I have no idea what to make of this story:
President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.
The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.
The officials who described the contents of the message requested anonymity because it has not been made public. While they said it did not offer a direct quid pro quo, the letter was intended to give Moscow an incentive to join the United States in a common front against Iran. Russia’s military, diplomatic and commercial ties to Tehran give it some influence there, but it has often resisted Washington’s hard line against Iran.
“It’s almost saying to them, put up or shut up,” said a senior administration official. “It’s not that the Russians get to say, ‘We’ll try and therefore you have to suspend.’ It says the threat has to go away.”
On Tuesday, a press secretary for Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Interfax news agency that the letter did not contain any “specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”
There are so many layers of questions to this, including who leaked it and why, whether or not they were hoping to get Russia to help or just boxing them in, whether or not this was really a message to Iran, etc. The only thing we know is that news of the letter is out there, so it was to someone’s advantage to leak this to the public.
*** Update **
Drezner remarks:
On the other hand, it seems though the Obama administration can’t lose. If the Russians say no, then Obama’s hand is strengthened in both Western and Eastern Europe, and Russia loses some leverage in trying to get missile defense out of their backyard.
I could get used to these “win/win” scenarios the Obama team keeps rolling out. See also, Rush Limbaugh fallout.
Punchy
I need this translated. I read it 3 times and the ambiguous pronouns keep messing it up. What’s the "it" in the second and third sentence referring to?
What threat? Iran or missle defense?
Zandar
Somebody either wanted to encourage Russia to take the deal, or stop the US from making it and pin the "He’s a traitor for the Commies!" card on Obama.
Plenty of people on both sides in Washington. Perhaps it’s better to ask who didn’t want this leaked.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@Punchy:
It’s saying that, in order for us to suspend the interceptor missile system, the Russians must provide a tangible result in dealing with Iran. My feeling is that anything that causes us to abandon the missile system is a good thing. BIllions of dollars to protect Europe from Iranian missiles? Gimme a break.
Incertus
I read it more as a way of boxing the Russians in–I’d guess that if Obama is looking to cut defense spending in places, it would be hard to find a better place to start than a missile shield that’s never worked, and this gives him a way to make Russia look like a bunch of douches if they don’t help out in Iran.
Atanarjuat
Let’s see: abandon our Polish and Czech allies so that Russia will help discourage Iran from building nuclear weapons?
It looks like neither Obama or his tax-cheating cabinet appointments have thought this through. Since WHEN should we trust either Russia or Iran to honor any commitments?
The icing on this rotten appeasement cake is that we’d leave our allies in Eastern Europe without a missile defense shield in return for exactly NOTHING, except maybe helping to accelerate the Iranian development and aquisition of an Israel-obliterating bomb.
Nice going, President Obama.
-A
passerby
This "secret, hand-carried letter" story** caught my eye this morning, too.
In addition to the issue surrounding the proposed American defense installation in Poland is the fact that Russia and Iran are part of a 5-member club of nations who border on the Caspian Sea.
The claims to the oil reserves there bind these countries together at a time when this commodity must be nailed down to insure energy sources not only for themselves but as an economic asset in dealing with India and China as customers.
The whole dust up in Georgia last August resulted in Russia clamping off the Balkan oil pipeline and holding those ports in control.
The topic of oil, I would think, supercedes or at least is dependent on the whole national security issues of both the USA and Russia.
Drill baby drill and all that jazz.
**BTW, on the two sites where I read the story, pictures of Putin were used but Medvedev was the letters recipient. (?)
gbear
@Atanarjuat:
Good morning to you too, Miss Little Ray of Sunshine.
bootlegger
@Atanarjuat: Why do we owe "our Allies in Europe" a missile defense system before we provide health care to our own people? Seriously Attanut? If the Poles and Czechs are worried about Iranian missiles they can damned well pay for it out of their own pockets.
bootlegger
@passerby:
That’s better.
Das Internetkommissariat
@Atanarjuat:
Hey Atan, you douchebag,
Could you please explain us Europeans how this is abandoning the "Czech and Polish allies"?
You are aware that the missile shield is just a big "fuck you" of the extreme nationalistic right in Poland and Czech Rep towards Russia and that the overwhelming majority of the population does not want this shit installed, right? On second thought, I doubt it.
Zifnab
Who says Washington leaked it? Maybe the leak was on the Russian end. They didn’t see any political advantage to keeping the letter secret, and wanted to observe whether – when pressed with political pressure – Obama would hold to his statement publicly.
estamm
Missile defense system. Heh. Like it would really work. Not really sure what the Russians are afraid of in that regard. $Billions of waste there….
Dennis-SGMM
Russia is providing substantial assistance to Iran’s civilian nuclear program. They can be influential and they did try to get Iran to agree to let them provide reactor fuel and to collect the spent fuel for shipment back to Russia.
The Iranians made a purchase of 600 tons of yellowcake back in the 70’s and that’s nearly gone now. Because the sources of uranium within Iran are insufficient to fuel their reactors, let alone support a weapons program, Iran will have to obtain uranium from another country. Seems to me that preventing them from doing so would be the easiest means of compelling the Iranians to accept outside control of their nuclear fuel.
Anoniminous
Israel has been a driving force in US Middle East policy for a long time.
AIPAC has lots of money and lots of influence.
Israel wants to bomb Iran to keep them from developing a nuclear energy industry.
The same factions that wanted to put a non-working missile system in Eastern Europe to protect against non-existing Iranian long range missiles are still hanging around inside DC.
I’d look domestically.
MattF
Could be the Russians leaked it– embarrass the Americans and say to the Iranians "We don’t have to be nice to you".
Zifnab
@Das Internetkommissariat:
Slap in the face! Under the bus!
used to be disgusted
The leak is probably a way of pressuring Iran. That’s the only purpose that makes sense.
