« We have the best health care in the world! | theCleverBulldog's Blog | "Stabbed in the Back and Sold to Russia" »
Happy Anniversary!!!
Happy Anniversary Poland! Yes, on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion, our great leader has decided to capitulate to the Russians and cancel the plans for missile defense of europe. Aided by his highly skilled team from the State Dept (Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary for arms control no doubt relied on knowledge gained from her degree in childhood education), they completely threw the Poles and the Czechs under the bus to appease the Russians. This defense shield was never really about Iran, it was about a chance to cement the relationship between Poland, the Czech Republic, and the US. By placing US bases on their soil it would establish a permanent presence and a reassuring deterrent against Russian threats (like those Ukraine and Georgia face). We showed them that just like in 1939, the west cannot be counted on. Pass the cake.
Advertisement
THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!!! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXXGep9RB34
September 17, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise you find it amusing that the US once again shows it has no honor, will not honor commitments, and can't be trusted. You're doing a heck of a job Obama.
September 17, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Commitments like the Geneva Convention or the Constitution of the United States were trashed by the previous administration.
September 17, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally ignorant response. The GC does not apply to foreign terrorists, neither does the US constitution, and they have nothing to do with honoring deals made with other governments involving security issues. This is no different than Neville Chamberlain backing down from the Nazi's to achieve 'peace in our time'. We had a chance to build a relationship with eastern europe, and we blew it.
September 17, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trashing our own Constitution and showing complete disregard for the Geneva Convention may have nothing to do with foreign policy in your mind, but the rest of the world saw it differently.
September 17, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was then, this is now. Try dealing with the present and not just using "Bush was worse" as a response to everything. We're now living in 2009 and trying to deal with this missile issue at hand.
September 17, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rest of the world thinks we are more credible NOW.
September 17, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really has nothing to do with whether we support the missile shield or not.
September 17, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has everything to do with whether they believe we can be counted on.
September 17, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. I really doubt that Poland and Czech are saying today - "I knew we shouldn't have trusted them to keep their missile shield plans - they torture terrorists after all!!"
September 17, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
lmao
September 17, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Poles and Czechs couldn't care less whether we torture people or not. They just want our missile shield.
September 17, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This defense shield was never really about Iran..."
Really, the Bush admin insisted it was. Are you privy to inside information from this admin or the previous one? If not, who are you to say what the European missile shield policy was 'really' about?
"..the US once again shows it has no honor.." Why do you hate America?
September 17, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The purpose of the shield was to protect against Iranian threats, but that was not what the Poles and Czechs were concerned about. They fear Russian aggression, and this was a chance to protect them as well. But we backed down once again, proving we can't be trusted.
September 17, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
But we, under Bush, told the Russians repeatedly that the shield wasn't for them. Again, where do you get your inside info??
And as to "backed down once again", does this assertion pre-date Obama or do you see his predecessor as ever-righteous?
September 17, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The shield in and of itself was no threat to the Russians, since it is defensive and very limited (10 interceptors) in scope. As far as previous examples, they are legion. We sold out the Hmong, backstabbed the Vietnamese, abandoned the Shah, plus numerous examples from Africa and Central/South America, gave Hungarians and Czechs over to the Soviets. Most recent was Bush's abandonment of Georgia. Our history is pretty pathetic.
September 17, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to mention how many times the Bushes sold out the Kurds. Loo how well that's worked out.
September 17, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, our history is pretty pathetic. We should have never been involved in any of these actions in the first place. The initial actions dishonored our country.
September 17, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you're understanding me. We told the Russians repeatedly that the shield wasn't for intercepting their missiles.
So we should've stayed in Vietnam how long? Abandoned the Shah? We installed his ass illegally in the first place then he turned out to be a sadistic prick who stopped listening to us when we asked him to take it a little bit easy on political dissidents. Are you talking about Hungary in '56 and Czechoslovakia in '68? What ere we supposed to do, invade?
Man, you're twisted.
September 17, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The shield (since limited to 10 rockets) clearly was not to intercept a Russian strike. As far as Vietnam, we should have won the war many tears earlier, but we refused to use appropriate force against the North. When we left we told the Hmong to wait for us to resupply them, and we never came back. They were eventually decimated after holding out for years waiting for our return. The Shah was a far more benign leader than what has followed. And yes, 56 and 68, and we should have forced the Russians to back down, but we did not.
September 17, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, we can argue forever whether the Russians saw a CAPABILITY, regardless of how many interceptors, as a threat. I posit that Bush and his defense contractor campaign contributor buddies surmised that one very possible reaction by the Russians would be to scrap SALT II and START and begin to start pumping out missiles again. Naturally, our side would have to respond by either building more and more interceptors and/or nuclear missiles(in case we never really get the shield to work consistently). It's just a cynical business strategy, they don't even care if it works or not. Get it?
On Vietnam, you should read "A Bright Shining Lie", the best minds at the time, exemplified by Paul Vann and others disagreed vehemently with Westmoreland's 'big battle' strategy and wanted to concentrate on winning 'hearts and minds' among the Southern hamlets. We didn't lose because of a lack of force employed.
Saying the Shah 'was far more benign than whwt followed' isn't an argument for not 'abandonning' him before we could know what would follow unless you would assign clairvoyance on the part of our intelligence gatherers or politicians.
On '56 and '68; Riiiight, we should've started WWIII. If that had happened we wouldn't be enjoying this little back and forth, would we?
September 17, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, genius, since it was not a threat to the Russians, how was it protection for the Czechs or Poles? If it is not the one, it cannot be the other.
And in case you had not noticed, there are land routes into Poland from Russia. Why launch a missile when tanks and troops will do?
Epic FAIL!
September 17, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow you are really stupid. The shield was not meant to protect Poland from a russian missile attack. The presence of US troops on Polish soil was what would provide a deterrent for any Russian attack or invasion, since advancing Russian tanks would encounter US troops. As far as a threat to Russia, since it was limited, and defensive, it posed no military threat. It provided protection like the troops in Korea, as a tripwire. Any Russian attack would have to consider the response if US troops were killed. Man you are stupid if you can't see that.
September 17, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
First rate non-answer, chihuahua.
September 17, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow - he hates America? That's pretty harsh. Aren't people allowed to have an opinion?
You had your own opinions about doctors and defensive medicine, but I didn't go accusing you of hating America or throwing around "who are you to ..."
September 17, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a facetious regurgitation of an oft-used conservative accusation used against any criticism. Bulldog kept harping about "the US lack of honor" or some such drivel. Hardly comparable to ANY point/argument I made re: 'defensive medicine'.
Who are you, his brother-in-law or something?
September 17, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the brother-in-law? There you go again going after the person rather than the issue.
September 17, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of you again misinterpreting a joke as ad hominem:
Have you had a sense-of-humor-ectomy?
September 17, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't use rhetorical devices with mcb, it's a rule.
September 17, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm tellin' ya! Princess and the Pea!
September 17, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
We "threw" them "under the bus," eh?
September 17, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
After years of negotiations and pressure, after making decisions that were controversial in their home countries, we then back out on a moments notice. What would you call it?
September 17, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd call it Big Budget Savings. And yep, we need to figure out ways to get along with Russia. Claiming they were the agressors in Georgia was absurd; Obama bought into it on his second try. "Give 'em a few billion, call it good."
September 17, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The defense shield was always a joke. There's never been a successful test. The damn thing just doesn't work but the big corporations have always had republicans on their payroll to loot the taxpayers and the US treasury by continuing to fund this boondoggle.
So who benefits from putting a missile shield that's not capable of stopping a missile? Neither Poland nor Europe nor the US benefits from a defense shield that isn't able to actually defend. The middle class Americans get nothing from the billions of tax dollars wasted.
The republicans in congress get their bribes, I mean campaign contributions, to finance the spreading of lies they'll use in the next election. The fat cats in the corporations that make up the military industrial complex walk away laughing and shoving our hard earned dollars into their pockets. While republican tools like you cheer them on as they scam the American public.
The only question I have is why you do it.
September 17, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, you are wrong about the defense shield. It has been tested in numerous scenarios, and it does work. The Poles and the Czechs wanted it not to defend Europe from Iran, but to defend themselves against Russian aggression. With US bases in those countries, they know the Russians are less likely to invade them, and their threats to do so are less effective.
September 17, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, 'Clever' 2009 marks the 70th anniversary of the Nazi invasion, NOT the Soviet invasion. Nice try.
September 17, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Learn your history. Here is a link for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
How's that for a nice try?
September 17, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
My aplogies on that point.
September 17, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was an invasion of both by joint agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
September 17, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! Apology half retracted.
September 17, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe try to discuss the point rather than just taking potshots at the individual person.
September 17, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? MCB, maybe you should read all my entries on this thread as well as the Bulldogs before making such a blanket statement.
September 17, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read your first comment first, and you attacked the person by accusing him of "hating America" rather than just debating the merits of the missile shield.
September 17, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The following are all quotes from 'Clever Bulldog':
"Totally ignorant response."
"Wow you are really stupid."
"What an idiotic argument."
"As I said before, you are amazingly stupid."
"I don't care to waste anymore time with an idiot like you."
"This is why liberals can't be trusted with foreign policy."
So get off your high horse vis a vis my comments please.
September 17, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two wrongs don't make a right. I did not think his original post attacked anyone personally. But then without provocation he's accused of hating America!
September 17, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you TRYING to not understand me? I repeat re: "hate America" "It was a facetious regurgitation of an oft-used conservative accusation used against any criticism."
facetious (comparative more facetious, superlative most facetious)
Positive
facetious
Comparative
more facetious
Superlative
most facetious
Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
Robbie's joke about Heather's picture was just him being facetious.
Pleasantly humorous, jocular.
September 17, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It did not come across as facetious to me. Doubt Bulldog thought it was facetious either. It certainly wasn't pleasant or jocular. It was intended as an insult.
September 17, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, so now I've written twice that it was facetious. Whether or not you want to continue to not believe me is Bulldog's and, I guess, your problem since you've volunteered to be his advocate and comment section policeperson.
Oops, there I go making personal attacks again! Must be a character flaw, see I just "attacked" myself. Hope it doesn't blind me.
September 17, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You omit the responses I was replying to where in each case I was attacked personally.
September 17, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"personal attack"? you mean like the one below?
Any reduction in defense spending represents "change we can believe in."
Posted by wwstaebler
September 17, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is why liberals can't be trusted with foreign policy. You think the world would be safer if we eliminated our defense department. Well, yeah, safer for terrorists and dictators and communist oppressors.
Posted by theCleverBulldog in reply to a comment from wwstaebler
September 17, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
September 17, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is that a personal attack? I responded to the comment that "ANY reduction in defense spending" would be good by noting that that is why liberals can't be trusted with foreign policy, because they believe that the answer to any question is to cut defense spending. Show me when liberals have called for increasing defense spending. They only support weapons systems that are not yet able to be deployed. Once they are ready, suddenly they find a reason to oppose them. That may be a sweeping statement, but it is not a personal attack.
September 17, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is why liberals can't be trusted with foreign policy." Attack on all liberals (and wrong)
"Show me when liberals have called for increasing defense spending."
Wilson, FDR, Kennedy.
September 17, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
An attack on all liberals is not a personal attack. As to FDR and Wilson, they supported increasing spending because they got us involved (rightly (wwII) or wrongly (WWI) ) in 2 world wars. They were not big supporters of defense spending prior to that, the US military was in pathetic condition before and after both of those wars.
As far as conservatives calling for decreases, if you consider Bush 1 a conservative (I don't) he reduced spending. Otherwise, it has been a long time since we had a conservative president. Reagan, prior to that, who? Not Nixon, not Ike.
September 17, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall your question about liberals and defense spending having any conditions attached. Shifting the point of discussion is unfair. It's called Sophistry.
If wweibler and I are liberals and you say that we would only make the world 'safer for terrorists', etc. that's pretty personal. AND according to your protector Middle Class Bill, it's how a written comment is interpeted by THE READER that counts.
Have you two ever been seen in the same time at the same place?
September 17, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me whem conservatives have called for DECREASING defense spending? Is there ever a situation in which we don't need more?
September 17, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
would that be a 'pot shot'?
September 17, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all.
September 17, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, O Toothless Chihuahua, the antimissile defenses worked. When they knew when and where the incoming missile was launched, they worked roughly half the time. Great odds there, junior.
Besides, the single most cost-effective system* for delivery of a nuke is not a missile. If you were truly clever, you'd realize that. Since you are instead almost comically ignorant, you believe the propaganda that outfits like Raytheon and their DOD shills spread.
* I might stop kicking you if you are actually able to give me a good example of a truly cost-effective delivery system for a nuke, Iranian or "other". I suspect you will provide it some point soon after your copious volumes of evidence of large numbers of illegal immigrants voting, as you falsely and baselessly asserted yesterday. We're still waiting for that, you pathetic loser.
September 17, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does 'cost effective' have to do with anything ? What an idiotic argument. The most cost effective way would be to put it on a balloon, since that costs almost nothing and requires no technology. And your 'statistics' on the accuracy of the interceptor program are totally fictional, most of these ludicrous claims are based on counting numerous tests as the system was being developed, ie not even completed yet.
September 17, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Problem there, Einstein, is that a balloon has little directional control.
Epic FAIL!
Since you are so conversant with "the statistics" perhaps you'd care to put up a comprehensive list? Dates, times, kill ratio overall, showing improvement with refinement? Or is this just more of your pathetic troll bullshit?
Oh yeah...
Got those illegal immigrant voter numbers yet, there Sparky?
September 17, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said before, you are amazingly stupid. Of course a balloon has little directional control (but with a small investment it can be equipped with a small prop and a GPS system), but for a terrorist nation like Iran that would not be a huge concern. The Japanese experimented with balloon delivery in the 40's and had some success with it. As far as cost effective, it takes the least investment, since a balloon is cheaper than a ship or a truck, and can access areas and distances that those options can't (ships cant reach landlocked areas and trucks cant cross oceans).
If you want stats on the program, google them. I don't care to waste anymore time with an idiot like you.
September 17, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
A nuke tied to a balloon! Too slow, Blofeld or Dr. Evil could capture it.
The Japanese balloons were totally dependent on the jet stream and only one ever caused any damage.
September 17, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
rotflmao, yeah, successful like this test
There has never been a successful test with real world conditions like including decoys. And almost half of the tests without decoys have failed even when they knew exactly where the missile was coming from. We've spent over 100 billion dollars on this boondoggle. Someone is getting rich off our tax dollars.
Why are you supporting this scam? I though republicans were concerned with wasting tax dollars. Its once again clear all you're interested in is funneling money to your fat cat corporate masters.
September 17, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The failure in that test was of the decoy rocket, not the interceptor. You are simply wrong in claiming the system has never worked. By claiming early system tests as failures, and any other failure like that of the decoy rocket as failures of the interceptor system you distort the truth.
September 17, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be stupid. The main purpose of the test was to see whether the system could tell the difference between a missile and a decoy. If the decoy didn't deploy the missile shield certainly didn't successfully determine whether the system could tell the difference between a missile and a decoy.
There has never been a successful test of the system in real world conditions with decoys. All tests have been designed to succeed and even then its failed almost half the time.
Its a boondoggle, scamming the tax payers out of billions of dollars.
September 17, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is one of many links:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=47327
Maybe before you making sweeping statements you should do some research. BTW, decoys are just one scenario for one type of threat, the system has many components, air, land and sea based, that address different threats. You are simply uninformed.
September 17, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems that would work, if only we could figure out a way to make Poland and the Czech Republic "SEAS".
September 17, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know how to read? There has never been a successful test of the system in real world situations with decoys. WITH DECOYS. In your link, once again, the system worked against a single missile without any decoys.
The problem with the defense shield is that it is limited in the number of missiles its capable of tracking and shooting down. That's why it wouldn't be useful against Russia since Russia could easily overwhelm the system with more missiles than it can handle.
Small countries with few nuclear weapons, like North Korea, Pakistan or potentially Iran, wouldn't have enough warheads to overwhelm the system. But it would be relatively simple and inexpensive to send up several balloons or decoy missiles which would make the system useless if it wasn't able to distinguish between them.Critics have long complained that the tests are not realistic because they don't involve balloons or other simple decoys that, they argue, could easily fool the interceptor.
I've been following this story for a long time and its clear you haven't because you don't seem to get this most basic problem. I have yet to see a single successful test with decoys. WITH DECOYS. In this test just a half year ago
The DOD calls practically every test of this system a success even when its clearly a failure. Sometimes they call the failure a "smashing success.?
The basic flaw with this system is N Korea or Iran could easily send up one missile with several decoys and there has never been a successful test of the system with decoys. WITH DECOYS. And if the system can't handle decoys its worthless. If you don't realize that then you don't have a clue about missile defense.
So do you have a single link with a successful test of the system with decoys?
September 17, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. Philip Coyle III, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Department of Defense from 1994-2001, the longest-serving Director in the 20-year history of that office. He oversaw the testing and evaluation of over 200 defense acquisition systems and is currently the Senior Advisor to the Center for Defense Information.
In June 1997 and January 1998, the Missile Defense Agency conducted two proof-of-concept missile defense tests
September 17, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again you fail to understand the system. First, interceptors are cheap compared to nuclear missiles. So in an arms race of building interceptors versus missiles, the interceptor side wins because it takes less money to do so. The idea that Iran or Korea could overwhelm the system is just stupid, they can build only a few missiles, and each missile can cary only a few warheads or decoys. If your system targets all warheads and all decoys, you still win - the threat is eliminated. You also ignore the fact that most parts of the system are designed to intercept BEFORE any warhead or decoy is deployed, in the boost phase. So the talk of decoys is just pointless.
September 17, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no expert, either conservative or liberal, that doesn't acknowledge that decoys are a problem. More evidence that republicans aren't interested in honest dialog. Just a bunch of liars.
September 17, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Decoy warheads are an issue, but not such an overwhelming issue as you try to imply. In boost phase they are not an issue, and that is the primary target phase. You want to intercept before it mirvs, because your number of targets is smaller. The Patriot system, which is just an anti aircraft system modified to intercept missiles, has been very effective, and THAAD and other new systems are far more advanced. In addition there is the airborne laser system, plus the Aegis based system, and others. To simply say 'it doesn't work' or 'it hasn't been tested' is just trite. It has been tested, it is being tested, it continues to be developed and improved. You, and Obama's school teacher arms expert, should do a little more research. Maybe get an engineering degree, or a physics degree. Or just read a little.
September 17, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is it, pointless or an issue? Never mind, I can see you're not here for honest dialog. Do you know that each test of the missile defense shield costs tens of millions of dollars? So 6 months ago they planned a test with the main purpose to demonstrate that the system was capable of distinguishing between decoys and missiles, because,..... decoys are pointless?
I've been following this since Reagan. I still remember the big too do about the success of the patriot missile defense during the first gulf war. All the bragging about how it knocked down some 40? missiles and protected Israel. Some months after the DOD admitted that it was a complete failure and no missiles had been hit.
Then there's the credible allegations of falsified tests by several employees of TRW.
You have nothing to challenge my links and no links to back up your statements so there's not much use in supplying any more. But I'll leave you with this.
Last October, the Pentagon hailed the Raytheon test as an unqualified success. But it later acknowledged that the kill vehicle had initially drifted off course and picked out a decoy balloon rather than the warhead.
September 17, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about a test with decoys? Has that ever been done?
;)
September 17, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's been tests with a kill missile and tests without that just record tracking data of the decoys and incoming missile since a full test of the system is so expensive. Its either failed or the test was so scaled down as to be meaningless. Tests that originally called for 9 decoys scaled back to just one.
While the system seems to be getting better at hitting one missile with no decoys there has never been a successful test using realistic real world conditions with decoys. But considering all the fraud that's been uncovered over the years I'm not even confident in that.
This is a cash cow for the military industrial complex. At least 100 to 150 billion so far and an estimated 200 billion more to get it working, if they even can.
September 17, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The missile system was intended to cement our relationship with the defense industry.
September 17, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any reduction in defense spending represents "change we can believe in."
September 17, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is why liberals can't be trusted with foreign policy. You think the world would be safer if we eliminated our defense department. Well, yeah, safer for terrorists and dictators and communist oppressors.
September 17, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should just crawl under the bed. My dog feels safer there and he's brighter than you, should help.
September 17, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the sake of accuracy, Bulldog, I did not say all spending for defense. My point was that reducing it at all has been taboo for too long. Hence, "any reduction..."
But now I'm curious. Do you not think we could close a single base, anywhere?
September 17, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure I think we could close bases. It is not true to say spending has never been cut, since it was cut pretty substantially under Bush 1 and then much more so under Clinton. Under Reagan it was over 1/3 of the budget, which would make it twice what it is today. So it has as a percentage of total spending been reduced considerably.
September 17, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link to 2009's Base Structure Report.
716 foreign bases
4742 US bases
121 US territory bases (pg 8)
With over 5000 bases, there's a lot of streamlining that probably could be squeezed in without impeding effectiveness. Just for the sake of efficiency.
September 17, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed!
September 17, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
CBD, the plan to deploy long-range interceptors on Polish soil and a radar system on Czech soil has always constituted a provocation and potential threat to Russia.
U.S.-built interceptors and radar along the Russian border would give any European U.S. ally acting aggressively against Russia (say, to retrieve a disputed ancestral territory) an advantage in blocking Russian counter-moves. And really, who wants missiles on their doorstep that can be re-targeted at a moment's notice? It doesn't parallel the Cuban missile crisis, but it does approach the provocation of a border buildup of troops.
On top of that, we need Russia's cooperation to contain Iran and shut off its flow of technology and fissile material. Currently, Russia supplies the bulk of both for Iran's nuclear and missile programs.
Iranian medium-range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads constitutes the greater threat to U.S. security interests, as such missiles could level targets in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, the southern Mediterranean, etc. It would be an incredibly destabilizing game changer for Iran to possess such weapons. That threat DOES parallel a Cuban missile threat.
So all in all, now that defense analysts have concluded that Iran is building medium-range missiles and not long-range missiles, Obama's move makes sense because even the fastest long-range interceptors would be useless against medium-range missiles bound for the Middle East or the southern Mediterranean.
September 17, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
And frankly, Poland and the Czech Republic don't need missiles on their soil to protect them from Russia. They're NATO members now and that's all they need to back up their sovereignty and security: the plausible threat of U.S. and European assistance. It's worked so far.
September 17, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think it's plausible, with Obama in office?
September 17, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
More plausible than any scenario you are able to construct, Toothless Chihuahua.
September 17, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a provocation to base defensive missiles there only in the sense that Russia wants to dominate eastern europe and this is a threat to their ability to do so. These interceptor rockets were never a military threat to Russia, nor were the small numbers of US troops that would operate the system. It was about denying the Russians the ability to bully their neighbors. These missiles are not nuclear, are not re targetable (since they are designed to target incoming missiles) for offensive use. And relying on the intelligence of these defense analysts is how we got into Iraq.
September 17, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're truly worried about Russia 'dominating' Eastern(or Western, for that matter) maybe you should be advocating a turn away from Europe's abject dependence on Russian natural gas.
Are you a Polish immigrant working at Los Alamos?
September 17, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
We got 'into Iraq' CleverBullDog because people like you voted in George W. Bush and George W. Bush ordered an invasion in his authority as President and Commander in Chief. It was his responsibility and his alone, if you are not aware of that you are dumb as dirt.
We along with NATO can prevent Russian 'bullying' with diplomacy which is less expensive than missile shields masquerading as 'bully stoppers'.
September 17, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing how classy this post has become with you just throwing insults all around.
September 17, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crikey, even hawkish Defense Minister of Israel Ehud Barak just told an Israeli newspaper that Israel nukes do not pose an "existential threat to Israel."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/17/israels_defense_minister_iranian_nukes_not_an_exis/#more
'Course its that liberal Rosenberg reporting what they said he said...
September 17, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iranian nukes.
September 17, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Bulldog, you're misreading your wingnut talking points. Read again:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDY3ZmZmNDRjOTAyZTVkNmE5ZTExYzdhM2YxM2QwMjg=
September 17, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey, wow, that article actually seemed cogent! Yes there are lots of reasons that we shouldn't be in Poland with a missile defense system.
This article piqued my interest and I went on a Polish Newspaper search to see what's there. Looks like that many Poles, whether the rest of Europe supports the missile system or no, are a bit disappointed.
This BBC analysis gives a more broad view--a good quick read and quite strategic.
September 17, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the links!! Yeah, every once in a while NRO puts out something interesting...
September 17, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those that won't spend a dime to help their fellow American citizens who don't have health care want to spend billions on a missile shield the Eastern Europeans do not want and of questionable reliability. Nice.
September 17, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it interesting that this blog has 1 rec and 96 comments...if it is not worth discussing, why are so many doing it?
September 17, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't rec it because I didn't think it worth discussing. Its only worth debunking. It appears others felt the same. But perhaps that debunking was worth the recs so maybe it should have been.
September 17, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink