philipharris's tags:
philipharris reads (1):
Who's reading philipharris (6):

What is wrong with President Bush?  Does he want his legacy to be “the man that rekindled the cold war?”  According to Vladimir Putin the Russian test-firing of new missiles was in response to the U.S. plans to build missile defense sites across Eastern Europe.  Why would we do that?  What is the secret Bush agenda?

 

According to White house officials the purpose of the missile defense system in Eastern Europe is to defend the area against rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.  I am no military strategists but this makes no sense.  If North Korea were to launch missiles at the U.S. why would they send them over China, across Russia, over Europe and across the Atlantic to the U.S.?  Do they even have the capability to do that?  Would it not make more sense to shoot them at Hawaii or California?  They are a lot closer.

 

The same goes for Iran.  If the shortest distance for a missile to fly is a straight line, I do not think that they would first go over Poland to reach the U.S.  Again, do they have ICBMs?  And, for the sake of argument, why does the U.S. have to defend Eastern Europe?  If they are so concerned about Iran, which any intelligent being would doubt, then let them do something about it.  Certainly we are a member of NATO but we simply cannot continue to put more bases and more missiles around the globe because we fear Iran and North Korea.

According to a May 31st AP report,

 “He (Putin) assailed the United States and other members for failing to ratify an amended version of the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, which limits the deployment of heavy non-nuclear weapons around the continent.

"We have signed and ratified the CFE and are fully implementing it. We have pulled out all our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia to (locations) behind the Ural Mountains and cut our military by 300,000 men," Putin said.

"And what about our partners? They are filling Eastern Europe with new weapons. A new base in Bulgaria, another one in Romania, a (missile defense) site in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic," he said. "What we are supposed to do? We can't just sit back and look at that."

Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly rejected U.S. assurances that the planned missile defense installations are meant to counter a potential threat from nations such as Iran and pose no danger to Russia.”

 

I am not sure that I blame Putin.  The reasoning put forward by the Bush Administration makes no sense.  There is no doubt that Russia is beginning to flex its new economic and military muscles and that Putin is moving away from democratic reform towards greater central authority.  He certainly deserves to be watched but it seems that we are purposely antagonizing Russia.  The question is, why?

 

The Bush Administration has lost international credibility.  We found that it lied about Iraq and now is offering lame reasons to further extend our military capabilities.  Once this Presidency is over, it is anyone’s guess what other lies may come to light but one thing is certain, our foreign policy is one of alienation and not one of peace.

 



del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • muckpar said on Jun 07, 2007....
        I  think the Russians are looking for a scapegoat because the people of Russia are beginning to show signs of uneasiness over Putin's turn back to the old soviet way of doing things.  A classic dictators's move, focus your people's attention on a perceived external threat to take their minds off their own internal problems.  This small anti-missle system is absolutely no threat to Russia's offensive military capability.  None what so ever.  The system has not even been fully developed and won't be for years.  If you don't think Iran will be a threat when they are armed with ICBM's tipped with nuclear weapons, you may want to watch current events a little more.  N. Korea has not given up their nukes like they were suppose too.  This being said, your ideas are your own and who knows maybe you're right, just thought I would offer up a different perspective on the issue.
  • philipharris said on Jun 12, 2007....
    You may be right also but it is good to more closely watch what we do-we are not making many friends and it would make sense to talk a little more with our supposed allies.
  • ThePainfulTruthBFTW said on Jun 26, 2007....

    Bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with a passive defense system. If your neighbors complained about you installing an alarm system in your house or setting up some sort of security, would you not wonder why. "Oh don’t install that! It will make it harder for me to break in."

    Russia is not as poor and destitute, as it would have the world think. For a country that has had such a hard time economically since the cold war, it sure has made plenty of postings of new weapons (great weapon) in publications such as Aviation Week.

    In the game of nuclear war you don’t let your guard down. At one time missiles were suspected and expected to come from mainly one direction and our defense was arranged to counter that. Now the game is different. The thought of coming in from another direction where our detection capability and defense is weaker is very real and should not be ignored. I missile can mean multiple warheads i.e. the SS-18 with 8-10 warheads at yields approaching 2MT apiece. One missile, ten Hiroshima’s. It doesn’t matter if Iran and North Korea have the capability to conduct such strikes now, they are working on it and the time to build a defense is not when they have it (too late), but ahead of time. Action is quicker than reaction.

    Check out http://missile.index.ne.jp/cgi/misearch.cgi for a better idea of what we are dealing with.

  • bloc said on Jul 25, 2007....
    "Bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with a passive defense system"

    I don't think this is true when it comes to nukes. There is a concept called "mutually assured destruction" which states that two nuclear powers won't use nukes against each other because both will be destroyed since the other with launch their missiles in response. 

    A passive defense against nukes takes away this barrier to nuclear war and would make it more likely that a country would use nukes against another nuclear power. I.e. a passive defense will begin another arms race a la the cold war and it will make nuclear war more likely.

Comment on "PRESIDENT BUSH'S POLICIES OF ALIENATION"

Putin bush missiles iran North Korea politics (Click to add tags below)

(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously

A new dinosaur named Tatankacephalus cooneyorum, was recently unearthed in Montana. For me it's not a particularly exciting find. It's a rather standard addition to the anklosaur family, a group of armored dinoraurs with club like tails. It is surmise...
Caroline Glick's interesting little ode to George W. Bush and her pain at him no longer being POTUS...