PDA

View Full Version : U.S. European missile defence system another "magic bullet" theory?


tlr online
22-08-08, 16:15
Before I begin, This is an argument aimed at the present political climate in the United States. It's not an attack on the American people.

The US and Poland have signed a deal to locate part of the US's controversial missile defence system on Polish soil. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travelled to Warsaw for the ceremony, after 18 months of negotiations.

The deal has angered Russia, which has warned the base could become a target for a nuclear strike. Washington says the system will protect the US and much of Europe against missile attacks from "rogue elements" in the Middle East such as Iran. - BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7571660.stm).

Naturally, the Russians aren't too happen about this. And for good reason. It appears that the Bush Crime Family could be trying to exit Russia from NATA and demonise the country as the "enemy". The recent turmoil in South Ossetia and an earlier visit to the region by Condoleezza Rice smacks of outside interference.

IMO, this is another round of hypocrisy perpetrated by Dick Cheney and his puppet toy President George Bush before their timely demise in November. Here's what I have problems with. Please, correct me if I've got this bent out of shape.

First of all, war. Haven't we learnt yet? Next, we have a war machine dictating who the enemy is. :rolleyes: Next, we have Iran seemingly bent on launching a "magic missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory)" that's going NORTH TO POLAND before changing direction and putting U.S. interests at risk. (yes, I am being sarcastic here.) Finally, if we're talking about protecting U.S. interests in the Middle East, there shouldn't be any there in the first place! And besides, wouldn't it be more strategically logical to put missile batteries in, say, Israel? Why next door to your former arch enemy? Did Bush really expect Putin to roll over and take that? Of course he didn't.

Does it all come down to oil? What does the Middle East have that's worth destabalising the region for and installing a "like-minded" govenment? What does Russia have? Does it all come down to the black stuff, again?

The George Bush / Dick Cheney legacy. It seems exhaustively never-ending doesn't it. You have to wonder how Russia will respond to this once the ink has dried and construction is under way. I don't suppose any nation at present can match the military might of the United States, which pretty much gives them a green light to do anything they want. I think Obama has his work cut out for him.

Goose
22-08-08, 16:28
I wouldnt underestimate Russia if i were you. The Turmoil was as much Russia's fault as Georgia's, after all, since when do NATO peacekeepers hand out Russia passports to people who dont even know what a VISA is? Also the French cease fire stated that all sides must return to there turf, so russia decideds to dig in right outside the capital of Georgia, until americans start arriving to give 'humanitarian support'.

Look at Chechnya, the last chechen war is very interesting, so is the last and current chechen government.

There are actually patriot missiles based in Israel, and were very succesful during the first Gulf war, they had a 97% success rate against Saddams Scud missiles (capable of CRBN-Weapons).

Heckler
22-08-08, 16:39
:mad:
I hate wars and stuff....
Maybe we should all become flowerchildren (hippies) and smoke weed all the time.....a Positive sollution by laughing ourselves sick...

tlr online
22-08-08, 16:48
You have to wonder tho, if Bush spent as much money on developing renewable energy sources as he seemingly does on invading countries and wagering war, this so-called 'war on terror' would be over pretty quickly.

Mad Tony
22-08-08, 16:53
I wonder where all this hot air will go once Bush is out of office.

Goose
22-08-08, 16:59
:mad:
I hate wars and stuff....
Maybe we should all become flowerchildren (hippies) and smoke weed all the time.....a Positive sollution by laughing ourselves sick...

I think hippies and flower power did more damage then good during the 60's and 70's, according to world wide reports, more civilians died in Viet Nam and Cambodia due to Americas pull out (2,750,000) after overwhelming anti war publicity then during the 14 years of warfare (2,300,000 civilians 1959-75). These were through not only the Cambodian Genocide, but also the communist 're-education' camps that were set up for the south vietnamesse and the 'boat people' who left in millions from the communist regime, almost half of which died trying to reach other countries. I mean im sure they had the best intentions, but putting your gun on the floor isnt always the best idea once you've annoyed a big bear.

I wonder where all this hot air will go once Bush is out of office.


It wont go anywhere, McCain is onside with the current strategy, he was a big supporter of the Surge that has recently bought more success to Iraq, Obama seems to have changed his mind a few times, first he opposed everything, now he's saying the same thing McCain said a couple of years ago: "we will stay till its finished".

You have to wonder tho, if Bush spent as much money on developing renewable energy sources as he seemingly does on invading countries and wagering war, this so-called 'war on terror' would be over pretty quickly.

