backtop


Print 198 comment(s) - last by crafty.. on Jul 11 at 3:06 AM


An X-band radar tracking station.
Russia threatens military response.

The U.S. announced a "landmark" agreement with the Czech Republic to expand its missile defense system into the region.  The deal, announced by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, was signed today in Prague.  Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister, described the deal as an example of "our joint desire to protect the free world".

Last year, the U.S. announced its long-awaited missile defense shield -- a.k.a. "Star Wars" -- was functional and ready to defend parts of the nation from attack.  Since then, effort has focused on expanding system capabilities.  The Czech agreement will allow sitting of an advanced tracking radar station in the nation, to allow early detection and interception of missile launches.

The U.S.'s top diplomat called the agreement essential for long-term security. "Ballistic missile proliferation", said Ms. Rice, "is not an imaginary threat".  She pointed to efforts by Iran to build longer-range missiles capable of reaching most of Europe.

Response from other nations was quick to follow.  Russia, which sees its unstoppable arsenal of nuclear weapons as essential to its world standing, went so far as to threaten military action.   A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry said, “We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods".  The statement did not elaborate on what those methods might be.

The U.S. has said the defense system was not aimed at Russia, and in the past has suggested Russian inspectors could visit radar and interceptor sites themselves.  

Poland is the next bone of contention, with the U.S. hoping to site interceptor missiles there.  Talks with the Polish government have stalled, however, and the U.S. has suggested Lithuania may be an alternate site.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/9/2008 3:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
..."I'm afraid of Americans." And seriously, after reading some of the posts here, I'm truly afraid of Americans; but not all of them, myself included. I'm only afraid of the Americans that bleed red white and blue, and not simply red, the color that ALL people bleed. The 'My country right or wrong' crowd that posts on heated political articles such as this one, need to put a little more thought into what they are saying when it comes to the 'us vs. them' attitude in the nuclear arms context.

What we are dealing with here is essentially an end game. The prospect for survival in the event of nuclear holocaust, for us, is slim at best. The idea of mutually assured destruction is a bizarre and irrational idea when it comes to the perpetuation of us humans as a species. We need to look beyond economic, political, and cultural paradigms to understand that we all are greater than the sum of our parts; that it is not the nations of the world that constitute humanity, but the people of the world. We can no longer afford to view the world through an 'us vs them' lens.

I know that inevitably there will be responses to my post by the meat heads of this forum who will label me as a 'pussy' or tell me to 'wake up' or that 'they' (being the terrorists, whoever and whatever a terrorist is) want to kill us because 'they' are envious of 'our' freedoms (of which are being sold down the river by 'our' congress and 'our' president who so zealously want to 'protect' our freedoms and cite them as a cause to defend our nation, while concurrently undermining them). To you who do accuse me of being a 'terrorist sympathizer' in so many words, I have this to say to you: I love my country MORE THAN YOU EVER WILL and refuse to allow myself or my friends, family, and fellow countrymen to be ruled by fear and state terror.

This is the fucking United States of America! We were conceived in the midst of intellectual and philosophical criticism of government and the status quo, to the likes of which we have yet to see again (the Civil Rights era seems to be the closest we've come to something tantamount, yet wholly inadequate, to our revolution). Questioning the government and its official policy IS WHAT WE DO! We cannot, and never have been able to rely on our media, our traditional educational institutions, nor the popular understanding of our history IE: America as a beacon on a hill, America as the benevolent giant - and one can substitute the word 'giant' for 'empire' any time they like - or any other feel good 'my country right or wrong' invocation. No, our revolution didn't come from following a well-trodden path, but from ideas of liberty, and equality that went beyond that of mere rhetoric.

Of course, this is all a work in progress. We have never truly achieved the ideals that sparked our revolution during the nascent era of our democratic republic, nor will we ever achieve those ideals; they are not ideals to be achieved, but to be aspired to.

These are the ideals that will guide us through a seemingly hopeless national and world situation. As long as we can hold onto that which we KNOW is good and decent, we can prevail in even the most cynical of times. I am no spiritualist, but I know there is a common good in humanity, in the people, that is sometimes overshadowed by those few, the 'movers and shakers' of the world, or as Bob Dylan put it, "The Masters of the Universe," who distort humanity for their own cynical gain. As long as we can recognize this, there is still hope for us to be able to break the shackles of fear and terror that these cynics use to frame our view of reality.

So please, when we speak of ICBM's, mutually assured destruction, missile defense systems, and terror, remember that these are all the tools of fear that have brought us to the precipice of our own destruction. If we do not recognize these weapons of mass destruction and mass distraction for what they are, and rail against them for what they are, then perhaps the twilight of our existence is truly upon us. I hope that is not the case, and I hope that those of you who pound your chests and speak so forcefully, realize that the game you are playing has an ending, and there are no winners.





RE: As David Bowie Said...
By Ringold on 7/9/2008 4:59:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
'My country right or wrong'


Ultimately, if one lives in America, then one lives in America. Not Uganda. So there is only one logical hope a person can have for his country of residence, particularly if you bothered to quote Stephen Decatur entirely: Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.

In fact, I think you fundamentally don't understand the quote. One can very easily criticize their country while not being against their country, which is really what the quote is saying. No fair-weather friends, no fair-weather patriots.

quote:
The prospect for survival in the event of nuclear holocaust, for us, is slim at best.


That's not what this system is about, which appears to be a misunderstanding.. possibly a deliberate one. There is no way the system can handle a nuclear war between stable superpowers with large arsenals. It is designed exclusively to intercept a small launch by a small rogue state.

quote:
The idea of mutually assured destruction is a bizarre and irrational idea when it comes to the perpetuation of us humans as a species.


Open a textbook. Like it or not, with respect to superpowers, it has worked. Rational countries understand that to use such a system is to lose by default. Again, this system has nothing to do with that balance anyway.

quote:
We need to look beyond economic, political, and cultural paradigms to understand that we all are greater than the sum of our parts; that it is not the nations of the world that constitute humanity, but the people of the world.


Wonderful rhetorical flair, but "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," because as much as liberals may want to think the world is anywhere close to being in a situation where everybody can sit down and have a big group hug, it is not. Until such a glorious liberal day arrives where all national sovereignty is yielded to the United Nations (much like how national sovereignty in Europe has slowly been transferred to Brussels), sovereign leaders have a responsibiltiy to those citizens living in their country to look after their security interests. In case you failed to notice, rogue states aside, China is an upcoming superpower of its own and appears to have no intention of playing high-minded political softball.

quote:
I know that inevitably there will be responses to my post by the meat heads of this forum who will label me as a 'pussy' or tell me to 'wake up'


Not a "pussy," simply misguided and ignorant of the history of the past 100 years.

quote:
want to kill us because 'they' are envious of 'our' freedoms


Why does Kim Jong Il do anything? For all we know, he just gets kicks out of watching his people starve. Such a warped mind can't be understood. Thankfully, he's in the process of being disarmed.

What of Iran? I don't know why a Persian state would seek the annihilation of Israel, I thought Israel's beef was with Arab nations, but they repeatedly say that is their goal, and they fund terrorist groups and back satellite nations (Syria) that actively undermine the Israeli state. This system seeks to protect against such an attack, the exact reason for it being meaningless.

quote:
This is the fucking United States of America!


FUCK YEAH!!

Unfortunately, the rest of that paragraph was intellectually inconsistent with the second paragraph. You take the European intellectual anti-nationalist and collectivist approach in the 2nd paragraph, then try to invoke nationalism and rugged individualism here. George Washington would've looked after America first and foremost. As for the missile defense scheme, I believe he would've supported it, on the following logic: While it was possible to isolationist in the 18th century, due to the globalized nature of the economy and the long reach of military power, it is not today. It is critical, then, to have allies, and protect those allies. Israel and, as part of NATO, Europe, and Japan are staunch, long-time allies. Therefore, a system of defense in their benefit and ours make sense.

Also, the Civil Rights movement was an odd thing to bring up. Things like affirmative action have created reverse discrimination, not equality, at least in day to day life.

quote:
I am no spiritualist, but I know there is a common good in humanity


Could have fooled me on the first point, and the point of missile defense, indeed the entire military, is protection against what history suggests is a brutal world. You can't look at history and glean from it only what you want, and you can't look at China's militancy or the nasty state of Africa and glean what you want there either.

In fact, the supposition that humans are in fact intelligent animals and no more is by far an easier position to defend than anything else.

Ultimately, I don't even know what you're suggesting be done. Remain completely naked to the whims of foreign and unstable regimes? Iran, for example, is by no means ruled by the will of its people (who would likely never use nuclear weapons). Unilateral disarmament? Surely you know then that would simply put America in a position of weakness; we could never defend ourselves to any great extent against the aggression of a nuclear power for fear of nuclear reprisal.

To correct one last misstatement, it was ICBM's that brought us to that precipice, and MAD that kept us from going over. Just like this Iraq-retreat nonsense, my view to nuclear weapons is similar; we are where we are, and must now proceed in the way that serves our interests best. Unilateral disarmament is not that way.


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/9/2008 7:40:47 PM , Rating: 1
It's fun to cherry pick and tear apart a posting based on its 'ignorance' or misguided and uninformed historical accounts that you arbitrarily label as being such. I could, of course do the same to you, which is pretty much all that I’ve seen within this forum so far, but I won't...at least not too much.

It's also fun to pull out the good old 'you're just a liberal who doesn't know what you're talking about' card and slap that on the table. By the way, I'm not a liberal, I'm a radical. Does that frighten you? I actually just wanted to say that for the sake of a little bravado. I personally don’t like labels that attempt to place someone within a single political paradigm, but apparently you do.

I’m going to continue to use the ‘radical’ line for this next little bit, because it certainly more accurately applies. The revolutionary thinkers of our nation's conception who envisioned something better than that of existence under the rule of the British Monarchy, were radical...for the time…even though the majority of those 'revolutionary' thinkers were a part of the 'gentleman's' class and certainly cared more for their wealth and prestige than they did for the average rural American (who, by the way, through the means of posterity has fought tooth and nail via organization and unionization as well as political upheaval to obtain what we now call universal suffrage, an 8 hour workday, job safety requirements, healthcare, higher wages, social security etc.). If you would like to read a bit more about our revolutionary history from someone who was not associated with the gentlemen class of yesteryear, then pick up “Common Sense,” “The Rights of Man,” and “The Age of Reason” from Thomas Paine. Those will be nice starters for you.

I'll go ahead and replicate your condescending manner and say DON'T OPEN A TEXTBOOK, OFFICIAL HISTORY WON'T TELL YOU SHIT. Take a look at "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. I'm sure you'll just dismiss it as dangerous Communist rhetoric (and it may even scare you), but at least you'll have some exposure to something other than the conqueror's history. Maybe after that, you could even graduate to reading Noam Chomsky. If you do, read Hegemony or Survival and get back to me on that one. Oh, and speaking of 'rogue states' which you had implicitly mentioned by citing Iran in your response to my post, read "Rogue States" by Noam Chomsky as well. I'm sure you'll love that one....and it may even cause you to bleed red white and blue from your eyeballs. By the way, you labeling China as being militant, clearly suggests to me that you cannot see the forest from the trees, my friend. But don't worry, if you try to think hard enough about them, and maybe read the books a second time, you'll once again be able to bleed red like the rest of us (and by "the rest of us" I mean the Americans that I'm not afraid of).

I'm sure at first, you'll feel overwhelmingly compelled to label Mr. Chomsky as a conspiracy theorist, possibly even a heretic, but if you give it some time, and take yourself out of your little comfort box that you've built up around you, then you may be able to lose some sleep at night, and actually be concerned about our country and wear its government is taking it... which, by the way, is not a reference to 'my country right or wrong,' but our country the way I would like it to be. Oh and yes, I just 'misquoted' Stephen Decatur again, even though I wasn't trying to capture the essence of what he was saying to begin with (I was simply using it to describe people who can't handle deep criticism of their government, which, I think, deserves a certain degree of criticism right about now). I don’t think you would share that view, considering the fact that you think pulling out of Iraq is nonsense, and that right there, is quite telling of your perspective.

Oh, I just want to say that I’m expecting you to reply and say something about me having a narrow view because all I read is Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, etc, and that I’m just the flipside of what I am criticizing to begin with. If not exactly that, then something in the ballpark. (and yes, that was a sentence fragment, of which I am acknowledging just in case you want to bust out an ad hominem or two…you know, like the ‘liberal and therefore naïve and ignorant’ card that you played)

Oh, and the accusation of me somehow citing 'European anti-nationalism’ within my words - which in itself is funny because you are suggesting that Europe is somehow currently and has been anti-nationalist (maybe you should read a few articles about France’s Jean Marie Le Penn, and now, consult a textbook and read about what nationalism did to Europe mid-twentieth century) - and then using a 'nationalist' approach with my description of what it is to be American, and thereby call me inconsistent, is utter nonsense; especially because you seem to be incorrectly defining my version of what you call ‘nationalist’ and ignoring how it could be implicitly defined from the tone of my post...that is, if the word were to be used at all. I’ll break it down for you so that things are clear: If being nationalist is tantamount to being critical of government rule and state power, then I'm all for it. And that is what I am appealing to with my invocations of ‘nationalism’ and ‘rugged individualism,’ which, once again, are words that you cherry picked from the ether and misused as points of criticism. Criticism of the government, by the way, is a Western democratic ideal, and not an American ideal (and I don't mean to give a certain dichotomy or culture-centric twist to my response by invoking an image of West vs East, when I say ‘Western’ ideal ).

There are plenty of people like me in Europe who do not subscribe to ‘nationalism’ and an ‘us vs them’ world outlook. No, they understand that the danger and violence that exists within the world, as you proclaim to be a truism according to history, is not created and perpetrated by the average person who is not politically well-connected, does not have immense wealth, and does not control a military machine (and industrial complex) - that can only justify itself by doing the one thing that it knows how to do, destroy - , but by a relatively small number of people who have an insatiable appetite for power, and are, as Kurt Vonnegut (God rest his soul, or whatever) labeled them, “sociopaths” (I hope there are Vonnegut fans out there that just got my dual reference, because I’m certain that the person I’m replying to has never read anything by Vonnegut, and if so, utterly failed to grasp Vonnegut’s style or message(s).

I can go on, and I probably should, but I think I have said enough, in a highly condescending manner, to label you as a total cherry-picking-words-from-the-ether ass, worthy of a pat on the back by William “Ad Hominem” O’Reilly. Good day sir.

PS: I don’t have answers for you, and I am not suggesting a single solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation. But I DO suggest that we preserve the species, and by doing so, begin to reduce and hopefully altogether eliminate, our and the world’s nuclear arsenal. Take some advice from Robert McNamara; he’d tell you the same. And considering his history, he might be someone you’re more inclined to entertain (that’s assuming that Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are too much for your comfort box to handle).


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By Ringold on 7/9/2008 8:14:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'll go ahead and replicate your condescending manner and say DON'T OPEN A TEXTBOOK, OFFICIAL HISTORY WON'T TELL YOU SHIT. Take a look at "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. I'm sure you'll just dismiss it as dangerous Communist rhetoric (and it may even scare you), but at least you'll have some exposure to something other than the conqueror's history.


I'm not going to bother with a full response, as the above ideology doesn't deserve one. "History doesn't agree with my world view, so I will stick only to the account of history that does." Intellectual debate is, therefore, impossible.


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: As David Bowie Said...
By beepandbop on 7/9/2008 10:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
You're hardly an intellectual. Howard Zinn's book has already been debunked by serious historians and individuals who actually take things like this seriously and aren't a bunch of distorters and historical perverters.
As much truth as Howard Zinn's book might have, which in this case, is substantially limited, he ultimately cannot cover his disdain for America or anything West. I wonder how he would have prefered a culture that did not condone freedom of speech, such as any other culture you will find under the globe. That's not to say these others cultures are substantially inferior, but I have yet to see a culture that condoned individuals voicing their own minds as much as Western civilization has.

Yet Howard Zinn has portrayed the West and America as this evil empire, bereft of any sort of dignity. It was the West that invented human dignity as a ubiquity, rather than the Hindus who applied it only to a select few, or the Chinese who assigned it to bureaucrats and well born men.

I'm not going to read the book because it's "ZOMG Communist" I'm not reading it because it's plain asinine, and there's no point in trying to decipher any other message worth using brain cells.

As for your other points, you took Stephen Dectaur's quote the wrong way, typical of people of your limited caliber, and yet you have the gall to pass yourself off as an intellectual.

What's more aggravating is that you simply say "read Howard Zinn's stuff, he'll fill you in."
That is the mark of no intellectual, merely a brain washed tool who would like to fancy himself intelligent.


RE: As David Bowie Said...
By ImJustSaying on 7/10/2008 6:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Bro...I may call you bro, yes? You undermined your entire response by letting me in on your little secret there: YOU HAVEN'T READ A PEOPLE'S HISTORY. You're the pot calling the kettle black, my friend. You're accusing me of being uninformed, or misinformed at best, by having READ the book, and then you nonchalantly mention that you haven't read it. Did you not catch this?

Here's another thing. I would like you to do some research and tell me on which page(s) Howard Zinn specifically says that he holds 'disdain' for AMERICA. I think you're confused. He's talking about the GOVERNMENT (the ruling elite) of America, and how the PEOPLE have struggled throughout our history to gain what civil liberties that we have. The military (the strong arm of the ruling elite) doesn't do it (and by 'military' I'm talking about the guys who are calling the shots, not the soldiers who are dying for them), the wealthy and powerful don't do it, and our 3 main branches of government (the arms of the wealthy and powerful), certainly don't do it. It is the common citizenry, with a little organization, a flexible constitution to ground and guide them, and a belief in the democratic process, that achieve a better standard of living by putting pressure on their elected representatives; via the ballot and/or the streets.

You know, Howard Zinn hates America so much, that he went through the trouble of recommending, at the end of the book, ways in which we can improve our democracy. You like democracy, don't you? How about a proportionally representational state and federal election system? (this would truly provide a multi-party system, complete with actual competing ideas and everything...consider it to be the free market of the political system). He covers this. How about a federally mandated publicly financed state and federal election system in order to remove the taint of money from influencing our elected representatives? He covers this as well. The list goes on. I'm not here to give a historical lecture, although you seem to possibly need one. I suppose that's what a college education will give you, depending on what you major in. Of course, you could save money and just start seeking out publications that you know will assault your comfort box. I recommend starting with Z-magazine online. Remember to jump in feet first.

Like I said before, it's difficult to criticize your own government, especially when it has so ubiquitously inserted itself into the idea of America, so as to BECOME America. I, as well as you, have spent my primary educational years being indoctrinated and taught about American history from a government-as-America perspective. It was a monumental challenge to step outside of the comfort box that was built around me from 18 years of 'education.' But, I eventually did it, and have now become the quintessential 'America Hater' that you and any other goon that bleeds red, white, and blue would label me to be. For me, it's people first (excluding the 1% of the population, which owns 40% of the country’s wealth), Constitution second, and government-as-America third...a distant third.

By the way, nuclear weapons are bad, m'kay?


One minor point of contention
By Fluxion on 7/9/2008 3:44:23 AM , Rating: 4
Very nice article masher.

One small point of contentin - the statement:
quote:
Russia, which sees its unstoppable arsenal of nuclear weapons as essential to its world standing, went so far as to threaten military action. A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry said, “We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods". The statement did not elaborate on what those methods might be.


I think puts a little too much emphasis on the idea that Russia would actually carry out a military action-type response to counter the missile defense shield in the near-future. As the Russian Foreign Ministry individual's quote alludes to, especially given past Russian statements, their military-technical response is more a long the lines of development of either countermeasures of some kind to neutralize the effect of a kinetic energy kill system, or the development/production of additional delivery systems designed to simply overwhelm the missile defense system.

Thus, while any such development can be considered military action or the military's response to our shield, I think it's more of a passive strategic development in order to try and keep the status quo present, rather than a true military response.




By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 2:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. Point taken.


Russian response
By crafty on 7/11/2008 2:08:46 AM , Rating: 2
The Russian governmental response is strong because the US is attempting to further limit Russia's power and influence. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have joined NATO and many of the Warsaw Pact countries(such as the Czech Republic) have also joined. These NATO countries threaten the Russian government's ability to do what it wants to in the Republic of Georgia as well with issues surrounding the breakaway Republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well as in Chechnya.

We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves and claim that the anti-ICBM system works(it works when the missile tests are rigged). Most modern ICBMs have MIRVs(multiple independent re-entry vehicles) meaning a single missile has multiple targeted warheads. No anti-missile system strength has the ability to counteract these multiple warheads, but the very danger of a anti-missile system will cause there to be alarm bells in Moscow.

The basic problem with this concept is that it is a Cold War idea whose billion dollar budget has been supported over the years by the most ardent of hawks in order to control the nuclear initiative. This in effect makes it highly destabilizing(mutual assured destruction caused a stalemate that anti-missile systems can end) and will ultimately lead to more nuclear proliferation and greater brinkmanship from both sides. The creators of this system are still trying to win the Cold War through nuclear intimidation, and we are not going to be able survive for long with this attitude of attempting to gain leverage by destroying any possible Russian nuclear response to attack. Developing weapons systems that don't function for hundreds of billions of dollars(over the life of the project) and ultimately are destabilizing to world politics are not what I would call a good investment. Arms control and the disposal of fissionable material under programs like Nunn-Lugar are a good idea that are much cheaper and limit proliferation of nuclear weapons. We have to work with people we don't like sometimes even when we don't like it. The stakes are too high not to.




9/11 Worked
By crafty on 7/11/2008 3:06:17 AM , Rating: 2
Al-Qaeda killed a lot of people so that the US would forcefully respond. The response could be framed as a war against Islam that could bring more recruits to further the fundamentalist Islamic revolution in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda knew it could count on the failure of US foreign policy in the Middle East to help its spread.

Their strategy failed. At first.

Then Bush invaded Iraq. Al-qaeda still is a longshot to ever get anything approaching real power but the invasion of Iraq really helped the spread of their brand of international terrorism. In Iraq they were doing well as long as the US occupation forces were in the area, but once the US started withdrawing from Anbar, the local Sunnis started killing them. Al-Qaeda are a bunch of real zealots that were killing and torturing people for simple things like smoking cigarettes. Their greatest hope involves the US torturing and massacring people in an endless occupation that has neither rhyme nor reason. If al-Qaeda is able to launch another successful terrorist attack in the US, the world response will be nowhere near as sympathetic as it was the first time around. Bush needs to be removed, the occupation of Iraq needs to be ended, Republicans and some Democrats need to come to terms not only with their failed foreign policy but the failed ideology behind it, and most of all our country needs to come back under the rule of law.




What I'd like to know...
By DigitalFreak on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: What I'd like to know...
By AlexWade on 7/8/2008 9:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
This idea is not new. I remember Reagan talking about star wars and showing some space anti-missile system on TV.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the same system as the original "Star Wars" system from the 70s and 80s. But yes it has been in development for a long time. But Bush pushed the development of the system up to a top priority back in 2001-2002.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 10:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
SDI -- Star Wars -- dates from the 1980s actually....and yes, it's the same program. The original focus on beam weapons, though, has switched to kinetic kill vehicles.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By Fluxion on 7/9/2008 3:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
It's the "same program" in only the most basic of ideas. SDI put much greater emphasis on Directed Energy Weapons and Space-based interception and anti-satellite weaponry. SDI was renamed to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization by Bill Clinton, and also saw it's entire coverage strategy change from national coverage to regional coverage, and based more along the lines of specific theatre.

BMDO was renamed in 2002 to the Missile Defense Agency, with the emphasis mainly now on Kinetic Energy-based interceptors and to a smaller extent (and currently largely still in the testing and development phase) ground and aircraft-based lasers, although KE Interceptors are and will be the primary component.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By Dobs on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: What I'd like to know...
By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 9:44:46 AM , Rating: 1
Your age is showing - SHHH!

It has been around since Reagan - which Masher referenced in his original article.


RE: What I'd like to know...
By Grast on 7/9/2008 12:59:07 PM , Rating: 1
DigitalFreak,

In a world were the russians and chinese are selling every piece of technology they have to the highest bidder and Iran activly seeking nuclear weapons, I want a missle defense weapon of this type in operation. This system is specifically designed to stop a single or two weapon launch from a rogue nation. This system since its retasking in the 2000's was never designed to provide protection from a complete nuclear exchange.

This systems duty is to elliminate the ability of rogue nation such as Iran, Pakastan, and every other Isreal hating country from launching a nuclear strike on Isreal, Britain or another NATO ally.

This same system is being deployed in South Korea and Japan for protection for North Korea missle capability.

If this system did not exist and one of these countries launch a single nuclear warhead and/or dirty bomb at a NATO ally, It would start WWIII for real and make the current war look like a footnote.

later...


Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough.
By FuzionMonkey on 7/8/2008 7:47:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So where is the threat? I have seen NO missiles shot against US for the last 4 decades at least.


Just there hasn't been any threats recently doesn't mean there won't ever be.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:12:02 PM , Rating: 5
Yes because the entire world is just completely understanding. Those articles about Iran threatening to kill citizens who write blogs against the government or Islam are completely false.

We should just sit around and sing songs.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough.
By ebakke on 7/8/2008 9:26:32 PM , Rating: 5
Radar stations launch nukes?


RE: Enough is enough.
By PointlesS on 7/9/2008 12:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
no ps2's do


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:37:48 PM , Rating: 5
No. Just your house.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/2008 10:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah right...


RE: Enough is enough.
By Obsoleet on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Enough is enough.
By Grast on 7/9/2008 1:11:49 PM , Rating: 3
Obsoleet,

You are right Iran is none of our business. But the protection of NATO allies from rogue nuclear strikes is one of our responsibilites. You do realise that only 22 interceptors will deployed to protect the entire Western European theator at the completion of the system and 12 interceptors for Japan and U.S. West Coast.

This system is defensive. It nutralizes the threat a country such as Iran can truely pose. You should be happy such a system exists. Think if it this way...if Iran truely creates a nuclear weapon; what good is it if they have no hope of being able to launch the weapon. Any long range missle being fired out of Iran once the system is operational can be elliminated. We would then have provocation to use our air forces to destroy their ability to make war. I am NOT in favor invading or even caring about Iran. However, I am all for providing systems which protect ourselves and our allies from devistating attacks which could really lead us into WWIII.

As to your comment about suiting up. I have my DD214 discharge papers; Do YOU?. I have already performed my duties for 6 years in the first Gulf war. If you have never signed on the dotted line, you have no right to berate other people about their lack of service.

The facts stand that less than 1% of U.S. citizen will ever sign up for the military. That is fine it is the reason why our military is the best in the world. Only citizen which want to server sign-up.

Later...


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 2:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think if it this way...if Iran truely creates a nuclear weapon; what good is it if they have no hope of being able to launch the weapon.


Because a missile is the only... or the easiest, or the cheapest... way to deliver a nuclear warhead?


RE: Enough is enough.
By ttowntom on 7/9/2008 2:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's the only UNSTOPPABLE way to deliver a nuclear warhead. That's why missile defense is so important. You can stop a bomber or a suitcase nuke in many different ways, but once a missile is in the air, you're screwed.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 3:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
If that was true why was anyone worried about Iraq? Even if they had the hypothetical nuclear weapons they most definitely did not have the means to launch them very far. Hence the whole "mushroom cloud" speech was obviously nonsense... right? ;)


RE: Enough is enough.
By louzamos on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Enough is enough.
By ttowntom on 7/9/2008 2:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"from Lithuania which by the way everybody knows its just so close to Iran (sarcasm) than lets say Turkey (with whom we already have good relationships)."
Instead of making an ass of yourself why not learn how this technology works? An interceptor in Turkey can't protect all of Europe. Turkey is too close, it would have to catch the missiles in their boost phase, rather than when they're already ballistic.


RE: Enough is enough.
By louzamos on 7/10/2008 9:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
then build them in Greece or Italy.
you just have to go to break some Russian balls, dont you..?


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 8:42:34 AM , Rating: 2
Because it's so damn easy to build an ICBM that even a group of terrorists can do it... sure...
Never mind that even many first world nations don't have that kind of capability. If I was a terrorist I sure as hell would use a much easier and cheaper delivery method, like smuggling weapons into the country.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/8/2008 7:54:28 PM , Rating: 5
You sir need to get a reality check.

Just because nobody has fired a nuke at us in the last 4 decades doesn't mean they wont in the future. It's Mutually Assured Destruction between most of the current nuclear powers and the sole reason why nobody has fired them at each other. What if some nutjob in some random country decides to fire one at us? We are screwed. Best we can do is nuke them back. But with missile defense in place we just shoot it down and retaliate using conventional weapons that won't annihilate 80,000 civilians. Sorry but I would hate that the only deterrent to a nuclear attack was simply that we will nuke you back, that isn't enough to stop some crazy military/government that doesn't care if it goes out in a blaze of glory, just as long as they take many with them.


RE: Enough is enough.
By James Wood Carter on 7/8/2008 8:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
In a weird way what you said made sense. However any military buildup increase the destruction in case of things going out of hand.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Enough is enough.
By Smartless on 7/8/2008 8:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
True. But like it or not, might makes right will be around until there are no more 2nd and 3rd world countries and maybe even after. Sad part the shield works against ICBMs but what happens when countries like Russia sell nukes to a low-tech country or terrorists.

Which reminds me, they're making a remake of the movie, "The Day Earth Stood Still" though its Keanu Reeves as Neo. haha. Okay not Neo.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/2008 9:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
They have been talking about small nukes for decades, and about some east-country getting hold of the technoligy allthough nobody used it at all. Judging by the missile defend systems coverage area, it's like an invisible wall over again.

"Dark City", not to forget. Brilliant movie!


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:24:51 PM , Rating: 4
God I just want to hit you.

Yes. The US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons. Because it was either kill a few hundred thousand Japanese and lose no US troops. Or kill over a million Japanese and lose a few hundred thousand of our troops.

No one else has used nuclear weapons because they saw from our use of them what kind of massive destruction they can cause. And our nukes today are tens or hundreds of times more powerful than those used on Japan.

And you act like most people when angry go and kill the person they're mad at.

Please do us all a favor and keep your "lets all hold hands and get along" attitude to yourself. It's not reality, nor will it ever be.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Nfarce on 7/8/2008 10:44:17 PM , Rating: 4
You have to understand that this is what's being passed off for "education" in our government runs schools today: Give peace a chance and Reagan was a reckless cowboy who hated the poor and sucked and weapons and guns suck!

I can guarantee you people like that were never taught the phrase "Speak softly but carry a big stick" nor its underlying meaning in the Roosevelt administration. Peace has never worked in this world as a deterrent. Never has, never will long term. "Peace" only works long term after someone's ass gets kicked - or annihilated. That's the painful reality of truth.

Some of the comments on this blog really concern me for the future of not only America, but the entire Western civilization in general.


RE: Enough is enough.
By caqde on 7/9/2008 3:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
...........

Well actually we probably wouldn't have many problems if morons didn't run office when making decisions regarding other countries. *cough* "Vietnam" *cough*.. Read some history and see what choices America made that made absolutely no sense. Peace can work, but only if you PAY attention to what other people need and want.

Although I will say you can't please everyone, and I do support this technology. It is best to be prepared and ready, but peaceful ways should be a priority when possible.


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2008 7:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
Lets see what do those we're fighting want.....the death of every American?

How about we compromise here. We'll give them.....you.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Obsoleet on 7/9/2008 11:58:37 AM , Rating: 1
Ironically enough, they want us dead because of Americans like you.

I say, we willingly off you ourselves so they don't have to kill all of us because your aggressive head is up your arse.

Oh wait, you're not that aggressive, you're posting on this forum instead of standing up for your foreign interventionism by fighting in our wars that "keep us safe." I forgot, you don't have the balls just the mouth and let others do the heavy lifting that you endorse.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Grast on 7/9/2008 1:25:59 PM , Rating: 1
Obsoleet,

I am NOT going to appologise to anyone about being an American. These people want to kill us based on our freedoms. I will NOT and SHOULD NOT have to change my life or culture because some other group of people do not like it. I am not saying my culture is superior to theirs. I am not saying I want them to die for having an opposing point of view.

I am saying that I will NOT change my culture to appease another. If these people want a war, I can give it to them. I have killed before in the first Gulf war to protect my country and fellow service men. I will gladdly do it again to protect your right to free speech and appeasement to these other cultures.

This in my opinion is the best aspect of America which you have forgotten. The freedoms you hold today are the cost of American blood. Fathers, Sons, and even daughters have died to ensure you have the RIGHT to say you hate AMERICA and we are the problem.

I disagree with your statements about comprimise with other cultures. I believe instead we need a leader which will for lack of better words... "Walk talk and care a big stick". If you want to do business with the U.S., that is great but we will not be bullied or threatened by other countries and/or cultures.

Later...


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 1:42:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
These people want to kill us based on our freedoms.


This is absolute garbage. They could not care less about how we live. Do you think that say the Taliban gives a damn about what life is like in the US when they shoot at American soldiers? They want control, power, influence, land, whatever... and we stand in their way.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 1:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They want control, power, influence, land, whatever... and we stand in their way.

As well we should.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 2:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and no one would argue about that. But this isn't purely an American issue. They'd shoot at absolutely anybody, Chinese, French, Russian, Mexican, it wouldn't matter. That's why the whole "they hate our freedom" thing is so silly. We aren't the only country in the world that has trouble with terrorism.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 2:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
No argument there. The U.S. just has the most power projection overseas, this is why we tend to be on the top of the hate list.


RE: Enough is enough.
By caqde on 7/9/2008 3:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Please read the History of the wars America was a part of and you will see some of the "lovely" things that the American diplomats did. Here let me make a synopses for you.

"Vietnam"
1. Give weapons and aid to a group that wants to attain freedom.
2. Backstab said group.
3. Try to implement American government in that country.

Hmm. Why are they pissed. I don't know. And I will tell you what this isn't the only place something like this happened. It may not be the same, but it is similar.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 8:49:38 AM , Rating: 2
Repeating WWII era propaganda still doesn't make it true...
Conventional bombs killed more Japanese then the nukes did. The Japanese government would have likely surrendered regardless, and the soviet army was already amassing in east asia and would have entered Japan if given the order. (Funny how no one mentions that the soviets were perfectly willing to invade even if the US did not). This was a military demonstration to the soviets, nothing more. There is plenty of historical documentation pointing out that the military did not subscribe to this invasion nonsense. It's spin.


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 9:49:16 AM , Rating: 4
> "The Japanese government would have likely surrendered regardless, and the soviet army was already amassing in east asia "

To correct a few mistakes, the Soviets didn't declare war on Japan until after the nuclear bombs were dropped, and the Japanese government certainly would not have surrendered without such an impressive show of force.

In fact, even after the bombings, the Japanese Supreme War Council voted against surrender. It wasn't until after Hirohito made a personal appeal to the people by radio that surrender was granted, and even then, a group of military officers revolted and stormed the Imperial Palace, trying to prevent the shame of surrender.
And even then, it still wasn't the unconditional surrender the US demanded, but a conditional one, which allowed them to keep their monarchy.

Immediately before the bombings, Japan was training civilian men, women, even children to fight invading Americans. The government felt its die-hard population and mountainous terrain meant they could fight the US to a standstill, an invasion too costly for the US to proceed. The fact it would have cost them millions of their own was considered irrelevant. The nuclear bomb changed that equation, and saved those millions of Japanese lives.

It also saved American lives, a fact you probably consider meaningless, but one very important to most people at the time. In preparing for the invasion of Japan, the US government manufactured and stockpiled half a million Purple Heart medals for those wounded in battle. In fact, we're still using those medals today -- the total number of US soldiers wounded since then, in all the wars and conflicts since, is substantially smaller than we would have lost in a Japanese invasion.

The bombing was justified on military, ethnical, and even humanitarian grounds. Those historical revisionist apologists who decry it don't have a leg to stand on.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Enough is enough.
By HakonPCA on 7/9/2008 1:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
haha

quote:
I already demonstrated that this is completely false


wow, you do have superb debate skills, such that you have covered and closed all possible rebuttals! LOL!

you also forgot to demonstrate that after Japan was falling toward surrender, Russia went on a major land grab initiative in Asia, trying to take all the could (not to liberate of course, but to keep, ala East Germany)

If Russia had invaded Japan alone (something that never, never, ever would have happened; perhaps, maybe perhaps a joint invasion like D-Day Europe, but even that was not very likely) They would have tried to keep it under their rule. Russia would not have spent trillions of dollars trying to help them rebuild if they invaded the country as the U.S. did.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 1:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
How does that disagree with what I said? What I said was that the decision to drop the bombs was primarily politically motivated, and not solely to "save American lives" as so many keep trying to insist. It's strategic value was more as a show of force for the USSR's benefit, then putting pressure on Japan.
No one is saying that soviet occupation of Japan would have been a good thing. However
let's call a spade a spade and stop pretending that this was all to "save American lives". It was needlessly brutal too... the demonstration would have been just as effective had the bombs not been dropped on civilians.


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 1:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "Stalin had pledged to declare war during the Yalta meeting"

A list of all the pledges Stalin broke would fill books. The notion that the Soviets would have unilaterally invaded Japan is ludicrous. Furthermore, the entire issue is moot, as a Soviet invasion would -- just like a US-based one-- have killed a hundred times as many Japanese civilians as the nuclear bombs did.

> "Which is not only irrelevant but only proves that the authority was squarely in Hirohito's hands"

I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Any student of history knows just how the powers of the Emperor were limited.

And once again, your issue is moot, as Hirohito was only convinced to call for surrender because of the nuclear bombings.

> "Wow... and this proves that the invasion was going to happen? "

You're seriously trying to suggest we would have allowed a stalemate to stand? Sorry, but you've simply descended into abject nonsense.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 3:21:13 PM , Rating: 3
> "Because you said so?"

Because the facts say so. The acts of the Supreme War Council and Hirohito's position are all a matter of public record. They had already declined several surrender offers, they had already ignored hundreds of thousands of their own civilians dying from conventional bombing, and they had already began implementing plans to prepare for all-out invasion.

Japan not only would not have surrendered without the nuclear bomb, it very nearly didn't surrender even *with* it. Even after the second nuclear explosion, the SWC voted against surrender. It was only the confluence of those bombings, the threat of many more, the Soviet manuevering for a land grab in the Kurills (land it still hasn't given back to Japan even today, FYI) and Hirohito's sudden change of heart that led to surrender.

And even after all that, they STILL refused to unconditionally surrender. Had the US stuck to its original demand, the invasion would have happened regardless, even after the bombings.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Enough is enough.
By TheDoc9 on 7/9/2008 3:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
Did you go to school in the US maven? Everything you've said is the exact opposite of what I was taught in class.

It was the show of literally unlimited potential to wipe out their entire existence that ended the war.

Flying over there and bombing military targets with regular munitions wouldn't have accomplished anything put prolonging the war and as you said we had already been doing it.

It was a hard and terrible decision and history has proven it to be the correct one.


RE: Enough is enough.
By TheDoc9 on 7/9/2008 3:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
edit: So there's no misunderstanding - A hard and terrible decision to have to make ....


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 5:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you go to school in the US maven? Everything you've said is the exact opposite of what I was taught in class.

I sure did, but are you implying that everything we have been taught is 100% true?

quote:
It was the show of literally unlimited potential to wipe out their entire existence that ended the war.

But surely you are aware of the fire bombing missions that took place? It wasn't exactly as psychologically effective as one plane, one bomb, but killed an even greater number of civilians. If the goal was to demonstrate massive destruction, that was already happening. Contrary to Masher's black and white assessment of everything the Japanese did not suddenly say "oh my god this new weapon is the death of us". It was closer to "we pretty much already lost, and after this it's truly hopeless". It had a much greater psychological effect on the Soviets however, who suddenly realized that they were at a serious disadvantage.


RE: Enough is enough.
By TheDoc9 on 7/9/2008 6:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, I absolutely agree with you on the school point. But I do think that it's a huge mistake to teach children how bad/wrong their country is or what we could've done differently in the past from a professor who likely wasn't even alive at the time. Unfortunately/Fortunately the nature of teaching is that you might learn the teachers ideals as well, ideals which are often biased. Sometimes they're right and sometimes completely wrong.

quote:
It wasn't exactly as psychologically effective as one plane, one bomb, but killed an even greater number of civilians.


This was my point, it's the effect it had. For all they knew we had hundreds of these bombs. Imagine for the first time in history; tens of thousands of lives vanish in a flash from one single explosion. It's hard to imagine because the idea is common place in today's world, we all know about these weapons and what they're capable of but only because of situations like Hiroshima.

The thinking of the leaders was more likely "oh sh*, we're f*ed." - basically what you might say just before getting in a car wreck. Masher has obviously researched the exact history of it, but I imagine the guy pleading on the radio was thinking about what's best for his people. I guess we may never know but if it were me I'd be thinking the "Oh my God, this new weapon is the death of us" choice.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Netscorer on 7/8/2008 8:28:24 PM , Rating: 4
"It's Mutually Assured Destruction between most of the current nuclear powers and the sole reason why nobody has fired them at each other."
Exactly. Then why does US want to break this equilibrium is beyond me. Rice states that new missile shield program is not aimed at Russia but the reality is this shield would be able to effectively catch and neutralize any transcontinental missile launched from the Russian soil east of Ural mountains. Considering that this is where Russia keeps close to 70% of it's nuclear stockpiles, it negates most of the threat that Russia poses to the west. With that in mind Russians have full right to be extremely concerned and act accordingly. I wonder what would US government do if China deploy it's own missile shield in Mexico saying they want to protect themselves against Columbia terrorists. This is purely hypothetical scenario, of course, but the one, reflecting what Russia feels about current US plans.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Felofasofa on 7/8/2008 9:18:02 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed, Russia has every right to feel miffed about the deployment of US military tech on their doorstep. The US is the most forward deployed of any major nation, yet takes huge offence at any other nation wanting to station arms and weapons OS. Let's not forget how the stationing of US (CIA) listening posts in Tibet provoked the Chinnese invasion. Oh you forgot about that one eh? Current US doctrine which maintains that the US must be the most dominant military power is doomed to failure in the longer term, the quicker the US realises this and comes up with a more sophisticated approach to global affairs the better. Running the Federal Reserves printers 24/7 churning out devaluing script is hastening your decline.

They say countrys elect governments they deserve. In the election of Bush the US went for a government of greed, and you got it 100%. Possibly the worst ever administration in the White House has presided over reckless capitalism, and the formulation of foreign policy which has been staggering in it's ineptitude. Going it alone eh? keep this up and you will be.


RE: Enough is enough.
By ebakke on 7/8/2008 9:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
Can't Russia just move their stockpile if they feel so threatened?


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
It won't matter where its launched from in Russia. The system will still attempt to shoot it down before impact. At least that's the idea.


RE: Enough is enough.
By ebakke on 7/9/2008 10:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
I was being facetious, but I've come up with a new solution. How about Russia just not shoot crap at us. I don't understand why they're so worried/threatened. Since when were they so interested in blowing us up?


RE: Enough is enough.
By James Wood Carter on 7/9/2008 7:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
Hey you said something like:
Let's not forget how the stationing of US (CIA) listening posts in Tibet provoked the Chinnese invasion.
i want to read more about that, know of any non biased sources ?


RE: Enough is enough.
By Felofasofa on 7/10/2008 6:35:24 AM , Rating: 2
There's plenty on the web about CIA funding of Tibetan guerillas after the 1950 invasion, but not much on the OSS in Tibet just after WW2. Having the highest mountain range in the world, Tibet was attractive to Spooks from Britain/US who were concerned about events in China, post WW2.


RE: Enough is enough.
By James Wood Carter on 7/10/2008 5:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks alot buddy


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 11:06:15 PM , Rating: 3
> ""It's Mutually Assured Destruction...why does US want to break this equilibrium is beyond me."

Primarily because MAD is predicated on an inherently unethical concept -- that of holding millions of innocent civilians hostage for the good behavior of their leaders.

Furthermore, while MAD is a semi-stable condition in two-player game theory (e.g. the US-Soviet Cold War) it breaks down entirely when a dozen or more players are all involved.

If a world leader launched a missile at the US, would the knowledge that we can kill ten million in retaliation really be worth it? What if it wasn't even the nation's leader, but a dissident faction that had somehow gained access to launch codes? What if it wasn't us attacked, but one of our allies? What if it wasn't even an ally? Would we be willing to kill a few million innocent North Koreans, if Jong-Il killed a few million Mongolians or Indonesians? Or would that be just as evil as his own actions?

Defense, however, is always ethical. The ability to destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their targets is a good thing, no matter how you slice it.


RE: Enough is enough.
By BansheeX on 7/8/2008 11:39:25 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Defense, however, is always ethical. The ability to destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their targets is a good thing, no matter how you slice it.


So Nazi defense is ethical? I'm sorry, I'm not really understanding where you're going here. I'll agree to a missile shield on the condition the United States gives it to everyone else who wants it. Otherwise, it completely breaks the MAD theory and creates a worse situation, a situation in which a country with a nuclear arsenal and a missile shield can launch a nuclear strike without the fear of retaliation. That no one could launch a strike with impunity before is exactly what prevented it from happening.

And don't feed me BS about how the U.S. would never do such a thing. This country is capable of some of the slickest propaganda you'll ever see. McCarthy had every person in this country thinking their neighbors were reds. We killed 50,000 of our own men in an effing swamp for no reason whatsoever.


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 11:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'll agree to a missile shield on the condition the United States gives it to everyone else who wants it."

They already have agreed to do so. The US has said on many occasions the system would be used to block any launches, no matter their origin or target.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Hare on 7/9/2008 12:23:12 AM , Rating: 4
So why are the russians so upset? Haven't they been told that no matter what the situation may be, they will have all the access they want... Let's not be naive...


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 11:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes because we've got such good propaganda that we're convincing our people that blowing themselves up, which results in the deaths of innocent men, women, and children, is the path to heaven and a bunch of slutty girls for all eternity.


RE: Enough is enough.
By BansheeX on 7/9/2008 2:44:30 AM , Rating: 5
Collateral damage in war also causes innocent deaths, and let's face it, the only reason radical muslim propaganda has stayed so effective is because of past interventionist policies on our part allowing it to be.

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power in 1941 after the deposing of his father, Reza Shah, by an invasion of allied British and Soviet troops in 1941. Reza Shah, a military man, had been known for his determination to modernize Iran and his hostility to the clerical class (ulema). Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi held power until the 1979 revolution with a brief interruption in 1953, when he had faced an attempted revolution. In that year he briefly fled the country after a power-struggle had emerged between himself and his Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the country's oil fields and sought control of the armed forces. Mossadegh had been voted into power through a democratic election. Through a military coup d'état aided by a CIA and MI6 covert operation, codenamed Operation Ajax, Mossadegh was overthrown and arrested and the Shah returned to the throne. Iranian sentiment has remembered this undermining of Iranian democratic process as a chief complaint against the United States and Britain.

We seem to fail to understand that every time we intervene, no matter the intentions, we give the anti-Westernization crowd the the ammunition they need to make their propaganda infinitely and extraordinarily effective.

But it didn't end there. Then in the Iran-Iraq war when Iran was winning, we buddy up with Saddam and give him a bunch of weapons to use on Iran, some bio, and he uses them. That really helped put the anti-America clowns out of business didn't it? Then one of our warships shoots down an Iranian passenger plane in Iranian waters and issues no apology. Oops! Strangely enough, Hussein ends up using some leftovers of what we gave him against ethnic kurds later on. I'm sure you can find pictures of women and babies lying dead in the street for that one.


RE: Enough is enough.
By VashHT on 7/11/2008 12:45:11 AM , Rating: 1
Oh wait, our propaganda tells us our soldiers our protecting our "freedoms" in the middle east. Last time I checked we're not protecting jack shit, and oh yeah, we're killing innocent men, women and children all the time. Give me a fucking break with your own stupid propaganda man, do you really believe every muslim wants americans dead on the promise of virgins?


RE: Enough is enough.
By beepandbop on 7/9/2008 10:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you try telling that to the refugees from Vietnam and they'll be more than happy to aid your efforts in receiving a lobotomy.


RE: Enough is enough.
By crafty on 7/11/2008 2:27:34 AM , Rating: 2
Your criticism of MAD makes sense, but perception is very important as well. This is a program that came out of the Cold War and is being deployed in a former Warsaw Pact country that's a lot closer to Russia than to Iran or North Korea. The Russian government has become much more nationalistic since the end of the Yeltsin era and is on a much better financial footing than they were throughout the '90s. Do the costs of provoking a new Cold war outweigh the risks caused by possible rogue regimes launching nuclear missile attacks at the US or allied nations?

It is my belief that states act in very predictable ways(though not necessarily rational), and that most states will not use nuclear missiles unless their national survival depends on it. Likewise, most non-state organizations that would seek nuclear weapons would not use a missile to deliver the weapon to its target. So therefore does it really make much sense to deploy a system that is highly destabilizing against potential adversaries with tens of thousands of deliverable nuclear weapons for the unlikely threat of the one rogue one? Or are these problems best solved by using a non-military solution that can somewhat satisfy the security concerns of both sides?

There are simply no winners in nuclear war. None. Just everyone dead. It's very reckless to unilaterally impose such a system.


RE: Enough is enough.
By grenableu on 7/8/2008 11:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering that this is where Russia keeps close to 70% of it's nuclear stockpiles, it negates most of the threat that Russia poses to the west.
The only reason Russia has to be upset is if it plans to use some of that stockpile at some point. And if it does, you and I both will be glad this system exists.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 11:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
This has absolutely nothing to do with stockpiles. It has everything to do with pride and prestige. Having a missile defense shield gives the US a capability the Russians do not have. That's seen as a slap in the face to their very nationalistic government. (And is someone here seriously going to argue that we would not be pissed if it was the Russians who built a defense shield first?)
Anyone who doesn't realize the Russians are obsessed with maintaining a "strategic parity" has obviously not been paying attention. This is why in the in the 70s and 80s they've sunk billions into a clone of the space shuttle for instance, even though the scientific community did not see any point in it, the military felt it gave the US a capability the Soviets did not have...

So anyway, the way I see it, it gives them only two choices... develop their own shield, or develop better offensive weapons. Option 1 is probably not possible. It's a very expensive project that would take very long to develop. That leaves option 2, create weapons that would make this shield look like a joke, and possibly leak such weapons to the highest bidder. Good job "decider". I feel safer already.


RE: Enough is enough.
By James Wood Carter on 7/9/2008 7:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
As answered before, a missile defense shield is an offensive strategy (its like placing similar systems around our backyard, we won't tolerate such move so why should they, they can have the same reasons of putting up defense systems around other countries and when they do it, its regarded as a threat...). It only gives others the excuse to build up their military and won't solve anything.


RE: Enough is enough.
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 2:19:17 AM , Rating: 3
Please, this system is no where mature enough to stop enough Russian missiles to matter.

The Russians have been working on missile defense technology since the time of the Soviet Union. Often in violation of the ABM treaty (see the Krasnoyarsk radar installation).


RE: Enough is enough.
By P4blo on 7/9/2008 5:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
Because we're entering a new phase in WMDs and their availability. I don't know about anyone else but I simply do not trust a regime like that in Iran. I will go further than this and say I dont trust _any_ extremist regime that forms most of it's decisions off the back of myth and legend (religion).

If a missile warning system prevents a rogue state popping off one devastating nuke into Tel Aviv then we've potentially avoided 'mutually assure distruction'. I prefer that than just saying F U and firing 300 back.

The Russians need to stop their policitcal grumbling and learn how to 'win friends and influence people'. The response to the ever shrinking military world we live in is to build relationships and gain allies. Sadly Russia wants to allie itself with some of the worst regimes on the planet. They seem to oppose almost every sanction measure the UN tries to impose and generally makes a P.I.T.A. of itself.

Military defence technology is *not* going to stand still. Trying to oppose a missile detection system is just delaying the inevitable and furthermore, they wish to deny a country the right to *defend* itself without resorting to M.A.D.ness?


RE: Enough is enough.
By Obsoleet on 7/9/2008 12:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Our leadership wants to break the equilibrium for the same reason they broke the equilibrium in the middle east.. because they have no idea what they're doing.

Consequentially, they are going to get us all killed by inflaming Islamic terrorists around the globe, and now Russia and her allies.

They're all tough guys unless they or their families have to die to fight in the unnecessary wars and conflicts they started.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 12:52:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Our leadership wants to break the equilibrium for the same reason they broke the equilibrium in the middle east.. because they have no idea what they're doing.

Or were trying to remove another threat from the table like any military that wants to protect its citizens should be doing.

quote:
Consequentially, they are going to get us all killed by inflaming Islamic terrorists around the globe, and now Russia and her allies.

If your so convinced of this eventuality you should probably move to Europe, that way you won't be near us when those bombs start going off.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 1:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or were trying to remove another threat from the table like any military that wants to protect its citizens should be doing.


Only the hawks in the decider's administration saw Iraq as any sort of threat. Rational people and our very own CIA pointed out from the start that there was very little to go off to reach that conclusion. It also should have been painfully obvious that a)even if Iraq had powerful weapons they had no way of reaching US soil, and b)any attempt of such a thing would cause it to be wiped off the map.
Let me also point out that North Korea, which actually HAS missiles, AND nuclear weapons was dealt with without firing a single shot. How the hell do you explain that?!


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 1:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let me also point out that North Korea, which actually HAS missiles, AND nuclear weapons was dealt with without firing a single shot.

Their missiles are low tech and can be intercepted. Their nuclear weapons don't work right (As demonstrated in their poor excuse for a nuclear test).

quote:
How the hell do you explain that?!

That would be China telling them to STFU and stop drawing the attention of the U.S. and the U.N. The last thing China wants is a U.S. military build up in their back yard. (See: Russia getting pissed off about the U.S. signing deals with former soviet states).


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 2:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
If they are so pathetic and low tech why are we scared of them? And are you seriously implying that Iraq had a stronger military then North Korea?
In any case whether it was China that put pressure on them or someone else doesn't matter. The point is that Diplomacy can work. They backed down.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 4:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they are so pathetic and low tech why are we scared of them?

We aren't. North Korea can't do anything to the United States right this moment. With a few years of missile research they might be able to accurately hit the western coast. The current threat is to U.S. Allies (Japan, South Korea) both of which we have defense agreements in place with. We are required to protect them and we are doing just that. These agreements have been in place since WW2(Japan) and the Korean War(South Korea). But hey I suppose we can turn the other cheek and go back on our guarantees and treaties just to avoid potential conflict.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 5:09:11 PM , Rating: 3
Iraq was much less of a threat to the US yet got attacked anyway. North Korea has been conducting missile tests over Japan for years. If this is about protecting allies then North Korea should have been attacked years ago. Clearly this is not what's going on here.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 9:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
We have a standing agreement to not attack north korea unless they attack south korea or another ally.


RE: Enough is enough.
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 1:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Consequentially, they are going to get us all killed by inflaming Islamic terrorists around the globe, and now Russia and her allies.


Right, because Islamic terrorists haven't been killing Americans for decades.


RE: Enough is enough.
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 1:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're all tough guys unless they or their families have to die to fight in the unnecessary wars and conflicts they started.


Judging from this quote you are voting for McCain, assuming you are American. Since Obama, having never served in the military, lacks the moral authority to be commander in chief.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 1:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
He said that those who push war as a solution should be willing to fight and die themselves, not that only those who fight have the right to an opinion.


RE: Enough is enough.
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 3:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
The argument is specious and silly. Firstly, he doesn't know the military status of anyone on this board. Secondly, so if I served as a cook or a computer programmer in Fort Dix during peacetime I have more moral authority to push war than someone who has never served?

And a final point, most current military personnel support the war in Iraq.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Dribble on 7/9/2008 6:42:33 AM , Rating: 5
If I were a nutjob I'd just pack my nuclear device onto a boat, transport it to America, stick it in the back of a van, drive to a major population centre. Boom!

That also lets me deny all knowledge of having done it afterwards - i.e. America have no-one to nuke in retaliation.

Why use a complex, expensive and unreliable missile system that gives you away?

Hence the reason the missile shield is mostly just a big waste of money.


RE: Enough is enough.
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 1:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
If you really think that having some 'nut job' drive a nuke into the US would really allow the nation supplying the nuke to have deniability you're wrong. Nuclear forensics can determine where the radioactive material was processed and by whom. Intelligence can backtrack the ports of call the ship left from.

A missile shield, if reliable, disallows the nation with missiles and WMD from using them as a threat. And threat of arms is an importan piece of diplomacy. Why do you think that one of the first things a President does during a crisis is ask where the closest aircraft carrier is? Why do nations conduct military exercises along borders? It is to say, you better listen to what I have to say because I can hurt you very badly. North Korea has used its nuclear program to get massive economic aid.If there was a reliable way to neutralize the NK arsenal the world could ignore them and let them collapse of their own inherent contradictions.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Jim28 on 7/9/2008 8:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
Gee we never thought of that!

Nukes are tracable to the country, and God help that country when we find out. (And rightly so!) I only wish you could kill the people that gave the nuke away though and not kill so many innocents but the country that gave it away should have though about that themselves.

Nuking any country would mean instant war. What if the UK, France, China or Russia instead were attacked? Do you think that they wouln't respond in kind as well? If you don't you are a fool that doesn't understand the world at all.


RE: Enough is enough.
By VashHT on 7/11/2008 12:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
So what, every year a nuke isn't launched increases the chance of one being fired? You're fear mongering at is best, if we tried to defend against every threat possible it would be insane.


RE: Enough is enough.
By greenchasch on 7/8/2008 8:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So we think we get more freedom from even more surveillance?
X-band radar isn't exactly good for watching people on the ground. If you're not a ballistic missile, you're not going to be seen by this.


RE: Enough is enough.
By jonrem on 7/8/2008 8:55:56 PM , Rating: 3
His Bit torrents are sent via ICBM


RE: Enough is enough.
By Azsen on 7/8/2008 9:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, that is so good but I have no votes to rate you higher.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Bender 123 on 7/8/2008 10:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hey...Thats what we were going to say in our next trial against a grandma...Everybody knows music piracy steals money from hungry kittens and places it in the hands of terrorists that file share their religion via ICBMs.

Regards,
RIAA


RE: Enough is enough.
By Polynikes on 7/8/2008 8:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it's there to detect threats from Asia or the Middle-east, where we know there are potential threats.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Rookierookie on 7/8/2008 8:51:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maybe it's there to detect threats from Asia or the Middle-east, where we know there are potential threats.

In which case somebody at the Pentagon needs to re-take Geography 101.
But then, considering Americans' general level of geographical knowledge, I guess I shouldn't be surprised...


RE: Enough is enough.
By Polynikes on 7/8/2008 9:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
You don't think the radar system is capable of seeing into the middle east, or in the area the trajectory that a missile would likely take between the middle-east and the US?


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well genius, this installations exact purpose is to detect any launches coming from Iran. Which is where again....oh yeah the MIDDLE EAST.

The original post was correct on the middle east. And considering Russia is part of Asia, that part is also correct.

And I have a feeling the original post was also a sarcastic one.


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 11:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In which case somebody at the Pentagon needs to re-take Geography 101.
But then, considering Americans' general level of geographical knowledge, I guess I shouldn't be surprised...
Before one insults someone else's geographic knowledge, one should probably have a firm grasp of it themselves. This X-band tracking station as a range of well over 3,000 miles, allowing it to protect Europe from launches anywhere in the Middle East and a good chunk of Asia as well.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/2008 9:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
WMDs? There were none. So with all that military action down there, do You think it's getting EASIER to assemble nukes hush-hush?


RE: Enough is enough.
By Polynikes on 7/8/2008 9:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
No, there weren't any... in Iraq . Good job, that's old news. I was more worried about countries with the ability to make nuclear material, like Iran or North Korea.


RE: Enough is enough.
By ctodd on 7/8/2008 10:00:43 PM , Rating: 3
I think someone is just pissed that the money didn't go to some Universal Healthcare program.

How long do we have to keep hearing the same lame attack, that there were no *WMD*. Get over it! We all know that *all* they found was 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium which was already known by the UN, and some old artillery shells loaded with sarin nerve gas. Bad intel, bad decision... but we're in there now so lets look forward with constructive eyes and not back with destructive egos.

I think the point is that Iran has the capability to launch an attack. If Russia is worried about the shield, then it only highlights their true desire to either launch an attack on Europe or at least be taken seriously when they make a threat of launching an attack on Europe.

I think your arguments are flawed. Based on my observation of your views on the subject, It is not okay to have a missile defense shield which is not aimed at anyone nor has the ability to inflict extreme harm on any country, but it is okay to have an arsenal of long range ballistic weapons that can be targeted on nearly any country and on top of that, deal a deadly blow.

No matter what your views are on the subject, the safty of the EU is important for the global market. Any attack on the EU would bring the markets crashing. Our economy would plummet and we (the US) would feel the effects as if it had happened on our soil.

How about we all promise not to launch nukes and love everyone like their own brother/sister. HA! Yeah. I can see that happening!

Chris.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Obsoleet on 7/9/2008 12:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
So America is to defend the EU? Iran is none of our business. The EU, Iran and surrounding countries have better reason to worry and take action than we do.

Iraq was a lie. Whatever reason you bought into (and apparently are dumb enough to stand by your foolish decision) such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil.. we know all the troops who have died there died in vain. Just as in Vietnam. We know all the money that's been spent on the mission has been in vain.

That's the raw truth. At least with a universal healthcare program (which I don't endorse personally) we would've gotten SOMETHING back for our money.

Instead we have gas higher than ever, food prices higher than ever, a collapsed dollar, an overstretched and abused military and you sit on your ass and regurgitate that tripe of propaganda about how the war is good.

Go fight and die for your cause, or are you only capable of propping it up on the internet.


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 1:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "So America is to defend the EU? Iran is none of our business"

The US has treaty obligations to protect NATO members. Are you suggesting we should abrogate our responsibilities under international law?

> "Instead we have gas higher than ever, food prices higher than ever, a collapsed dollar"

Gas prices are high because the US refuses to allow new drilling or new gas refineries, food prices are high because we're diverting a huge portion of our crop into biofuels, and the "collapsed" dollar has only fallen 30%, a change which helps the economy by making US products much cheaper overseas.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 2:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gas prices are high because the US refuses to allow new drilling or new gas refineries


Are you saying that demand for oil tripled in such a short time? Of course if that was even remotely true it would mean that we would have to boost production by an equal amount. Do you honestly believe there is THAT much oil off shore?


RE: Enough is enough.
By Ringold on 7/9/2008 3:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you saying that demand for oil tripled in such a short time?


I know some people here famously appear to detest having any knowledge at all of economic thought or theory, but it's called elasticity; price elasticity of demand and supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics...

With sufficient elasticity, demand can increase, for example, 1%, and yield a 10% movement in price. This is compounded by the fact that in the short term the supply curve is somewhere close to vertical, with significant reactions to price signals taking years.

As for demand growth, there are 2.5 or so billion people experiencing basically double-digit annual real economic growth rates, and they're able to buy cars for the first time. It's unprecedented growth, so yes, commodities have responded in kind.


RE: Enough is enough.
By maven81 on 7/9/2008 4:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
Elasticity can not explain why such a radical change happened in just the past 3 years. I'm sure that growth in Asia for example is increasing demand, no doubt about it, but are you trying to say that they just now in the past couple of years acquired the means to buy cars? Three years ago they could not, but now suddenly everyone is rich? Come on! The changes that you refer to took many years to happen. And even if there's a delay in how this is reflected in gas prices that doesn't explain why the prices remained relatively stable over all those years.


RE: Enough is enough.
By ctodd on 7/9/2008 5:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
You're baseing your argument on the demand for gas, not oil. Oil is what is driving the cost of gas up. Not the other way around. There are many products and services that use oil. Demand is up, supply is down.

Chris.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Ringold on 7/9/2008 7:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
You're hilarious. I don't think you fully appreciate what double digit economic growth can do. Wages, for example, have been growing at over 13.5% per year since 2002. If a worker in China made $100 a week, say, in 2002, then he's now making (at least) $214. Wages for many skilled laborers have quadrupled, and continues to grow rapidly. There is a level of income in relatively poor countries where people no longer suddenly worry only about essentials, but realize they now have disposable income for first-world goods and luxuries; this is a pretty well accepted idea in development econ. And again, when growth is that eye-popping, consumption of such goods can explode.

As for why prices can be more or less volatile over various ranges of quantity demanded/supplied, why don't you read up a bit more elasticity? Unless the wiki entry is trash (wouldn't surprise me I suppose), it should make clear that elasticity is not constant -- supply and demand curves are not straight lines.. hence.. the name 'curve'.. When growing off a small consumption base, the impact can be inconsequential, but when economies grow that quickly what was one year inconsequential can the next be a factor.

Your lack of comprehension is an issue for you to deal with; the data is widely available, and economists have long settled such questions so this is an educational issue, not even a debate.


RE: Enough is enough.
By ctodd on 7/9/2008 5:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
Take a chill pill. Or cut back on the caffeine.

I’m not going to drop to your level and call you dumb, but you obviously didn’t read my post very carefully. Nowhere in my post did I say I supported the invasion of Iraq. I only stated facts. You are obviously too eaten up with hatred towards anyone that doesn’t share your views to see that. I’m not going to argue with you on the merits of the war. Everyone has an opinion and obviously you have a very strong one. By default, you win.

I think strengthen the EU’s defense against total annihilation is in the best interest of our Nation and the World. And as Masher2 has already stated, it is our obligation as a member of NATO and as a Superpower.

Many factors including the war has contributed to the price of oil and therefore gas, food, etc. I am not an economist so I will not argue about it. However, anyone that lays total blame on the war, or the Bush Administration for the gas prices is in my opinion naive.

And no, I most likely would NOT get anything back for my contribution into a Universal Healthcare Program. And I am glad you do not endorse it.

You can twist the truths and fallacies and spew your hatred, but I don’t have to buy it.

God bless the USA! ...Oh crap, now I'm going to get pounded by the Atheists and Anti-*Too Patriotic* crowd. :)

Chris.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Pirks on 7/8/2008 9:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So where is the threat?
Same question was asked by many European politicians 80 years ago about Hitler and his party, and (think about it!) this question had never even been considered when Lenin and his party took power in Russia in October 1917. Nobody thought this guy was dangerous or something. You should read some history books.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/2008 9:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with Hitler was that he was like a 'movie-star', adored and supported by everyone, also US, during the 1920´s and some of the 1930's. To foresee what he turned into was impossible by any means, unless someone let it happen, to gain from the war machinery or some other course.

To predict the action of powerfull men is very difficult. He who can do that OWNS politics. To predict flying missiles, is a mechanical quest, solved by 'ICBM predicters'. Now, if predicting humans was emphasized more 'ICBM predicters' would not be nescesarry :)


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah its not like he wrote a book about what he planned to do or anything.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/8/2008 10:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
... hence the last part of the sentence...


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 11:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously implying Europe LET World War 2 happen solely so they could profit from the "war machine"? Or are you even stupid enough to try and blame the start of World War 2 on America? And say we were the ones who wanted to profit?

If either is the case, you are so far beyond any help modern science currently has developed its not even funny.


RE: Enough is enough.
By sweetsauce on 7/9/2008 12:34:05 AM , Rating: 3
... or you're delusional to think it didn't happen. Nothing better for profits than war.


RE: Enough is enough.
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 2:46:03 AM , Rating: 2
The near total destruction of European productive capacity was good for profits? The early death of a large percentage of productive young men was good for war? This was not some little dust up in a third world country we are talking about, it was a major war that killed millions and devastated the economies of world powers. Other than the United States and possibly the Soviet Union which major nation actually came out ahead economically from World War II?


RE: Enough is enough.
By theapparition on 7/9/2008 9:28:56 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah,
Because the US seem to be doing soooooooo good right now.

I'm going to stop short in calling you an idiot, so I'll just call you a moron instead.


RE: Enough is enough.
By 4play on 7/10/2008 11:52:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah the country is doing good, but it's not about the country, it's about the bankers that lend money to the government, and defence contractors. War is awesome for them, good thing that they're all tied to the top of the government, eh?


RE: Enough is enough.
By Clauzii on 7/9/2008 12:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody really thought "Mein Kampf" (the book he wrote) would truly become reality (just like any fictional horror story). But he had supporters for some of his ideas towards building a great nation of one people. Like any other madman we all know how far he went.. With modern secret intelligence methods, I'd guess that basic every war could be stopped before reaching the fire-button.

But what really happens if no wars wa executed from this very moment? You tell me, cause economics would plunder at the very instant this would come to practice, making millions of people unemployed (at least for some time) and huge corperations shut down.

You tell me why peace is impossible...


RE: Enough is enough.
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 2:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
Peace is impossible because as long as one person is willing to punch you in the nose to get his way he will indeed punch you in the nose if he believes he can get away with it. Human nature is what makes peace impossible, and until we get human version 2.0 ( or 3.0 if MS is doing the upgrading) than there will be wars.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Myg on 7/9/2008 5:39:59 AM , Rating: 1
Indeed; the biggest problem with "peace" is also that most governments and people think its some sort of fantastical concept which you offer someone and upon rejection of said "peace" is the quick assertment of force.

Peace with its external vision is nonsense. You can't genuinely hope to ever have any sort of Peace if all your doing is forcing your vision of it on someone else.

Any ideology or person which teaches that dominion over other people is an acceptable means to an appropriate end is lying to you and themselves.

The only way to Peace, is an internal journey, and is only found when we, as human beings, get closer to God; our creator. Through genuine focus, prayer, devotion and living proper and wholesome lives (purity/cleanliness of heart, mind and body).

By focusing ourselves on God, we can look past the simple faults of our brothers and sisters and objectively get beyond our feelings.

The battlefield becomes the mind and the heart, we learn to fight the good fight where it belongs, and to keep it there. If we don't fight it there, we just project it onto someone else and they become the enemy and the focus of our attention.

By choosing not to give in to the feelings which will drive us astray; we suffer, but grow more mature and well grounded by it. Thus ensuring that peace can exist to its greatest possibility.

This is a simple extrapolation of the founding principles of the west, and its foundation in Christianity. Never forget the inner enlightenment and solid grounds it has provided as a structure for this way of life and always thank God for it.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 8:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
You started out ok, but then moved into the religious dribble. Which is arguably worse than the peace loving philosophy.

Let's stick with the facts alright.

- As long as someone else is willing to use force to get their way, peace is not an option.
- "Peace" exists because it is not beneficial to attack and use force to achieve an objective (Read: Our military will win or cause you heavy casualties)
- Negotiation only exists when both sides are equal, or the one with superior force is more interested in diplomacy than blowing you up.

There, that's pretty much it. Those are the only conditions in which peace will exist.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Obsoleet on 7/9/2008 12:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
Attacking the idea of a peace loving philosophy?

Wow. You need an education from a 4 year institution, or serious psychiatric help.

The real facts-
-There is no greater danger to peace in the world today than the USA. No one is going to attack anyone, besides the US attacking someone else. Sorry the propaganda led you to believe otherwise. And we wouldn't attack to "keep the peace" but rather to reshape the world in the image of a few vain men.
-Peace exists when a country as powerful as the USA does not threaten or attack other nations. Ever heard of walk softly but carry a big stick? You war propagandists are not "walking softly" with your rhetoric, but you are walking softly in that you are happy to let others do your foreign interventionism and fighting for you. Sorry but you're a coward, that's a fact.
-Negotiation involves more than military power. I'm sorry you don't understand all the metrics involved with keeping peace other than killing people (not that you've done any of THAT part of the job).

There, that's pretty much it in why you are sitting in a chair talking about how silly peace is when you aren't doing the heavy lifting you endorse.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 12:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'd point out that your delusional but reading the string of postings you just made that is blatantly apparent to everyone here.

quote:
-There is no greater danger to peace in the world today than the USA.

Yea, the USA is a danger to peace. Well, if peace is rolling over and turning the other cheek when countries and leaders do stuff to us, our allies, or civilians, then yea we are a major obstruction to that. No argument from me there.

quote:
No one is going to attack anyone,

Tell that to Israel, Taiwan, and South Korea. If the U.S. wasn't knee deep in South Korea and Taiwan, you bet North Korea and China would take advantage of the situation. The only thing stopping them is having to potentially deal with the U.S. which evens the odds and the playing field so that it's not worth it. Israel can handle themselves but they're constantly under attack by foreign nationals. I'm sure most people in Israel would laugh heartily at your statement.

quote:
Sorry the propaganda led you to believe otherwise. And we wouldn't attack to "keep the peace" but rather to reshape the world in the image of a few vain men.

Right, we have defense treatries and allies that rely on our military support for no reason. They don't need it, lets pack it all up and bring everything home and close the doors. The world would be in blissful peace once we do this. Ask Tibet, Rawanda, Darfur, and The Czech Republic how well that works. Dream on.

quote:
Peace exists when a country as powerful as the USA does not threaten or attack other nations.

Peace exists because your allied with such a power, or do not want to incur the wrath of such a power.

quote:
Ever heard of walk softly but carry a big stick?

Indeed I have. The reality your missing is that the stick is not just for show and tell. It's designed to be used, otherwise it becomes nothing more than an empty prop. If the enemy knows you can't or won't use that stick then your hand is open and the enemy knows you don't hold any cards. Excellent way to run diplomacy, with no bargaining chips on the table.

quote:
You war propagandists are not "walking softly" with your rhetoric
You don't walk softly all the time, otherwise you become a prop and are not taken seriously. (See: France)

quote:
but you are walking softly in that you are happy to let others do your foreign interventionism and fighting for you. Sorry but you're a coward, that's a fact.

Pot Kettle Black.

quote:
Negotiation involves more than military power. I'm sorry you don't understand all the metrics involved with keeping peace other than killing people (not that you've done any of THAT part of the job).

Of course it involves more than military power, but you need to have military power on the table as a card in your hand. Without it your nothing but a windbag blowing hot air around.

quote:
There, that's pretty much it in why you are sitting in a chair talking about how silly peace is when you aren't doing the heavy lifting you endorse.

I prefer to think that I live in this thing called "Reality", you should try joining the rest of the world in it sometime.


RE: Enough is enough.
By James Wood Carter on 7/9/2008 8:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the U.S. wasn't knee deep in South Korea and Taiwan, you bet North Korea and China would take advantage of the situation.

Sorry to dissapoint you but China promised an attack if Taiwan attempts to declare independence no matter whos backing it (yes that includes us (USA)
NK attacking SK might happen, but i doubt China is going to attack anyone unless it needed too - too much to lose in terms of the economy and wealth it has build over the years


RE: Enough is enough.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 9:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
That's China sabre rattling. If you've ever been to Taiwan you would see that the whole area that borders China is designed to repell ground forces and let air power beat them back. Clearly there is no illusion present that China wouldn't attack, just that its not likely, especially with U.S. air power right next door. The last thing China needs is an air war with the U.S. it could potentially end up with them losing face if they fail to achieve victory or suffer horrific casualties due to U.S. air dominance.


RE: Enough is enough.
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 3:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one is going to attack anyone, besides the US attacking someone else.


Tell that to Tibet


RE: Enough is enough.
By Muirgheasa on 7/9/2008 1:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
No, but it was caused in a large part by the way the various countries victorious in WW1 acted in the aftermath. Obviously WW2 couldn't have happened without Hitler, but equally it couldn't have happened without the Treaty of Versailles (which basically looked to force the losers to pay for the winners share of the war -hence profit, in a way). So in a way the US was responsible. Funny old world, innit?


RE: Enough is enough.
By Pirks on 7/8/2008 10:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
adored and supported by everyone, also US
Are you saying that everyone including the US supported antisemitic attitude of Hitler?

Why don't you also recall Soviet people who adored Joseph Stalin, huh? That'd make your "arguments" even more funny ;-)


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 11:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why don't you also recall Soviet people who adored Joseph Stalin, huh? That'd make your "arguments" even more funny ;-) "

Not just the Soviets either. The NY Times wrote a series of glowing articles about Stalin...just as he was busily engaged in starving millions of Ukrainians to death.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Pirks on 7/9/2008 4:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
masher, could you please provide me with a link about these pro-Stalin NYT articles from 1930s? I'm very interested. This would seriously change my attitude towards Western "free" media if it is true. Gimme link pleeaase! Or some other reference (book or something). Thanks!


RE: Enough is enough.
By Rugar on 7/9/2008 4:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 9:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
Umm...considering that the word surveillance doesn't even exist in that article, how did you even get to your statement?

This system does not spy or conduct surveillance on anyone. It detects missile launches and its goal is to shoot down the missile before it hits its target.

This is nothing but a good thing for everyone. Especially the United States. The only reason Russia opposes it is because if we take away their ability to strike our other allies with nuclear weapons, they have very little power left. Their military, while large, is hugely outdated.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Netscorer on 7/8/2008 10:58:34 PM , Rating: 5
The only reason world did not self-destruct in the nuclear nightmare of the WWIII is because BOTH US and Russia were afraid to start for the risk of total retaliation. This is why missile shields (while long ago technically feasible) were never created and many treaties were signed to prevent any country from doing so.

Now US, under disguise of the terrorist threat (yeah, like Al Quaeda will get posession of the transcontinental nuclear missile so easily) is breaking these treaties and saying 'don't worry - this is for your own good'. If you think for a second that after deploying this shield US won't feel itchy to press that big button consider this - US is the only country that actually used nuclear weapons on civilian population before and US is also the only nuclear country in the world that never pledged not to use the nuclear weapons first if necessity arises. US never shies away from starting war on false pretenses (see Iraq) and it also loves to meddle in other countries' affiars constantly justifying it by it's own strategic interests. So why is this good for everyone and who are these ewveryone, please enlighten me?


RE: Enough is enough.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 11:16:09 PM , Rating: 1
> "and US is also the only nuclear country in the world that never pledged not to use the nuclear weapons first if necessity arises"

Where do people get this nonsense? Russia, the UK, France, and Pakistan all have reserved the right for first-use of nuclear weapons in extreme cases. Israel also, as it actually rolled nuclear weapons out for launch during the Yom Kippur war, and provided field-level commanders with the launch codes in case of defeat.

China has pledged no-first use...though historically, it's pledges aren't worth the paper they're written on, as the Korean War clearly demonstrates.

> "If you think for a second that after deploying this shield US won't feel itchy to press that big button"

Are you actually trying to claim the US is going to start randomly nuking people simply because it could knock down a few of the missiles flying back in retaliation?


RE: Enough is enough.
By caqde on 7/9/2008 3:57:13 AM , Rating: 2
>> "If you think for a second that after deploying this shield US won't feel itchy to press that big button"

>Are you actually trying to claim the US is going to start randomly nuking people simply because it could knock down a few of the missiles flying back in retaliation?

The US government would be reamed by every Peace loving person, not to mention the Environmentalists. A nuclear war is suicide to every person on this planet. Bush and everyone in office would likely face the wrath of the citizens of the US if they even hinted at the possibility using them.


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2008 7:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
The US government and the vast majority of people in the US could really care less about what a bunch of hippies think.

And Bush even said nuclear weapons were on the table when we went into Iraq. It would have taken something pretty extreme for us to use them, but they were not ruled out as an option. No riots happened.

No, the reason we don't use nuclear weapons is because once we start, everyone else does. As masher said above, MAD keeps nuclear weapons in check. And as others point out, while this missile defense system is enough to stop a missile or two fired by a rogue government, it cannot stop an all out attack by Russia or the other true nuclear powers who have many ICBMs pointed at various targets around the globe.

But I'd rather be able to stop that rogue missile than not. And for the guy who said we won't feel itchy to press the button after the shield is in place, its already in place for the United States. We're covered. The installation here is to protect Europe.


RE: Enough is enough.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 11:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
The US government has the duty to protect its citizens. And to me its by any means necessary. I really could care less that the rest of the world is pissed off because we want to be able to protect ourselves from a ballistic missile attack. Regardless of whether there's a clearly identified threat. That's our governments job. Put American lives first (of course we're increasingly NOT doing that).

If other governments (Russia) don't like us having a missile shield and them not, they can build their own.

And no, we don't pledge not to use them. If the need ever did arise, we would. But our government knows the destructive power, the long term effects, and the political fallout and possible consequences of nuclear weapons. So even if no one else in the world was able to retaliate with them, no, we are not eagerly waiting to push that button just to show we can.

We have the most advanced conventional weapons in the world. That's why we made them. So nuclear weapons become a last resort. When nothing else will get the job done.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Kenenniah on 7/9/2008 2:52:59 AM , Rating: 2
What I have to wonder is whether the people complaining about this would also be the first to complain if we didn't have a defense shield the day we get hit with a missile.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Lexda on 7/8/2008 11:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
Hey. Can we try and tone down the anti-US sentiment here, just a little? Now, I'm a liberal American that hates Bush, and I'm not overly patriotic. But I hate it when people lump all Americans together, and say how much the US sucks based solely on it's current administration. I'd like to remind you that Bush lost the popular vote back in 2000, and it was only a Florida fluke that got him into office. And since the 2004 election, he has never had an approval rating of over 50%. Now, please stop lumping all Americans together with Bush.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Netscorer on 7/9/2008 1:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
I never said US people. If you took my comments as anti-american, I apologize.
I live in US and I know that we are, in majority, not stupid, fat, ignorant morons. But you have to also agree that no matter how Bush got into power the first time, he clearly won not once, but twice and it does reflect the general sentiment of the US population.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Grast on 7/9/2008 2:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
Are you agry because Bush won the election twice? I like to remind everyone that in 2000 he won every recount of the Florida votes. The only issue was the U.S. courts stating the recounts could stop. That in my opinion was the ONLY travisty. The US courts should have NO authority in regards to election issues. I do not want the courts to start challaging the validity of elections.

Also, are you angry with the U.S. because of being in the minority in regards to the general sentiments of the US.? Since it appears that most US citizens do not share your opinions, does that translate that all of these people are stupid, fat, and ignorant morons.

Just a question....


RE: Enough is enough.
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 2:42:17 AM , Rating: 2
The US had an actual monopoly and an effective monopoly of nuclear weapons for some time and never used them on the Soviet Union.
The claimed source of the threat is not terrorists it is North Korea and Iran, whether you think those are credible threats are up to you. And the fact is Iranian missiles can reach Europe now and Korean missiles can reach the west coast of the US.

The US is indeed the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons on civilian populations; however that was 63 years ago. How it has any relevance on actions today is beyond me.

Even if one accepts that the entire justification for the Iraq war was false, and I don’t, to say the US NEVERS shies away from starting a war under false pretenses is a bit overblown, don’t you think? Besides, the justification for the war is not an example of false pretenses. Nearly everyone who had an opinion- including the French, Germans, Russians, and the entire Clinton administration- believed Iraq had WMD. This belief was wrong but it hardly constitutes a deliberate misstating of facts seeking to mislead.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Netscorer on 7/9/2008 1:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US had an actual monopoly and an effective monopoly of nuclear weapons for some time and never used them on the Soviet Union.


The monopoly lasted less then 2 years thanks to the expeditious development of nuclear weapons in USSR. US had plans to invade Soviet Union and use nukes - this is not a secret. We should thank MAD for not escalating Cold War into full-blown WWIII.

quote:
The claimed source of the threat is not terrorists it is North Korea and Iran, whether you think those are credible threats are up to you. And the fact is Iranian missiles can reach Europe now and Korean missiles can reach the west coast of the US.


That is true, but if that was the only goal US should have agreed to use radar systems already deployed by Russia that sit right on top of Iran and North Korea and can intersect missiles in it's most vulnerable phase - right after launch. The fact is, US brushed off that idea just as they did not want the new shield to be developed in cooperation with Russia. The talk about allowing inspections is a joke. We all know that inspections can not prevent anything. Only joint ownership could assure Russia that new shield won't be used against them and US straight out rejected that idea.

quote:
The US is indeed the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons on civilian populations; however that was 63 years ago. How it has any relevance on actions today is beyond me.


Every action has it's ramifications and remains relevant for a long long time. Current mess in Iraq and Islamic Fundamentalism in Iran can be traced all the way back to British colonization and intervention by US in 60ies and again in 80ies. Al-Qaeda did not start on bare soil either. We can clearly trace the beginning of Islamic Taliban movement to USSR occupation of Afghanistan and at that time Talibans were funded and provided weaponry by US.

The simple fact remains. US government could choose to detonate nuclear weapons over military or industrial installations in Japan or, better yet do that on one of the remote japan-occupied islands and most probably, the effect would be the same. The decision was made to do it over purely civilian installations that had zero strategic importance and do it not once but twice in the span of several days, first over the Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. You can not deny that. And to say that this is irrelevant now is stupid, because it is relevant and beyond the end of WWII it directly led to the arms race and start of the Cold War.

quote:
Even if one accepts that the entire justification for the Iraq war was false, and I don’t, to say the US NEVER shies away from starting a war under false pretenses is a bit overblown, don’t you think?


I know, I know - NEVER SAY NEVER and all that junk. But what is your point?

quote:
Besides, the justification for the war is not an example of false pretenses. Nearly everyone who had an opinion- including the French, Germans, Russians, and the entire Clinton administration- believed Iraq had WMD.


First, France, Germany, Russia and China did not had any independent confirmation of Iraq possessing WMD at the time of the invasion. US made flashy presentation in UN (for which Colin Powell later personally apologized and said it was the biggest single mistake of his life) and then decided UNILATERALLY (i.e. without approval of the UN council) to start the invasion. The coalition of the willing was a joke since it was led by US and UK alone - every other country was directly bullied into sending their troops by the US government. In case of many smaller countries it was fully funded by US government too.

quote:
This belief was wrong but it hardly constitutes a deliberate misstating of facts seeking to mislead.


This is where you and I (and many other people) disagree. I, for once, do not think that Bush administration was so naive that after no (and I mean ZERO, ZILCH, NOTHING) WMD were discovered, they just said - oops, we screwed up. Some individuals (like above mentioned Powell) were misled into believing that this was the motive for war. But the true motive was far from that. What it was exactly we can only guess but to say that Iraq possessed technology to reach and harm US soil (as was suggested by Bush administration) was laughable from the beginning.


RE: Enough is enough.
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 3:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every action has it's ramifications and remains relevant for a long long time.

This is true, however it has nothing to do with whether the US is going to use nuclear weapons anytime soon.

quote:
First, France, Germany, Russia and China did not had any independent confirmation of Iraq possessing WMD at the time of the invasion.


I am not sure what you are trying to say here, however all the above countries made public statements to the effect that Iraq had WMD.

quote:
I, for once, do not think that Bush administration was so naive that after no (and I mean ZERO, ZILCH, NOTHING) WMD were discovered, they just said - oops, we screwed up. Some individuals (like above mentioned Powell) were misled into believing that this was the motive for war


I am guessing here that you are implying Bush knew before the war that there were no WMD. If this was the case why didn't they just plant some? One fact that is often forgotten is that Bush gave Saddam the opportunity to leave the country and avoid confrontation. This was certainly not the action of an administration that NEEDED to invade Iraq.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Netscorer on 7/9/2008 5:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: Every action has it's ramifications and remains relevant for a long long time.

This is true, however it has nothing to do with whether the US is going to use nuclear weapons anytime soon.


Did you read my argument to the end or just cut first sentence and pretended I never expanded on it?

quote:
quote: First, France, Germany, Russia and China did not had any independent confirmation of Iraq possessing WMD at the time of the invasion.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, however all the above countries made public statements to the effect that Iraq had WMD.


Not true. Russia said that they had no evidence that Iraq had reinstated it's WMD program, so did France. Germany remained silent for the most part since they did not have much intelligence on Iraq to begin with. All these countries (plus China) were insisting on continuing inspections program and expanding it if US was so worried over the 'imminent' threat as they were claiming. Who is feeding whom propaganda here is a big question.

quote:
quote: I, for once, do not think that Bush administration was so naive that after no (and I mean ZERO, ZILCH, NOTHING) WMD were discovered, they just said - oops, we screwed up. Some individuals (like above mentioned Powell) were misled into believing that this was the motive for war

I am guessing here that you are implying Bush knew before the war that there were no WMD. If this was the case why didn't they just plant some? One fact that is often forgotten is that Bush gave Saddam the opportunity to leave the country and avoid confrontation. This was certainly not the action of an administration that NEEDED to invade Iraq.


Again, you misunderstand my point. I am not implying that Bush knew there were no WMD. Chaney as well as Rumsfield probably did but that's beyond the point. The point was that WMD was just a pretense, nothing more to invade Iraq. US at the time had much more serious problems to deal with (like Afghanistan and Al Qaeda), yet they chose Iraq as their target. I don't know the single reason the war drums started in the fall of 2002. Probably there were several real reasons. Hawks in the Bush administration wanted to reinstate US military dominance and show a lesson to other 'rogue' countries. Bush wanted to revenge his farther's failure as well as to put his name in the history. Oil played huge part as well, I'm sure. Internally, war was supposed to feed atmosphere of fear. Whatever the real reason, only WMD was pushed over the propaganda channels we also sometime refer to as CNN and FOX around here and anyone who was questioning it was immedeatly labeled traitor. Another piece of propaganda was that the war was supposed to be quick and painless. I liked it very much as the talks about how quickly the war would end started long before the supposed decision to go into it was made. Bush, Rice and Powell were still talking about last chances they were giving Saddam but no one believed for a second that war would be avoided.
We all know now how it played out.


RE: Enough is enough.
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 7:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you read my argument to the end or just cut first sentence and pretended I never expanded on it?


I read your entire post; I still see no reason why whether the United States is the only country that has used nuclear weapons against civilian populations is relevant to a missile defense shield.

quote:
Not true. Russia said that they had no evidence that Iraq had reinstated it's WMD program, so did France.


Wrong.
French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin on the same day Powell addressed the United Nations
quote:
What was he talking about? "First, "Regarding the chemical area, we have indications about a capacity to produce VX and mustard gas." Second, "In the biological area, our evidence suggests -- the evidence suggests that there are significant stocks -- there is the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxins and the possible -- possibly a production capacity today." Finally, Iraq at present had no long-range missiles, "but we have disturbing indications about the continued determination of Iraq to acquire ballistic missiles with a range exceeding the authorized range of 150 kilometers."


You can find similar quotes from foereign and prime ministers of other major powers. No one had confirmation, since the only way to have confirmation is to actually find weapons. However. there was little disagreement on whether Iraq had WMD. There was a disagreement on how to handle it. Russia, China, and France saw little need in more than continued and perhaps expanded inspections; the United States obviously did not agree. It is unlikely that the sanction/inspection regime would have lasted much longer, it was already leaking like a sieve the summer before the invasion.There had been no inspections for between 1998-2002
plenty of time to achieve mischief if that was Iraq's aim.

quote:
Bush, Rice and Powell were still talking about last chances they were giving Saddam but no one believed for a second that war would be avoided.


So it is your view if Saddam had hopped on a plane to the Riveria the war would have still went on?


RE: Enough is enough.
By Ringold on 7/9/2008 3:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact is, US brushed off that idea just as they did not want the new shield to be developed in cooperation with Russia.


Reporters were allowed a tightly controlled tour a couple years back of the Soviet-era radar facility that would be able to partially cover Iran. It was in almost every way a near-useless Cold War relic, and to be up to spec with modern technology would really need to be completely rebuilt. Reporters were amused that the place even still functioned. If I'm not mistaken, it was oriented wrong (and it wasn't a movable facility), and thus couldn't really cover all of Iran.

It was a dishonest offer by Russia, but it worked, as you now trumpet what their propaganda machine hoped for; the idea that they have made good-faith offers and the evil Bush administration slapped them aside.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Netscorer on 7/9/2008 4:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
I really like how some posters here use word propaganda. It is always implied that here in US we have news while anywhere else they have propaganda. To even think for a second that what news channels in US are feeding us is also nothing more then propaganda is considered ridiculous, while any counterargument is brushed off.
In any case, you take part of my argument and ridicule it without even knowing any details around it. Russians NEVER said that the facilities they were proposing would be used 'as is'. All they were saying is that they have bases that are strategically located in the best position to intercept Iranian missiles and that they were ready to allow US jointly use these facilities. Joint ownership was always a key in Russia accepting US plan for the Europe missile shield. Let me ask you what is wrong with that proposal? If US truly does not intend to use the shield against Russia, as they claim, what would they lose by integrating it with Russian defense system?
The answer is US still views Russia as enemy and this dictates all the subsequent decisions. After that to accuse Russia as not being friendly and trying to prevent US dominance sounds a bit hollow, don't you think?


RE: Enough is enough.
By Jim28 on 7/9/2008 8:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
All countries have news and propaganda, accusing the US of being the only one is blind. Our "propaganda" tends to be much more truthful as you don't get killed for reporting something the government doesn't like. Try that in most other countries and see what happens.


RE: Enough is enough.
By Ringold on 7/9/2008 8:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is always implied that here in US we have news while anywhere else they have propaganda.


Oh no, we've got propaganda! We call it CNN and Fox. They have things they want you to think as well.

I merely pointed out some Russian propaganda.

quote:
Russians NEVER said that the facilities they were proposing would be used 'as is'.


They are garbage, and would as you admit have to be essentially completely rebuilt. A little Googling revealed that the Gabala station doesn't have the best location for watching Iran, but also that it isn't capable of watching Russia. So it has to be rebuilt, and isn't optimally placed. Why bother?

quote:
If US truly does not intend to use the shield against Russia, as they claim, what would they lose by integrating it with Russian defense system?


Broaden your perspective beyond merely the US-Russia relationship. We are at the head of the NATO alliance, and Eastern Europe includes many NATO member countries that were not all that long ago Soviet satellites. Russia has lately, if you bothered to keep up with European news, extremely aggressive with its neighbors, particularly but not limited to energy supplies. Heaven forbid I think respecting the views of military allies is not a bad thing to do from time to time, and see Russian aggression as suspicious and, at the very least, not deserving of a big hug.

While you continue to run defense for Russia, this just skirts the underlying truth; Russia has nothing to fear from the system. They could deliver a nuke to the Czech installation via conventional means (like a cruise missile or a bomber), and then proceed to overwhelm Europe with IRBM's or whatever it wanted.

All that said, I actually do wish the US and Russia could get along better. We have similar interests moving forward in this century -- namely, keeping up with China. Maybe a different president could get along with him better, but Putin has in the last couple years been far more interested in saber rattling, empowered by booming energy prices.


RE: Enough is enough.
By foxtrot9 on 7/10/2008 12:40:30 PM , Rating: 1
I love how people all over are so naive - always pointing out how dumb bush and crew are about foreign and no one ever points out that there hasn't been a single, not one, terrorist attack on the US since 911 and it became a serious issue. You may not like them and maybe they've screwed some other stuff up, but this administration has done an excellent job keeping us safe - which happens to be the #1 role of the president


Sorry for not joining in on the warmongering
By sh3rules on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
By grenableu on 7/8/2008 11:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but a missile shield in a former Soviet country doesn’t help build better relations.
Only if Russia is planning on using missiles against that former Soviet country. If it isn't, then that system will have no effect at all.


RE: Sorry for not joining in on the warmongering
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 2:11:08 AM , Rating: 3
The missile 'shield' is next to useless in stopping the Russians if they really decided to nuke Europe. At this time, and for the near to mid future, the technology is neither mature enough nor the deployment robust enough to have the slightest chance of knocking down enough missiles to matter.


By onelittleindian on 7/9/2008 2:34:40 AM , Rating: 2
If that was true, why is Russia so upset by it?


By martinrichards23 on 7/9/2008 3:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
Mutual assured destruction. Look it up.


RE: Sorry for not joining in on the warmongering
By JustTom on 7/9/2008 4:18:45 AM , Rating: 4
There are several possible motives for Russian displeasure:
They could be upset because the radar is being installed in a former Soviet satellite.
The fact that they are not capable at this time of producing such a system could be seen as a loss of face.
Effectively neutralizing the threat of Iranian missile attacks on Europe removes leverage they have since they are a major economic and political backer of Iran.
They could still be smarting over the dissolution of the Soviet Union. There is ample evidence that SDI played a role in the breakup. There self perceived inability to compete with America on the technological and economic fronts hastened their demise.
Since Russia wishes to been as a counter-balance to American hegemony anything America does in the international sphere will be opposed by Russia.

There are probably dozens of other reasons but it is late here and I am unable to think any further. But none of them are actual fear that these installations obsolete Russia’s nuclear forces. Even Russia leaders have been quoted saying this. Beyond merely overwhelming a system not designed to stop thousands of targets the new SS-27 is supposedly immune to any missile defense currently employed. And since the Russian’s have 54 of these and each is MIRV capable and mobile this is a rather credible deterrent in and of itself. And that does not even include nuclear armed sub launched cruise missiles that are extremely difficult to destroy.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 9:57:11 AM , Rating: 2
> "Effectively neutralizing the threat of Iranian missile attacks on Europe removes leverage they have since they are a major economic and political backer of Iran"

Iran just test-launched 9 medium and long-range ballistic missiles today. After the launch, the government stated, and I quote, "our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch"


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 11:21:41 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, with a statement like that its a wonder people actually question the necessity of having missile defense shields in place.


RE: Sorry for not joining in on the warmongering
By Obsoleet on 7/9/2008 12:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
Worried?

Then get your boots on if you're so concerned! Hurry the military needs you now for the invasion they're planning.

If you believe in that tripe so much, then I don't know why you cheer from the sidelines as others die to keep you safe.


By Jim28 on 7/9/2008 10:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
You sure do say that alot.

What gives you the right to say it at all? Have you served? Have you been shot at? Or are you another one of those "cowards" you keep talking about, using the Internet's anonymity to spout your useless opinion. I would bet the latter.
If you hate being an American then leave as we won't miss you. Food for thought, If you think Americans are the only people that are "nationalists", I guess you have never been to Europe and met anyone?


By rippleyaliens on 7/9/2008 10:30:34 AM , Rating: 1
Russia is just like Joey, your neighbor.
IF you and your neighbor are on "ok" speaking terms. have been some minor spats in the life of the family, but aggreable. you both have knives, and push to serv. boom, you are technically even. After 40+ years of a "cold war", you and your neighbor dont fight, but your kids argue alot.. <-- cold war..

Now all of a sudden your neighbor has a brand new shiny Desert Eagle 44 mag. Well his 44 trumps your blade. What do you do. 1- you get pissed off, 2- envy 3- more so the balance of power has shifted. no matter how good you are with your knife, your neighbor has the range, and power on their side.

Now all of a sudden you go out to walmarts, and buy yourself a 30-06 rifle with a score. The balance of power switches to your side. Neighbor gets pissed, envy sets in, power is on your side.

NOW all of a sudden your neighbor gets high tech, gets a new type body armor, that just stops your 30-06 rifle cold in the track. If you had 30 rifles, than yah, a shot could get in, but with just 1 rifle, it appears, taht the weapon you have - which yesturday, was a peacemaker.. is now somewhat worthless.. you are steaming upset. Your unspoken treaty on peace.. is just talk now. Your neighbor could , IF THEY WANTED.. take shots at you allllll day, and the only thing you could do is complain about it. the moment you take 1 shot at the neighbor, and his armor defeats your weapon.. you are screwed.

The Russians, Chinese, India, Pakistan, IRAN IRAQ.. are the same way. The United states, is not even 300 years old (technically).. The United States, is considered a baby country, yet is leading the pack in the bulk of any type of advancements.

Missile defense is just the new type of rock. We have it, and they dont. They are pissed that we have it, but they dont. Russia, China will attempt to develop it themselves. and probably make it better, but by that time, it will be something else..

Rollercoaseter ride gents.. Strap in, and hold on


By MrBlastman on 7/9/2008 9:43:17 AM , Rating: 2
The cold war is alive and well my friend.

This is why. First one country, then the next. Pretty soon all of Europe will be covered by missile defense units, including those countries which broke off from the USSR when it disbanded.

In the eyes of a Stalin-esque patriot such as Putin (he was KGB remember? He even brought it back after it was disbanded), these stand as brick walls towards the possible re-unification of the USSR at a later time. He's done great things for their economy, I know many Russians who support him personally. He does though, exert a great amount of control in their Government and certainly does not like the United States nor what has happened to his own nation in the last 15 years.

Weather they are effective or not, it is a symbolic gesture by the United States which greatly offends Putin's future plans. It gives these ex-USSR nations hope to remain independent.

Not good in his eyes. He'd rather let them starve and come groveling back under the umbrella of the Motherland.

Our missle defense shield in reality poses not a "physical" threat to Russia at all, but instead a diplomatic, political and intangible one. Great things (not always so good) have been accomplished with a little propaganda and some hope.


RE: Sorry for not joining in on the warmongering
By islseur on 7/9/2008 4:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our missle defense shield in reality poses not a "physical" threat to Russia at all, but instead a diplomatic, political and intangible one. Great things (not always so good) have been accomplished with a little propaganda and some hope.

It's not correct. The missiles the US planning(ed?) to deploy in Poland are multi-purpose, hypersonic, capable of delivering up to 10 nuclear warheads and be above Moscow in 5 minutes. If that is not poses a "physical" threat than what is?

This is no joke. These kind of weapons in the hands of Neocons, together with a nuclear preemptive strike doctrine and them going crazy thinking that because of all the advancements and advantages they can go for a first strike against a nuclear power like Russia and suppress the retaliation is a very alarming and dangerous.

Please take a look at "PNAC" (Project for a new American century) document called Rebuilding American defenses.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/Rebui...

Just look at what is written there and you will see that I tell you the policy of the new USA. Signed on that document are a lot of neocons that serve in positions of power in Bush administration today.

In September 2000, the PNAC updated and refined Cheney's original version into a new report entitled: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century" calling for unprecedented hikes in military spending, American military bases in Central Asia and Middle East, toppling of non-complying regimes, abrogation of international treaties, control of the world's energy sources, militarization of outer space, total control of cyberspace, and the willingness to use nuclear weapons to achieve "American" goals.

This is NO joke on page 51 in September 2000 they wrote:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

A year later just by a "chance" arrived the event that changed American policy and all this to mobilize US to war to achieve all those goals.

Today after 7 years thanks to the whistle blowers, brave souls that put their life on the line, we know that the tragic events of September 11, 2001 are the work of the Bush administration. How sad but if the US government can kill it's "own" citizens, it can start a nuclear war, no brains needed for that, only cruelty and evilness.. I'm sure is not lacking.

I salute to all those brave Americans and especially the 9/11 Truth activists that stood up to tyranny and opened the eyes of so many.


RE: Sorry for not joining in on the warmongering
By Rugar on 7/9/2008 5:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh.... I don't even know where to start with a truther and normally, I just ignore them like I ignore kids belonging to someone else picking their noses. But you said something that I just have to ask you to clarify.

quote:
Today after 7 years thanks to the whistle blowers, brave souls that put their life on the line, we know that the tragic events of September 11, 2001 are the work of the Bush administration.


Please provide us details of these whistle blowers and their proof. Before you begin, please do not include anything which has previously been debunked such as steel not melting in the fire, mysterious landings of planes where dozens of people were debarked and disappeared from the face of the earth, etc. Please provide us with verifiable facts only.

As an aside, since I normally avoid talking to truthers I haven't been able to ask this. Can you help me understand how this shadow government which was able to orchestrate an attack which involved hundreds of individuals in the coverup managed to allow their "blueprint for world domination" to be released to the press? Not just leaked, but published openly on their webpage for anyone to find?


By islseur on 7/10/2008 11:31:49 AM , Rating: 2
Hello Rugar,

Answering your first question, please check this website:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

This is for real. A lot of those top officials, engineers, pilots, professors, military generals, etc. are in video, radio, personal meetings say straight what they think. It's hard to dismiss credible people without even checking what they say.

quote:
Please provide us with verifiable facts only.

I will provide you with one fact, that I hope is enough to start you going. You can find hundreds of major inconsistencies by following the links on the above website.

Here is one testimony from patriotsquestion911.com website:
=======
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.

* Video 7/11/06: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
http://www.undersiegemovie.com/media/stubblebine.w...

* Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.

* Bio: http://www.canadiansub.com/Board.html
=======

And indeed when you check the image of the impact zone in the pentagon that the media has taken before the collapse of the outer wall.
Pictures:
https://en.xiandos.info/American_Airlines_Flight_7...

You actually can count by the windows the size of the hole in the wall and it's approximately 5 meters wide.

Boeing 757 wing span is 38.05m (124ft 10in), length 47.32m (155ft 3in), height 13.56m (44ft 6in).
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?...

By simple logic, the size of the hole in the building should be the same size as the hole in the twin towers were.

Moreover: {I hope you are still with me :-) } the fact is there are no Boeing 757 debris in the pictures that can be clearly seen. The official version states that because of the intense heat the plane has vaporized.

But.. you can clearly see on this photo:
http://investigate911.bravehost.com/536173.347821-...
On the second floor you can clearly see an unburned book on a chair. How so?

This is just mind boggling. At least for me. Some one is lying. And I bet it's not the picture.

So Rugar, after I kindly answered your question. Do you still think the official version of the events is the most probable one?

Answering your second question. Do you often read declassified documents on government websites in your free time? Exactly.

99% of people don't read those documents. It's as if they don't exist. People today live in the world of Hollywood and television and uncritically believe everything they are told on a TV. They simply too tired or don't have the time or desire after hard day of work to do reading of irrelevant information to their every day survival life.

The few that know the truth dismissed as lunatics and crazy. The public is controlled through stereotypes. They put everything in your face and laugh how dumb the public is. They believe that the best way of hiding some stuff is to put it in just plain sight, and indeed that works. People logic seem to work this way... "If it were true than they would not post it openly..so it's probably false" This is a simple trick in reversed psychology.

I hope I helped you see some stuff from a different perspective.

Have a pleasant day.


RE: Sorry for not joining in on the warmongering
By Jim28 on 7/9/2008 8:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
All I can say is WOW!

If you really believe all of that, God help you.


By islseur on 7/10/2008 11:37:36 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks! I hope God will help you too. :-)


America does it again
By Basekid on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: America does it again
By onelittleindian on 7/9/2008 2:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
What kind of sick freak considers nuclear missiles fine, but a system that can do nothing but stop them a "screw up"?


RE: America does it again
By DarkElfa on 7/9/2008 8:37:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'd hate to see this start a war between us and Russia though.


RE: America does it again
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 9:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
Russia's economy is still in shambles, and their military is still cold war era. They won't go to war with the U.S., it would set them back many many years. They will prefer to try to modernize their military and reorganize it into one that once again has the ability to project power over seas. The russian military isn't stupid.


RE: America does it again
By Obsoleet on 7/9/2008 12:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
Set them back many years?

You must not know much about the current state of our military. We couldn't fight Russia and maintain our "peace keeping" missions in the middle east.

We'd be defeated by Russia today, without pulling out of the mideast or using nukes.

Well we could defeat them, but only if those with bravado about "keeping the peace" like yourself would go get out there and fight! Oh wait, you prefer the computer chair and a keyboard..


RE: America does it again
By ttowntom on 7/9/2008 2:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but only if those with bravado about "keeping the peace" like yourself would go get out there and fight! Oh wait, you prefer the computer chair and a keyboard..
Well I'm on active duty right now and am currently at a base that wil be protected by these new interceptors.

Meanwhile, you're living in your mother's basement badmouthing those of us who protect your right to be an immature idiot.


RE: America does it again
By VashHT on 7/11/2008 1:04:25 AM , Rating: 2
There is no war threatening freedom of speech. No one is protecting his right to speak right now, not you or anyone else.



RE: America does it again
By Jim28 on 7/9/2008 8:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it depends on the fight. The Russians would have to walk to Europe as they could not get there any other way with enough numbers to defeat anyone. That would give us a long time to deal with them. On the sea or in the air they are toast. We could not invade and pacify Russia but nobody in history has accomplished that. (Germany and France, how many armies has the russian countryside eaten?)
In any case our economies are much more entertwined and going to war with one another would hurt both countries economically.


RE: America does it again
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2008 9:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
People think of "war" as ground forces fighting it out. The reality is that all the U.S. or NATO would need to do (Remember NATO was set up to make sure the Russians/USSR do not attack Europe again and succeed) is bomb their ground forces and supply lines. It's not like Russia has great logistics capability. Russia is just sabre rattling like always.


RE: America does it again
By Jim28 on 7/9/2008 9:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
exactly my point. They can't go anywhere to attack anyone without walking as their logistical system stinks.


This is not American
By jmunjr on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is not American
By onelittleindian on 7/9/2008 2:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment is disgusting. Like setting up a tracking radar gives terrorists the right to kill a few thousand innocent people. Go wash your mouth out with soap and sit in a corner.


RE: This is not American
By jmunjr on 7/10/2008 2:31:37 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say it gives them the right, but you're kidding yourself if you think our presence all over the world doesn't piss of the people over there. So tell me why do you think 9/11 happened? It is ONLY because of our presence and influence in the Middle East and nothing else. Knowing(and accepting) what motivated the terrorists on 9/11 is vastly more important than anything else.

Our country was fundamentally created with the idea to NOT to stick our noses in other nation's business, yet that is all we have done for the past 60 years.

My position may be unpopular with some but sometimes the truth is difficult to accept.


RE: This is not American
By islseur on 7/10/2008 12:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So tell me why do you think 9/11 happened? It is ONLY because of our presence and influence in the Middle East and nothing else. Knowing(and accepting) what motivated the terrorists on 9/11 is vastly more important than anything else.

You're welcomed to read my posts about 9/11 above. But I warn you!
My position may be unpopular with some but sometimes the truth is difficult to accept.
d:-)


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki