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.

 

Obama Tosses an Ally Overboard --and We Get Zip

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by D.E.M.
 


As far as I was aware, the population of Europe isn't asking the US to come running and yes, we are more than capable of defending ourselves. It's some grubby politicians, in what are insignificant countries, getting bought off by US "pusuasion" that this Shield should be installed. We never asked for it and in fact, many people are against it.




posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


What do you mean, "arm itself fully"? How could we be possibly more armed without conscription?

Combined, EU armed forces probably outman the US already, although there is a bit of variation in capability from the UK and France at one end, to Bulgaria and Austria at the other. But if this damned Lisbon Treaty gets passed through, then there will be an "EU Army" in the not too distant future!



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


Do you? The US provides the EU with aid?
Care to furnish us with some proof of this? Last time I checked, the UK and other EU nations were buying bonds issued by the US Treasury, meaning you were borrowing money off us!



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 



This is the first good move made by the oligarchs useful idiot. The US has no business meddling in other nations affairs (not like that ever keeps them from doing so to the point it generates feelings of hate & contempt).

Let Russia have it all back, so what.. it won't change the daily routine of most Americans and might just save some $$ in the process.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by muggl3z
 





We need to play it cool with the Russians, no reason to stir up trouble.


There is a somewhat subtle world balance of power not recognized or even discussed especially by the MSM.

When the balance is upset things like WWI, WWII, and 9-11 happen. So the maintenance of balance is important and it transcends political and enen national concerns.

Did you realize for instance that the rising regional power in that area is not Iran, Iraque, Saudi Arabia or Egypt by rather Turkey for a number of reasons? Turkey will become more influential politically and militarily in the coming 20 to 50 years becoming most likely the dominant muslim nation spreading its influence through the entire Bulkan and Eastern European states.

The way Obama is acting so far indicates that he does not understand the situation fully. It makes everyone nervous.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranchDid you realize for instance that the rising regional power in that area is not Iran, Iraque, Saudi Arabia or Egypt by rather Turkey for a number of reasons? Turkey will become more influential politically and militarily in the coming 20 to 50 years becoming most likely the dominant muslim nation spreading its influence through the entire Bulkan and Eastern European states.



So Poland needs a missile defense shield to protect itself against Turkey?


Be honest now. This is just a transparent attempt to rag on Obama, regardless of what he does. Right?



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 



So Poland needs a missile defense shield to protect itself against Turkey


Obviously not. Turkey is considered presently a US ally. I said 20-50 years.

But a nuclear Iran with ballistic missiles capable of reaching London would change a few minds about the issue, I would imagine. How long will that take? 6 months? 2 years? 4 years?

How long will it take to set up a missile response system?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 





This is the first good move made by the oligarchs useful idiot


Meaning, I assume, Obama. There will be many more as Obama considers himself to be somewhat of a "rogue president" and he like to side with rogue governmental types like Chaves, while playing leader of the free world. I'm sure Obama considers the US to be far too dominant in world affairs.



The US has no business meddling in other nations affairs (not like that ever keeps them from doing so to the point it generates feelings of hate & contempt).

WWII put the US into this role. The US tried to stay out as long as it could. The outcome was that the free world after WWII owed the US a lot and one of the things the US got besides a lot of debt was control of the seas. A lot of naval bases around the world. No big deal you say? Well, essentially, after that no one could do anything on the seas more or less without the approval of the US Navy. Suddenly we were in a leadership role.



Let Russia have it all back, so what..


So the US is for better or for worse saddled with its roll. That won't change in the near or even distant future ie. 50 to 100 years.

The way to keep the rest of the world relatively peaceful is to prevent any one nation from becoming too powerful ie. develop a regional hegemony. The US wins by letting smaller nations bicker and fight amongst themselves.

Fortunately for the US, misguided politicians like Obama (or any future president) will not greatly alter the eventual outcome.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I am tired of this world protector status we have had since the end of WW2. Maybe it is time for us to look a little more inward that worrying about the world. So We can't protect everybody. Since when did anyone say we had too.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bigvig316
 





Maybe it is time for us to look a little more inward that worrying about the world. So We can't protect everybody. Since when did anyone say we had too.


We don't have to protect everyone or anyone. The roll of the US since WWII is to maintain a balance of power. Without a balance bad things happen like 9-11.

Military, politics, and economics dictate that the US retains the roll of responsibility. How it does it simply falls in the realm of controversy and that's where the MSM takes over.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by bigvig316
 





Maybe it is time for us to look a little more inward that worrying about the world. So We can't protect everybody. Since when did anyone say we had too.


We don't have to protect everyone or anyone. The roll of the US since WWII is to maintain a balance of power. Without a balance bad things happen like 9-11.

Military, politics, and economics dictate that the US retains the roll of responsibility. How it does it simply falls in the realm of controversy and that's where the MSM takes over.


That is stretching it just a little. The US is as much to blame for the world being the way it is as anyone else is. The old "Can't look weak" foreign policy of the last 60 years has created a lot of enemies. The US has been involved in quite a bit of meddling on it's own and that has had dire consequences. Umm didn't you guys back Saddam Hussein and encourage and fund him covertly to start a war with Iran after your botched attempt to install a puppet regime failed? That's just a small piece of a much larger pie of US f-ups. The US has abused it's power position as much as anyone.

Remember absolute power corrupts.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DEEZNUTZ
 





The US has been involved in quite a bit of meddling on it's own and that has had dire consequences. Umm didn't you guys back Saddam Hussein and encourage and fund him covertly to start a war with Iran after your botched attempt to install a puppet regime failed? That's just a small piece of a much larger pie of US f-ups. The US has abused it's power position as much as anyone.


I didn't say the US is perfect. It isn't. Nor does it need to be. It just needs to maintain a balance of power by keeping the smaller powers fighting amongst themselves.

For example in the Arab world it is quite easy to keep the Arab nations in constant opposition. They seem to fight themselves first and then the West.

How dire was the consequence of the Iraq scenario? In comparison with a major conflict like WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, etc., it was, well, not much. It has, however, contributed to a balance of power in the region and that is important.

Al Qaeda has been rendered more or less impotent. The Arabs haven't attacked themselves lately(eg. Iran vs. Iraq) nor Israel. Pakistan vs. India is quiet. This is good IMHO.

It is far from a perfect world.

And never will be.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Since the Polish and the Czech have not ratified the Lisbon Treaty as yet, I fear this will be the driver to ensure that they do.. and I personally feel that was why Obama made the move.

Poland eyes closer EU security ties

We just have to hope that the Irish vote no, or the Czechs hold out until we get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.. but I would say the game is against us on that one.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
We in Europe should not need any sort off nuclear defence system,
Take the cold war for an example, Russians had the manpower and weaponry capability and vastly superior numbers to do it and they did not try..
Now take modern day Europe, There's France UK Germany and Not forgetting the Spanish military, all combined together makes one hell off an opposing force, And did i mention the polish czech and smaller satellite countries, Who needs a nuclear curtain in Europe ?? .. IMOH



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by foxhoundone
 





We in Europe should not need any sort off nuclear defence system,


If Europe has no defense in place it risks having a rogue nation under duress issuing a threat causing blackmail. I counted 6 nations east of Europe with possible nuclear capability not counting Russia (or even Al Queda or other political forces). More than 2 are unpredictable and unstable.

Why go bare? Why risk it? It seems like cheap insurance.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by foxhoundone
 





We in Europe should not need any sort off nuclear defence system,


If Europe has no defense in place it risks having a rogue nation under duress issuing a threat causing blackmail. I counted 6 nations east of Europe with possible nuclear capability not counting Russia (or even Al Queda or other political forces). More than 2 are unpredictable and unstable.

Why go bare? Why risk it? It seems like cheap insurance.


The Problem is that it doesn't work and has very little effectiveness. It has very few successful intercepts under ideal testing conditions. Now throw in a war type situation and it's useless and very expensive. It would be better to put that money into particle beam weaponry than this white elephant.

Not to mention it's politically sensitive. Not worth the price.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by WalterRatlos
 





Anyway, nothing to fear from Russia. Russia should be made an ally, not an enemy.


Tell that to the Bulkans, the Eastern Europeans, and Ukrainians.

Ahem, I do live in a Balkan (and not a Bulkan state, but it's a forgivable typo) state, namely Hellas (Greece). To us the Russians are traditional allies anyways (except for the cold war period for obvious reasons).
Nah, there is no going back to the "glorious days of the USSR and the Warshaw Pact". And IMHO, all Putin wants is do business with the EU; Russia has a lot of oil and gas to sell after all.

I also believe that in the long term Russia's future will be to become a member of the EU itself. As for Eastern European countries wanting their independence, they got that and most of them are meanwhile also members of the EU.



[edit on 2-11-2009 by WalterRatlos]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   


America cannot afford, it seems, to equip these countries with the missile defense system they want + finance the countries gov';t who agreed.


And isn't it funny how the peeps who don't mind spending trillions of our tax dollars to protect/finance other countries are the same ones who scream bloody murder when our tax dollars are spent domestically? Shows where their loyalties are.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by WalterRatlos
 





I also believe that in the long term Russia's future will be to become a member of the EU itself. As for Eastern European countries wanting their independence, they got that and most of them are meanwhile also members of the EU.


How long term are you talking?

I'll agree only if you say 50 to 75 years! In the meantime Russia has more of an interest being the independent rogue that it is and for many reasons!



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


Its not our business, it is not our job to play policeman. If Americans don't want the government to impose on them, why should they wish to impose it on others???



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join