Pointless may be the wrong word since the point of it was to give taxpayer money to defense contractors.
U.S. President Barack Obama has told east European states he is backing away from plans for an anti-missile shield there, in a move that may ease Russian-U.S. ties but fuel fears of resurgent Kremlin influence.
Russia said it would welcome abandonment of the plans, which have been a major source of Russian-U.S. tensions.
Poland said Obama would announce a final decision later on Thursday (1400 GMT) on a project that has raised the prospect of multi-billion dollar contracts for U.S. defense giants.
The shield, involving interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar complex in the Czech republic, was promoted by Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush to defend against any missile launches from “rogue” states such as Iran and North Korea.
Where are all the right-wingers who feel Europe should pay for their own defense?
# 60 Thomas,
Oh the inhumanity of the ignorance conservatives profess. One day when you grow up Thomas, you might be smart.
The FACTs Please:::
Prior to the early 1980s Soviet military spending increased 4-7% per year, but in the 80s the rate of increase slowed. Military spending as a % of GDP peaked in the early 80s and plateaued at around 15-17% of GDP. Thus any increases in Soviet military spending related to U.S. policy, would have been due to policies in the 60s and 70s (IE JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter) not Reagan, who had just come into office as Soviet military spending was peaking after increasing rapidly during the 60s and 70s.
Testimony given by the U.S. Military. to Congress in November 1984 said the annual growth in total Soviet military spending had averaged 4 to 5 percent from 1965 to 1976 but has declined to about 2 percent since then.
Soviet military spending in constant 2000 dollars fell from 415 billion in 1985 (the earliest estimate on the chart) to 376 billion in 1990.
Thus Presidents before Reagan were far more effective at getting the Soviets to increase military spending than Reagan was. Military spending by 1980 was >15% and possibly as high as 20% of GDP. Thus if military spending forced the USSR into bankruptcy, it was Presidents before Reagan who were most effective at getting the USSR to increase military spending.
The USSR collapsed because it did not have a viable economic or political system. The immediate event that precipitated it was social uprisings in Eastern Europe bloc countries due to the inevitable rise of social unrest with USSR policies.
Of course the brain dead republicans will continue to insist it was the brilliant strategy of Reagan scaring them into military spending and bankruptcy.
I hope this the right move in the right direction for our country.
#62, noname,
Very good and very accurate. Just to add, …
It was the import of western ideals, first into Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary Romania, East Germany, etc.) and then when the occupying troops and travelers brought these ideals back into Russia with them. German TV probably had more influence than any other single catalyst.
The Gdansk revolution was for food. A food revolution is much more difficult to quell than a political revolution. The same shortages that plagued Eastern Europe also ended up plaguing the Soviet Union itself until it imploded.
Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with that.
To the dumbasses who responded to my post.
European nations have militaries, big ones, capable ones.
The only reason Bush wanted an ABM system in europe was that he still thought the cold war was going on.
I think Obama’s decision was a big mistake but I’ll just have to wait and see.
once again…no weapons of mass destruction…again..?
Russia said it would welcome abandonment because it was pointless in the first place? Good point as usual Dave. Well thought out. Irrefutable as always. Impressive lefty logic strikes again.