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.

 

US to scrap plans for missile shield in Europe: WSJ

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
So according to Obama's doctrine, is Russia gonna allow U.S. destroyers and missile frigates in the Black Sea? Yeah I don't think so either. From a common sense tactical sense that would be the ideal spot to do what Obama is claiming we will do.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Smart move, I've been waiting for this.

With the economy in the condition it's in, we can't afford to spend billions deploying a useless system whose primary purpose seems to have been to tweak the Russians' noses.

The United States needs to return it's military to a purpose befitting a republic: that is to defend the United States, not to play Globocop or build an Empire (depending on which way you look at it.)

This is a small step, but at least it's a step in the right direction.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
We just traded our missiles in europe, for backing against Iran.
Its obvious!



That's exactly what just happened. Does anyone here actually think its just a coincidence that this event occurred on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland?

Hardly.

The Russians won on two fronts. They got the missile shield out of eastern Europe, but they also managed to get the US to crap all over one of its stronger allies in the process...all to buy a pass from Russia to act against Iran, whether through sanctions or military action.

Nice work, Obama



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by djvexd
So according to Obama's doctrine, is Russia gonna allow U.S. destroyers and missile frigates in the Black Sea? Yeah I don't think so either. From a common sense tactical sense that would be the ideal spot to do what Obama is claiming we will do.


Yes this ^^ I was hoping to hear more about these plans. Is there any more sources referring to this?

I was listening to this story on the radio earlier and it was announced that the missile shield was to be scrapped and that the navy would possess the defenses on their ships instead.

So does this mean there will be a permanent navy presence in middle east?




[edit on 17-9-2009 by TheSam]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
My guess this is just a concession by Obama so Russia will overlook Israel attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Israeli PM just visited Moscow, and today we are seeing in the news that Iran has the ability to now make a nuclear weapon again. They are also working on a missle for delivery.

I think another person had it right, less than 6 months and Iran will have a lot of smoking craters. I wonder what will happen with the nuclear facility built in a heavily populated area? If those people have a clue they shouild pack up and get the hell out of dodge before nuclear fallout is kicked up from the bunker busters.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
At the end of this the real winner is Iran. They continue to snub the international community and pursue nuclear arms(debatable) and once they have it then the real threats will start. Book it.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Good thing the Iranians have agreed to shut down their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by habfan1968
At the end of this the real winner is Iran. They continue to snub the international community and pursue nuclear arms(debatable) and once they have it then the real threats will start. Book it.


Iran don't state to pursue nuclear arms, they have always stated that their nuclear program is for energy only.

And the real threats have already been made. Israel are continually threatening military strikes on their nuclear plant(s?) & constantly nudging the US to do the dirty work for them. Which is kinda logical really, given Israel's population is 7.5 million whereas Iran's population is 10 times that, war wouldn't be in their best interests


Ironically, this small country threatening Iran because of their research into nuclear energy already has nuclear technology & weapons themselves as well as other sophisticated weapons given to them by the US.

I can't see how Iran are winners in this at all.

Messed up world we live in!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
These bases never had a damn thing to do with Iran or Iranian missiles.

The danger to Europe from Iran is practically nil - if Iran nukes the EU, the EU has two nuclear powers each fully capable of turning Iran into a radioactive parking lot.

They were put there to tweak the Russians, in hopes of bring the Cold War back, which was a taxpayer-funded feeding frenzy for the defense sector. Same as the expansion of NATO. Good riddance to a bad idea.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Looks like the way has been cleared for an attack on Iran, for sure. We're probably looking at weeks rather than months too. I wonder if we'll ever hear all the details of what went on behind the scenes......that mysterious Russian cargo ship going missing.....Israeli PM vanishing off to Russia for a secret meeting. I think the answer is that some serious "wheeling and dealing" went on.

The missile shield was an obvious bargaining chip right from the start - a two year old could have worked that out. Still, it worked all the same



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I wonder if it was a coincidence that the administration decided to do this 70 years to the day that the USSR invaded Poland.

Thanks, Obama. US shows that it is a fickle ally.

Czech and Polish governments look like morons for dealing with the US on this issue. I'd be willing to bet they won't let it happen again.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I've always wondered why we have to spend billions of dollars to
defend other sovereign nations against attacks from their neighbors.
Why can't the CIA simply get rid of the most threatening dictators
through some means that makes their deaths look like an accident?
You'd think that we'd certainly have the technology to do so by now!
Disposing of the lunatics in this way would saves countless innocent
lives and allow the billions of dollars to be invested in ways that
make the world a better place. -cwm



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
We just traded our missiles in europe, for backing against Iran.
Its obvious!



The only problem with that is..

We didn't get a deal with Russia about Iran.
Obama just gave it away.



The Road to Tehran Does Not Run Through Moscow


Read more at:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Russian reticence stems from a number of sources. Given the West's reluctance to business with Tehran, Russian companies have found lucrative opportunities in Iran. Russo-Iranian trade has expanded rapidly, with turnover exceeding $3 billion last year, and slated to grow rapidly in the coming years. Much Russo-Iranian trade is in sectors considered strategically important by the Kremlin. Tehran is a major customer for Russia's defense industry, and Russian gas monopoly Gazprom is involved in developing Iran's vast South Pars gas field. Russia is also deeply involved in Iran's overt nuclear program, with firms connected to the Ministry of Atomic Energy building the reactor complex at Bushehr.

Despite their disagreements over Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Russia and Iran have forged a close diplomatic partnership elsewhere. This partnership took root during the late 1990s, when Moscow and Tehran worked together closely to end the bloody civil war in Tajikistan. Previously, Russia accused Iran of training and supplying Islamist guerrillas from Russia's North Caucasus during the first war in Chechnya (1994-96), and of exporting Islamic radicalism to Russia's neighbors in Central Asia. By the time the second war in Chechnya began in 1999, the Russo-Iranian rapprochement was already underway, and Iranian intervention was not an issue.


Read more at: www.huffingtonpost.com...


[edit on 17-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com...

"Eastern Europe grumbles about downgrade in US ties."

Yep, I think that not everyone out there is drinking the Obama Kool-aid.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




I thnk it was a behind the doors deal, done via Israel' meetings.
Its to obvious and public if Obama meets with Russia, then declares the missile program over.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by djvexd
So according to Obama's doctrine, is Russia gonna allow U.S. destroyers and missile frigates in the Black Sea? Yeah I don't think so either. From a common sense tactical sense that would be the ideal spot to do what Obama is claiming we will do.


Nah! Anybody look at a map lately? Russia doesn't have any say about what ships get into the Black Sea. Turkey does. There's these little chokepoints called the Bosporus and Dardanelles Straights. Both are controlled by Turkey. Things get hot and Turkey gets pressured, they can deny passage to US ships, or if somebody scuttles a few ships in the passage they can block the straights. If the US can get a few ships in there, then resupply can become a problem.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




I thnk it was a behind the doors deal, done via Israel' meetings.
Its to obvious and public if Obama meets with Russia, then declares the missile program over.



Then we should see some sort of deal over Iran sometime in the near future.
It hasn't happened yet. We will see.

It's in Russia's best interest to keep things as they are. Change will not be in their favor.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits


a
link for what you said -


The passage of US warships through the Straits also raised controversy, as the convention forbids the transit of non-Black Sea nations' warships with guns of a calibre larger than eight inches (203 mm). In the 1960s, the US sent warships carrying 305 mm calibre ASROC missiles through the Straits, prompting Soviet protests. The Turkish government rejected the Soviet complaints, pointing out that guided missiles were not guns and that such weapons had not even existed at the time of the Convention's agreement so were not restricted



in 2008 south ossetia war , the US wanted to send 10 ships in - instead they send 3 frigates instead of 2 hospital ships


someone is playing fast and loose with the rules



www.hurriyet.com.tr...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
This is just another move by our President showing his inability to maneuver in international waters, if you will. He is clearly not astute enough to tangle with the Russians and their strong-man Vladimir Putin. He is playing President Obama like a fiddle and he doesn't even know it. Make no mistake, the Russian can be a pleasant host at face value, but behind the scenes, they are scheming and sizing up their opponent at all times. They are clever politicians who are leaps ahead of the US and theirs. The Russian are masters of Machiavellian principles. They play chess while our elected leaders play checkers.

As for Poland losing the missile defense shield, it breaks my heart, because it is the homeland of my Grandfather, and to look back at how they were screwed by the Germans, the Allies, and the Russians after the war; it is a travesty. I have a strong affinity for Poland and the Polish people, not just because of my heritage, but for their ingenuity, strength, and resolve. They showed it when they beat back the Bolsheviks in the Polish-Soviet War 1919-1921, their largely non-collaborative efforts with the Nazis during the occupation, and the Solidarity Movement which led to the break up the Warsaw Pact.

Now they have to look down the barrel of the Russian gun once again and tangle with that ferocious beast alone. Being in such close proximity of a re-emergence of Russian strength, I would be terrified if was living in Poland. I am not a fan of President Regan, but I respect how he stood toe to toe with the Soviet Union despite the calls of the so-called experts calling him crazy. He is probably rolling over in his grave after this recent debacle by the Obama Administration. Last I checked, Poland was not behind the Iron Curtain but a sovereign nation entitled to make defense decisions on it's own and if the US wants to help an ally, let the Russians moan and groan. It's not Russia's decision any longer but Poland and the Czech Republic. Just my two cents and an issue that is very personal to me.



[edit on 21-9-2009 by Jakes51]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Well, I know some people are going to be happy. Americans getting out of the EU, leaving some countries open, say Georgia.

And for those that think this'll bring sharper sanctions against Iran, remember this a few months from now when Israel has to go it alone against Iran when america has shown itself to be the weak sister of the world and does nothing.

Obama = Carter.


Weak? Obama could go to meetings with russia wearing a nappy and a bib.Wouldn't change the fact that america has an absolute huge military that would make any country tremble in their boots.And this is good news anyway,Iran is not a threat to anyone.The whole ordeal is just war propaganda for the masses who lap up such garbage.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join