America hasnt actually been taking oil at levels suggesting that they invaded Iraq for oil, infact, Iraq actually has savings of billions from american reconstruction of there oil facilities that it could be spending on this war, but would rather sit and watch suckers like us waste our money.

Cochrane
22-08-08, 17:10
Not liking Bush is a sentiment I can certainly agree with, but not everything in international politics, not even everything the US is involved in, can be simply explained with "The US government are malicious idiots", and assuming that it can is not going to help anyone.

First of all, do the US have interest in Central and Western Europe? Of course they do, and those interests are precisely defined by the NATO contract. The missile defense project is meant (among other things certainly) to protect non-americans from missiles.

Why shouldn't there be any US interest in the middle east? The US have the wrong kind of interest there, sure, but protecting allies (and a lot of countries there are or at least pretend to be US allies) and economic resources there is a valid goal as long as it does not interfere with the wishes of the population there. Most other western countries (where western means the union of EU and NATO) have interest there as well, only they don't choose to fight (which is a bad idea, I fully agree), but rather to go about things diplomatically.

In this entire deal you mustn't forget that Poland agreed to this. Yes, Poland is very sympathetic towards the US, as has been shown by their involvement in the Iraq war, but that does not discredit their motives. Poland is so sympathetic precisely because they fear Russia, and historically, they have good reason to do so. As you said, at the moment Russia can't match the US, so if Poland doesn't trust Russia but does trust the US, then installing these systems while Putin can't practically do more than look very concerned makes a lot of sense for them.

Does any of this mean that it's a good idea to put those missiles right in front of Russia's nose? Not necessarily, but this isn't a black-and-white matter.

I haven't made up my mind over whether they are a good idea yet. For me, the arguments are as follows:

Against:

I don't expect an Iranian missile attack any time soon, as NATO is more than capable of launching a counter strike.
How good of an idea is it really to **** of Russia?


For:

How good of an idea is it really to let Russia continue trying to re-establish it's former spheres of influence?
All parties involved, which means the US and Poland, want it, so it's an internal matter.

tlr online
22-08-08, 17:27
I don't expect an Iranian missile attack any time soon, as NATO is more than capable of launching a counter strike.

Neither do I. Iran must be highly flattered right now.

How good of an idea is it really to let Russia continue trying to re-establish it's former spheres of influence?

Some are arguing that Russia is only following suit to a plan already in motion by the U.S. That being the fortification of their footprint around the globe, via occupation if necessary. Many moons ago, we all staked our claim on land. Agreed, some (like the British Empire) didn't exactly follow acceptable protocal. But today, we have our borders, and our turf. It's my opinion that's where our interests should be focused, and I'm not buying into this "talking up the enemy" rhetoric which seems so virulent these days.

tlr online
22-08-08, 17:33
It wont go anywhere, McCain is onside with the current strategy, he was a big supporter of the Surge that has recently bought more success to Iraq...

A success for whom?

Regarding Obama, I agree. Neither are perfect candidates, but Obama is the lesser of two evils IMO. The democrats took control of the Senate, and should be given a shot at the Presidency. Because really, it can't get any worse.

Forwen
22-08-08, 17:37
In this entire deal you mustn't forget that Poland agreed to this.

Pre-war polls showed over half of Polish citizens opposing the idea. The support rocketed after Russia invaded Georgia, which fits nicely into the Schauenemann (sp?) conspiracy theory if you're into stuff like this.

A success for whom?

For American troops at least, recently the monthly death toll fell beneath the one from Afghanistan for the first time ever (somewhere between 20-30 afair).

Goose
22-08-08, 17:41
A success for whom?

Regarding Obama, I agree. Neither are perfect candidates, but Obama is the lesser of two evils IMO. The democrats took control of the Senate, and should be given a shot at the Presidency. Because really, it can't get any worse.

Like Forwen was saying, its a success for all really not just the troops, its not warfare, its insurgency, similar to northern ireland, when an insurgent attacks a soldier, they normally end up hurting or killing more civilians then targets. So Iraqis are better off now, compared to two years ago. People can look at that and say 'well we shouldnt have been there anyway', but...we are, and things are better no matter how you view the conflict.

tlr online
22-08-08, 17:43
For American troops at least, recently the monthly death toll fell beneath the one from Afghanistan for the first time ever (somewhere between 20-30 afair).

And in the grand scheme of things (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)?

As many as 200,000 civilians may have been injured in Iraq since March 2003, based on Iraqi Ministry of Health figures and approximate IBC calculations. Many of them suffering horrific injuries, especially bomb victims. Injuries resulting from bomb explosions include limbs being blown off, bodies riddled with shrapnel, blindness and loss of hearing. Iraqis have been bombed from the air, by car bombs, roadside bombs and suicide bombers.

I think those are more likely conversative numbers.

Why are the U.S. and European coalition in Iraq?

Forwen
22-08-08, 17:48
And in the grand scheme of things (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)?

Er... Even the graph on the home page above shows the civilian death toll has been falling since 2007. It would be a mistake to ascribe all the good changes to American troops only, as without Iraqi civilian efforts nothing would change anyway, but it sure is there.

I thought the thread was about the defence system?

tlr online
22-08-08, 17:49
Er... Even the graph on the home page above shows the civilian death toll has been falling since 2007. It would be a mistake to ascribe all the good changes to American troops only, as without Iraqi civilian efforts nothing would change anyway, but it sure is there.

I thought the thread was about the defence system?

So you're saying because it's getting better, it's OK? :confused:

Yes, you're right. These threads usually derail onto the topic of Iraq.

Fortune&Glory
22-08-08, 17:50
The movie The Day After started out with tensions with Russia. It ended a few weeks after Russia and the USA blew each other to hell. To say the least the missle strike sequence was fairly unrealistic.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2003/11/19/1.jpg

Goose
22-08-08, 17:51
Neither do I. Iran must be highly flattered right now.



Some are arguing that Russia is only following suit to a plan already in motion by the U.S. That being the fortification of their footprint around the globe, via occupation if necessary. Many moons ago, we all staked our claim on land. Agreed, some (like the British Empire) didn't exactly follow acceptable protocal. But today, we have our borders, and our turf. It's my opinion that's where our interests should be focused, and I'm not buying into this "talking up the enemy" rhetoric which seems so virulent these days.

What exactly did the British do that was unacceptable by that days standards? Consider the defeat of France or Prussia for starters, did the great evil empire take what it had earned?

The movie The Day After started out with tensions with Russia. It ended a few weeks after Russia and the USA blew each other to hell. To say the least the missle strike sequence was fairly unrealistic.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2003/11/19/1.jpg

lol, it was still scary though, except the parts that had that guy from '3rd rock from the sun'.

The grand scheme of things? I think i said in my last post, you can approach it like that, but im not defending the war, im defending the Surge.

tlr online
22-08-08, 17:53
The movie The Day After started out with tensions with Russia. It ended a few weeks after Russia and the USA blew each other to hell. To say the least the missle strike sequence was fairly unrealistic.

http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2003/11/19/1.jpg

I actually think this is the way it will go. The cold war will reignite, Russia and the U.S. will go battle-axe with each other, the outcome of which I can't see going any other way than the U.S's. Somewhere down the line, World War III, nuclear annihilation, and ever further down the line I wonder if the human race will have learnt the simple rule that force is futile. But the flip side is that humans are predatorial animals. Maybe it just wasn't meant to be.

Forwen
22-08-08, 17:53
I think i said in my last post, you can approach it like that, but im not defending the war, im defending the Surge.

That. Americans went to Iraq on false pretences, but it has nothing to do with how well or badly they're actually performing once there.

tlr online
22-08-08, 17:56
... but im not defending the war, im defending the Surge.

That's a bit of a moot point tho isn't it.

Goose
22-08-08, 17:56
That. Americans went to Iraq on false pretences, but it has nothing to do with how well or badly they're actually performing once there.

I said McCain supported the Surge, thats it, i dont agree with being there either.

Goose
22-08-08, 17:57
That's a bit of a moot point tho isn't it.

Its not, the sooner we bring stability, the sooner we leave. The war was wrong, the Surge was right.

tlr online
22-08-08, 17:59
Its not, the sooner we bring stability, the sooner we leave. The war was wrong, the Surge was right.

I'm not following you Goose.

We invaded a country, destabilized a region, toppled a government (a government we armed in the first place remember) and now we're patting ourselves on the back for picking up the pieces?

Goose
22-08-08, 18:01
I'm not following you Goose.

We invaded a country, destabilized a region, toppled a government (a government we armed in the first place remember) and now we're patting ourselves on the back for picking up the pieces?

Thats not what i mean, we made the mistake of invading a country, and now we have the duty to rebuild it. The surge is helping, so i support that.

I would rather keep going on tours to iraq and afghan then walk away and say 'sorry mate your on your own'.

Fortune&Glory
22-08-08, 18:01
In the movie Russia fired at us first, there was a blockade of some kind and a Russian ship shot at one of ours first then things ultimately escalated to the nuclear exchange. the only anti-missile defense that makes any sense to me is a laser system.

tlr online
22-08-08, 18:02
Thats not what i mean, we made the mistake of invading a country, and now we have the duty to rebuild it. The surge is helping, so i support that.

I would rather keep going on tours to iraq and afghan then walk away and say 'sorry mate your on your own'.

And the installation of a 'like-minded', American-sympathetic government is rebuilding, in your eyes?

Goose
22-08-08, 18:03
And the installation of a 'like-minded', American-sympathetic government is rebuilding, in your eyes?

I hope not, im British. A like minded british sympathetic government, maybe. Aslong as no-ones being killed en-mass.

tlr online
22-08-08, 18:05
I hope not, im British.

touché.

Goose
22-08-08, 18:07
touché.

But from a serious point of view, all anyone wants, is for it to stop and to leave it in a half decent (or very decent) state for the future. I hope that can be achieved soon.

But big countries go for oil, that was a big reason for russias hard line against chechnya becoming independant.

Fortune&Glory
22-08-08, 18:48
I really don't like end of the world movies, now scifi ones with comets zombies and red dust isn't a big deal since comets don't turn people into red dust and zombies but nukes are a big deal.

Cochrane
22-08-08, 20:12
Some are arguing that Russia is only following suit to a plan already in motion by the U.S. That being the fortification of their footprint around the globe, via occupation if necessary. Many moons ago, we all staked our claim on land. Agreed, some (like the British Empire) didn't exactly follow acceptable protocal. But today, we have our borders, and our turf. It's my opinion that's where our interests should be focused, and I'm not buying into this "talking up the enemy" rhetoric which seems so virulent these days.

Some are arguing that... others argue different things. I have no way of knowing what is right and what not, but there is one thing I know for certain: During the cold war, the western side of the iron curtain was the one considered more desirable. If we are heading into that direction again, then, despite all their horrible failings, I'd still rather be on the side of the US than any other power, especially including Russia. Sorry to all Russians, but on corruption, freedom and democracy indices of any kind, Russia consistently scores worse than the US.

I'm not a fan of keeping to your own bubble either, because we long left that bubble. Look at the many people here talking from all over the world, purchasing products and energy from everywhere – we all are already moving beyond our bubbles individually, and if a government is to be a legitimate representation of it's people, then it too will have to mingle with other governments, define interests in areas outside it's borders and protect that. With that I don't condone shoving stuff down other people's throats, but if you deny that the western world is dependent on oil from the middle east you're neither doing us nor them any favor.

rickybazire
22-08-08, 20:32
Woah...quite a read.

I hope this all turns out good.

Forwen
22-08-08, 20:41
If we are heading into that direction again, then, despite all their horrible failings, I'd still rather be on the side of the US than any other power, especially including Russia.

Why do you have to keep beating me to saying the good stuff? Yep, for all American shortcomings, when it comes to today's plausible choice between US, Russia, China and India I know where my preference lies. Even considering my pro-Chinese bias.

That doesn't mean I'll stop whining anytime soon. To think something is flawless is to let it rot away.

peeves
29-08-08, 01:03
Anyway if another war is starting why bother to start a war rather than become friends? :confused: Anyway I hope it turns out ok.

Draco
29-08-08, 02:04
Because really, it can't get any worse.

It could get a lot worse. Neither candidate shows much interest in protecting my interests...though I don't know what Obama would do other than raise taxes, he hasn't told anyone.

interstellardave
29-08-08, 02:52
It could get a lot worse. Neither candidate shows much interest in protecting my interests...though I don't know what Obama would do other than raise taxes, he hasn't told anyone.

He's saying a whole lot of nothing right now on TV... and the crowd is eating it up.

Draco
29-08-08, 04:44
He's saying a whole lot of nothing right now on TV... and the crowd is eating it up.

Guess Americans really are as dumb as people think.

Cochrane
29-08-08, 10:18
He's saying a whole lot of nothing right now on TV... and the crowd is eating it up.

Come on, there never was any reason to expect any real content out of "Democrat Idol". I kind of wonder why it's even featured in the news (here, in Germany, in particular) at all, it's just a crowning ceremony for a presidential candidate, not something where politics get decided.

SamReeves
29-08-08, 16:35
Come on, there never was any reason to expect any real content out of "Democrat Idol". I kind of wonder why it's even featured in the news (here, in Germany, in particular) at all, it's just a crowning ceremony for a presidential candidate, not something where politics get decided.

LMAO!!! :vlol:

"Democrat Idol"…good call. That's what it does remind me of. :p