Obama Scrapping Missile Shield

[WuDrWu]

'shizzle, don't hold your breath my friend.

[kcshocker11]

It's funny (in a make your stomach ache violently sort of way) how the left always seems to be "tight" when it comes to protecting and defending freedom for the citizens of the United States of America, however if it comes to defending, say SMELT, then they spare no taxpayer expense.


On the surface, one can understand your point. But one must fully understand more than the dollars, and that skill seems to evade you here.


I guess I should feel blessed that you so staunchly believe that a few "experts" are better off making decisions for the rest of us....that insures that you will never be in charge. One less idiot in charge, that's a good thing.

Maybe right but this decision was intelligent, well informed and cost efficient! 8)

[ShockCity]

'shizzle, don't hold your breath my friend.

Actually, please do hold your breath, and Wu, feel free to follow along.

[ShockCity]

It's funny (in a make your stomach ache violently sort of way) how the left always seems to be "tight" when it comes to protecting and defending freedom for the citizens of the United States of America, however if it comes to defending, say SMELT, then they spare no taxpayer expense.


On the surface, one can understand your point. But one must fully understand more than the dollars, and that skill seems to evade you here.


I guess I should feel blessed that you so staunchly believe that a few "experts" are better off making decisions for the rest of us....that insures that you will never be in charge. One less idiot in charge, that's a good thing.

Maybe tight but this decision was intelligent, well informed and cost efficient! 8)

Don't bother trying to reason with the "Dr." He wouldn't know what an intelligent, well informed, and cost efficient decision was unless it involved whether to buy Cheetos or Doritos for dinner.

[Maggie]

I thought about this a bit this weekend. Was this an “intelligent, well informed and cost efficient decision”? I am not so sure.

First, regardless of the merits of the decision we ought to be able to agree that publicly announcing this on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland is an act of quite remarkable insensitivity. And it is not the first time the White House has done something like this…it is very strange and amateurish.

What I find interesting is that these missiles were never a threat to Russia. Even the President’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that that Russian concerns about missile defense are "unfounded" (so, just to clarify, even though Russian objections are not based in fact, we're capitulating anyway – but I digress). Russia expressed disapproval for a completely different reason. Had they been deployed they would have demonstrated that this region was once and for all part of the defense architecture of the West - which is, of course, what the Czech Republic, Poland, etc. have been seeking. By using propaganda/rhetoric to induce President Obama to back down, Russia is attempting to divide the NATO alliance into those countries where Russia has a veto over deployments and those where it does not which could have serious negative implications for the cohesion of the West.

Now the Obama administration undoubtedly hopes that the next step will be Russian cooperation with regard to Iran. But having achieved a major strategic victory at no cost, I doubt the Russians are likely to take steps that would alienate the Iranians. Support for Iran gives Russia weight in international politics because it compels worried Western countries constantly to court the Kremlin.

As others have pointed out, officials in Washington have insisted that the decision to cancel the missile deployment was dictated by a new understanding of the threat posed by Iran. However, this is not the way it is being seen in Russia where officials are delighted by the demonstration of Russian strength which they think it represents. Besides, it doesn’t make sense to me that we should only be concerned with the short-and-medium-range threat and not also with the long-range threat 2 or 3 years from now. Not to mention the fact that our own intelligence on Iran is very likely manifestly inadequate and I am not sure I would bet a lot of money on it being terribly accurate right now.

Perhaps if the Obama Administration made clear to Tehran that the reason we do not need missile interceptors in Europe is that we will never, under any circumstances, allow Iran to develop nuclear arms or the long-range means to deliver them. Such a stance would turn this decision, which so far seems tentative and even reluctant, into a unilateral display of U.S. strength and confidence, and thereby seize the high ground on arms reduction while warning one of the world’s most recalcitrant proliferators that the game will soon be over.

I would like to give the President the benefit of the doubt, all things considered, but I am having a hard time seeing the likely end game.

[SubGod22]

I thought about this a bit this weekend. Was this an “intelligent, well informed and cost efficient decision”? I am not so sure.

First, regardless of the merits of the decision we ought to be able to agree that publicly announcing this on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland is an act of quite remarkable insensitivity. And it is not the first time the White House has done something like this…it is very strange and amateurish.

What I find interesting is that these missiles were never a threat to Russia. Even the President’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that that Russian concerns about missile defense are "unfounded" (so, just to clarify, even though Russian objections are not based in fact, we're capitulating anyway – but I digress). Russia expressed disapproval for a completely different reason. Had they been deployed they would have demonstrated that this region was once and for all part of the defense architecture of the West - which is, of course, what the Czech Republic, Poland, etc. have been seeking. By using propaganda/rhetoric to induce President Obama to back down, Russia is attempting to divide the NATO alliance into those countries where Russia has a veto over deployments and those where it does not which could have serious negative implications for the cohesion of the West.

Now the Obama administration undoubtedly hopes that the next step will be Russian cooperation with regard to Iran. But having achieved a major strategic victory at no cost, I doubt the Russians are likely to take steps that would alienate the Iranians. Support for Iran gives Russia weight in international politics because it compels worried Western countries constantly to court the Kremlin.

As others have pointed out, officials in Washington have insisted that the decision to cancel the missile deployment was dictated by a new understanding of the threat posed by Iran. However, this is not the way it is being seen in Russia where officials are delighted by the demonstration of Russian strength which they think it represents. Besides, it doesn’t make sense to me that we should only be concerned with the short-and-medium-range threat and not also with the long-range threat 2 or 3 years from now. Not to mention the fact that our own intelligence on Iran is very likely manifestly inadequate and I am not sure I would bet a lot of money on it being terribly accurate right now.

Perhaps if the Obama Administration made clear to Tehran that the reason we do not need missile interceptors in Europe is that we will never, under any circumstances, allow Iran to develop nuclear arms or the long-range means to deliver them. Such a stance would turn this decision, which so far seems tentative and even reluctant, into a unilateral display of U.S. strength and confidence, and thereby seize the high ground on arms reduction while warning one of the world’s most recalcitrant proliferators that the game will soon be over.

I would like to give the President the benefit of the doubt, all things considered, but I am having a hard time seeing the likely end game.

:good:

[Maggie]

1979Shocker posted the following in the “Nuclear-Free World?” thread:

Obama demands Iran open plant to inspectors

PITTSBURGH - President Barack Obama demanded Friday that Iran open up a previously covert nuclear fuel facility to international inspectors, saying "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow."

Hours later, Iran's nuclear chief confirmed the existence of a new plant, which he said was still under construction, and suggested that U.N. inspectors could be allowed to visit the facility.

Obama, flanked by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, said the site "deepens a growing concern" that Iran has failed to live up to its international obligations.

So how exactly does this “new revelation” square with the Administration’s explanation that a diminished threat from Iran justified the decision to discard a previously agreed upon missile defense system in Eastern Europe?

Still intelligent and well informed? Or maybe we could consider instead - astonishingly incompetent, perilously naive, or deliberately dishonest? Just asking. :noidea: