Eastern Europe: USA ditching missile defense. (1 Viewer)

[Rickysmyhero]

Poland and the Czechs are members of NATO, so their security really isn't a concern. The message sent here is to Ukrain and Georgia...your on your own. Figure out a way to deal with Russia, because the United States under the Obama administration is not going to stand up to them on your behalf.

From a technical and monetary standpoint, it might have been a logical decision (though with Iran having the ability to launch a satilite in orbit that can be disputed), but from a forgien policy position, it was a complete disaster. Obama is not a world player...Putin is.

Why should any eastern European country form alliances with the United States now, knowing that if Russia barks, the US will back down?

This is correct. The worse thing we need is a fully united Eastern Europe and Asia against us.

 

[TulsaSaint]

This is correct. The worse thing we need is a fully united Eastern Europe and Asia against us.

What the hell? How is scrapping a smoke-and-mirrors project that we didn't have the technological capability yet to develop and was never intended to protect Eastern Europe against a Russian attack going to magically unite Eastern Europe and Asia against us? I fail to see how Thailand, Korea, Japan, Indonesia, or India, for example, will give a damn. As Jeff Miller pointed out, the Poles and Czechs are already in NATO, so we have to protect them from Russia anyway. And if the Russians did come for them (again), they wouldn't use the ballistic missiles the shield was supposed to protect against.

 

[mikaloyd]

The title of this thread is a bit disingenuous. While we may be pulling land based missile defense from Czech and Polish lands we will still have a mobile missile defense system in place in the Mediterranean. This system is reported to be for intercepting short and medium range missiles.

So stating we are ditching all missile defense is not accurate.

Id feel better about Aegis if we'd shot down one of North Koreas test missiles.

 

[blackadder]

Russia is getting everything they want from Obama.

By trading the loyalty of Poland and the Czech Republic to satisfy Russia’s security concerns, the United States is signalling that it no longer contests Moscow’s right to assert its interests in Eastern Europe.

The article goes on to mention Russia has a pending sale of S-300 air defense missiles to Iran. If this sale goes thru, it could move Israel closer to attack.

Putin is rolling Obama.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6838377.ece

Maybe part of the deal is that Russia no longer contests the Monroe Doctrine?

I mean, if Russia has not right to assert interests on its border, what right have we to assert interests in an entire hemisphere?

I know, I know. It's different when we do it...

 

[blackadder]

Poland has been the USA's biggest friend in Eastern Europe, to turn our back on them now is a mistake and will cost us later.

Cost us what?

What does Poland add to my security?

What's with handing out another security guarantee in another corner of the world with centuries old animosities not realted to US security.

The Brits guaranteed Poland, got drawn into World War II, went bankrupt and lost their empire.

 

[Deuceistheman]

The title of this thread is a bit disingenuous. While we may be pulling land based missile defense from Czech and Polish lands we will still have a mobile missile defense system in place in the Mediterranean. This system is reported to be for intercepting short and medium range missiles.

So stating we are ditching all missile defense is not accurate.

Where does it state any where, the US is ditching ALL missile defense? NO WHERE! Not in the title of my threadr, not in the article. You are wrong.

Your statement is very DISINGENUOUS!

 

[Saintman2884]

Well Black, considering the circumstances that Nazi Germany was basically looking for any excuse to start a new World War(which is what they got) what would you expect the British to do in response to Hitler and Stalin making deals with another and carving up Poland anyway? I realize that the French and British had there own problems in the 1930's via the Great Depression, but there were countries trying to take advantage of the decision and exploit it to there own ends. There were some top-ranking officials who wanted to take Hitler on via 1936,37, and 38, over the Rhineland , the Austrian Aunshlass(union), and then the Sudetenland matter, and then the signing away of Czechoslovakia at the Munich Conference.

I realize that events in history are singular entities unto themselves. Certainly using the Adolph Hitler/Nazi Germany call-out has gotten old and stale over the past 60 years, that's no big secret anymore. But what I do think is that if we have a more non-interventionist foreign policy like Blackadder has touted, you still have to be mindful of some one coming along and perhaps exploiting it, albeit cleverly and out-maneuvering you, and that can include them coaxing you to let your guard down. Vigilance is always a steady guide when one's focus is close to straying and twilight hour's shadow can still lead you lying down in a ditch

As long as we keep our eyes open, a more-balanced approach can still be effective

 

[Jeff Miller]

The missile defense shield wasn't supposed to defend Poland and the Czech Republic against Russia. It was supposed to defend Western Europe against long-range missiles from the Middle East. Ukraine and Georgia had absolutely nothing to do with this. Jeff, please explain to me just how missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic were supposed to protect Georgia and Ukraine, both of whom share long borders with Russia, from Russian aggression.

Furthermore, the whole project was smoke and mirrors to begin with. See this excellent story from Newsweek.



http://www.newsweek.com/id/215620

It represents our relationships and commitments to states that decades of Soviet domination are trying to be independent democracies. Something the US has stood in support of since the US decided to have a global forgien policy influence.

Unlike us, these flegling states are right next door to a country that has invaded them in the past and has shown agressive actions in Georgia in the present, and threating nature such as cutting off natural gas to Ukraine of they don't follow Moscow's directives.

These states have choosen to be democratic states and allied themselves with the United States, at significant risk to themselves in ways that not only include Russian aggression but also economic forces as well.

Forgien policy isn't always about specific defense systems. Its about perceptions, commitments, and strength. In backing down to the Russians we've given these states who considered themselves our allies the impression that we will not stand by them in their time of need. That we will not honor any previous commitment made to them and that we do not have the strength to stand up to agression weather it be Russia, Iran, or whomever it may be in the future.

Russia now has free reign to do what it wants to these states, wheather is means seizing terriroty in georgia, making people freeze in ukrain in the winter, or stopping ships in disputed waters.

If or when we ever need these allies in the future as our interests change, they have no reason to be their for us now, since we turned out backs on them when they needed us.

Thats how politics and forgien policy play out on the world stage. Unfortunately the president in his efforts for appeasement domestically, has shown he's a novice internationally.

 

[blackadder]

Well Black, considering the circumstances that Nazi Germany was basically looking for any excuse to start a new World War(which is what they got) what would you expect the British to do in response to Hitler and Stalin making deals with another and carving up Poland anyway? I realize that the French and British had there own problems in the 1930's via the Great Depression, but there were countries trying to take advantage of the decision and exploit it to there own ends. There were some top-ranking officials who wanted to take Hitler on via 1936,37, and 38, over the Rhineland , the Austrian Aunshlass(union), and then the Sudetenland matter, and then the signing away of Czechoslovakia at the Munich Conference.

I realize that events in history are singular entities unto themselves. Certainly using the Adolph Hitler/Nazi Germany call-out has gotten old and stale over the past 60 years, that's no big secret anymore. But what I do think is that if we have a more non-interventionist foreign policy like Blackadder has touted, you still have to be mindful of some one coming along and perhaps exploiting it, albeit cleverly and out-maneuvering you, and that can include them coaxing you to let your guard down. Vigilance is always a steady guide when one's focus is close to straying and twilight hour's shadow can still lead you lying down in a ditch

As long as we keep our eyes open, a more-balanced approach can still be effective

Hitler was looking for the opportunity to attack Russia, destroy the Bolsheviks and turn Eastern Europe into a German colonial dependency. He did not want war with the English, which was why, foolisly, he refrained from destroying the BEF at Dunkerque when he had the chance to do so. He was known to have admired the English.

Now, in the fullness of time, competition around the world would have probably eventually brought Germany into conflict with England and the United States. But that would have probably happened with or without the Nazis. Look how many plots there were to kill Hitler from within.

England had absolutely no capability to defend Poland. But, hey, lets keep echoing history.

 

[blackadder]

It represents our relationships and commitments to states that decades of Soviet domination are trying to be independent democracies. Something the US has stood in support of since the US decided to have a global forgien policy influence.

Unlike us, these flegling states are right next door to a country that has invaded them in the past and has shown agressive actions in Georgia in the present, and threating nature such as cutting off natural gas to Ukraine of they don't follow Moscow's directives.

These states have choosen to be democratic states and allied themselves with the United States, at significant risk to themselves in ways that not only include Russian aggression but also economic forces as well.

Forgien policy isn't always about specific defense systems. Its about perceptions, commitments, and strength. In backing down to the Russians we've given these states who considered themselves our allies the impression that we will not stand by them in their time of need. That we will not honor any previous commitment made to them and that we do not have the strength to stand up to agression weather it be Russia, Iran, or whomever it may be in the future.

Russia now has free reign to do what it wants to these states, wheather is means seizing terriroty in georgia, making people freeze in ukrain in the winter, or stopping ships in disputed waters.

If or when we ever need these allies in the future as our interests change, they have no reason to be their for us now, since we turned out backs on them when they needed us.

Thats how politics and forgien policy play out on the world stage. Unfortunately the president in his efforts for appeasement domestically, has shown he's a novice internationally.

Hardly.

You are using very outdated logic. You are thinking based on the assumptions that overextended us in the first place and helped to bankrupt us.

A broke nation, does not offer to be protector of territories on the other side of the planet with no vital national security issue is at stake.

All the democracy and principle talk is hogwash that we've violated in other places many times over for the sake of expediency or commercial advantage. It is only trotted out as a fig leaf.

