test #1, Joe Biden is friggin Nostradomus

[themadscientist]

Wait, I thought the world was going to love us all of the sudden?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27551326/

President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday that Russia will deploy missiles in territory near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans.

He said he hoped Barack Obama would act to improve relations with Russia but he did not offer congratulations to the president-elect.

Hey Barry, Hillary has a phone call, it's for youhttp://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/142.aspx

I think it is very interesting that the Hillary Clinton still has this commercial hosted on her site. She is more angry that McCain I bet.

[ishkabibble]

That is an issue that has been around for a while.

[themadscientist]

yes, but this is a gauntlet being thrown down hours after Barry won and the ruskie called him out.

[paranoidjack]

yes, but this is a gauntlet being thrown down hours after Barry won and the ruskie called him out.

Yeah, definitely a way to set pace for relations. These things are also born out of our elections (and vice versa), a sharp statement like this brings the Administration to full attention on the situation, and gives Obama's personnel time to organize for January...Medvedev is not a stupid man, this is also in his best interest to resolve as soon as possible.

[mattblancarte]

That is an issue that has been around for a while.

Yep Condoleezza Rice was just in the region recently to conduct missile defense planning, right around the time of the Russia/Georgia conflict. Being as Georgia is petitioning for NATO membership and they had close relations to the Bush Administration, we ended up on the other side of that scuffle. Bush proved his diplomatic skill, or lack there of, when he said of Putin, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy….I was able to get a sense of his soul."

Sure... just like your frat brothers, GWB.

Obama's best to not be so weak with Russia.

[smockers83]

Being as Georgia is petitioning for NATO membership and they had close relations to the Bush Administration, we ended up on the other side of that scuffle. Bush proved his diplomatic skill, or lack there of, when he said of Putin, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy….I was able to get a sense of his soul."

Except that quote came seven years before the fact that Russia invaded Georgia, in which Bush took a very stern position against Putin.

[HashiriyaS14]

Missile defense was a bonehead move.

We should have concentrated on further drawing down of everyone's arsenals. It was dumb to try and change the MAD paradigm.

American nuclear policy is all screwed up. We should share missile defense tech with the Russians, demand that Israel hand over all their nukes to us, and work together with other nations to continue the retirement of nuclear arsenals.

Working with the Russians would undermine some of the credibility that the hard-liners have there. It would set the stage for a future Russian leader to run on the platform of "Russia IN NATO would make Russians safer, stronger, and richer", which would be 100% true.

Ultimately, the #1 goal of US foreign policy towards Russia should be to get them into NATO. It will take a long time, but it will take less time and yield higher dividends than would our peace processes in the MidEast. A Russia in NATO would also strengthen both countries' bargaining position with the Chinese.

[Cold_Zero]

Personally, I think missile defence is a great idea. I may not agree how it is rolled out, but the technology and the need has come of age. My friend from High School is one of the combat system officer on the Lake Erie (CG-70) that shot down the Satellite and other crap.

All I have to say is, "Don't Give Up the Ship."

[smockers83]

I'm not quite sure whether I agree with putting the missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, my gut kinda tells me that I don't. What are we going to do with them, shoot down mortars and RPGs? To place missiles that close to Russia, they should expect some sort of retaliation. A lot of people tend to forget (or don't know) that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we had missiles set up on their doorstep in Turkey, which was the Soviet Union's main point for Cuba. The retaliation should be expected and any US missile system placed anywhere inside eastern Europe would probably draw a response from them.

[JustinStrife]

demand that Israel hand over all their nukes to us,

Say what?

[Cold_Zero]

I'm not quite sure whether I agree with putting the missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, my gut kinda tells me that I don't. What are we going to do with them, shoot down mortars and RPGs? To place missiles that close to Russia, they should expect some sort of retaliation. A lot of people tend to forget (or don't know) that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we had missiles set up on their doorstep in Turkey, which was the Soviet Union's main point for Cuba. The retaliation should be expected and any US missile system placed anywhere inside eastern Europe would probably draw a response from them.

Smockers, You did see where I indicated that "I may not agree how it is rolled out. But I think you are missing big picture. The missile defense shield is a layered system. Intercept Missiles in Poland are just a small part of the system.Also, if you look back at my posts in the Georgia 2008 Conflict you will see my opposition to putting missiles and expanding NATO to Russia's back door.bud

[HashiriyaS14]

Say what?

The Iranians want nukes because the Israelis have them. It's an arms imbalance and it's inherently dangerous.

Israel has no need of nuclear weapons. Theocracies shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

We should demand they relinquish all their nukes if they want to continue receiving US aid and arms.

[smockers83]

Bud, I wasn't questioning your position, I was just stating my own position on the matter. Some of my post (the RPGs and mortars) was sarcasm in response to some of the reasons why the missile shield is being expanded to Poland and the Czech due to the threat of missiles falling into the hands of terrorists, something that I don't see happening, at least ones that could reach Europe.

I realize its a multi-layered system, however I don't feel it is necessary to put this type of defense system next to Russia and its sphere of influence. Reason being is that the main area that I would imagine is of concern is western Europe. Why do we have to go into eastern Europe, where Russians are still sensitive, to protect western Europe? Even if a NATO country in eastern Europe was targeted, the defense system could be centrally located to protect all areas. The missile will be traveling from such a distance that they could track it, launch the interceptor and take it down well out of reach of its target.

[Cold_Zero]

Bud, I wasn't questioning your position, I was just stating my own position on the matter. Some of my post (the RPGs and mortars) was sarcasm in response to some of the reasons why the missile shield is being expanded to Poland and the Czech due to the threat of missiles falling into the hands of terrorists, something that I don't see happening, at least ones that could reach Europe.

Noted and sarcasm noted. To be honest, the sheer volume of troops deployed to Georgia within 24 hours was staggering in the 2008 conflict. They deployed some 9 divisions in a matter of 24 hours. So to go ahead with what you said interceptor missiles or not, Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe would be flooded with troops, if NATO faced an all out invasion.

Quote »I realize its a multi-layered system, however I don't feel it is necessary to put this type of defense system next to Russia and its sphere of influence. Reason being is that the main area that I would imagine is of concern is Western Europe. Why do we have to go into Eastern Europe, where Russians are still sensitive, to protect Western Europe? Even if a NATO country in Eastern Europe was targeted, the defense system could be centrally located to protect all areas. The missile will be traveling from such a distance that they could track it, launch the interceptor and take it down well out of reach of its target.[/quote]I think the issue that I have is this.. The rationale for putting intercept missiles in Poland was to prevent rogue states from launching a missile strike on Europe and North America. So if I understand correctly, we park these missiles in Poland which happens to be next to Russia, aimed at Iran, and North Korea and we wonder why Russia is getting all upset? The way I see it, it would be tat amount to me parking a M1-A1 Abrams Tank outside your house, with the barrel pointed at your house and then I express the concern that the tank is there to protect against your neighbor 5 miles down the road.

Now if the express intent of the intercept missiles is to hit ICBMs from Russia, you would want them parked as close to the launch sites in Russia as possible. You would target and hit them before they hit the space when the nukes are at their most vulnerable time or you could hit them while they are in space before they re-enter the atmosphere. Trying to hit an ICBM while it’s coming down over Western Europe would be pointless. Now hitting a short range or theater level tactical nuke would be a different story.Bud

[smockers83]

I think the issue that I have is this.. The rationale for putting intercept missiles in Poland was to prevent rogue states from launching a missile strike on Europe and North America. So if I understand correctly, we park these missiles in Poland which happens to be next to Russia, aimed at Iran, and North Korea and we wonder why Russia is getting all upset? The way I see it, it would be tat amount to me parking a M1-A1 Abrams Tank outside your house, with the barrel pointed at your house and then I express the concern that the tank is there to protect against your neighbor 5 miles down the road.

Agreed on the fact that if the true intent is to point them at Iran and NK and not at Russia, I don't know why they can't take our word for it instead of getting their panties all bunched up. But I also understand Russia is still sensitive about areas that used to be under their influence during the Cold War. Many people here in the US have moved on from Russia, but they obviously haven't from us.

