Home› A Moving Train

American missile shield in Poland

KannKann Posts: 1,146
edited August 2008 in A Moving Train
So, I guess everyone saw/read about this (for instance : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/world/europe/16poland.html?hp).
What's your take on it, especially for Europeans?
I'm not to pleased with this, I know it's Poland's choice but ultimately it's on european territory. And the fact that we're playing a buffer role (once more) between Russia and the US is disturbing.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    im never a fan when one country puts its defenses in another country. to me this is an antagonistic move by the US.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    its probably no big deal that Russia threatened Poland with nukes right?
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    Is it ok if Russia puts a missile defense system in Cuba or Venezuela?

    No it is no big deal that Russia has threatened - to turn some of their nukes towards Poland. We would do the same if Russia was on Cuban or Venezuela soil.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    puremagic wrote:
    Is it ok if Russia puts a missile defense system in Cuba or Venezuela?

    is Poland on the same almost "enemy-like" terms with Russia as the US is with Venezuela? secondly why would Russia need a missile defense system in north america? who are they defending missiles from?

    puremagic wrote:
    No it is no big deal that Russia has threatened - to turn some of their nukes towards Poland.

    wow. just wow. we are taking nukes here, nuclear weapons. you realize what those are right?
    puremagic wrote:
    We would do the same if Russia was on Cuban or Venezuela soil.

    no actually we wouldnt. threaten action? sure. threaten to use nukes? no.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=299465
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    ---
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    spyguy wrote:
    is Poland on the same almost "enemy-like" terms with Russia as the US is with Venezuela? secondly why would Russia need a missile defense system in north america? who are they defending missiles from?




    wow. just wow. we are taking nukes here, nuclear weapons. you realize what those are right?



    no actually we wouldnt. threaten action? sure. threaten to use nukes? no.

    1. Bush's public reasoning for the missile defense system is because of the "war on terror". To be able to stop rogue nations like North Korea and Iran. Why don't you take the time to look up how many negotiated and signed Treaties have been broken by this proposed missile defense system.

    2. I know what nukes are, Poland knows what nukes are, Russia knows what nukes, the U.S. knows what nukes are, but more importantly it is the people of Europe who have to realize what nukes are because they are the ones that face the horrors of what could happen if push comes to shove.

    -They are the ones still finding landmines and bombs on their soil and in their waterways.

    - They are the ones who can still see the effects of a total war. It is the European people, who have no voice in this stupid medley that is playing out on there soil and will effect their lives for generations if it goes bad. Iran, nor North Korea has the missile power to reach the continental U.S.

    3. What conventional military action do you think the U.S. could put up against Russia without a stalemate or an escalation? Bush would be facing the same decision Truman had to make, continue losing a mass amount of manpower and watch this conflict spread across Europe or end it.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    puremagic wrote:
    1. Bush's public reasoning for the missile defense system is because of the "war on terror". To be able to stop rogue nations like North Korea and Iran. Why don't you take the time to look up how many negotiated and signed Treaties have been broken by this proposed missile defense system.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/20/poland.us.missile/index.html

    NATO seems cool with it. anyway, I'm not saying I support this move. but I do not support Russia throwing out nuke threats
    puremagic wrote:
    2. I know what nukes are, Poland knows what nukes are, Russia knows what nukes, the U.S. knows what nukes are, but more importantly it is the people of Europe who have to realize what nukes are because they are the ones that face the horrors of what could happen if push comes to shove.

    er um ok. thanks :confused:
    puremagic wrote:
    -They are the ones still finding landmines and bombs on their soil and in their waterways.

    - They are the ones who can still see the effects of a total war. It is the European people, who have no voice in this stupid medley that is playing out on there soil and will effect their lives for generations if it goes bad. Iran, nor North Korea has the missile power to reach the continental U.S.

    3. What conventional military action do you think the U.S. could put up against Russia without a stalemate or an escalation? Bush would be facing the same decision Truman had to make, continue losing a mass amount of manpower and watch this conflict spread across Europe or end it.

    what the hell is your point with this mini rant?
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    spyguy wrote:
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/20/poland.us.missile/index.html

    NATO seems cool with it. ...



    well of course NATO seems cool with it. :rolleyes:
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    catefrances wrote:
    well of course NATO seems cool with it. :rolleyes:

    and thats bad?
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    spyguy wrote:
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/20/poland.us.missile/index.html

    NATO seems cool with it. anyway, I'm not saying I support this move. but I do not support Russia throwing out nuke threats



    er um ok. thanks :confused:



    what the hell is your point with this mini rant?


    If you don't get it fine, but, its time you figured some things out on your own. Reading and comprehension go together.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    spyguy wrote:
    and thats bad?


    nope. just a ridiculous statement considering WHO is a member of NATO.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    puremagic wrote:
    If you don't get it fine, but, its time you figured some things out on your own. Reading and comprehension go together.

    I get what your saying but it has nothing to do with this discussion. pull it together
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    catefrances wrote:
    nope. just a ridiculous statement considering WHO is a member of NATO.

    thanks for chiming in. when you have something constructive to say, I'll be happy to listen
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    spyguy wrote:
    thanks for chiming in. when you have something constructive to say, I'll be happy to listen

    LMAO!!! dont insult me. i would have thought anyone with any intelligence would realise that NATO will be supportive of anything the USA does because the USA is a massive part of NATO. it is not in their economic best interests to go against the US.
    constructive enough for you?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    catefrances wrote:
    LMAO!!! dont insult me. i would have thought anyone with any intelligence would realise that NATO will be supportive of anything the USA does because the USA is a massive part of NATO. it is not in their economic best interests to go against the US.
    constructive enough for you?

    I didnt insult you. I simply asked you say something constructive. which you clearly have trouble doing.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    spyguy wrote:
    I didnt insult you. I simply asked you say something constructive. which you clearly have trouble doing.


    a veiled insult is still an insult. as is condescension.

    hmm you posted NATO seems to be ok with it. i pointed out WHY that would be the case. id say that was constructive. obviously you are of the opinion that adding an opinion that expands the original statement with an explanation isnt adding anything constructive.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    catefrances wrote:
    a veiled insult is still an insult. as is condescension.

    hmm you posted NATO seems to be ok with it. i pointed out WHY that would be the case. id say that was constructive. obviously you are of the opinion that adding an opinion that expands the original statement with an explanation isnt adding anything constructive.

    are you done? move along
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    spyguy wrote:
    are you done? move along


    youll be the last to know when i am.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    spyguy wrote:
    I get what your saying but it has nothing to do with this discussion. pull it together


    Really, because I thought the discussion was in relation to the topic of the thread and totally on point in replying to you directly. I'll try to remember that you're a one liner and keep it simple.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    puremagic wrote:
    Really, because I thought the discussion was in relation to the topic of the thread and totally on point in replying to you directly. I'll try to remember that you're a one liner and keep it simple.

    you babbled on about something about everyone knowing what nukes are. made no sense
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    spyguy wrote:
    you babbled on about something about everyone knowing what nukes are. made no sense

    Go figure, some people babble and some people see only what they want to see. Ok, maybe one liners aren't so bad.


    On the other hand, that's not my style, this is.

    Why did you ask me if I knew what nukes were? The point made was that everyone knows what nukes are. The more important point was that the U.S. does not face a nuclear threat from Iran or North Korea, so why is that we are pushing this missiles defense system that is creating conflicts and endangering European countries.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    puremagic wrote:
    Why did you ask me if I knew what nukes were?

    do you know what a rhetorical question is? heres a hint. that is one.
    puremagic wrote:
    The point made was that everyone knows what nukes are. The more important point was that the U.S. does not face a nuclear threat from Iran or North Korea, so why is that we are pushing this missiles defense system that is creating conflicts and endangering European countries.

    the US government does feel that there is a threat from the countries. maybe not nukes, but ballistic missiles. just because you say there is no threat, doesnt mean there isn't. the world is a fucked up place.

    that said, I dont necessarily think its worth pissing of Russia this bad just to have this missile defense system in poland. we should compromise.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    spyguy wrote:
    the US government does feel that there is a threat from the countries. maybe not nukes, but ballistic missiles. just because you say there is no threat, doesnt mean there isn't. the world is a fucked up place.

    that said, I dont necessarily think its worth pissing of Russia this bad just to have this missile defense system in poland. we should compromise.
    The US government also felt the 'threat' of Iraq, does that justify the war and occupation of their territory?

    also, what kind of 'compromise' are you talking about?
  • OffHeGoes29OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    The Patriot Missile is a defensive weapon only. They are already in Germany, if you read the artical, they are moving whats already in Germany to Poland. Its the same mission in Germany, to defend Western Europe from any Air threat. We had them around the base I was stationed at in Germany a couple years ago. They are not an offensive weapon, meaning the US can't just fire them into Russia, thats not what they are designed for. We just sold Poland a bunch of new F-16s, they are looking to update their military. Russia doesn't have a great history with Poland, they invaded the country 4 times in the last 100 years.
    BRING BACK THE WHALE
  • OffHeGoes29OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    catefrances wrote:
    LMAO!!! dont insult me. i would have thought anyone with any intelligence would realise that NATO will be supportive of anything the USA does because the USA is a massive part of NATO. it is not in their economic best interests to go against the US.
    constructive enough for you?

    This move is in Europe's best interest.
    BRING BACK THE WHALE
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    This move is in Europe's best interest.
    bad relations - and possibly war - with Russia is in Europe's best interest?

    the way the world works...
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    The Patriot Missile is a defensive weapon only. They are already in Germany, if you read the artical, they are moving whats already in Germany to Poland. Its the same mission in Germany, to defend Western Europe from any Air threat. We had them around the base I was stationed at in Germany a couple years ago. They are not an offensive weapon, meaning the US can't just fire them into Russia, thats not what they are designed for. We just sold Poland a bunch of new F-16s, they are looking to update their military. Russia doesn't have a great history with Poland, they invaded the country 4 times in the last 100 years.

    exactly. but there is no way you are going to convince people around here of that.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    spyguy wrote:
    exactly. but there is no way you are going to convince people around here of that.
    well, i think it's more convincing when you say things like 'move along' don't you?
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    outlaw, if you are replying to me dont bother. you are on ignore.
Sign In or Register to comment.