it is not just billions, the total cost is estimated at 800 billion dollars, American taxpayers paying for a missile defense of Europe; if they want a missile defense , then by God, let them build it; 70 years we have been defending Europe, enough already.

The measure is part of the Republican-led House's version of the 2013 defense authorization bill, which guides military policy and spending for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. It was adopted by a unanimous vote during a 3-1/2 minute subcommittee session.

The bill must be meshed with the Democratic-led Senate's version before it can be sent to the president for signing into law. The Senate is expected to start crafting its bill next month. The administration's stance on the push for more European funding was not immediately clear.

The bill directs the administration to seek support from European countries through "pre-financing," a process by which NATO members providing capabilities to the 28-nation pact can be repaid.

Citing the "rising long-range missile threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran" and the push to complete the system by roughly 2020, the measure would give the U.S. president a waiver if he determined that the use of all authorized funding for the system were vital to national security.

Looks like congress is on the right track, asking the President to get financial committments from Europe to pay for this cost.

Also looks like the nations of Europe WANT this shield. Could it be that Iran and Russia stand together again, AND stand alone again...?

Finally, looks like congress is giving the President the authorization to proceed with this measure without funding if it is found to be critically important. If this is the case, moving forward without funding from Europe will be the complete responsibility of the POTUS.

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/us-lawmakers-to-nato-pay-up-for-missile-defense/

So its not okay for Israel to launch a preemptive strike against Iran but it is okay for the Russians to do it to the west?

Saxon - $800 Billion? That's still less that Obama wasted in his failed attempt to keep the unemployment rate under 8%.

If I'm reading this right, Russia will attack if we try to defend our country...the Ruskies sure have mellowed...NOT!

Looks like another Obama apology is coming soon.

@Kannin. What was the running total lost over the last two Republican Admins., again?

This missile defense system basically trumps the "Mutual Destruction" understanding between Nato and the former Soviet Bloc. Take your heads out of your bibles and study some factual history for once.

Nice comment LIBTARD you know still clutching our guns too!!!!!

Maybe O'Bama can make another back-room deal (that everyone in the World already knowes about) to also put this little disagreement off unntil after the election. After the election, O'Bama "thinks" he can do whatever he wants, he needs to watch the U.S. Take Back America Activist.

The United States and the USSR operated under a policy called mutually assured destruction (MAD) in which both sides had sufficient missiles, warheads and multi-location launch vehicles that if either side launched, the other side would launch everything they had, the missles would cross in the atmosphere and the world would end in a blaze of nuclear destruction over a one hour period.

European nations are afraid that the MAD policy will not work with Iran. Iran is so nuts, they don't care about their own destruction, so long as they can destroy some of the Western democracies. That's why they want the missle defense system.

Unfortunately for Russia, in order to protect Europe from Iran, those same defenses can partially protect against russian missles.

Russia would do well to prevent Iran from ever getting nuclear capability.

I couldn't agree more, Dirp. You hit the nail on the head.

American taxpayers paying for a missile defense of Europe; if they want a missile defense , then by God, let them build it;

Why are we doing it? Because it is not in America's best interests for Europe to be held hostage to Iranian fanatics. We can't refuse to do something that benefits us simply because it also benefits someone else. Unfortunately, that's a very common situation for a global power. Make no mistake about it ... we MUST be a global power. Unlike the 1930's, we can't ignore the rest of the world on the assumption that we're protected by two oceans.

What a load of horse poop. Maybe one of you geniuses can provide me with the name of a single country that Iran has attacked say, in the past 200 years. Anyone? Aggresive, hostile, war mongering countries attack their neighbors, invade and occupy soverign nations. Iran has done none of these.

How anyone can see Iran as an aggressor is beyond me.

Roland -

1. Iran just came out of the 16th century. Only in the last few years have they had the ability to "launch" an attack on anyone.

2. Not sure if you'd call it an attack, but Iran did carry out airstrikes and artillery bombardments against Iraq.

3. As a nation you are more right than wrong. But if you consider the terrorist networks Iran supports in the name of Islam, they have been carrying out regular assaults on other countries for decades. They do it through Hezbollah, Al Qaida, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp., Al Quds Force, and Hamas for example. They also do it through sponsoring small groups or single attackers as trained by any of the terroristic extremist Islamist gropus I mention. The list is quite long on this one - just Google it.

i agree enough spending and why in europe what about the good ole USA ??

And just whose brainchild is this? Raygun is dead and gone, but it looks like something he would have loved to do.

Most of the commentators obviously have not researched the subject thoroughly to post such ignorant comments.
The missile defense project is not to protect European countries from Iran, let alone the US as some people imagine.
It is to make money for the military industrial corporations and to prevent Russia from launching their missiles in response to a US attack.
As for what Obama meant when he talked to Medvedev off the record, he was trying to untangle the US from what Bush started.
Only he doesn't want to look 'unpatriotic' before the elections, because the media (owned by the same people who want to make money on creating this missile project) will not miss a chance to use it against him. He is trying to correct the situation created by his predecessor, but he doesn't want to appear 'weak'. Much like JFK, who promised Khrushchev to remove the US missiles from Turkey in exchange for Russia's agreement to never deploy any nukes in Cuba. The deal was not to be made public, so that it would not harm the image of JFK as a 'tough negotiator with those Ruskies'.
By the way, why do the US refuse to give written guarantees that the missile project is not aimed at crippling Russia's response capability?
And, if the project is meant to intercept only Iranian nukes, why didn't the US agree to share with Russia the use of the missile defense system already in place in Azerbajan? FYI: it's right there by Iran and has a much better chance of intercepting anything coming from the other side.
Now read the answers I provided in the beginning.

By the way, why do the US refuse to give written guarantees that the missile project is not aimed at crippling Russia's response capability?

That isn't what the Russians are asking for. They're not asking for assurances that the goal isn't to cripple their capability. They are asking for legally binding guarantees that the system will not be used against their missles. So, apparently, if Russia grows more dictatorial and does fire a missle at us, we not supposed to do anything even if we do have the capability.

We should never foreclose our options.

Aggresive, hostile, war mongering countries attack their neighbors, invade and occupy soverign nations. Iran has done none of these.

To add to ConcernedOne's excellent post, Iran occupied our embassy (which is sovereign American territory) and held our diplomats hostage for 444 days. That's a hostile act.

Barry from NJ,
Your comment is illogical and non-factual.
The US government actually reassures Russia that the missile defense shield is not aimed at Russia. Putin simply asks them to put it in writing.
The missile defense project is violating the parity, the status quo. It puts Russia into an inferior position, when, if the US fires its nukes against Russia, Russia will not be able to respond. We have lived with this parity for decades, but now the US (again, the US, not Russia) is trying to change the status quo in its favor.

"A 'pre-emptive' strike"?

Doesn't that sound like war?

FYIonly.

I agree with you. It's main purpose is to churn the tax money and make butter for the military industrial guys. If Iran wants to build missiles, they would be for Israel, not europe. They are not crazy enough to attack europe. Nor are the Russians dumb enough to believe that they are for protecting europe from Iran. If this was started by Bush then I guess we can see what his militaristic thinking has done for us so far. Obama is still trying to get us back on track.

Hey Roland, know history much? How about the Iraq/Iranian 7 year war? How about the Iran taking US embassy personnel hostage for like 400+ days? How cares what you say anyway.

Notice how the leftylibdem media relegates the pre-emptory threats to a small byline? As if Russia hasn't a major nuclear arsenal. Must be the current administration clowns ineptly mocking Romney for calling attention to the potential threat of Russia. Must be community organizing BO claiming Romney harbors a pre-cold war mentality with the boneheaded Biden chiming in with yuks and the ossified Hillary talking about the "future". Get real leftylibdems, as in real politics. Putin's about to teach your inexperienced one a painful & embarassing lesson. Open mic means BO's about to concede to his socialist comrades. You shouldn't trust this clown with taking out the garbage. Yet off he goes yaking about War on Women and War on Oil and War on the rich while selling out for another term. BO's no Lincoln or Roosevelt; more like Benedict or Buchanan.

This is a totally understandable situation since the word compromise does not compute to the Russian mindset, unless they think they can hold all the cards. It's all or nothing for them. Not unlike North Korea and Iran when you think about it.

I am a Moderate liberal and this needs to be continued and put in as soon as possible. Where would you rather stop and attack in Europe before they reach USA where you have a second chance to stop it. No NO lets wait until it almost reaches the US then try to stop it oopswe missed there goes NY. Money has to be spent to protect and defend our interests continually. We can't afford to set back and wait tell something happens then say, OK lets get our military together, it's too late at that point.

Logic4U

Looks like another Obama apology is coming soon.

Yea...probably like his apology to Osama bin Laden. Get a grip Logic4U...you're showing very little of it.

It is time for the Government to come clean, there is more here than meets the eye. We are no longer the bully, China and Russia, can call our bluff: we best start listening, and cut the crap.

Diplomacy with Russia or any other fascist dictatorship is pointless, haven't we learned this from all the useless negotiations with Iran and North Korea? Of course they don't want us to build any defenses against them, because they still have circle-jerks in the Kremlin backrooms dreaming of blowing up the world with their big long hard throbbing missiles. Just ignore Putin and/or humor him when it's convenient, like you do with any spoiled child crying for something he can't have. When it comes down to it, Putin and his gangster buddies are much too busy pilfering the Russian economy for personal profit to do anything as complex as start a war. They couldn't even occupy more than a small part of Georgia, which was until recently part of Russia and has a weaker military than the state of Georgia in the USA. The NYPD could have conquered Georgia, but the Russians couldn't even manage that. Putin is about as likely to attack us as he is to grow a third arm. He may be crazy, but he's not stupid. I'm more frightened by the fact that somebody made a series of movies out of those awful Twilight books, and they actually made money! Now THAT'S scary!

The Russians are definitely not over it. Would you let your guard down?

Chris150 so you are saying we should not protect ourselves and others? Just let them do what they want? I guess you have already surrendered.

I for one would be happy to have an evil totalitarian regime to hate again. Dealing with terrorists is much more complicated.

SF, we already have at least one. It's called North Korea! Be careful what you ask for.

Ed,

Make that two....North Korea and Iran....they are both unpredictable and dangerous. Putin is just a KGB bully and knows he has the indian sign on obama and can get him to do whatever he wants.

Can you say "bargaining chip"? Sure you can. Wake up guys. This has been going on for the last 60+ years. Apparently there are a lot of people posting on this board who haven't lived long enough to remember the Arms Race and the bargaining done to arrive at the SALT treaties.

Then a lot of paranoia I'm reading sounds a lot like what I used to hear from the John Birch Society. Now that I think about it, the funding for the John Birch Society came from the Koch family...and now all of the right wing think tanks and organization are being funded by the same Koch family. Do we see a pattern here?

And yes I do take the Russians seriously. I trained, and trained others to kill Russians for quite a few years. I'm just not a big fan of fear.

Not a big fan of fear either. And I really fear the "leadership" of someone so foolish as to volunteer that he would unilaterally disarm our country down to just 20% of the START limits with no assurances of anything in return, just as soon as he can be safely re-elected. If we do that, I guess we deserve to be cowering before the Russians, Iranians, or whoever.

FYI: The Soviet Union was our ally during WWII.
Also, it was the Soviet troops that took Berlin and forced Germany to surrender in May 1945.
One of the main reasons why the US sent troops to Europe during WWII was to prevent the 'communist threat' from spreading all over Europe; because by the time of the D-day, Soviet troops were fighting Germans way beyond the borders of the USSR.

FYIonly, yes the Soviet Union was our ally during WWII. However, they were allies of convenience only. If you would read some history you would know that they were previously had signed a non-aggression pact with NAZI Germany prior to the invasion of Poland in 1939. Yes, the Soviets took Berlin, but the Western Allied forces including General Omar Bradley's U.S. 1st Army Group, General George Patton's 5th U.S. Army Group, and General Bernard Montgomery's commonwealth 21st Army Group were all within striking distance of Berlin before the Soviets. General Dwight D. Eisenhower head of SHEAF made the decision, for political reasons only I might add, to hold his forces back and allow the Soviets to do so. This was a decision Eisenhower severely regretted in later years! Our troops did not go to fight in Europe to stop communism. Hitler declared war on the United States within days of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. German U-boats were already attacking American shipping and warships. As a result, the Germans were considered the greater threat to world peace. At the end of the war, Stalin was doing the same thing the Germans did and was gobbling up as much territory as he could get his hands on. This later developed into the Warsaw Pact.

FYIonly......you definitely need to read up on your history of WWII and the Nazi - Soviet connection prior to 1941

Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, named after the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and the German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, was an agreement officially titled the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union^[1] and signed in Moscow in the late hours of 23 August 1939.^[2] It was a non-aggression pact under which the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany each pledged to remain neutral in the event that either nation were attacked by a third party. It remained in effect until 22 June 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol dividing Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into German and Soviet spheres of influence, anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. Thereafter, Germany and the Soviet Union invaded, on September 1 and 17 respectively, their respective sides of Poland, dividing the country between them. Part of eastern Finland was annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region.

FYI:

Like your usage of quotes around the term "communist threat" as if it were some how merely ironical or rhetorical. Ask some Poles, Czechs, Romanians, Slovaks, Magyars (Hungarians),Bulgars, or former East Germans if Soviet Communism was somehow just a "threat". And then maybe you can remove your far-left ideological blinders and learn some actual history.

Of course were paying for it!!!! Obama just needs to wait till after the election so he has a little more power oops i mean room.

Right he did ask Russia for more space do do what he wants.

This is hardly a new plan with Obama. Conceived under Reagan, this project was designed and started under Bush, with wide Republican support. Obama just continued the plan.

So it is bi-partisan.

That's correct, Don, as is the bipartisan desire for Europe to contribute more to paying for its own defense; we spend nearly the same percentage of our GDP on the defense of Europe as the Europeans do and they are the ones actually there; while it is certainly in our best interests for Europe to be safe from Iranians, Russians, and whoever, they should take more of the lead as we have many other obligations in the world which they do not have.

They won't have to worry about us after Romney and his corporate masters turn this country into a Banana Republic.

I doubt we will have to worry about that.

Heaven is a Christian socialist paradise, spoken by Jesus from the cross.

Yes Kannin that is the first thing that came to my mind after reading this article. I am wondering if this could be grounds for impeachment, treason or anything? And before people go off, I vote the person not the party.

Secrecy. After all he made a deal with Hillary behind closed doors before the election and they are both Socialists.

Heaven is a Christian socialist paradise.

It has less to do with conservatism as opposed to idealogy...Russia wants to get back into the game of world power....So the sabre rattling...As long as Putin is in charge Russia will always remain peranoid

I agree with you at the atomic level of your argument, however I think we have our own sabre rattlers in our pentagon and on the Republican side of the isle as well.

You point to Republicans...is this because Obamanation and the rest of his lackeys don't have the balls to stand up to anyone?

The word I think you meant is AISLE.

@Logic

Spoken like a true Bushnation bible thumper. All rhetoric, no substance. You've been trained like a dog to accept whatever propaganda handout is dropped onto your dinner table by the latest type A businessman. Funny how the ones who run for the presidency can't seem to run a successful business.

@Logic Obama got Bin Ladin, Bush did not...so much for no balls.

Conservatism as an ideology is hardly any more divisive than liberalism. I hear just as much hysterical ranting from the Left as I do the Right.

Is it more war-friendly? Maybe it is, although if I recall it wasn't just conservatives who voted to invade Iraq. And although it's generally accepted that the Iraq war was unnecessary and detrimental, some wars need to be fought. That admission isn't unique to conservatives.

How did this get to be Dem vs Rep, conservative vs liberal?

Who do you think of if I say "Star Wars"? (besides George Lucas)

Now, now, this bi-partisan bickering is silly. Since Obama's reign the Liberal side of the aisle has become a tad more war-like. If it is Obama and he is saber rattling, well, that's ok. Obama is continuing Bush policy, any of you pro-Obama folk aware of that? Note how Obama was pushing mightily for our nuclear arsenal to be greatly reduced, seeking the same of the Russians, now he is dealing with Putin, the same Putin whom Bush underestimated and trusted. Hopefully Obama won't make that same mistake altho the open mic moment leaves me feeling less than comfortable with his decisions.

Logic4U

You point to Republicans...is this because Obamanation and the rest of his lackeys don't have the balls to stand up to anyone?

The word I think you meant is AISLE.

Ah...Logic4U does it again. Let's see, Obama has killed more terrorists worldwide than Bush. He killed Osama bin Laden and ended the war in Iraq; as opposed to the "Mission Accomplished" banner and "bring 'em on", "wanted dead or alive" empty, slack jawed rantings of a certain former President...and you say he doesn't have the balls to stand up to anyone? I can see why you would vote of a strong leader like Mitt "milk toast" Romney. You crack me up.

mygirl1Now, now, this bi-partisan bickering is silly. Since Obama's reign the Liberal side of the aisle has become a tad more war-like. If it is Obama and he is saber rattling, well, that's ok. Obama is continuing Bush policy, any of you pro-Obama folk aware of that?

Hey MyGirl...how old are you? The type of diplomacy Obama is practicing dates back to at least Eisenhower and perhaps Truman. It has been relatively consistent regarding Russia since the end of WWII (and it doesn't matter which party is in power). The only temporary breaks were Bush I and Clinton who reached out the olive branch after the fall of the Soviet Union and Bush II, who looked into Putin's soul (I guess that kind of explains why we shifted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq).

By the way, as to the Liberal side becoming a tad more war-like...take a good look at American history (it's not a change). We just don't tend to Invade other countries as often or rattle sabers as much.

Let's talk about the two most liberal Presidents prior to the current one, ever. Harry Truman saw North Korea's invasion of the South as dangerous Soviet Communist expansionism, and acted accordingly. While the outcome of the war is usually described as a "stalemate", I'm sure that it is a draw which the thinking people of South Korea are fairly grateful for, since they don't have to look to far to see what they are missing. LBJ, an even bigger liberal and probably the biggest white hero of the Civil Rights era, also thought that he had to take massive action against the Communists in Viet Nam. This action destroyed any meaningful cooperation between the moderate left and the socialist left in the U.S. and led directly to the asecendancy of Nixon, which ironically led to "detente".

Ironically, it was the threat of overwhelming force by Truman's Republican succesor Ike in 1953 which led to the armistice in Korea. One can even argue that it was Nixon's pretty horrific "Christmas bombing" campaign of 1972 which led to the "decent interval" allowing our disengagement from Viet Nam; it is arguable that had we left forces behind as we had in Korea that we would still have the use of Cam Rahn Bay, Ton Son Nhut Air Force Base, and a non-Communist (but undoubted still brutally corrupt) South Viet Nam, but that is another discussion for another day.

Obama apparently has less concern about collateral damage from things like drone attacks than Bush did; if Bush or any Republican had used them this extensively they would be derided by the mainstream press as heartless warmongers who were playing into the hands of the terrorists, but apparently the terrorists are instead suffering from a leadership vacuum as the result of this "decapitation". After all, terrorist leaders are in no rush to see Allah; they send very junior subordinates on their suicide missions.

I like number 3. Let everybody have them. It seems like an exclusive club now. The US has been one of the biggest providers in the arms race. We do if for "jobs" of course, Congressman Super Patriot can't get reelected IF he isn't more of a patriot than the next guy and doesn't keep those high paying jobs at the defense factory going. So, let's quip playing games and arm eveybody to the teeth. It'll either be the lead up to armegedon OR no one will dare start any nonsense and if they do, both sides will be gone.

Eugh. I would not like to see Georgia with nuclear weapons.

Taiwan, maybe. If only to see the look on the Chinese generals' faces.

If you voted for Obama to prove you're not a racist, then you have to vote against him to prove you're not stupid.

I remember your ugly little monkey(bush jr.) actually creating the mess.

The missile defense system is the equivalent of the missiles Russia was going to place in Cuba. Russia is right to oppose missiles placed on their very borders. The closer the missiles are, the harder they would be to intercept. This system was first proposed by the Bush administration. Obama can stop it, once he is reelected.

Our claim that the system is to protect Europe from Iran is laughable. Here is a portion of an article that shows where Europe concerns should be directed.

There is of course no reason for Israel to have
submarines capable of delivering nuclear warheads to any target in the world –
unless of course, it needs them to attack other nations, as predicted by of the
Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld, who in 2010 said that “Israel
could find itself one day forced to exterminate the European continent using
all kinds of weapons including its nuclear arsenal if it felt its demise
neared,” and stressed that “Israel also considers Europe a hostile target.”

“We have hundreds of nuclear warheads and
missiles that can reach different targets in the heart of the European
continent, including beyond the borders of Rome, the Italian capital,” Creveld
said, adding that most of the European capitals would become preferred targets
for the Israeli air force.

He reiterated “Israel’s ability to destroy the
whole world whenever it felt its existence would be doomed to extinction.”

Why would Obama need to wait until he was re-elected to do something which, in your thinking, is in the best interest of the nation and world peace?

Also, placing ICBM interceptors next to a country is hardly the same as placing actual NUKES next to a country. Not that it makes any difference, since we can already hit Russia with our nuclear weapons.

Not sure what Isreal has to do with this, but given the level of warfare they've endured and their record for nuclear attacks (still 0!), I think they've been perfectly responsible with their arsenal.

Mr. Chavez, who has been spending Venezuela's oil windfall on a variety of conventional weapons, has bought more than $4.4 billion in Russian arms in the past five years and plans to add to this arsenal by purchasing $2 billion more. BTY - This report is dated 22Jul2008...

The Russian Interfax news service Monday quoted an unnamed Russian Defense Ministry official as saying that Mr. Chavez might order three Varshavyanka (Missile) submarines and up to 20 Tor-M1 air-defense systems. The Russian newspaper Kommersant reported May 12 that Mr. Chavez wants Project 636 Diesel submarines, Mi-28 combat helicopters and Ilyushin airplanes.

BTY - These were ordered and delivery has started...

reference - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/22/russia-increases-weapon-sales-to-chavez/

Another report about Russia & Venezuela... dtd 4Aug2009

Russia, meanwhile, conducted naval exercises with Venezuela last year in the Caribbean and sent one of its warships through the Panama Canal for the first time since World War II. The exercises with Venezuela were the first deployment of Russian ships to the Western Hemisphere since the Cold War.

Officials said they became aware of the most recent submarine activity off the East Coast early on through intelligence sources and were not notified by Moscow in advance of the patrols. They said the submarines have not crossed into U.S. waters, which extend 12 miles out into the ocean...

BTY - Most countries claim their continental shelf and some like China extend this by hundreds of miles...

Ever wonder what else the MSM is not reporting??? Ha! Ha!

Read anything about the military stand-off currently occurring in the South China Sea???

I read about the South China Sea in The Economist all the time. It's a nerve-wracking situation.

But what does Venezuela have to do with anything? Are you saying they've become a conduit for Russian military power?

SF accountant,

The short answer is YES...

But you should also look at what China is doing in the GOM...

Drilling for oil/NG off Cuba & FL...

Building a 'deep water' port and trade investments for Venezuela oil/NG...

China operates the sea ports facilities on BOTH ends of the Panama Canal...

Just to name a few. Then there are the DECADE long agreements with Brazil for oil & NG after investing BILLIONS of USD...

SF accountant

Also, placing ICBM interceptors next to a country is hardly the same as placing actual NUKES next to a country. Not that it makes any difference, since we can already hit Russia with our nuclear weapons.

I think you should stick to accounting. Let me try to explain the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to you in a way that you might be able to relate to: 2 guys in a Mexican standoff pointing a gun at each-others head. Suddenly one guy announces that in 10 seconds he will don a bullet-proof helmet. One of two things happen; 1) they both lower their guns or 2) the second guy pulls the trigger before the first guy can put on the helmet....get it? Mutually Assured Destruction kept us from incinerating each other for quite a few years. Now we're telling the other guy "in 10 seconds I will don a bullet-proof helmet.

The Russians seemingly want some sort of legally-binding agreement that the missle shield will never be used against them. I suppose that means that if some hard-core old-line Stalinist officer got control of a missle battery (sort of like the movie Twilight's Last Gleaming, only in reverse) then we would be supposed to just let it land wherever and do whatever. Right.

My question is, "Or what." If we went ahead and used it, they would offer a UN resolution condeming it? They would launch an overwhelming pre-emptive strike and face the inevitable counterstrike and the subsequent demise of civilization as we have known it? If the West thinks this is needed and is willing to pay for it jointly, I don't much care what the Russians think; they do as they want without consulting us, i.e., invading Georgia.

Well we interfere in Georgia and we keep getting closer to the Russian borders, hell we want put up with , Just when the Russian try to put missiles in Cuba , we freaked out and threaten a Nuclear war, what's the deference, we keep messing with everybody , and we keep kicking the Russians and the Chinese out of all the oil countries and give all the oil contracts to Europeans and US companies, well the Russians and the Chinese are reading the writing on the wall , We kicked them out Iraq, Libya and now we trying to topple the Gov. in Syria where they are Russians friends , So sorry guys , I do not blame the Russians , we can not keep changing and spreading or democracy while our best friends are the biggest human rights violators in the world, Saudis,Qataris,Bahrain,Kuwait,Israel,and all the rich oil states, Its Hypocrisy Boys.

Russia put OFFENSIVE missles in Cuba...we want a DEFENSIVE shield to stop any attack...now do you understand the difference?

It's tough to criticize us for "interfering" in Georgia after Russia invaded the country and then broke off the bits they liked best to make into puppet nations.

Just saying, that's a hell of a double standard.

Logic4U

Russia put OFFENSIVE missles in Cuba...we want a DEFENSIVE shield to stop any attack...now do you understand the difference?

Do you understand the similarity? (see 13.9 above)

For some reason, which soon after cost him his power (at least a very major factor), Comrade Kruschev let Kennedy sell the events of October 1962 as a decisive U.S. win, regaining JFK his lost face from after the Bay of Pigs the year before. In reality, a very reasonable bargain was struck in which the U.S.S.R. removed its missles from Cuba and the U.S. removed its missles from Turkey, which were approximately the same distance from the southern U.S.S.R. that the Soviet ones were from the southern U.S. The world was told that JFK and the U.S. had "won", which wasn't exactly the case, although it is very arguable that the cause of world peace was advanced slightly. Ironically, as the then-ongoing "Space Race" was demonstrating, each side already possessed very many missles based within its own homeland capable of attacking the other directly, so that the missles located in third countries could logically be seen as strategically almost irrelevant.

Time to get out the tar and feathers and deal with all Canadian buffoons who engage in non sequitirs and spell "dismantle" as "dismantel", and use equal signs for dashes -- rlquall

Really? I thought it was rhetoric.

Then again, most people seem to have forgotten all that "hope and change" he talked about.

Everything is relative. His foreign policy is a glittering success relative to his domestic policy of all time record deficits, unemployment "reductions" being based on people giving up even looking for work, a growth rate by far the most anemic of that following any recession in the post-World War II era, unacknowledged inflation and an energy policy based of solutions seemingly dependant on constant sunshine, incessant winds, and the brewing of algae to end our dependence on imported petroleum we are buying from real and potential enemies. In contrast, ObL is dead and al-Qaieda is reeling from the death of most of its leaders in drone attacks and otherwise, and we are out of Iraq on GWB's timetable. Mrs. Clinton has proven to be by far the most able Cabinet member. She would never have made such a silly comment as BHO did to Medvedev -- she's too canny to how the world of diplomacy, summitry, and the like actually works. I think that our foreign policy, despite its shortcomings, is in far better hands than the rest of the government.

Way to go Obama. Why did you keep this secret?

What was kept secret? This program has been in place for around a decade, now.

Author Joe -

You do know that he was talking about dismanteling nuclear warheads and their delivery systems and not pulling out of Afghanistan, right?

Yes, but the topic isn't new. However, I was building on this particular topic since it seems that no one is making the connections between Russia, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, etc. We keep making deals with the enemy from a position of weakness and are paying heavily for it. Russia is not our friends (we need to get over this) and has placed us up against a corner with these so called deals and concessions. We shouldn't make any deals with Russia. We better be ready to get out of Afghanistan while the getting is good, and in one peace. However, the answer to your question is yes.

Martin-2834084

Bring it on you russian turds.

Thank you George W. Bush. You have exactly NO clue.

Well, the populace has been getting restless for real democracy, so maybe the leadership wants one more go at good old-fashioned dictatorial militarism.

From Leaders to Dear Russian Friends: The entire world is aligned against Holy Mother Russia! We call on you to make all of the necessary sacrifices, and bear all needed burdens, just as your parents and grandparents did during Great Patriotic War!All for the sacred Motherland! Darst vaydonya! (If we are needed, we may be found at our dachas eating caviar and drinking Stolichnaya.)

Cowboy up? Seriously? By all means let's initiate a good, old fashion Thermonuclear exchange. That will solve all our problems. Let's see...all major cities in the Norther Hemisphere vaporized. Radioactive clouds circling the earth for years. Nuclear winter...yep, that will pretty much solved our economics issues. By all means..."cowboy up"

Somehow I think we need to keep everyone whose personal motto is "Shoot first and ask questions later" pretty far away from the controls of all nuclear weapons.