Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence

Originally posted by ironfalcon
This has only served to embolden the Russkies and make them determined to take Eastern Europe by force.

This is the most outlandish proposition I've seen on ATS in a very, very long time...

Good news, well done Obama!!!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by dizzie56

 

What on Earth does the missile shield have to do with Ossetia? Or Ukraine? Do you honestly believe that tensions of any sort that may exist have the potential to escalate to an all-out strategic missile exchange? Sheesh...

The only way I can interpret your statement is that you are saying that stated purposes of the shield (Iran etc) were actually a sham and the real target was Russia. Well then, in that case they have every right to be royally p!ssed off.

what i am saying is that since there is no missile defense shield in place, it is one less check in keeping russia out of the rest of europe. remember, war is always about only a few things. One of those things is about natural resources and Russia has been out to take back its lil sattelite spin-off countries for a long time. Yeah, they said the missile defence system was in place to shield Europe from North Korea and Iranian missile attacks, but come on, me or you could prolly piss farther than their missiles. Even if it really was for that, it still has the capability of keepin Russia and China in check. Having that missile defence system put in place helps to keep Russia from trying to attack Georgia again over energy, along with whatever other country might have something that they want.

The real reason for that war was about that power plant. Georgia played a stupid move in giving up almost 50% of their electricity to Russia for a couple of years imo, but thats why russia went after them in the first place. Now, if the allies of Georgia had that missile field in place, do you think that they would have been so quick to roll into town? Russia has every right to be pissed off, but they cant really do anything about it other than bitch. We made the deal with european countries that are soverign states in their own right as well. Are they not allowed to have an opinion to what goes in their countries or not? Or is the united states, russia, and china only allowed to make the policy of the world?

Originally posted by dizzie56
One of those things is about natural resources and Russia has been out to take back its lil sattelite spin-off countries for a long time.

What do natural resources have to do with missile defense?

Yeah, they said the missile defence system was in place to shield Europe from North Korea and Iranian missile attacks, but come on, me or you could prolly piss farther than their missiles. Even if it really was for that, it still has the capability of keepin Russia and China in check.

Russia had announced a plan (withdrawn today, actually) to place short range missiles along the Polish border. It's relatively easy to saturate the target (the radar site) with conventional missiles from short distance, or use other means to defeat it. The radars, therefore, would do as much as a dent on Russia's capability but only served as a powerful irritant, to no good purpose.

We made the deal with european countries that are soverign states in their own right as well. Are they not allowed to have an opinion to what goes in their countries or not? Or is the united states, russia, and china only allowed to make the policy of the world?

You seem to state it's the latter, actually, from the tone of your discourse.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

1) What do natural resources have to do with missile defense?

2) Russia had announced a plan (withdrawn today, actually) to place short range missiles along the Polish border. It's relatively easy to saturate the target (the radar site) with conventional missiles from short distance, or use other means to defeat it. The radars, therefore, would do as much as a dent on Russia's capability but only served as a powerful irritant, to no good purpose.

3) You seem to state it's the latter, actually, from the tone of your discourse.

1) Think of this. You are walking along the street and you see a rattlesnake. You see it coiling up and rattling its tail. Do you A) keep walking into it, or do you B) back up slowly and away? Correct answer would be A. The snake doesnt have to strike to be viewed at as a threat. Look at the topic of nuclear war itself. Only 2 bombs have actually been dropped in war but just having a bomb now a days is viewed at as just as equal a threat. Russia wants its old territory back and they have for years, mainly because they contain a high amount of natural resources. The missile defense shield is like the rattler on the snake, it keeps the russians at bay.

2) That is their natural response to us putting missles in eastern europe, put missles along the border. Same thing that happened in the Cold War. Each side bulked up their missles and pointed them at each other but nobody fired (thank God). Its like them picking up a shovel when they see the snake in order to defend themselves instead of doing the back up slowly manuver.

3) Im not actually saying that either side is right in any case. Personally, I think war is pretty good for only one thing, death. But, if we give our word to help defend allies (and we are asked to by them) i believe that we should stand by it. If putting the missile defense shield up (whether obsolite or not) helps to curb another war from happening and has people thinking twice about attacking, then im all for it.

Obama has just demonstrated how to turn your back on your allies on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. That sends a great message to Putin and his KGB comrades who are just waiting in the wings for another chance at becoming the mighty bear once again.

This is what a complete lack of foreign policy experience gets you in the White House. Obama and his team of maroons. Perhaps Obama will dispatch a team from ACORN to due his foreign policy work for him in the future.

