Poland "agrees" to host controversial US missile defence system
Written by Ian O'Neill
In a controversial move likely to enflame tensions between Russia, Europe and the US, Poland has agreed (in principal) to host bases for the "Star Wars" US missile shield intended to protect against any future missile attack from rogue nations. Russia totally opposes plans, stating that a European missile system, so close to the Russian border, is akin to the Cuban missile crisis in the 1960s where the US and Soviet Union went to the brink of nuclear war…
Any space missile system intended to neutralize the threat of a nuclear attack from rogue states was bound to cause controversy and anger. As predicted, the future development of a European US missile shield has caused very loud opposition from Russian President Vladimir Putin, directly highlighting that such a move would cause another arms race and could create a nuclear standoff between Russia, US and Europe in between.
The Czech Republic is currently drawing up plans for involvement in the US project and now Poland, a country that directly borders Russia, has agreed to more discussions about installing ten interceptor missiles. The missile shield plans are in a direct response to the ongoing threat from "rogue states", principally Iran and North Korea, from their nuclear arms development programs the US believes they are still pursuing, but understandably, Russia is suspicious that the US is attempting to gain strategic strength in Eastern Europe. Mr Putin has hinted strongly that although Russia is not planning to begin wholesale targeting of Europe, any "new targets" in the future would be connected to the "strategic nuclear potential of the United States… in Europe" (see BBC article "New era of discord for Russia and West" for full information on the new political unrest). Scary.
"We understand that there is a desire for defence modernisation in Poland and particularly for air defence modernisation in Poland. This is something that we support because it will make our ally, Poland, more capable," - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, supporting the missile defence plan in Poland.
The US missile shield concept depends on European fast response missiles to be launched as soon as the threat of imminent attack is detected from aggressors in the Middle East and beyond. By detecting possible nuclear missiles clearing cloud cover and entering space, radar bases within the EU can track and then guide conventional missiles from the shield network to intercept. Tests of such a system have so far had a mix of success and failure, but with improvement of the "Star Wars" technology (a name first coined in 1983 after announcement by US President Ronald Reagan for the commencement of the "Strategic Defence Initiative") and rocket engineering, rates of successful interception are bound to increase.
Source: BBC
Filed under: Earth
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
[...] US missile shield intended to protect against any future missile attack from rogue nations … Poland "agrees" to host controversial US missile defence system posted by at 6:40 pm [...]
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
DO. NOT. WANT.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Ugh. What an absurd space-cowboy pipe dream. Is there anything in the heavens or on earth that Americans can't look at and see an opportunity for war? Is there any chance that they'll stop spending endlessly on military domination of everything and turn their enormous talents and productivity to things that help people live good lives instead of ruining them? I realize this is an astronomy and space-related blog, not a political one, but it's very exasperating to see America continue as a war cult. I really wish they'd just leave the planet.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Threat or rogue nations with nukes? Unless they are supplied, this is very unlikely to happen. Im not opposed to countries defending themselves, but I don't see what good a missile defence system is in Europe only. Africa is far more likely to launch an attack than Russia, which is completely ignored by tossing this system in Poland.
Im not against America in any way, as I am living in a very "americanized culture" being in Toronto, but why not put a joint system in place with Russia also overseeing development so they feel better about the situation
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
What a waste of money.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:14 am
Peace, this American thinks the world deserves better from it goverment.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 am
Russia is supplying Iran with nuclear technology and the Iranian president Achmadinejhad has openly stated that he wants to wipe Isreal off the map.
Poland has been invaded and partitioned so many times, that it is amazing they even have a country.
Only America has the guts to defend small countries around the world. If Britain and France had acted in 1936, Hitler would have never been able to start WWII.
Wake up. The world is not a "nicey nicey" place.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 am
Spoken like a true gung-ho idiot, marcellus.
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:36 am
Russia is supplying Iran with nuclear technology and the Iranian president Achmadinejhad has openly stated that he wants to wipe Isreal off the map.
douche ..wtf u talking bout
u so stupid = american
omg u have to educate those ppl and forget all these war things
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 am
Todd:
The only deterrent to having a chance at a good life, is to guarantee your agressive neighbors to the EAST are kept in check. Avail yourself an opportunity to understand how Europe evolved differently than Islam and Chinese cultures, by gaining knowledge of the economic involved in its transitition - suggest reading David Landes, "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations." and get a handle on how Star Wars will benefit Europe. It isn't a USA conspiracy, we don't want to rule the World by military force, but we refuse to allow any nation, culture, or ideology threaten our security… and, fortunately, for Europe - YOURS! Unity in strength deters conflict, disunity threatens it!
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 am
The issue is that these missles will be so close to Russia. Closer than Cuba is to the US. Russia has it's own missle defenses, as does America. If this "star wars" program was for the benefit of the everyone, including Russia, I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem. I'm not Russian, have never been to Russia and don't know any Russians but I do see their point. The problem is Russia will never allow American missles in Poland.
On another note, I've got no problem with America as a country or many Americans. However, the likes of marcellus who make degrading comments about other countries, annoys me.
If it wasn't for Pearl Harbour America would never have joned WW2.
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 am
This is more of the same - Republicans creating a crisis and threat before the elections, (assumed or real), that is intended to keep their war monger candidates in the White House. Just listen to the presidential debates and determine for yourself which candidates are in favor of war vs which are opposed to it.
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 am
Comments that say "It's stupid" or "Do not want" are useless - provide some reasoning.
I for myself am not against hosting a -defensive- installations in here (Poland), provided we get a substantial help in raising our defences from US. It seems like it can be a good deal.
Russia opposing is no surprise at all. Putin needs external threats so Russians think "they're all out to get us, good thing we've got such a leader", basically. Bush does the same with terrorism, which doesn't change the fact terrorism is very real. But when you think about it, why would Russia, which is supposedly democratic (good one eh) be so pissed? Are they planning on firing missiles over, or at, Europe, or what.
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 am
There are good points on both sides. Howsomever, name-calling is the refuge of people who cannot articulate them.
Russia does not want someone else’s missiles so close to their territory. We had that same reaction in the Cuban missile crisis. These rogue nations cannot launch nuclear war without someone supplying these nuclear weapons, true enough. Yet Russia has lost track of where its own missiles are. The threat of a loose nuke getting into a nutcase’s hands is very real. Will this missile base guarantee that it cannot happen? No. Will it reduce the probability that some nearby city will suffer a thermonuclear incident? Poland bets yes.
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 am
I am not the least bit surprised that Poland and other European nations would feel the need to defend themselves. I am shocked however, at the biased “reporting� in this article.
Right there in the headline, when I saw the word “agrees� in quotes, it implied that Poland really didn’t “agree� to host the program—it implied that maybe they were pressured by the Americans into participating. Yet, there is mention about any reluctance on the part of Poland to participate in the program. Could it be that that there was no reluctance at all? Could it be that Poland and other nations are actually enthusiastic about defending themselves? What a concept?
The author is clearly editorializing when he writes “but understandably, Russia is suspicious that the US is attempting to gain strategic strength�. Isn’t it “understandable� that some nations would want to defend themselves? Hey Ian, just report—we’ll decide what it is “understandable� or not. We don’t need your stinkin’ propaganda.
I don’t read Universe Today for it’s political content, but “understandably�, this reader is now suspicious that UT is attempting to gain political strength.
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 am
JONO:
Your last statement that the USA would not have entered WWII, if Pearl Harbor had not been attacked by the Meiji Government's Imperial Forces of Japan — is absolutely, unequivocally — FALSE!
The secret meeting, between the US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Britain's Winston Churchill, that took place in August 1941, in Newfoundland and the signing of the ATLANTIC CHARTER is clear evidence that the US was about to enter the war, as the structure for a New World Order was therein decided.
We were already supplying equipment and war materials, as well as ships, tanks, etc., under the "Lend-Lease Act", and gearing our economy towards the Military Industrial Complex it has become today. Granted it may have been a few months longer before entry, as the time-table was moved-up after December 7, 1941. Less than 4-months after the signing of the Atlantic Charter, we were war.
Furthermore, the Atlantic Charter led to the North Atlantic Treaty, which led to the creation of the United Nations, and the Bretton Woods Agreements, prior to the end of WWII, which led to the creation of the IMF and the World Bank.
Jono, you need to get a better grip on history, before shooing from the hip with statements that are totally false!
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:57 am
Good point Radic ! Let's not forget what Russia did after WWII. Their plan was not to save the world from Fascism; it was to claim the world after the Fascists had been defeated. Following the war, Poland and other nations were under Russia’s thumb until Ronald Reagan had the guts to stand up to them. And now George Bush has the guts to stand up as well. If you don’t stand up, you will go through life on your knees.
Americans are getting sick and tired of the whining from those who claim they hate America, but will be the first ones to hide behind our defense shield when the shooting starts.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 am
I agree with "Russian guy".
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
hey, not every american is bad.
may i remind you (or inform you) that the last two elections Bush actually lost the citizens' vote but the Electoral College still made him president.
Blame the government, but please don't blame all the Americans.
hopefully this will all be worked out after we elect a good president that has the wisdom that is needed to fix the mess this idiot caused
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
Contrary to what some are saying, this is completely different to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that case, the Soviet Union (which no longer exists) positioned *nuclear* missiles on Cuba, which isn't very far from the continental United States.
The missiles we're talking about here *are not* nuclear. They are designed to intercept and destroy nuclear missiles while the warheads are still in space.
The reason the Russians are upset is simple; if the United States constructs an effective defence system, nuclear war would no longer result in Mutually Assured Destruction. That is, they worry that the U.S. would be able to launch a first strike (against Russia) without consequences.
Their worry is understandable, since—as I understand it—the Cold War was largely the fault of the U.S. neo-cons (people like Rumsfeld), who did it for their own internal political reasons (at least, one assumes they didn't really believe in Soviet secret super-weapons, though I suppose it depends on how much credit you give Rumsfeld et al.). The Soviets were, for the most part, reacting to what they quite reasonably (mis)interpreted as American aggression. It perhaps isn't surprising, therefore, that they still don't really regard the U.S. as a friend.
Anyway, it's vastly more complicated than most of the posts here seem to imply; there's a lot of internal politics on all sides (U.S., Russian and in this case Polish).
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Some good reasoning, but not enough. If the US is succesful in placing missiles in Poland to deter missiles from that area, what's to stop Russia from placing missiles in South America? Polands missiles would be useless then and the US would have to place missiles in Mexico. Then Russia goes to Greenland with missiles, then…..on and on. In the mean time missiles are coming out of the ocean aimed at both countries! Good people exist all over the earth, why do governments have to become war powers? Again let me repeat, please don't comdemn Americans for the action of their government. And thanks UT for this alert to madness.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
I actually *have* lived in Russia so unlike most people here I actually know what I am talking about. The main driving force behind Russian (and also Soviet) foreign policy is and always has been mistrust. Lately there's also been a fair share of hurt pride at an empire lost. Anything they don't control awakens their suspicion. The closer to their border it is the touchier they get. Obviously, their military and their leading politicians realize that these are *non nuclear, interceptor* missiles and thus incapable of targeting anything on the ground (e.g. Kremlin). But this indignation is primarily there for internal use: it gets Putin and his cronies votes. Another thing that worries them is that any direct American involvement in Central Europe leaves less room to maneuver for tightened control of the region for Russians. They would dearly love to have these countries as their satellites again, a policy they try to implement with greater success in Caucasus and Central Asia. As I have mentioned at the beginning, they mistrust *everyone* and consequently they wish to build a security buffer around their country with states they can control. And, no, they have never been friends of the USA and the West so it's not the Bush administration that is guilty of souring the relationship with Russia. It's just that current American policy has made the animosity apparent.
Poles are moderately happy about all this but if that's what it takes to get stronger reasons for the West to help them in case of any future eastern threat, so be it. After all, other European countries promised the Poles assistance in need many times before but it has never materialized.
For those who don't understand the Russian language, the Russian Guy suggest that's what's behind all this is the desire of "the Polish nationalists" to scorn the Russians because of a conflict in XVIII century which resulted in Russian occupation of substantial parts of Poland. An utterly ridiculous claim which is reminiscent of the old Communist rhetoric. In conclusion he writes that "for that they (probably the Polish nationalists) are prepared to ally themselves even with the USA but this is only going to cause them a lot of troubles, I believe". So again we have an ambiguous statement that can also be understood as a threat: "if they do it Russia will have to intervene, using force if necessary."
Kind regards,
/Adam
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Alastair:
You clearly don't know any history.
"Their worry is understandable, since—as I understand it—the Cold War was largely the fault of the U.S. neo-cons (people like Rumsfeld), who did it for their own internal political reasons (at least, one assumes they didn't really believe in Soviet secret super-weapons, though I suppose it depends on how much credit you give Rumsfeld et al.). The Soviets were, for the most part, reacting to what they quite reasonably (mis)interpreted as American aggression. It perhaps isn't surprising, therefore, that they still don't really regard the U.S. as a friend."
