America: Take your missile base and shove it!

you are one paranoid guy/girl, sorry i didn't check your profile. I can tell you know the Yanks probably don't give a flying you know what about slavic relations or trying to divide them. There main concern is having a good defence/offense system in place ready to react to anything that might happen in the middle east or anywhere else in that area.

I agree with you they don't care about Slavic brotherhood, but I do. It's all about feeding the American military industrial complex. This base will only cause more friction between Poland and Russia. That is why they can take this missile base and shove it!

People deciding about security of the state is a ridiculous idea in my opinion. However I never claimed to be great democrat. :) Of course these countries are not democratic, all this 'representative democracy' is such a farce. Exactly like communist invented "people's democracy". There is no democracy in the EU. Look at the Swiss, if they would want to join, then they must to abandon democracy! Thus they voted NO five times already. Wait for more...


Carol, you need to understand that American state care only about security of the US. Perhaps we should add Israel because there is a lot of Jews in every American administration and media outlets as well. It cannot be otherwise.


Ever visited Russia or Poland? Read a book about our history?

The Last Iranian Maneuvers Show That The Most Far Place could be reach By The Iranian Rockets Is 2000 Km Yes Israel Is Under The Iranian Fire Also All The Americans Gulf Bases However Poland ?!!!! NoWay

Also Why Pl Can be Target For Iran Or Any Other Terrorists Groups ?!!!
Yes Even If You are far from Danger Its Important and Necessary To Have Strong Developped Army But not At the expense of National sovereignty

I think everyone should realize that what happens next with the missile shield depends on the outcome of the US elections. Historically speaking, Republicans tend to spend and invest more in defense related areas, where Democrats tend to focus funding on domestic programs.

John McCain is a strong supporter of missile defense.[20] In October 2007, McCain said: "And the first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and I don't care what his [Putin's] objections are to it."[21]

Barack Obama said he supported shifting federal resources away from an “unproven missile defense system” to proven technologies.[22] “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems,” Obama said.[23][24]

Hi again Mr. Foreigner..FWIW how is this disinformation?
The Iranians just tested their Shahab-4 missiles, which are only medium range, and it is widely accepted that they already possess Shahab-6 ICBMs purchased through other sources (much like their Shahab 4) giving them true ICBM range (all of Europe, for example). The proposed shield has not even been started, let alone completed, and is in anticipation of Iran's ability to reach Europe, and yes, the United States. I never once suggested the idea wasn't beneficial to Americans as well, although it will be *a little* longer before Iran can reach us. It is already generally accepted that Europe is already or will be soon within range of Iranian missiles, as is it also accepted that Iran will have nuclear weapons to tip them prior to any proposed shield being constructed.

Americans developed and tested a nuclear weapon in WWII, when scientists had to use slide rules at best, no computers, and even the idea of the weapon itself was theoretical, let alone methods to purify the Uranium (for the fission bomb) and Plutonium (for the fusion bomb). It took only a few years. Iran, on the other hand, already knows the basics of nuclear weapons production, already has nations friendly to it which already have nuclear weapons (and ICBMs) in their arsenals-already has the facilities for producing weapons grade material, and if you really believe they are not developing the ability to reach you, well, enjoy the bliss.

Iran has already launched satellites into space. It isn't a great leap of technology to replace a satellite with a nuclear weapon and tell it to fall out of orbit over Warsaw, London, Wroclaw, etc. etc. and it is a safe bet Europeans will be amongst the first targets right up there with us. Russia is choosing to befriend Iran and make oil deals. What does your country have to offer? A shield would not only reduce this ability but also negate some of Russia's bargaining power as well (it wouldn't be able to shake its nukes at everyone...something Putin seems to enjoy.)

It is blackmail on a national level. A gangster has moved in down the block and has been shopping for an AK47. A friend has offered a bulletproof vest, then suddenly the old landlord is upset about it.

Seems to me the old landlord and the gangster down the street have something in common, if you will accept the analogy. If you are convinced that the base is an offensive weapon to shoot at Russia, I cannot help that, but it is a wrong idea. Why build more weapons after all, U.S. is still obeying the SALT treaties. Not sure Russia is...they just tested a shiny new ICBM after all.

Russia is blowing smoke for whatever reason; the U.S. and Russia have been able to incinerate each other for decades without a single missile in Poland or anywhere else. It might cost more, but we both (US and Russia) already have the missiles.

John P.

Except in Polish no means yes! Lol


That's how the yanks have been selling the idea plk. As a defence agsinst "rogue states" like Iran. You know they say Iran because that's who they want a war with next.

Iran is a peaceful country that has NEVER aggressivly attacked another country. Maybe Poland should build their own shield as protection against the rogue 'united' states. lol


That's right rambo. And the vast majority of Poles have stated very clearly that THEY DON'T WANT YOUR "SHIELD."


With a user name like miss eva you can't tell what sex SHE is?

"Supposedly?" i rest my case


well then stop pretending that other nations shouldn't take positions which are beneficial to them first and foremost. and this idea is beneficial to america first, not as an afterthought but first and foremost it was meant to further the american geopolitical policy (which i'll admit probably does not serve in the average american citizen's best interests).

Regarding your reply:
you seem to be assuming a lot on behalf of the iranians and assuming their intentions and as typical patriot you don't assume them to be honest or peaceful or at least no more so than those of your own leaders. i find that to be entirely dishonest.

You don't seem to be suggesting there is anything wrong with the fact that although u.s. missles can reach anyone and anyplace on the planet americans by and large get downright angry and feel "threatened" if one of those targets should ever gain the ability to reach back. I find that position to be not only dishonest but cowardly as well.

You seem to be suggesting that despite the republic of poland enjoying the friendliest relations it's had with it's neighbors in a very long time and increased prosperity that there is some need to suddenly start arming itself against iran of all nations. I find that position to be dishonest.

You seem to be suggesting that iran might suddenly morph into the threat americans paint it to be and start randomly attacking any country for no apparant reason and not expect to be completely invaded/overrun or worse within less than 10 days. I find that to be not only a dishonest representation of reality but completely delusional as well.

The only threat that i really feel could come out of iran is if some intelligence perchances upon a traitor willing to do something that gives the right and mighty west a pretext or dire need to take action against this "rogue state" you can take that one to the bank;)


I will not only reject the analogy but i will propose that on a global scale it is in fact the u.s. which plays the role of both landlord and gangster in your story. it is funny though how people seem to be getting along alright until americans show up with their pistols and bullet proof vests.

better investment for u.s. citizens would be if you all dealt with the number of illegal firearms on your own streets, who you're all letting in to your country, where you're sending your young men and women, which companies and which people are making the most gains off u.s. led colonialism. But i suppose that would force americans to actually take a look in the mirror as a nation with the lights on and your leaders don't really seem eager to have that happen.

we seem to be coming at this from completely opposite ends. i have a difficult time viewing american foreign policy with anything but mistrust and suspicion (for reasons mentioned above).

I also find it funny in a sad and telling way that all the "bad guys" the u.s. leaders seem to target in terms of actual force used against have been or will be at such incredibly poor positions economically, politically and militarily (and also want to do something as outrageous as control their own money supply) by comparison that i'm at a complete loss how so many u.s. citizens still manage to conjure up the themes and patriotism they do when it is abundantly clear that the u.s.a. is indeed the primary villain under its' current and past administrations. when you people really do become world leaders it'll be when you show the rest of us how to overthrow corrupt politicians, don't make haste.

on this primary difference of opinion based on actual real world observation i find it unlikely that i will find merit in any extension of american powers abroad which you seem to laude as noble yet i see as insideous, capiche?

end rant.

Good rant, sir.

Bravo !

A shield is a shield. Build it for whoever you wish to build it for. But build it. My only comment to you (and yet again, you demonstrate your hate! what did Americans ever do to you?) is that if you look up one day and see white flashes, the warheads detonating are not American ones. You can also be happy that, in the last milliseconds of your life, you and those like you ensured these were not shot down.


This is a bit misguided. The question was posed that why would America do anything just to help Poland with no benefit to America. I do not write policy, in case you have forgotten. I am very low on the totem pole of international politics. I protect a helicopter. That's it. So stop kidding yourself that I have made even a single one of these decisions. Still a plan that is mutually beneficial is not the same thing as one that is solely beneficial to the U.S. and to be honest, Russia and Iran's missiles will be pointing at you regardless of if you have a shield, after all, it won't be too long before people realize that they are only free so long as Russia keeps the fuel coming.

Good luck with that.


Fact of the matter is, the illegalization of firearms in the UK has done nothing to reduce crime there, and furthermore, reductions on the unconstitutional, IMHO restrictions on them here in the U.S. have also had the result of reduced crime rates, counter to what many proponents of gun control predicted would happen. Ultimately I believe the government should be responsible to its citizens more so than the citizens responsible to the government, and to be honest, both of our governments (no, I'm not talking about Poland, in this case as I'm pretty sure you are not a Pole) are quite a bit too big IMHO. That however, is a completely different thread and has nothing to do with this topic.


