nathanael
Cosmopolitan
: “Die Wahrheit macht frei und ist das Fundament der Einheit (John Paul II)
Posts: 636
|
Post by nathanael on May 24, 2008 3:30:34 GMT -7
Many people won't believe this, but it is the truth. I had a dream this morning, or more exactly a locution where I heard this amazing message: "even Cardinal Sapieha is against the missile defense shield in Poland." The voice and message were so clear and unexpected, that I tought of writing about it. Never in my life anything like this crossed my mind, before. Adam Sapieha, as you know, is the World War II patron of John Paul II. On the contrary, I have advocated the shield for a long time. But I have began to have second thoughts starting today! I do not believe in all dreams, but what if? My advocacy of the shield was based on my distrust of Russia, a purely emotional response for a Pole. I do not believe in all supernatural manifestations, but I do believe in some, and this locution was real! The missile shield in Poland is a powerful political message of the wrong kind: it alienates instead of bringing together! It could be replaced by concessions from Russia on other issues important to the U.S. The irony is that the missile shield in Poland is strategically indefensible! It's therefore a wrong strategy! Why do stupid things if we can find a more strategic place for the shield? Just a thought from the mas alla (Spanish for the "other world").
|
|
|
Post by uncltim on May 24, 2008 4:57:52 GMT -7
Nathanael, I will agree with your revelation. The missile base will put Poland at risk in several ways. The benefit to Poland will be little or nothing. A more compelling question for a Pole should be how does the Russian leadership/people feel about the Polish.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by wayneprice on May 24, 2008 11:21:23 GMT -7
Being a Polish/American with very close ties to the Polish Armed Forces and Poland, I have to jump in on this question.
I agree up front that the positioning of the missiles in Poland does in fact put Poland at risk, that goes without saying. Anywhere that a legitimate military target exists is at risk from whomever decides to take on that military. For instance, once the site is up and operational it becomes a target, both a Polish target and an American target. But it also, by default becomes a NATO target. Imagine IF the base was attacked, two NATO allies would be attacked at the same time/place, and a robust NATO response would have to be expected, not just a Polish/American response.
The only question that remains is IF the base is constructed, what is the benefit to Poland? Well, the first benefit is good will. It can be honestly debated is the good will of America worth anything? If the answer is yes then it is a benefit, if no, then it isn't. Then, aside from any other negotiations between the US and Poland for equipment/training up grades, there is the monetary and social benefit of having a joint Polish/US base in a local community. I do NOT know the actual numbers involved, but on the assumption that there will be around a battalion of US troops at the base ( 800 soldiers+/-), and an additional 200-300 families, each of which will spend at least $1,000.00 US a year ( a very very conservative estimate), that would bring in about $1 million US Dollars into the community per year. Do you know of any community that would say no to that? As for the social interactions, there are positive and negative sides to that. Yes, up front, some US soldiers will behave badly and they will face the consequences of their actions. Will some soldiers get drunk and make asses out of themselves? YES, they will. BUT on the plus side, the good social interactions will over come that.
Just throwing this into the mix to get a conversation going about this. Your comments?
|
|
|
Post by Atlantis5 on May 24, 2008 12:21:36 GMT -7
Being a Polish/American with very close ties to the Polish Armed Forces and Poland, I have to jump in on this question. I agree up front that the positioning of the missiles in Poland does in fact put Poland at risk, that goes without saying. Anywhere that a legitimate military target exists is at risk from whomever decides to take on that military. For instance, once the site is up and operational it becomes a target, both a Polish target and an American target. But it also, by default becomes a NATO target. Imagine IF the base was attacked, two NATO allies would be attacked at the same time/place, and a robust NATO response would have to be expected, not just a Polish/American response. The only question that remains is IF the base is constructed, what is the benefit to Poland? Well, the first benefit is good will. It can be honestly debated is the good will of America worth anything? If the answer is yes then it is a benefit, if no, then it isn't. Then, aside from any other negotiations between the US and Poland for equipment/training up grades, there is the monetary and social benefit of having a joint Polish/US base in a local community. I do NOT know the actual numbers involved, but on the assumption that there will be around a battalion of US troops at the base ( 800 soldiers+/-), and an additional 200-300 families, each of which will spend at least $1,000.00 US a year ( a very very conservative estimate), that would bring in about $1 million US Dollars into the community per year. Do you know of any community that would say no to that? As for the social interactions, there are positive and negative sides to that. Yes, up front, some US soldiers will behave badly and they will face the consequences of their actions. Will some soldiers get drunk and make asses out of themselves? YES, they will. BUT on the plus side, the good social interactions will over come that. Just throwing this into the mix to get a conversation going about this. Your comments? Well to of 1st my dear Wayne Price. Of which would you place of your responsibility to? For you are an American officer? So as of your oath of office, your responsibility is to the United States Military, or am I of wrong? In as much to the United States Military Officers Oath? You know so very much of my self from your wife. OK, so let us dis-regard all semblance of use less reiterate. You work for your government, in-as much as to my self for mine. We know of each the stakes that are at hand. So let us not mince. You are United States Military as officer. You know very well the stakes at hand with so much of your national president and his agenda with the European and of the EU. This man will within his manner of influence, try to the very best, to dissolve our uninoty in as much as possible with first the Polish government, then to the remainder of the Eastern Alliance in as possible. I would be much pleased if possible you were to make me wrong. Or, are you to make your self so pleasant upon a Polish web site to improve your self? Are you and your goverment so much afraid of us? Are we so much a danger to your self? Or is it our money and investment in your country? Charles
|
|
|
Post by Atlantis5 on May 24, 2008 12:35:38 GMT -7
Many people won't believe this, but it is the truth. I had a dream this morning, or more exactly a locution where I heard this amazing message: "even Cardinal Sapieha is against the missile defense shield in Poland." The voice and message were so clear and unexpected, that I tought of writing about it. Never in my life anything like this crossed my mind, before. Adam Sapieha, as you know, is the World War II patron of John Paul II. On the contrary, I have advocated the shield for a long time. But I have began to have second thoughts starting today! I do not believe in all dreams, but what if? My advocacy of the shield was based on my distrust of Russia, a purely emotional response for a Pole. I do not believe in all supernatural manifestations, but I do believe in some, and this locution was real! The missile shield in Poland is a powerful political message of the wrong kind: it alienates instead of bringing together! It could be replaced by concessions from Russia on other issues important to the U.S. The irony is that the missile shield in Poland is strategically indefensible! It's therefore a wrong strategy! Why do stupid things if we can find a more strategic place for the shield? Just a thought from the mas alla (Spanish for the "other world"). Dear Nationael As a North German, I would never disregard a dream of reality, no, never. For as a child of the see, we never must disobey the power over our lives. For the see is our mother, and our father wishes not to be disturbed. Rather or not of the Americans to place or not to place their missile shield rockets upon Polischen soil is to you guys. For you as people must have a voice of your own. For us to your west, it is much better for us, for you guys to suffer before that of us. And this will be so, for the target of what ever will be you, and much before us. So be that of your choice Charles
|
|
|
Post by wayneprice on May 24, 2008 12:54:50 GMT -7
Dear Charles,
You are correct, about my oath of office. I have sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic". Having said that, the rogue states that might launch missiles are enemies, not just to the US, but to all the NATO members, including Poland. The NATO treaty, having been ratified by the United States Senate, is by inclusion, a United States law, empowered by the Constitution, and as such, the NATO responsibilities and treaty obligations are something I have sworn in my oath of office to defend.
Having said that, we need to get back on topic, which is: Should the Missile Defense Shield be Scrapped?
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by Atlantis5 on May 24, 2008 18:49:26 GMT -7
Dear Charles, You are correct, about my oath of office. I have sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic". Having said that, the rogue states that might launch missiles are enemies, not just to the US, but to all the NATO members, including Poland. The NATO treaty, having been ratified by the United States Senate, is by inclusion, a United States law, empowered by the Constitution, and as such, the NATO responsibilities and treaty obligations are something I have sworn in my oath of office to defend. Having said that, we need to get back on topic, which is: Should the Missile Defense Shield be Scrapped? Wayne Wayne Your stated credentials are very impressive and nationalistic. Your country will be proud of you. As you have so noted, we must return to the topic at hand {Missile Defense Shield} As you have noted, the ground work has been laid in as much to the foundation of reason of being: For defense against Rogue states. Very complimentary in-deed. But, what rogue states are in mind? Manufactured ones by your currant and soon to depart president? At present, Poland is in no danger and your domestic enemies are of little concern to us, for your internal securities operations are very well suited for any such occurrence. For this incurance should it be of need, facilities in electronic assistance has been provided to your FBI with the tools for integration into our systems in Europe with including that of Interpol access of a direct nature. The most dangerous result has been not so much the Missile question. Is your president has been successful separation of Poland from Western Europe. With the transfer of the F16 fighter aircraft completed to Poland. Has in effect, removed the possibilities of weapons transfer in an emergency situation from Western European arsenals to that of Polish, and of a unified fighter/weapons programme with mutual benefit to Poland as an integrated defense system. Within a few months, your president will be replaced, as of historical reference, so goes also the previous foreign policy with a new one as envisioned by the new in-coming president. It was very noteworthy of the very recent war funding approval whilst the currant presidency is in office. For the new administration will come some decisions as how/and from, will any lateral transfers be made of funding in the change {if any} of priorities as defined by the new incoming presidency. For funding priorities have been provided for continuation of the Iraq war and of Afghanistan {this will in-self require continuance of stated treaty agreements in Turkey for continue of USA maintained military bases. So as you are much aware, our conversation is very much problematic depending upon the direction of near future political developments. Incidentally {how is your Spanish} mine is horrible, but I have heard Venezuela is not so bad once one is acclimated to the climate. Charles
|
|
|
Post by wayneprice on May 24, 2008 19:03:32 GMT -7
Charles,
Not sure what you were getting at, but have to give you points for your enthusiasm.
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by tuftabis on May 25, 2008 4:34:48 GMT -7
Hi wayneprice. It is the second time I read your logical, calm post and the second time I feel I would like to participate in a discussion here. Thank you. Due to very complicated reasons Polish and American interests are convergent since America entered the world politics game. Or at least that's what most Poles and their representation usually think. Polish mistake of the past decades was being overly idealistic towards our bilateral relations, while US was strictly pragmatic. This is quickly changing now with a very pragmatic group of people now holding our steering wheel. One of the first results is Polish reluctance to accept the shield on our soil just for the sake of the longstanding convergence of our interests. As the Czech did. With every government we had earlier from 1989 on, Poland would happily accept almost any installation which would materially confirm American presence and involvement in this part of the world just for the sake of hosting such installation. The strictly military risks of hosting such an installation don't seem overly important to most of Poles and their representation -it is the base that becomes the target and not the whole territory. Much more important seem to be the political risk due to our special geopolitical position between East and West. Our greatest neighbors are not very happy about the shield in Poland at all, although the causes of their dislike are totally different. I personally don't think that purely economical benefit due to the presence of a 1000 Americans simply outweighs the political risks. Even if with years, and many changing shifts of American soldiers the knowledge and the liking of Poland will dramatically increase among the American people. As was the case with Western Germany for many years hosting American military bases, including those being the first targets for the Russian or rogue states. So it may seem the political and military benefits combined don't outweigh the political risks. Now the point is to find a concluding position in the negotiations which enables the outweighing of the political risks for Poland and makes the project still satisfying for your side. Easy ;-------------)
|
|
|
Post by wayneprice on May 25, 2008 7:43:38 GMT -7
Tufta,
Glad you have jumped in on this one! Clearly, there is no simple, easy solution to the issue of the missiles being located on Polish soil, but I do not think it is insurmountable. There are many "what if's", that must be considered. As in any negotiation, there is give and take on both sides by the primary parties, in this case Poland and the US, but there are others hanging on the edges that have an impact and influences on the missile shield/base. We have to consider the other NATO partners, Mother Russia, the EU and even the potential rogue states just to name the obvious. I personally feel that the social and economic benefits out weigh the "threat" of Russia targeting the base. Is there anyone that thinks any two ( three, four or more) antagonists don't pre-target potential enemies anyway? To take it out of this specific thread about the missile shield, there was a statement from the Moscow government that "if" the Ukraine was to join NATO, then Kiev would be a possible target of Russian missiles. Is there anyone who doesn't think Kiev is already a target with or without NATO membership? And no, I'm not "Russia-bashing". For instance, does anyone think there are not plans, the theoretical planning, necessary to target any of the various potential adversaries by the various protagonists? If there are people out there that do not think that planning is on-going in ALL the worlds capitals and armed forces (with the possible exception of Vatican City!), they are very, very, optimistic.
Looking forward to other views to keep this discussion going.
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by uncltim on May 25, 2008 9:28:32 GMT -7
Please understand the tone of voice that this is written in. Not sarcasm or accusatory, just spock-like logic.
Whom are we defending and why? Why should American taxpayers pay for it? Is a cultural exchange really going to benefit them or just turn them into consumer zombies for corporations? Who are these enemies/rogue states? Are defensive missiles really all that feasible? (5 dummies,1 payload) Economically feasible? Are missiles a reality anymore? Isn't It easier to put WMD in a shipping container and drop ship it anywhere in the US unfettered? Politically, shouldn't you allow the loss of a major metropolitan area before using military force of any kind these days? Is it meant to ruffle Russian feathers or the EU?
Ultimately The Polish must pick an alliance from 3 choices. I hope they choose what is best for them.
I don't question your motives personally, I do however know that nothing is as it seems and governments both seen and unseen move with diversion and distraction as primary modes of operation. Endgame and motive is taken to the grave. Just once I would like to see the playbook.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantis5 on May 25, 2008 12:07:03 GMT -7
Charles, Not sure what you were getting at, but have to give you points for your enthusiasm. Wayne Thank you, but no thank you, I need not to be patronized. But, shall we move forward with this subject, and perhaps shall we explore what is not brought to light. As you have of previous, there are some many complications that as time proceeds, become more into the light of view. What is advertised to the Government of Poland, is primarily that the United States has provided in their behalf, for their protection from rogue states, missile protection, fairly much free gratis. With the incentive of economic income to be gained by the various communities in vicinity of the missile bases and associated military support bases. This accompanied with up grade of Polish military and air-defenses. Very well and good, for it will be to the Polish air-defenses to provide protection to the missile bases and other American installations. Has this been explored? Now then we come to intents and requirement: What is the root reason so important to The United States for this missile bases to be placed in Poland? Is to the intrinsic kindness of the American Government to Poland? And if so, what is required of Poland as a pay back? Or, do we have in the works what is obvious: The protection of the United States or as better put: {The goal of the shield is the protection of the territory of the United States, with location of base in Poland, would reinforce the security of The United States at the cost of security of Poland}. As of common knowledge, the missile base is not actually needed, for a common silo of one multi nuclear armed missile would conduct the same effect. What is the actual effect, is a progressive encirclement of The Federation of Russia, and to provide a wedge using Poland as the instrument against the EU {Oh yes, EU and NATO are closely integrated, but with different responsibilities}. We have here, a smoke screen of deception that is obvious to us in the West, but the Polish do not see it, for they are to close. Perhaps you would wish to comment of the following: Through the efforts of these continuing programmes of American Foreign Policy, the following are the successful results. 1} Hindrance of the developing collaboration between Russia and the EU. 2} USA management of creating a climate of suspicion between [old world] EU members of the EU and the new comer [Poland]. 3}By unconditional acceptance of American proposal, has set the Polish as conditioned yes people to what ever future requirements to be placed by The United States. 4}With the instrument of the Missile question, is to increase hostility between The Russian Federation and the Polish Government. This was evident of the recent meat dispute, thank not this was an accident, but a planned result. Now,a new question of The United States, and not from the West, but from the Polish them selves: What are they to expect in pay back: 1}Modernization of the armed forces 2} Correct me if I am wrong, but the amount forwarded for military modernization so far, has beeb forwarded to Warsaw in the amount of US $20 million. 3} There has been a reversal in Polish positioning from the old government of Jaroslaw Kacznski to the new of Donald Tusk. This was made known in his March visit in Washington. This changes are as follows: US $10 billion for installation of air defense patriot missiles for protection of the Defense Shield Missile installation. {in this matter it is self protected}-{the other benefit is short range protection against attack from the east {Russian Federation}. Within this confines of extended Polish demands, will now the US began a change of plans for another location, or will they {USA} honour the original agreement {Not currently signed} to Poland? Charles
|
|
|
Post by wayneprice on May 25, 2008 16:17:35 GMT -7
Tim,
Great points to ponder, and I hope all of them are taken into consideration by the Government of Poland, and I especially hope that the decisions made are the ones made for Poland's best interests.
And I too would love to see the actual play book on this one!
Wayne
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by tuftabis on May 28, 2008 0:46:51 GMT -7
Source: The Guardian
Poland stalls Bush's 'lame duck' deal on missile shield
President George Bush's hopes of sealing agreement to site parts of the Pentagon's missile shield in central Europe before he leaves office are fading fast, according to senior Polish officials who despair of reaching to reach a deal with the United States before the end of the year.
The US has been negotiating with the Polish and Czech governments for five years over deploying missile interceptors in Poland and a radar-tracking station in the Czech Republic - the first elements of the American missile defence programme that would be stationed outside the US.
But while the Americans and the Czechs recently concluded their negotiations, the Polish government has balked at the US terms on offer, insisting on large-scale military aid from the US to modernise its armed forces in return for agreeing to host the silos for 10 interceptor rockets.
"Bush promised us a package, but the US is not delivering," said a senior Polish official. "Bush is a lame duck and the Pentagon is now sabotaging him.
"Why should we do any favours for Bush?"
He indicated that Warsaw had decided to wait until a new US administration is installed in January in the hope that would produce a better deal.
The installations in central Europe are ostensibly aimed at intercepting potential missile attacks from Iran, although Russia contests this and insists that the Polish and Czech deployments are ultimately aimed at the Kremlin's nuclear arsenal.
The new Russian president, Dmitriy Medvedev, used his first foreign visit to China last week to drum up Beijing's support for Russian opposition to the missile shield, one of the key disputes that has led to worsening relations between Russia and the west in recent years.
Poland is keen to host the interceptor rockets because it believes that having American troops and military sites on its territory reinforces its security against its traditional enemy, Russia.
But unless it markedly improves its defences, the Polish government also believes hosting the shield will diminish, rather than enhance national security in the face of a strengthening Russia.
On Monday in Brussels, the Polish defence minister, Bogdan Klich, said Warsaw needed the kind of military aid from the US that Washington supplies to Pakistan or Egypt, indicating that the cost to America could run to billions.
The Bush administration, meanwhile, could yet turn its back on Poland and shift to deploying the interceptor rockets either at sea or in Britain, say senior Nato officials in Brussels.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jun 18, 2008 15:53:44 GMT -7
Lithuania open to U.S. shield talks if Poland refusesVILNIUS (Reuters) - Lithuania has held no talks on hosting a U.S. missile shield, but would consider the idea if Washington's negotiations with Poland failed and the Americans suggested it, officials said on Wednesday. Polish chief negotiator Witold Waszczykowski told Reuters on Tuesday the United States was already in talks with Lithuania. Diplomats say Washington has become exasperated by Warsaw's tough negotiating stance. "Only if no bilateral agreement was reached between Poland and the U.S. and an official proposal was sent to Lithuania would our country look at it with due attention and responsibility," Lithuania's Defense Ministry said. It added in a statement that it supported the idea of a missile shield in Europe and was following the negotiations closely. It said it had been informed by U.S. representatives at a meeting in Vilnius in May about the course of the talks. But it added: "Lithuania does not hold any talks with the U.S. on installation of elements of anti-missile defense systems." The United States said on Tuesday that only "general conversations" with the Lithuanians had taken place. President George W. Bush's administration wants to install interceptor rockets in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic to shield the United States and allies from attack by what it calls "rogue states", particularly Iran. Russia is strongly opposed to the idea, seeing it as a threat to its own security. www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL1817954420080618
|
|