U.S. backs away from missile shield in Europe

User avatar
Posts: 3921
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:01 pm

PostThu Sep 17, 2009 3:06 pm » by Zegtelzegtel

damn.............I needed that one...

Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:19 am

PostThu Sep 17, 2009 7:50 pm » by sawltydawg

The Obama administration seeks to "reset" battered ties with Russia so that the two former Cold War foes can cooperate on Iran, on fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and on reducing their vast arsenals of nuclear weapons.

i think what he meant to say was: CORPORATE on Iran :flop:

excellent post slushy :clapper:

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10120
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:10 pm
Location: Packing my stuff and moving to Denver like you should be doing

PostThu Sep 17, 2009 8:04 pm » by Savwafair2012

I'm glad to see the Obama administration abandoning the really dumb and provocative long-range missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic and replacing it with a short-range missile defense system that's sea-based with sites in (probably) Romania, Israel and Turkey. I might like to see them abandon the idea altogether, but them's the breaks. This way, you do less to anger Russia and you save a bit of money. You just can't say you're saving any money.

Look at the Pentagon's fact sheet, courtesy of Spencer Ackerman. "Cost-effective" is the preferred euphemism for "will save a boatload of money." In his remarks today, Obama stuck to the message: He used the term "cost-effective" three times.

Usually, of course, you don't need to dance around the fact that your policy change will save taxpayers giant sacks of cash. But you do on national security. Saving money there, after all, is pretty much like sending Osama bin Laden a great big check. This view is particularly strongly held by conservatives who are normally quite quick to point out the bloat and waste and inefficiency inherent in government spending projects, but stand proudly behind a hyper-funded and largely unaccountable military-spending sector. It reminds me of Chris Hayes's comment that the most fiscally pernicious words in the English language are "non-defense discretionary spending."

But then again, The amount of money the US has given Israe over the past decade.
For what you may ask?

Upload to Disclose.tv

Upload to Disclose.tv

Upload to Disclose.tv

Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, . http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Posts: 1644
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 12:31 am

PostThu Sep 17, 2009 8:33 pm » by Heinousone

There are other ways that we can stand by Poland. The missile systems are not the only way. The problem was, we were trying to explain it away about defending missiles from the middle east while Poland was calling it a show of force that would not allow Russia to expand it's influence. These differing explanations only cause us to look extremely bad and quite frankly I am glad to see us pulling away from this idea.

  • Related topics
    Last post