Pointless may be the wrong word since the point of it was to give taxpayer money to defense contractors.
U.S. President Barack Obama has told east European states he is backing away from plans for an anti-missile shield there, in a move that may ease Russian-U.S. ties but fuel fears of resurgent Kremlin influence.
Russia said it would welcome abandonment of the plans, which have been a major source of Russian-U.S. tensions.
Poland said Obama would announce a final decision later on Thursday (1400 GMT) on a project that has raised the prospect of multi-billion dollar contracts for U.S. defense giants.
The shield, involving interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar complex in the Czech republic, was promoted by Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush to defend against any missile launches from “rogue” states such as Iran and North Korea.
#35 I’m with you on this one LL… the U.S. shouldn’t be playing world policeman any more. But the big military contractors will fight this — it will mean cuts in our military budget if we’re not trying to project our influence all over the world.
Obama in April
“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. 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.”
#38 Yep, you’re really a stud there, little pedro. Keep saying that to yourself, and maybe you’ll actually believe it someday. 🙂
Didn’t anyone except Angus actually read the article???
It should be a requirement that the link needs to be clicked to post.
Obama isn’t scrapping the anti-missile shield, he’s IMPROVING it!
“This new approach provides a better missile defense capability for our forces in Europe, for our European allies and eventually for our homeland than the program I recommended almost three years ago,” said Gates, who was defense chief in the last two years of the Bush administration and stayed on when Obama took office.
Bejesus! How about some intelligent posting!
#40 There should be a check box asking if you RTFA.
It is not like Obama just woke up one day and said ‘Let’s remove the missile shield.’ Robert Gates (Republican *gasp*) and his crew most likely came to Obama with the idea.
It sounds like the new shield will be more functional and be up quicker.
But name calling is more more fun on the internet to make you feel smarter.
#40–OHHH!! SNAP==good idea Ah-Yea: “It should be a requirement that the link needs to be clicked to post.”
Quite a challenge to DU. It would actually be a public service to the public at large and anyone who actually posts here. It would inhibit spam posting and trolling.
Excellent idea.
#29- absolutely correct. Declining prices for oil, coupled with unrest in Poland and the Slav countries. The myth of Reagan single-handedly bringing down the USSR is just that- a myth.
#9, 40, etc- you don’t really expect anyone to click on a link and read?! hehehe
Europe needs the defense shield, they have no militaries ya know!
#44: So let them build their own on their own dime.
I guess the Iranians are celebrating that they don’t need stealth technology for those ICBM’s they aren’t making for the nuclear weapons they aren’t making from the enriched uranium they haven’t made from all those peaceful centrifuges they accidentally placed underground to threaten the great satan who they actually love.
I hope this is a positive move in the right direction for our country.
# 34 Phydeau
“Oh how cute… pedro”
Yeah, he’s like Marc Perkel pet squirrel Ganesha sucking on watermelon peel and about just as smart too.
Well if Obama is bringing in a new and better system, why aren’t Poland and half-Czechoslovakia okay with it?
I don’t have a problem with not defending the whole world, but why does Obama have to lie about it?
-on second thought, given that all the major powers have a wealth of covert electromagnetic weapons, all missile technology is a complete waste of resources, time and money.
Think about, Tesla and others obsoleted this technology in the late 1800’s early 1900’s. -before our current tech even got off the ground.
-How is that we have made insane advances in many areas of technology yet we still launch our “best” weapons and fly to the space station with technology that 70+years old. -Rockets.
Why would anyone still honestly believes this?
-basically, we are using over complex and overpriced WWII era V2 rockets (and technology) to fight [and fly into space] in the 21st century.
-please.
As long as you continue to play in the sandbox, the sandbox is all you will ever know.
knock, knock, -anyone home?
-s
I wonder exactly how many allies we are going to have left?
If people think you won’t stick by them they aren’t going to stick by you.
I’d say Obama and his Secretary of State have a real way with other countries. They PO most of our former allies. The ones they don’t PO were already our enemies. The the best of my knowledge they’ve made no new friends.
Thank you, bobbo. We can only dream of the day when the posters are informed before posting.
Rsweeny: Time to wake up.
“Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead”
http://breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AP714G0&show_article=1
MikeN: “why aren’t Poland and half-Czechoslovakia okay with it?”
Pretty simple. A sea based missile defense means Poland and the Czech’s cannot suck on the American teat in exchange for land we don’t need.
#53, Pedro,
So it didn’t take you long to change your handle back from Pedro to Alfred. Why not stay with just one handle through the entire thread?
# 55 Ralph, the Bus Driver,
Looks like you nailed him or whatever Alfred1/pedro is.
One sitting and two posts, nice one Alfred1.
Still working on that patent for “Occam’s Veg-O-Matic”?
Alfred / pedro,
Driving the short bus is great!!! Especially knowing both your personalities are back there.
And I love the way you threw in the racist element. Go ahead, guess what color I am.
#29, #43
Not true. It is not at all obvious that the USSR would have collapsed on its own. “Always in motion is the future” as the saying goes and who knows what might have changed in the USSR over the ensuing decades that might have prevented its collapse. Reagan’s build up was directly responsible for causing the USSR to collapse. Even the Russians admit it.
Secondly, it was very much a war. Intelligence, sub technology, satellite technology, covert operation technology the list of ways in which we outpaced the Soviets and helped force an end to that regime are legion. We very much beat them in the Cold War and even they admit it.
RE: Pulling all our bases out and protect only our own
How well did that work in 1914 and 1939?
#51
> given that all the major
> powers have a wealth of
> covert electromagnetic weapons,
> all missile technology
> is a complete waste of
> resources, time and money.
Not even remotely true. First, many modern missiles are protected against EMP. Second, missile technology is by far the most effective military weapon. Third, we already have missiles to which even we don’t have a counter measure much less anyone else. I’d rather spend my money on missile technology than say tanks.
RE: Rockets
Only about a half dozen countries have any technology to shoot down such objects. It is far more complicated than you give it credit. It is complete fantasy to think that every country has a magic ray gun they can use to shoot down anything that comes at them.
Where are all the right-wingers who feel Europe should pay for their own defense?
# 60 Thomas,
Oh the inhumanity of the ignorance conservatives profess. One day when you grow up Thomas, you might be smart.
The FACTs Please:::
Prior to the early 1980s Soviet military spending increased 4-7% per year, but in the 80s the rate of increase slowed. Military spending as a % of GDP peaked in the early 80s and plateaued at around 15-17% of GDP. Thus any increases in Soviet military spending related to U.S. policy, would have been due to policies in the 60s and 70s (IE JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter) not Reagan, who had just come into office as Soviet military spending was peaking after increasing rapidly during the 60s and 70s.
Testimony given by the U.S. Military. to Congress in November 1984 said the annual growth in total Soviet military spending had averaged 4 to 5 percent from 1965 to 1976 but has declined to about 2 percent since then.
Soviet military spending in constant 2000 dollars fell from 415 billion in 1985 (the earliest estimate on the chart) to 376 billion in 1990.
Thus Presidents before Reagan were far more effective at getting the Soviets to increase military spending than Reagan was. Military spending by 1980 was >15% and possibly as high as 20% of GDP. Thus if military spending forced the USSR into bankruptcy, it was Presidents before Reagan who were most effective at getting the USSR to increase military spending.
The USSR collapsed because it did not have a viable economic or political system. The immediate event that precipitated it was social uprisings in Eastern Europe bloc countries due to the inevitable rise of social unrest with USSR policies.
Of course the brain dead republicans will continue to insist it was the brilliant strategy of Reagan scaring them into military spending and bankruptcy.
I hope this the right move in the right direction for our country.
#62, noname,
Very good and very accurate. Just to add, …
It was the import of western ideals, first into Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary Romania, East Germany, etc.) and then when the occupying troops and travelers brought these ideals back into Russia with them. German TV probably had more influence than any other single catalyst.
The Gdansk revolution was for food. A food revolution is much more difficult to quell than a political revolution. The same shortages that plagued Eastern Europe also ended up plaguing the Soviet Union itself until it imploded.
Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with that.
To the dumbasses who responded to my post.
European nations have militaries, big ones, capable ones.
The only reason Bush wanted an ABM system in europe was that he still thought the cold war was going on.
I think Obama’s decision was a big mistake but I’ll just have to wait and see.
once again…no weapons of mass destruction…again..?
Russia said it would welcome abandonment because it was pointless in the first place? Good point as usual Dave. Well thought out. Irrefutable as always. Impressive lefty logic strikes again.