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 ...
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!
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.