Oh to be a US ally...too bad

#2
#2
I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, this defense sheild can do a lot for deterring missile attacks from Iran or Russia. But on the other hand, should we really be spending insane amounts of money to protect Europe? I'm not sure what this buys us as far as homeland defense. We have some serious financial troubles over here that need to be sorted out before we should consider this.
 
#3
#3
rjd970 said:
I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, this defense sheild can do a lot for deterring missile attacks from Iran or Russia. But on the other hand, should we really be spending insane amounts of money to protect Europe? I'm not sure what this buys us as far as homeland defense. We have some serious financial troubles over here that need to be sorted out before we should consider this.
Click to expand...

Our strategic concerns don't change with the ebb and flow of our economy. Building alliances of the old Eastern Bloc nations is te thing to do. Our faux relationship with Putin is merely window dressing. Making that better gains us nothing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
rjd970 said:
I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, this defense sheild can do a lot for deterring missile attacks from Iran or Russia. But on the other hand, should we really be spending insane amounts of money to protect Europe? I'm not sure what this buys us as far as homeland defense. We have some serious financial troubles over here that need to be sorted out before we should consider this.
Click to expand...

I'm of the ópinion the shield should be built, some of the former Warsaw Pact states are ámong our staunchest and most helpful allies. I just dont see what Barry thinks will happen by fellating the Russians, he is a moron if he thinks that they will stop taking Tehran's money for nuke help if we abañdon thé project
 
#5
#5
BigPapaVol said:
Our strategic concerns don't change with the ebb and flow of our economy. Building alliances of the old Eastern Bloc nations is te thing to do. Our faux relationship with Putin is merely window dressing. Making that better gains us nothing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

But I'm also talking priorities. How effective is the system we have defending us? Wouldn't that money be better spent perfecting the system we have defending the homeland, before we start building it elsewhere in the world? We could always transfer the technology once we know for sure it works.

I don't know, part of me thinks we are moving too fast to get a defense system in eastern europe before we have worked the kinks out and know for sure it works here.
 
#6
#6
rjd970 said:
But I'm also talking priorities. How effective is the system we have defending us? Wouldn't that money be better spent perfecting the system we have defending the homeland, before we start building it elsewhere in the world? We could always transfer the technology once we know for sure it works.

I don't know, part of me thinks we are moving too fast to get a defense system in eastern europe before we have worked the kinks out and know for sure it works here.
Click to expand...

Since the break up of the eastern block countries a fight has been building. Russia upped the ante with the actions in Georgia. Eastern European countries need to know we will stand with them. Russia is looking after their own interests by giving dangerous nations nuclear technology, they hope to create allies and fund a military buildup in this way.

I am sure it would be very expensive to build this defense system, but then again Iran and nuclear weapons program will be much more expensive to us when Israel decides they can no longer sit idle and watch Iran create the weapons they intend to destroy Israel with.
 
#7
#7
I would hope, and I have no idea, that something else would be in the works to appease the Poles. They are probably one of our most important allies.
 
#8
#8
rjd970 said:
I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, this defense sheild can do a lot for deterring missile attacks from Iran or Russia. But on the other hand, should we really be spending insane amounts of money to protect Europe? I'm not sure what this buys us as far as homeland defense. We have some serious financial troubles over here that need to be sorted out before we should consider this.
Click to expand...

Even if you KNOW you are not going to do it or can't do it, you don't spill the beans or give away the farm in this manner. It wreaks of weakness and you just made your allies take a big heaping helping.
 
#9
#9
rjd970 said:
But I'm also talking priorities. How effective is the system we have defending us? Wouldn't that money be better spent perfecting the system we have defending the homeland, before we start building it elsewhere in the world? We could always transfer the technology once we know for sure it works.

I don't know, part of me thinks we are moving too fast to get a defense system in eastern europe before we have worked the kinks out and know for sure it works here.
Click to expand...
regardless whether we ever get it there, the appearance of activity garners us strategic allies. We are in the business of buying them. That relationship is what we're after. Publicly announcing that we are dropping them for the enemy that they fear most is a bad idea. Putin in praising Obama for this. Not only is that hollow praise, it should concern us greatly. Remember, Putin grew up under those who loved Carter, but only changed once Reagan stomped his foot down and used our economy to render the Soviet military generally obsolete. That's what Putin understands.

We are certainly not going to protect anyone in the world better than we do ourselves, ever.
 
#11
#11
Doesn't this plan involve moving for faster defense by relying on sea-based Aegis (and other...Monterey, that's you area, I'm sure I'm wrong) and other defenses, then moving for land-based systems?