Das Internetkommissariat
@Dennis-SGMM:
Are you sure about that?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/mines.htm
Zifnab
@estamm:
It must be working. We haven’t been hit by a missile yet.
Das Internetkommissariat
@Zifnab:
Heh, indeed.
Like anybody here cares for that stupid missile shield. The only thing it was good for was to uncover the utter wingnuttiness of the right wing governments in former Eastern Europe, most notably the Kaczynski-Twins (our own version of the "Party of No(tm)".
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@Atanarjuat:
Missile defense is the greatest boondoggle in the history of the world. The USA started working on missile defense in the mid-50’s (much of the research was, and is, here in Rocket CIty, USA). The results so far: bupkus. Oh sure, we’ve managed a couple of successful tests in a highly rigged environment, but nothing that approached real-world viability. No one could have predicted that shooting a bullet with another bullet would be so difficult and expensive.
Dennis-SGMM
@Das Internetkommissariat:
My understanding is that only two of Iran’s mines currently yield ore rich enough to be practical for use. I sure could be wrong though.
tomjones
@Zandar: The story appears to imply it leaked on the Russian side.
bootlegger
@Zifnab: Exactly! There also hasn’t been an attack on the Homeland since I found my lucky marble. Damned thing was under the couch on 9/11/01, but it is now safely keestered for all of our safety.
bootlegger
@Das Internetkommissariat: It’s my understanding that this is also the dominant opinion throughout Europe as well.
passerby
WRT the "leak", I usually presume that "they" know how to keep something quiet when necessary and, when a leak happens its usually intended to be leaked to serve as part of the political strategy.
Since we don’t know jack, speculation as to "who" is up for grabs but I’m going with "intentional" especially since it’s being widely released by the corporate media. If it’s something "they" don’t want us to know about, we wouldn’t hear a peep.
Cyrus
I forgot about this plan for an anti-Iran shield in Eastern Europe or never knew about it in the first place. Like so much from the previous administration, the missile defense systems were massive Pentagon pork that aren’t needed and don’t even work as advertised. Had I known about it, I would have been disappointed but not surprised to read that it’s continued with Obama in office. He’s been incremental about so many other things, why would I expect this to be any different?
But now, if the agreement proposed in the letter goes through, we get no wasteful missile defense system, better relations with Russia, and it’s not even clear what the reaction would be in Iran. They obviously wouldn’t like the deal itself, but they probably wouldn’t have liked the missile defense system either. And to the extent that they are antagonized, it’s at least partially aimed at Russia, not us.
Am I being just a brainwashed Obamabot by seeing all upside, no downside to this? It’s like he’s using the previous administration to play "good cop, bad cop." I really don’t like taking it on faith that there actually was some fiendishly clever plan behind continuing the missile defense plans and every other ostensibly stupid or illiberal move the current administration has made, but it sometimes does look that way.
Atanarjuat
@Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon):
Monty, if a missile defense shield is so pointless and unworkable as you posit, then why would Russia have objected to this so strenuously in the past?
Mighty strange for the Russians to have threatened retaliatory steps for something that has no "real-world viability."
-A
Comrade Stuck
I believe, Obama had previously indicated that putting these missiles next to Mother Russia wasn’t a very good idea in the first place.
Actually, it’s one of the lamest of a long list of lame brain ideas the bushies came up with over the last eight years. Why not try and get something out of something you planned to discontinue anyway? It’s a freebee and might slow down Russia’s head long rush to help make Iran a nuclear country.
tomjones
More interesting to me than this letter is that the Obama administration is apparently giving serious consideration to a Russian offer to situate some of the anti-missile batteries or what have you on Russian soil.
Provided we receive assurances that Russia won’t interfere, what would be our objections to this move, if it mollifies Russia and serves our supposed interest in neutralizing (prospective) Iranian long-range missiles?
El Cid
If only we had someone as strong as the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard, who runs our nation’s missile defense system, in the Presidency right now.
Oh, well, America will learn, and President Palin will begin fixing your Obamessiah’s mess in 2013.
BenA
Missle defense shield is an awesome idea… it increases the paranoia of the Russians, doesn’t actually work, and wastes tons of money! How could we want to dump that!
El Cid
Russia isn’t annoyed that a ‘missile defense shield’ would be on their doorstep. They’re annoyed that missile batteries would be placed there, and called "missile defense".
Punchy
You didn’t see what hit the Pentagon on 9/11, it appears.
Sincerely yours,
911Truthers
tomjones
@Cyrus:
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don’t tell the Russians, or we’ll lose our bargaining chip!
Observer
Sigh.
This is Obama’s "looked into Putin’s eyes" moment.
Das Internetkommissariat
@Dennis-SGMM:
The problem is that nobody knows what the truth is, one one hand they could really have a lot of U on the other they could be bragging, not really uncommon in that area I might add.
So far the Euroview on Iran is that they:
a) want an alternative source of Energy so they do not have to waste precious oil to generate ‘leccy. It is much better used to exchange it for juicy Euros or not-so-juicy Dollars.
b) are a proud nation with somewhere 2-3 millenia of history and see themselves as extremely advanced civilization (ahem). It cannot be denied, however, that the number of people with university (not college!) degrees is breathtaking. Hence they see themselves superior to e.g. Egypt and especially to Pakistan. So they ask themselves why Pakistan can have nuke-leccy and they cannot?
and of course c) Persians see themselves as a regional power (see Hezbollah) and having nukes would not lead to a nuclear war with Israel but would change the game in the Middle East, i.e. they would have a say in basically EVERY strategical and almost every tactical development in the Middle East.
