Last I remember about the missile shield is that he went from a land based one to a sea based one that covers the same area.
YouTube- Best Carlton Dance Fresh Prince
PogueMoran,
The point is that Obama was giving something up, and the question is what did the U. S. and concerned Europeans get in return.
Obama reneged on our European allies by giving up the anti-ballistic missle system to be deployed in Poland - it is designed to take out missiles heading for Europe, and maybe even Russia, coming out of Iran - Iran is not all that far away from having a system that will reach Europe - and we all know their nuclear ambitions - our European allies know this too, and it upset them that the U. S. wasn't going to fulfill their commitment with an anti-ballistic missile defense shield for them.
Now, we can see it as the Obama administration wanting to calm the concerns of Russia, which is OK in of itself - but what was given up has caused major concern for Europe's protection from a future attack from Iran with a nuclear missile - granted, they can't do it today, but they may very well have the capability to do so in the near future if they continue as they are, which is why rogerredy wrote "to simply turn around to placate Russia and drop the missile defense shield - without getting a solid amount of support for either FAR stronger Iran sanctions, or approval of a military strike, is insanity."
rogeredy poses a very valid point - it was a lot to give up, it shouldn't be given up without something in return, namely help from Russia with dealing with Iran - which is what rogerredy suggested and most here agree with.
Now, you are saying that it is going from a land based shield to a sea based shield - interesting - I know the Aegis system is awesome, but we can't be sitting out in the Black Sea 24/7 365 the way a land based system could sit on land - besides, we are talking about two entirely different systems here - Aegis has multiple capabilities, and it is capable as a mother, but it is not designed to handle the same capabilties of the system that was intended to be installed in Poland. The Aegis only augments our anti-ballistic missile systems.
So, the Aegis system can stand in for a temporary fix, but it won't cover the mission down the road - I guess they need to hit the drawing board before it is too late, or take out the threat altogether.
The system to be based in Poland was proposed by Clinton and accelerated by Bush - we have a site in Alaska for protection from a long-range rogue missile out of North korea, which is not effective against missiles launched out of Iran, though Iran is a bit further away from developing a missile to reach us than it is from reaching Europe, which is a major concern for the Europeans.
The real question here is whether Obama just felt like reversing another Bush decision (Bush planned the shield with our allies) in order to appease his loons, or is he seriously seeking a solution for the threat while keeping peace with Russia - the latter is my hope, and I am sure the hope of other here, as well.
Bush was ahead of the curve on trying to protect Europe from a rogue attack from Iran - there is no doubt about it - and his intent would never be to place a threat against Russia - but if Russia sees it that way, and Obama wants to be cool about it, then Obama should make sure Russia helps out with the Iran problem, which is the concern here posed by rogeredy, and in turn others who followed, to include myself.