIDN'T catch him mispeaking or lying to them.

Should the threat of ICBMs become apparent then you deploy it. Otherwise it is a colossal waste of money and it would offer NO protection.

[Zag79]

I get it... anything to hate Obama.

you catch on quick!

[xjzico]

Originally Posted by former1dog

Beyond the implications of the defense system, we also damaged a potential stick (ala sticks and carrots) in our "negotiations" with Iran and Russia realized success in their bullying tactics with us. A win for Iran, a win for Russia, damaged relations with the Czech Republic and with Poland and when Iran develops ICBM's, our soon to be formal allies in Central Europe will not have protection.

Like the kind of protection Bush & Cheney provided to Georgia?

The political constructs of Pax Americana and imperial notions of U.S. global hegemony have gone the way of the 8-track- assuming they weren't merely from the realm of the fantastic.

As far as the countries who bought into this- maybe they shouldn't have gone all in at the casino.

[former1dog]

Originally Posted by xjzico

Like the kind of protection Bush & Cheney provided to Georgia?

How exactly is this germane to the discussion?

Is there some post of mine somewhere where I praise Bush and Cheney's approach to foreign policy as it regards Georgia?

[former1dog]

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

Should the threat of ICBMs become apparent then you deploy it. Otherwise it is a colossal waste of money and it would offer NO protection.

The fallacy is that missile defense for ICBM's aren't set up overnight. It is my understanding that having this defense system in place and operational would take the approximate amount of time that it is thought for the Iranians to develop their ICBM capabilities.

[TexasZagFan]

I thought a good point was made by Paul Gigot on the only Sunday morning show the President avoided.

There was no need for the Czechs, Poles, or other allies to seek their own nukes, as they were under the US shield.

With this change in policy, allies of the US are now tempted to enter the nuclear arms race, as they have reason to doubt the veracity of the Obama Administration in protecting their allies.

It appears that the Poles and Czechs were taken by surprise by this latest move. Had they been alerted, it's doubtful the decision would have been announced as clumsily as it was.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Originally Posted by TexasZagFan

I thought a good point was made by Paul Gigot on the only Sunday morning show the President avoided.

There was no need for the Czechs, Poles, or other allies to seek their own nukes, as they were under the US shield.

With this change in policy, allies of the US are now tempted to enter the nuclear arms race, as they have reason to doubt the veracity of the Obama Administration in protecting their allies.

It appears that the Poles and Czechs were taken by surprise by this latest move. Had they been alerted, it's doubtful the decision would have been announced as clumsily as it was.

Again, M.A.D. still rules the day in the Russian ICBM camp. Please I would love to see where anyone in the Euro-zone outside of Poland and the Czech Republic that are crapping their pants right now over not having this "shield". NATO supports it. That would encompass most of Europe.

Again, here is why I say that much of this is just finding ways to create negatives for Obama on everything. Don't want me to call it hate, fine, call it intense disapproval, or whatever term you want to make up.

The shield proposed was an untested and unproven system to protect Europe from Iranian ICBMs. Intelligence has determined that Iran is working on short and medium range missiles... which the shield would be useless against. Instead Obama replaced it with more mobile systems that would counter the real threats from Iran. Plus the system has actually been tested.

The argument back is we are capitulating to Russia, who by the way had stated that it would actually start amassing short range missiles aimed at Europe, even though when it was proposed it was repeatedly sold as being for Iran. Call me crazy but I suspect that WOULD actually make the Euros collectively soil themselves.

Now we are being told that a new nuclear arms race is imminent, while Russia talks of potential arms reduction talks and NATO lauds over the move. How can this possibly make sense that he is making a huge blunder then?

[xjzico]

Originally Posted by former1dog

How exactly is this germane to the discussion?

Is there some post of mine somewhere where I praise Bush and Cheney's approach to foreign policy as it regards Georgia?

Because BMD in Eastern Europe is an extension of a policy from the previous administration advocating "lily pads" across Eurasia and a rollback of the old Soviet sphere of influence. Kitz's post at #21 starts to touch on this. LIZF pointed out, if this was just about missile defense, we could of provided the same protections from other countries, not to mention the more effective sea based assets at have.

And if this is merely a symbolic posture to other countries to show American commitment I can only see this as turning into a situation where the US would be held hostage in a conflict and forced into acting against its best interests based on a strategy which was immensely flawed from the start. Georgia is an example of the predicament this strategy presents, overlooking whether its executable, and the outcomes involved for the US. Not a good in my mind.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Originally Posted by former1dog

The fallacy is that missile defense for ICBM's aren't set up overnight. It is my understanding that having this defense system in place and operational would take the approximate amount of time that it is thought for the Iranians to develop their ICBM capabilities.

You mean the ICBMs that intelligence has determined they aren't working on?

[TexasZagFan]

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

You mean the ICBMs that intelligence has determined they aren't working on?

I'm glad your confidence has grown in the quality of intelligence our agencies are providing.

I'll bet many of the same people that produced this intelligence also opined that Saddam had a robust WMD program.

Just a note of caution that intelligence gathering can produce inexact results.

[former1dog]

Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan

You mean the ICBMs that intelligence has determined they aren't working on?

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/N...aspx?id=173528

Iran may develop missiles capable of reaching the US by 2015, according to a report delivered to Congress Monday night.

(slaps forehead)

Originally Posted by TexasZagFan

I'm glad your confidence has grown in the quality of intelligence our agencies are providing.

I'll bet many of the same people that produced this intelligence also opined that Saddam had a robust WMD program.

Just a note of caution that intelligence gathering can produce inexact results.

[LongIslandZagFan]

Selective quoting...

“With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015,” stated the report by the US Department of Defense.

That is a far cry from actually doing it.

But I am no match for your superior debating skills, so we should have wasted billions putting a untested defense shield in Europe to defend against the ICBMs that Iran does not have.

End of discussion... F1D must be right.