As for the M1-A1, I think it would be a valid concern for my neighbor 5 miles away because that shell will go right through my living room onto his house. I also think it would be a M1-A2 unless its your tank from an Army surplus store.

[Cold_Zero]

I also think it would be a M1-A2 unless its your tank from an Army surplus store.

I would have to check with my friend Brian on that, but I was of the understanding that we still use the A1's that are in our inventory.bud

[smockers83]

We do, I was just drawing it out a little bit more, perhaps too much.

[Jesda]

The Iranian government wants nukes because they would love to kill every Jew on the planet.

It doesnt matter what Israel has or does not have.

[themadscientist]

The Iranians want nukes because the Israelis have them. It's an arms imbalance and it's inherently dangerous.

Israel has no need of nuclear weapons. Theocracies shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

We should demand they relinquish all their nukes if they want to continue receiving US aid and arms.

I have yet to see a reasonable argument for us demanding any other country do anything. Israel has a right to do what they want to do as a sovereign country. Unfortunately if we draw that precedent Iran gets that too. I wonder if Obama will offer to talk to the Israelis without preconditions.

[audtatious]

The Iranians want nukes because the Israelis have them. It's an arms imbalance and it's inherently dangerous.

Israel has no need of nuclear weapons. Theocracies shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

We should demand they relinquish all their nukes if they want to continue receiving US aid and arms.

What does it matter? Aren't we supposed to be pulling out as we have no right to tell other countries what they can do nor what they can have?

Let the UN sort it out.

[480sx]

What does it matter? Aren't we supposed to be pulling out as we have no right to tell other countries what they can do nor what they can have?

You have paid attention to US foreign policy over the last 30 years right?

In an ideal world we have no right, but this is far from that. We police the globe, we have interests everywhere.

I would support a policy of political isolationism on a world scale for a while. Dont get me wrong, not economic, not social, just political(and militarian..). We really need to stop making enemies IMO, we have enough already. Stop spending absurd amounts of money on wars and operations around the globe and fix our economy/home front. Let the UN do its job for a change.

This 'American Empire' crap has us over-extended, over-worked, and i seriously doubt the American people want to do this anymore. Or pay for it for that matter.

[themadscientist]

Were I president all expeditionary operations would be reviewed on day one. There would be serious pull backs in boots on the ground and money poured into covert operations. We must push our boundaries of control past our physical borders but I think behind the scenes efforts would be more effective and generate less bad will in the world that military force. Intelligence, the task, not the brainpower would need to be grown and improved.Domestic issues have been glossed over for too long, infrastructure, employment, education and illegal immigration needs to be addressed.

[audtatious]

You have paid attention to US foreign policy over the last 30 years right? .

I've been told the last 8 years that we have no right to be in Iraq and we have no right to tell Iran nor NK that they can't have nukes. With Obama promising to pull troops and using words instead of guns then I would fully expect all troops pulled from overseas so the other countries will feel better about the US and like us more.

[S13_love]

Let the UN do its job for a change.

I doubt the UN will do anything anytime soon.

[480sx]

Were I president all expeditionary operations would be reviewed on day one. There would be serious pull backs in boots on the ground and money poured into covert operations. We must push our boundaries of control past our physical borders but I think behind the scenes efforts would be more effective and generate less bad will in the world that military force. Intelligence, the task, not the brainpower would need to be grown and improved.

Domestic issues have been glossed over for too long, infrastructure, employment, education and illegal immigration needs to be addressed.

Nice. Right there with you.

Aud - Idk it kinda sounds like your being sarcastic hehe. I dont know.. If your not, i mean that really would be what the world would like to see from the USA i think. Less bombing, more talking.

S13 - Agreed. For anything other than peacekeeping missions and humanitarian aid, the UN seems nearly worthless. I dont know that much about it though so i might be completely off based when i say this. What would be nice is a strong armed 'UN' style organization that would have the means to enforce international law(and do so), along with keeping up the UN's good work of peacekeeping missions as well as humanitarian aid.