 

[APSaintsFan]

Well Black, considering the circumstances that Nazi Germany was basically looking for any excuse to start a new World War(which is what they got) what would you expect the British to do in response to Hitler and Stalin making deals with another and carving up Poland anyway? I realize that the French and British had there own problems in the 1930's via the Great Depression, but there were countries trying to take advantage of the decision and exploit it to there own ends. There were some top-ranking officials who wanted to take Hitler on via 1936,37, and 38, over the Rhineland , the Austrian Aunshlass(union), and then the Sudetenland matter, and then the signing away of Czechoslovakia at the Munich Conference.

I realize that events in history are singular entities unto themselves. Certainly using the Adolph Hitler/Nazi Germany call-out has gotten old and stale over the past 60 years, that's no big secret anymore. But what I do think is that if we have a more non-interventionist foreign policy like Blackadder has touted, you still have to be mindful of some one coming along and perhaps exploiting it, albeit cleverly and out-maneuvering you, and that can include them coaxing you to let your guard down. Vigilance is always a steady guide when one's focus is close to straying and twilight hour's shadow can still lead you lying down in a ditch

As long as we keep our eyes open, a more-balanced approach can still be effective

I wonder the WW2 would have looked if, and this is a big if, if Poland would have invaded Germany in 1933 like they were going to? They wanted to get Hitler out of there fast. I cannot remember what happened that made them not do it but in retrospect, boy they should have. Just rethinking again, Russia probably would have invaded Poland at that time in 1933?

AP

 

[blackadder]

I wonder the WW2 would have looked if, and this is a big if, if Poland would have invaded Germany in 1933 like they were going to? They wanted to get Hitler out of there fast. I cannot remember what happened that made them not do it but in retrospect, boy they should have. Just rethinking again, Russia probably would have invaded Poland at that time in 1933?

AP

Russia and Poland have squabbled periodically throughout history.

Poland invaded Russia in 1920, duriung the turmoil of the Russian civil war. For different reasons, but also to take advantage of the situation and perhaps gain some territory at Russia's expense and settle old scores. No heroes.

We have no business butting into these areas.

Once again the US taxpayer will be exploited by centuries old enemies who extract aid from us in order to pursue their own personal strategic goals.

We will get nothing of value and lose money and 100 years from now there will be no reciporacal help coming from the world when we are in trouble.

Let it go, take care of numero uno.

 

[Saintman2884]

So you're saying Black that with all the complexities of foreign policy and the interactions that go with it, even having a far more non-interventionist foreign policy, some up and coming world power still cannot use that as a means to exploiting it, or using to it to a eventual detriment? You can't say that still isn't a possibility because to deny it would be foolish or unrealistic.


I still say vigilance would be a vital tool in most cases,even the ones that bring more benefit then the ones we've employed since WWII and the MIC.

 

[Saintman2884]

Black, we live in a far more globalized world then we did in 1920 or even 1960, I could get on Facebook, MySpace, and have conversations this very afternoon with people in most countries all over the globe. Regrettable or not, we don't live in a vacuum anymore. If some major bank in Tokyo, Japan fails, all of us hear holy hell on it in most major markets on Wall Street.

 

[blackadder]

So you're saying Black that with all the complexities of foreign policy and the interactions that go with it, even having a far more non-interventionist foreign policy, some up and coming world power still cannot use that as a means to exploiting it, or using to it to a eventual detriment? You can't say that still isn't a possibility because to deny it would be foolish or unrealistic.


I still say vigilance would be a vital tool in most cases,even the ones that bring more benefit then the ones we've employed since WWII and the MIC.

Vigilance is one thing, capability to defend your territory and prevent economic blackmail is required.

But your attitude, and the prevailing attitude in this country, is quite another.

There is apparently no corner of the world where some old conflict brews that we don't have an opinion on, or a responsibility for. This notion, of course, has been carefully cultivated in the population so intervention and defense of "freedom" is always supported and never questioned.

We have thousands of nukes, like 12 carrier battle groups, unmatched logistical capabilites. On top of that we are buffered by two oceans two polar caps and share borders with docile Canadians and fairly feckless Mexicans. We are safe and sound in our sovereignty.

The biggest threat to our way of life will be fiscal insolvency, and encroaching federal government thatg alienates its own citizens, which our foreign policy of knee jerk intervention helps to promote.

No one is capable of coming here and taking our lunch money. No one will be without overextending and bankrupting themselves, as our example demonstrates. What the system fears most is that we will not be able to go over there and dictate the rules of the game. It's not about our security, its about being the sheriff.

That's what the game is about. Setting the rules of globalization and making everybody play by those rules.

But it's too expensive.