How do you like them apples, Pootie-poot?
Posted on 04/03/2008 6:03:30 AM PDT by tlb
BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) - President Bush won NATO's endorsement Thursday for his plan to build a missile defense system in Europe over Russian objections. The proposal also advanced with Czech officials announcing an agreement to install a missile tracking site for the system in their country.
NATO leaders were adopting a communique stating that "ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to allied forces, territory and populations." It also will recognize "the substantial contribution to the protection of allies ... to be provided by the U.S.-led system," according to senior American officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the statement's release.
The statement calls on all NATO members to explore ways in which the planned U.S. project, to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic, can be linked with future missile shields elsewhere. It says leaders should come up with recommendations to be considered at their next meeting in 2009, the officials said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
No! The credit is entirely Reagan's ... if you'll remember both Bush and his father cut back on the SDI funds when they came into office. It was only after 9-11 and the "Axis of Evil" revalations from intel sources and the 2002 SOTU speech that Bush rededicated monies in his budget proposals to Congress.
cool
This is how the headline should have read. Does that make you feel better?
if you'll remember both Bush and his father cut back on the SDI funds when they came into office.
No, I don't remember. Gotta link?
Bush
Wins
Again!
Google: "Bush reduces Reagan's SDI funding" you ought to find it...
When Bush was sworn in as president in January 2001, he quickly moved to increase missile defense development, pushing deployment of a small system based in Alaska that could intercept a small number of ICBMs launched at the continental United States. In December 2001, Bush announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the ABM Treaty. Such a move was necessary if the United States was going to test more advanced systems that would otherwise violate the treaty.
Wow...and just this morning I heard on cnn that Bush has “failed” in his efforts to get this done.
DEPLOYMENT, a bit different than RDT&E isn't it? Reagan's vision (and funding proposal) was for research, development, testing and evaluation of an eventual (earthwide) systems...both "Read My Lips" and "Mission Accomplished" Bushclowns decreased the funding!
If I had fallen asleep in 1988 and had just awakened, I'd think I was nuts. How far we've come in 20 years!
The Poles and Czechs have got some of the biggest cajones in Europe.
You beat me to it.
You must have been the only one watching CNN.
The Clinton administration, to their undeserved benefit, paniced when the North Koreans launched a 4 stage missile capable of reaching anywhere in the US. According to the Clinton “Peace Dividend” theory, no nation was going to ever again threaten any one else again. The results of this panic was a speed up on the design of a new x-band early warning radar to be built on Shemya. That did not happen mainly due to high construction costs at the end of the world. Bush built the radar on a towable oil rig configuration which was to th towed around South America on to Shemya. I lost track of it a few years ago when it was parked in Hawaii for some kind of repair.
According to my memory, your paragraph pretty much summarizes what happened when Bush II was elected. Effort was almost immediately directed toward the design and expedited construction of the Alaska and Vandenburg facilities.
But, but, I thought all of Europe and the enlightened world hated George Bush? How can this be?
Wins
Again!"
Good deal!
Clears that up. Thanks!
I'm fine with somebody smartening up a little late. Compare the two Dems running right now, who still haven't gotten a clue 7 years after 9/11.
President Bush won NATO's endorsement Thursday for his plan to build a missile defense system in Europe over Russian objections. The proposal also advanced with Czech officials announcing an agreement to install a missile tracking site for the system in their country.Putin, about your saber-rattling, natural gas blackmail, assassinations of opponents in European countries...
Amen!
Haha! I get impatient with commercials and surf the traitor sites!
1. When you make BS statements, it is up to YOU to defend them. It is not MY responsibility to search for the basis of your claims.
2. Your BDS is interfering with any rational thinking and/or reading comprehension on your part.
From your own link:
In the late 1980s, SDI plans were scaled back. Instead of lasers, one proposed solution was to use thousands of small orbiting interceptors nicknamed “Brilliant Pebbles.” These would be combined with many small orbiting sensors nicknamed “Brilliant Eyes.” Both proposals ultimately led to a new approach to spacecraft design: an effort to develop smaller, cheaper spacecraft. Despite the expenditure, SDI did not make the kind of progress necessary to achieve Reagan's grand vision, but it did greatly concern Soviet military and government leaders, who often had more faith in American technology than the Americans did themselves.
President George H.W. Bush scaled back the SDI program after the end of the Cold War but still sought to develop some form of missile defense. The Iraqi use of Scud missiles during the 1991 Persian Gulf War demonstrated that American troops abroad were also at risk from missile attack. This threat prompted greater focus on so-called “theater” ballistic missile defenses to shoot down shorter-range missiles like the Scud, which are slower and easier to hit than ICBMs.
After Bill Clinton defeated Bush in the 1992 presidential election, he scaled back the effort even further and focused it on developing several ground and sea-based interceptors for defending against a small attack from nations such as North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. These interceptors would directly hit their targets at high speed and did not need a warhead. The U.S. Air Force also began work on an Airborne Laser (ABL) that would be mounted on a converted Boeing 747 airplane and used to shoot down missiles like the Scud. The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization was renamed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO).
For the next eight years, Clinton continued missile defense research at a slower pace. But in 1998, North Korea surprised the world by launching a three-stage ballistic missile over Japan. This prompted renewed debate within the United States about the threat from ballistic missiles, and presidential candidate George W. Bush made missile defense a key part of his campaign. When Bush was sworn in as president in January 2001, he quickly moved to increase missile defense development, pushing deployment of a small system based in Alaska that could intercept a small number of ICBMs launched at the continental United States. In December 2001, Bush announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the ABM Treaty. Such a move was necessary if the United States was going to test more advanced systems that would otherwise violate the treaty.
Where did PRESIDENT George W. Bush decrease funding? I have no more time left for this nonsense.
bttt
Russia ought to join NATO.
How do you like them apples, Pootie-poot?
Thank you for your sourced and fact-based comments. They remind me of the FreeRepublic that got me through the years of ex42.
Nope! Not at all...if you want to believe the spin you are free to but the facts are just that: FACTS. You are entitled to your opinion of #41 and #43 just as I am entitled to believe them the third and fourth worst presidents in the past half century (only slightly better than Carter and Clinton but below even Nixon, IMO).
I must really irk you to feel so stupid after your insulting post (when it took me only three clicks on a search engine to find the N.Y. Times article proving a point that you could have done yourself).
Ditto that........
Quoting the NYT Times as an article of fact is laughable. Half of what they write is falsified and the other half has their liberal spin, half truths and omissions. Considering this is your validation, just proves to me I can not take you seriously and a blind man could see your hatred BDS.
Video:of Laser equipped aircraft:
Laser Jet Zaps Animated Missiles,
animated video from Boeing, the maker of the Airborne Laser. on 747 modified ...
Seriously...can we run Pissant for Prez in 2012? I’ll write the campaign web site pro bono...
As Reagan said, if you dont have the freedom to be stupid, you aren't really free.
Let us know what they decide.....
Interesting video. As for the main subject regarding NATO. It will be interesting to see how the Russkie approach this latest development over time. Things could start to get real nasty. They have parts of Europe over a barrel if you know what I mean.
Not exactly. The membership of Ukraine and Georgia was rejected by the European members although President Bush wanted it at any price. This was far more important than those 10 interceptors in Poland. The Poles still have to agree to the plan which is more than just a technical formality.
Bush proposed the European missile defenses...NATO backed the plan.
At this point, the U.S. has done its part. NATO has done its part, as well. If parts or all of Europe want a missile shield, then we’ll build it over there. Fair enough.
If they don’t, then we won’t. No problem. Should there be an attack, then it will be up to the naysayers to explain why they turned down proven defenses.
Works for me either way. The U.S. is protected now (PAC-3, SM-2, SM-3, GBI’s, and starting this year we add our Airborne Laser defenses that should in sum protect us from a 465 missile first strike)...and we’ve offered this protection in good faith to our friends. We’re not going to cry if they don’t want it, however.
Good information. Thanks!
The collary to your tagline is that we’re going to save your a$$ whether you like it or not!
Many of these things like the basing of Interceptors in Poland are decisions that were made years past, not today or last month.
Heh-heh!
I should say that those who are tempted to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief, we’ll save your a$$ whether you like it or not...
We’ve already got more than 550 PAC-3 interceptors, plus another 114 SM-2 interceptors.
Add 35+ GBI’s to the above (most in California and Alaska) plus a classified number of SM-3’s. Add in the Airborne Laser and you’ve got yourself a defense system that *will* defeat a 465 missile nuke attack, or that *could* possibly defeat a 900 missile attack (at the extreme edge of the theory if everything performs as it’s supposed to).
That’s not pie in the sky...those are proven missile interceptors, and they are already deployed.
It’s one heck of an accomplishment.
+ 
=
A warhead, a suitcase and a idiot. Such is cheap, effective and makes it difficult for the US or any other western nation to fight back. All evidence will vaporize.
Therefore I doubt that anyone ever needs the missle defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. Just another dump for American taxpayer money. Since I am from Europe it is not my party where you Americans spent your defense budget, but I think there are better fields for your investments.
What would have been far more important for the security of this planet would have been the membership of the Ukraine and of Georgia. Both countries are in eminent danger that Russia is going to re-annex them sooner or later...
The thing is that NATO is not the monolithic bloc it was during the cold war in regard of Russia. Western Europeans have here completely different interests in the meantime than the US or the eastern Europeans. They need Russia as a trading partner and do not want them to be confronted with a offensive NATO.
Dang. My LaserJet only prints hard copies.
Darn right it is.
They hate us except for situations like this where it’s American tax dollars and American technology and the American military that will be the only thing between them and rogue missiles.
The Europeans have pretty much made it a standard policy not to invest in their own militaries, knowing the USA will provide 90 percent of the protection, the work, and the lost lives.
The Poles and Czechs have got some of the biggest cajones in Europe.
Why is that???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.