It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gorbachev: U.S. Missile defense shield in Central Europe to target Russia, not Iran!

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) - Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said Wednesday that he viewed a U.S. plan to deploy a missile defense shield in Central Europe as targeting Russia, not Iran.

The United States wants to place a radar station in the Czech Republic and intercepter missiles in Poland, saying the components would defend European allies against a possible Iranian strike.

Gorbachev, 76, whose policies of glasnost and perestroika - openness and restructuring - helped end communism in the Soviet Union and its satellites, criticized the high level of military spending by the United States.

"Does America intend to fight the rest of the world, does America need to build a new empire? They will not succeed," Gorbachev said at the close of a meeting of the World Political Forum, a group he founded in 2003 that includes many former high-ranking politicians.

Gorbachev, who won the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize, said negotiations with Iran needed to continue with the involvement of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, to ensure Iran did not produce nuclear weapons.

Gorbachev said he hoped the United States would not attack Iran during the remainder of the term of U.S. President George W. Bush.

"There still one year that President Bush has on his hands. Let's hope that he will not take the risk... of military action against Iran," Gorbachev said, adding that such an attack "at the very least" could provoke increased terrorist attacks, an energy crisis and "even result in a big war."

Asked about Russian President Vladimir Putin, Gorbachev said that, while he initially had doubts about Putin being able to lead Russia, he now supported him.

"Putin is a very capable person, a wise person, a man of strong character, of few words but with good management skills," Gorbachev said. "Now he is more than just a manager, he has become a credible political leader."

Gorbachev added that he supported the Russian president because Putin's policies were consistent with his own social-democratic positions,

"Putin is pursuing policies that benefit the majority of the Russian people," Gorbachev said.

mnweekly.ru...



with increasing american imperialsim , now even Gorbachev sees USA as a imperialist war mongering empire(well , it always was)..

Gorbachev


[edit on 3-1-2008 by manson_322]




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I would discard whatever this sorry excuse of a politician is saying as garbage. His credibility meter is stuck at zero mark as far as I am concerned. He couldn't manage his own political affairs and now he presumes to lecture on somebody else's. Sheesh.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I would discard whatever this sorry excuse of a politician is saying as garbage. His credibility meter is stuck at zero mark as far as I am concerned. He couldn't manage his own political affairs and now he presumes to lecture on somebody else's. Sheesh.



LIKE Mr. Bush who attacks any nation????

his credibility is far more than Bush or Reagan , he was a peacenik



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I would discard whatever this sorry excuse of a politician is saying as garbage. His credibility meter is stuck at zero mark as far as I am concerned. He couldn't manage his own political affairs and now he presumes to lecture on somebody else's. Sheesh.


LIKE Mr. Bush who attacks any nation????


I have my own share of dislike of Mr.Bush but George pales in comparison to Gorby when it comes to incompetent politics. For gossake, Gorby was surrounded by the coup plotters and he had no clue. That's some politician for you, and a choice of cadre.



his credibility is far more than Bush or Reagan , he was a peacenik


From where I sit, I see that the country named the United States is still around, and the one that this "peacenik" bastard was trying to manage is long gone.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Gorbachev may have been incompetent and today reduced to a political demagogue making small speeches, but he is right about this. And since he is not exactly pro-Putin, these sentiments show that it is not just Putin's party who have such stance against the missile shield. All political parties in Russia have spoken out against U.S. action.


U.S. wants a Cold War. This is the only explanation I can come up with for its actions in Eastern Europe and South of Russia. U.S. knew perfectly well that a new missile shield in Eastern Europe will stimulate the creation of new ICBM's and nuclear technology in Russia. It also knew that such actions will push Russia to help such countries like Iran and Syria to develop their weapons. There is no way the U.S. did not predict what is happening, because a kindergardener could have predicted it.

And Putin is all too happy to play along, and use this to further his own agenda. Through its actions the U.S. is strengthening Putin, because it gives Russian people reasons to fear (realistic or not), and they are content with increasing centralization of power by Putin.



One of the leaders of opposition to Putin recently stated that Russia's row with U.S. and U.K. benefits Putin more than anyone else, and that U.S. knows about this and wants this. But what is there for the U.S. to gain from the missile shield in Eastern Europe. If it is as incompetent and ineffective as many here claim, than why is it placed there? There has to be more to this missile shield than both sides claim. Why is the U.S. willing to risk confrontation with Russia for an incompetent ABM system? And why does the U.S. want Putin stronger?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Wait, wait, wait. Everyone please put down your nationalism, emotional political opinions and prejudices for a moment.

Let just say that you have a missile defense system for your house and you have these two neighbors:

  • One has lately been cursing at you and generally acting like an arse and has a single missile.
  • One has had problems with you in the past but has been silent for years and has one thousand missiles.

Who do you point your defense system at?

Jon



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 


There is no clean-cut way to demonstrate that the system in question is specifically design to intercept Russian missiles or specifically designed to intercept Iranian missiles. It can probably do both to a degree.


[edit on 3-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Or alternatively the missile shield may serve no interception/defense purpose whatsoever. Given its numerous failures during testing and overall incompetence in intercepting more complicated Russian ballistic missiles, in its current state it doesn't really protect anyone from Russia. And given the fact that Iran yet has no missiles and no nuclear weapons, the ABM cannot possibly be designed to protect from Iran. And yet its placement in Eastern Europe appears to be a very urgent priority for the U.S. - when Iran is years away from an ICBM, if it even pursues a development of ICBMs of which not everyone is convinced.

The ABM may be nothing more than the first step in installing U.S. military bases in Eastern Europe. Nobody really needs this ABM, as it serves no realistic protection purpose. But the U.S. needs the full cooperation of Polish and Czech governments if it is to continue to expand its military into Eastern Europe. And why does it want to do that? Surely not for the War On Terror, or for Iran or Syria.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
Or alternatively the missile shield may serve no interception/defense purpose whatsoever. Given its numerous failures during testing and overall incompetence in intercepting more complicated Russian ballistic missiles, in its current state it doesn't really protect anyone from Russia. And given the fact that Iran yet has no missiles and no nuclear weapons, the ABM cannot possibly be designed to protect from Iran. And yet its placement in Eastern Europe appears to be a very urgent priority for the U.S. - when Iran is years away from an ICBM, if it even pursues a development of ICBMs of which not everyone is convinced.


You cannot deploy, debug and fine tune a system like this overnight. That fact that Iran is years away from a working missile only buys you so much time; it's best to start now.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
If the true purpose of the ABM is to protect from Iran, than why did the U.S. go through so much trouble to place it specifically in Poland and Czech Republic? Why not Germany, or Greece, or Israel, or Iraq - where there would not be such a scandalous affair and the protests from local population and from Russia? It could also be done much quicker, and be less publicized.

And why does everyone keep thinking that the first thing Iran will do when it gets an ICBM is launch it at U.S., theby sealing its fate immediately? If it has any intention to launch a would be ICBM it at anyone, it would probably be Israel - but even that is utterly absurd, as this would lead to a nuclear exchange that Iran cannot possibly desire given Israel's lead in the game. Iran is not ruled by degenrate monkeys, despite what some Americans think. They may be throwing feces around, but that is all they are capable of doing.

it seems to me that the only reason why Iran would (or anyone else for that matter) launch a first nuclear strike, is if they were attacked by conventional means. And even then there is no predicting what Iran would do or how the missile would be launched, or if it would be capable of even reaching the U.S. Even the most advanced Russian ICBMs would be under strain to conduct a precise strike of a target in the U.S. being launched from half the world away in Iran. Keep in mind that most land-based Russian nukes are far closer to the U.S. than Iran is, and even their precision is in doubt. Do you really think Iran is capable of developing an ICBM capable of hitting the U.S. in the next decade or even two? Israel maybe, but Polish ABM would not be able to intecept that.


One would be really strained to see how the ABM in question is meant to offer protection against Iran. Iran might be close to developing a nuclear weapon, if that is what it is doing, but there is no indication of any progress in developing ICBMs.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
If the true purpose of the ABM is to protect from Iran, than why did the U.S. go through so much trouble to place it specifically in Poland and Czech Republic? Why not Germany, or Greece, or Israel, or Iraq


Sheesh. Poland and Czech are a lot more willing to whore themselves to the US to buy the badly needed leverage in the EU. Germany? There might be opposition. Israel would become even more of a hate magnet in the Middle East. Turkey probably won't want these in the firstplace. Iraq... You really must be kidding.


And why does everyone keep thinking that the first thing Iran will do when it gets an ICBM is launch it at U.S.


Nobody's thinking that. Take it easy, you seem to be a little jumpy.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I would discard whatever this sorry excuse of a politician is saying as garbage. His credibility meter is stuck at zero mark as far as I am concerned. He couldn't manage his own political affairs and now he presumes to lecture on somebody else's. Sheesh.



So, I have now discarded you becuase that is only your opinion and I disagree.
Gorbachev did a lot for the world in my opinion. Remember Glasnost?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
This is just so silly, I can not stand it.

PLEASE someone, anyone explain how 10-20 missiles (shot in pairs) could have any real impact on Russian missiles.

Russia has a wee bit more than 10 missiles............................

I believe they have 5-10 thousand nuclear ground based missiles, plus ship, plan and sub.

No one with 2 functioning brain cells can see that as a threat.

What, IMO, this is about is Russia's buddies Iran and Syria. You see, this system "MAY" be able to pick up missiles from Iran and Syria and shoot them down-like on their way to Israel?????

This "MAY" also provide "theater" protection of US/Allies troops.


[edit on 1/3/2008 by mrmonsoon]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AotearoaSon
Gorbachev did a lot for the world in my opinion. Remember Glasnost?


I do remember glasnost, and I also remember how this monkey wasn't even a good speaker and completely incapable of understanding what was going on in the country. Some of his comments were as weird as the GWB's. If you think he "did a lot for the world" you must be really naive. He brought down the Soviet Union because of his inability to govern, but if this made the world a better place is not an entirely obvious matter.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem



I do remember glasnost, and I also remember how this monkey wasn't even a good speaker and completely incapable of understanding what was going on in the country. Some of his comments were as weird as the GWB's. If you think he "did a lot for the world" you must be really naive.


This 'monkey' was a better person than you or I. At least he tried to do something positive. You, sirrah, just seem to attract negativity: Monkey indeed



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


The reason for the location of the ABM radar sites and launchers has to do with A- early warning B- which phase of launch that the interception occurs. It is easier to intercept a missile in the boost phase, so the closer your can position the site to the origin of launch, the greater the likelihood of success. Putting a site in Germany or elsewhere in Western Europe wouldn't be nearly as effective, as it'd be trying to intercept in the terminal phase, which is more problematic(and even in if successful, their is risk of debris falling on friendly territory).



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AotearoaSon
This 'monkey' was a better person than you or I. At least he tried to do something positive. You, sirrah, just seem to attract negativity: Monkey indeed


When you are entrusted with the fate of 250 million people who populate the largest territory on the planet, you better be prepared to do better than "try". My "negativity", they way you put it, is just a reflection of that hard fact. Sometimes, truth hurts.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AotearoaSon
 


So you're giving credit to him for a positive thing having occurred due to his ineptitude? The person you should thank is Ronald Reagan for putting him in the position where he had to implement Glasnost, etc...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Then why not place them in Turkey, or as Russia offered - in Azerbaijan. They are much closer to both Iran and Syria. Also east part of Germany would be just as effective, since it is right on the border with Poland and Czech Republic.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by maloy]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
Then why not place them in Turkey, or as Russia offered - in Azerbaijan. They are much closer to both Iran and Syria.


You've got to be kidding. Why entrust Russia with something as important as this? They are in cahouts with Siria and Iran, and can disable or otherwise sabotage the system if they find it expedient. No Sir, thanks but no thanks. Azerbaijan is not a reliable platform either.

I think Poland ans Czech will do just fine




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join