PDA

View Full Version : Um...Doublespeak Much? Less Defense is MORE Defense?


revefsreleets
09-17-2009, 12:07 PM
This is 100% a sop to Russia, and it's an insult to US citizens collective intelligence to cloak this decision as being based upon "threats from Iran". Even more offensive to try and and say that by NOT setting up missile defense bases, Europe will be safer from missiles. Very Orwellian, there, Obama...

There are a LOT of problems here, and only one plus that I can see. First, the bad:

-This is a concession to Russia, plain and simple. Obama lacks the will to defy Putin.
-These countries WANTED these bases, so we let Poland and Czechoslovakia down in order to placate Russia.
-We weakened ourselves and our allies, and further prop up an increasingly hostile (yet still largely militarily stymied) Russia, AGAIN adding to the mirage that they are once again our military equal, to our own great detriment.


The only possible upside from this is that by laying down and playing possum to Putin, MAYBE we get them to back off on their nuclear know-how aid to Iran a little bit...and the only way THAT happens is if a secret deal was cut. If it was, we still screwed two valuable allies to do it (not to mention all the countries around them who would also be protected under this shield), and if it wasn't, we gave up a lot for nothing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_missile_defense

Obama scraps Bush's European missile defense plan

stlrtruck
09-17-2009, 01:04 PM
Before he took office wasn't there a reference to how the Muslims would destroy our country from the inside out?

Well, looks like we've gone from baby steps to leaps and bounds!

MACH1
09-17-2009, 01:17 PM
Its the same way of thinking. Spend more to get out of debt.

Remember this is the same guy that bent over and grabbed ankles for the Saudi King.




Wait........wait............wait for it..............



Bu...bu....bu....Bush

revefsreleets
09-17-2009, 01:19 PM
This is kind of tough for him...while they love him in Europe because he's more than willing to trash his own country in speeches, this hits home a little bit...I'll be curious over the next few days and weeks to see what the rest of Europe has to say about this. At first glance, this looks like Russia is the ONLY winner from this move...

SCSTILLER
09-17-2009, 03:01 PM
This is definitely a win/win situation for Russia. Not only is the missile defense shield taken down, but they can also withhold oil and natural gas shipments to Europe anytime they want. Way to let the Russians hold all the cards

revefsreleets
09-17-2009, 03:24 PM
We are validating a military that is only a mere shadow of it's former self, and giving Russia all kinds of International street cred that is unearned...this is just all kinds of a bad idea, and another example of amateur hour in the WH.

The left also can never admit Obama was wrong here, because it validates GWB, and they'd rather die than ever say Bush did anything right. Just look at how every liberal on the board ignores outright the fact that Obama adopted a ton of "failed Bush policies"...I STILL don't think a single D on this board has to this day ever actually answered that challenge.

I just hope we got SOMETHING for this...a missile shield to contain Russia could have been really useful down the road...

JackHammer
09-18-2009, 01:14 AM
We are validating a military that is only a mere shadow of it's former self, and giving Russia all kinds of International street cred that is unearned...this is just all kinds of a bad idea, and another example of amateur hour in the WH.

The left also can never admit Obama was wrong here, because it validates GWB, and they'd rather die than ever say Bush did anything right. Just look at how every liberal on the board ignores outright the fact that Obama adopted a ton of "failed Bush policies"...I STILL don't think a single D on this board has to this day ever actually answered that challenge.

I just hope we got SOMETHING for this...a missile shield to contain Russia could have been really useful down the road...

If their military is a mere shadow of itself, why are missile defense systems necessary? Also, how is building an elaborate missile defense system to protect Europe from the big bad Russian missiles not a validation of the Russian military? Talk about double speak.....

SCSTILLER
09-18-2009, 07:21 AM
The missile defense shield is to protect Europe from Russian missiles and also Iranian missiles. Yes, the Russian military is a shadow of its former self, but they still have lots and lots of missiles. Even if only half of them worked, that is more than enough. If Russia was to make a move, first strike would be with missiles to make sure nobody could counterattack. Now Iran trying to gain nukes is a scary flipping thing. Iranian president Ahmanidiot or however you spell his name is a threat and wouldn't mind wiping out some people in Europe.

JackHammer
09-18-2009, 07:50 AM
The missile defense shield is to protect Europe from Russian missiles and also Iranian missiles. Yes, the Russian military is a shadow of its former self, but they still have lots and lots of missiles. Even if only half of them worked, that is more than enough. If Russia was to make a move, first strike would be with missiles to make sure nobody could counterattack. Now Iran trying to gain nukes is a scary flipping thing. Iranian president Ahmanidiot or however you spell his name is a threat and wouldn't mind wiping out some people in Europe.

I'm not denying that at all, but in any event, no matter how you choose to play it, you're validating the Russian military. Also if the Russian military is a shadow of itself a first strike on Europe isn't going to prevent the guaranteed American missile response that will ensue and that shadow of a military would be left in shambles by the American military juggernaut. That would be the day we reveal our real military toys. You know, the things people refer to as UFO's out in the Nevada desert? Yeah, I dare Russia to be so stupid. We'd blast them into 100 nation states and they know it. Edit: It's also worth stating that Ahmadinejad is a figure head with absolutely no power over the Iranian military. That's not to say that the people who do have power over their military(The Ayatollah, The Guardian Counsil, and The Assembly of Experts) are any better though.

revefsreleets
09-18-2009, 12:50 PM
You, once again, miss my point, and I think it's more based on the fact that it's an anti-Obama stance more than the actual content...that's cool, whatever...

Russia has no juice left in their tank militarily (conventional especially), but WE, by treating them as equals, add to the mirage that they are still a huge hyperpower. They are not. Do they have missiles? Yes. But my question concerning Russia is why do they care about our missile defense system UNLESS it's because we know it pulls the last teeth they have in their now already almost toothless head.

This is ALL saber rattling, and Obama made a tactical, perhaps even strategic mistake by treating their pen knife like it was two-handed broad sword. The timing is everything, too...it is NO mistake that this was announced one week before the G20. I just hope he got us something for this in return via some kind of back channel deal, because if he just gave this away for nothing than he's a far bigger idiot than I previously thought...

43Hitman
09-18-2009, 02:14 PM
How can Iran supposedly not be able to launch a nuke on us or Israel when they used an ICBM to launch a satellite into orbit?

revefsreleets
09-19-2009, 08:06 AM
The latest...Russia is doing exactly as expected, puffing up it's chest and saying "Whooppeeeeee, look at me!". And it sounds like not only did we give them nothing, but they will try and strong-arm Obama into giving them even MORE concessions for nothing...and why not? Obama clearly is intimidated by Putin, so who's to say how much clout and/or military power we he ends up ceding to Russia before all is said and done?

Again, this is EXACTLY what we get and deserve for electing an amateur we knew nothing about as President...

http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/59821057.html

ANALYSIS
Smug Kremlin crows on U.S. missile move

Moscow gets exactly what it wants when Obama scraps plans

By Mike Eckel
Associated Press

Published on Saturday, Sep 19, 2009

MOSCOW: The Kremlin got exactly what it wanted when the United States scrapped plans for missile defenses on Russia's borders.

And Moscow wasted no time in trying to show, at least publicly, that it has ceded nothing in return and, in fact, intends to press for more from Washington.

Iran and its nuclear intentions loomed over Thursday's decision by the Obama administration to abandon the idea of placing a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Lurking not far under the surface are deeper issues such as the fate of Washington's staunchest allies in the former Soviet bloc and their fears of their massive eastern neighbor.

For now, Russia appears to have the upper hand the Kremlin can crow to a domestic audience about staring down the Americans and thumbing its nose at the upstart Poles. The White House is hoping for more cooperation from Moscow on Iran and other simmering international issues, something that's far from a sure thing.

Missile defense in Eastern Europe was arguably the most serious thorn in the U.S.-Russian relationship, with Moscow repeatedly and angrily insisting that the system was pointless against an imagined Iranian threat and was a grave threat to Russian national security.

On the day after Barack Obama won his historic election victory last year, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in lieu of congratulations, threw down the gauntlet, threatening to put sophisticated short-range Iskander missiles on Poland's border if Washington didn't stop the deployment.

On the day Obama announced the decision to scrap the plan, Medvedev said that was the right move all along a smug announcement that made no concessions and sounded like a lecture to a wayward teenager.

He took a similarly blunt tone in an interview with Swiss media that was posted on the Kremlin Web site Friday, saying: ''If our partners hear any of our concerns, then we, of course, we will more carefully consider their concerns. But this doesn't mean primitive compromises and swaps.''

''We are mature enough not to tie one decision to another,'' he said. ''But there always is a score in politics. This is also obvious.''

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who often found incendiary ways to describe the United States as president before Medvedev, praised the decision. He then promptly demanded more, such as lifting Cold War-era trade restrictions.

''I very much hope that this right and brave decision will be followed up by others, including the full cancellation of all restrictions on cooperation with Russia and high technology transfer to Russia as well as a boost to expand the [World Trade Organization] to embrace Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan,'' Putin told an investment forum.

It was unclear what behind-the-scenes talks went on between Moscow and Washington before Obama's announcement Thursday. Russian officials said there was no quid pro quo.

Medvedev foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko said the move would require the Kremlin to ''attentively consider new possibilities opening up for cooperation and interaction.''

And the announcement Friday that Russia would not deploy Iskander missiles near the Polish border? That had merely been a threat, not an actual deployment.

MACH1
09-19-2009, 11:48 AM
Spineless jelly fish comes to mind.

BritishSteel
09-22-2009, 01:07 PM
I doubt it would have worked anyway - the Soviets had a system similar to this in the 1980's and it didn't work. The US used to have a missile defence system - called safeguard in the 1970's - they dismantled it after it became clear that such systems were tactically obselete - to overcome them you put more warheads on the end of your missiles or fire your missiles in a depressed trajectory. It's always cheaper and easier for an attacker to overwhelm a defender.

The Russians were pissed because it meant they would have had to spend more money building new missiles. Money they can't really afford. Plus they saw it as the US placing advanced radar technology close to their borders. A phased array radar that can guide a missile onto another missile is more than powerful enough to put a short range attack missile through a window in The Kremlin.

revefsreleets
09-22-2009, 01:34 PM
The Russians were pissed because it meant they would have had to spend more money building new missiles. Money they can't really afford. Plus they saw it as the US placing advanced radar technology close to their borders. A phased array radar that can guide a missile onto another missile is more than powerful enough to put a short range attack missile through a window in The Kremlin.

Then it would have worked...this isn't ABOUT the practice of war, but the theory. This is exactly how the US crushed the Soviet Empire in the first place: Force them into a pissing match they lack the resources to ever win.

Now, as for Iran, I'm more than positive any missile defense system we build will defeat any missile system they can come up with...but I'm not sure how much of this ever really had to do with them in the first place. I'm not even still sure Iran will EVER get a real strategic nuke capability with so many gunning to shut it down.

BritishSteel
09-23-2009, 05:04 PM
Then it would have worked...this isn't ABOUT the practice of war, but the theory. This is exactly how the US crushed the Soviet Empire in the first place: Force them into a pissing match they lack the resources to ever win.

Now, as for Iran, I'm more than positive any missile defense system we build will defeat any missile system they can come up with...but I'm not sure how much of this ever really had to do with them in the first place. I'm not even still sure Iran will EVER get a real strategic nuke capability with so many gunning to shut it down.

Fair point, a 1980's approach to a problem that doesn't really exist anymore (if we're talking about Russian theatre IRBMs - after all, the system proposed was wrongly sited to intercept ICBMs which would be trans-polar if aimed at the US). I actually think it was as much about re-inforcing the idea of former Warsaw Pact members as NATO - hense the Russian hissy-fit.

No doubt, against a relatively limited Iranian capability (which may or may not exist) such a system would be much more effective, but do you really need one for that purpose - I'd have thought the F/A-18s on any one of your Nimitz class carriers or cruise missiles from a Los Angeles class submarine would do the job once it was clear that Iran had that capacity.

On a related subject, I note that our PM is paving the way for a reduction in the number of a new ballistic missile submarines from 4 to 3.

revefsreleets
10-15-2009, 09:48 AM
So, here we are...about a month later, and we learn that even after Russia said it MIGHT consider taking a harder line with Iran (clearly a concession for Obama pulling the planned missile defense system), NOW we are right back where we started, meaning Obama gave this strategic bargaining chip up for ........absolutely nothing.

Yay, Obamie!

JackHammer
10-15-2009, 09:07 PM
This is kind of tough for him...while they love him in Europe because he's more than willing to trash his own country in speeches, this hits home a little bit...I'll be curious over the next few days and weeks to see what the rest of Europe has to say about this. At first glance, this looks like Russia is the ONLY winner from this move...

I'm not sure owning up to things we do is trashing his own country. If we keep going on acting like we're not a part of any of the problems in the world, that we can do no wrong, and that we need to police the globe and save the world without even fixing our own ancient infrastructure, we're just gonna keep going on the same course spreading our reach further and further making more and more people think of us as Imperialists(which you could argue we technically are in a boots on the ground sense).

The more people think we're Imperialists, out for global resource domination, the more enemies we'll have and they'll be enemies from birth. We need to have a role in global issues, obviously, but we need to understand that we can't be the end all be all,, do-no-wrong, omnipotent global policy maker. I can't say I'm a fan of Obama foreign policy as a whole, but being apologetic is really the next logical step to gain back diplomatic leverage following the Bush presidency. And no, this isn't Bu Bu Bush talk.

We all know his foreign policy didn't consist of much concession on the major issues. It was his way or the highway on a lot of issues and that really pissed off a lot of our allies. He's entitled to that though, and he's not the first, nor the last one who will be like that. But whether you or I like it or not, the only way we're gonna get the kind of support we need from our allies is if we make these kinds of concessions. Soften them up as much as possible.

JackHammer
10-15-2009, 10:02 PM
Well said. Funny how it ties into another discussion we've been having. :wave:

On this specific subject, if the former Soviet Union is a paper tiger, why go through all these gyrations to contain them? Build a missile defense system in Europe? To defend *EUROPE*??
Why should we pay for their defense, especially in the current economic climate? At this moment when we're facing the spectre of runaway inflation due to Federal fiscal irresponsibility, you propose spending all this money to defend the socialist European Union from the Russians (who you claim are a third-rate military) or the Iranians (who have nothing to gain from attacking Europe)? Why should we subsidize socialists with our tax dollars?

Something does not compute here...

WELL SAID :thumbsup: We have enough domestic problems of our own that could be solved by using the same money we use to defend countries that conservatives consider to be the bane of Western Civ. How ironic is it that conservatives are the ones who push hardest for those kinds of policies? Maybe if they applied their conservative values to our big domestic issues, they wouldn't have to deal with liberals spending boatloads more money, or socializing institutions to solve the same problems because they'd already be solved. Instead they choose to go all bleeding heart(lol bleeding heart conservative, I know) to try to save everyone else besides ourselves.

GBMelBlount
10-16-2009, 12:28 AM
If their military is a mere shadow of itself, why are missile defense systems necessary? Also, how is building an elaborate missile defense system to protect Europe from the big bad Russian missiles not a validation of the Russian military? Talk about double speak.....

It's simple Jack***. Just because they aren't the power they once were, doesn't mean they are harmless. :chuckle:

Preacher
10-16-2009, 12:33 AM
I think some people do not seem to remember the difference between tactical and strategic warfare.

It is very cheap and inexpensive to keep and maintain a nuclear arsenal, compared to a standing army. You get much MUCH more kill for the dollar.

It is their TACTICAL military which is quite week. Their navy, army, airforce, etc.

However, that DOES NOT mean they can't destroy the US with nuclear weapons. Matter of fact, it means that they would probably resort to the strategic option FASTER because of they lack the ability to project force.

THAT is the problem here.

revefsreleets
10-16-2009, 09:11 AM
The SUCCESSFUL policy for dealing with the Russians was always CONTAINMENT. The missile defense shield plays right into that policy...buckling under the empty military threats of a Russia that is on the verge of collapsing AGAIN under it's own weight is extremely counter-intuitive...

Bear in mind, this is an entirely different animal than keeping Jihadists off balance. One is containment. The other is disruption. The policy the US WAS employing was succeeding on both fronts...Obama risks ruining that.

I also think it's interesting that he employs this long, thoughtful deliberation on what to do in Afghanistan, but concurrently wants to rush a BAD healthcare bill through Congress.