Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Poland and Czech kicked in the nuts by the US
YelliChink    9/17/2009 10:33:06 AM
edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/missile.defense.shield/index.html [quote] But Biden explained the logic of doing so, saying Iran -- a key concern for the United States -- was not a threat. "I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat," Biden said in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip. ... "This is catastrophic for Poland," said the spokeswoman, who declined to be named in line with ministry policy. advertisement Poland and the Czech Republic had based much of their future security policy on getting the missile defenses from the United States. The countries share deep concerns of a future military threat from the east -- namely, Russia -- and may look for other defense assurances from their NATO allies. [unquote]
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27   NEXT
DarthAmerica    @I   9/21/2009 4:01:37 PM
It seems Colin Powell doesn't agree with you based on his decision not to run and his endorsement. That is a different discussion...


...Yes, we can bomb any nation in the world we want into oblivion. We did it twice in the last decade. Guess what? So what! We are still waring in both places trying to secure peace. So you want to bomb Iran? OK. Now what? Think they are going to just sit back and take it? What do we do when the relight the hell storm formerly known as OIF? Or how about the mines and AShM threats to Gulf Shipping? How about the Israeli/Palestinian blood bath they can initiate? How do you plan to ensure we actually succeeded on destroying their nuclear program? Should we just take their word for it? How do we pay for this 3 front war you advocate?

You aren't thinking about the consequences. That we can bomb anybody isn't even a debate. How we handle the aftermath is. We have made that mistake twice and are still paying for it. War, is only an option when the objectives are actually achievable and cost to benefit are favorable. Think.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    Smell the coffee DA!   9/21/2009 5:01:39 PM

"It seems Colin Powell doesn't agree with you based on his decision not to run and his endorsement. That is a different discussion..."



 Powell is one of the main reasons we attacked Iraq my friend. Then he bails on GWB and blames bad intelligence for his lies. What does this say for him? Funny that Ollie North did not bail on Reagan, even when caught breaking the law!.



"...Yes, we can bomb any nation in the world we want into oblivion. We did it twice in the last decade. Guess what? So what! We are still waring in both places trying to secure peace. So you want to bomb Iran? OK. Now what? Think they are going to just sit back and take it? What do we do when the relight the hell storm formerly known as OIF? Or how about the mines and AShM threats to Gulf Shipping? How about the Israeli/Palestinian blood bath they can initiate? How do you plan to ensure we actually succeeded on destroying their nuclear program? Should we just take their word for it? How do we pay for this 3 front war you advocate?"

  Well we could pay for it and then some if Mr Obama would not insist on spending 1.6 trillion US on healthcare reform and 750,000,000 to ACORN!.  Well as for how to defeat them? Well we could start by dropping some of those HEMP on all valuable targets and then drop a nuke bunker buster on those hardened nuke sites. Then our navy should level all Iranian shipping and missle defenses and we should deploy F-22 and crush anything that moves,sails, or flys. And btw DA, Russia is not the secret to derailing Iran, CCP is, and they are to blame for North Korea and Pakistans nuke programs being a success. So what has Obama or GWB done to CCP? Well they both gave them billions in trade surplus instead.  We should not of scaled back our military ground forces after the 1st Gulf War and we would still have an extra 148,000 pairs of boots.


"You aren't thinking about the consequences. That we can bomb anybody isn't even a debate. How we handle the aftermath is. We have made that mistake twice and are still paying for it. War, is only an option when the objectives are actually achievable and cost to benefit are favorable. Think."
 
 
  Who never thinks about consequences?  Hey DA do you remember that old line "The Capitalists will sell us the rope to hang themselves".  Well the noose just keeps getting tighter and tighter my friend. Tell me did we really bring down the USSR or defeat Communism? 1.5 Billion Red Chinese and Putin say otherwise. Funny that the USA and NATO has forgotten how we brought down that Berlin Wall. And it was not by turning Russia and PRC into both economic and military powerhouses using our money. I would suggest it is you who should think about consequences. It seems nobody else is but me!.




