Should Obama cancel the missle defense in Poland to avoid a conflict with Russia?

Black A. Camus

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, claims that NATO's plan to install a missile defense system in Poland is a direct threat to Russia, and China's, nuclear capabilities. To counter this perceived threat, Medvedev deployed missiles between Poland and Lithuania. Some analysts predict that this could be the beginning of another arms race between Russia and the west.

If Obama continues Bush's plan to build a missile defense system in Poland we could face another cold war. However, if Obama concedes to Russia's threats his administration could be seen as weak and Russia could continue its aggrandizement (remember Georgia) in Eastern Europe unchecked.

What should Obama do? With all the domestic problems we face in the U.S., who cares about what goes on in Eastern Europe right now? However, if Obama's administration concedes to Moscow will Moscow, whose leaders are mostly military, take other liberties in the region?
 
if he cancels this, we will be in war within 2 future terms...
Not necessarily, but, perception counts.

As I am sure Barack must know, you can't be weak and succeed with the Russians. On the other hand, there are ways both sides can reach compromise and save face, at the same time. President Obama must find those ways.


QueEx
 
I agree, he MUST stand strong on this one or other leaders will look at him and not willing to be confrontational. Trust me, no nation want to go against the US air power.

The mere fact he picked Emmanuel as his chief of staff guarantee his success in dealing with anybody and any crisis.

He is set to succeed now. He can remain cool and calm because he has his own Dick Chaney working behind the scenes. This guy knows both ends of the government.

The good thing about it, he will talk to the Russians and not at them. He will try to find common ground. I disagreed with the placing of the defense missiles there. Bush should have consulted the Russians first.

It will work out peacefully.
 
Not necessarily, but, perception counts.

As I am sure Barack must know, you can't be weak and succeed with the Russians. On the other hand, there are ways both sides can reach compromise and save face, at the same time. President Obama must find those ways.


QueEx
Exactly!!!!! Bush putting missiles in Poland was a clear provocation and you can't really blame the Russians for responding the way they're threatening to do. However as you say they are diplomatic ways around this potential crisis. :hmm:
 
Barack Obama will go ahead with missile shield, says Polish president

Agence
France-Presse
From correspondents in Warsaw
November 08, 2008

US President-elect Barack Obama has told Polish President Lech Kaczynski he intends to follow through with plans to build parts of a US anti-missile shield in Poland, Warsaw said today.

"Barack Obama has underlined the importance of strategic partnership between Poland and the United States, he expressed his hope of continuing the political and military cooperation between our two countries," a statement said.

"He also said the anti-missile shield project would go ahead", said the statement issued by Mr Kaczynski after the two men spoke by phone.


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24622551-5005961,00.html
 
ok somewhat random question...

since when did president elects receive intelligence briefings the day after the election....70 days before inauguration:confused:

ill be honest...this somewhat worries me
 
ok somewhat random question...

since when did president elects receive intelligence briefings the day after the election....70 days before inauguration:confused:

ill be honest...this somewhat worries me
A Central Intelligence Agency article indicates that Truman began to provide CIA intelligence briefings to president-elects as well as party presidential nominees as early as the 1952 election. The article notes that, "mindful of how useful the weekly briefings were to him, Truman determined that intelligence information should be provided to the <u>candidates</u> in the 1952 election as soon as they were selected." Hence, Eisenhower and the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson, both received briefings, during the race.

The CIA article cited above is drawn from a draft of an historical study prepared by John Helgerson entitled Getting To Know the President: CIA Briefings of Presidential Candidates From 1952 to 1992:


158929159X.187.gif


.
 
Barack Obama will go ahead with missile shield, says Polish president

Agence France-Presse
From correspondents in Warsaw
November 08, 2008

US President-elect Barack Obama has told Polish President Lech Kaczynski he intends to follow through with plans to build parts of a US anti-missile shield in Poland, Warsaw said today.

"Barack Obama has underlined the importance of strategic partnership between Poland and the United States, he expressed his hope of continuing the political and military cooperation between our two countries," a statement said.

"He also said the anti-missile shield project would go ahead", said the statement issued by Mr Kaczynski after the two men spoke by phone.


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24622551-5005961,00.html

I have to admit that that troubles me, a little bit. Obama could have diffused the situation immediately by claiming that the missle defense system was a Bush administration decision, which he does not support. Now, it seems, he's backed himself into a corner and has to install the missle defense system.

While I understand that Obama cannot afford to appear weak, he should atleast try to negotiate a comprise with Moscow first. After all, Dmitry Medvedev is a new president also, and I'm sure he can't afford to appear intimidated by Washington. This has the makings of a serious conflict.
 
I have to admit that that troubles me, a little bit. Obama could have diffused the situation immediately by claiming that the missle defense system was a Bush administration decision, which he does not support. Now, it seems, he's backed himself into a corner and has to install the missle defense system.

While I understand that Obama cannot afford to appear weak, he should atleast try to negotiate a comprise with Moscow first. After all, Dmitry Medvedev is a new president also, and I'm sure he can't afford to appear intimidated by Washington. This has the makings of a serious conflict.

I can see it that way, but I also see it as Obama flexing his muscle back at Medvedev to show that he means business and won't be soft. It was also a demonstration of goodwill to Poland (and ultimately the rest of Europe). To be honest there may be more to this story and Obama may still seek a compromise with Moscow. At the end of the day I think it will prove to be a good strategic decision.
 
Medvedev says he will meet Obama ‘soon’

His remarks could signal an attempt to ease east-west tensions in the wake of a dispute over Georgia. Dismissing suggestions that there was a crisis in relations between Russia and the west, the Russian president said he would meet Mr Obama “very soon”.


Financial Times
By Stefan Wagstyl in Cannes
November 13 2008

Barack Obama’s election as US president creates a “very good” chance to build “good co-operative relations” between Washington and Moscow, Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, said on Thursday.


Medvedev's Words Now in Sharp Contract to Before

His remarks could signal an attempt to ease east-west tensions in the wake of a dispute over Georgia. Dismissing suggestions that there was a crisis in relations between Russia and the west, the Russian president said he would meet Mr Obama “very soon”.

Russia could develop good “neighbourly and partnership-based relations with the US” quite different from those of Soviet times, in spite of recent “deteriorations” in the relationship, Mr Medvedev told Russian and European Union business leaders. “Russia is not the Soviet Union.”

His comments, on the eve of a EU-Russia meeting and a day before he is due to travel to Washington for a global financial crisis summit, contrast sharply with a speech that the Russian president made in Moscow on the day of Mr Obama’s election. Mr Medvedev then attacked the US’s missile defence scheme and announced plans for a new missile deployment in the Kaliningrad region, on the EU’s borders.

The Kremlin appears to be open to talks with the new US administration but is wary of tempering the rhetoric it has employed at home in asserting itself in the countries of the former Soviet Union, including Georgia. It seems content that the west has proved itself unable to maintain a united hard line over Russia’s armed intervention in Georgia this summer and its unilateral recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the breakaway Georgian territories.

The EU this week agreed to lift its objections to talks on a new partnership and co-operation agreement (PCA) with Russia. Mr Medvedev expressed hopes for a positive outcome from today’s EU-Russia summit and the conclusion of stalled negotiations for Russiato join the World Trade Organisation.

The Russian president also outlined Moscow’s proposals for global financial market reforms, which he plans to present to the G20 summit in Washington. His eight-point plan included proposals for streamlining international market regulation; universally acceptable accounting standards; improvements in risk management; reforming barriers to trade and the free movement of capital; and an “an early warning system” for financial crises.

Mr Medvedev said: “Russia is ready to engage in efforts in full co-operation with EU member states and other partners and would like to participate in the creation of a new world financial architecture.” His remarks were welcomed by the assembled business people, meeting at the EU-Russia Industrialists’ Round Table, an annual conference of business leaders. The group said in a statement: “The current crisis calls for internationally co-ordinated transparent government action. Protectionism and isolation must be prevented. The EU and Russia should set an example and work closely together.”

The round table, which is led by Nils Andersen, chief executive of Moller-Maersk, the Danish transport group, and Anatoly Chubais, head of Rusnano, the Russian government’s nanotechnology enterprise, also backed Russia’s WTO application.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/037e1396-b1d5-11dd-b97a-0000779fd18c.html
 
Obama will not deploy that shit. He will talk to Medvedev and Putin and when they see he isn't a moron or coward like Bush they will back off. Obama will also give them assurances that the prior nato advances by the Bush Admin wont continue. He will ask for the russians to show patience when dealing with ex soviet nations like Ukraine.

Turns out Georgia was totally a setup by the Georgian President who believed his alliance with McCain's neocon lackey Scheuneman and lobbying would save their asses. They overplayed their hand and put the US in this position. Now Obama has to clean this shit up. He will clean it up.
 
`

President Barack Obama is reportedly willing to say to the Russians:

The United States will reconsider the Bush administration's
decision to deploy an anti-ballistic missile defense system
in the Czech Republic and Poland -- if -- the Russians will
help curb Iran's push to develop nuclear weapons.​

  • Is this a reasonable opening to dialogue on the subject ???

The proposal above does not exactly propose to do anything:

  • Would not deploying the anti-ballistic missile defense system
    in Poland and the Czech Republic be a fair exchange -- IF -- the
    Russians could actually pursuade the Iranians (without or without
    or incentives) to give up any nuclear "weapons" development ???

  • Would not deploying the anti-ballistic missile defense system
    be a reasonable course of action -- IF -- the Russians COULD NOT
    pursuade the Iranians to give up any nuclear "weapons"
    development ??? -- in other words, should the U.S. not deploy
    the anti-ballistic missile defense system, if Iran does not give
    up the development of nuclear weapons ???


QueEx
 
Obama, Medvedev hail 'fresh start' in U.S.-Russia relations

McClatchy Newspapers
By Steven Thomma
Wednesday, April 1, 2009


LONDON — President Barack Obama will travel to Moscow in July, part of what he and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, are calling a "fresh start" in strained relations between the nuclear powers.

"Over the last several years the relationship between our two countries has been allowed to drift," Obama said after meeting with Medvedev for the first time. "And what I believe we've begun today is a very constructive dialogue that will allow us to work on issues of mutual interest."

He joked that he'd agreed to visit Moscow in July, "which we both agreed was a better time than January to visit."

Medvedev laughed and suggested the warmer weather would better reflect the tone of their meeting.

The decision to meet again in Moscow signaled a new step in the often-complicated relationship between the countries.

During their session at the U.S. ambassador's residence, the two leaders agreed to negotiate a new treaty reducing their nuclear arsenals, to try to persuade Iran not to develop its own nuclear weapons and to cooperate on other issues such as the threat from al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They discussed but didn't agree on several other issues, notably the Russian invasion of Georgia, Russian construction of a nuclear facility in Iran and the U.S. pledge to deploy a missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

"My hope is that given the constructive conversations that we've had today, the joint statements that we will be issuing both on reductions of nuclear arsenals as well as a range of other areas of interest, that what we're seeing today is the beginning of new progress in the U.S.-Russian relations," Obama said.

"I can only agree that the relations between our countries have been adrift over the past years," Medvedev added. "As President Obama has said, they were drifting, and drifting in some wrong directions. They were degrading, to some extent."

In a statement, the two pledged to restore the relationship.

"We, the leaders of Russia and the United States, are ready to move beyond Cold War mentalities and chart a fresh start in relations between our two countries," they said.

Their most concrete agreement was to start negotiating a new treaty to reduce their arsenals of nuclear weapons. It would replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires in December and long ago succeeded in reducing the arms stockpiles.

A new agreement could further cut the arsenals, which now are limited to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads each. A key goal will be making sure the pact maintains START I's inspection and monitoring system.

The new treaty could include an agreement on a mutual defense against missiles, which could open the door to the United States dropping a pledged missile-defense system in Eastern Europe. The United States maintains it's intended to defend Europe against a missile from Iran, but Russia has seen it as hostile.

White House aides said the two men got along well, despite continuing disagreements on some issues.

"They had real disagreements about Georgia; particularly, Abkhazia and South Ossetia will never be recognized by the United States. The president said that very forcefully. The president also made clear the idea of a 'sphere of influence' is an idea whose time is long past its due, not a 21st-century idea," said a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Still, the official said, "They did have a good rapport. . . . But I'd also say that it's fair to say that that rapport was also matched by candor and frankness on areas of disagreement."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also was encouraged.

"The new atmosphere of mutual trust is an atmosphere which does not create the illusion of good relations because they develop well on a personal level, but which ensure taking into account mutual interests and readiness to listen to each other," he said. "We missed this much in the past years."

Obama also met Wednesday with Chinese President Hu Jintao, and accepted his invitation to visit China this year. They assigned their top finance and diplomatic ministers to a panel aimed at forging better cooperation. It will meet annually in alternating capitals.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/65251.html
 

White House to Scrap Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield



The New York Times
By PETER BAKER
and NICHOLAS KULISH
Published: September 17, 2009


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to announce on Thursday that it will scrap former President George W. Bush’s planned missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and instead deploy a reconfigured system aimed more at intercepting shorter-range Iranian missiles, according to people familiar with the plans.

President Obama decided not to deploy a sophisticated radar system in the Czech Republic or 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland, as Mr. Bush had planned. Instead, the new system his administration is developing would deploy smaller SM-3 missiles, at first aboard ships and later probably either in southern Europe or Turkey, those familiar with the plans said.

The White House will announce the decision Thursday morning and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who was first appointed by Mr. Bush, will then discuss it with reporters at 10:30 a.m. It amounts to one of the biggest national security reversals by the new administration, one that will upset Czech and Polish allies and possibly please Russia, which adamantly objected to the Bush plan. But Obama administration officials stressed that they are not abandoning missile defense, only redesigning it to meet the more immediate Iranian threat.

“The way forward enhances our homeland defense and protects our forces abroad as well as our European allies,” said an administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the announcement by Mr. Gates. “Our review has been driven by an updated intelligence assessment of Iran’s missile programs and new advances in our missile defense capabilities and technologies.”

Administration officials said the Bush missile defense architecture was better designed to counter potential long-range missiles by Iran, but recent tests and intelligence have indicated that Tehran is moving more rapidly toward developing short- and medium-range missiles. Mr. Obama’s advisers said their reconfigured system would be more aimed at that threat by stationing interceptor missiles closer to Iran.

The Obama administration has begun briefing allies on the decision, and the Czech prime minister confirmed that he received a phone call from Mr. Obama informing him of the plans.

“Today, shortly after midnight, American President Barack Obama contacted me by telephone to inform me that his administration is pulling out of plans to build a radar for the anti-missile defense system on the territory of the Czech Republic,” Mr. Fischer said, adding that “Poland was informed in the same manner.”

A Polish diplomat said early Thursday that Warsaw was waiting to hear, but added that “it is clear that the administration has other priorities.”

In arranging a post-midnight call by Mr. Obama and quickly dispatching a top State Department official to Europe, the administration was scrambling to notify and assure the European allies as word of its decision was already leaking out in Washington. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the administration would jettison the Bush architecture.

But it made for unfortunate timing, as Thursday is the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland at the start of World War II, a date fraught with sensitivity for Poles who viewed the Bush missile defense system as a political security blanket against Russia. Poland, along with many other countries in the former Soviet sphere, worry that Mr. Obama is less willing to stand up to Russia.

Mr. Bush had developed a special relationship with Eastern Europe as relations between Washington and Moscow deteriorated. The proposal to deploy parts of the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic were justified on the grounds that they would protect Europe and the eastern coast of the United States against any possible missile attacks from Iran.

But the Polish and Czech governments saw the presence of American military personnel based permanently in their countries as a protection against Russia. Moscow strongly opposed the shield and claimed it was targeted against Russia and undermined national security. The United States repeatedly denied such claims.

Mr. Obama’s advisers have said their changes to missile defense were motivated by the accelerating Iranian threat, not by Russian complaints. But the announcement comes just days before Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet privately with Russia’s President Dmitri A. Medvedev in New York on the sidelines of next week’s United Nations General Assembly session.

The administration maintains that the switch in the Bush plans does not indicate any diminishment of its relations with Poland and the Czech Republic. “The United States stands by its security commitments to its allies,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Andrei Nesterenko, a spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, said Thursday that the ministry was aware of the reports, but would await the announcement before formally commenting. But he said that if the anti-missile system was indeed being scrapped, it would be a “positive sign” for Russia.

The Obama review of missile defense was influenced in large part by evidence that Iran has made significant progress toward developing medium-range missiles that could threaten Europe, even as the prospects of an Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile that could reach the United States remain distant.




http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18shield.html
 
U.S. Changes Course on Eastern European Nuclear-Missile Shield

Obama Says Redesign to Strengthen America's Defenses


P1-AR626A_MISSI_NS_20090916230205.gif



Wall Street Journal
By PETER SPIEGEL
September 17, 2009


WASHINGTON -- The White House is scrapping a Bush-era plan for an Eastern European missile-defense shield, saying a redesigned defensive system would be cheaper, quicker and more effective against the threat from Iranian missiles.

"After an extensive process, I have approved the unanimous recommendations of my secretary of defense and my joint chiefs of staff to strengthen America's defenses against ballistic-missile attack," President Barack Obama said in an announcement Thursday morning.

"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," Mr. Obama said. "It is more comprehensive than the previous program, it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost effective, and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the decision to abandon the Bush administration's plans came about because of a change in the U.S. perception of the threat posed by Iran.

Mr. Gates said intelligence experts concluded the short- and medium-range missiles were "developing more rapidly than previously projected" in Iran. The findings are a major reversal from the Bush administration, which pushed aggressively to begin construction of the Eastern European system before leaving office in January.

Mr. Gates said the previous administration's plans will be changed, moving away from the installation of a missile-defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland in the near future. He said a second phase to begin in 2015 could result in missiles being placed on land in Eastern Europe.

Russia on Thursday welcomed the news but said it saw no reason to offer concessions in return. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened last November to station tactical Iskander missiles on Poland's border if the U.S. system was deployed.

"The Bush plans on the missile defense as we knew them until now were nothing more than a provocation of security in the European region," said Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in a phone interview.

Jan Fischer, the Czech Republic interim prime minister, said he got a phone call from Mr. Obama just after midnight Thursday about the plans.

The Polish government doesn't plan to make an immediate statement on its Thursday meeting with U.S. officials on the missile shield, Foreign Ministry spokesman Piotr Paszkowski said.

The Bush administration proposed the European-based system to counter the perceived threat of Iran's developing a nuclear weapon that could be placed atop its increasingly sophisticated missiles. There is widespread disagreement over the progress of Iran's nuclear program toward developing such a weapon, but miniaturizing nuclear weapons for use on long-range missiles is one of the most difficult technological hurdles for an aspiring nuclear nation.

The Bush plan infuriated the Kremlin, which argued the system was a potential threat to its own intercontinental ballistic missiles. U.S. officials repeatedly insisted the location and limited scale of the system -- a radar site in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland -- posed no threat to Russian strategic arms.

The Obama administration's assessment concludes that U.S. allies in Europe, including NATO members, face a more immediate threat from Iran's short- and medium-range missiles and is ordering a shift toward the development of regional missile defenses for the Continent, according to people familiar with the matter. Such systems would be far less controversial.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the U.S. decision is a positive step and would improve the involvement of all NATO nations. Mr. Fogh Rasmussen said he had talks with the U.S. top envoy to the alliance on Thursday morning, adding the full alliance would be debriefed later in the day.

Critics of the shift are bound to view it as a gesture to win Russian cooperation with U.S.-led efforts to seek new economic sanctions on Iran if Tehran doesn't abandon its nuclear program. Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has opposed efforts to impose fresh sanctions on Tehran.

Security Council members, which include the U.S. and Russia, will meet with Iranian negotiators on Oct. 1 to discuss Iran's nuclear program.

Current and former U.S. officials briefed on the assessment's findings said the administration was expected to leave open the option of restarting the Polish and Czech system if Iran makes advances in its long-range missiles in the future.

The decision to shelve the defense system is all but certain to raise alarms in Eastern Europe, where officials have expressed concerns that the White House's effort to "reset" relations with Moscow would come at the expense of American allies in the former Soviet bloc. "The Poles are nervous," said a senior U.S. military official.

Earlier, a Polish official said his government wouldn't "speculate" on administration decisions regarding missile defense but said "we expect the U.S. will abide by its commitments" to cooperate with Poland militarily in areas beyond the missile-defense program.

Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he expected the Obama administration to drop the missile-defense plans. He said that Moscow wouldn't view the move as a concession but rather a reversal of a mistaken Bush-era policy.

Still, the decision is likely to be seen in Russia as a victory for the Kremlin. Mr. Medvedev will meet with Mr. Obama at next week's meetings of the U.N. General Assembly and Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations.

Although a center-right government in Prague supported the Bush missile-defense plan when it was first proposed, the Czech Republic is now run by a caretaker government. A Czech official said his government was concerned an announcement by the White House on the missile-defense program could influence coming elections and has urged a delay. But the Obama administration has decided to keep to its original timetable.

European analysts said the administration would be forced to work hard to convince both sides the decision wasn't made to curry favor with Moscow and, instead, relied only on the program's technical merits and analysis of Iran's missile capabilities.

"There are two audiences: the Russians and the various European countries," said Sarah Mendelson, a Russia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The task is: How do they cut through the conspiracy theories in Moscow?"

The Obama administration has been careful to characterize its review as a technical assessment of the threat posed by the Iranian regime, as well as the costs and capabilities of a ground-based antimissile system to complement the two already operating in Alaska and central California. Those West Coast sites are meant to defend against North Korean missiles.

The administration has also debated offering Poland and the Czech Republic alternative programs to reassure the two NATO members that the U.S. remains committed to their defense.

Poland, in particular, has lobbied the White House to deploy Patriot missile batteries -- the U.S. Army's primary battlefield missile-defense system -- manned by American troops as an alternative.

Although Polish officials supported the Bush plan, U.S. officials said they had indicated their primary desire was getting U.S. military personnel on Polish soil. Gen. Carter Hamm, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, said Washington has begun talks with Polish officials about starting to rotate Europe-based American Patriot units into Poland for month-long training tours as a first step toward a more permanent presence.

"My position has been: Let's get started as soon as we can with the training rotations, while the longer-term stationing...is decided between the two governments," Gen. Hamm said in an interview.

For several years, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency has been pushing for breaking ground in Poland and the Czech Republic, arguing that construction must begin so the system would be in place to counter Tehran's emerging long-range-missile program, which intelligence assessments determined would produce an effective rocket by about 2015.

But in recent months, several prominent experts have questioned that timetable. A study by Russian and U.S. scientists published in May by the East-West Institute, an international think tank, played down the progress of Iran's long-range-missile program. In addition, Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and an expert in missile defense and space-based weapons, said in a speech last month that long-range capabilities of both Iran and North Korea "are not there yet."

"We believed that the emergence of the intercontinental ballistic missile would come much faster than it did," Gen. Cartwright said. "The reality is, it has not come as fast as we thought it would come."

It is not an assessment that is shared universally. Eric Edelman, who oversaw missile-defense issues at the Pentagon as undersecretary of defense for policy in the Bush administration, said intelligence reports he reviewed were more troubling.

"Maybe something really dramatic changed between Jan. 16 and now in terms of what the Iranians are doing with their missile system, but I don't think so," Mr. Edelman said, referring to his last day in office.

There is far more consensus on Iran's ability to develop its short- and medium-range missiles, and the administration review is expected to recommend a shift in focus toward European defenses against those threats. Such a program would be developed closely with NATO.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125317801774419047.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart
 
Cancel missle defense, not to avoid conflict with Russia, but because the nation cannot afford the luxury of having troops all over the world. As stated earlier in this thread, we have plenty of weapons to defend our country, thats all we should be concerned about
 
There could be hidden cost in setting up missle defense in Poland and aggressive expansion of NATO similiar to what happen with the first Gulf War.

For example, the US ticked off Bin Laden from the first Gulf War, and next thing you know we have two WTC attacks 9 years later. Freelance/Terror Subcontractors eagerly submitting their plans for approval from Bin Laden to attack this country. 2-3 trillion in war spending/homeland security and nation building, and never ending wars.

Iran and Russian have close ties, they could easily share nuclear and missle technology. Russia can justify by saying we setup a missle shield in Europe. The only way to get rid of nuclear weapons is a global ban on these weapon, a missle shield will not stop anything. Accept Iran being a nuclear power that could devastate the US.

:smh::smh:
 
Last edited:
Cancel missle defense, not to avoid conflict with Russia, but because the nation cannot afford the luxury of having troops all over the world. As stated earlier in this thread, we have plenty of weapons to defend our country, thats all we should be concerned about


I agree with this message except for the isolationist tone at the end. Our national interests and security don't begin on our shores.
 
if he cancels this, we will be in war within 2 future terms...


That's just foolish. We avoided war with an aggressively expansionist Soviet Union for 40 years. Not putting in a still unproven missile defense system in Poland won't be the thing to push us over the edge.
Don't be reflexively anti-Obama.
 
I agree with this message except for the isolationist tone at the end. Our national interests and security don't begin on our shores.

na, I'm not speaking as an isolationist, but I support a policy of non-intervention. As a nation, we were warned against this. "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." MLK had similar beliefs when speaking out against Vietnam. Just a couple examples that shape my thinking
 
That's just foolish. We avoided war with an aggressively expansionist Soviet Union for 40 years. Not putting in a still unproven missile defense system in Poland won't be the thing to push us over the edge.

Don't be reflexively anti-Obama.

I think maybe you've coined a new phrase: Reflexively Anti-Obama, "RAO".

Actinanass wears it with pride.

QueEx
 
Not necessarily, but, perception counts.

As I am sure Barack must know, you can't be weak and succeed with the Russians. On the other hand, there are ways both sides can reach compromise and save face, at the same time. President Obama must find those ways.


QueEx

Not necessarily, but, perception counts.

Of course it does. Perception always trumps facts. I would expect nothing less of you.
 
That's just foolish. We avoided war with an aggressively expansionist Soviet Union for 40 years. Not putting in a still unproven missile defense system in Poland won't be the thing to push us over the edge.
Don't be reflexively anti-Obama.

How did we end the cold war? Did we do it by giving in to other country's demands? Please remind everyone how we got out of that 40 years of so-called diplomacy.

I think maybe you've coined a new phrase: Reflexively Anti-Obama, "RAO".

Actinanass wears it with pride.

QueEx

LOL, I actually like that phrase.

If we have a right wing conservative chicken hawk as president.

Remember we have to have a pussy left winger to get that chicken hawk.....
 
ok somewhat random question...

since when did president elects receive intelligence briefings the day after the election....70 days before inauguration:confused:

ill be honest...this somewhat worries me

From the questions you ask on this board, either you are not very informed or very gullible to right wing TV and radio.
 
How did we end the cold war? Did we do it by giving in to other country's demands? Please remind everyone how we got out of that 40 years of so-called diplomacy.

Remember Reagan, Gorbachev and Glasnost diplomacy? Trust but, verify. Again. revisionism is a mutherfucker.

Berlin%20Wall%20Freedom.jpg

The Soviet Union collapsed from within. Remember the Berlin wall being torn down by East Germans? You have not read a single history book in your life. You get your history form Oliver North on "War Stories."


Remember we have to have a pussy left winger to get that chicken hawk.....

Sean Hannity
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Dick Cheney
Bill O'Reilly

What branch of arm service did they serve?

GW. Can anyone find his military record?

Punk ass chicken hawks that are too cowardly to put themselves in the mix. Of course Cheney can blast other people with guns!
 
Remember Reagan, Gorbachev and Glasnost diplomacy? Trust but, verify. Again. revisionism is a mutherfucker.

Berlin%20Wall%20Freedom.jpg

The Soviet Union collapsed from within. Remember the Berlin wall being torn down by East Germans? You have not read a single history book in your life. You get your history form Oliver North on "War Stories."




Sean Hannity
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Dick Cheney
Bill O'Reilly

What branch of arm service did they serve?

GW. Can anyone find his military record?

Punk ass chicken hawks that are too cowardly to put themselves in the mix. Of course Cheney can blast other people with guns!

So, defense spending didn't effect any of that?

HOLD THE FUCK UP??? DID YOU JUST GIVE REAGAN PROPS?

How did Russia collapse from within? Refresh my memory...
 
How did we end the cold war? Did we do it by giving in to other country's demands? Please remind everyone how we got out of that 40 years of so-called diplomacy.



LOL, I actually like that phrase.



Remember we have to have a pussy left winger to get that chicken hawk.....

Remember Reagan, Gorbachev and Glasnost diplomacy? Trust but, verify. Again. revisionism is a mutherfucker.

Berlin%20Wall%20Freedom.jpg

The Soviet Union collapsed from within. Remember the Berlin wall being torn down by East Germans? You have not read a single history book in your life. You get your history form Oliver North on "War Stories."




s!

Question asked and answered.

So, defense spending didn't effect any of that?

HOLD THE FUCK UP??? DID YOU JUST GIVE REAGAN PROPS?

How did Russia collapse from within? Refresh my memory...

Defense spending was definitely part of it. Reagan decided to engage in an expensive arms race with the Soviets and they spent themselves into a hole. It wasn't the only reason they failed but it was a big part. Of course our economy went into a deep recession almost immediately afterward so it wasn't a sweeping victory.
Reagan should get some credit but so should every President before him that had to face down the Soviets. They weren't exactly kicking down our doors when Reagan took office.
 
Question asked and answered.



Defense spending was definitely part of it. Reagan decided to engage in an expensive arms race with the Soviets and they spent themselves into a hole. It wasn't the only reason they failed but it was a big part. Of course our economy went into a deep recession almost immediately afterward so it wasn't a sweeping victory.
Reagan should get some credit but so should every President before him that had to face down the Soviets. They weren't exactly kicking down our doors when Reagan took office.

Reagan should get some credit but so should every President before him that had to face down the Soviets.

Reagan's hyper spending on weaponry is the reason we are in the hole today. I won't post the info on how the deficit ballooned during the Reagan administration; it is well documented on several of my posts on this board. Funny, those that bitch about the massive deficit make no mention of its origin and why they weren’t up in arms just 12 months ago about it. Every president since Truman had a role in the cold war. In my opinion, the cold war was just a hustle. The US and USSR had no intention of confronting each other in war. They used third party countries to play out their political smoke and mirror games. Now after both political systems and China have decided that exploitation of the common working man and women is the system they have settled on, whether from a so called western, quasi neo Nazi capitalism or communistic capitalism of China, the waste land of dictators, political puppets and repression of native peoples is now the punishment we are now dealing with.


After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd

In 1976 -- long before American conservatives would claim that Ronald Reagan's 1980s debt-driven massive military spending "bankrupted" the Soviet Union -- French demographer and author Emmanuel Todd wrote a best-selling book titled La Chute finale (The Final Fall), predicting the imminent fall of the USSR. He based his projection, in large part, on a careful study of the increase in infant mortality in that empire, one of the leading indicators of the health of a nation.

Time proved him right, and hindsight tells us that Reagan and Bush had nothing whatever to do with the fall of the USSR, con claims notwithstanding. It rotted from within, something that I witnessed in the 1970s and 1980s visiting both the USSR and several of its captive states, and living a year in 1986-1987 within 30 miles of Soviet-dominated East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Any 70s or 80s visitor to the USSR or its vassal sates, in fact, could have come to the conclusion that -- barring a world war -- it was an empire about to expire, and the CIA and others in the American, European, Israeli, and Japanese intelligence services had been saying the same thing since, in some cases the 1960s.

Yet it was Emmanuel Todd who captured Europe's attention by explicitly saying that the Soviet Emperor had no clothes - and doing so in a way that was widely discussed across Europe. Thus, when my best friend and former business partner Jerry Schneiderman and I found ourselves in Budapest in early November, 1989, the week before the Berlin Wall fell, as East German refugees were streaming into the country and the Soviets seemed helpless to stop it, we discovered that the reaction of the Hungarian shopkeepers and bartenders we talked with was a resigned shrug: "We knew it was coming. Everybody knew it was coming." Other than, of course, the average American.
 
Last edited:
What A Stark Difference - reading back through this old Obama era thread . . .

Compare the differences between the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration’s transition — and dealing with Russia


.
 
Back
Top