• 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!

Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

No you haven't. Come now even you can admit there's a difference between stating a nation possesses actual nuclear weapons and saying a nation has the information but can't confirm if they're actively building and have delivery capabilities.

Except for the fact that two presidents and the UN find the evidence damning enough to proscribe sanctions.
 
No you haven't. Come now even you can admit there's a difference between stating a nation possesses actual nuclear weapons and saying a nation has the information but can't confirm if they're actively building and have delivery capabilities.

And in your link, there's no definitive confirmation that Israel has nukes, either.

For the record, I think Israel has nukes. But I also think any idiot can see Iran is working on a bomb, and if you're willing to make conclusions about Israel yet stay conveniently agnostic about Iran, then it's not about the truth for you.
 
And in your link, there's no definitive confirmation that Israel has nukes, either.

For the record, I think Israel has nukes. But I also think any idiot can see Iran is working on a bomb, and if you're willing to make conclusions about Israel yet stay conveniently agnostic about Iran, then it's not about the truth for you.
As you said -- he'd rather make a partisan point.
 
In any event...

Any question regarding Iran's CURRENT capabilities proceed from a false premise -- that a threat must actually exist before the defense for tha threat can be developed and/or deployed.

Given the damage potential of the weapons in question, prudence demands that you stay ahead of the capabilities of your foe. Waiting to install a defense until -after- he has the capability to deliver a nuke it may very well be too late, and may very well incent him to use that nuke while he still can.
 
Last edited:
Why exactly are we wasting tons of money to protect Europe, especially if they aren't in any particular danger from Iran anyways? Its a waste of money and pisses off Russia for nothing in return. The money would be much better into R&D to improve the system to avoid another fiasco like the Gulf War.
Unfortunately it won't go to R&D, it will go to social programs like all liberal administrations.
 
Why exactly are we wasting tons of money to protect Europe, especially if they aren't in any particular danger from Iran anyways? Its a waste of money and pisses off Russia for nothing in return. The money would be much better into R&D to improve the system to avoid another fiasco like the Gulf War.

In my view your position about abandoning the missle defense system ( missles/radar) cannot be more wrong. The missle defense was not necessarily as a shield against the Ranting Runts of Ramadan aka Iranians it is a shield against any evil threat to Europe. That includes Russia and it's surrogates. We all understand that the actual number of missles of the shield would not deflect a full frontal assault by the vodka crazed Russians but it is a strong symbolic middle finger aimed at the sons of the Bolsheviks.

President Obam made a very serious error in judgement by this policy. He will learn probably soon that the vodka swilling Czaristas cannot be trusted to behave as civilized humans and need to be show that we are ready to use the fist in the face.
 
Last edited:
In my view your position about abandoning the missle defense system ( missles/radar) cannot be more wrong. The missle defense was not necessarily as a shield against the Ranting Runts of Ramadan aka Iranians it is a shield against any evil threat to Europe. That includes Russia and it's surrogates. We all understand that the actual number of missles of the shield would not deflect a full frontal assault by the vodka crazed Russians but it is a strong symbolic middle finger aimed at the sons of the Bolsheviks.

President Obam made a very serious error in judgement by this policy. He will learn probably soon that the vodka swilling Czaristas cannot be trusted to behave as civilized humans and need to be show that we are ready to use the fist in the face.
The shield could only stop a tiny % of Russian missiles. It really wouldn't provide any defense at all from Russia.
 
In my view your position about abandoning the missle defense system ( missles/radar) cannot be more wrong. The missle defense was not necessarily as a shield against the Ranting Runts of Ramadan aka Iranians it is a shield against any evil threat to Europe. That includes Russia and it's surrogates. We all understand that the actual number of missles of the shield would not deflect a full frontal assault by the vodka crazed Russians but it is a strong symbolic middle finger aimed at the sons of the Bolsheviks.

President Obam made a very serious error in judgement by this policy. He will learn probably soon that the vodka swilling Czaristas cannot be trusted to behave as civilized humans and need to be show that we are ready to use the fist in the face.

Hey what the hell 107 this is twice in one week you and I agree on something the World shall now explode very soon. :shock: :mrgreen:
 
Hmmm so I wonder how Mr. Obama is going to get out of the Treatys we signed with Poland on the Missel System really someone should have showed him those things.

Also it's funny reading some of the folks post on here how many of you have actyally seen the Missel System work raise of hands please,

:prof
 
The shield could only stop a tiny % of Russian missiles. It really wouldn't provide any defense at all from Russia.

Have you ever heard of the concept and application of a tripwire ?
 
Russia's ICBMs would travel north, over the pole. There is no way any of the missiles from Czech or Poland could ever reach them, once launched. The shield was of no threat whatsoever to Russia . . . other than the diplomatic unpleasantness of former Warsaw Pact nations then being firmly behind Western lines.
 
Russia's ICBMs would travel north, over the pole. There is no way any of the missiles from Czech or Poland could ever reach them, once launched. The shield was of no threat whatsoever to Russia . . . other than the diplomatic unpleasantness of former Warsaw Pact nations then being firmly behind Western lines.

It would be like Russia putting S-400 in the Confederacy.
 
Why exactly are we wasting tons of money to protect Europe, especially if they aren't in any particular danger from Iran anyways? Its a waste of money and pisses off Russia for nothing in return. The money would be much better into R&D to improve the system to avoid another fiasco like the Gulf War.

ya we all know we need to cut money but instead of cutting our protection lest cut the stuff that need cut

In my view your position about abandoning the missle defense system ( missles/radar) cannot be more wrong. The missle defense was not necessarily as a shield against the Ranting Runts of Ramadan aka Iranians it is a shield against any evil threat to Europe. That includes Russia and it's surrogates. We all understand that the actual number of missles of the shield would not deflect a full frontal assault by the vodka crazed Russians but it is a strong symbolic middle finger aimed at the sons of the Bolsheviks.

President Obam made a very serious error in judgement by this policy. He will learn probably soon that the vodka swilling Czaristas cannot be trusted to behave as civilized humans and need to be show that we are ready to use the fist in the face.

The above are the type of comments and narrow minded focus that makes you want to pull your hair out!!

The Cold War ended nearly 30 years ago and yet the Russians are still the threat?

Radical Islam is the threat of TODAY and yet the opposition argues AGAINST establishing a defensive posture that would act as a deterant to any Middle Eastern threat against our national security interest abroad or against our Eurapean allies!?! Absolutely unbelievable!!! :doh
 
CNN || Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan



Now we have two presidents who have both found it critical to spend billions of dollars on missile defense in Europe. Maybe the "nay-sayers" about missile defense will get a clue now that the Messiah is on board. That is, MAYBE, just maybe, missile defense is a smart and necessary move.

Europe has plenty of money. They can defend themselves. We can't afford our own priorities, let alone pay for them.
 
In my view your position about abandoning the missle defense system ( missles/radar) cannot be more wrong. The missle defense was not necessarily as a shield against the Ranting Runts of Ramadan aka Iranians it is a shield against any evil threat to Europe. That includes Russia and it's surrogates. We all understand that the actual number of missles of the shield would not deflect a full frontal assault by the vodka crazed Russians but it is a strong symbolic middle finger aimed at the sons of the Bolsheviks.

President Obam made a very serious error in judgement by this policy. He will learn probably soon that the vodka swilling Czaristas cannot be trusted to behave as civilized humans and need to be show that we are ready to use the fist in the face.
He's an idiot with more czars than Russian history or any other president. The Dems have hated this program from the start, because it destroyed their beloved USSR, and can't wait to spend the money on more welfare votes.
 
The shield could only stop a tiny % of Russian missiles. It really wouldn't provide any defense at all from Russia.
Which is a principle fact ignored by those that argue that the ABM system threatened Russian deterrence, therefore granting legitimacy to Russian complaints.
 
The Cold War ended nearly 30 years ago and yet the Russians are still the threat?

The Cold War ended 18 years ago, and no one said Russia was "the threat."

So:

The above are the type of comments and narrow minded focus that makes you want to pull your hair out!!

Agreed.
 
The shield could only stop a tiny % of Russian missiles. It really wouldn't provide any defense at all from Russia.

Which is a principle fact ignored by those that argue that the ABM system threatened Russian deterrence, therefore granting legitimacy to Russian complaints.

Hence, the reason to shift the focus of this missle defense system away from Russia and onto the threat of today - radical Islam. It just makes no sense whatsoever to spend millions of tax payer dollar on a missle defense system to fight an enemy you defeated two decades ago. (30 years was a type-o in my earlier post. Thanks for correcting me, Harshaw.)
 
Hence, the reason to shift the focus of this missle defense system away from Russia and onto the threat of today - radical Islam. It just makes no sense whatsoever to spend millions of tax payer dollar on a missle defense system to fight an enemy you defeated two decades ago. (30 years was a type-o in my earlier post. Thanks for correcting me, Harshaw.)

You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that the missiles would have been in Czech and Poland to stop Russian missiles. This would be incorrect.
 
Hence, the reason to shift the focus of this missle defense system away from Russia and onto the threat of today - radical Islam. It just makes no sense whatsoever to spend millions of tax payer dollar on a missle defense system to fight an enemy you defeated two decades ago. (30 years was a type-o in my earlier post. Thanks for correcting me, Harshaw.)
How about the War on Poverty which we lost two decades ago? We still spend on that, but that's different isn't it?
 
Hence, the reason to shift the focus of this missle defense system away from Russia and onto the threat of today - radical Islam. It just makes no sense whatsoever to spend millions of tax payer dollar on a missle defense system to fight an enemy you defeated two decades ago. (30 years was a type-o in my earlier post. Thanks for correcting me, Harshaw.)
The European ABM system -is- intended to defend from radical Islam, and is -not- intended to defend from the Russians.
:confused:
 
I remember watching Bush on TV saying he would share the missile defense with the Russians. Not even that pleased our leftist friends.
 
Back
Top Bottom