-DA 

  This report below is from 2005:

The Chinese Communist Party Won Iran?s ?Election?

By D.J. McGuire
China E-Lobby
 Jul 05, 2005

CHINA WINS: Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei casts his ballot in the June 24 presidential election. (AFP/Getty Images)
High-resolution image... (1410 x 2048 px, 300 dpi)

Iran had another ?election? this month. Those in the know will tell you- and they will be right- that the actual officeholder means little: Ayatollah Ali Khameini still runs the show. However, with the ascension of Tehran Mayor Mahmud Ahmadinejad to the Iranian Presidency, I believe Khameini et al have tipped their hand. We can expect an Iran more aggressive, more anti-American, and more willing to do the bidding of their military benefactor: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Until last Friday, everyone assumed the

 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       9/21/2009 5:52:15 PM

The "new feminist girly, girls" consistently achieves at least 10 to 1 kill ratio against the hardened macho manly men of Afghanistan.



Soviet Union lost 6 soldiers for each German soldier killed.
 
Chinese lost 8 soldiers for each IJA soldiers killed.
 
Vietnamese commies lost 19-20 people for each Americans killed.
 
Who won the war?
 
Not Germans, not Japanese, and not Americans.
 
Chances are you're gonna run out of money before they run out of men.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @TT   9/21/2009 5:54:08 PM
I'm sorry Tigertony but I don't have time for nonsensical MSM articles. Look, as much as some would love to re-create the bogey men of days past, I know the reality of the situation. Russia and China are not poised as the greatest military threats we face. Our military troubles begin and end in the ME/SWA. Despite what you wrote, we do not have the bandwidth to go around "blowing up" nations at will. We just don't. You aren't out there and don't understand how incredibly thin we are with regard to ground combat power nor do you seem to realize that in order to start a war, we have to be able to end it on favorable terms. In order to be able we must first win the wars we are in and secure the support of the key players. One of these key players is Russia. This EU BMD idea was always intended to be used as leverage. Nothing more. In fact missile defense technologies necessary to stop Iran are well beyond the system we proposed. We have an ace in the hole the Russians cannot argue. Eliminating the Polish/Czech systems put the Russians in the position now of having to respond in kind on issues of equal importance. In other words Iran. This will be more obvious by the end of the month.

If I thought that this was a mistake, I'd be the loudest critic. But I support it because I knew when it was proposed that it was intended for this purpose. Both the Poles and Czechs knew this and simply wanted to get the most out of it while they could. 

If you can make an argument on why we should not have cancelled this, do so. But please provide something a little bit more quantifiable than, "We are kicking our allies in the nuts". Some of you need to pull your heads out of the sand and realize that the GWOT/OIF/OEF are real wars with very real consequences for our future. This isn't some side show before the main event where we are just biding our time for the USA vs USSR/PRC show! If you were waiting for the big fight to start then you need to refer back to 9/11 and understand that we have been in it for 10 years. It would be the height of foolery and disaster if we go to war with Iran without a clear objective and path to victory. You will have more war than you know what to do with if we don't get a handle on this.

 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       9/21/2009 5:59:09 PM
Bush's policy was to put ABMs into Poland and the Czech Republic for two reasons, Darth.  One was to keep Iran from blowing the hell out of a European city--given that the only two countries that could respond to an Iranian attack right now are France and the UK, and their only deterrent is MAD.  Which works when your opponents are generally sane Russians who do not want to see their children incinerated, but doesn't work so well with Holocaust deniers who honestly believe that starting World War III will bring back the 12th imam.
 
The second was to quietly serve notice to Putin that the US was not going to allow him to shove around Eastern Europe.  This isn't a question of "shedding American blood" (FJV!) or wanting a war with Russia--we'd have both if Putin decided to invade Poland or the Baltic Republics, because both are NATO.  Putin, I'm fairly certain, isn't quite willing to go that far, but everything to that point he will do--because, as I've mentioned before, he is a thug, and thugs tend to do that.  He wants Eastern Europe to kowtow to Moscow, as they've done before; part of this is simply the desire for power and part of it is the traditional Russian paranoia that the West is going to invade them again, and so Eastern Europe has to be the security blanket.  Ukraine and Georgia, and quite possibly the Baltic states, Putin regards as being part of Greater Russia.  He doesn't think they deserved to be independent in the first place.
 
