Obama's allies are not America's allies.

He is such a genius..

Ahmadinnajab..3....2....1... All clear. You can go ahead now.

Facts - use them - they're your friends.

President Obama said today he has shelved a missile defense system to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic because a "new approach" will provide better protection against possible attacks by Iran and other rogue states.

"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe" will be "smarter, safer, and swifter" than the plan authorized by predecessor George W. Bush, Obama said during brief remarks at the White House.

Smarter, Safter and Swifter. That's disgraceful!

Vic

I'm curious as to WHAT Barry is getting for knifing the Poles and Czechs in the back. the worst thing a foreign leader can hear from our President today is "Don't worry, I've got your back!". The guy has no "expertise" in anything, let alone international trade, foreign affairs, economics, history or simple math. By the end of the month he's going to get punked by both Ahamdinajab and Putin. Hope he takes some KY on his trip.

"Smarter, Safter and Swifter. That's disgraceful!

Vic"

Nothing Obama has shown so far would lead anyone with even a small smidgen of intelligence to believe anything he does is..

Smarter, safter (Morey Safer?), or swift.

ALlriggt, really? Someone somewhere WAS going to try to make a situation out of this.

Seriously kim?

Your portrayal of Obama's decision thinking and long term planning might have a shred of crediblitity if the Poles actually felt like we were betrayng them.

Not to mention that because of US commitments, we'd step in in two seconds the second a rogue state really kicks the fan.

"""Those freedom loving Americans who were swept up into Hopenchange fever and voted for Obama should hang their heads in shame today""" ...on your opinion, which yu are of course allowed to have. I would note that this is CHANGE from what other presidents might do, and look at what will happen

Lets see. #1. Russia is a bit happier, the Poles aren't too bugged, and the threat from Iran is minimal. By the way, if you had done research, a little bit, even at this early point at this news ,you'd find that the US s actually leaving the plans for the missile shield, open still... in other words, if Iran starts beefing up, we go back to putting the missiles there WITH Russia witnessing that Irano is beefing up and that it's more undersandable for us doing so. its a Win for US.

Believe it or not, i'm way more hawkish than you, likely.

somethings, you have enough of a presencs of raw capabilitity behind you that you can "postpone" your moves.

"The most recent example is the Obama administration's throwing Honduras under the bus. It just recently cut off $31 million in aid after the Honduras supreme court ruled that then-president Zelaya acted illegally when he attempted to install himself as president indefinitely. Obama has in this case allied himself with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro." So now we're taking Potshots at the president because he and someone else came to the same conclusion? And you LEAVE out that other countries that ARE our allies ALSO came to the same decision? If the Presdents of austallia, Russia, Korea, Cuba, Canada, Mexico, and XXX nations are the same, are we really putting ourselves in the same boat??

That is like saying that you should always do the OPPOSITE of some people simply because you have had rough ties with them in the past. where's the logic? ALlied himself with castro...this is smearing...and i'd almost say intentionally. ""He has once again allied himself with nations and leaders who value oppression and tyranny over freedom and liberty."" I just called you on this one, so..

"Obama's choice to abandon the missile shield for Poland and the Czech Republic is nearly as bad as Carter's decision to abandon the Shah of Iran. "" However, NOW we're dynamic enough to move fast and step in IF, IF, (big IF) ,IF things go downhill. We wouldnt' be the only ones, but we'd be a obvious one. ADDING to that FURTHER, we've learned from our mistakes. In the modern world, don't jump to fear polotics. And it's sad - i am more of a hawk than you, haha. And yet i see what wins in the END. DO you know how fast we could beef up Poland? Trust me, we can move pretty fast. Can't really give "credibilitity" to iran being capable of doing all that. And they'r going to go for Poland, now? When you have countries like Germany , The UK, France, Turkey, etc,etc ready to jump on them?

Oh, guess what, you must not hav gotten the memo that if Iran starts going cuukoo, Russia would step in and do something about it to, and NOt cheer about the Iranians going afte the Poles...why? If they tried to ally with Iran after a declaration of war like that, it'd be suicide in the modern world. Putin isn't stupid. They'd regret it...one country can't fight the world on good intentions. Not in this age.

"countries that value liberty and freedom and instead find comaraderie with the likes of Chavez, Castro, and now Putin." I bet if you sat down with obama, and had a nice talk, you'd realize that he IS making the smart decision, and leaving every option he has ON the table. There's nothing we will not do now that we won't be able to do later.

I conclude you're simply making some harsh one sided points at Obama.....

914 You are asking Vic to look past his absolute love of Obama to realize your comment.

Obama has no such thing. If in fact he did, it would have leaked before this. Another lie. ww

Vic,

Do you have a link to this "smarter, safer, and swifter" system?

No need to get real fancy - just a fact-based study of the system that is intended to replace the one scrpped, when it is due to come on-line and the projected opportunity costs associated with it.

Not that I don't take Obama's word for it, man of integrity that he is, but curiosity has always been one of my vices.