The cold war started in the 1940s. Rumsfeld was a kid and the word neocon hadn't been invented. It was a reaction to aggressive moves by the Soviet Union and the complete elimination of freedom in the eastern block.
Perhaps you are too young to remember Kruschev boasting at the UN "We will bury you."
This entire thread makes me pretty ill. There are serous threats out there from states that are on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons and who have missile technology. A missile shield does is not sufficient to prevent an attack from a major state, hence does not end MAD for Russia.
The issue Russia has is that it's new Tsar, Vladimir Putin, likes to rattle the sabre as he extinguished all freedom in Russia. He wants the Soviet Union's level of domination back.
So get a life all you "blame America first" idiots.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Well of course the Russians are irritated. This is throwing a massive monkeywrench in Puti-tang's plans to revamp the old Soviet empire for another go. He can't really roll out the Iron Curtain when the US is finally actively involved in Eastern Europe.
This might be the one truly pro-democratic move that the US has made in the last eight years.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Poland does not border Russia, maybe 800 kilometers is the shortest distance.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Star Wars is a waste of money. It won't work. Let's spend the money on things that do work. The US has too much debt, and in danger of being owned by China. We spend too much on the military and not enough on preventing the causes of terrorism (such as the bin Laden family). Supplying terrorists with arms as in the past is not wise. But if you insist on war, let's just nuke everyone who disagrees with us and get it out our systems.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The shield in Poland is not aimed at Russia. First It's defensive installation. No nukes, only anti-rockets. Second, it cannot intercept rockets fired from Russia, aimed at USA. Those will likely go over pacific, Arctica, Canada etc, and not over Europe at all. Right ?
Russians are possibly more afraid of a kind of Echelon spying system, close to their borders.
And / or try to negotiate something for their acceptance of the installation.
That's what I think.
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I think this is a GREAT idea! I only hope we start putting up more defensive shields all across the world. Objecting to one is totally absurd if you have no hostile attentions. If you do then you can go pound sand for all I care!
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Hey Romain,
Are you forgetting that little piece of real estate next door on the Baltic with its ss-x's pointed at who knows where?
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
This might be the one truly pro-democratic move that the US has made in the last eight years.
Um, the missile defense system is highly unpopular in both Poland and Czech Republic. Democracy is really far from this.
The proposed radar covers almost the whole of Russia, so their uneasiness is understandable. The missile defense system also boosts mistrust between Russia and the West which in turn is detrimental to any genuine democratic process there because pro-democratic people will be seen as lackeys of the West. Since it is hard to believe that it could deflect any real attack(*), the only one who actually benefits of is the military industry.
(*) Do you Americans really believe that anyone, mad dictator or otherwise, would doom his own nation by attacking you with WMDs just to annoy you? That sounds so incredibly self-centered. Only Russia can destroy you in earnest.
—
Regarding Iran, it doesn't have the capacity to build long-range missiles that can carry nuclear weapons. It also demonstrably does not have a nuclear weapons program, and even if it did, it won't have missile-deliverable nukes for great many years.
Forget also Ahmadinejad, it is ridiculous how his role has been exaggerated. That guy is not even the true leader of Iran! He doesn't command Iran's military, and has no power over Iran's nuclear program, civilian or otherwise. He is also becoming the first one-term president of Iran, as he is extremely unpopular. He can only dream of similar popularity rates as his colleague in the White House currently has.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Clavius:
Being rude doesn't help your argument (and I have a good understanding of the relevant history, thank-you).
I must admit that when I wrote my original comment I spoke inaccurately; I had in mind the period from the late 70s to the mid 80s. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that there is some historical support for the Soviet claims that they were reacting to American aggression *throughout* the Cold War. Indeed, if it had not been for the American policy of "containment" of communism, which began under Truman in 1946, things might have been very different. I'll also note that neo-conservatism has its roots in anti-Soviet liberalism, which was certainly around in the late 40s and early 50s.
As for Putin, I agree with you there; he's playing a domestic political game based on the idea that the U.S. might not be friendly. Hardly surprising given how well a similar game has worked for Western politicians in recent times.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
"Regarding Iran, it doesn't have the capacity to build long-range missiles that can carry nuclear weapons. It also demonstrably does not have a nuclear weapons program, and even if it did, it won't have missile-deliverable nukes for great many years."
I believe the Iranians have recently demonstrated their newest (nuclear payload capable ala external covert help…I wonder whos) in their arsenal. We do have a few friends over there within its range.
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Star Wars won't work. It's a waste of money. You folks are obviously smarter and more well-informed than I. But can any of you tell me that "Star Wars" is really worth the cost.
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
This has gone too far Universe Today! Hey, knock-off subjects that stray from universal science… and regresses to the ignorance of mankind.
After throwing in my .02 cents worth debating a subject of politics, where a forum of the sciences once prevailed. There are better places online to vent about politics than at this website.
All of you… get a grip… then get a life (incl. myself).
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Hey Rev.,
Chill out…if you don't like this topic, go to another…there are plenty other UT stories on issues you may feel more science related that you can reply to.
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Well said, Rev. Well said.
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I admit y'all are smarter. But so was Bobby Fischer. Edward Teller was also far far smarter but also insane. "Rev." is both very smart and sane.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Outstanding comments from all. However, if you want to have the freedom to continue making them. Make sure you have enough deterrent to continue your right to do so.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Star Wars ain't a good deterrent.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Alastair,
"I must admit that when I wrote my original comment I spoke inaccurately; I had in mind the period from the late 70s to the mid 80s. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that there is some historical support for the Soviet claims that they were reacting to American aggression *throughout* the Cold War. Indeed, if it had not been for the American policy of "containment" of communism, which began under Truman in 1946, things might have been very different."
I apologize if I overreacted. The association of the Cold War and Neocons set me off, since it is absurd.
I would say if there wasn't a policy of containment, things would be very different. The murdering communist regime of the Soviet Union might have survived, and continued to repress and kill those who would oppose its rule. And Poland would not be free as it is today.
The Soviets pushed for hegemony as far as they could. And it was only the resistance of the West that prevented it. They were not reacting to challenges against them. They were bent on world domination. The combined will of the West prevented that (capital letter intended).
Note that few of the countries that were part of the Soviet Union are now effective democracies. Association as a country does not flourish under totalitarian rule. Look at Yugoslavia. As soon as the power structure that Tito built fell apart, so did the country, violently. Those countries fortunate to be part of the West after WWII had a chance to build democratic institutions. Those in the Soviet Block only had totalitarian rule. Poland stands apart because they never lost their national identity. A counter example is Belarus that now struggles to have a valid election.
Reagan was right to call the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire." The defeat of communism in the Cold War was a great triumph for the entire world, as it freed millions and destroyed a totalitarian regime.
Based on your comments on Putin, I think we might agree in the end. But the actions of the Soviet Union in the Cold War were theirs alone. It is wrong to assign any blame to the West for making them feel paranoid. As individuals and states, we are responsible for our own actions.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
sooner or later every country in the world will have nuclear capability…..whether you like it or not.
Recent addition includes india, pakistan, iran, n. korea.Nothing can revert the trend. Everyone wants to be in control.
A defend shield can at least deter some of this power mongrel to think twice.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Radic:
Maybe Russia is "pissed" because they lost around 35 million souls during WWII, when armies swept through Poland in a few weeks and into Russia. Would you mind if Germany placed a missile defense system on the Polish border? To protect itself from rogue Middle East states, of course.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Even if the "Star Wars" were 100% accurate (which it is not), any nation that wanted to launch a nuclear missile would only need to use less expensive decoy missiles first. The Defense missiles would naturally be launched to intercept. When the aggressor knew the "Star Wars" arsenal was depleted, they would launch their Nuclear missile. Aren't the nuclear missiles we have a better deterrent? Why shouldn't they be more inclined to "think twice" about something they know works than something that can be easily fooled?
February 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am
This just in….
TEHRAN, Iran - "Iran launched a research rocket Monday and unveiled its first major space center, which will be used to launch research satellites, state-run television reported."
"Some Western experts also have raised the possibility that Iran's space program may be a cover to more fully develop its military ballistic missiles, a prospect many find troubling at a time when the U.S. and others worry Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons."
tick tick tick…..
February 4th, 2008 at 10:49 am
@Skylark
Soviets invaded Poland along with Germany, only like 2 years later Germany betrayed Russia and invaded their territory. Soviets were bad guys in that war so I don't really feel too much for them.
As for the analogy, it's not exactly accurate since we border mainly Belarus and Ukraine to the east. No, I wouldn't mind - we're both in NATO after all.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Radic:
Not so fast. Germany invaded Poland first. Russia did not invade "along with Germany," as you state. Even big bad Stalin knew (from his pre-1939 speeches) that the Nazis were coming. In any case. Poland was left hanging.
Your "Soviets were the bad guys" is disturbing insofar as it infers that the Nazis were the good guys…. Wow! Those must be fancy (revisionist) history books you're reading….
February 4th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
@Skylark
Don't try the straw man argument, please. Both Nazis and Soviets were bad guys. Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was in effect for like 2 years during which both armies brought genocide and destruction. Communist regime full of crime for decades after.
Not along with - from opposite directions. Doesn't change anything.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Hello people…these are conventional missles not nukes that are used to intercept nuclear missiles. This is nothing like the Cuban missile crisis. In that case nuclear weapons were being set up in Cuba and aimed at the US. This is not the case in Poland or The Czech republic. The missles that would be intalled there are not nuclear, but I am sure the Russians are worried that they could be.
I wouldn't put it the past the US to try it either.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Clavius,
Hmmm in case of Former Yu, you are grossly simplifying things….
The problem there really started long after Tito's death, with "Reaganomics" - interest rates rise, which brought economy of the country to its knees… then someone has to be blamed for this and it turned out that multi-national society is a good and fertile ground for the blame game… so many "them others" there…. the rest is a history…. but this does not include democracy, they are still very far from that ideal…
February 4th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Pro,
Granted my example was simple.
My point was totalitarian government does not breed the skills that lead to a democracy. It makes it more difficult as there is a tendency to return to absolute rule. Look at Putin…
February 4th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Yes, you are definitely right about a lack of skills (I would say inadequate behavior of individuals and groups, or perhaps even better term - attitude) required for democracy.
The tendency to go back to absolute rule is a fear of new, rationalized as a "need for someone to put things back in order", very understandable reaction and very much "wired" into human psyche . The emotional recovery from upheavals and ability to look at the new situation as an opportunity for the better are always taking a long time… and this process is usually hampered by the presence of rogue elements of the society ( mafia, corruption, general uncertainty etc). Putin (as many others everywhere else) is just (successfully for now) using this for his own benefit. Humans are very complicated animals…..
February 5th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Well, having already put my .02 cents worth into this discussion… and was content not to continue participation… but, have decided to raise my ante to .03 cents because sociology has been added to the politics of the issue.
So, here goes… pay attention. . .
I would put forward a LAW of social and political relationships, namely, that three factors cannot coexist: (1) a marked disparity of power; (2) private access to the instruments of power; and (3) equality of groups or nations. Where one group is strong enough to push another around and stand to gain by it, it will do so. Even if the state would abstain from aggression, companies and individuals will not wait for permission. Rather, they will act in their own interests, dragging others along, including the state.
Therefore, consider (if you will) the USA isn't the "big push" behind deployment of "Star Wars," but instead the corporate and military industrial complexes of both Europe and the USA who stand to benefit financially. And the real benefits of a shield isn't going to be the North American continent (distance and time - launch to strike), but instead Western Europe; and, providing the added security for those newly accepted EU member states of Eastern Europe, who would look favorably on a shield to protect them from what they fear most (and with good reason) — RUSSIA.
Finally, everyone seems to misunderstand the structure of the USA’s foreign policy, including most Americans, so you Europeans are not faulted, but, perhaps I can shed some light on the subject to help tone down the “easy to hate America rhetoric� that is finally being toned-down (thankfully) to a change in French-German political leadership. Having said that, please consider “who� creates and structures the foreign policy of the USA? Your right “if� you answered the “Committee on Foreign Relations!� But, did you know the CFR’s membership is made up by 80% Anglophiles? So, consider “who� is really behind driving a policy, such as, Star Wars… and you might find the answer rests in London not in Washington, D.C. (“jolly good�).
There, I'm now done… will not raise the ante to .04 cents. Promise!
February 5th, 2008 at 9:41 am
OK, Rev, I don't question your high intelligence and sanity, but can you explain why "Star Wars' is the right way to go? It seems to me it could easily be fooled by decoys even if it were 100% accurate–and a colossal waste of money.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I agree with "Not as smart guy"…oh wait that's me. I keep forgetting.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
You’re NOT a dumb guy either! And you ask the right question - Why, do we need SW? But what determines consent of the people in order to transfer power to the elite is NOT a vote of free choice determined by what is best for the country, but votes that are driven by – FEAR!
The agenda can be changed depending on the issues. Take for instance what is currently happening with US primary voting since it began in Iowa. Prior to Iowa the focus was on the Middle East conflict and everyone was touting Rudy Guillani, as the GOP candidate. And he knew his personal history would not play well in the initial primaries, and he's right. So, he opened and then failed in Florida (quickly gone). He was strong on security and under threat ("fear") had the focus stayed he would be the guy to beat. But, as you've probably noticed ALL talk of war and threats have (even from Ahmadinejad of Iran) gone silent. And as expected the incumbent President leaving office is expected to (and did) go mum. The shift was away from fear and war and leveled on the economy. Don't you think it strange - "a shift" - of attention happened, like, opps we've got economic problems. Economics just doesn’t work that way, problem has been there for sometime, but timing by the political-media had already decided "when" the shift would take place.
The shift next time could be back on war and the economy, and other issues. Certainly, Barack Obama, will accept the VP position on Hillary’s ticket, unless, Hillary is confronted by a REAL threat from Obama, and a possibility of losing the nomination… then it’s quite possible she could choose hubby "Slick Willie" as her running mate! I know your asking is that legal? The simple answer is "Yes!" He can’t run for Prez, but he can accept the VP nomination, and could even become Prez, under constitutional succession should Hillary if elected were to depart the office for any reason.
Here’s something for you to consider. . .
The questions that should be asked are "WHY" and "HOW" has the liberal media in America come to be controlled? And "WHO" is behind their acquisitions?
The Bush administration got elected on its conservative platform, by convincing the public that the Republican Party is feeding on conservative roots. As conservative parties go, the current administration doesn't resemble its party's past, confirmed by their budgets submitted to Congress they appear to be left of the most liberal of former Democratic distractions.
The bottom line is that ALL of our Presidents are errand boys (liberal or conservative), no more than compromise figureheads with the unenviable job of simultaneously trying in some way to accommodate the brays of the "Business-Merchant-Manufacturing" class who generally tend to be nationalist and provincial, while kowtowing on pain of media death to the imperatives of the much more powerful, vastly more wealthy, and far more sophisticated “Anglo-American Aristocracy,� who of course are the "internationalists." Anyone who blames them for their policies doesn't understand the job description.
To add to the politicians' problems, the American people are obviously divided into a majority of red-staters’ whose "common sense" tells them that their interests are better represented by "Main Street" than by "Wall Street", and a minority of blue-staters’ who are well-educated, which all too often means that they blindly follow the dictates of their pre-programmed political correctness — a mind-set tightly orchestrated by the best of the best (but sadly bought and paid for) media manipulators and Ivy League opinion makers. Hence, anyone who for whatever twisted reasons wants to be elected President, must appear to tow the red state party line to keep the grass roots from going to seed, while in fact "secretly" following the "offer you can't refuse" dictates of the aristocrats who own the media and who can destroy them on a whim. Does it seem odd that the power structures who put these poor fools into office also on occasion orchestrate their destruction? Not at all, as ONLY the master can wield the whip!
Indeed it is a very tough balancing act for any Republicrat, whether your name is Bush or Clinton.
Remember (if you will), that our country was founded by Whigs who represented the business classes; and, who were nationalist and protectionist. The elite Republican class interests are more in alignment with the people who earned their money through free enterprise than for those whose far huger fortunes come with a name and title. But money doesn't talk it swears, and so the "Tories" really never went away, but rather took the names of, and imbedded themselves in, the "loyal" parties. Clearly they've gradually won the day, starting with Watergate, and are now consolidating their control over America. So let's not in any way confuse a free-trading, free-spending Tory from the Eastern Establishment like ANY Bush with the "conservative" movement of the nationalists, let alone with the mind-set of our Whig founding fathers.
America's media has been bought and paid for by the elite, and over time has been converted to propagandize the advance of an agenda that was secretly founded in 1891, and further their quest for power and influence to be extended across the globe in fulfillment of their cause.
Enuf’ said. . . feel free to e-mail me at your convenience.
Curt B.
BallyZACA@msn.com
An American ex-Patriot, living in Sweden
February 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Thanks, Rev. I enjoy reading your comments. I may email you some time to find out about Sweden. It sounds like a fun place. I'm still in USA.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I just took a look again.
Rev.,
For shame…your re-entry (pardon the pun) in this discussion seems to be a bit hypocritical don't you agree? And what does this topic have to do with the American presidential election process? But, as long as you brought it up; hey our system ain't always pretty but it's still young (200 years is a blink of an eye) and still going. Maybe you would prefer the Russian or Chinese or Iranian or Sudanese or…or…or…or… system of politics.
And hey, our "focus" on issues shift all the time (and yes, the media plays a part in what wheel gets the grease) but, Americans are certainly not myopic; we still regard the war on terror and the environment and our health care etc. etc. as high on our priority lists. Right now the "main" focus is on the economy and it's not just the American economy but the global economy, but that doesn't mean the urgency to bring home the troops has diminished. I'm retired and now I'm a bit worried that my retirement fund may not remain solvent and that didn't cross my mind at the beginning of the primaries.
Oh, I can't recall the last time the American government censored our media or shut down our internet access… can you? btw, we do have access to other than the syndicated news outlets.
If "all" in the world had uncensored access to the internet, then "all" in the world could think and make decisions for themselves and maybe come to appreciate and understand and respect the diversity of "all" others in the world.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Will:
Firstly, you need to get a grip. Secondly, I am as much an American as you, and I can assure you equally (if not more) patriotic. The difference "IS" that you obviously are NOT very well informed (probably, too much CNN) and likely not too well read based on the style of your writing.
Finally, the only reason that I threw politics into the bray was to give example to the person who's handle (NASG) whom asked the question "why" a defense system, such as, SW was needed, or would be deployed? My answer was an attempt to educate him, as to "how" such decisions are massaged by the "liberal media's elite" to sway the opinions of the public. Yes, I know… the methods are universal. You’re suggesting that maybe I may prefer another political system, such as, Russia, Iranian, Sudanese… or… or… or, isn't worthy of rebuttal. If, you'd have bothered to read my earlier posts you could have easily disseminated in your limited state of consciousness that I am pro Star Wars, or leaning that way. The difference between us is — I don't blindly accept the propaganda of my country's free press (or, any country), but prefer standing guard over any representative politician whose political partisanship may lead my nation into the abyss.
"Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." - Carl Schurz (1829-1906).
Now with that (and YOU) said, I regret having returned to view postings, as this subject is pretty much spent and in the wrong forum to begin with.
And one last thing Mr. Retiree, my years has qualified me to claim that title, as well, only I don't gloat over having reached the mark, as there is much left yet to do and accomplish.
Don't bother to reply, as I shall (unlike) Gen. MacArthur not return.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Rev.,
In case you peek…
Didn't mean to scuff up your oxfords.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Weeping
by Qkumba Zoo
album:
I knew a man who lived in fear
It was huge, it was angry it was drawing near
Behind his house, a secret place
Was the shadow of the demon he could never face
He built a wall of steel and flame
And men with guns to keep it tame
Then standing back he made it plain
That the nightmare would never ever rise again
But the fear the fire and the guns remained
It doesn't matter now
It's over anyhow
He tells the world that it's sleeping
But as the night came round, I heard its lowly sound
It wasn't roaring, it was weeping
And then one day the neighbors came
They were curious to know about the smoke and flame
They stood around outside the wall
But of course there was nothing to be heard at all
"My friends," he said, "we've reached our goal, The threat is under firm control
As long as peace and order reign
I'll be damned if i can see a reason to explain
Why the fear and the fire and the guns remain
It doesn't matter now
It's over anyhow
He tells the world that it's sleeping
But as the night came round, I heard its lowly sound
It wasn't roaring, it was weeping
Is there a light, can you feel the light shine
I think i've find a way through
(Yes I found a way through)
I know things have changed but the fear remained in me
Till i touched the light in you
It doesn't matter now
It's over anyhow
He tells the world that it's sleeping
But as the night came round, I heard its lowly sound
It wasn't roaring, it was weeping
February 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Rev.
Whilst I have no doubt that you have studied these matters extensively, Will makes several important points and says nothing that warrants such remarks:
"The difference "IS" that you obviously are NOT very well informed (probably, too much CNN) and likely not too well read based on the style of your writing."
I am not a religious man, but just in case your name refers to "reverend" you should study Ephesians 4:2 - "Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love."
February 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Radic:
I'm back, albeit belatedly. About that Ribbentrop-Molotov "treaty," you omit Molotov's attempts to enlist Allied support against what was seen as practically the inevitable Nazi "push" Eastward. Churchill in particular appeared reluctant to discourage Hitler's heading East, which sort of left Russia in the lurch, holding the bag, etc.
In any case, inform me why Hitler apparently decided not to invade Britain though the war initially was heading in that direction. (And don't say the RAF, as heroic as they were, scared him off….)
July 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Конечно, автор блога проÑто молодец! Пишите еще!