Anybody who thinks that the rants of Ahmadinejad re: destroying Israel are anything more than stupid Middle Eastern Basaar tactics has obviously no clue about the region.
bootlegger
@Atanarjuat: For the reasons you yourself cited Attanut. The Russians are not to be trusted and they are using the missile defense system solely as an excuse to take back their former satellites. Duh.
Dennis-SGMM
Because it upset a status quo that kept both nations from blowing the surface crust off of the earth for fifty years?
Face
In other news, it appears McCain’s daughter just cant get laid lately.
And before you accuse me of being crass, go read the article. It basically says as much. Why the fuck CNN decides this is important, I have no idea.
Brien Jackson
A "missile defense shield" is nothing. They don’t work in practice, and to be blunt, they don’t really work in theory either. I mean, even if they have a 90% "success" rate, that still means 1 in every 10 missiles get through. That’s not a deterrant, it’s an incentive to shoot a whole fucking bunch of missiles.
To say nothing of the fact that Russia already has missiles designed to get around them, as do we.
bootlegger
@Das Internetkommissariat: Very good points, particularly regarding Iran/Persia’s nationalist concept as well as the practice of bombastic oratory. The Bushmen just could never quite seem to wrap their heads around those.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@Atanarjuat:
What is the primary tool in missile defense? More missiles, to shoot down the other guy’s missiles, parked near the other guy’s border, on to which warheads can easily be loaded, turning them into offensive weapons. How would you feel about a "defensive" Russian missile system in Canada? As noted above, it is and has always been military pork.
bootlegger
@Face: This is gold
Who knew that Wolverines dug Cougars.
Das Internetkommissariat
@bootlegger:
No, they are not to be trusted. To be more precise, the ex-KGB posse that took over Russia cannot be trusted, the Russians are generally very nice people. They tend to drink a lot of Vodka, though.
Having said that, Russia is simply securing its sphere of influence. You did not really expect that a former superpower with 250+ million people, several thousand nuclear warheads is going to watch idly how her former adversary is building military bases at her borders, did you?
How about a Russian airbase in Tijuana?
Look, we (Europeans) lived and co-existed with Russia for several centuries more or less ok. And we see them as the little grumpy, generally good-natured, slightly melancholic 300lbs neighbour who has a drinking problem. Leave him alone or be friendly and everything will be ok, kick his shin and you are into a world of pain.
I mean, what did you guys expect? That other nations will roll over to the neocon expansion? This was a classic lesson in blowback and I think Americans should be familiar with that shit in the meantime after Vietnam, Iran, Iraq and all that other shit that was all sourced in some serious CIA-fuck up.
Xanthippas
I wouldn’t say the situations are exactly parallel, but this does bring to mind the removal of the increasingly obsolete missiles from Turkey that was part of the agreement between JFK and Kruschev that ended the Cuban missile crisis. The removal of a ballistic missile shield that doesn’t work and was never going to work, but which the Russians detest, seems like a pretty good bargaining chip to get the Russians to act on Iran.
I know that it’s hard to think clearly when your brain is addled by hysteria and outrage, but both of those nations are already members of NATO. The rest of your comment is simply too ridiculous to even bother with.
Napoleon
The missile defence shield is unworkable as a defense against an enemy first strike, and everyone knows it. Even if an effective system was produced (and we have not done that) it would be simple and cheap to overwhelm it. What is rarely talked about is that it is more likely that it would be somewhat effective as a defense from remaining Russian rockets after an American surprise first strike, which is why many consider the missile defense shield in reality an attempt to put into place an American first strike capacity against which an enemy could not retaliate.
So that is one reason why the Russians have objected (in addition to what Monty says at 43), it could effectively end the doctrine of MAD that has kept Russia safe since 1949 and it is, in effect, a first strike weapon.
Atanarjuat
@Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon):
Beautiful rationalization, Monty. Russia’s just angry at the idea of Moar Missiles — not that their aims of dominating Eastern Europe with threats of their military machine would get rather blunted with the shield in place.
The missile defense shield also includes building more radar installations, Monty. I’m sure you’ll explain how warheads can be loaded on radar dishes and launched as offensive weapons.
Face it, old bean: Obama is unecessarily offering a very valuable concession to the Russians in return for exactly nothing, because nothing is what the Russians will do as the Iranians race to complete their first nuclear-tipped ICBM.
And for some reason, Obama Juicers are not concerned with such an outcome. I really don’t wonder why.
-A
bootlegger
@Das Internetkommissariat: Yes, of course, I too have met many good-hearted Russians. Love your analogy, though you should add that your energy runs through your drunk neighbor’s yard and when he’s in a foul mood likes to cut the line.
Brien Jackson
they’re already "rather blunted" by the fact that the Eastern bloc has joined NATO. Unless you think that they’re itching for a way with the entire Western world over Poland or something.
Don’t you neocon twits ever think these things through at all?
The Other Steve
I don’t think Bush would have even bothered to talk to the Russians, because it looks weak.
Tony Alva
I’d say one sign the Obama letter may be pointing to is that recent assessments of late regarding Iran’s enrichment capabilities and their ability to deliver an intercontenental strike may not be ‘agressive speculation’ at all. Iran may actually be closer than many skeptics think to having a bomb. If we know this, the Israelis know this. Maybe this is all moving faster than anybody ever thought.
bootlegger
@Atanarjuat:
Yes you do wonder why, because you’re too freakin’ stoopid to recognize how worthless the "defense shield" is. Wicker shields are poor defenses against a battle axe.
Das Internetkommissariat
@Atanarjuat:
Ok, I really tried, but you are a complete idiot, completely void of any insight of European affairs and the relationship of the European Union and Russia. In other words, you are a wingnut idiot.
I will try to explain it to you in simple words:
Russia needs money. Russia gets money by pumping natural gas through pipelines to consumers in Western Europe. Western Europe uses gas to produce electricity, to power factories and to keep cities warm.
Western Europe pays SHITLOADS of extremely hard currency to Russia for natural gas.
If Russia starts a war with Europe it will not only get its ass kicked but it will also lose its ONLY customer which gives Russia the money it needs to keep its oligarchs happy and citizen from becoming restless.
You are such an utter FAIL that I have no words to describe it.
Zifnab
@Atanarjuat: Because a "missile shield" isn’t a big dome. It’s a series of interceptor missiles lined up along the border of their country.
Imagine you kept a tank in your garage and I rolled up with my own tank and pointed it at your house and said, "Don’t worry, this is just my anti-tank system. It will only be used in the event you pull your tank on to the driveway." What would you think?
GSD
I love the dissonance of the rightwing arguments. For years they have carped about European nations who are unwilling to blackball Iran and continue to deal with Iran economically.
Now they are telling us that Iran plans to target with missiles these so called appeasers who do business with them all the time.
Go back to the logic board asswipes. This is a US sop to the defense missile industry and a big middle finger to Russia.
Let Europe defend itself.
-GSD
vishnu schizt
Ugh, Here we go again. Atanarjizzzim is back, the ultimate troll. Arguing the sun is blue. I’d rather listen to the dog bark, at least the dog makes sense. Well meaning commenters will respond with reasoned arguments. You may as well go find your local homeless, insane person shouting at the moon and ask their opinion on credit default swaps. You’d get a more reasoned answer.
Suckers.
Atanarjuat
@Brien Jackson:
Sorry, Action Jackson, but NATO would stand by and do nothing if Poland or the Czech Republic were threatened by Russia. Look at the NATO response during the early years of the Yugoslavian/Croatian/Bosnian conflict. It took direct American involvement before NATO was finally motivated to push the aggressors back.
And now we have President Obama eagerly offering to surrender one of the few meaningful deterrents to Russian ambitions in the European continent, and you actually think that NATO will just prance to Poland’s aid should the situation ever deteriorate. R-i-i-i-ght.
This is a win-win for Russia, and, by extension, Iran, and Obama Juicers cheer this on because they hope this will annoy Republicans and conservatives alike.
Partisan fools, all of you.
-A
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@Atanarjuat: Sweet jabbering Jeebus, I’m glad you neo-idiots are on the sidelines where you belong.
First of all, Iran is in 100% compliance with UN non-proliferation. Second: I’d rather Iran not build a bomb, but let’s say they do? What, exactly, is your fear? That they’ll commit national suicide by lobbing a nuke into Israel?
Cris
Selling weapons to the Ayatollah and using his money to fund the Contras? I thought that was a pretty neat idea.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@Face:
Dear Meghan,
Your dating problems have nothing to do with your father losing the election and everything to do with your ginormous ass.
Sincerely,
Rusty
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@vishnu schizt:
For me, the alternative is doing actual productive work while at …. work. That seems rather extreme.
Das Internetkommissariat
@Atanarjuat:
Ok, I will take the bait. What Russian ambition in Europe?
Dude, you are completely delusional if you think that this is the Cold War Replay. The Russian oligarchs are BUYING up corporations in Western Europe. The latest plays are to completely take over natural gas distribution and to monopolize energy sale AND distribution in Europe (@bootlegger: that’s behind the hardball tactics of turning of gas delivery).
They are not interested in conquering anything militarily. They do it with cash you imbecil.
And the same thing is happening in the U.S.A.
You are being bought by your enemies you idiot. While you are clutching your rifle and mumbling about your precious bodily fluids, awaiting the the Red Wave(tm), foreign souvereign funds are buying up your country in exchange for millions of cheap DVD-players and other plastic junk.
You are fighting the wars of the last century.
Atanarjuat
@Zifnab:
I’ll tell you what I think, Zifny old bean: Obama Juicers and leftists in general won’t be happy until Iran has an array of nuclear warheads aimed at Tel-Aviv, because, you know, the Jews have been large and in charge for too long, and it’s about time they got put in their place.
And we now have a very trusting and naive American president who, with sweaty palms, is eager to press secret love letters into the paws of the Russian bear. Because you know, Russian military expansionism in the past and their aiding of foreign nations who are hostile to the U.S. is so 20th century and will never happen again.
Nosiree Bob, you’d have to soft in the head to think that letting your guard down won’t encourage your enemies to strike hard and fast.
-A
Xanthippas
Perhaps you can explain the likelihood of a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe? I fully anticipate that the hysterical and wrong-headed nature of your answer will be completely at odds with the self-satisfied and smug manner in which you answer the question.
bootlegger
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford: Baby got back?
Face
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford: I didn’t want to say it, but god knows I was thinkin this.
Cyrus
But if the Russians say no, America is boxed into building the stupid missile system, or else it’ll look like giving something away to Russia for nothing. That’s not a problem for the Obama administration – they have all the political cover they need – and it’s not a problem for defense contractors, but it’s bad policy.
If. If. If.
bootlegger
@Atanarjuat: No you complete and utter moron, we’re not trading away a deterrent or a defense, we’re trading away a worthless pile of expensive shit. If you think a few interceptors on their border is a deterrent to our enemies, the Great Russian Bear, who "strike hard and fast" then you are the one drinking the old Cold War koolaid the Bushmen left to ferment in the basement.
Brien Jackson
Um, none of those are NATO member countries.
Comrade Stuck
We need to take up a collection to rent some genuine right wing trolls for Balloon Juice. Attanut spoofery has grown way old for me. I bet we could get some real wingnuts to work cheap, since they’re currently irrelevant in American politics.
liberal
Not really.
Win/win/win would be not deploying missile "defense," gutting missile defense research, and normalizing relations with Iran.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@bootlegger:
And then some.
It’s strange, but both Meghan and Bridget McCain have the same body (mis)shape, despite Bridget having been adopted from Sri Lanka.
liberal
@Dennis-SGMM:
Why should Iran consent to that? Does the US? Does Russia? Britain? France? Israel?
They’re entirely within their treaty rights to develop and control the fuel cycle, and in fact nations that attempt to prevent them from doing so are in abrogation.
liberal
@Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon):
I completely agree, but the funny thing is how bizarrely irrational states act regarding this.
The US and Russia both act as if there’s something more than a gigantic waste of taxpayer $s involved in installing a system in eastern Europe. Then there is some kind of threat (not necessarily from the Obama admin—can’t recall who made it) that the US would shoot down some recent N Korean test missile launch, as if that has a chance of working.
There’s got to be some historical analysis of state behavior that explains this kind of stuff (not just re missile "defense," but in general), but I don’t have enough training in history to know anything about it.
liberal
@Cyrus:
Given a choice, I’m sure Iran would much rather have a useless missile defense system in place in Europe and more access to Russian nuclear tech than neither.
liberal
@Atanarjuat:
Shorter Atanarjuat: "I’m so unaware of history, I don’t even realize that states take actions which are on their face irrational."
liberal
@Das Internetkommissariat:
Just to round out your (good) comment, IIRC Iran is actually only something like 50% Persian. Big ethnic minorities there.
liberal
@Napoleon:
Yes, more likely. As in "the only possible use." But in reality it’s not going to shoot any down.
Svensker
@bootlegger:
Um, what, exactly, do you mean by keestered? Inquiring minds may, or may not, want to know.
Atanarjuat
@Brien Jackson:
Sorry, Action Jackson, your response doesn’t invalidate my point. Without direct U.S. involvement, NATO only looks good on paper but in practice it’s just a paper tiger that would fold with the first rain — and that rain, in this case, is a coordinated Russian military onslaught that would be thoroughly eased with no Yanks around.
Just keep clapping harder, AJ.
-A
Atanarjuat
@bootlegger:
I know, Booty, I keep being told that the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe is a "worthless pile of expensive shit," yet, for some reason, the Russians see it rather differently.
If this defense system was so thoroughly worthless as some of you keep insisting, then Obama would have nothing to offer the Russians, who in turn would have laughed at the whole thing when it was first proposed.
Here’s a reminder: the Russians didn’t laugh at all last year. Try to keep up.
-A
liberal
@Atanarjuat:
You’re obviously completely ignorant about the potential strategic value of a missile defense system.
See the comment at #47—a leaky defense system is useless against a first strike, but possible useful against a retaliatory strike.
I love it when tough-sounding right-wing nutjobs show they don’t know a damn thing about military strategy.
liberal
@Atanarjuat:
(yawn)
There’s a difference between "X is worthless in reality" and "states openly acknowledge X to be worthless, and behave as such."
Are you really as stupid as you appear to be?
Atanarjuat
@liberal:
Hey, libby, it may comfort you to think I’m somehow "stupid," but at least I’m not so thoroughly naive as to think that either Russia or Iran can be trusted to honor any agreements.
Maybe you’ll be spitting out the "stupid" epithet once Iran has mounted a 10-megaton nuclear warhead on a missile aimed directly into the heart of Israel, except that the "stupid" one you’ll be targeting is Obama, who would have obtusely facilated such a tragic farce. Or maybe you’ll just clap harder while still calling everyone else stupid who just can’t see the wisdom of Islamic fanatics wielding nuclear weapons.
-A
TenguPhule
So we trade a system that doesn’t work for help from Russia.
Win/win.
Wile E. Quixote
@At A Tuna Jar
Excuse me, what do we owe our allies in Eastern Europe a missile shield for? What have they done for us? Face it, NATO should be shut down, NATO’s purpose after World War II was to keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out. It succeeded and should have been scrapped in the 1990s. Instead it lives on as a bloated, aging bureaucracy desperately in search of a threat to justify its existence.
I find it hilarious that conservatards such as yourself, you know, the guy who didn’t join the military because he had a problem with bedwetting and doing nasty things to small animals, are so gung-ho to keep what is essentially a huge welfare program going for our European allies. Because that’s what NATO is, it’s a military welfare program and our allies love it, we do the heavy lifting and go further into debt while they spend their money on social services, improving their infrastructure and buying up chunks of America.
Of course it’s not hard to figure out why conservatards such as yourself love the military so much, it’s not because you’re patriotic, if you were and were willing to put your money where your mouth is you would have joined up and served. Nope, you guys loudly proclaim your love for the military to provide cover for your cowardice and unwillingness to serve the country you claim to love so much. Listening to you talk tough about military affairs would be hilarious if it weren’t so goddamned annoying.
Atanarjuat
@Wile E. Quixote:
Hey, Quixey, everything you just wrote can be condensed to this Reader’s Digest version:
I don’t care if Iran gets the Bomb, as long as it annoys those thoopid wingnutZ!
Maybe you can ask Obama to write more tear-soaked secret love letters to our enemies, because that will guarantee peace, love, and rainbow unicorns for everyone. You should get right on it.
-A
Dennis-SGMM
@liberal: @liberal:
I am in favor of Iran having an independent nuclear program. I can understand why they don’t want to be beholden to any other nation for their fuel. I can also understand why some nations would see this as a prelude to adding more nuclear weapons to a world that already has way too many of them. If the middle ground is to get Iran to compromise on their nuclear fuel supply then the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons may be put to bed long enough for constructive engagement on other issues.
Conservatively Liberal
@Face:
I love her last lines:
Am I sensing some hawt girl-on-girl action might be in the works? Maybe a tell-all book to follow? ;)
I see our resident goat-roper, Attanut, is hard at work herding goats into a line for his morning ride. Sometimes I really wonder about you guys taking a goat roper seriously. Either you are really bored, easily amused or have too much damn time on your hands.
Dennis-SGMM
Someone remind me which nation backed out of the ABM treaty and which nation turned a blind eye while Israel developed nuclear weapons.
Atanarjuat
@Dennis-SGMM:
Denny, are you actually comparing the U.S. to either Russia or Iran? Yet you’re a real patriot, I’m sure.
-A
Brien Jackson
Of course it does. You tried to use the Balkan situation as evidence that NATO isn’t particularly prone to live up to its committments. The problem being, NATO didn’t have any committments in the Balkans, because those states weren’t, and aren’t, NATO members. I assume that you didn’t know that and just shot your mouth off, and now you figure that if you just refuse to admit you were wrong long enough we’ll all get tired of pointing out what an idiot you are.
Zifnab
I just want everyone in Houston to know that we are safe. I have errected a large sling shot in my backyard. If any missiles head our way, I will fling rocks at it until it explodes harmlessly far overhead.
I have tested my defense system on cats, passing cars, and other rocks that people have thrown into the air, and I can confirm a 60% success rate of my system, well above what would feasibly be necessary to handle a standard battery of long range missiles.
Now, if someone would just deposit $60 billion into my bank account, I can expand my program to the rest of Texas state.
Conservatively Liberal
@Atanarjuat:
Hey Attanut, words are easy. He served our country and you only give it lip service. Look for another goat.
Atanarjuat
@Conservatively Liberal:
CL, I’d never compare the honor of the U.S. to that of Russia or Iran, so perhaps Denny should remember which country he supposedly owes his allegiance to.
-A
Atanarjuat
@Brien Jackson:
AJ, remind me again which country NATO defended without direct U.S. involvement? That’s the point you’re energetically (and rather pointlessly) dodging.
Thanks for playing, though you don’t get a prize.
-A
Brien Jackson
Iran isn’t going to get the bomb anytime soon. There uranium supplies are such that even a full enrichment program with unlimited resources behind it would take decades to enrich to weapons grade. The only way Iran gets a nunlear weapon in the next 15-25 years is to buy either the weapon or the uranium from someone else.
Any of the hundreds of millions of people who have bleech and ammonia in their houses are more of a threat to develop WMD’s than Iran is.
Brien Jackson
Again, this is a total non-sequitor. You’re using a lack of eagerness to defend non-NATO members, which NATO isn’t obligated to do in any way, as evidence that NATO countries wouldn’t honor the only reason the organization exists; to defend member countries in the event of an attack, especially by Russia. It’s the definition of an apples to oranges comparison.
Aspartame
Atanarjuat = Myiq2xu
Don’t know why he felt the need to have another handle.
Conservatively Liberal
Glad to know that you are the driving force behind who is a patriot and who is not. Reminds me why your side lost their asses for the last two elections and probably the next few. Keep up the good work! With you constantly reminding us of what we have ‘left behind’, I am sure that my fellow citizens will read your screeds and say ‘No thanks, we have left that national nightmare behind’.
Go genuflect to Don Rushbo, the Republican Godfather, and kiss his ass like the rest of your Republican ‘leaders’. Be prepared to wait though, I hear that the line behind Don Rushbo’s ass is miles long and weaves like a live turd.
joe from Lowell
Holy freaking shiite, this Attanut character is an idiot.
Yugoslavia, Croatia, and Bosnia weren’t in NATO, chief. How do you not know this, and still presume to talk down to people about international politics?
Oh, btw, your argument that the cessation of the Russian technological and material aid that makes the Iranian nuclear program possible amounts to "nothing" completely contradicts your hysterical (in both senses of the word) shrieking about how terrifying the Iranian nuclear program is.
Anyhoo, nobody seems to have noticed, but Attanut is acknowledging throughout the thread that the anti-missile system to be installed in Eastern Europe is intended to address the threat of Russia – which is funny, because George Bush (remember him? Tall guy, kind of stupid?) assured us that it was being built to address the threat of an Iranian missile. Man, that guy lied a lot.
Rommie
There’s a shiny coin the resident troll is tossing around that I’ve seen the Troll Kingdom use as currency – the concept that President Obama, if Something Terrible Happens(tm), will wilt like a flower and run and hide in Magical Unicorn land, for the only reason that he’s a Loser Democrat, and we *all* know (wink wink) they are cowards at heart.
Somehow, I’m not so worried about the Big O opening the can(s) of Whoop Ass if provoked. Why do I possibly feel that way…
Atanarjuat
@Brien Jackson:
Of course you’re going to call a point that destroys your own a "non-sequitor." Why would you agree with someone who embarrassed you with facts?
Contrary to your frenetic insistence, I never said any of the Balkan nations were members of NATO, but it was indeed freaking NATO that responded ONCE the U.S. got involved.
Really, do try to keep up, Action Jackson. You’ll feel less frustrated as a result.
-A
Kirk Spencer
@Atanarjuat:
We’re not going to have the missile defense system IF Russia agrees to demonstrably stop Iran’s system. We’re going to continue moving Patriot units and other forces in.
But because of the one item we might not do if the Russians will reciprocate, it’s "abandonment".
Hyperbole. Exaggeration. Insult. Rarely, a fact out of context. You’re either a spoof or a provocateur. Either way, I’m going to try to avoid discussions with you in the future until you demonstrate you’re willing to discuss instead of propagandize.
TenguPhule
And a few dozen interceptor missiles that can’t hit a missile without homing devices placed on it are supposed to stop this…how?
Atanarjuat
@Conservatively Liberal:
With all that you wrote, you didn’t respond to my overarching point, which is simply this: An American patriot should not be comparing the honor of the U.S. to that of enemy nations.
Keep It Simple, Stupid. It really does work.
-A
TenguPhule
So what does that leave then, war?
Follow the trainwreck of GOP logic to its natural conclusion and it leads to a dead planet.
4tehlulz
I, for one, don’t see why the Russians would be so nervous about a military buildup on its western border.
TenguPhule
As opposed to our interrogation methods?
Yeah, real nice how Conservative traitors fell over themselves to excuse Republican sponsored torture.
TenguPhule
I hope not.
We can’t afford any blow ups with Russia now.
Time to pull back and repair the broken US army.
Atanarjuat
@TenguPhule:
I know, I know, Tengy… the missile defense shield is useless, expensive, irrelevant, a complete and utter waste in every respect.
And yet, when the Bush administration first proposed it last year, the Russians grew very testy and relations between the U.S. and Russia became rather tense.
That’s a remarkable thing, considering just how allegedly useless the whole defense system is. After all, what do the Russians have to worry about with something so ineffective as this missile defense system that you leftists keep assuring everyone has no "real world viability?"
-A
LV-426
I can’t believe I’m responding but here goes anyway;
You’re confusing patriotism with nationalism.
TenguPhule
I’m sure the prospect of having dozens of missiles on their border with the Bush admin in charge of them had absolutely nothing to do with it.
TenguPhule
Exactly.
But nobody in their right minds wants a rival power with (at the time) homocidal idiots in charge to point missiles at them from that close of a range.
LV-426
Maybe you’re confusing the uses of the system. It’s useless as a missile shield but is useful in other ways. It’s those other ways that upset the Russsians.
oops I did it again.
LV-426
I need a do-over.
I can’t believe I’m responding but here goes anyway;
You’re confusing patriotism with nationalism.
Atanarjuat
@TenguPhule:
Since you value peace no matter what, Tengy, I suggest that you personally ask President Obama to pen even more perfumed, secret love letters to all those nations who bear ill will and undying hatred for America.
I’m sure that expanding such a "let’s be friends!" pen pal program will melt the heart of even the cruelest tyrannical dictator, and, as a result, we’ll all be singing hosannas to to that great leftist circle of love you obviously have such great faith in.
-A
Mike in NC
Exactly so. I’ve been to Europe on a few NATO boondoggles (AKA exercises) where the Yanks get to act superior to the Eurotrash in exchange for picking up 90% of the tab. It’s also an excellent way to get our service members to escape shitty places like Fort Hood, TX and let their families travel and shop in nicer surroundings for a few years.
The one thing our government does well year in and year out is keep bloated bureaucracies running and indulge in Pentagon waste, which is now approaching something like half a trillion dollars.
The end of the Cold War was a disaster for the wingnuts/neocons. They’ve tried to reignite it time and again. Ask that ratfucker John "We’re all Georgians" McCain. The phony war on "Islamofascists" that Dubya launched will have to suffice even though it derailed our economy. Here’s an idea: let’s attack both Iran and Russia to pull us out of the new Depression. Was that a seminar at CPAC?
TenguPhule
I confess, I have no idea what the hell Asshate is saying here.
Brien Jackson
What does it destroy? NATO doesn’t exist to fight every single conflict anywhere in the world, it exists as a collective security organization. None of the countries in the Balkans situation were members, meaning there was no NATO obligation whatsoever. What’s hard to understand about that?
Atanarjuat
@TenguPhule:
Well, Tangy, I was responding to this exchange:
But I guess you were so eager to press your "aha!" point that you either got confused for simply forgot the main topic at hand: President Barack Obama sent a secret letter to Russia with regard to helping out with stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program. All the reactions and observations followed thereafter, including your own naive anti-war comment above.
As I’ve admonished your fellow leftists, do try to keep up.
It’s really not that hard.
-A
Kirk Spencer
An interesting thing – nobody really knows what the letter says. We’ve got a newspaper report of an anonymous claim of the contents.
To emphasize this, here is a response from Obama that says that while there was a letter, the deal that’s alleged isn’t in there.
Now, I imagine some folk will say we can’t trust Obama’s word. Odd, since they don’t know WHO they’re trusting on the other side of the question.
TenguPhule
And promised to dismantle a boondoogle that doesn’t work as promised in exchange.
So how does that equal pen pals and love letters and kumbaya?
TenguPhule
Corrected for fact check.
Atanarjuat
@Brien Jackson:
Once again, Action Jackson, you’re prancing dishonestly around the point I’ve repeatedly made: NATO only got involved once the U.S. led the effort. Without the U.S., it wouldn’t matter whether the besieged nation is a NATO member or not; they won’t do shit. The facts are clear, and no amount of hand-waving will substitute as proof.
-A
TenguPhule
So because NATO didn’t get involved in a non-NATO state without the US, Nato will not get involved in a NATO state?
Basic Logic, failed you have.
Groucho48
I’ll bet Obama was looking for an excuse to dump the missile shield, anyway, and saw this as a way of maybe getting a twofer…if Russia cooperates…Great! If Russia doesn’t cooperate, Obama can say he’s holding off on the shield "while negotiations continue", thus, saving the billions that would have been wasted building it, and, at the same time, deflecting right-wing rage at not building something that can blow things up.
Brien Jackson
You can make that argument if you want, but:
A) It’s complete conjecture. You’re trying to use Bosnia as an example, but that just doesn’t work, because there were no NATO members involved. It’s like trying to make the argument that smoke detectors don’t protect your house because someone broke in through your window once and it didn’t start beeping.
B) It’s rather absurd because it assumes that by not spending a lot of money to deploy an ineffectual missile system to guard against an incredibly unlikely threat, that the West wouldn’t defend a European Union member and relatively prosperous economy in the event of a Russian military action against them. It’s just absurd.
Atanarjuat
@TenguPhule:
Tangy, rather than more hand-waving, why don’t you cite a historical event where NATO defended a NATO member WITHOUT the direct involvement of the U.S.?
You can’t? I really don’t wonder why.
Seriously, it’s time to drop the strawman that you’ve so courageously decimated. NATO absolutely needs the U.S. to function, Obama did write a secret letter to Russia, and Iran is getting closer to building their own Bomb because the world is full of trusting fools.
Consider yourself part of that latter group, Tangy. "So what does that leave then, war?" Yeah, let’s just keep writing those pen pal letters — that’ll make Russia and Iran our BFF’s!
-A
Brien Jackson
Because no NATO member has been directly attacked by another state since its founding?
terry chay
This is a surprisingly good poker move. U.S. investment in missile defense is a crap hand and the people most against it are the Russians.
Wile E. Quixote
@At A Tuna Jar
Nope, I really don’t give a shit. Firstly if you’re concerned about Iran getting the bomb because an unstable Islamic nation run by a bunch of crazies might suddenly become a nuclear power you’re too late, Pakistan has the bomb, and half of their military intelligence service is in bed with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Secondly so fucking what if Iran gets the bomb? This is how the nuclear club works. We get on the phone to Mahmoud "I do not look like Gilligan" Ahmadinejad and say "Congratulations, you have the bomb. We have the bomb too, in fact we have thousands of them, several hundred of which are deployed on ICBMs and SLBMs that can hit your country within 30 minutes of launch (Trident D-5. If your first one doesn’t arrive in 30 minutes the next one is free). In fact Mahmoud we have so many bombs that if you decided to launch say, one of yours we could hit your entire country with 192 nuclear weapons launched from a Trident boat and still have enough left over on our other Trident boats for everyone in the Middle East, and that’s before we call up the Air Force boys and let the moles in holes that we have sitting in bunkers out in North Dakota a chance to join the fun. So if you hit us with one of your bombs, or one of our allies, we’re going to turn your entire country into a parking lot. Oh, and Mahmoud, we’ve been playing the nuclear game for over 60 years now. In fact we invented it and the only reason why the Soviets ever got to play was because they stole the technology from us."
In short I don’t know why conservatards like you have your panties in a bunch about a potential Iraqi nuclear weapon. It must be because you’re useless little fear-crazed pussies.
TenguPhule
Because NATO nations have not come under attack by another state?
Except they’re nowhere close to nuclear weapons.
So yeah.
Brett
The leftists, as you might expect, are wrong on this issue. Take our Russian friends, for example. They’re not upset because it is upsetting MAD (well, maybe they are, a little); they didn’t hesitate to upset it themselves, when they went from 2,000 deliverable strategic warheads in 1972 (when the anti-ABM Treaty was signed) to 12,000 in 1990. Hell, the Russians actually have their own missile defense, although it only covers Moscow and the surrounding environ (and since it used ground-based interceptors and didn’t cover the entirety of Soviet territory, it was legal under the ABM Treaty).
The Russians are upset because back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, they decided that, faced with a rapidly deteriorating strategic arsenal, they would upgrade their ICBMs, and they did, spending billions. Only here comes the US, testing ABM (successfully, I might add, on all the major expected flight paths of Russian missiles and off of ground-, air-, and sea-based platforms), and suddenly the Russians are looking at the loss of billions and the need to spend billions more to switch to a different delivery system, like bombers.
Naturally, they are quite unhappy about this, so they do whatever they can to delay it with pressure, negotiation, and harsh words. It costs them nothing, after all. But the point is that the Russians would have been pissed regardless of where the ABM was placed in Europe, even if the radar had been in the UK and the interceptor sites in Germany.
Oh, and by the way, if ABM is so useless, it’s got quite a number of governments fooled. It’s not just Russia and the US looking at this stuff; China is looking into it, Israel is looking into it, Japan, hell, even Singapore is looking into it.
TenguPhule
Yes, provided it’s only one missile, homing devices are attached, flight paths and launches are scheduled ahead of time and it’s not raining.
I’m sure our enemies will oblige us by providing all of the above each time they fire.
Our government does not have a monopoly on stupidity.
Granted, we have individual cases like you that threaten to prove me wrong.
war_2
TenguPhule:
"Yes, provided it’s only one missile, homing devices are attached, flight paths and launches are scheduled ahead of time and it’s not raining.
I’m sure our enemies will oblige us by providing all of the above each time they fire.
"
Oh well, why bother with anything then ?
Nothing works 100%.
Das Internetkommissariat
Oh my God, Teh Stoopid is running rampant.
On one side Atunajar is bullshitting about how a missile defense system is not offensive and on the other side people are trying to convince him that these missile batteries are a threat to Russia.
Again, here is a viewpoint from Europe:
The "missile defense system" serves two purposes. The first is to shovel money to defense contractors. Nothing new here. The second however, is a slightly more evil:
Has anybody of you asked the question why a missile defense system for missiles from Iran is stationed in Czech Republic and in Poland? And why the fucking UltraMegaGiga Radar Batteries are stationed in Czech Republic, conveniently close to Ukraine/Russia so that they can pick up the trajectory of a thrown cigarette butt in Putin’s office? A radar battery that strong can cover entire western Russia.
Have a look at the distances, don’t forget that you have to draw a circle that touches Iran but has its center in CZ.
Gravenstone
@Atanarjuat:
Okay, you fucking walking cumstain. Your drooling throughout this thread is bad enough, but sweet jumping Jeebus on a pogo stick.
Fission weapons (good for up to a couple hundred kt yield)are difficult enough to obtain on their face. Fusion weapons (aka. "H-bombs") are orders of magnitude more difficult to obtain. There’s a reason why only the big five nuclear powers possess them. Iran could pop out a standard nuke tomorrow and they’d still be decades away from manufacturing a fusion weapon. Not that I’d expect in inbred mouth breather like yourself to understand even a relatively stright forward concept of physics.