That, and distrust of people from the government that are here to "help" me.

There's nothing we will not do now that we won't be able to do later.
6. Posted by Spirit of lightningRAAD

Hey dipshit, that's what the French said in 1939. Only problem was what was done later cost one hell of a lot more and MILLIONS of dead.
Go drink some more kool aid and go back to sleep.

By far BARCK OBAMA is the all time worse crinimal to inhabit the city of thieves even worse then carter or clinton

!Bam has just served notice that Israel has roughly 12 mo. to live in Dar al Islam.

"Into the boat, Jooos!"

Now given the likely conflagration to follow regardless of their success in neutralizing Iran's nuclear capability, why would they hazard a conventional strike of dubious effectiveness?

Facts - use them - they're your friends.

President Obama said today he has shelved a missile defense system to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic because a "new approach" will provide better protection against possible attacks by Iran and other rogue states.
"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe" will be "smarter, safer, and swifter" than the plan authorized by predecessor George W. Bush, Obama said during brief remarks at the White House.

Smarter, Safter and Swifter. That's disgraceful!

Uh, right. Scrap a working system that you have spent billions on, assert that you have a plan for something "better" (for which there is no evidence, contract, or even concept) that may, someday, decades in the future, be "better", but more likely will never exist at all - but for which you have paid hundreds of billions for. Of course there's no chance that, lacking any protection from the expansionist Russians, and despite those biting and very harsh letters the UN sends Iran (threatening another, even harsher letter), there will be a Poland or Czech Republic to protect.

"Victory is Ours" indeed. "Ours" being the enemies of democracy. Enjoy it while it lasts - the countdown to starting to kick every single one of your pathetic socialist "revolution" out of office is down to a little over a year...

Putin collars and leashes Barry and tells him to get down on all fours and bark like Bo. Forget Hillary and Gates. We now have a foreign affairs "czar" in Moscow.

Wasn't Europe all in favor of Obama being president...critizing Bush and thinking how better and saver the world would be once Obama was president? Ha-Ha

I wonder how they feel now?

If those allies in Europe don't like Obama's decision, it's because they are racists. If you've ever traveled in Europe, you'll see these old time cathedrals, the way the pope is dressed (remind anyone of the KKK?) . . . all are racists, ALL, except Africa and 18% of America who are hard liberals.

On Sept. 12, 2001, I think Le Monde's headline was "We are all Americans".

On Sept 17th, 2009, the headline is now "We are all Racists".

Hahahahaha..I didn't know anything about it.

Worst president ever.

"Smarter, Safer, Swifter"............
I was just thinking, wouldn't this be terrific to use on the next installment in the reality show, "Survivor"?

"Surviver, Eastern Euroope" with Jeff Probst giving out those handkerchiefs with "Smarter, Safer, Swifter" on them while Iran or Russia conduct the immunity challenges to see which East European country gets spared from Iran's nuclear testing.

"Worst president ever."

And Carters jealous. He wanted to be the One to off the Joos for his buddies in the west bank.

"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe" will be "smarter, safer, and swifter" than the plan authorized by predecessor George W. Bush, Obama said during brief remarks at the White House.

And the dutiful, inquisitive press stood there and asked.......nothing.

Obama on the new plan.

President Obama said Thursday that he is abandoning Bush-era plans for a long-range missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic, turning instead to a land- and sea-based system of sensors and interceptors that is focused on stopping short-range missiles that could be fired toward Europe from Iran.

The president said he was accepting the "unanimous" recommendation of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in turning away from the former administration's plan to place interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic.

Instead, a distributed sensor system, apparently envisioned as a more advanced version of the Navy's Aegis theater missile defense system, would "deploy techniques that are proven and cost-effective and will counter the current threat more effectively and do so sooner" that a longer-range system would, Obama said.

He said the system he is embracing will offer "stronger, smarter and swifter defense of American forces and America's allies."

Kind of blows Kim's whole rant out of the water but then reality will do that sometimes.

Hey, thanks Steve (no 21).

Because as we've all learned, we can always trust Obama to be honest and straightforward.

As to the Reuters article, it must be incomplete. I can't seem to find the obligatory apology from Obama.

Okay, I've had a passing interest in missile defense for quite a while (ever since the '80s) and I haven't seen any indication of any proposals for any other missile defense system to be based in Europe to ward off attacks from the ME.

Maybe there's some classified program he's referring to - but I'm thinking Obama's succumbed to 'Reality Based' thinking. He WANTS there to be something else, so there IS something out there, somewhere, even if it doesn't exist, that'll make a politically acceptable (for the left, and Russia) substitute for a theater-based ABM defense.

Of course, maybe he's just planning on throwing Europe under the bus.

Right Steve:

I did something similar yesterday. I announced to my wife, we are abandoning to outdated shopping for your clothes at places like Talbots, White/Black, etc. and we will go to a smarter system of shopping (satellite based) at the website of ConsignedWomens'sClothes. It is just smarter and better, and just believe me otherwise you'll be a racist -- and there's only one thing that's worse than racism, naziism.

turning instead to a land- and sea-based system of sensors and interceptors that is focused on stopping short-range missiles that could be fired toward Europe from Iran.

Of course short-range missiles could be fired toward Europe form Iran, but because they're short-range they can't actually hit most targets in Europe. Thus, the story is just a cover for a unilateral retreat by Obama. What Obama hasn't figured out yet is that Russia won't be appeased for long, but actually emboldened by what they see as weak President.

This is a comment to Steve in all seriousness, and I'm being earnest without being partisan. I hope that you are able to earn some compensation for the help you are giving the administration, carrying their message at face value to those that question it, even if it is a transparent attempt to spin the negative into something not so negative. I mean, really consider, did you expect the administration to say "we're abandoning the missile defense system because Europe's security is not our highest priority given the difficulties of our economy". Did you REALLY expect them to say that?

Nobody is commenting on this fabrication on Kim's part:

Obama's choice to abandon the missile shield for Poland and the Czech Republic is nearly as bad...

He didn't abandon it - he's got advice from Gates and is making it better instead. I'm sure Kim will provide an update [deep breath --hold it -- hold it...]

And the truth also makes the following just another hog-headed right wing lie:

"The decision announced today by the Administration is dangerous and short-sighted. Not only does this decision leave America vulnerable to the growing Iranian long-range missile threat, it also turns back the clock to the days of the Cold War, when Eastern Europe was considered the domain of Russia. This will be a bitter disappointment, indeed, even a warning to the people of Eastern Europe.

"Despite the fact that Poland and the Czech Republic have committed their soldiers to fight alongside U.S. forces in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, today the Administration has turned its back on these allies.

"The message the Administration sends today is clear: the United States will not stand behind its friends and views 're-setting' relations with Russia more important. This is wrong!

Yep, "wrong" is right. In fact, it's a lie.

Now what is the pattern we see here? A black man in the White House and the right wing goes wacky... I wonder why?

Guys,

Before you click on Steve's "I wonder why?", let me keep you from wasting 5 min of your life (collectively, I've added about 10 hrs to your lives) --

the link goes to a Rachel Maddow segment.

Steve is a racist.

Steve -

I really don't give a damn whether you consider it racist or not - there's NOTHING apparently out there, in either the Russian or European or US inventory, that can work as far as ballistic missile defense goes, other than what we've been working on for years. It's HARD to hide this stuff - the tests are just too apparent.

So what's Obama going to do - have Gates on constant air patrol over there so he can expose his massive, manly pecs for any missile to bounce off of?

Maybe there's some details about this hypothetical 'better' system somewhere, but they're sure not readily apparent on any of the defense blogs. And at this point, anything that Obama says is 'better' needs to have friggin' iron-clad solid details behind it before folks are going to buy it.

All you really need to know:

Press reports out of Russia indicated that the Kremlin was claiming [Obama's] decision as a victory. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week that he expected the White House to back off the missile defense plan and said that the Kremlin would not do anything in return for what they viewed as simply correcting a past mistake. - Washington Times

My emphases. Obama bends over for the oppressors once more.

"Nobody is commenting on this fabrication on Kim's part:

Obama's choice to abandon the missile shield for Poland and the Czech Republic is nearly as bad...

He didn't abandon it - he's got advice from Gates and is making it better instead. I'm sure Kim will provide an update [deep breath --hold it -- hold"

What part of scrapping dont You understand?

Im starting to think Your a little bit racist?

P.S. In case you don't like my source, even Common Dreams gets it, you blind leftist dumb-asses.

Barack Obama Abandons Missile Defense Shield in Europe

Decision likely to delight Moscow, which saw itself as the target, but is met with dismay by Poland and Czech Republic

by Luke Harding in Moscow and Ian Traynor in Brussels

Barack Obama has abandoned the controversial Pentagon plan to build a missile defence system in Europe. The move has prompted angry accusations of betrayal from Washington's eastern European allies but delighted the Kremlin.

"Now what is the pattern we see here? A black man in the White House and the right wing goes wacky"

Well look at that, Steve's resorting to the race card.

Sorry but that card doesn't work anymore.

Liberals shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which comes out of the mouth of Obama.

I thought Obama was half-white.

Is that not true?

"to be willing to be unpopular with the world's bully in order to protect those who are less powerful"

But Obummer has no problem with bullying us.

"Maybe there's some details about this hypothetical 'better' system somewhere, but they're sure not readily apparent on any of the defense blogs. And at this point, anything that Obama says is 'better' needs to have friggin' iron-clad solid details behind it before folks are going to buy it."

You guys trusted Gates' judgment when he worked for Bush and were happy to quote Gates position as the right path - but now hearing that Gates is on-board and pushing for these changes isn't good enough?

Update at 10:37 a.m. ET: At the Pentagon, Gates is describing a new plan that will begin with ship-based "interceptors" and move to land-based defenses -- possibly in eastern Europe -- around 2015.

Those who say the U.S. is "scrapping" missile defense in Europe, are "misinformed or misreprsenting the reality of what we are doing," Gates just added.

Gee, what a surprise that is happening. Misrepresenting reality - I couldn't choose better words myself.

Gates' word on Defense issues was ok when a WASP was in the White House - so what's changed?

Oh yeah - the non-citizen Muslim Socialist extremist BS.

"You guys trusted Gates' judgment when he worked for Bush and were happy to quote Gates position as the right path - but now hearing that Gates is on-board and pushing for these changes isn't good enough?"

I never quoted Gates and I cant stand government types anyways.

Seems to me you are putting a lot of trust and lives at stake following this organizers path.

"Gates' word on Defense issues was ok when a WASP was in the White House - so what's changed?

Oh yeah - the non-citizen Muslim Socialist extremist BS."

RACIST! RACIST!

All right. The race card has been called.

All current and future discussion is hereby rendered ridiculous.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

...wasn't the entire rationale for an Obama presidency the notion that he would repair the foreign relationships that had been (so they told us) destroyed by that unilateralist cowboy imperialist evil genius doofus?

"Update at 10:37 a.m. ET: At the Pentagon, Gates is describing a new plan that will begin with ship-based "interceptors" and move to land-based defenses -- possibly in eastern Europe -- around 2015."

Is Gates even aware that the Poles and Czechs are "landlocked". Oh, but they'll move to 'land-based' defenses "around" 2015.

What a load of ass-covering BULLSHIT!

SGreen -

Gates will say what the President wants. What the fuck is out there that's 'better' than what we've been developing for DECADES? We've been DEVELOPING the ship-based interceptors for YEARS now, even using one to shoot down a satellite. As far as the land based-stuff goes - the best we've got is THAAD, but that's apparently not good enough?

Alexei Arbatov, head of the Russian Academy of Science's Center for International Security, said Thursday the U.S. was giving in on missile defense to get more cooperation from Russia on Iran.

"The United States is reckoning that by rejecting the missile defense system or putting it off to the far future, Russia will be inclined together with the United States to take a harder line on sanctions against Iran," he said.

Now Obama's dumping the defense of Europe for a possible inclination of Russia to cooperate on Iran.

Yeah, that's sure a winning strategy for someone, isn't it?

Article that came from is here...

Also from the article -

In a speech in April in Prague, Obama said Washington would proceed with developing the system as long as Iran posed a threat to U.S. and European security. But a top military leader, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, recently suggested the U.S. may have underestimated how long it would take Iran to develop long-range missiles.

Maybe it makes sense to you - but it's not making much sense elsewhere.

"Gates' word on Defense issues was ok when a WASP was in the White House - so what's changed?"

Gates DOESN'T act independently, asshole. He does what he's told. And right now he's being directed by a no-knowing 'community organizer' with delusions of omnipotence.

Oh, and I'm a bigot and RACIST! Beat you to it.

"Marine Gen. James Cartwright, recently suggested the U.S. may have underestimated how long it would take Iran to develop long-range missiles."

Along with a whole other group of things our current administration has "underestimated". But don't worry, we have a "community organizer" on our side who specializes in voting "PRESENT!".
I can hardly wait for the next "smart diplomacy" move from The Chosen One.

WARNING: RACIST COMMENT ABOVE

For those interested - Aviation Week's ARES Defense blog...And there's more information.

U.S. Yanks European GBIs; Plans SM-3s | AVIATION WEEK

Ten two-stage, silo-based Ground-Based Interceptors (GBI) that were to be placed in Poland and a long-range tracking radar bound for the Czech Republic - a plan pushed by President George W. Bush and endorsed by Gates in 2006 -- will be scrapped. This posture assumed that Iran would have a few intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) capable of reaching Europe or, eventually, the United States around 2015. However, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM) are proliferating at an alarming pace, prompting the restructuring, the officials told Pentagon reporters this morning. Of particular worry is the "raid" threat that hundreds of these missiles would be launched at once.

"We built the original system on the idea of a rogue nation threat - three to five missiles that could come from either North Korea or Iran. The reality is we are dealing with hundreds of missiles in the IRBM and medium range capabilities," Cartwright says. "What you can do with an SM-3 in affordability and in deployment and in dispersal is substantially greater for a larger group of [threat] missiles than what we have with the Ground-Based Interceptor."

The new plan has four phases, the first to be fielded in 2011. It is a mix of Patriot and PAC-3 terminal defenses as well as ship-based SM-3 Block IAs made by Raytheon and deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean and other areas around Europe.

Phase two in 2015, will incorporate land-based and ship-based SM-3 Block IBs (with an improved seeker and divert and attitude control system) and airborne sensors, Cartwright says. Poland and the Czech Republic are among the top candidates to house the relocatable land-based system. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency already has begun to experiment with infrared sensors on unmanned aerial vehicles as a facet of its sensor network.

In 2018, the land- and sea-based SM-3 Block IIA, which adds more range with a 21-in. booster (over the IA and IB's 14-in. motor), will lead the third phase. This significantly increases range, and Cartwright says up to three sites would be required to protect Europe.

Frankly, I don't think the Russians are going to be anywhere near so 'cooperative' with three sites, capable of handling a 'raid' of hundreds of missiles, when they were having definite objections over a single site with ten missiles.

I think this is a setup for a quiet cancellation. Yeah, the folks concerned with defense will raise concerns, but if the media doesn't cover it, it doesn't exist. And the money will quietly be parcelled elsewhere.

"ship-based "interceptors""

Remember the Commander in Chief ordering that the 'radar' not even be turned on when the Norks had Hawaii in view?

The Poles and Czechs are now NATO's human sheilds while !Bam negotiates our unilateral elimination of ICBMs.

Have been exchanging email with some friends this morning who have been working on the SM3 for several years. Even the computer geeks and engineers are scratching their heads today and saying "WTF are those idiots in Washington thinking!"

Barry continues to destroy the American economy and war making capacity in a clear Euro Soros directive to set up a new money system and centralized World government from Europe.

It is all on purpose.

Satellite capable, non-land based support -- for example, to meet that criteria, one could use the following.

See, if there is a news website ("satellite") that reports that there was a bombing in Warsaw, then the White House will read that and send some Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) for the victims. It technically qualifies.

Disagreeing with Obama and Gates' plan is fine. Debate is healthy in a democracy.

Ignoring they have a plan and lying about Obama "abandoning our allies" instead is bull.

Steve,

Perhaps the best indicator of whether we have abandoned our allies would be... their anger at the fact that we have abandoned our allies. You are the one who is lying.

Does Gates have any choice but to obey the Messiah? Of course not. He has to for fear of his job.
I have a question that is/is not relevant to this topic: Does Obama have pictures of certain people in the media, or in politics that are shall we say embarrassing? So many people are afraid of him and I wonder why? Has he threatened to go public with something? It makes me wonder why so many people who normally would stand up to a criminal entity, but are now cringing and making excuses for him. Makes me pause and wonder huuummmmmm.
Madalyn

Oh, they have a plan alright. But Im sure that plan will do this country great harm as is already evidenced by what his economic plan has done to the economy here.

He has messed things up enough already.

Can You name one thing Steve, Obama has suceeded at since being in office? I mean besides paying off his special interests?

Cech reaction:

Obama's announcement was met warmly by the Czechs, who say the era of American unilateralism is over and hope it has been replaced by a multilateral approach.

Czech foreign minister Jan Kohout said the new plan being floated by Obama will be built within the framework of NATO, of which both the Czechs and Poles are members.

Reality.

Ignoring they have a plan and lying about Obama "abandoning our allies" instead is bull.

51. Posted by Steve

Hey Stevie, drag your ass over to the international edition of the UK Times, agree with them or not, they've always had a pretty good handle on Euro politics. AND THEY'RE CALLING IT ABANDONMENT. And Stevie, isn't your pal Barry all about LOVE for the Euro's?

May want to give Steve and our other friends on the left some slack.

Seems the race card gambit is over.

Pelosi has just given a demonstration of the new tactic dems/leftists will employ; crying.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/59231-pelosi-concerned-about-potential-for-political-violence-like-sf-in-1970s

Yeah Stevie, the Czechs are really going wild:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/a_czech_resident_on_the_missile_shield_decision.php

Having been fucked over by most of Europe for decades, the Czechs are nothing, if not practical.

Pelosi can take her new gambit and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Hey BITCH! Remember the last 8 years? As you sow, so shall you reap. IT AIN'T OVER NANCY! IT'S JUST BEGINNING!

914,

Asking such tough questions, as Elvis says, "don't be cruel" (by the way, he probably was a racist, being from Tennessee and all).

However, Obama has succeeded in not getting a blow job that modern Democrat presidents get. However, I tend to view that as a failure.

The taxidermist must have injected too much botox into Rancy . Shes having an allergic reaction to so much polystyrene in her system.

Thanks for the link to the article titled "A Czech Resident On The Missile Shield Decision" Garandfan.

That's one person.

Obama's announcement was met warmly by the Czechs, who say the era of American unilateralism is over and hope it has been replaced by a multilateral approach.

Czech foreign minister Jan Kohout said the new plan being floated by Obama will be built within the framework of NATO, of which both the Czechs and Poles are members.

The "era of American unilateralism is over" - that would be the Bush doctrine. Czechs are celebrating that Bush is gone and you guys are out of power.

Sorry - there I go with "reality" again - my bad.

"This thing is a double edged sword for them. On one hand, not many Czechs are super pumped about the radar - but they are LESS PUMPED about Russia vetoing their foreign policy initiatives."

You have to read ALL the parts Stevie, not just the ones YOU like.

And if you've forgotten Stevie, or weren't around then, there was that little incident back in 1968 between the Russians and Czechs. The Czechs sure haven't.

I usually prefer to ignore posts here because I work 12-14 hours a day, seven days a week at my grocery store and just don't care to answer wrong opinions when earning money is a bigger passion of mine. But this is an important discussion here.

Clearly, this post misses many real world critical facts here. For one thing it is very important to pull in Russian cooperation in many important international areas. Another main problem is the huge cost required to effectively be able to shoot down any decent number of incoming missiles. And so far neither Iran or North Korea present a true nuclear threat, but that can certainly be answered if that threat should really arise.

For the $100 billion development costs spent so far mainly during Republican Administrations ranging from Reagan to Bush, Alaska has just 10 functional missile interceptors capable of shooting down perhaps as few as 5 incoming missiles since it takes at least two missile interceptors to shoot down just one incoming missile because of the high 50% failure rate.

Another problem is that Russia could potentially deploy as many 8,800 nuclear weapons and China could deploy as many as 400. 10 functional missile interceptors in Alaska at a development cost of $100 billion won't even come to close to the 16,000 missile interceptors really required to provide any protection whatsoever. And 10 more antimissile weapons in nations like Poland or even the Czech Republic isn't near enough to provide any protection against 8,800 Russian weapons by any stretch of the imagination, but just enough to anger the Russians.

For cost effectiveness, as well as advancing international cooperation the President called this issue right here.

The fact of the matter is that it's a pure fantasy for some to think that the United States or it's allies could survive a nuclear war. The only way to survive that type of war is not to have one in the first place. And cooperation with Russia, promoting responsible international conduct on their part is the best security of all.

"Thanks for the link to the article titled "A Czech Resident On The Missile Shield Decision" Garandfan.

That's one person"

Steve just like the ACORN tapes, if You look You will find more.

Im Czhecaslovakian and I disagree with it so there. Now theres 2 objectors and more acorns are sure to fall.

Republicans, don't you have enough to do fighting your "War on Terror," without still seeking to fight the hitherto-dead Cold War too?

"Another main problem is the huge cost required to effectively be able to shoot down any decent number of incoming missiles. And so far neither Iran or North Korea present a true nuclear threat, but that can certainly be answered if that threat should really arise."

Scrap the defense.. Its cheaper to let them hit.

"Republicans, don't you have enough to do fighting your "War on Terror," without still seeking to fight the hitherto-dead Cold War too?

68. Posted by Highlander"

I thought you Democrats were "in control" now Highlander. You saying Republicans are running things? You trying to disrespect the Commander in Chief?

Awfully RACIST! of you Highlander.

Paul, go back to your grocery store. The Russians are going to be as cooperative with us as the Iranians. Barry sold out two countries AND GOT NOTHING IN RETURN.

"I usually prefer to ignore posts here because I work 12-14 hours a day, seven days a week at my grocery store and just don't care to answer wrong opinions when earning money is a bigger passion of mine"

So nice of You to sacrifice so much and grace us with your wisdom and guidance this afternoon.

Way to quote without linking there, Steve.
Here's the preceding paragraph that provides some context.

The Poles had hoped to have American forces on their soil to solidify their ties with the U.S. and to let neighbor Russia know who not to mess with.

But while Czech politicians in the past agreed to the shield in order to bolster ties with the Americans, the plan has faced tough going at home. Czech citizens are wary of foreign troops being located on their soil after their country had been occupied too many times in history, and many say the radar, which was vehemently criticized by Russia, would make Prague a target for terrorists or rogue states.

With Carter II in office, I wouldn't want to cozy up with the US and piss off Russia either, if I were them. If Russia went on the move, I wouldn't bet much that our current President would respond with anything other than strongly worded speeches or calls for UN resolutions.

As for the quote from Jan Kahout, that's just one person too. A socialist politician (Social Democrat, aka Marxist) that has never been fond of the United States.

"With Carter II in office, I wouldn't want to cozy up with the US and piss off Russia either, if I were them. If Russia went on the move, I wouldn't bet much that our current President would respond with anything other than strongly worded speeches or calls for UN resolutions."

Yeah, just ask the Georgians how reliable Barry is when Ivan is on the march. Oh, and Paulie and Stevie, I'm not talking about the state of Georgia where your buddy Jimmah lives.

The best place to put anti ballistic missiles is on ships as close to the point of origin of the missiles as possible. Not at the endpoint where the missiles are likely to hit. Not near the endpoint.

One reason is if the missile is carrying nuclear material and you shoot it down in Europe. The radioactive stuff falls in Europe.

Where is the best place to shoot it down? As close to the place where the missile takes off as possible. If a missile launched in Iran could be shot down over Iran, the nuclear material would fall on Iran. If that is not possible, the next best thing would be to shoot it down over the sea, the Mediterranean.

Our Navy is the best in the world and can handle the anti-missile job.

So, why was Poland ever considered to be a good place to put the ABMs?

