Forum Thread

Salamonie Lake Topics

(Salamonie Lake Specific)

1 messages

Updated 6/6/2011 8:42:34 AM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,616 messages

Updated 5/8/2024 12:28:39 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Salamonie Lake Fishing

(Salamonie Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	lotowner -	Reply
Subject:	Betrayal
Date:	9/18/2009 12:37:34 PM

An interesting artcle from the internet reflecting the views of European countries to be covered under the missle shield cancelled by Obama. Many Americans also feel betrayed by this administration.

- Poles and Czechs voiced deep concern Friday at President Barack Obama's decision to scrap a Bush-era missile defense shield planned for their countries.

"Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back," the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama's new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous "gray zone" between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere.

Recent events have rattled nerves throughout central and eastern Europe, a region controlled by Moscow during the Cold War, including the war last summer between Russia and Georgia and ongoing efforts by Russia to regain influence in Ukraine. A Russian cutoff of gas to Ukraine last winter left many Europeans without heat.

The Bush administration's missile defense plan would have been "a major step in preventing various disturbing trends in our region of the world," Kaczynski said in a guest editorial in Fakt that also was carried on his presidential Web site.

Neighboring Lithuania, a small Baltic nation that broke away from the Soviet Union in 1991 and is now a NATO member, also expressed regret over Obama's decision.

Defense Minister Rasa Jukneviciene said that the shield would have increased security for Lithuania and she hoped missile defense would not be excluded from future talks on NATO security.

"This NATO region cannot be an exception and its defense is not less important compared with others," she said.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Betrayal
Date:	9/18/2009 3:22:56 PM

We all know who funds NATO (US) and my feeling is this -- if these countries are so concerned, let them put their money where their concerns are. The US was funding the majority portion of the missile shield. Why should we have to continue to pour money into a bloated program that doesn't address the major threat, so these people can feel safer from Russia?
It's time that the Eastern Europeans stepped up to the plate themselves -- like a lot of other countries, they like it best when the US is footing the bill.
I have thought NATO should have been dissolved long ago.

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Betrayal
Date:	9/18/2009 5:47:46 PM

Would you support dissolving the UN?

Name:	Mack -	Reply
Subject:	Gotta Agree with Hound>>
Date:	9/18/2009 5:48:38 PM

But let's expand it to other countries/regions like Japan/Taiwan, the Mediterranean countries, the Middle East, and last but not least, those brave EU Nations that hate our bases but cannot defend themselves from their neighbors or citizens.
Something like this?? We'll help you defend yourself when you open American banks and car dealerships?? You buy the planes/guns and we'll supply the bullets??

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Betrayal
Date:	9/18/2009 6:00:08 PM

Hound: Its good to have you back and weighing in. On sabbatical?

I have mixed emotions about this as we have been funding Western Europe's defense since the end of WWII and they have been able to afford their failed experiment with socialism at our expense. So the question is do we do the same thing with Eastern Europe. Frankly, looking at the demographics in Europe (and Russi for that matter), the entire continent will be majority Muslim within 20 to 30 years anyway so I am not all that interested in spending billions of our hard earned money to protect them along the way.

But why stop at NATO? We should defund the UN first and foremost as that is a feckless, corrupt entity run by anti-American countries.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Martini
Date:	9/18/2009 7:50:58 PM

"the entire continent will be majority Muslim within 20 to 30 years anyway so I am not all that interested in spending billions of our hard earned money to protect them along the way."

We are doing that in Iraq and Afganistan and our soldiers are dying. Yet, the Right has been the biggest backer of the war. What am I missing? Oil in Iraq and poppy seeds in Afganastan??

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Simple
Date:	9/18/2009 8:04:27 PM

We are not doing it for them, rather we are protecting ourselves. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that. You apparently haven't been exposed to real life, or if so, didn't learn.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Betrayal
Date:	9/18/2009 8:21:56 PM

-I always enjoy these threads, partly because you never know where they will end up. We started with thoughts on teh missile decision and end up doing away with NATO and teh UN.
-UN: pathetic organization. do away with it. Take its disaster support elements and organize then into a Worls Relief Organization.
-NATO: was designed to serve US national interests in stopping and comtaning Soviet expansion. Rather than dissolve it, we have tried to evolve it so it still serves our national intersts. We have done a "fair" job of this since the end of teh USSR. Is it worth the price? I don't know, but we haven't had a major war among European nations in over a half century, which appears to be in our national interests since we were drawn into two of them in teh previous half century. You be the judge.
-EE Missile Defense agreement: I was agaist this when I worked in the Pentagon after teh demise of teh USSR. I thought it was needlessly poking the bear in the eye. That was the time for debate. Now it is an agreement between allies. Historically , American presidents have often changed domestic poicies after being elected. However, foreign polices have been very much less subject to change. The alliance systems take decades, sometimes centuries, to develop. And what is being developed is primarily "Trust." What Obama has done is brerak teh trust among, teh US, NATO and its East European allies, allies it haas brought into NATO. Those defensive missle were a physical representation of teh US commitmant to stand beside those countries in time of threaat. It has, de facto, again made Russia the reional super powwer in teh Eurasia landmass. What Obama has done is say to Europe and teh world you may no longer be able to trust us to bide by our written commitments. What he is saying is that the US is changing its focus from Europe to the Mid East. After his recent tour of teh mid-east, this change to a NATO commitment to supposedly solicit help in a mid-east situation (Iran) has to concern Europe. Further, Taiwan and Japan will look at this and try to determine if teh US will now stand by them against China should a future confrontation arise. If teh view of the US in Europe and Asia changes in this manner, then look for nuclear proliferation in Taiwan, Japan, and Europe.
-If people think this assessment is too much to draw from Obama's cancelling of this agreement, then i'd say they don't know their history, and more importantly, they don't understand teh precarious position of US influence in the present world.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Hodja
Date:	9/18/2009 8:34:59 PM

Thanks for that rather simplistic explanation. Us kids just haven't been exposed to life learning experiences.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Betrayal
Date:	9/18/2009 8:54:39 PM

Yes, I would do away with the UN. It has no teeth to make anyone do anything.

I think that we constantly have to re-evaluate our international relationships. The whole premise of international cooperation is that there is a quid pro quo for the US -- that it serves OUR national interests. The world didn't fall apart when Bush cancelled those missile treaties with Russia, and I don't think it will fall apart this time. I don't think it will impact Russia either way if they take an inclination for expansionism.
Maybe it's a wake up call to the Eastern Europeans about the nature of what they need to do for themselves.

My observation is that Taiwan has known for some time that our support to them was based on our desire to keep the shipping lanes open and not allow China expansion, rather than any real concern about Taiwan itself.

I don't think we can afford to

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Hodja
Date:	9/18/2009 9:39:43 PM

Sometimes it isn't complicated.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Again, simple
Date:	9/18/2009 9:51:33 PM

We should do what is in our best interest as a sovereign nation.

Thus, I think I agree with you.

When we send millions or even billions (is it that bad?) to support an organization that is corrupt to the core and $hits on us at every opportunity, then we need to shed any sense of propriety, call a spade a spade, and quit buying that same $hit.

If it isn't in our best interest, ditch it. In any case I suspect without our funding it would wither on the vine.

NH

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Yankee 06
Date:	9/18/2009 11:02:57 PM

Good point. Of course the agreement with Poland and The Czech Republic was between Heads of Government and have not been approved as required by the respective National Legislatures. Sort of like the Kyoto Accords which Clinton had negotiated. The treaty had not gotten Senate approval and it was cancelled by W. He also used an opt out loop-hole to scrap his Dad's anti-missle treaty with the Soviets by restarting "Stars Wars" type programs in order to set up the Polish/Czech system.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	missiles and betrayals?
Date:	9/18/2009 11:52:58 PM

-all this is interesting, and complicated, stuff.
-we all agree that foreign policies should support US national intersts. Alliances usually agree on at least one common national interest. long alliances usually share many common national interests. long term alliances are not basically quid-pro-quo systems, they are shared goals/interests systems.. Quid-pro-quo relationships are more often found between or among antagonists that are trying to become friends or at least not mutually self distruct, like teh agreements between teh US and the old USSR.
-Bush's ABM changes: some outside of the foreign policy sphere may believe that there was no big international changes resulting from W's changes to teh status of teh ABM agreements. But even though they were done within teh paramweters of teh agreement, they have been folowed by the unravelling of teh Conventional Forces Europe (CFE), teh Intermediate nuclear missile agreement (INF), and a host of other agreements. Not that these agreements of teh cold war didn't need adjustments, but arbitrary actions often lead to unexpected, not-properly-prepared-for consequences. This was what happened as a result of W's ABM actions. in addition to Russia's pressuring these other agreements, many beleive it was W's ABM move that caused Russia to seriously reevaluate her weakening military capacities leading to a renewal of Russian bomber flights to US border areas, new Russian sub patrols off our Atlantic coastal areas, visiting Russian war ships to South American ports, etc. We must remember that W's action were with a former enemy, not abrogation of commitments to allies.
-Taiwan: Although along teh Asian sea lanes, Taiwan is a pawn of teh 1950s Cold War. It assumed the roll it did because China took Quemoy and matsu befoer we nkew what happened or could do anything about it. Taiwan became our new line in teh sand, or teh water so to speak. A US-protected Taiwan does make it easier to protect sea transportation in Asian-Pacific waters but not critically. Many national security and military strategists over the past decade do not even believe that the US would ...or could ...defend Taiwan if China decided to invade. Two factors, teh commercial interaction between teh US and China and teh end of teh cold war, have made this formerly solid US commitment very questionalbe.
-East Europe: The East Europeans have supported US positions on almost every political, economic, and military issue in Europe and Eurasia and in teh worldwide War on Terrorism for teh past two decades. East Europeans sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan in combat roles and suffered serious casualties and troops killed in action (KIA). Poland in particular believed it had solidified its alliance with teh US in blood. Apparantly Obama didn't think so.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	missiles and betrayals?
Date:	9/19/2009 8:30:27 AM

I'm not sure I totally agree with you with regard to our relationships -- our longest standing relationships are with the UK and Australia and have theoretically stood the test of time. I say "theoretically" because the Brits have done things that have not necessarily always supported our US interests.
I don't see us ever developing that kind of relationship with the Eastern Europeans. I don't know specifically about the Eastern Europeans, but my experience says that every time a country joins us on the battlefield, there is a huge quid pro quo in terms of the military equipment we provide them. In fact, I used to hate to hear that some country was going to join us in anything because there was usually a huge "give me" associated with it.