The Czechs and the Poles don't get the bases (missiles and radar installations), but the idea still seems to be protection, unless I completely misinterpreted the statements. Sure, those statements could be misleading, but we lied to all of our allies already about the capability of the missiles when it comes to intercepting Russian ICBMs.
 
#12
#12
TennTradition said:
Doesn't this plan involve moving for faster defense by relying on sea-based Aegis (and other...Monterey, that's you area, I'm sure I'm wrong) and other defenses, then moving for land-based systems?

The Czechs and the Poles don't get the bases (missiles and radar installations), but the idea still seems to be protection, unless I completely misinterpreted the statements. Sure, those statements could be misleading, but we lied to all of our allies already about the capability of the missiles when it comes to intercepting Russian ICBMs.
Click to expand...

Your first paragraph is a result of this announcement I think. The original plan was to have land based interceptors and networked sensors based in Poland and the Czech republic. Much like what we have now in Alaska.

The administration has now backtracked and said suitable defense can be established with Aegis ships and multiple smaller installations, which does nothing to defend against the long range intercontinental stuff. Maybe that is reasonable given the threat profiles they are looking at and maybe it isn't, but the original plan for the bigger installations were originally planned for a reason.
 
#13
#13
I don't see how an Aegis system mounted on a destroyer floating in the Eastern Med is going to stop the launch of an ICBM from Siberia or Northern Iran. Maybe I don't understand it's full capabilities, but I thought the purpose of Aegis was for close-in fire support, particularly against cruise missile attacks on ships.

besides, ships can be harassed, sunk and redeployed.
 
#14
#14
MG1968 said:
I don't see how an Aegis system mounted on a destroyer floating in the Eastern Med is going to stop the launch of an ICBM from Siberia or Northern Iran. Maybe I don't understand it's full capabilities, but I thought the purpose of Aegis was for close-in fire support, particularly against cruise missile attacks on ships.

besides, ships can be harassed, sunk and redeployed.
Click to expand...

Exactly MG.

Again, I don't know what the intel is telling them as far as threats, but I find it hard to believe it has changed that much since the Bush administration.
 
#15
#15
Roosevelt and Truman believed that appeasing the USSR was more important than anything. Hell, FDR called the most evil SOB in history "Uncle Joe" and told one of his advisors that "If we give Uncle Joe Stalin everything he wants and ask for nothing in return, he'll turn to democracy."

Russia could fall into the ocean or Hell and I'd probably be drunk off my ass in celebration.

(In case it's not too obvious, I have family in Eastern Europe)
 
#17
#17
allvol123 said:
Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal - Yahoo! News



As if giving Honduras the finger was not enough.
Click to expand...

Who has not been betrayed by the US government in the last century??

Most of all the American citizen.

"The high office of President has been used to format a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office must inform the citizen of his plight."
(John F. Kennedy at Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination).

Ho Chi Mihn wanted desperately to be an American ally but was betrayed by Woodrow Wislon.

The nationalist Chinese were betrayed.

The Serbians were betrayed at the end of WWII and again by Clinton, that being one of the greatest betrayals in American history.

The South Africans and Rhodesians (Zimbabweans)
were also betrayed.

Try reading; "The great betrayal" or "The Rape of Serbia", or "The great land swindle."

The nationalist Chinese didn't do so well trusting the
American government did they??

Neither did the south Vietnamese nor the Laotians or the Cambodians.

It's about time some light should be shown on the shadows in Washington D. C.!
 
#18
#18
gsvol said:
Who has not been betrayed by the US government in the last century??

Most of all the American citizen.

"The high office of President has been used to format a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office must inform the citizen of his plight."
(John F. Kennedy at Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination).

Ho Chi Mihn wanted desperately to be an American ally but was betrayed by Woodrow Wislon.

The nationalist Chinese were betrayed.

The Serbians were betrayed at the end of WWII and again by Clinton, that being one of the greatest betrayals in American history.

The South Africans and Rhodesians (Zimbabweans)
were also betrayed.

Try reading; "The great betrayal" or "The Rape of Serbia", or "The great land swindle."

The nationalist Chinese didn't do so well trusting the
American government did they??

Neither did the south Vietnamese nor the Laotians or the Cambodians.

It's about time some light should be shown on the shadows in Washington D. C.!
Click to expand...

You speak as though the countries being screwed held such noble intentions.
 
#19
#19
MontereyVol said:
You speak as though the countries being screwed held such noble intentions.
Click to expand...

Pick one, any one, and we will discuss what happened in depth. :)

What do you think of the Iranian missiles in Bosnia????

Do you consider such men as Stalin, Tito, Mao, Mugabe, Mandela, Castro and the past and present leaders of the nations I mentioned having been betrayed, to be of noble intent???

I admit their rhetoric may SOUND noble but their actions betray their total lack of concience.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top