Why Euro US Missile Defence System should be a joint Russo-American thing.

[kaya'08]

Why cant the European US Missile Defence System be a joint Russo-American attempt at creating a defence system in Europe from Rogue states such as Iran?
If both Russian and American leaders came together to make the deployment of the Defence system in Europe a joint venture, the Russians will have an equal hand in the system which would surely avert any threats that could be perceived by Russia? Its only fair, and it would cut the costs dramaticly on the European and American side if the burden of such a Defence system is shared (fiscally speaking). Or is the attempt for a Defence system really a sign of power by the Americans for deploying missiles in Russia's backyard, probably a response to Russian recent influence in America's own back yard, in places such as Cuba, and Venezuela? Perhaps a sign of general influence, and the extent of control America has over the EU.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Russian move would reduce tensions

Surely American leaders are fully aware that such a defence system is likely to provoke some anger in the Kremlin.

 

[scourge99]

Why cant the European US Missile Defence System be a joint Russo-American attempt at creating a defence system in Europe from Rogue states such as Iran?
If both Russian and American leaders came together to make the deployment of the Defence system in Europe a joint venture, the Russians will have an equal hand in the system which would surely avert any threats that could be perceived by Russia? Its only fair, and it would cut the costs dramaticly on the European and American side if the burden of such a Defence system is shared (fiscally speaking). Or is the attempt for a Defence system really a sign of power by the Americans for deploying missiles in Russia's backyard, probably a response to Russian recent influence in America's own back yard, in places such as Cuba, and Venezuela? Perhaps a sign of general influence, and the extent of control America has over the EU.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Russian move would reduce tensions

Surely American leaders are fully aware that such a defence system is likely to provoke some anger in the Kremlin.

I can only speculate:

1) We don't want to share our technology
2) We don't want to go through the hassle of deciding who pays for how much and what and how we divide things evenly
3) We don't trust them
4) We don't want them interfering with our miltary infrastructure and capabilities

 

[kaya'08]

I can only speculate:

1) We don't want to share our technology
2) We don't want to go through the hassle of deciding who pays for how much and what and how we divide things evenly
3) We don't trust them
4) We don't want them interfering with our miltary infrastructure and capabilities

But the whole point of the Defence system is to stop Europeans feeling threatened from the outside world, and possibly ease tensions.
If it only serves to strains ties further and make Europeans feel threatened by the Kremlin then the defence system has failed already.
We do not want Russian missiles pointing in our direction and American ones at them, it makes everybody uneasy.

4) We don't want them interfering with our miltary infrastructure and capabilities

Most Europeans dont want Americans meddling in there affairs. Europe is perfectly capable of creating its own...America is not needed, and its only proved a burden in these financially troubled times. America's influence has greatly wobbled in Europe for the first time in a long time, and people are starting to look the other way.

 

[scourge99]

But the whole point of the Defence system is to stop Europeans feeling threatened from the outside world, and possibly ease tensions.

No, its not about "feeling safe" its about stopping missiles and building the infrastructure to expand upon in the future.

If it only serves to strains ties further and make Europeans feel threatened by the Kremlin then the defence system has failed already.

see above.

We do not want Russian missiles pointing in our direction and American ones at them, it makes everybody uneasy.

Russian missiles are ALREADY pointing at you! The difference would be Russia would point more of them to ensure MAD.

Most Europeans dont want Americans meddling in there affairs. Europe is perfectly capable of creating its own...America is not needed, and its only proved a burden in these financially troubled times. America's influence has greatly wobbled in Europe for the first time in a long time, and people are starting to look the other way.

then why are European countries giving us permission then? We didn't force our way in you know. What do we gain by spending money protecting your ass'es? Think about it for a second without invoking thoughts of Bush derangement syndrome.

 

[kaya'08]

Bush derangement syndrome.

Lol.

First and foremost, America will find itself yet again making another mistake if it does not warm relations with Russia first, before placing missiles in Eastern Europe.

Russian missiles are ALREADY pointing at you! The difference would be Russia would point more of them to ensure MAD.

The Europeans do not fear Russian missiles, Russia has no interest in bombing Europe, its a pissing contest, the more missiles Russia has the more America feels its grip over Europe is loosening. America will do anything to overturn the uprising tide of Russian influence throughout the world and Europe in paticular, even if that means doing things that deliberately threatens the Kremlin "for the sake and protection of the Europeans".

If the Russians came to South America and built Defence missiles there to protect that continent, what reaction would that provoke from Washington?

Dont get me wrong, i love Americans, but as a European, we are sick and tired of America pulling us towards them by our left hand and the Russians tugging at us from the right.

What do we gain by spending money protecting your ass'es?

Precisely my point.
What could the Americans possibly gain by protecting Eastern European countries? Why jump in to do it and not even ask the Europeans to build one? Its all about Russia, well do we know that no Middle Eastern country has the capability of launching missiles in Europe. First no such country exists that is possibly dumb enough to do that, secondly even Iran doesn't posses the brains to create a nuclear warhead.

Plus, you could easily deploy a defence system in Israel and Turkey. That would sufficiently protect Europe from Iran and 90% of the middle east.

 

[scourge99]

Lol.

First and foremost, America will find itself yet again making another mistake if it does not warm relations with Russia first, before placing missiles in Eastern Europe.

:roll: right cause your leaders don't want the shield. That's why they are trying so hard to stop us from putting it up.

The Europeans do not fear Russian missiles,

its not about Russian missles. Why don't you understand that? Our shield can't do **** against russian missiles.

Russia has no interest in bombing Europe, its a pissing contest, the more missiles Russia has the more America feels its grip over Europe is loosening.

we have a "grip" over Europe? That's news to me.

America will do anything to overturn the uprising tide of Russian influence throughout the world and Europe in paticular, even if that means doing things that deliberately threatens the Kremlin "for the sake and protection of the Europeans".

If the Russians continue on the path of confrontation by supporting regimes like Iran and undermining our relations with Geoergia and Ukraine, for example, when they have no reason to fear, then yes, we will and have every right to. Europeans can do as they wish. We cannot obligate you to do anything.

If the Russians came to South America and built Defence missiles there to protect that continent, what reaction would that provoke from Washington?

protect the continent from who? And sure they can build them if they want. They won't be stopping our missiles.

Dont get me wrong, i love Americans, but as a European, we are sick and tired of America pulling us towards them by our left hand and the Russians tugging at us from the right.

its so funny how some of you euros argue. You take zero responsibility. That is, when America is permitted to build such a system you cry that we are "controlling you" but when we go into Iraq by ourselves you cry that we are "too independent and imperialistic". Bunch of whiny peanut gallery whankers. :lol:

Precisely my point.
What could the Americans possibly gain by protecting Eastern European countries? Why jump in to do it and not even ask the Europeans to build one?

um we did ask. How do you think we got PERMISSION to build it?

Its all about Russia,

Not right now it isn't. But iin the future its a possibility.

we know that no Middle Eastern country has the capability of launching missiles in Europe.

Wrong.

First no such country exists that is possibly dumb enough to do that,

you haven't fought a major war in one generation and you are already ignorant to the realities of war. Please enlighten yourself with what happens during major wars. Or was WW2 the "war to end all wars" for you? :roll:

secondly even Iran doesn't posses the brains to create a nuclear warhead.

wrong again.

Plus, you could easily deploy a defence system in Israel and Turkey. That would sufficiently protect Europe from Iran and 90% of the middle east.

we have some in Israel. And I'm not an expert so I don't know if that's a feasible plan. How do you know?

 

[kaya'08]

right cause your leaders don't want the shield. That's why they are trying so hard to stop us from putting it up.

Sometimes our leaders also do not know best, and you'll find there are many European politicians opposed to the defence system.

If the Russians continue on the path of confrontation by supporting regimes like Iran and undermining our relations with Geoergia and Ukraine, for example, when they have no reason to fear, then yes, we will and have every right to. Europeans can do as they wish. We cannot obligate you to do anything.

Well thats just typical of America. They couldnt give 2 ****s about Europe which is precisely my point. Its all about intimidating the Russians.

protect the continent from who? And sure they can build them if they want. They won't be stopping our missiles.

Its an example. If the Russians started building missiles in South America, gaurenteed, it wouldnt play down well with the peeps in the USA. There already pissed off about the Russian ships in the carribean.

its so funny how some of you euros argue. You take zero responsibility. That is, when America is permitted to build such a system you cry that we are "controlling you" but when we go into Iraq by ourselves you cry that we are "too independent and imperialistic". Bunch of whiny peanut gallery whankers

America ****ed up going into Iraq, it was the stupidist mistake in the countries history. You completely destablilized the ME, and 7 years on, we still wait for these so called nucleur bombs.
And if i remember correctly, Britain went with you guys to Iraq.

um we did ask. How do you think we got PERMISSION to build it?

Europeans are at fault here too. But its the Americans playing the cat and mouse game with Russia. Damn well do we know this so called defence system isnt being built to serve our interests, but the agenda of the Americans.

you haven't fought a major war in one generation and you are already ignorant to the realities of war. Please enlighten yourself with what happens during major wars. Or was WW2 the "war to end all wars" for you?

Haha, please, America always finds somebody to pick a fight with. A war to end all wars wouldn't even keep you guys at bay. But hey, if that's a national hobby go for it.

we have some in Israel. And I'm not an expert so I don't know if that's a feasible plan. How do you know?

Look at the map. Theres other countries outside of America as it goes.

Quote:
we know that no Middle Eastern country has the capability of launching missiles in Europe.
Wrong.

Examples please.

its so funny how some of you euros argue. You take zero responsibility.

I'm sure if Europe started the economic crises we'd have the balls to admit it. I'm still waiting for America to apologize for there god-damn atrocious sub prime market.

its not about Russian missles. Why don't you understand that? Our shield can't do **** against russian missiles.

Of course it can, why do you think it has provoked the Russians to built missiles in Kaliningrad. Oh, my bad, perhaps they just felt like it.

 

[scourge99]

Sometimes our leaders also do not know best, and you'll find there are many European politicians opposed to the defence system.

Obviously none of the important ones.

Well thats just typical of America. They couldnt give 2 ****s about Europe which is precisely my point. Its all about intimidating the Russians.

yea, you figured it all out. :lol:

I forgot, why do we care about intimidating Russia???? Thats a pretty worthless objective don't you think? But I suppose that's the pinnacle of your critiques?

Its an example. If the Russians started building missiles in South America, gaurenteed, it wouldnt play down well with the peeps in the USA. There already pissed off about the Russian ships in the carribean.

we don't care about cold war era dilapidated ships in south america. We do care about russia supporting yet another despot.

America ****ed up going into Iraq, it was the stupidist mistake in the countries history.

wow. Now you can predict the future! What can't you do?

You completely destablilized the ME, and 7 years on

what is exactly "destabilized" other than Iraq, which, if you haven't noticied, is doing incredibly well lately.

They have elections soon and the Sunnis are participating!! Woooooo!

we still wait for these so called nucleur bombs.

you are 2 years behind the news dude. Catch up.

Europeans are at fault here too. But its the Americans playing the cat and mouse game with Russia.

you still haven't explained this very well. I don't suppose you'll try.

Damn well do we know this so called defence system isnt being built to serve our interests, but the agenda of the Americans.

how? Can you explain? I'd sure like to know.

I'm sure if Europe started the economic crises we'd have the balls to admit it. I'm still waiting for America to apologize for there god-damn atrocious sub prime market.

well according to one of your Euro comrades on this forum, europe is just fine (namr Maximus Zeebra). You two Euros should have a chat and figure out who is right, then get back to me.

And how would you suppose we apologize? Would it make you feel better?

Ok. Here goes: Sorry for ****ing up the economy... Ok...? Now what? :lol:

Of course it can, why do you think it has provoked the Russians to built missiles in Kaliningrad. Oh, my bad, perhaps they just felt like it.

good for them. Waste more money on a threat that they have full control over.

 

[kaya'08]

Obviously none of the important ones.

If your suggesting Nicholas Sarkozy is an unimportant leader, you obviously dont know much about the economies of Europe.

I forgot, why do we care about intimidating Russia???? Thats a pretty worthless objective don't you think? But I suppose that's the pinnacle of your critiques?

Not just intimidate them, but to show them that America is the strongest by deploying missiles in what Russia consideres there sphere of influence.

wow. Now you can predict the future! What can't you do?

I said IRAQ was the countries worst mistake in its history....not the past and future.

what is exactly "destabilized" other than Iraq, which, if you haven't noticied, is doing incredibly well lately.

They have elections soon and the Sunnis are participating!! Woooooo!

I suppose that accounts for the fact that your not supposed to be there in the first place. Places that posed bigger threats and are even more unstable, such as Pakistan, and countries who need more attention from America militarily such as Afghanistan, are not getting the military attention they deserve.

you are 2 years behind the news dude. Catch up.

Ohh right stupid me. You went into Iraq, took all there oil and couldnt find the mysterious nucleur bombs. Opps i totally forgot.

well according to one of your Euro comrades on this forum, europe is just fine (namr Maximus Zeebra). You two Euros should have a chat and figure out who is right, then get back to me.

And how would you suppose we apologize? Would it make you feel better?

Ok. Here goes: Sorry for ****ing up the economy... Ok...? Now what?

Maximus Zeebra is so pro European his ignorant to its flaws. And i dont mean literally an apology, but for Americans to take responsibility, that means admitting there mistakes related to the economy and do more to help other countries financially.
And even if i did want an apology literally, it wouldnt mean anything coming out of your mouth

 

[scourge99]

If your suggesting Nicholas Sarkozy is an unimportant leader, you obviously dont know much about the economies of Europe.

The lone voice in the crowd of supporters. NATO continuously voices its strong approval for the system.

Not just intimidate them, but to show them that America is the strongest by deploying missiles in what Russia consideres there sphere of influence.

You seem to think this is a pissing contest between Russia and the US. Thats pretty shortsighted don't you think?

I said IRAQ was the countries worst mistake in its history....not the past and future.

You do not know this. Iraq may or may not become a beacon of hope in the ME and begin the turn around for the whole region. They are doing amazingly well recently. No one knows how it will turn out. That is why I said you cant predict the future and its ridiculous that you claim it "was the worst mistake" because it may turn out to be the best decision.

Moreover, the war was mishandled on several aspects but that has no bearing on the overall purpose associated with the war (which, sorry, wasn't just about nukes, as much as all the ignorant media drones like to believe so).

I suppose that accounts for the fact that your not supposed to be there in the first place. Places that posed bigger threats and are even more unstable, such as Pakistan, and countries who need more attention from America militarily such as Afghanistan, are not getting the military attention they deserve.

So now we are the world police?? Why don't you get your country off its lazy ass and start helping more instead of having our troops do all the fighting? All you guys seem to be good for is sitting on the backlines or in the untroubled areas and whining about politics at home.

John Hutton attacks European allies over lack of support in Afghanistan | World news | guardian.co.uk

Hutton accused the Europeans of expecting the Americans to do all the "heavy lifting" in the fight against the Taliban. It was time for the European members of Nato to "step up to the plate" and deploy effective combat forces to Afghanistan.

Ohh right stupid me. You went into Iraq, took all there oil and couldnt find the mysterious nucleur bombs. Opps i totally forgot.

Oh was that the only reason we went there? I was under the impression there were far more reasons. But then again, I have only debated the issue tirelessly and reviewed much of the history behind the decision.

Maximus Zeebra is so pro European his ignorant to its flaws.

I wouldn't say he is proEuropean. He claims its just better than the rest. He is simply rabidly anti America.

And i dont mean literally an apology, but for Americans to take responsibility, that means admitting there mistakes related to the economy and do more to help other countries financially.

Because its our responsibility for YOUR economy? Get real. Fix it yourself. Perhaps we should pay reparations :roll:

 

[scourge99]

Oh and about Irans missiles:

Al-Alam said the missiles, fired from an undisclosed location in the Iranian desert, included a "Shahab-3 with a conventional warhead weighing one ton and a 2,000 kilometer range," or about 1,250 miles. Cairo, Athens, Istanbul, New Delhi and the whole of the Arabian peninsula are within 1,250 miles of Iranian territory. Iran was first known to have fired a Shahab-3 in November, 2006.

Anticipated Iranian Missile Development:
(I've never heard of FAS so I cant vouch for them either way. They appear to be legit: Federation of American Scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Iran Missiles

Shahab-4

The Shahab-4 is projected to include improved guidance components, a two stage version would have a range of 2,000-2,200 kilometers while the three stages Shahab-4 could potentially have a range of 2,672-2,896 kilometers range with a warhead weight on the order of 1,000-760 kilograms. The Shahab-4 would be capable of hitting targets as far away as Germany and Western China.

Israeli/American joint missiles defense
Israel's missile shield against Iran: Three Americans in a trailer - Haaretz - Israel News

The system is expected to be set up next year, but it could go on-line earlier, ahead of a large-scale U.S.-Israeli missile defense drill slated for this fall.

Israel asked for a similar system ten years ago, but encountered firm opposition from the Pentagon, which was opposed to divulging U.S. defense secrets.

 

[kaya'08]

The lone voice in the crowd of supporters. NATO continuously voices its strong approval for the system.

Thats exactly what this is, a pissing contest. Can you honestly deny the fact that America and Russia are like two jelous brothers?
NATO would strongly back it though, wouldnt they, considering the whole point of them trying to get ex-Soviet bloc countries into there boarders is to safe gaurd them from Russia. Sometimes i wonder if the so called "rogue states" as America says, europe needs protecting from, is partly referring to Russia.

You do not know this. Iraq may or may not become a beacon of hope in the ME and begin the turn around for the whole region. They are doing amazingly well recently. No one knows how it will turn out. That is why I said you cant predict the future and its ridiculous that you claim it "was the worst mistake" because it may turn out to be the best decision.

Are you saying the recent success in voting for provincial councils is final proof that Iraq maybe a future success?
Just look at the overall condition of the country, and the destruction the Americans have caused to it. Again, i am talking about now, not the future, which you have claimed repeatedly cannot be foretold.

So now we are the world police??

I though thats exactly how America saw themselves?

Oh was that the only reason we went there? I was under the impression there were far more reasons. But then again, I have only debated the issue tirelessly and reviewed much of the history behind the decision.

Thats rich, considering it wasnt long ago America supported Iraq. What changed since then and now? Ill tell you. The increasing greed for oil revenues.

I wouldn't say he is proEuropean. He claims its just better than the rest. He is simply rabidly anti America.

So he is pro european....:S

 

[scourge99]

Thats exactly what this is, a pissing contest. Can you honestly deny the fact that America and Russia are like two jelous brothers?

And this is exactly why your views are absurd. The eptimoe of your critique is that governments make policy and take action due to some form of sibling rivalry. That is the most ridiculous and naive assertion regarding politics I've heard in a long time.

Sorry Kaya but usually people have rational reasons why they do something in large governments. Its rarely based on knee-jerk reactions and emotions, as you propose.

NATO would strongly back it though, wouldnt they, considering the whole point of them trying to get ex-Soviet bloc countries into there boarders is to safe gaurd them from Russia. Sometimes i wonder if the so called "rogue states" as America says, europe needs protecting from, is partly referring to Russia.

Anyone can be a "rogue state". Russia has a bad habit of supporting or dealing with countries that are in direct opposition to our goals. I would argue that many times this comes as a result of us isolating a country and that country calling out for support and Russia being there to answer the call.

For example, we don't like the Iranian regime and the Iranians want to build nuclear reactors. SO they look for someone who can help them with their goals and Russia has no qualms about it, and perhaps, goes out of its way to assist Iran and sell or provide them the materials as a means to disrupt our goals. Russia, for a long time, has played this role.

Are you saying the recent success in voting for provincial councils is final proof that Iraq maybe a future success?

WOW. Where did I say that? Please start arguing honestly or read more carefully what I write. I'm not going to debate someone who makes ridiculous strawmen such as this.

Its proof of success. Not final proof.

Just look at the overall condition of the country, and the destruction the Americans have caused to it. Again, i am talking about now, not the future, which you have claimed repeatedly cannot be foretold.

Change comes at a price. Whether its internal revolution or a regime change supported by another country, such drastic change in a country's government and leadership rarely transitions easily. Are you suggesting it does? There is a mountain of history that shows otherwise. You are simply being unrealistic about such events.

I though thats exactly how America saw themselves?

No, we are not. We protect our livelihood and that of our allies. Sometimes that involves action outside our own borders. Isolationism has repeatedly proven itself as a failed ideal especially in the dynamic world economy we have today. This necessitates action outside our own country. But there a blurry line between protecting your livelihood and future and being seen as "imperialistic conquerors" by the propaganda of your enemy.

Last time I checked we haven't "colonized" Iraq.

Thats rich, considering it wasnt long ago America supported Iraq. What changed since then and now? Ill tell you. The increasing greed for oil revenues.

I'm not going to educate you on the issue. Go research it yourself. There is far too much information about why we dealt with Saddam and what caused us to turn our back on him and eventually what caused us invade his country, twice, and finally remove him from power. You obviously have very little knowledge on the history.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The lone voice in the crowd of supporters. NATO continuously voices its strong approval for the system.

Thats just wrong.. Europe is widely split in this issue, where anti-Russian countries such as Poland for example is strongly in favor while most of western Europe is generally against. There is no majority in the EU nor in NATO for approving the shields, yet Poland and the Czech Republic(without support in the people) went on and approved it by themselves, and get slapped on their hands by the EU, and now there is this whole internal conflict about this issue.

So saying NATO "continuously and strongly" support the shields is just delusional.


Ps. dammit I can never seem to spell "Czech" correct the first time. :lol:

 

[scourge99]

while most of western Europe is generally against. There is no majority in the EU nor in NATO for approving the shields

so far I've seen evidence that the French president doesn't want it. Do you have evidence for anyone else of consequence who disapproves? Note: key phrase " of consequence",

yet Poland and the Czech Republic(without support in the people) went on and approved it by themselves, and get slapped on their hands by the EU,

How did they get "slapped". I see no evidence of this except your say-so.

and now there is this whole internal conflict about this issue.

link? Evidence? So far I've only seen France leader care. See above.

So saying NATO "continuously and strongly" support the shields is just delusional.

until you show otherwise then my link stands over your opinion.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

so far I've seen evidence that the French president doesn't want it. Do you have evidence for anyone else of consequence who disapproves? Note: key phrase " of consequence",

How did they get "slapped". I see no evidence of this except your say-so.

link? Evidence? So far I've only seen France leader care. See above.

until you show otherwise then my link stands over your opinion.

I follow EU politics, and its quite a hot topic in the EU and many nations of it. Other nations going via the EU to reprimade Poland the the Czech Republic.

A few links about the missile shield and European division..(much of what I am talking about is years of collected information from different sources over time, it would be difficult to link all that)..

EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver

Mainly aside from France, Germany is generally against the missile shield unless its discussed with Russia, and they accept it. Other smaller states are also against the missile shield. But mostly this has been a hot topic in Europe for a long time, and many countries have viewed this very negatively, some have changed their minds, some viewed it positively but has changed their minds. Its generally more complex and issue that for or against, often Europeans want to include Russia in the plans, and generally the people are strongly opposed to the shield, even in the Czech republic.

Europe was broadly against the US withdrawing from the anti ballistic missile treaty, and are broadly against the US deploying the anti-missile shield in Europe if it makes Russia aggressive. Obviously. And it has made Russia aggressive. But you have to understand Russia on this. Russia is another country in Europe who is opposed, the country most opposed to this. I think the US can understand this and would feel somewhat the same if Russia placed short range missiles in Cuba, and though there would be no threat difference...

 

[scourge99]

I follow EU politics, and its quite a hot topic in the EU and many nations of it. Other nations going via the EU to reprimade Poland the the Czech Republic.

A few links about the missile shield and European division..(much of what I am talking about is years of collected information from different sources over time, it would be difficult to link all that)..

EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver
EUobserver

Mainly aside from France, Germany is generally against the missile shield unless its discussed with Russia, and they accept it. Other smaller states are also against the missile shield. But mostly this has been a hot topic in Europe for a long time, and many countries have viewed this very negatively, some have changed their minds, some viewed it positively but has changed their minds. Its generally more complex and issue that for or against, often Europeans want to include Russia in the plans, and generally the people are strongly opposed to the shield, even in the Czech republic.

Europe was broadly against the US withdrawing from the anti ballistic missile treaty, and are broadly against the US deploying the anti-missile shield in Europe if it makes Russia aggressive. Obviously. And it has made Russia aggressive. But you have to understand Russia on this. Russia is another country in Europe who is opposed, the country most opposed to this. I think the US can understand this and would feel somewhat the same if Russia placed short range missiles in Cuba, and though there would be no threat difference...

I went through each of those "sources" and NONE, not one show CONDEMNATION of the missile shield. They are all INQUIRERS and CONCERNS, not CONDEMNATIONS.

Did you even read the links you posted?????

With that said, you are still WRONG and MISREPRESENTING the facts. There is no opposition to the building of a missile shield from any country or person of consequence, other than the French.

 

[justone]

I went through each of those "sources" and NONE, not one show CONDEMNATION of the missile shield. They are all INQUIRERS and CONCERNS, not CONDEMNATIONS.

Did you even read the links you posted?????

With that said, you are still WRONG and MISREPRESENTING the facts. There is no opposition to the building of a missile shield from any country or person of consequence, other than the French.

There are simple and well know facts. One of them is that you debate by intentionally misrepresenting facts and you cannot even be wrong. You do it all the time because otherwise you wouldn’t even know what to say, what to type. Moreover you make up ‘’facts’’, otherwise you wouldn’t know what to say what to type. This is what I know about you.

MZ on other side may be wrong, he may not be aware of all facts he may be wrong in his conclusions, he may be mistaken. But he does not make up or misrepresent facts as you do.

He never claimed that they were condemnations. Never ever. None of his arguments requires condemnation in order to stand true. By imposing the opposite you as usual misrepresent facts and attempt to deceive and lie. I am not recalling any other actions of yours on DP.

MZ fully backed up his claim, and fully disproved your lie “NATO continuously voices its strong approval for the system’’ as it was stated and defended by you. He did it either out of grace – because he could as well ask you to support your claim,- or out of understanding that it would be waste of time to ask you to support any claim of yours.


I am not even mention that none of the article says anything about INQUIRERS – you lie, as usual.

I am not even mentioning that expressing a strong CONCERN does not mean expressing a strong approval, as you claim. When Russia is mentioned expressing concerns, it does mean it expressing a strong approval of the system. You claim of the opposite is an absurd.

As well you have proven again that usually you get involved in a debate when you have no clue about the subject, - it is clear that you have no clue about Russian missile and antimissile technology.

 

[scourge99]

There are simple and well know facts. One of them is that you debate by intentionally misrepresenting facts and you cannot even be wrong. You do it all the time because otherwise you wouldn’t even know what to say, what to type. Moreover you make up ‘’facts’’, otherwise you wouldn’t know what to say what to type. This is what I know about you.

MZ on other side may be wrong, he may not be aware of all facts he may be wrong in his conclusions, he may be mistaken. But he does not make up or misrepresent facts as you do.

He never claimed that they were condemnations. Never ever. None of his arguments requires condemnation in order to stand true. By imposing the opposite you as usual misrepresent facts and attempt to deceive and lie. I am not recalling any other actions of yours on DP.

MZ fully backed up his claim, and fully disproved your lie “NATO continuously voices its strong approval for the system’’ as it was stated and defended by you. He did it either out of grace – because he could as well ask you to support your claim,- or out of understanding that it would be waste of time to ask you to support any claim of yours.


I am not even mention that none of the article says anything about INQUIRERS – you lie, as usual.

I am not even mentioning that expressing a strong CONCERN does not mean expressing a strong approval, as you claim. When Russia is mentioned expressing concerns, it does mean it expressing a strong approval of the system. You claim of the opposite is an absurd.

As well you have proven again that usually you get involved in a debate when you have no clue about the subject, - it is clear that you have no clue about Russian missile and antimissile technology.

I don't respond to your posts anymore Justone. Post in response if you wish for others, however, I will not address your posts while you mix debating the issue with attacking the poster. :2wave:

 

[justone]

I don't respond to your posts anymore Justone. Post in response if you wish for others, however, I will not address your posts while you mix debating the issue with attacking the poster. :2wave:

Did I post it specifically for you? There is PM for such occasions.
Can you address my post? If you are retarded, you can. Your post has been considered in details and only a retard would object to my consideration. If you don’t have anything to say in objection of the consideration, it means, at least, that you are not retarded. Please don’t think it means nothing, I come across retarded all the time. So, I take my hat off, sir. Next time when you post remember that you can put me on ignore list, but it will not prevent me from posting a response for others.


I don't mean to be mean, I mean to kill, I cannot waste my time.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Cease the personal attacks and focus on the topic.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I went through each of those "sources" and NONE, not one show CONDEMNATION of the missile shield. They are all INQUIRERS and CONCERNS, not CONDEMNATIONS.

Did you even read the links you posted?????

With that said, you are still WRONG and MISREPRESENTING the facts. There is no opposition to the building of a missile shield from any country or person of consequence, other than the French.

No one is condemning the shield, but many have concerns and disagree with its placement.

If you havent heard that there are huge disagreements over the missile shields you just dont follow European politics over time.

 

[kaya'08]

With that said, you are still WRONG and MISREPRESENTING the facts. There is no opposition to the building of a missile shield from any country or person of consequence, other than the French.

My god. Europe is so divided over the issue because we should be the ones controlling and building our own missile defence shield. Europe is more than capable enough to do so. Americans know nothing about EU politics, which is why over half of Europe would rather they butt there noses out of our business and spend that money on rebuilding the economy instead.

 

[scourge99]

No one is condemning the shield, but many have concerns and disagree with its placement.

I read that France disagrees with it and Germany wants it approved through a different means. Other than that I saw only variant concerns but nothing directly in opposition to the shield.

If you havent heard that there are huge disagreements over the missile shields you just dont follow European politics over time.

and I asked you how you knew this. Can you tell me more?. Germany wants greater international approval and France's leader sides with Russia in condemning the shield. Anything else?

 

[scourge99]

My god. Europe is so divided over the issue because we should be the ones controlling and building our own missile defence shield.

who else is objecting? We've established that the French leader sides with Russia and Germany wants some special colloborative approval process? Anything else I missed?

Europe is more than capable enough to do so.

then why are some countries CHOOSING to build it with us?

Americans know nothing about EU politics

I don't have a good understanding of your politics. But what does that have to do with you not providing evidence for your claims?

which is why over half of Europe would rather they butt there noses out of our business and spend that money on rebuilding the economy instead.

source? How did you determine this?