I have no particular insight, but my gut tells me that we reached a closed door agreement with the Russians about the missile defense shield. I suspect it has something to do with their cooperation with regard to Iran. The missile shield in Eastern Europe was the quid pro quo.

Name:	4691 -	Reply
Subject:	missiles and betrayals?
Date:	9/19/2009 9:45:44 AM

Very interestng thread. In my opinion the defensive missile plan was just a high-tech Maginot line for the region. It would provide the same sense of false security the French enjoyed against a determined offensive strike. Maybe not immediately but the Belgium flank would open soon enough. I know I am among the minority in the conservative ranks, even those claiming to be fiscal conservatives as well, when I say I am against the U.S. spending trillions (yes, it is trillions, not billions) trying to be the sole policeman of the world. It's a noble goal but in the end can lead to our own demise most likely through "peaceful" financial ruin. Sorry, just my rant as I am so very exhausted by the uncontrolled spending of the liberals and conservatives alike, domestically and abroad.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	missiles and betrayals?
Date:	9/19/2009 12:27:04 PM

Hey gang,
-These are interesting subjects. However, I promise this will be my last post under this topic. If we keep it up, we'll need to start a National Security Seminar group.
-Just a few comments;

-Brits and Aussies are our longest relationship: Yes, teh Brits are our longest relationship because they spawned us. However, our longest military allies or alliance (not continuously) relationship is with teh French and teh Poles. They both helped us win the revolutionary war. Yes, the Poles were here in teh very begining. (remember, there are more Poles in teh Chicago area then there are in Warsaw).

-Military equipment: yes, new countries we enter into alliances with want our equipment....and WE WANT them to have it. It is in OUR national security/military/economic interests to do. Having allied forces equipped with our materiale improves "interoperability" Interoperability streamlines supply lines, facilitates joint training, improves coordinated battle plans, etc.

-The US and Russia quid-pro-quo: I agree there was a quid-pro-quo between US and teh Russians. As mentioned above , the chief characteristic of cooperative relationships with an enemy or non-alliance member is qui-pro-quo. Thus that is what we had with Russia. The chief characteristic of alliance relationships is Shared goals/interests. Yes, there are often quid-pro-quo's down on teh tactical issue level, but the strategic level characteristic, the essentia characteristic, is shared goals/intersts.

-The ABM q-p-q; The US dropping of teh shield in East Europe for Russian assistance with Iran not to develop nukes is questionable-to-bad on so many levels...
1) it lessens NATO confidence in US leadership
2) it raises Russia to regional super power in Eurasia, not the US
3) it lessens US influence in Eurasia.
4) it increases Russian influence in teh mid-east
5) it lessens US influence in the mis-east
6) it negatively impacts US -Isreali relations
7) it lessens US influence throughout the rest of teh world

Now if the Russians succeed with the Iranians, many around teh world and at home will consider it a major accomplishment for mid-east and world security ...and for the Obama-Clinton foreign policy, ...and it will be. ...but the 7 negative aspects listed above will still remain.

Will it work? As mentioned in other posts, non-proliferation is no longer a strong world movement. When Iran views its strategic position what does it see? Pakistan has the bomb; India has teh bomb; Russia has teh bomb; Isreal has teh bomb. Thus a lot of people around Iran's borders have the bomb. What did Iran learn from the Iraq War? Among other things, Iran learned that the primary reason that Iraq was invaded was because Iraq did not have the bomb. So let's recap, all teh main players around Iran's borders have the bomb, and teh primary reason Iraq was invaded was that it didn't have the bomb, ...what will Iran do........

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Yankee or Hound
Date:	9/19/2009 8:01:14 PM

Do either of you think there is anything the world powers can do to stop Iran from achieving their goal of a nuclear missile?

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Stop Iran?
Date:	9/19/2009 8:52:18 PM

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Stop Iran?
Date:	9/19/2009 8:58:16 PM

GF,
-To answer your question, ---from my point of view, the answer is "yes," ---if you consider Israel to be a world power.
-Isreal will not let Iran have an operating nuke delivery system!
---and in reference to clinton's promise last month to protect Isreal, after this week's turn on Poland, teh US should not even waste its breadth with such a promise to Isreal.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Martini
Date:	9/21/2009 6:27:02 PM

We can argue all day long about whether Iraq or Afghanistan was a current threat to our national security. Bush thought they were and took action in both countries. Europe heading toward demographic death is not a current threat to the U.S. Frankly, they are reaping what they have sown. If they become a threat either before or after they become a Muslim continent then I expect the administration to take action as they see fit. GF, I know you want to find inconsistency where there is none.

Quick Links
Salamonie Lake News
Salamonie Lake Photos
Salamonie Lake Videos