• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US leaves Europe wide open

Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
67
Reaction score
13
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
US might deploy missiles in Europe to counter Russia | Fox News

The prospect of returning U.S. medium-range missiles to Europe recalls some of the darker days of the Cold War

Another missile issue.
Failure with European-based ABM system never taught us a thing, but it was Bush Jr. who could't succeed. He just wasn't wise enough to defend his position.
Russia's attitude to any ABM never changed - "accurate response" to any actions violating their national security is what they stand for.
Or better - if we install ABM - they install them as well.

Do we really believe Russia is a threat (Cold War V.2) and why it is so necessary to force them to have us in their sight?
 
US might deploy missiles in Europe to counter Russia | Fox News



Another missile issue.
Failure with European-based ABM system never taught us a thing, but it was Bush Jr. who could't succeed. He just wasn't wise enough to defend his position.
Russia's attitude to any ABM never changed - "accurate response" to any actions violating their national security is what they stand for.
Or better - if we install ABM - they install them as well.

Do we really believe Russia is a threat (Cold War V.2) and why it is so necessary to force them to have us in their sight?

And yet Europe loved Obama and wanted him elected....
 
US might deploy missiles in Europe to counter Russia | Fox News



Another missile issue.
Failure with European-based ABM system never taught us a thing, but it was Bush Jr. who could't succeed. He just wasn't wise enough to defend his position.
Russia's attitude to any ABM never changed - "accurate response" to any actions violating their national security is what they stand for.
Or better - if we install ABM - they install them as well.

Do we really believe Russia is a threat (Cold War V.2) and why it is so necessary to force them to have us in their sight?

Russia can't keep up with an arms race
 
US might deploy missiles in Europe to counter Russia | Fox News



Another missile issue.
Failure with European-based ABM system never taught us a thing, but it was Bush Jr. who could't succeed. He just wasn't wise enough to defend his position.
Russia's attitude to any ABM never changed - "accurate response" to any actions violating their national security is what they stand for.
Or better - if we install ABM - they install them as well.

Do we really believe Russia is a threat (Cold War V.2) and why it is so necessary to force them to have us in their sight?

There is no doubt that Russia is a threat. The only question is, what to do about it.
 
The Soviet Union couldn't. Russia wouldn't have a prayer.

Wasn't it Mittens that said Russia is Americas biggest threat, no wait, maybe it's China, no Iran, no the Islamic State. Eight times the military expenditures as the nearest competitor, but there's always some boogy man that's a threat to us. :roll:
 
Wasn't it Mittens that said Russia is Americas biggest threat, no wait, maybe it's China, no Iran, no the Islamic State. Eight times the military expenditures as the nearest competitor, but there's always some boogy man that's a threat to us. :roll:

Counting money is usually a mistake. It's what you get for what it costs that matters, and the pie charts that everybody is so fond of don't reflect that at all. What's weird, Monty, is than in another thread you're worried about war with China over the South China Sea. We won't be firing the first shot, so if they aren't a threat, then what's the big worry on your part?
 
Counting money is usually a mistake. It's what you get for what it costs that matters, and the pie charts that everybody is so fond of don't reflect that at all. What's weird, Monty, is than in another thread you're worried about war with China over the South China Sea. We won't be firing the first shot, so if they aren't a threat, then what's the big worry on your part?

It always concerns me when the U.S. interferes in affairs, such as territorial disputes like it's doing in the SCS. That's always going to be a concern. Otherwise, I'm poking fun of the right wing spin machine who's always moving about the next major threat to the U.S. When in fact, it's our own meddling foreign policy that is the biggest threat to the U.S. Both Russia and China's military spending went on steroids at the same time, when the decider moved into A-Stan and then Iraq. Foreign policy experts are pointing out that USFP is pushing China and Russia closer together. And both of them have decried the threat to global security that the U.S. Dominated uni-polar world is. So it seems to me we create any trouble we may have.
 
Never enough money to spend at home, but always able to find more for overseas endeavors!

I suppose that's the luxury you have, when you own the printing press ...
 
There is no doubt that Russia is a threat. The only question is, what to do about it.

Discontinuing our economic war on them might be a good start. It earned us a good sucker punch from Japan once. But then that was the objective. And god knows the fringe right would love to take on Russia.
 
Never enough money to spend at home, but always able to find more for overseas endeavors!

I suppose that's the luxury you have, when you own the printing press ...

For the third time in a row now, the American Society of Civil Engineers has given the U.S. A "D" on our infrastructure report card, and said we need to spend 3.6 trillion on it by 2020!!!!!!
 
Never enough money to spend at home, but always able to find more for overseas endeavors!

I suppose that's the luxury you have, when you own the printing press ...

And maybe owning he foreign central bank might help also...
 
For the third time in a row now, the American Society of Civil Engineers has given the U.S. A "D" on our infrastructure report card, and said we need to spend 3.6 trillion on it by 2020!!!!!!
But Russia ...

:mrgreen:
 
It always concerns me when the U.S. interferes in affairs, such as territorial disputes like it's doing in the SCS. That's always going to be a concern. Otherwise, I'm poking fun of the right wing spin machine who's always moving about the next major threat to the U.S. When in fact, it's our own meddling foreign policy that is the biggest threat to the U.S. Both Russia and China's military spending went on steroids at the same time, when the decider moved into A-Stan and then Iraq. Foreign policy experts are pointing out that USFP is pushing China and Russia closer together. And both of them have decried the threat to global security that the U.S. Dominated uni-polar world is. So it seems to me we create any trouble we may have.

Actually, Hillary Clinton outlined our current policy concerning the SCS back in 2010. It was a pretty clear statement of policy as it has stood in that regard for a couple of centuries. The only problem was that she gave that speech in Vietnam. That was not such a good idea. So it's not a right wing spin job at all. I understand your beliefs regarding our FP and in some respects I agree. This is not one of those instances.
 
I see one thing missing about the whole missiles back in EU thing.
Americans apparently gonna attack those missiles they think that russians break the treaty with,on the russian soil.... i hope you al lrealise what that means. Just saying.
 
US might deploy missiles in Europe to counter Russia | Fox News



Another missile issue.
Failure with European-based ABM system never taught us a thing, but it was Bush Jr. who could't succeed. He just wasn't wise enough to defend his position.
Russia's attitude to any ABM never changed - "accurate response" to any actions violating their national security is what they stand for.
Or better - if we install ABM - they install them as well.

Do we really believe Russia is a threat (Cold War V.2) and why it is so necessary to force them to have us in their sight?

most of what causes russian agression has been caused by the us.


if you look at a map,most of the countries surrounding russia are us or nato allied,most of mother russias former buffer zones can be seen as allies of its former enemy.


then you add in the whole missle defense systems,argued at protecting europe from iranian missles,yet placed at the exact distance to stop russian icbm's.that in itself breaks up the mad doctrine,and forces russia into two options,either to take an extremely offensive stance towards its neighbors,or to nuke its neighbors in retaliation,as the mad doctrine would be broken.
 
Discontinuing our economic war on them might be a good start. It earned us a good sucker punch from Japan once. But then that was the objective. And god knows the fringe right would love to take on Russia.

We failed in Russia in the 1990's and are now beginning to pay the price.
 
Actually, Hillary Clinton outlined our current policy concerning the SCS back in 2010. It was a pretty clear statement of policy as it has stood in that regard for a couple of centuries. The only problem was that she gave that speech in Vietnam. That was not such a good idea. So it's not a right wing spin job at all. I understand your beliefs regarding our FP and in some respects I agree. This is not one of those instances.

As pointed out by the Council on Foreign Relations, there are things that the US could and should be doing that would better foster peace and security in the region.

The United States should ratify UNCLOS; though it voluntarily adheres to its principles and the Obama administration has made a commitment to ratify the convention, the fact that the United States has not yet ratified the treaty lends credence to the perception that it only abides by international conventions when doing so aligns with its national interests. Ratifying UNCLOS would put this speculation to rest. It would also bolster the U.S. position in favor of rules-based behavior, give the United States a seat at the table when UNCLOS signatories discuss such issues as EEZ rights, and generally advance U.S. economic and strategic interests.

The United States should review its surveillance and reconnaissance activities in the air and waters bordering China's twelve-mile territorial sea and assess the feasibility of reducing their frequency or conducting the operations at a greater distance.

http://www.cfr.org/world/armed-clash-south-china-sea/p27883
 
I see one thing missing about the whole missiles back in EU thing.
Americans apparently gonna attack those missiles they think that russians break the treaty with,on the russian soil.... i hope you al lrealise what that means. Just saying.

Could you elaborate please?
 
As pointed out by the Council on Foreign Relations, there are things that the US could and should be doing that would better foster peace and security in the region.

The United States should ratify UNCLOS; though it voluntarily adheres to its principles and the Obama administration has made a commitment to ratify the convention, the fact that the United States has not yet ratified the treaty lends credence to the perception that it only abides by international conventions when doing so aligns with its national interests. Ratifying UNCLOS would put this speculation to rest. It would also bolster the U.S. position in favor of rules-based behavior, give the United States a seat at the table when UNCLOS signatories discuss such issues as EEZ rights, and generally advance U.S. economic and strategic interests.

The United States should review its surveillance and reconnaissance activities in the air and waters bordering China's twelve-mile territorial sea and assess the feasibility of reducing their frequency or conducting the operations at a greater distance.

Armed Clash in the South China Sea - Council on Foreign Relations

Similarly, there are things China could and should do to foster stability in the region, like honoring it's agreements with ASEAN and the 1982 Convention.

http://csis.org/files/publication/110629_Thuy_South_China_Sea.pdf
 
Similarly, there are things China could and should do to foster stability in the region, like honoring it's agreements with ASEAN and the 1982 Convention.

http://csis.org/files/publication/110629_Thuy_South_China_Sea.pdf

Sure, and from your link, However, after signing the DOC, the parties have not ceased activities that complicate the situation. Tensions have occasionally arisen and claimants continued to protest each other’s moves in the South China Sea.

Vietnam has its own reclamation projects and have built military infrastructures on several islands. My concern, and that of the senior fellows at the CFR is that the West is framing this as Chinese aggression, the other players getting a pass. Taiwan claims all the Spratly's, which is stepping on Malaysia, Brunei, Philippine and Vietnam claims! We should see the West scolding everybody, rather than just China. And that doesn't even speak to China's superior title to the islands.
 
Sure, and from your link, However, after signing the DOC, the parties have not ceased activities that complicate the situation. Tensions have occasionally arisen and claimants continued to protest each other’s moves in the South China Sea.

Vietnam has its own reclamation projects and have built military infrastructures on several islands. My concern, and that of the senior fellows at the CFR is that the West is framing this as Chinese aggression, the other players getting a pass. Taiwan claims all the Spratly's, which is stepping on Malaysia, Brunei, Philippine and Vietnam claims! We should see the West scolding everybody, rather than just China. And that doesn't even speak to China's superior title to the islands.

Taiwan claims all of China, too. The South China Sea disputes, and there are many, are complicated. The US interest in the region is rather narrowly defined, as I have pointed out many times to you. It does not include prevention of China asserting claims through the defined vehicles accepted by international law.
 
Taiwan claims all of China, too. The South China Sea disputes, and there are many, are complicated. The US interest in the region is rather narrowly defined, as I have pointed out many times to you. It does not include prevention of China asserting claims through the defined vehicles accepted by international law.

The US routinely thwarts international law. I detest every time I hear us officially or unofficially (as you just did) invoke IL. Still can't criticize Vietnam for doing exactly the same thing as China I see.

One rule for most nations, another for China
http://theconversation.com/exposing-us-hypocrisy-on-south-china-sea-island-reclamation-41974

Exposing US hypocrisy on South China Sea island reclamation
 
Last edited:
“Where we get concerned with China is where it is not necessarily abiding by international norms and rules and is using its sheer size and muscle to force countries into subordinate positions,” Obama said Thursday in response to a question at a forum in Kingston, Jamaica.

“We think this can be solved diplomatically, but just because the Philippines or Vietnam are not as large as China doesn’t mean that they can just be elbowed aside,” he said.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying suggested the United States should consider its own history of bullying other countries.

“I think everyone can see very clearly who it is in the world who is using the greatest size and muscle,” she said. She urged the United States to act constructively in resolving the region’s territorial disputes.
 
For the third time in a row now, the American Society of Civil Engineers has given the U.S. A "D" on our infrastructure report card, and said we need to spend 3.6 trillion on it by 2020!!!!!!

You can't compare the two. The problem with infrastructure comes from political unwillingness to raise the gas taxes which is the primary funding mechanism for infrastructure, to a large extent too we overbuilt to a large degree . But it would be a mistake to cut military forces across the board to transfer the money to "infrastutcture" infrastructure has it's own funding mechanism.
 
Back
Top Bottom