US rams missile shield through Czech people's throat

Email Print posted by callisto 07/08/2008 10:32:53 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Nice op ed piece on http://newsweek.washingtonp ost.com/postglobal/needtokn ow/2008/07/czechs_to_us_mis sile_defense_k.html

Rice just signed the treaty about the missile shield with Czech government.

"the democratic process has been undermined, erroding America’s already weak credibility as a champion of liberty"

Fact: 70% of Czechs are against the construction of the radar station that'll guide the missiles which will be installed in Poland. Similar numbers of Polish are against this.

At least we can hope the conservative coalition government wil fall over this and the ratification of the treaty will not get through Czech Parliament.

You know how many people in poor countries say they hate American foreign policy because it supports their oppressors.
Well this is an example why Europeans get angry with the US when they circumvent the will of the people through conservative governmen ts in power.
Happened with the Iraq War (Italy, Spain, Netherlands, ...), well hopefully this will bring down these conservative governments in Czech Republic and Poland.

"Though ex-satellite states hardly have a warm spot in their hearts for Russia, few Czechs appreciate being used as launching ground for a Cold War revival"
< Italy has become a Fascist State | Cenkisms and TYT sayings >
 Display:
US rams missile shield through Czech people's throat | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)
Russia's reaction (none / 0)
Russia already said that it would take military measures if the missile shield gets built.

If I was Russia, I would ask Cuba if they could put some missiles there, not to attack the US of course, but to safeguard the US from all those leftist regimes in South-America, since FSB (new KGB) heard rumors that Chavez was building nuclear rockets :)

Look if the US can go over the heads of the EU, the European people, Czech and Polish people, then why can't Russia go over the heads of the Americans? It'll be for your own good, for your protection. Europe doesn't want it, but still gets it pushed down it's throat.

And this type of actions, is the only thing we've come to expect from US foreign policy, bravo bravo bravo. America should be disgusted with itself, disgusted at how few things remain of it's good name. Just another arrogant, agressive, murderous bully (half a million Iraqis death remember).

by callisto on 07/08/2008 04:24:51 PM EST

Wait, what? (none / 0)
How is a ballistic missile shield a bad thing for ANYBODY?

by jarett on 07/08/2008 04:46:55 PM EST

Seriously (none / 0)
are you serious? or just totally ignorant? really, no kidding on this, when I was 12 I already knew why this would be a stupid idea

SOME of the reasons:

1. foreign military installations on your sole is something people tend to like now?
2. you want to start the second Cold War?
3. it probably will not work
4. the vast majority of Europeans don't want to be part of this war mongering and agression
5. it paints a target on your ass
...

how would you like it if Russia built a base in Canada or New York state?

truely unbelievable, especially after the last 8 years, America isn't run by a FDR, honest Abe, even a Clinton, it's run by a bunch of thugs and this doesn't inspire a lot of people to take a chance on American policy these days

by callisto on 07/08/2008 06:12:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
one more point (none / 0)
how would you like it if Russia, China, Canada, Mexico or anyone else close by would announce they were building a shield?
how long before America will start crying that this is an agression to America's safety? 1min, maybe 2 minutes.

for godsake, saying this, while the US is crying at the top of their lunges how Iran poses a threat

at best it's hypocritical, at worst it's schizophrenia

by callisto on 07/08/2008 06:17:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here is where you and I part company, apparently (none / 0)
how would you like it if Russia, China, Canada, Mexico or anyone else close by would announce they were building a shield?

My answer: "Okay.  Hey, how can we help?  Let's link these systems together so we don't have to worry about anyone's weapons cooking off unexpectedly, shall we?  In fact, while we're at it, let's sign another arms reduction treaty so we can both stop spending billions on nuclear arms maintenance."

Why is everything a problem rather than an opportunity?

by jarett on 07/10/2008 04:15:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What? (none / 0)
Jarett, had the read it 3 times.

you seriously think for example that Russia would link it's system to the American's or that America would give up control over it's system?
This might happen when aliens start visiting us, but not in this world, it's a very coöperative dream, that I don't see happening :)
You don't seriously think that shield in Czech is meant for Iran, right?

Also, you see Bush signing a arms reduction treaty? The only talk i've heard on this field is of how they wan't to expend their nuclear arsenal.

by callisto on 07/10/2008 07:14:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why should we not (none / 0)
form this kind of alliance with Russia?  Honestly?

The more we entwine ourselves with our allies in this way, the more we can insinuate the ideals of Western democracy and Western economic freedom into their societies.

No one thinks about this stuff from a social engineering perspective, but they should.

by jarett on 07/11/2008 02:53:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
In what hippie world are you living? (none / 0)
you seriously believe that US and Russian governments see themselves as allies of each other? Is that why Russia blows a gasket whenever Bush talks about expanding NATO into Russia's neighbourhood.
Sure, they'll be polite towards each other and work on some things, but that doesn't make you an ally, also being allies usually implies you have a common enemy.

and please don't say Iran, because that would make you totally seem out of it, than you have no clue whatsoever about the realitionship between Russia and Iran

on another note, the US government needs to look into those Western values once more, because it seems a lot at the top now have thrown them out of the window. Or maybe they're just fans of Putin's policies :)

by callisto on 07/11/2008 04:55:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Callisto the terrorist (none / 0)
What is your problem with a missile SHEILD anyway?  Even if it is only 50% effective i'd take a 50% chance of major word cities not going up in a mushroom cloud over a 0% chance.  So far they have a pretty good batting average going in testing. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id /25393751/

There are really only 2 possible reasons for you to be agains this.  First that you are really a terrorist and a functional missile sheild will ruin you insidious plot to steal missile codes for a chinese nuclear sub and then hack into their computer system and automatically launch its payload at the Republican National Headquarters.  The other is that you are nieve or idealistic enough to believe that we can all "just get along" forever and that there is a 0% chance that a bad man ever gets ahold of a nuke and a missile.

 

by alphasigmookie on 07/11/2008 03:14:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Aren't you a libertarian? (none / 0)

Can't he be against it because the science is nonsense and it looks a hell of a lot like another multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded boondoggle to fuck us out of our money so a contractor can get rich?

I wish you would just drop the pretend-libertarian schitck.

by ProfRich on 07/11/2008 09:58:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Science (none / 0)
how exactly is the science bad on the missile shield?  It seems like its working fairly well so far and improving yearly. 

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news /sw/details.cfm?ID=18940

True as with any developing technoloy it is expensive (program costs on the order of $8B/year) and the results are not perfect, but well over 50% and improving (~90% in tests in the last 3 years).  The real question you have to ask youself is...how much is at least a 50% chance of major world cities not going up in a mushroom cloud worth to you?  If there is even a 1% chance that someone launches a nuke at NYC, how much would you pay for the ability to stop it? 

IMHO a nuclear attack is the one thing that we must absolutely protect against at all costs.  Not because of the of the imediate damage that it would cause, but because the American people would demand retaliation no matter who sent it.  It is highly likely that the aftermath would result in the complete loss of democracy  if not full on nuclear armegeddon. 

Yes, arms reduction is a nice idea and we should certainly work towards reducing the number of nukes in the world.  Unfortunatly it is not a practical end goal.  The value of nukes as a deterent is simply far too high for them to ever disapear completely (and even if they do you would also have to eradicate the knowledge of HOW to make them).  As thermodynamics teaches us the arrow of time is irreversible, the cat is out of the bag and there's now possible way to get him back in.  Since we have to live in a world with nukes we might as well find a way to minimize the risks. 

As for my personal beliefs, while I am a firm libertarian in terms of INDIVIDUAL liberty, I am not an Anachist.  I realize that there are many important things that will not happen without government intervention, leadership or regulation...roads, environmental protection, defense, disaster relief, space exploration, basic science, etc.   

by alphasigmookie on 07/11/2008 02:51:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
euh... (none / 0)
why don't you put the damn shield (which is such a wrong name for it, let's be honest it's not an energy shield) on your own soil, oh wait, yeah, that plan didn't get through Congress

by callisto on 07/11/2008 05:05:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Protecting Allies (none / 0)
The already have missiles deployed in alaska and california among other places.  The missiles in Europe are there to help protect our NATO allies.  Now why we should give a damn if London, Paris, Pr ague, or Jerusalem are blown to oblivion is an open question I guess.

by alphasigmookie on 07/11/2008 05:39:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
euhm yes and jesus is returning this year :) (none / 0)
NOBODY believes that, it's not because Bush says it, that it's true and again what if those allies don't want it? or better if it's for NATO, give up control over the facilities

see we agree, I'm only willing to save you some tax money, actually shouldn't you be more against this than me?

by callisto on 07/11/2008 05:49:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you're forgetting the most important point (none / 0)
the Czech and Polish people don't want it on their soil

by callisto on 07/11/2008 05:03:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Can you even read? (none / 0)
I'm not going to retype everything I already wrote down

but what if the people, you know the ones who are supposed to be important in a democracy, by a large (more than veto proof) majority are against it

or is it only the US that gets to have sovereignty in your neo-colonial mind? or is foreign soil, just a part of America that doesn't carries it's name, that arrogance for one is why people don't like you so much anymore

truely, this baffles me, traffic lights are an attack on your freedom, but hey don't stop your kind of rightwingers from placing military bases where people don't want them

by callisto on 07/11/2008 05:00:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Elected government (none / 0)
If they dont' like it they shouldn't have elected that government.  They are free to "kick the bums out" in the next election.  Also, the reason that all current democracies are in the form of representative democracy is that in generaly the people are either too stupid or uninformed to make rational decisions on something like this.  Their elected leaders realize that the issue is far more complicated than that and are able to make a much more informed decision on the matter as to the costs and benifits for their nation.  If their leaders rejected the plan then we should look elsewhere, but they did not so I dont' see the problem.  In a few weeks 99% of the people will completely forget there are 10 missiles somewhere in their country and their military got some vastly improved anti air craft defences thrown in for free. 

Again if the europeans really don't want our help then maybe we should go ahead and hang them out to dry.  It is highly unlikely that Iran will develop missles able to hit the US in any reasonable time frame, but Its not nearly as far to hit europe.  The perfered sport in Europe is of course American bashing, unfortunatly as soon as things start to get a little dangerous they know they can always rely on their little brother across the pond to come bail them out yet again.  Lets face it, American military protection (and technology) acts as a huge subsidy for Europe.  Without it they'd be forced to spend much more developing their own. 

by alphasigmookie on 07/11/2008 06:08:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes yes I knew you were going to say that... (none / 0)
not thinking 2 steps ahead, man oh man oh man, where to start?

ah yes: this was not an issue during the elections, this came up after the election. (really this eluded you?)

secondly: if it was an issue, it's probably not the first issue in people's mind. Please, don't try to be clever about this, the American people at this moment don't even put a war as their most important issue, so don't even go there

thirdly: if you would have read the whole thing, then you would know that the government signed it, but that the Parliament still has to ratify it and that this might not happen is a real possibility, because there is no unison within the coalition or even in the biggest party about this. This might even be the last drop that will make this government fall and new elections might be held. Think about that for an instance, leaders screw up and you have early elections, pitty that doesn't happen in the US.

forthly: maybe also, read the opinion piece in the link, there are more reasons against this than for it

if you hadn't noticed, nobody is panicking in Europe about Iran, we're much more panicky about what disastrous things the US will do next

also do you really think the US has all those bases around the world out of the goodness of their heart, or might these bases give them strategic and other types of influence (let's not forget the ministers and even prime ministers that used to be on CIA payrolls in the 70 & 80s)

hey man, write your congressperson and demand that they stop putting money into Europe then

btw you again see it in that "with us or against us"-Bushian view of the world: you critique (or bash as you call it), when you care. See the difference with Iran, Europeans don't like their government, but really don't care too much about them, so not as much "bashing&quo t;, Europe and the US are supposed to be part of the same Western World, that's why we need to keep each other in check if one goes crazy.

by callisto on 07/11/2008 07:08:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
President KenTX replies (none / 0)
"how would you like it if Russia, China, Canada, Mexico or anyone else close by would announce they were building a shield?"

President KenTX replies: "God Bless. Go forward. It's fine with America, because we weren't planning to blow up your country with a nuclear tipped ICBM. Now you don't have to worry about Russia bombing you. Those crazy fukkers don't want anyone to shield themselves from nuclear attack."

by KenTX on 07/10/2008 07:31:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
US rams missile shield through Czech people's throat | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: