Comments (21) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   omQ R said, 2 months ago

   Most of the Polish & Czech had already turned against this missile shield although the right-wing in both countries are miffed. Methinks they thought it’d bring in some extra cash from their Uncle Sam. And that’s the immoral part of it all. It’s more about the cash.
   Look, European folks, seriously, you’ve got to start getting your arses in gear and start protecting your own. It makes you look extremely weak and/or hypocritical; the American folks quite rightly claim you’re chicken and more interested in having your backs kept warm while you snootily set the standards in universal health care because you spend less on defence and benefit from the extra jobs supplying bases that feed US paranoia and sense of altruism (read realpolitik).
   You know economic union works a treat and is the best deterrent, Seriously, you’re most of NATO anyway, get a spine and stop being so greedy.

2. 

   believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

   edgar, a big shrug is all it’s worth. The defense department was allowed under the current administration to say no to giving big gifts to private industry contractors for expensive and ineffective, sometimes useless, weaponry.

3. 

   dtroutma said, 2 months ago

   Russia doesn’t need missiles, they have a gas pipeline that’s more effective.

4. 

   spicecakes69 said, 2 months ago

   whiaskey tango foxtrot … the bleeep Bush wanted to install DOES NOT WORK!!!! What Obama is installing is Israeli made - and they hit their targets!!!!

5. 

   omQ R said, 2 months ago

   ^. Shock horror! You mean it isn’t to protect poor ol’ Europe? Oh no, say it aint so! :-|

6. 

   omQ R said, 2 months ago

   dtroutma nails it.

7. 

   richgrise said, 2 months ago

   How much more proof do we need that Obama’s
   a Communist?

8. 

   HUMPHRIES said, 2 months ago

   ANandy hangs his bare @ss out for all to see. The EU doesn’t “care” to be the playing field for Big Boy bungling. Put the missles in your back yard ANandy , then you can play target and be the new GOP vote recruiter.

   PS omQR, need to sort some of your rhetoric out. Real cheesy to callout someone for wanting to keep their backs warm. When was the last time your country was distroyed with almost thirty percent of the population dead or dislocated? Not to mention nearly thirty years to rebuild. Real brave in your nice warm bed you are.

9. 

   Redeemd said, 2 months ago

   Got to agree with omQ for once. The Euros (and pretty much the entire free world) spend next to nothing on defense and instead rely on the U.S. to protect them. All the while bad-mouthing our country at every opportunity.

   One day they will get their wish and the U.S. will “go away”. Good luck then.

10. 

    omQ R said, 2 months ago

    Humphries: I know you’re an American in Germany. I’m a Portuguese South African in the UK. I am European as well as African and have mostly lived in Europe since 1987. European defence should be up to the Europeans. It is time the Europeans stopped using the Americans to keep their backs warm. It is hypocritical for Europeans to sneer at the amount spent by the US on defence while benefiting from their expense (albeit not really altruism since the US is in Europe for its own sake, too).
    It’s been over 60 years.

11. 

    DrCanuck said, 2 months ago

    omQ R and Humphries: Do the Europeans in general actually still see a military threat from the Russians and do they still see the American presence in Europe as a deterrent? Or are they just happy to get the American bucks from renting them the space for their military instillations?

12. 

    d_legendary1 said, 2 months ago

    ANand’s answer to everything: If its not American, blow it up!

13. 

    HUMPHRIES said, 2 months ago

    omQ, for all the sanctimonious ranting, the Us presence in Europe was mostly their own doings, ” Better to meet the threat and stop it there then have it on US soil and so on”. Times have changed and the EU is still werary of the my way or the highway diplomacy and just don’t want to be the battle ground for someone else’s disputes, so who’s keeping what back warm. As for the UK they’ve been pulling out of their commentments for years.

    Dr C, The EU concern is more economic than anything else. Yes the poles are sour over some job losses caused by the cancelling of the missle farce plan, but as for Germany collecting “rents”, unless things have changed in the past year or so - they dont, even foot the bill for kaserene up keep.

14. 

    4uk4ata said, 2 months ago

    “while you snootily set the standards in universal health care because you spend less on defence and benefit from the extra jobs supplying bases that feed US paranoia and sense of altruism (read realpolitik).”

    Hey, guess what - most European countries spend less on healthcare, too. Actually, make that ALL European countries, both in terms of gross amount and GDP percentage.

    As for the US presence, yeah, I don’t think it is necessary and it would help European countries reform their militaries. However, I doubt the US has all those overseas bases only for the sake of the poor Europeans/Koreans/ Pacific islanders/Caucasians/Middle Easterners/Latin Americans/you name it. The US politicians are as interested in maintaining a military presence overseas as anyone else is. The hypocricy runs on both sides.

    On topic - Russia was threatening to aim some missiles at those missile sites, and now it backed down. The Poles and the Czech might actually be safer without the system - but perhaps ANandy was right, that was never its intention, just the selling argument.

15. 

    omQ R said, 2 months ago

    Humphries is on the nail, too. My anger is at some European hypocrisy though.
    When I was a military conscript in the Portuguese army in the early 90s, just after the USSR imploded, the Cold War had effectively ended and threats were shifting, I regularly asked other NATO soldiers whenever I had the occasion to deal with them, who was playing whom (i.e. was Europe playing the USA or the USA playing Europe). It was, of course, a symbiotic relationship. We would continue to play up to the US paranoia by still allowing their bases while receiving benefits in return through supplying the bases etc with goods & services as well as their deterrent value. Portugal even played the poor NATO member well by getting rid of its defunct A7 Corsair fleet (pfft) in exchange for F16 aircraft for use of its Lajes airbase in the Azores (although they were slightly outdated and cost a pretty penny to get them up to scratch). Just before the 1st Gulf war the Lajes airbase was reportedly going to be closed. Its use during that campaign ensured its continued existence. The Azores economy still benefits locally despite many services being kept on base. Germany still benefits economically by having US bases even though, as Humphries points out, Germany subsidises them. The plus for Germany are some civilian service contracts providing employment locally. The idea, as Humphries paraphrases, “Better to meet the threat and stop it there then have it on US soil and so on” was accepted grudgingly because some European states believed the USSR was a huge threat to themselves, too. However, I think they let the US shoulder most of the defence long past due date when they could have done so more themselves.
    The other plus for the US, I suppose, was maintaining its worldwide hegemony.
    Was there a deterrent effect? During the Cold War, for sure, crucial even.
    Nowadays, less so and I think this is reflected by the US actually relocating its European resources elsewhere much to the alarm of local economies. Which is where my criticism comes in, the concern is more economic even by countries who feel the most threatened by Russia.

    DrC: Deterrence…depends on which country you ask. The former Eastern block still distrust Russia for obvious reasons. They favour the Americans to a larger degree than Western Europeans as they still perceive the Western Europeans as a little soft. I give them a little credit but suggest a stronger economic co-operation as well as a stronger presence within NATO should gain their confidence. Russia’s “threat” should be made neutral with better co-operation rather than confronting them as a threat (because of energy dependence etc).
    But most Western Europeans don’t think Russia will come marching in, so no.
    Global economics is the new M.A.D.

16. 

    DrCanuck said, 2 months ago

    Thanks, Bud.

17. 

    nomad2112 said, 2 months ago

    Reminds me of the old Regan ad …

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA
    
    

18. 

    petergrt said, about 1 month ago

    Why France decided to rejoin NATO?

    Western Europe has been on the wrong side of history for at least the past 1000 years.

    US had to save their collective bleeep twice, and was thus intent upon not having to do it again, hence the geopoloitical connection - NATO.

    Russia’s big Mother Russia dream is centuries old, and was all but solidified by the Yalta Accords.

    Were it not for the ‘go it alone’ style of Reagan - insisting on deploying Pershing missiles in Europe, the Soviet Empire would still be around.

    In a way, I miss the days of the Soviets, because their demise freed the American Marxists and like loons to come out from under the rocks.

    There would have been no chance of somebody like 0bama be elected a dogcatcher - even NY Times would call him a red nut.

19. 

    Redeemd said, about 1 month ago

    petergrt,

    Too true. If Obama was a nobody and tried to get even a secret clearance with his past he would be rejected, yet he can be Commander in Chief. True irony.

20. 

    HUMPHRIES said, about 1 month ago

    petergrt, you ACTUALLY believe the propaganda you just posted ??!!

21. 

    d_legendary1 said, about 1 month ago

    Petergrt if it wasn’t for the French’s money (since they had a stake in exploration if the English went to war) we’d still be kissing the royal ring. They funded the American Revolution but they are not making a big deal out of it. What did you think that we made guns out of pine and bullets out of rocks?

    Mother Russia’s dream died with Stalin. Check your info: they are an oligarchy now.

    Regan had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. They did that all by themselves. Ever watch Charlie Wilson’s War? They went to Afghanistan, where all empires go to die. Just ask the Russians. That’s why they are more than happy to share their roads with us on our way to Afghanistan.

    Leave it to a right winger to praise communist.

    In communist U.S.A. your wet dream would have come true.