Washington Post: HOLMES: U.S. backtracks on missile shield

Ilion

Washington Post: HOLMES: U.S. backtracks on missile shield[^]

A Turkish general once said: "The problem with having the Americans as your allies is you never know when they´ll turn around and stab themselves in the back." ...

Too true.

73Zeppelin

I haven't been following the missile defense story. What I want to know is, of what value is it to the U.S. to have missile batteries in Europe? If Europe wanted to defend itself, they could build their own missile batteries. What value does having missile batteries on distant foreign soil bring to the U.S.? In other words, if Iran fires a missile at Europe, it's Europe's problem, not America's...

Ilion

73Zeppelin wrote:

In other words, if Iran fires a missile at Europe, it's Europe's problem, not America's...

Really? Why don't you (singular and plural) pretend that a conservative said that? edit: Or, if that doesn't quite help you see reality correctly, why don't you pretend that Obama is proposing extending the US's (hypothetical) missle shield to cover European allies and Limbaugh is savaging him on the issue?

Lost User

73Zeppelin wrote:

In other words, if Iran fires a missile at Europe, it's Europe's problem, not America's...

Agreed. In fact, I'd take it even further and pull ALL U.S. military personnel, hardware and bases from all foreign countries - Japan, South Korea, Germany, UK, etc... All of it comes home and defends our ports and borders.

Ilion

Mike Mullikin wrote:

Agreed. In fact, I'd take it even further and pull ALL U.S. military personnel, hardware and bases from all foreign countries - Japan, South Korea, Germany, UK, etc... All of it comes home and defends our ports and borders.

"Fotress America" is not viable.

73Zeppelin

If you've forgotten, I'm not European. Regardless of that, what is the interest of the U.S. in protecting Europe with a missile shield? It means cost of implementation and upkeep with little direct interest domestically. As I mentioned, I haven't been following this story so perhaps I've missed an analysis somewhere, but I don't see why the U.S. needs a missle shield in Europe... Maybe it's simply been a bargaining chip in political deals with Russia all along? That would be easier to believe if the political administration hadn't just changed recently.

73Zeppelin

Mike Mullikin wrote:

Agreed. In fact, I'd take it even further and pull ALL U.S. military personnel, hardware and bases from all foreign countries - Japan, South Korea, Germany, UK, etc... All of it comes home and defends our ports and borders.

Could be a good move. Like I said, I haven't been following this (but I am aware of it), what's the domestic feeling in the U.S.?

Ilion

73Zeppelin wrote:

If you've forgotten, I'm not European.

I haven't forgotten. [edit: I also not that this response doesn't even begin to make sense in the the context] I also don't forget that "Europeans" tend to criticise American policies and policy wishes based on *who* is advancing the policy or expressing the preference.

modified on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 2:21 PM

Lost User

Ilíon wrote:

"Fotress America" is not viable.

Why not? Canada doesn't have 100's of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment spread all over the world defending ungrateful weasels and they seem to be getting along just fine.

Lost User

73Zeppelin wrote:

what's the domestic feeling in the U.S.?

More and more people getting more and more angry every day. Every $ is important and we want to see value for every one spent.

73Zeppelin · modified on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 2:21 PM

Okay, but what's with the American interest in a European missile shield? Is it simply in support of NATO allies (Czech Republic and Poland)?

73Zeppelin

Mike Mullikin wrote:

More and more people getting more and more angry every day. Every $ is important and we want to see value for every one spent.

That's what I thought - it's expensive (monetarily and in human cost) to keep military personnel staffed overseas.

73Zeppelin

Mike Mullikin wrote:

Why not? Canada doesn't have 100's of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment spread all over the world defending ungrateful weasels and they seem to be getting along just fine.

Until Russia grabs our Arctic...

Lost User

73Zeppelin wrote:

Until Russia grabs our Arctic...

Don't worry... we'd be right behind you. ;-)

Ilion

73Zeppelin wrote:

Okay, but what's with the American interest in a European missile shield? Is it simply in support of NATO allies (Czech Republic and Poland)?

The American interest is both moral (there are multiple levels on that point) and "Machiavellian" ("Fortress America" is not viable).

Oakman

73Zeppelin wrote:

In other words, if Iran fires a missile at Europe, it's Europe's problem, not America's...

I been saying words to that effect for quite some time. Other than tweaking the bear's nose, there is absolutely nothing in the American interest about defending Poland for Iran or Russia. It's the Cuban Missile Crisis all over again, only this time Putin gets to play the Jack kennedy role.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

Oakman

Mike Mullikin wrote:

Agreed. In fact, I'd take it even further and pull ALL U.S. military personnel, hardware and bases from all foreign countries - Japan, South Korea, Germany, UK, etc... All of it comes home and defends our ports and borders.

I heard today that the U.S. has troops stationed in 130 countries. :wtf: An absolute waste of our blood and our money. Bring 'em home; let the Guard go back to being each State's militia; and if we need a fight, let's annex Mexico. Let the arseholes who talk about America's "moral" responsibility to the rest of the world, tell us about all the battles they fought in or stfu.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

Ilion

73Zeppelin wrote:

That's what I thought - it's expensive (monetarily and in human cost) to keep military personnel staffed overseas.

Of course it is. And the US taxpayer has been carrying "the Europeans," and the Koreans, and the Japanese for far too long and at far too great expense. One major reason "European" politics and polities are so infantile is because the US government has enabled, and possibly intentionally encouraged, such a development. But regardless of the expence of maintaining our committments, radioactive cities, or even the credible thread of radioactive cities, whether in Europe or in America, will be far more expensive.

Oakman

Ilíon wrote:

"Fotress America" is not viable

You'll fight the bad guys to the last ounce of everybody else's blood?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

Lost User

Since the end of the cold war, Russia not being the threat it once was deemed to be, the United States could easily withdraw to its national boundaries. However, there are political and economic investments that the United States has around the globe so it is understandable that they might also wish a military presence as well, if only to give some measure of security towards those other stated investments. But should the United States at some future time return all of its servicemen etc to home soil, your armed forces may need to be trimmed down in size, there would be no need for such huge numbers unless civil insurgency is a worry to Washington. And I can thus understand the Ilion comment of Fortress America not being viable.