It is not dishonest at all. Pres. Ahmadinejad has actually been quoted as making direct threats against (of course) Israel, as well as nations in Europe which have also found themselves politically opposed to some of his goals. He also has said they would be "removed". Take that how you wish, sir. Our own leaders, dishonest as they may be at times, suffer from greed much more often than the desire to incinerate other countries in their entirety.


Sir, this is only delusional because it is what you yourself have imagined, not what any of my posts have stated. Read what they say, not what you imagine I *might* think, because it is a good bet you would be wrong. There is nothing random about Iran being a threat, it has always been one. The only thing changing is the level of capability involved, combined with the current government there being much more of a concern than, say, Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Khatami. Also, unlike other leaders, Ahmadinejad actually has the history to back him up as a threat. There are many other sources, however based on prior history of discussions with yourself and hairball, I felt if I posted one from someone with a U.S./European name you would IMHO discount it out of hand. So I quote this gentleman, not some London or New York "journalist" quoting from translations and making his own mind as to what the truth is. You and I can do that, after all quite well.


Call it what you want, your post only demonstrates your own ignorance of recent past history. The only missiles in the US were built during the Cold War, when it was quite clear what targets they were intended for, especially considering Soviet "boomers" were patrolling only a mile or so off the U.S. coastline, "Bear" bombers were testing how close across the arctic circle they could get, and likewise our own submarines patrolled areas that would make them equally more capable of a first strike. The thing about a nuclear weapon, is that once it is built, it is built. It is not something gifted to a friend. Also, you seem to feel that there are somehow all these missiles somehow aimed at Europe. Many of the US ones are now destroyed IAW SALT treaties, and confirmed by Russians to this day. On the other hand, Putin just tested a BRAND NEW missile for Russian weapons, and unlike the US, he IS threatening to aim them at Europe. Of course, in your eyes and hairball's, the US is always the bad guy, something which, I think if you reconsidered how much of the information you hear about America is fact and how much is rhetoric, you may reconsider. After all, you give Iran this consideration, and they stone women in their streets.


While an interceptor base is hardly a projection of power(it cannot attack anyone...) I really do not understand this distrust and or hatred of America and Americans you possess. It is completely biased, one-sided, and more importantly, wrong. I have noticed you and others have this extreme willingness to believe only evil and everything evil said by *anyone* about the US, with no proof whatsoever, and you regard anything good with suspicion.

On the other hand, nations that have sponsored terror attacks and assassinations within Europe itself, routinely stone women to death for all sorts of things, as well as force Jews and Christians to wear identifying patterns sewn into their clothes (sound familiar, maybe?) and call for the destruction or "removal" of Israel, make veiled threats to Europe (all amid, strangely chants of "Death to America")

yep, those guys have only the BEST of intentions.

The shield was suggested almost a decade ago because of things said by the Iranians then; contrary to what people such as yourself seem to believe, it wasn't an idea suggested last week or last year, and it wasn't offered as a response to whatever technology Iran has "tested" so much as what it is building. All of Iran's actions still back this up. Blatant rejection of UN oversight, in favor of the IAEA, and then blocking and lying to even that particular organization. How convenient that Ahmadinejad screams he only wants nuclear power (something I'm for for all of us, incidentally) but then proceeds to build purification facilities on a massive scale that are known for producing not fuel grade, but weapons grade Uranium.

I will say this. If I am wrong and no shield is ever needed, I would much rather that, than be right, and have gentlemen such as yourself be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. If you are worried about the Russians, and Putin's threats-then by all means, if you still somehow trust him more in spite of that, then by all means, ask your friends the Russians to shield you. The threat is real. After all, we all know how well Poland and others were treated by their "Slav Brothers" in the past.

Enjoy those bogey-man dreams of red, white, and blue, I guess, because they are only dreams.
Hopefully, if the shield is not built, you will not live to see me proved right. As much as I would love to see it for sake of our argument, and to counter you gentlemen's apparent hatred of America and everyone American, self included, I would much rather see you and everyone else live on to corrupt successive generations about how evil America was before it fell, and how nice it is to have the friendly Russians in charge again.

John P.

Good 'rant' foreigner. I applaud you, but as post 71 shows it will fall on deaf ears!

let us not confuse americans with american policy makers. every country has good and bad elements.
unlike most people, i do not regard nations as entities which i can personify. i try very hard to make sure i include it is the policy makers and their initiatives that i speak for or against please keep this in mind should i fail to include some key words. Your last reply fails to acknowledge this.

I find it odd that you would vilify the Iranian people based on limited information regarding their leader when the rest of the world could adopt those same standards and apply them to your elected leader or hopefuls or their advisors.

secondly please give me the kind courtesy i reserved for you in not attacking you personally. I’m sure you’re a nice guy and had been quite civil in this debate but feel you were stooping a bit on your last response i.e. the position you argued in your last reply is riddled with ad homonyms that i will address throughout.


a threat to what exactly?

and what is this that it has always been one? since when, the beginning of time? or since american policy makers decided to take an interest in the affairs of iran? i don't recall iran overthrowing the u.s. government and establishing a puppet leader only to have him ran out of town and then forever more being labelled the bad guy by any Iranian administration, the same cannot be said vice versa.

unless you can offer some specifics i will give you the courtesy of trying my best to ignore that statement.


Yet you speak with such authority on the true purpose and intent of american leaders trying to establish bases beyond her borders:


While I don’t claim that the base would be used offencively, I do find it amusing that on this point, despite you being low (your admission) on the totem pole, you on this point have authority to say what the future use or strategy of your government’s plan is.

Do you see the double standard you're attaching to your arguements here?

Now here is your response to my interpretation of your comments. An interpretation i determined you are suggesting iran could suddenly become a threat to european nations, a claim which i deem delusional as it would result in the end of the Iranian nation as it exists now:


ok let us take another look at a small sample of what you wrote in your last and most recently:


and most recently this:


No it would appear you indeed are making these assertions and i have in fact interpreted your comments quite well. And I don’t see how anything short of foreign operatives acting under the guise of Iranians would attempt something that suicidal, something akin to what the nazi’s did as a pretext to invade Poland.


ahh so it's ok if the u.s. takes control of foreign oil but should russian leaders make up their own minds how to handle their reserves then that's the time to point guns at them and do some sabre rattling? That's not a good strategy no matter how you look at it.

More to the point, there are many other ways of getting bombs into a country that do not require missiles, this shield couldn't hope to cope with those so it's not even useful from a security perspective. If i wanted to wreak havoc with a nuclear device in another country I'd make damn sure it wouldn't be traceable to the country i am from as i would be well aware of the international consequences.

It's not in the interest of the people of Poland to have anything but harmonious relations with her neighbours and their allies, you see there is no need to for weapons among friends. Friendship takes longer to build, i'll admit that but the american way has lead to increased global conflict which in turn makes the whole process take that much longer.


well that was riddled with allegations and no source. you may be right but allegations aren't worth a lick without confirmation and evidence.

I will agree that it is doubtful that many of today's leaders got where they are through honest means. However that supposition applies to the leaders of your nation and mine just as well and doesn't even begin to touch what corruption goes on once leaders find themselves in power the world over.


ah well then that's ok if your leaders start pointing old missles at whomever they choose because.....? And when was the last carrier built? any under construction? battle ships? how about recent refitting or new equipment on those? And where are they? surely nowhere near the over 700 bases abroad that american leaders have established?

And what of the missles currently outside the US, where are those? A quick internet search reveals that in fact the american military has built missiles since the cold war. I am not accusing you of lying but i am not sure what you meant as it seems quite clear your statement is not true at all or you’re implying all recent missiles are deployed abroad- something which is easy view with suspicion and mistrust. please explain what you meant.


ok so tell me what exactly i'm so ignorant of. anyone can claim your posts display ignorance of both recent history and the entire history leading up to the state of affairs middle eastern countries find themselves in. Right now Poland doesn't have aggressive neighbours on two fronts and is a member of nato so i do not see how the current situation within this part of the world mirrors anything in recent past so i am assuming you must be referring to a different part of the world.


that is a misinterpretation on your part i'm afraid. In fact it has been your assertion that europeans should worry about iranian missles and you hinted at russian as well. I sincerely doubt there is any threat unless it is by way of some intervention behind the scenes coming from u.s. interests in seeing a destabilized europe and or an increasingly destabilized middle east. These are not allegations mind you, just my intuition and i don't encourage anyone to take my intuition at anything beyond that.


Funny, i was thinking the same as regards your position on iran and russia:)


Well I have seen those interpretations and am not sure I agree with them in terms of accuracy of the quotes I have listened to. the media seemed to have twisted his comments to fit whatever agenda it is they may have. But I’ll assume you’ve come across some quotes I haven’t read or heard. Regardless of that, the same can be said for american and israeli leaders, it's just that it appears the events that instigated most of what we now have before us has come from american and israeli leaders.

And regardless of that, I couldn’t give a rat’s *** if the guy wants to send a pack mule or a missle into Israel, it’s not an issue for Polish people to deal with so the point you presented is moot.


and you have american leaders or agencies sponsoring attacks and assasinations within middle eastern, asian, central american and south american countries. There was american involvement in afghanistan before there was russian and there was american involvement in the middle east way back in the 50's.

You could look to just some of that for american resentment in the area or you could just fall back on the dumbass soccer mom argument of "they hate us for our freedoms."


yet there are countless instances of rape, murder, molestation, kidnapping and torture amongst americans. I cannot imagine what would make one choose to stone another to death due to a religious law but then again I can't imagine what goes on in the mind of many criminals within your borders either.

In the end i'd say it's better to focus on the problems within your own household before you try to dictate what goes on in another household, in this case an autonomous, democratically elected one.


and somehow amidst this there are elected jewish officials in the iranian parliament?

Besides how can you ignore the fact u.s. leaders have sponsored iraeli forces both financially and militarily while those forces systematically terminate palestinians. they displace or kill civillians with seemingly little regard if those victims are men, women or children. Don't you think this might have something to do with the resentment their religious brothers and sisters have for what america stands for in their reality? Oh wait israelis have lighter skin and wear uniforms and your government sponsors them, so that means it can't be the source of discontent or wrong beyond words.

You can also look at a plethora of comments made by american political representatives or their families (i suppose they might be in the know) regarding attacks and portraying them as evil, more to the point the american military actually possesses the capacity to deliver on these threats.


ok this is a childish attempt at an argument and we both know it. as we both know i have no sway in these matters and nor do gentlemen such as myself. Nonetheless while you can only speculate what might be if rationale souls such as myself were to ever prevail we have ample evidence that your approach is the approach which has failed the world many times over.


not at all and don't present me with such a foolish statement as it debases our whole conversation. It's the position of double standards and failure to see any fault from your leaders and the interventionist strategy often touted by many westerners that i abhor.

I mean come on, here you are defending the righteousness of the decisions coming from an administration which accounts for (and has been doing so for quite some time) roughly 50% of military spending globally and has well over 700 bases overseas and has been involved in more conflicts abroad than any other nation since ww2 and still manage to criticize and characterize someone who views that with suspicion? It’s preposterous.

I don’t think Iranians should be putting their resources towards increased weaponry but I don’t feel their neighbours should either, so if you support their neighbours having nuclear capabilities then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I don’t feel Polish leaders should be putting any funds towards continued armament as it wouldn’t make a difference anyhow in the grand scheme of a global conflict.

In the end i do feel this base will be built though.


Well i was never suggesting that. I support citizens having the right and freedom to arm themselves. I wrote about illegal firearms i believe you misunderstood what i meant so i'll leave you to come to the correct conclusion.


and on that i am in complete agreement with you but feel that when one cannot trust their elected officials to act without corruption at home then it is a given that they must not be trusted to act without corruption abroad.

Actually, if you read my post, I very specifically excluded the Iranian people from this vilification you speak of...


Now now, no need for nastiness here. There are plenty of threats in the world, it all depends on who you are. It is apparent you feel threatened more by Americans, than by Iran. That is your prerogative. Exocets, open support of terror organizations and assassinations notwithstanding, you are correct. Iran has not invaded the UK or Poland either one.


IF you wish to call a few hundred missile and radar technicians a "base" that's fair enough. For once, America has a technology that Russia does not. It would not behoove the US to have Russians operating the very technology that could also be protecting our own nation from the Russian missiles STILL targeted at the United States. Perhaps you aren't living under the shadow anymore, but I cannot say the same. It only seems to me that I am one of perhaps a small few who actually speak out against the railings of those who, no offense, like yourself have no idea and only entertain the negative. Frankly I grow tired of people implying they know this evil deed or that evil deed is being done at the hands of Americans, when they have no proof of any of it, and when it is disproved, they simply shrug and start on a new topic of evil with which to blame Americans for. You do not even hear me doing this with regard to the Russians, other than my concern over why an interceptor shield makes them want to target Europe. That is huge blackmail, after all, if it is really we Americans they are upset at. Right? or is it that their former satellites aren't behaving how they would prefer, now. Makes me wonder, at least. The fact that you seem to give them across the board benefit of a doubt while pointing your fingers at America who has done nothing to you...tell me something. Especially considering it isn't America threatening to target you or anyone else with nuclear weapons (again?) nor is it America flying Bear bombers into your airspace (again) nor is it America in the position of being able to completely shut off your fuel

supply...but hey. If you feel Americans are evil, I would like more proof from you and less rumors that turn out to be false. I am not trying to say Americans do not make mistakes, but this prejudice you (yes, you too, Mr. hairball) consistently demonstrate against Americans or our country is tiring, and to be honest, offensive. The things you accuse us of go beyond simple ribbing between Brits, Yanks, Poles etc, and slip into a much nastier tone.


Well, apparently I know enough technical information to know an interceptor does not have the capability to be used as an ICBM...so perhaps you see some intent of evil for these, but currently they lack the capability. The intent for them is obvious as it has been since the first attempts to build them. It is curious that the first major complaints against them, and indeed the first campaign of disinformation (calling them a "missile base" conveniently leaving out the important word) came from Russia. Russia, the very nation that also, interestingly enough, became the latest nation on the planet to test a new ICBM. Iran did not even do this, they only tested an older, proven technology missile. Yet somehow we Americans are the evil ones. I get it.


Which new missiles the US supposedly has built since the cold war are ICBM's? There has been much talk about upgrading current ones, and even pushes to build newer ones (yes) smaller, without the requirements for destroying entire cities like the older weapons. However, I am unaware of any new US ICBM designs being fielded since the Cold War. Please enlighten me.


Cast the first stone if you wish. It happens within your own borders also, but on a smaller scale. I suppose if there were big brother style CCTV cameras watching every man, woman, and child in America there would be less crime perhaps, but then we would be right back in the place we used to sympathize with people under the Communists for, what with the KGB, Stasi, etc etc running around.


I can only base this on personal observations of the political process here, but I believe many of them have no clue of our capabilities or lack thereof in most areas. They are lawyers and politicians, not military expersts. Honestly many of them have no clue. In fact, one senator in particular, is currently being sued for false accusations he made with no factual support against several Marines now cleared of the charges at Haditha. I cannot speak for British politicians, nor Polish, but American ones need to know the will of the people as best they can, but often do not have a real grasp on the military itself other than their own preconceived notions. There are of course exceptions to this rule.


I do not know if the base will be built or if it will be built in time should, God forbid, it ever be needed. As for the comments you make about their neighbors having nuclear capabilities, honestly, I do not know. There are plenty of rumors the Israelis have nuclear weapons, but even the Israelis have not to my knowledge even hinted, veiled or otherwise, that they do. Nor have the Israelis threatened to remove any other country. They do have their problems, but just as you assure me the Israelis are going around "systematically terminating Palestinian civilians" I can also ask you, how do you know this? WRT that hotbed of political unrest (created mostly, by the British, as I understand, but I'm not a student of Israeli history) there can be many things said without much proof. I've not seen any of these reports of systematic termination you speak of or any of the other stuff you blame on them. It simply isn't there, as far as I can tell. If you had argued you saw where Palestinians attacked a Jewish settlement with rockets and the IDF responded with a heavy hand-then I would perhaps agree with you. I cannot however agree with your current statement wrt this.


In this case, perhaps I misunderstood your intent. In my estimation you and a few others have been using every topic possible to fling mud at Americans, and I've only been deflecting as best I can. Personally, I think much depends on what you call an "illegal" weapon. One carried by a felon or non-citizen? That is already against our laws, but laws are sort of not an issue for those already breaking them, in my estimation.

My essential belief on the interceptor base is that it would be beneficial to several countries, I also believe there is a real threat that many ignore. I feel it is folly to ignore one threat because the hand offering help happens to be American. I also feel that if Poland or the Czech Republic do not want the bases, it should 1) be up to them, and 2) their decision should be made based on the actual capabilities of the bases, not fear of Russian missiles with smart warheads, or some inherent mistrust of Americans. 3) I also feel the decision should not be made based on what propagandists and others are implying about a "new cold war" nor scoffing at the idea Iran for instance, could be a credible threat. People once scoffed at Hitler, too, and the man is apparently one of Ahmadinejad's heroes. Not that such alone makes him a threat, but the mention of sewing patterns into clothing I mentioned above are true, regardless of whether someone is in a government capacity or not.

Take it how you will.
John P.

actually when you speak of a country as an entity this represents a failure to do so.


Hey what's with this response? Look you made the claim and i simply called you on it. You don't get to label it nasty just because it's true. Now you claim that iran (please clarify if you mean a leader or the people or what) has always been a threat so please address my the questions posed? And it's not me that should feel threatened but the people who stand to become the target of aggressive u.s. foreign policy.


Spare me such drivel and i am disappointed that you'd waste my time with such a response. You show me where i'm off the mark or drop the insinuations. But frankly i grow tired of root'n toot'n folks like yourself who are simply unable or unwilling to entertain the notion that their government and military could do any wrong in the world and can't imagine themselves involved in anything wrong.

If you are a soldier then you have sworn to defend your constitution from its' enemies, just as soldiers have before you. If this is the case then please kindly inform me how people in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistahn (prior to the russian invasion), Cuba, Guatamala, Korea, Vietnam (not to mention American support for Pinochet against the people of Chile and Suharto against the people of Indonesia) have been enemies of your constitution.

If you cannot do so then I would like to further my argument that in fact it has been american activities in the last 50 years or more that should not only be called into question but have been the cause of untold deaths the world over and future american iinternational intervention ought to be viewed accordingly.

You claim terrorists and corrupt governments abroad yet turn a blind eye to the same claims made against the u.s. military and it's government by millions of people for a very long time. What makes you the good guys? the fact you wear uniforms? what makes your leaders so free from corruption? the fact they wear suits?

But i don't blame american people, you guys have been and are being lied to habitually by your leaders.


So work on your reading comprehension as i explicitly deconstructed that notion a long time ago and you're either unable to make a distinction or purposely trying to play the accused.


Cry me a river. Show me the prejudice and stop trying to drag this into anything personal. I'm not accusing the american people of anything except being misled and if a person can't ascertain this then this represents a failure to comprehend basic english.


Again, work on your reading comprehension. I don't view states as entities which can be readily personified and consider it a simple minded exercise which only serves to confuse people.

I could pose that question back to you but substitute a different country and would you give your own leaders a free pass or not?

I do not give russian leaders the benefit of the doubt. In fact i am powerless to do absolutely anything to affect matters internationaly. i only challenge your double standards in that it's no surprise russian leaders act in their self-interest as american leaders do likewise. I think the leaders of both countries are scum but that is besides the point.

In fact you make the claim russian leaders have missles pointed at europe. Do i think they should be pointed at europe? Hell no.
But if we assume this to be true then let's look at possible outcomes ok?
What would they gain by instigating a war?
If they already have missles pointed at europe and are ready to fire, then what good would building an interceptor base be now?
And if russians or iranians were really hell bent on blowing up parts of europe then do you think they'd do it out in the open or covertly?

What would either groups have to gain by doing so in the first place?

You made the arguement against iranians:


I called you on the hypocrisy in that there is more than enough crime within your own borders that you lot should concern yourselves with first. and you come back with this?


That's not even an argument, mine was a reply, in this case one that put you very much on the defensive. This is a prime occassion for you to admit how good a point it is or at least admit your initial reasoning was faulty from the beginning.


And that's why i don't support intervention abroad until internal matters can be fixed.


Well things in america are getting closer and closer to that reality.


like weapons of mass destruction? support of dictators? support of terrorist organizations? go on take your pick, or shall i provide you with a wider selection?

But again what comes across is your complete failure to grasp the notion that (in fact i've had a genuine like for many americans i've met but also a dislike for many too, like people from poland, czech rep, hungary, canada, australia and the uk) a mistrust of what your leaders choose to do regarding foreign intervention must be seperated from american citizens.

It's the policies which come out of your country which many people have a distaste for but so many of you guys can't seem to make the distinction between yourselves and anything with the american label attached to it.

Try it and you'll see that so many people from around the world are on to something.


Ok you give your own a free pass but want to see iranian civilians suffer for what their leader may or may not have said. Double standard.


Ah you had left those last four letters out last time. Nonetheless- it's ok for your military to be pointing missles where ever because they're old? But everyone should be afraid of the iranian military cause of something we're told they could do?


Actually looking at a simple map of the occupied territory over the last couple decades shows this rather clearly. Go to the amnesty international site for some numbers and estimates of civillain killings and measures used in that country. And don't present me with such euphamisms as "heavy handed" when ruthless suffices just fine.


Really? The information has not exactly been kept secret. Check again.
Now, should you apply that same approach to that of iranian affairs you'll at least be on you're on your way to a balanced one.


and yet you immediately followed it with this...


I'm afraid i've all but lost hope in your objectivity.

I see you are struggling in this debate so have attempted to make it appear as though i don't like americans or something to that affect. Maybe you're hoping someone will pick up on this and rally to your defence, maybe it's just projecting, i really don't know. Anyway if you can't come up with good arguments then fine but at least be honest about it.

This debate has strayed from the original topic. So i'd like to stear it back on track.

I feel that the missle base just wouldn't be effective should another nations leaders decide to target a given location in europe, that's my main attack on this thing. if you can explain how it would deal with covert attacks or land attacks or large scale missle attacks then i'm all ears. But until then i say it's not rational to assume the iranian military a threat to polish security and if russian leaders wanted to blow the joint up then they would do it, base or no base.

you're right - here is what its really about:

interesting video but those are allegations that required evidence put forth within the video. As there isn't it's all too easty to just label it as sensationalist. i may share the sentiments of the video's makers but cannot condone thier approach.

Why the cross imagery behind the accused political leaders? there were various themes presented in the imagery that i have a distaste for, just like major network reporting and presentations attempt to convey subliminal messages, so too does this video.

Again although i may share the sentiments they had the perfect vehicle to at least post something to substantiate some of their factual claims and this opportunity was not taken.

take a look at some of the reporting done by John Pilger or some of the evidence provided by Micheal Ruppert; they provide very concrete and factual findings.

Oh please spare us your old worn out smoke screen of calling us "American haters" just because we question the foreign policy of your Neo con government. Time and again you say things like....


......when the reallity is JohnP that the only country in the world that has waged nuclear war is the good old US of A. You go on and on about the "threat" of Iran when the reallity is JohnP that the ONLY war that Iran has EVER been involved in was against the AMERICAN backed Iraqi's. It's not the Iranian government that has been involved in constant military action all over the world since the 1950's that has resulted in the deaths of millions of people. That's your country, the US.

I'm bored with you constantly accusing me, szkotja2007, Foreigner4 or any other brits on this forum who dare to question the constant war mongering of president Bush and his predecessors. It doesn't make us American haters. It just means we see a different picture to the one that you paint.

Probably because Bush, Pearle, Cheney (maybe he less so) often onvoke Godliness and the need to protect Christaindom. The name of the philosopher that they look to (as a major influence of their way of thinking and political strategy) is called L. Strauss, a former U. of Chicago professor, who taught that a God image is necessary to solidify support among the masses, making them easier to rule. Notice how often Bush repeats God Bless America (as most US leaders do).

Strauss taught that the concept of religion is important for ruling, even if the ruler himself does not personally believe it-he should encourage the masses to be as God-fearing as he appears to be.

By the way, the Military Industrial Complex that the video refers to isn't opinion or a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. Eisenhower warned against it, and so did Kennedy, just before they blew his head off.

that is rather interesting re: L. Strauss.

I am not disputing the claims made in the video regarding u.s. spending as that is a pretty easy factoid to come by. You must admit though, many people who don't want to acknowledge something that forces them to reassess their political compass often dismiss things out of hand. Perhaps a quick screen shot of the various conflicts the american military has been engaged in since korea could have added to the overall effect.

ahh but it's easy for me to criticize rather than do a better job isn't it? shame on me.

I think we are on the same page regarding this issue but i hope you know what i meant.

adieu

one thing to note hairball, is that u.s. military support of iraq, although it certainly was there, seems to have been overestimated as far as some percentages indicate.

it's been some time since i've read anything with actual numbers showing who was supplying the iraqies with what but i recall a smaller american contribution than most claim. Maybe you can find some info or insight i didn't find though.

I'm not saying they weren't involved in steering events there but the paper trail isn't as obvious as most think it to be.

Generally that seems to be the case, sir. It seems shockingly easy to program people.

I don't know if you know of Alan Friedman, global economics correspondent for the International Herald Tribune.

Here's an interesting interview he made about the arming of Saddam Hussian as well as Osama. How The United States Illegally Armed Saddam Hussein.

Of course the United Kingdom were involved too!

At times it seems people want to be programmed, told how to think, to save them from the effort of having to think for themselves

i'm listening to it now hairball. compelling stuff, i wonder what all these pro-american foreign policy supporters have to say regarding this information.

I imagin that they will dish the credibility of my source.

Hmmmm

Don't you want all the free F-16's we ... might give you with this deal? :-)

Americans trying to buy the world again, how sad!!

Try toning the foreign policy down a wee bittie. George Bush has admitted that he finds it difficult and, after having read Bush at War by Bill Woodward, I can understand why. Stick to the domestic policy folks, much to be done there.

Yes, but we're to concerned with the policing and worrying what everyone else thinks..we have an image you know :)

We have tons of housekeeping to be done. Waiting for the white house to take out the trash then maybe we can focus on the homefront.

Too concerned with the policing? What did u have in mind Zgubi?