[luke warm]

the poll is for the cuban airstrips, what about the ones potentially in venezuela?

the bear's bombers

[kfay]

wtp?

[blackshoe]

Whether, as a matter of policy, the US should or should not object to Russia positioning strategic bombers within (very close) range of US shores has absolutely nothing to do with JFK's state of being.

[Hanoi5]

Yeah, what does jfk have to do with this?

I'm all against Chavez but why wouldn't you allow Russian planes in Cuba or Venezuela but you (the US) have missiles in Poland? Sounds like a double standard to me...

[helene_t]

It will stimulate the Cuban economy, I am all for it.

[blackshoe]

strategic bomber ≠ defensive missile.

[Aberlour10]

I am pretty sure Russia doesn't want to deploy their tactical weapons neither in Cuba nor in Venezuela, these are only "verbal games" with decent warning: "Stay away with yours from our borders, Black Sea etc"

Robert

[luke warm]

the missiles in europe (if they're ever deployed) are defensive weapons... russian bombers 90 miles from the u.s. are offensive weapons... i mentioned kennedy because he was the last president who had to face the threat of a russian offensive weapons system based in cuba

[Wackojack]

A missile (bomb, gun, knife) in my hands is a defensive weapon. In your hands its an offensive weapon. See the logic?

[Hanoi5]

And also remember that 'offense is the best defense'.

[helene_t]

Hanoi5, on Mar 15 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

And also remember that 'offense is the best defense'.

Like it would make Russia safer to nuke a few U.S. cities? I don't think so.

[hrothgar]

In a shocking developing, the US does something stupid (in this case committing to deploy ABM's in Poland with a radar dome in the Czech Republic)

The Russians might be considering something even more stupid - deploying bombers in Cuba. (Please note: I use the word "might" because the Kremlin is making damn sure to describe this as a hypothetical - this in contrast to the US which actually worked out a deal with the Poles)

I don't believe for a minute that these ABM sites have anything to do with protecting Europe from an Iranian nuclear launch. I think that the Bushies wanted to place "tripwires" in ex Warsaw Pact member states. Back in the day, the US placed some sacrificial military units in West Berlin. The units weren't put in place out of any belief that they would be able to hold back the Russians. They were there to make sure that if the Russians didn't anything, US soldiers would die and the US would be directly drawn in to the conflict.

In a similar vein, I don't think that the Russian objections have anything to do with any fear that small scale ABM deployment will degrade their first strike capability. I think that the Russians feel that the US placing military bases in ex Soviet satellites is a deliberate effort to fence them in.

My hope is that the Obama administration will have enough sense to pull the plug on this project. I don't think that the Russians are dumb enough to station any significant number of bombers in the Western hemisphere.

[TimG]

Maybe the US could sell one of their closed Air Force Bases to the Russians. I think there's one in Presque Isle, Maine that is mostly idle. Boost to the local economy. I think it would be great.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Mar 15 2009, 08:17 AM, said:

I don't believe for a minute that these ABM sites have anything to do with protecting Europe from an Iranian nuclear launch. I think that the Bushies wanted to place "tripwires" in ex Warsaw Pact member states.

didn't obama confirm that the missiles were for defending against iranian potential aggressions?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 15 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 15 2009, 08:17 AM, said:

I don't believe for a minute that these ABM sites have anything to do with protecting Europe from an Iranian nuclear launch.  I think that the Bushies wanted to place "tripwires" in ex Warsaw Pact member states.

didn't obama confirm that the missiles were for defending against iranian potential aggressions?

I think that he lied... (Or at the very least, chose to maintain the fiction that Bush and Co started)

He didn't want to be in a position where he had to say that the US decided to place foreign bases in order to hem in Russia.

He preferred to maintain this fiction until such a time that he can kill the project...

I don't find this behavior at all surprising.

Personally, I'd take great joy in seeing Obama repudiate virtually every decision that Bush and Co did... I'd also like to seem them both handed over to the Hague for wars crimes.

However, I also understand that preserving some measure of continuity is important. You don't want to whipsaw the international community at times like this.

Obama seems to prefer slow, deliberate change.
I hope that it works.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Mar 15 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

Personally, I'd take great joy in seeing Obama repudiate virtually every decision that Bush and Co did... I'd also like to seem them both handed over to the Hague for wars crimes.

Do I read that correctly? Should Obama be sent to the Hague?

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Mar 15 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 15 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

Personally, I'd take great joy in seeing Obama repudiate virtually every decision that Bush and Co did...  I'd also like to seem them both handed over to the Hague for wars crimes.

Do I read that correctly? Should Obama be sent to the Hague?

Sorry, both Bush and Cheney

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Mar 15 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 15 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

Personally, I'd take great joy in seeing Obama repudiate virtually every decision that Bush and Co did...  I'd also like to seem them both handed over to the Hague for wars crimes.

Do I read that correctly? Should Obama be sent to the Hague?

not unless lying is a war crime (and i'm not the one who said obama lied, richard did)... of course obama might not have lied, the missile shield might really be to protect europe from potential iranian aggression...

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Mar 15 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

not unless lying is a war crime

No wonder the Netherlands is so crowded

But seriously, would Obama even know what Bush had in mind when he decided on that missile shield?

hrothgar said:

However, I also understand that preserving some measure of continuity is important. You don't want to whipsaw the international community at times like this.

Why? Everyone expects Obama to reverse everything. It won't cause much turbulence if he backs out of this missile shield thing. He already announced to withdraw from Iraq and to close Gitmo and CIA's oversea prisons, so surely he could take do this one also.

OTOH, maybe he wants to keep the missile shield thread until he Russia offers him some return favor for dropping it.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Why? Everyone expects Obama to reverse everything. It won't cause much turbulence if he backs out of this missile shield thing. He already announced to withdraw from Iraq and to close Gitmo and CIA's oversea prisons, so surely he could take do this one also.

Obama thus far has shown no willingness to fight for real change. Whether drawing water from the same old poisoned well with "safe" picks like Gates and Summers, or backing away from meaningful change by repeating the Bush DOJ torture claims and by standing aside and allowing Charles Freeman to be railroaded into submission by powerful interests, it is clear Obama does not want to rock the boat and is quite content to be the leader of status quo.

As long as the Obama is more concerned about style points than substance, I expect other saber-rattling challenges like this one from the Russians.