Not to worry, we will soon have a system of portable missiles that can intervene if necessary.

Originally posted by dizzie56
Russia wants its old territory back and they have for years, mainly because they contain a high amount of natural resources.

Eastern Europe contains negligible amount of natural resources compared to what Russia has already. Russia also has more territory than it can meaningfully develop. A massive invasion of the continent has to be the very last thing on their to-do list.

it seems the usa that u love so much,sorry to say it but are kinda threatent if they put the shield,russia will put missiles in the city,russia ant afford the americans to have such a huge shield near theyr territoryes,europe is the battleground after all between russia and america.
and sorry guis but i think any kid knows the money saved from this will probably go into the private banks and mafia. i dont want to sound like a bastard but i think that way,ur welcome to prove me wrong ill be happy

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by dizzie56
Russia wants its old territory back and they have for years, mainly because they contain a high amount of natural resources.

Eastern Europe contains negligible amount of natural resources compared to what Russia has already. Russia also has more territory than it can meaningfully develop. A massive invasion of the continent has to be the very last thing on their to-do list.

Everybody knows that they want their territory back. You think Poland has nothing? Its like the bread belt of Europe. What about Russia's attempts to get back Chechnya? How about all those other countries that end in -stan that they used to control and would love to have back and make no qualms about telling people so? Its not only natural resources, its about money and control as well. Natural resources is just a good reason for most of the countries.

Originally posted by dizzie56
Everybody knows that they want their territory back.

I don't, and I don't think many Russians do either.

What about Russia's attempts to get back Chechnya?

There is a profound difference between a nationalist secessionist movement in one part of Russia proper, and a sovereign nation like Poland, don't you think?

And again, you missed the point that the US project was (and is, because the missile defense will still be implemented from mobile platforms, which people choose to ignore just to bash Obama) to serve the interest of non other than the United States. I don't give a flying toss about Poles any more than I care for Russian aspirations. Poles are doing just fine with their NATO membership already. Having bases on their land means having to depend on them.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

What about Russia's attempts to get back Chechnya?

There is a profound difference between a nationalist secessionist movement in one part of Russia proper, and a sovereign nation like Poland, don't you think?

And again, you missed the point that the US project was (and is, because the missile defense will still be implemented from mobile platforms, which people choose to ignore just to bash Obama) to serve the interest of non other than the United States. I don't give a flying toss about Poles any more than I care for Russian aspirations. Poles are doing just fine with their NATO membership already. Having bases on their land means having to depend on them.

Its in our mutual interest (the US and its allies) for the missile defense system. And why should we not help out our allies again? That is the prime reason for many countries and political movements turning against us over the years. We build them up only to leave em to defend for themselves when they can barely stand. If you say you dont give a crap about the Poles, who else dont you care about? I believe in isolationism myself, but i also believe if you say you will lend a hand to someone you better damn well follow thru with it and not back out when they are expecting your participation.

Putin and his supporters (those who are truly in charge of the country) are all old school Soviets. They were born and bred during the Cold War glory years of Soviet power and excellence.

Putin flat out said that he wanted to regain Russia's prominence in the world community. Putin is an intimidator in classic Soviet form. Putin has directed the seizure of assets of the oil giant Yukos, and restricted oil and natural gas supplies to Eastern Europe.

Furthermore, Russia is ever active in the sales of Weapons to countries like Iran and Venezuela. In 2006, Russia exported $6 billion in weapons sales alone to more than 70 countries. That was mostly old military stock they wanted to dump. Nowadays they are trafficking in sophisticated weapons, including precision-guided munitions, and advanced air-defense systems. They are and have been arming Iran.

Although Putin may no longer be President, he still holds the key and calls the shots to Medvedev.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


True, just for a moment forget the logistics and Poland/Iran missile implications.

Putin has been putting on a full-court press to stop the installation, and the fact that the US was going through the motions kept the Russian influence over their cold war occupied clients at bay.

With this motion, Obama blinked first.

Chikenschitt that he is.

The message is this: In Eastern Europe - the Russians are going to be determining their future, as the US doesn't have the balls, nor honor, to assist these countries just out from under the oppressive thumb of the Russians.

Back under the thumb.

Russia won that one, and Obama folded like a cheap suit.

Michelle only knows for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that Obama wears his shorts backwards.

Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal

news.yahoo.com...

Europe angry with Obama decision; Russia thrilled?

www.examiner.com...
Anger in Europe as Barack Obama 'scraps missile defence shield'
www.telegraph.co.uk...

The former Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolanek, said: "This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence. It puts us in a position wherein we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that's a certain threat."

NATO Proposes Link With Russia’s Missile Defense

This seems important,

Someone explain it to me, please.


www.nytimes.com...

“We should explore the potential of linking the U.S., NATO and Russian missile defense systems at an appropriate time,” Mr. Rasumussen told an audience invited by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Brussels.

Why?

against who?

What does he mean?



[edit on 023030p://bFriday2009 by Stormdancer777]

Obama Missile Plan Wins Russia Praise, No Iran Shift (Update1)


By Janine Zacharia

Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s decision to scrap a U.S. missile defense system in eastern Europe won praise from Russian leaders. What it didn’t win was a sign that they will cooperate to thwart Iran’s nuclear program.

Obama stressed that his reversal of President George W. Bush’s plan to place radar and missile interceptors in the Czech Republic and Poland reflects a new assessment of Iran’s missile capabilities, not a response to Russian opposition.

What it didn’t win was a sign that they will cooperate to thwart Iran’s nuclear program.

hmmmmmmm

www.bloomberg.com...

this is the first choice i can recall agreeing with obama on, he made some empty promises regarding the iraq war that i apreciated in his campaign but he did live up to those promises. as stated the missle defense was a big "f u" in russias face, one that was not needed imo

Originally posted by dizzie56
Its in our mutual interest (the US and its allies) for the missile defense system.

If you paid any attention at all, you would have noticed that the shield is not canceled, just shifted to a different platform. It also will be deployed faster. What's there not to like?

And why should we not help out our allies again?

Poland and Czech are not allies in the sense that there is no way they can help US in a meaningful manner. Spend our money, leverage our power, in their interests, yes, they can do that. Second, they are already in NATO hence benefit from its security.

I believe in isolationism myself, but i also believe if you say you will lend a hand to someone you better damn well follow thru with it and not back out when they are expecting your participation.

Oh please, a radar is a project like any other. Project get canceled or redirected all the time. There is nothing on paper, and not a lot of moral obligation. It's our shield, dammit! We can plant it anywhere we please where we have a foothold.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

1) If you paid any attention at all, you would have noticed that the shield is not canceled, just shifted to a different platform. It also will be deployed faster. What's there not to like?

2) Poland and Czech are not allies in the sense that there is no way they can help US in a meaningful manner. Spend our money, leverage our power, in their interests, yes, they can do that. Second, they are already in NATO hence benefit from its security.

I believe in isolationism myself, but i also believe if you say you will lend a hand to someone you better damn well follow thru with it and not back out when they are expecting your participation.

3) Oh please, a radar is a project like any other. Project get canceled or redirected all the time. There is nothing on paper, and not a lot of moral obligation. It's our shield, dammit! We can plant it anywhere we please where we have a foothold.

1) I have been paying attention. So explain to me how it is a smart thing to cancel a plan that has been set for years now only to redirect it in another fashion? Yeah, it will be mobile, better demployment yada, yada, yada. Personally i'll believe that when i see it actually deployed. My guess, he is just saying that to ease the minds of some people that think he is trully and idiot for scrapping the said plan. And how would that be good for our own economy if he is even gonna follow thru? We allready have something set into motion and now you want to go back to the drawing board? Thought he was against spending more money? Pay as you go and what not as Obama said.

2) We also have bases over in their countries. And its also in our interests to stay in said countries for trade. What do you think will happen when we just leave our allies on their asses (whether they got something big for us or not)? They will just be gobbled up. Thats all there is to it. Maybe not full on invasion gobbled up, but they will be under Putin's thumb, thats for damn sure.

3) Since when is it cool to renig on anything? They asked for it, we said we would, and now we will leave them hi and dry. Awesome policy there. And doesnt it sound like your the one thats pushin American Imperialism with that comment? We dont have the right to put it wherever we have a foothold, but we do have an obligation (not just a moral obligation but how bout just the obligation of standing by your word) to fulfill our end of a bargain. Do you think its cool to renig on somebody because you feel like it? I sure as hell dont.

Originally posted by dizzie56
And doesnt it sound like your the one thats pushin American Imperialism with that comment?

If it sounds like that, that's because I indeed put America's interests first.

At the same time, I don't believe for a microsecond that Putin would invade Poland, especially that this country is a member of NATO. If the Poles want to be paranoid, I have no interest in supporting this tendency at the US taxpayer expense. They had it good with American support already.

Remember this photo of obama bowing to the Saudi king:



With the G20 coming up, how long before we see something similar with Putin?



[edit on 9/18/2009 by centurion1211]