But Obama's playing the appeasement game, just as Carter did.  The everpresent belief of the Left that just one more concession will make the world happiness and unicorn farts.  Obama apparently fails to realize that he's being exploited, just as Brezhnev exploited Carter.
 
What would've happened if Obama had kept the promise he made back in April of this year?  Putin might've moved the SS-20s to Kalningrad, but it's highly doubtful he'd ever launch them (again, because a nuclear attack on Poland or the Czech Republic would be a strike on NATO).  He might've cut off the energy supplies, but as FJV mentioned, that might make Europe actually look to alternatives--which they apparently have, with a new energy pipeline built through (surprise!) Georgia that bypasses Russian soil.  Short of actual invasion, there's not jack Putin could've done about the ground-based interceptors.  He would've opposed further sanctions on Iran--but he plans on doing that anyway.  He might've cut off our air route to Afghanistan--but he can do that anytime he wants, and there's little we can do about it. Obama traded away political capital and got nothing in return. 
 
But never mind all that.  Despite the opinions of many a foreign policy expert and even senior Democrats, Obama was 100% right in doing this, because Darth said so.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Wanna War with Iran too?   9/21/2009 5:59:27 PM
Changes Have Obama Rethinking War Strategy

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 21, 2009 

 

From his headquarters in Kabul, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal... sees one clear path to achieve President Obama's core goal of preventing al-Qaeda from reestablishing havens in Afghanistan: "Success," he writes in his assessment, "demands a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign."

Inside the White House, the way forward in Afghanistan is no longer so clear.

Although Obama endorsed a strategy document in March that called for "executing and resourcing an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency strategy," there have been significant changes in Afghanistan and Washington since then. A disputed presidential election, an erosion in support for the war effort among Democrats in Congress and the American public, and a sharp increase in U.S. casualties have prompted the president and his top advisers to reexamine their assumptions about the U.S. role in defeating the Taliban insurgency.

Instead of debating whether to give McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, more troops, the discussion in the White House is now focused on whether, after eight years of war, the United States should vastly expand counterinsurgency efforts along the lines he has proposed -- which involve an intensive program to improve security and governance in key population centers -- or whether it should begin shifting its approach away from such initiatives and simply target leaders of terrorist groups who try to return to Afghanistan.

McChrystal's assessment, in the view of two senior administration officials, is just "one input" in the White House's decision-making process. The president, another senior administration official said, "has embarked on a very, very serious review of all options." The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

Obama, appearing on several Sunday-morning television news shows, left little doubt that key assumptions in the earlier White House strategy are now on the table. "The first question is: Are we doing the right thing?" the president said on CNN. "Are we pursuing the right strategy?"

"Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy, I'm not going to be sending some young man or woman over there -- beyond what we already have," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press." If an expanded counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan contributes to the goal of defeating al-Qaeda, "then we'll move forward," he said. "But, if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or . . . sending a message that America is here for the duration."

National security adviser James L. Jones... said Sunday that McChrystal's assessment "will be analyzed as to whether it is in sync with the strategy that the president announced in March."

The assessment "could be accepted in its entirety," Jones said. Alternatively, he added, the White House could seek additional analysis from McChrystal, or Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates... could issue new guidance to him about his mission and strategy.

In his 66-page assessment, McChrystal does not address other approaches to combating the Taliban. A senior U.S. military official in Kabul said the general was operating under the assumption that the earlier White House endorsement of a counterinsurgency approach "was a settled issue."

McChrystal said he thinks the way to meet the president's relatively narrow objective of denying al-Qaeda's return to Afghanistan involves a wide-ranging U.S. and NATO effort to protect civilians from insurgents by improving the Afghan government's effectiveness. That means not only more troops, but also a far more aggressive program to train Afghan security forces, promote good local governance, root out corruption, reform the justice sector, pursue narcotics traffickers, increase reconstruction activities and change the way U.S. troops interact with the Afghan population.

The implicit recommendation is that the United States and its NATO partners need to do more nation-building, and they need to do it quickly.

Improving the Afghan government, McChrystal says -- particularly the effectiveness of its security forces and its ability to deliver basic services to the population -- is as critical as offensive actions against insurgents. He defines the defeat of the Taliban not as the moment when the insurgents are vanquished, but wh
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Post by Gahlran on USNI   9/21/2009 6:09:36 PM

?This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack.? ? President Barack Obama

Nineteenth-century military theorist Karl von Clausewitz wrote that war is an extension of politics, but by other means. Applying that philosophy to the fallout from the Presidents decision to change the approach for an Eastern European ballistic missile defense shield, In note  both the size and scope globally of the political response. This event is final validation that ballistic missile defense has arrived as a strategic pillar of global political power, and represents the third strategic arm of the US Navy.

The first arm of strategic power for the US Navy came with the commissioning of the USS George Washington (SSBN-598) in 1959. Today ballistic missile submarines represent both the front lines and last line of defense in the deterrence of nuclear war. It is unlikely this strategic role of the Navy will go away in any of our lifetimes.

The second arm of strategic power for the US Navy has been the big deck nuclear aircraft carrier since the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) was commissioned in 1961. This is not to be confused with less capable, smaller carriers that cannot field the range of military capabilities US Navy big deck carriers can. By comparison to many countries globally, a US nuclear aircraft carrier forward deploys air power capabilities that exceed the total Air Force capabilities of many foreign nations. No conventional military capability in the world can match the geopolitical and military influence of a US nuclear powered aircraft carrier, making them a national strategic asset.

With today?s news we see evidence that ballistic missile defense has arrived as a strategic capability capable of influencing the  geopolitical condition globally. BMD represents a technology with the potential of tilting the strategic balance of power. Conventional wisdom suggests that as the submariner community in the Navy operates their SSBN strategic capability and the naval aviation community operates their CVN strategic capability, ballistic missile defense represents the strategic capability emerging for surface warfare within the Navy. This is true, but to a much lesser degree than you think.

Shifting away from the geopolitical ramifications of today?s decision, one can?t help but notice that the President stated clearly ?This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack.? The implication here is that the existing AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense capabilit
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       9/21/2009 7:32:24 PM

Is that so? So let me understand your goal.  Narrow down the US options to either accepting a nuclear Iran or war to prevent the same. With what troops are you going to accomplish this exactly? Or did you forget about OIF/OEF? 

We just showed you a path that would be very likely to FORCE Iranian compliance since they cannot continue their current policy WITHOUT RUSSIAN SUPPORT.


Irrelevant. Basically you and some others don't like this because to you it appears that the United States is appeasing Russia just for the sake of it or because you want Obama to fit into some Carter 2.0 mold you have created in your mind. Do you even realize this is a continuation of Bush policy?


-DA


1. OIF is almost over. Al Qaeda and Saddam's thugs failed to topple Iraq government. OEF is not going to end anytime soon, so don't expect any short-term strategy may change the situation. What you are dealing with there is a race which is functional illiterate which live by 6th Century code. They are not going to jump from 6th Century to 21th Century in just a few years. Generations might be the time scale you need to look at.
 
2. Nobody wants to start a shooting war with Russia. However, Russia is in much more frail situation then the US. They can't afford to fight a shooting war with the US. As long as the US shows interest in safety and security  issues in the area, that should keep Russians at bay until Putin and his KGB are thrown out by Russian people.
 
3. Iranians are not going to stop their current policy until you can put sabers at their  necks. Chinese, Russians, Pakistanis and Indians are not going to give shit to the US and Israel. What are you gonna do about it? Threaten them with trade barrier? Won't they retaliate by inciting anti-American insurgency everywhere? Why not shoot some missiles at Taiwan, too? And how will you get India to American side as both trade partner and strategic counter balance in the region, if you try to dictate them over Iran stuff? Russians want to squeeze as much benefit from both sides as possible before a showdown, if it ever happens, could happen.
 
4.  Thus, Iranians will pursue the current policy and acquire nukes with or without Russian support. Russia is not the sole source of nuke weapons technology. DPRK is the real problem here. Also, Russians are their strategic competitor, not friends. Historically they were at odds with each other. Russia and Iran "partnership" is rather a temporary convenience, not real strategic advantage for both. There is just as much can be achieved to stop Iranian nuke project as to DPRK. Historically, only Alexander the Great, early Arab Muslim conquerers, Mongols and British/Soviet military succeeded in pressuring Iranians into compliance. Compliance via swords and barrels of guns are necessity, and irreplaceable. No diplomatic approach will work.
 
5. Basically I don't regard everything GWB admin did was right. Their foreign policy certainly have ups and downs. For example, Taiwans still don't get F-16C/D. His policy on Arab countries is nothing short of sell-out. However, he never does anything that will put an ally in difficult position. To say that Obama's foreign policy is extension of GWB is simply false. The first thing they did is throw away GWB's hard liner policy toward DPRK and Iran, and take hard line position on China. They are more willing to deal with adversaries regardless of interests and consequences of US allies. This is entirely different topic and is too large a field for short paragraph. One thing is for sure, they can't change Bush policy in a few months, and CHANGE it is, you haven't seen it yet.
 
6. Not just Russians. I've seen appeasement to DPRK, Iran, Libya and Syria already. You haven't seen it when Chinese decide that they no longer want to serve as arrow target for this administration.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink    DA   9/21/2009 7:35:56 PM
Hey, maybe somebody forgot to tell you that GWOT is over, you Americans lost.
 
 
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/06/white-house-war-terrorism-over/?feat=home_headlines
 
[quote]
 
White House: 'War on terrorism' is over
 

It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
 
[unquote]
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Spiky    Biden lobbying for OIL COMPANIES?   9/21/2009 8:05:54 PM
 Gee, I thought Biden would be lobbying for windmills, solarpanels, and more parks for bambi, but here he is going to Iraq to secure favorable oil contracts for U.S. Oil companies, hehehe.... I love the irony, so sweet to be right.
 
 
Biden hustles terms on Iraq oil contracts
 
Baghdad (UPI) Sep 18, 2009
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Baghdad earlier this week -- his third this year -- came hot on the heels of a lightning visit by Russia's energy minister as the scramble for Iraq's oil riches heats up.

Just as Sergei Shmatko sought favorable terms for Russian companies in an upcoming oil contract auction, Biden was hustling on behalf of the U.S. oil giants who have long dreamed of getting their hands on what may be the largest untapped oil reserves in the world.

Biden urged Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to resist the temptation to demand hefty payments from the international oil companies as the price for doing business with the new Iraq when a new auction of contracts is held in Baghdad in December.

The first auction in June fizzled when only one consortium -- BP and China National Petroleum Co. -- made a deal by accepting Baghdad's offer of only $2 for every barrel of oil it produced. Nine other licenses were rebuffed by major oil companies.

Like every other bidder in that auction, BP and CNPC had wanted $4 per barrel. The others refused to budge from their bids.

Iraqi officials have said Baghdad has lowered its demands for the December auction. But it is not known what figure they will go with when they put up 10 projects covering more than a dozen fields for development.

There is speculation that this time around the oil companies will demand higher fees to compensate for the worsening security situation, a crisis that is likely to worsen as U.S. forces continue their withdrawal.

Still, Oil Minister Hussain Shahristani remains optimistic. "We expect a better match between our expectations and what the companies will bid in the second round," he said this month.

Biden stressed that the Iraqis must make their terms more attractive to foreign investors if they are to amass the $50 billion they say they need to upgrade their long-neglected energy industry and boost production to provide the revenue required for reconstruction.

A senior official with Biden calculated that a deal on a single oil field could reap $50 billion to $60 billion in outside investments, produce $600 million a year in revenue and
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy