View Full Version : "More Obama:The Polish Patriot Missile battery's Will Be Without Warheads ."

05-23-2009, 09:06 PM
What use unarmed Patriots in Poland?

"More Slight of Hand from the Obama Administration !"

Patriot rockets which Poland is to receive this year from the US, to beef up its air defences, will not be armed, it has been revealed. Unarmed missiles will not be capable of destroying approaching enemy missiles. The situation, however temporary, is “highly undesirable”, Wladyslaw Stasiak, deputy head of the President’s Office, told Polish Radio Three this morning. “Should the rockets be without warheads then even their symbolic meaning would be doubtful,” he said.

It was reported last week that Poland would receive the Patriot missile battery from the US whether the anti-missile shield - agreed by the Polish government and the previous Bush administration in Washington - gets the go-ahead from President Obama.

“We expect the Patriot battery to be deployed on Polish soil by the end of 2009, as initially agreed with the Americans. This is important for Polish public opinion," Deputy Defence Minister Stanislaw Komorowski told Reuters, reminding that strengthening air defences was part of the deal for Poland stationing the 10 interceptor missiles.

Obama’s administration is currently reviewing the anti-missile system plan for cost and effectiveness.

http://www.polskieradio.pl/thenews/news/artykul108778_what_use_unarmed_patriots_in_poland_ .html

05-23-2009, 09:45 PM
I don't care who your are, that there is pretty stupid.

05-23-2009, 11:03 PM
This is amazing - Now the Poles have a one word rebuttal to any, and all, polock jokes. All they need to say is: Obama.

05-24-2009, 12:38 AM
Shouldn't this be in Stupid Liberal Tricks?:eek:

05-24-2009, 03:07 AM
The last paragraph of the article speaks volumes.

It is not yet known whether the warheads for the Patriots will be stored in the same base as the US battery located in Poland - guarded by 100 American troops - or, for instance, in neighbouring Germany. This would be a crucial factor determining the time span during which the anti-rockets could be armed in case of a real security threat for Poland.

It almost makes you wonder if the goal isn't to push the Pols back into the arms of the Russians.

05-24-2009, 03:32 AM
The last paragraph of the article speaks volumes.

It almost makes you wonder if the goal isn't to push the Pols back into the arms of the Russians.

The goal is to punish and isolate Russia for helping Iran become a nuclear power. They (the neoconservatives) will do this by expanding and strengthening NATO to the greatest degree possible, thereby reneging on a previous U.S. commitment to do the exact opposite. This plan to use NATO as leverage against Russia is a very dangerous one. The necons want NATO bases and missiles in Georgia and Ukraine, a move that could trigger WW3, or at the very least a new and expensive cold war.


05-24-2009, 05:14 AM
The necons want NATO bases and missiles in Georgia and Ukraine, a move that could trigger WW3, or at the very least a new and expensive cold war.



05-24-2009, 06:07 AM

Oh please, put down the Mad Magazine and grow up, you arrogant jackass. This is common knowledge. What do you imagine the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO means if not a deployment of military hardware? NATO isn't a damn social club or mere political alliance.

The neoconservative policy group "U.S. Committee to Expand NATO" (later renamed U.S. Committee on NATO) spearheaded two phases of NATO expansion. The committee’s motto -- "Strengthen America. Secure Europe. Defend Values. Expand NATO" -- aptly sums up the main arguments of those who believe that this cold war institution, established in 1949 to contain the Soviet Union, should continue as an instrument of U.S. military power, despite the expiration of its founding rationale.

Among the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO's first board members were neocon honchos Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Stephen Hadley. Hadley served in the Bush administration as a national security adviser to Condoleezza Rice. And I'm sure you've heard of Wolfowitz and Perle.

The expansion of NATO is in reality a cover for increased US interventionism in Europe and beyond. It will be a conduit for more unconstitutional US foreign aid and US interference in the internal politics of member nations, especially the new members from the former East. It will result in the further expansion of US military bases, right up to the border of the former Soviet Union.

The neocons promoting NATO expansion increasingly say that Russian opposition doesn't matter, that Russia will have to accept expansion because it has no other options. But that is not the way the Russians see it.

Three possible responses from Russia, in particular, should be noted.

Alliance with China

Over the last few years, Russia's relations with China have been growing warmer. The basis of their rapprochement is their mutual resentment of U.S. policy. NATO expansion is one of the reasons Moscow is drawing closer to Beijing.

Pressure on Neighbors

If NATO expands to the east, Russia will respond by putting pressure on its closest neighbors. A Russian scholar at Moscow's USA and Canada Institute warned that "Russia will meet NATO's advance eastward with its own advance westward."

Repudiation of Arms Control

Russia still possesses a vast nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the United States. Indeed, despite Washington's worries about security threats around the world, that arsenal still represents the only threat to America's national survival, and consequently it still deserves attention as our highest national security priority.

There is also the question of expense. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of NATO expansion over a 15-year period would be $125 billion for new bases, with the United States expected to pay $19 billion. We should not be wasting US tax money and taking on more military obligations expanding NATO. The alliance is a relic of the Cold War, a hold-over from another time, an anachronism. It should be disbanded, the sooner the better.

Once the very picture of success, in one generation America has gone from being the World's largest creditor to its largest debtor. Money we do not have is spent to prop up some foreigners and kill others. $30 billion dollars explicitly has been approved in America's 2009 budget. The White House raised its deficit forecast to a record $1.84 trillion. And Obama recently released details for a $3.6 trillion fiscal-2010 budget. Meanwhile, America's aging infrastructure weakens ever more under the groaning increased demands of out-of-control population fueled by illegal immigration and its literal offspring. Roads, bridges, New Orleans sea levees and thousands of other public works become obsolete, unsafe and generally inadequate. America's money goes to war, expanding NATO, foreign aid, etc. but not to America's basic needs.



05-24-2009, 01:30 PM
The committee’s motto -- "Strengthen America. Secure Europe. Defend Values. Expand NATO" -- aptly sums up the main arguments Sounds good to me.

Alliance with China
They have allways sided with China against the USA. They are cozy with China when they have to be. No Change.

Pressure on Neighbors
What countries are at risk to the west?:confused:

Repudiation of Arms ControlCan't trust them for the existing agreements anyway. Do you believe they can keep up?

These are all valid points and you make some good arguments. I would caution against avoiding the hard "right" decisions because of any potential reaction from an adversary. Russia is not our friend and will not make fair agreements with us. They will always demand and receive far more than they give up.