"So, why was Poland ever considered to be a good place to put the ABMs?"

Uh, like maybe to shoot them down during lift phase INSIDE RUSSIA?

Poland and Czechoslovakia are landlocked. Yeah, the Baltic Sea abuts Poland, but in a shooting war you WILL NOT want a surface ship there. Matter of fact, there will be one hell of a lot of ships trying to GET OUT. Ask the Germans about the Tirpitz. Closest a US ship would get would be in the Atlantic. That equals distance which equals time - all of which are critical in nailing an ABM in lift phase.

Yea Obama has spent so much time in the military himself, and has aligned himself with such patriots, of course I believe he has a better idea!
Madalyn

vic - ""Our new missile defense architecture in Europe" will be "smarter, safer, and swifter" than the plan authorized by predecessor George W. Bush, Obama said during brief remarks at the White House."

At least your consistent, meaning you're as misinformed about U.S. monetary policy as you are about military strategy and capabilities.

Steve above gives a clue as to the replacement system, unfortunately he's just as clueless as you:

Instead, a distributed sensor system, apparently envisioned as a more advanced version of the Navy's Aegis theater missile defense system, would "deploy techniques that are proven and cost-effective and will counter the current threat more effectively and do so sooner" that a longer-range system would, Obama said.

Doubtful.

A "distributed sensor system" is nothing more than a part Bush's original system.

However, using Navy's Aegis theater missile defense system means only one thing, in order to provide 24/7 365 days a year coverage the U.S. Navy will be required to permanently deploy anywhere from 2 to 5 Aegis Cruisers to the region.

The cost, billions of dollar, the cost to Navy families untold as their loved ones will face even more and longer separations as family members are deployed to support this mission.

See how much sense the liberals make?

Paul Hooson (post #66): "it is very important to pull in Russian cooperation in many important international areas"

smrstrauss (post #75): "Where is the best place to shoot it down? As close to the place where the missile takes off as possible."

So, we will get the cooperation of the Russians by developing a strategy by deploying the Navy to shoot down radioactive stuff over Russia?

Does Obama have pictures of certain people in the media, or in politics that are shall we say embarrassing?

Obama is holding something far more devastating over the media than pictures. If the media starts doing their job Obama knows the gig is up and he might as well quite, but before he does he'll release his full birth certificate to prove once and for all that the media can't be trusted to be the public's watchdog.

Paul,

The fact of the matter is that it's a pure fantasy for some to think that the United States or it's allies could survive a nuclear war.

Missile defense is a second way to avoid nuclear war. Right now we have MAD and that works for states like Russia and China because they are governed by sane people. Missile defense is for nations like NK and Iran, which are governed by insane people. Luckily, the insane people have a limited ability as to how many long range missiles they can launch. The actual number of interceptors deployed today is adequate and can be added to as needed.

If Iran launches a few ICBMs against the U.S. and we shoot them down the U.S. has the option of retaliating with conventional weapons aimed at destroying their offensive capability. Without missile defense some U.S. cities would be destroyed by nuclear weapons and nothing short of a massive nuclear retaliation will be acceptable to the American people. Such an action risks bringing Russia or China into the conflict. That's why missile defense is so important at a time when more and more states are getting a few warheads and a few missiles to deliver them with. If Obama had a brain he would put missile defense on both the technological and funding fast track.

smrstrauss - "One reason is if the missile is carrying nuclear material and you shoot it down in Europe. The radioactive stuff falls in Europe."

Another military genus, I jest of course.

The chance of detonating a nuc by it getting hit by a warhead of an interceptor is the closest thing to nil as you can get without saying - NIL.

"Instead, a distributed sensor system, apparently envisioned as a more advanced version of the Navy's Aegis theater missile defense system, would "deploy techniques that are proven and cost-effective and will counter the current threat more effectively and do so sooner" that a longer-range system would, Obama said."

BARRY, SHUT UP, WE DEMOCRATS SCREAMED AND YELLED YEARS AGO (REMEMBER REAGAN?) THAT THIS SYSTEM WOULD NOT WORK!

"If Obama had a brain he would put missile defense on both the technological and funding fast track."

No Mac. We're gonna lose 3 years of development and deployment while Barry fast tracks "smart diplomacy" and gets punked by Putin and Ahmadinejad. After all, he's gotten SO MANY CONCESSIONS from the Iranians, Russians and North Koreans already. Why he'll be the next winner of the Peace Prize because of his invaluable contributions to world peace and stability.

Re: "The chance of detonating a nuc by it getting hit by a warhead of an interceptor is the closest thing to nil as you can get without saying - NIL."

I know that. However, the uranium or plutonium that the missile carries is radioactive and would fall on Europe unless the missile is actually hit while it is in orbit.

Besides, the warheads of missiles can dodge or swerve and the enemy can use fake warheads. So it is far easier to shoot down the missile when it goes up than when it comes down.

Then the money spent on missiles on ships is mainly spent in America. Poland or Eastern Europe would get some of the money spent on bases.

Land-based ABMs can be attacked by terrorists or commandoes. Ship-based ABMs can be moved around and protected by other ships of a fleet.

So, why was Eastern Europe ever considered a good choice for locating ABMs that were supposed to protect Europe against Iran?

So, why was Poland ever considered to be a good place to put the ABMs?"

Uh, like maybe to shoot them down during lift phase INSIDE RUSSIA?

The bases were not to protect the USA against Russia. They were to protect Europe against Iran. The small number of ABMs that could be put into the bases in Eastern Europe would never have protected against the thousands of missiles that Russia has (and would be in a rotten place to protect against China and really not the best place to protect against Iran.)

IF the bases were in Poland, and Russia thought that the ABMs would seriously affect their chances of hitting the USA with missiles, they would hit the bases first with whatever they needed, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, commandoes, whatever. So locating the ABMs on ships makes a lot more sense. Sure, they still can be hit, but since the real reason is to protect against Iran (not Russia, which would be impossible), the logical place for them is as near to Iran as possible.

The same ships could try (I stress TRY) to protect the USA against Russia, if the threat ever materialized. We would have to move them into some sea close to Russia, that is all.

So, why put them in Eastern Europe?

Oh, and jimmy, those "happy Poles"?

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed today that he declined last night to take a call from the U.S. informing him of the decision to scrap planned missile-defense bases in his country.

Two U.S.-based sources close to the Polish government said Thursday that Tusk also rejected a call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- on the grounds that, as the head of the government, he should speak to the president.

"Hillary called - and the reason he turned it down was because of protocol," said a source.

Tusk, of course, denies that the Obama's capitulation is a defeat for his country. And what else can he say? But the fact that he turned down a call from both the secretary of state and the president last night tells the whole story -- the Poles aren't happy, and no one can say otherwise with a straight face (not even Tusk). Tusk did subsequently talk to Obama, but Hillary is still waiting for a call back.

So, why put them in Eastern Europe?

Because SOME PEOPLE still consider the Russians a threat. You know, people who don't see eye to eye with us on many things. The people who cut off natural gas shipments to European IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER, the people who REFUSE to go with stronger sanctions against Iran. The people who want to sell upgraded AA missiles to Iran. The people who just invaded the nation of Georgia. Those people. The treaties with the Poles and Czechs have nothing to do with Iran.

Oh, and the people who traded behind our backs AND AGAINST UN SANCTIONS in the 'oil for food' programs with Saadam. Yeah, those people.

smrstrauss - "I know that. However, the uranium or plutonium that the missile carries is radioactive and would fall on Europe unless the missile is actually hit while it is in orbit."

Somehow I don't think "orbit" means what you think it means.

Not surpriseed

smrstrauss has obviously never looked at a map of Europe and the middle east. Or is under the impression that Poland and Czechoslovakia share a common border with Iran.

#58 Hank - I saw the video and laughed. What a crock! She was babbling and not a muscle in her faced moved! How awful to be that entrenched up someones a** that you can't move a muscle HAHAHA
madalyn

Re: "smrstrauss has obviously never looked at a map of Europe and the middle east. Or is under the impression that Poland and Czechoslovakia share a common border with Iran."

Poland and the Czech Republic (Czechosolvakia split up about twenty years ago) are far from each other. There is also a big sea in between, the Mediterranean. That is where to put the anti-missile missiles, on US navy ships. By the way, the object is not just to protect Poland and Czech. It is to protect all of Europe.

Re: 'So, why put them in Eastern Europe?

Because SOME PEOPLE still consider the Russians a threat. You know,."

This is supposed to be against Iran. The idea that a single base in Poland could protect Europe against thousands of Russian missiles is absurd. Thousands of ballistic missiles with each carrying three or six different warheads. Thousands of cruise missiles.

So why is Russia worried and opposed it it, you may ask. Not because the base in Poland could significantly reduce Russia nuclear capabilities. Because it shows that Poland and Czech are independent enough to do something that displeases Russia.

This we should support. But if it is better and cheaper to put the missiles on US naval ships, the fact that Poland seems to want the missiles must be put second to the best way to do the job. And besides, we do not even know that Poland really does want the missiles. They have been unable to pass the requests for missiles through the Polish legislature.

Jeepers creepers! Pelosi (B) CA. The tears are drying halfways down your face like wax down the sides of a candle!

Be careful Steve who you insinuate with your
race baiting on Wizbang. It can get you on
thin ice.

A conservative suggestion. If Europe really needs anti-ballistic missiles, let them build them or buy them themselves. Why should we provide aid for these rich countries?

But, despite this, Obama has not scrapped the plans for a European missile defense shield. He has decided to put the shield aboard US Navy ships, which is more efficient and can be moved where the threat is greatest. If Iran never materializes as a threat, then the same ships could move to off the coast of China, or Korea, or wherever.

I hope this the right move in the right direction for our country.