Obama capitulates to Russia; Throws allies under bus (enemies, 9/11, how much)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's the same people who complain about unharnessed spending that whine when we cut potential "pork."
I guess they always have something to whine about, contradictions notwithstanding.
I tend to agree. The shield had very little value in protecting the USA.
As for NATO. NATO at 1 time was a nessasary alliance that somehow the USA got stuck footing the lion share of the bill for. We did the bull work, we paid the bills and our European allies contributed as little as possible.
Little has changed since NATO's hay day that is for sure. NATO was designed to counter the USSR. The USSR is gone and Russia is a shadow of what it once was. Do we really need NATO? Atleast it we might agree that NATO needs to evolve to reflect the world today.
Not really, the closest we came to WW III was probably the Cuban Misslie Crisis, and that was solved by good old fashioned horse trading (missiles in Turkey for missiles in Cuba) more than by saber-rattling. That's what the history books say.
Actually we came a lot closer and didn't even know it. During our anual war games held in Germany the USSR had a spy in DC. This spy like many was pressured to deliver. The spy exaggerated a few things that combined with the troop build up for the war games put the USSR on the edge of their seats. They honestly thought that we were staging to invade.
"Hope is not a good national security policy". The only ones who are happy about this are Russia, Iran, North Korea and the totally naive liberal statist pacifist a$$ clowns on this forum........
Boy, I bet the acolytes of the drunk Senator from Wiscinsin aren't happy
I am very tired of borrowing money from our opponents (China mostly) to finance a bloated military industry. We need this money and talent used on more practical things right here and not "missile defense shields" in Europe and the Middle East.
I am not concerned for the security of Czechoslovakia, Turkey, or Iraq. Aside form devastated Iraq (thanks Georgie) these countries can defend themselves. I am also not worried about Saudi Arabia or Israel. They also can take care of themselves.
Neal Boortz, the phony libertarian, was denouncing the withdraw of this agreement. I thought libertarianism is aimed at saving money when our direct domestic sovereignty is concerned? Yet Boortz seemed to care more about our supposed allies than our own country.
I think this is an example of how we're being forced to scale back our military industrial complex due to the bill coming due. Look out next for base closings and reduced budgets. My good friend at BAE was let go because of the F-22 funding drying up, although the guy has it made since he's a lifetime bachelor with a minimalist lifestyle, over a hundred thousand in the bank and severance then unemployment coming for the next 12 months.
The budget is already trying up. We're down to half the staff we had at the beginning of the year--three layoff rounds ths year so far, with the fourth coming next month. What you don't know, is that the money isn't necessarily being cut, but rather shifted from aerospace defense contractors to the civil service, basically meaning the govt plans to shift approx 39% of the defense contracting business away from the private sector to the govt. So I'm not sure that we're actually saving money. Just spending it under a different umbrella.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
I tend to agree. The shield had very little value in protecting the USA.
As for NATO. NATO at 1 time was a nessasary alliance that somehow the USA got stuck footing the lion share of the bill for. We did the bull work, we paid the bills and our European allies contributed as little as possible.
Little has changed since NATO's hay day that is for sure. NATO was designed to counter the USSR. The USSR is gone and Russia is a shadow of what it once was. Do we really need NATO? Atleast it we might agree that NATO needs to evolve to reflect the world today.
It's the old "if we don't stop them over there they'll be marching down Main St" fear-mongering so loved by many, the argument that led directly to the Vietnam debacle. Hopefully we've learned a little since then.
Cancelling the Ronald Reagan Memorial Hi-Tech Maginot Line is a smart move.
Drop your whining on part of the allies. The Polish Government had to be bribed with conventional military assistance to even accept the interceptor base. They are not the slightest bit interested in the missile defense. 10 interceptors is freakin' useless against Russia, and everybody knows it.
They did get a conventional boost to their armed forces out of the deal, and if that's not happening, that is a bit worrisome. If there's a need to counter Russia in Europe, it's with old-fashioned infantry, tanks and aircraft. (At a fraction of the price, incidentally.) Not nearly as sexy, but pretty effective against what Russia is currently capable of: Limited excursions against underpowered foes. But with France and Germany coming out of the recession already, the European economy should be able to deal with that just fine.
Russia likes playing the military game, because it is the only arena where they retain a bit of their former glory. Competing with them where they're at their strongest is just stupid.
Doing so with semi-tested multi-billion-dollar technological showpieces, even worse.
The money can be better spent elsewhere. Even if the money remains in the defense budget exclusviely, it can still be better spent. Will it be seen as backing down? Probably. It was dumb to step up in the first place.
Those of you whining about this... how did you plan on paying for it? I thought you opposed any and every deficit spending. Or did it apply only within our borders?
Kudos to Obama. One of the changes, I was hoping for. When neocons lose, America wins!
It seems that neo-con RINOs throw the founding fathers under the bus when it comes to foreign missile defense shields and installing bases abroad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good.
