Poland pokes Russian eyes with missiles

Good. Russia richly deserves a poke in the eye, and needs to be put in it's place. Poland is safe as a member of NATO and she knows it. That is why (now, in the wake of the Georgia invasion) the Polish public is in favor of the interceptors. Another unintended consequence of Russia's action has been a redoubling of NATO's purpose -- that is, to keep Europe safe, peaceful and free.

This is a nice turn of events considering how Soviet Russia subjugated and oppressed the people of Poland for more than 40 years, too. Now Putin wants to bring back Empire Russia. Not while our missiles are in Poland, Pooty-Poot.

Could someone explain to me how the US national interests are served when we enter into entangling alliances with tiny developing countries tens of thousands of miles from our shores when we broaden NATO? I don't see how Russia and Georgia fighting threatens our national interests and why MJ and others think we should risk our own treasure and blood to protect all these new NATO members and possible members.

Will somebody please explain to jethro the basics of right and wrong (ie how keeping the peace and ensuring freedom for all peoples is a good thing)? Also, could somebody fill him in on fundamental world history and global economics? Somebody? Please!
Also some basic geography? Poland and Georgia are not "tens of thousand of miles" from America... that would put them somewhere in outer space.

Jeff, please explain from your vast military knowledge how the missiles agreed to in Poland in any way provide any additional impediment to the expansion of Russian eastern european influence.

! wonder what gave the Russians the right to enter Georgia ? Those invaders !! It had nothing to do with our Occupation of the Iraqi Oil Fields or our attempt to put missiles systems in Poland !! No, of course not !! I hope these Republicans will find some sense, one of these days, but don't hold your breath !!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Besides tweaking the Russians and providing a financial boost for Raytheon, can anyone explain what good this ABM system will do? I just don't think annoying the Russians is reason enough to fund this multi billion dollar boondoggle. The "potential Iranian missile threat" is based on the assumption that the Iranian leaders are willing to have their nation bombed back to the stone age in exchange for striking a blow at some NATO country in northern Europe? Seriously? When they could simply devastate all our economies by destroying all the middle-east oil production facilities their missile could reach if they were really suicidal? We can only hope that someday we'll face an enemy as stupid as the Bush Admin. idiot who dreamed up the "Iranian missile threat to Poland" scenario.

So now there's an irate, possibly blind bear roaming the countryside.

Jethro, just so were aware of the facts, at it's closest point (in Diomede, Alaska), Russia is no more than about 23 miles from the US. The shortest distance between Washington, D.C. and Moscow (flying over Iceland and the Arctic) is about 4,900 miles. In answer to your broader question of why we are over there, I'll answer simply: because it's right. You don't agree to ally with someone and then abandon them when it becomes inconvenient or "entangling". Ask yourself what the value of an independant United States was to the French when they came to our aid during our own Revolution. One small but important part of the answer is that by ensuring that Russia does not impose its own brand of imperialism in Georgia, or Poland for that matter, we help to ensure our own continued peace and survival amid threats and angry rhetoric from one of our own neighbors. If you don't agree that Russia is our neighbor, you need to go back to a basic geography class. We are actually closer to Russia's border than France is to England. Also, don't kid yourself. Imperialism is exactly what is going on. These are Russian troops that invaded a democtaric nation with the goal deposing the rightful government of that region and occupying contested territory which they have every intention of annexing into the Russian state. That's imperialism, regardless whether Russia chooses to call them "peacekeeping troops".

By the way, Tom, do you know where all of the nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union ended up?? If you do, then you're the only one. There are other "rogue threats" aside from Iran. Condoleeza Rice simply used Iran as example for those simple-minded people (like you apparently) who fail to recognize what threats are really out there (or are potentially out there). And Don, you're an idiot. First off, it's not a "missile system". it's an anti-ballistic missile system (in case you don't understand the "anti" prefix, that means it shoots down missiles). I won't even comment on the "war for oil" innuendo, since it is too puerile for words. God, I feel like my IQ just dropped by 25 points after reading some of these posts.

Chris H.... so then George W. Bush is an imperialist also? He calls it regime change.

Posted by: Chris H | August 20, 2008 9:03 PM
Thank you, Chris.

" . . . I feel like my IQ just dropped by 25 points after reading some of these posts."
*
Posted by: Chris H | August 20, 2008 9:18 PM
*
I don't think you meant to say that, however nobly self deprecating it might have been. I think you had in mind to say something like, "It feels like IQs just dropped around here by 25 points across the board since I went to bed last night."
*
Don't get too upset over Don. He is always a little at a loss for important details in his zeal to be partisan.

* * * * *
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | August 20, 2008 7:09 PM
*
Don,
*
Nothing gave Russia the right to invade Georgia. Unlike the situation in Iraq, Georgia did not defy 14 or so unresolved Security Council Resolutions pending against it, many of which demanded the completion of an inspection regime so the world could be sure that it no longer posed a threat to its neighbors. Nor did Georgia ever have weapons of mass destruction, or use weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors or its own citizens, or invade any other country. Nor, unlike the situation in Iraq, was Georgia in violation of an armistice, agreed upon after the war to eject it from invaded territory, the breach of which gave the contracting parties the right to resume hostilities.
*
And I am not even saying the U.S. was justified in invading Iraq for the reasons stated above. You folks constantly remind us that the above-mentioned factors provided no basis for the United States to invade Iraq. How, then, could the absence of all of these factors, or any other justification, provide grounds for Russia to invade Georgia? You see, Don, you own argument defeats itself.
*
Finally, Don, the United States and Poland, which are both members of NATO, have every right to make any arrangement for mutual defense from any threat. Russia's objection to the missile defense shield is pure paranoia. There is no way we could stop a nuclear attack from Russia against us, or Poland, or any other country, by putting up a missile defense shield in Poland. Russia simply has too many missiles for it to work. In which case, any nuclear exchange would still result in Mutually Assured Destruction. Hence, any non-paranoid, level headed thinker would realize that the missile defense shield could have no rational function in defending against an attack from Russia. It could only serve as an effective defense against a country that did not have Russia's weapons stockpile. Thus, any objection Russia may have is either irrational or simply a pretext to further its own jingoism.

Chris H, And your point is that this ABM system will somehow protect the world from lost Soviet nukes? How do you see that happening? If Iran really wanted to deliver some theoretical stolen nuke, why wouldn't they use a container they could send to New York or Washington when one of their medium range ballistic missile can't reach that far and would be detected by satellites on launch and bring swift retalliation to the launcher? Maybe it would make more sense to me if this ABM system was effective at stopping cargo containers and the ships, trucks and trains they travel on, but it isn't. We should be spending our money on plans to safeguard our own port cities from attack instead of blowing billions on another wild neocon WMD fantasy.

I can't believe they had a silent signing video ha ha HELLOOOOO, she did a good speech afterwards, WHERE'S THE BEEF?

Russia made this perfect timing. It couldn't have been a success right now without them ha ha.

They invade Georgia and we should take notice that they don't like this one bit. Cry me a river.

About comments concerning the ABM
IN Poland which i approve being of polish background and other reasons, would be to long to explain.I thing that the U.S.A has a different reason of installing the ABM on polish land which no one knows , so let us wait and see.