Wild World Week: Missile Defense, Iran and Afghanistan Troops

Here is what happened in the past seven days…

Missile Shield: Obama has dropped the European missile shield program. The Czechs called it a “threat”. and Poles said they have been “stabbed in the back.”

Iran’s bomb: This week, Iran was determined to be able to make their own bomb while their President said Israel “will not last long”

Afghanistan Troops: New pressure against more Afghanistan troops was voiced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and five Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D), Diane Feinstein (D) Dick Durbin (D), Carl LEvin (D) and Susan Collins (R).

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 07:23 | Posted in Measure 37 | 35 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Sagano

    I do not understand why Obama is giving up on a defense item. Is he getting something in return? Gates says they have something better, but what is better than set stationary missiles? This makes no sense.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      It was a suck up to the Russians.

      I pray it was a suck up to the Russians.

      BO giving up something to save money makes no sense at all. Why would a president, who has done nothing but spend money relentlessly, suddenly be so concerned about saving a few bucks in Poland?

      Why would a president do this on the most inopportune day possible? Timed with a release of the IAE report and the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland?

      Answer – Because someone made him crawl.

      Look, the press doesn’t cover anything without the Whitehouse go ahead. We just had the organization that was going to run the census get caught red handed dispensing advice on child slavery. Was that front page news?

      You bet your life it wasn’t.

      So why was BO acquiescence on something that has little implications politically for either his base or his opponents given such fanfare?

      Answer – Because the Russians wanted those missiles out of there. They have been dead set against them from day one and Putin just made BO blink.

      Gates doesn’t have anything better in exchange to give the Poles. If he did the headline would have been:

      BO ups the anti – Poles get enhanced system – Russians take dim view

      You don’t do something like this, to give them something better, unless you have that better thing ready to go in exchange.

      So in short, the answer is not what will Gates put in in the missile shields place – the answer is what did BO get for his capitulation to the Russians?

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Remember back in December 2007 when the National Intelligence Estimate said Iran gave up their nuclear program?

    Boy, those were the salad days. Government could spend like mad and they did. People had jobs and really didn’t have to pay attention to Governor Ted and his Michael Jackson like fascination with technology.

    Really all we had to worry our heads over was what would be the next funny way to call George Bush stupid. Well, back in 2007, when the NIE came out, beating up on Bush for being stupid and trying to stop Iran was all the rage.

    Of course, with an oil rich country like Iran, developing nuclear power makes about as much sense as Eskimos developing ice machines. BUUuuuuuut it did represent a nice opportunity to call Bush stupid so all the people who are now calling the level of discourse uncivilized and violent piled on.

    Of course we had the usual calls for investigations into the administration by all the usual congressmen and senators.

    Huh – That’s really sort of amazing. What were the going to investigate? Was Bush criminally protective of the country? Were the going to convict anyone, force any resignations for overzealous national defense?

    I personally find that really amazing. I also find a lot of personal validation in this latest IAE report. I said from day one that the intelligence community and Bush hardly had a great relationship. Why else would they have sent Joe Wilson, a career partisan with no intelligence background in nuclear materials to investigate the Niger yellowcake case? It hardly made sense that Iran would be developing nuclear power because they felt they were running out of oil. And since their president was running around saying “hi, we are developing nuclear power to generate material to build bombs to wipe Israel off the face of the earth” at every opportunity it seemed a reasonable conclusion that the NIE report was put out more to embarrass Bush than anything else. Well, now it looks like that was the correct assessment.

    So now what do we do?

    Well, I guess we will have to sit around and wait for BO to figure it out.

    I mean it only took him eight months to figure out if you were making the claim that your health plan wouldnt cover illegals, then it was probably a bad idea to use a number that included them when talking about the number of uninsured.

    Who knows, maybe he will figure it out. I mean he just totally capitulated to the Russians on missile defense. At the same time through his active disengagement in the situation and antagonism towards Israel he has green lighted the Israelis to begin bombing runs at any time. Maybe the Russian capitulation was because BO couldn’t figure out anything else to do other than let the Israeli’s handle the situation and missile defense was the price of Russian non interference? If so, that’s pretty dangerous. Presidents who steer foreign policy on the basis of capitulation rather than action usually leave a mess in their wake.

    If “let the Israelis handle it” is the BO position on Iran he will be in for a rude awakening. True, the Israeli’s can mount a significant attack, but there is no guarantee it will be successful and frankly it would be overoptimistic to say the odds were with them.

    For now BO has boxed himself in a corner. He has discovered antagonizing Israel has not made the Arab Street love him. He has found that whatever strategic sense there was in the missile defense decision, it resulted in a tactical loss. The US was hardly seen as strengthened in the region, both because we went back on our word and it clearly appears as capitulation to the Russians. If BO got something for that, other than some money saved on a defense shield, it had better be a lot. The Russians staying out of the Israel/Iran conflict would be a real good start.

    Mr. Obama and others loved to point out, as a way of calling Bush stupid, that they could multi task. That they could manage the Iraq/Afghanistan thing while also spending the country into oblivion. Well, clearly that one didnt work out so well. Its about time to see some of that famous multi tasking in evidence Mr. President. We all know you can go on a shopping spree like nobodies business. We all know you can spend money on two things at the same time. Its now time to see if you can spend money and actually handle something a little more complicated that will take leadership and not a loose pen and a check book.

  • Reper

    Now wait a minute, you can’t expect Obama to hope for Israel to attack Iran. Obama has been outspoken on this on many occassions. No one wants anyone attacking anyone in the Middle East. Maybe what he is doing is making strides with the Russians to better hamper Iran. I think Obama wants to be known for bringing peace to teh region. It doesn’t soudn like he will get there with thsi approach.

  • v person

    Missiles based in Poland to maybe shoot down non-existent missiles from Iran carrying non-existent nuclear warheads that if ever fired would result in a rapid vaporization of Iran was always utter folly and a total waste of money.

    Given your constant whining about the deficit Rupert, you should be celebrating.

    • Gullyborg

      You foolishly assume many things. As a former data analyst for military intelligence, working in nuclear proliferation, let me clue you in on a few things. See if you can follow along:

      1) Iran is not the only threat.

      2) Russia is not our friend.

      3) Iran has missiles. “Non-existent” is simply wrong.

      4) Russia has LOTS of missiles.

      5) Russia has LOTS of warheads.

      6) Iran has an active nuclear program – even the surrendering French see this.

      7) Nuclear warheads are not the only threat.

      8) Conventional explosive warheads can and do cause a lot of death and damage. Ask the British about WWII. There is also the possibility of chemical warheads – easily made and hidden from intelligence sources. There is also the biowarfare threat. A couple of grad students in a school bio-lab have all the skills and equipment necessary to produce a functional threat using ebola, cholera, or plague – and the Russians have smallpox samples in cold storage.

      9) A nuclear attack against the west may result in nuclear annihilation of the aggressor – but other nations do not necessarily believe this. I don’t necessarily believe it, either. Seeing the U.S. back down sends a message. Withdrawing from Iraq or Afghanistan will send a message. Radical leaders like those in Iran or North Korea – or like Vladimir Putin, who still controls the Russians – may be right to think America lacks the political will to retaliate with sufficient force. Do you think Barack Obama would nuke Iran?

      10) A missile shield is purely defensive. Any objection to it is an implication that the objecting nation would be harmed by the defensive system. You are only harmed by defense if it stops your offense. Logically, any nation that encourages the U.S. to halt a missile shield does so because in its own interest. That interest can only be based on a belief that said nation needs the ability to launch missiles.

      Hopefully, these 10 points will lead you to the logical conclusion that the world is a dangerous place, a missile defense makes America and our allies safer, and objections to such a defense should be a clear and present danger. If you do not see this, you are either a fool or an enemy.

      • Gullyborg

        *sigh*

        Can someone at the site please turn off the stupid emoticons? They serve no purpose in a forum for intelligent debate. We aren’t 12 year olds texting our BFFs.

        This comment can be deleted when the problem is fixed.

        Thanks!

      • v person

        1) Iran is not the only threat.

        I did not say it was. But North Korea also lacks functional long range missiles that can carry warheads. And North Korea would also be vaporized if it dared to launch a warhead at anyone of note.

        2) Russia is not our friend

        Maybe not. But when they were actually our enemy for 30 years and they had 20,000 or so warheads pointed our way, they never did launch an attack. Why not? See #1.

        3) Iran has missiles. “Non-existent” is simply wrong.

        They do not have long range missiles capable of flying over Europe. They have short to medium range missiles, which is why the Joint Chiefs recommended and Obama agreed, to deploy ship based anti-missiles closer to the action.

        4&5) Russia has LOTS of missiles (and warheads).
        See #2. They have had them for many decades. they will never launch them, and if they did the numbers would have overwhelmed the proposed $5 billion system in a few seconds. As a former data analyst, you should know this.

        6) Iran has an active nuclear program – even the surrendering French see this.

        I don’t doubt it. But what good would a non-functional defense be against non existent missiles carrying not yet existent warheads? Or do you just like to spend my money on useless projects?

        7) Nuclear warheads are not the only threat.

        Uh oh. Now you have wandered off into conflating much less threatening weapons with nuclear ones. The next thing you know we will be invading Iran based on what they might someday do with what they might someday have. Hopefully enough of us have learned the hard lesson.

        “A couple of grad students in a school bio-lab have all the skills and equipment necessary to produce a functional threat using ebola, cholera, or plague – and the Russians have smallpox samples in cold storage.”

        And you think they will deliver these via long range missiles aimed over Poland? Or would they just rent lab space in Paris and do the whole job there in a basement?

        “Hopefully, these 10 points will lead you to the logical conclusion that the world is a dangerous place, a missile defense makes America and our allies safer, and objections to such a defense should be a clear and present danger. If you do not see this, you are either a fool or an enemy.”

        Sorry Gully. There is a 3rd option. Your 10 points add up to bupkess, and I and the Joint Chiefs are neither fools not your enemy, but simply disagree with your conclusions and think defense funds are better spent on actual threats, not make-believe ones.

        • Gullyborg

          Well, since your response basically amounts to “we weren’t shot at by Russia in the Cold War so we don’t need to worry about it now,” I guess you are correct. We don’t need a military to respond to any threat because no military force has been used against us since Pearl Harbor.

          We’ll just go ahead and disband everything now.

          Russia won’t attack us. We can pull all our military forces out of Europe. Check.

          Iran and North Korea can’t attack us. We can just ignore them completely. Check.

          Chemical and biological weapons aren’t that dangerous. Nothing to see here. Check.

          Oh, and if a defensive system isn’t 100% fool proof today, there is no point using it, no point trying to improve it for the future, and no point even considering it at all. Like bullet-proof vests for police. Or condoms. All defense is useless. Hell, we should just preemptively surrender – fewer risk of casualties that way. Check.

          I hope the sand is as least nice and cool. Wouldn’t want your head to heat up.

        • Anonymous

          You are an imbecile.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Reper

    I’m not saying BO wants Israel to attack Iran. I am saying he has green lighted it by default.

    Talking nice nice with people who have sworn to develop a bomb, now are clearly in the process of doing so, and have sworn to use it doesn’t work to well.

    Most of us already knew that, BO just learned it.

    He has simply provided no other alternative to Israel other than to attack. That doesn’t mean he endorses it, he just simply has left no other options.

    Dean

    If you think this was about a missile defense system, you really are out to lunch.

    Well, if nothing else, now we have yet another thing you are a total partisan on.

    Bush stupid, Bush Bad for offending Europe

    BO smart, BO good for offending Europe

    As if any of us needed another stick to beat the Dean piñata with, but I guess there ya go!

    >Given your constant whining about the deficit Rupert, you should be celebrating.

    Pointing out hypocrisy on your part and concern over what used to concern you but now that we have a Democrat doing the spending apparently doesn’t is hardly whining.

    I have a pretty good idea it makes you whine a lot though.

    Thems the breaks kid.

    • v person

      I’m against spending $5 billion for anti-missile missiles that don’t work to shoot down missiles that don’t exist to carry warheads that don’t exist that even if they did would never be launched by a nation that cares anything about its own survival.

      How you translate that into partisanship or hypocrisy is beyond me. And how you can call yourself a conservative and want to spend this money is also beyond me. But have fun with your imaginary pinata.

      • Steve Plunk

        The Iranians possess the Shahab 3/3B missile with an range of 2100K or 1300 miles. That range is extremely close to the southern borders of Poland and the Czech Republic. They also have the FAJR rocket with MIRV capability. All it will take is a slight range improvement and those non-existent missiles you speak of exist.

        The thing about conservatives you are missing is our profound loyalty. Both of those countries have suffered and fought with us. Both a worthy of our support. Both are free market democracies setting examples for the world.

        • v person

          Gully writes: “We’ll just go ahead and disband everything now.”

          Gee Gully. I agree with the Joint Chiefs on their proposal, and you stretch that into a surrender?

          Russia is not going to attack anyone other than their own restive minorities and maybe Georgia. What…you really think they are going to mass tanks on the Polish border? Lob nuclear missiles? You are delusional. And anyway, the anti-missiles we would have deployed would have been useless against either scenario. A waste of money. Zero defense value.

          It is you my friend, who has you head in the sand. Yes threats exist. No we can’t defend against every one of them because we don’t have unlimited resources. We need to choose. End of story.

          Steve: “The thing about conservatives you are missing is our profound loyalty”

          Profound loyalty? Yes I must have missed that what with the tea party/birther whack jobs claiming their president is an illegal alien Muslim terrorist communist that they are threatening to assassinate if he dares to provide them with better health care options unless they secede from the union first (a better option in my book). Loyalty my foot. It is conditional at best.

          OK….that rant aside. Why on Earth would Iran attack Poland or the Czech Republic with a nuclear armed missile assuming they eventually may have one? What do they have against these rather harmless and quite distant nations? Isn’t it cheaper and more effective to use our retaliatory umbrella over our NATO allies, so that if Iran ever did such a foolhardy thing they would be vaporized, Mullahs and all?

          Why Steve, is it necessary to make up threats and weapons that don’t exist and then spend gazillions defending against them? Why not focus on plausible threats? And isn’t that what the Joint Chiefs and Obama are proposing? They did not say Iran is harmless. They did not disarm the nation. They said for 1/2 the money we could have a more effective defense based closer to Iran. What about that is wrong? What about Gates and the Joint Chiefs do “conservatives” doubt? Their loyalty?

          • Gullyborg

            You keep referring to the Joint Chiefs. But you fail to understand what the Joint Chiefs really are and what they really recommend.

            The Joint Chiefs serve as the discretion of the President. They don’t stray too far from his agenda without being replaced.

            The Joint Chiefs recommend keeping naval vessels with missile defense capability in the region in place of funding a missile defense shield. This does not mean they oppose the shield. It means that, given the President is going to scrap the shield anyway, they support at least maintaining some defense.

            These are very important things you fail to perceive.

            Then there is the Russia issue. The more you talk, the more you sound like a KGB propaganda minister. “Oh, Russia won’t attack anybody.” Funny, Russia sure has an awful lot of missile still pointed at Western Europe. And funny, Poland still seems to express concern.

            But you are right. Russia is just a great big misunderstood peacemaker that has never forcibly invaded another country without provocation or enslaved hundreds of millions of people. That’s crazy talk.

            I guess you have sure shown me. I’ll just stop trying to convince you of the need to defend Amerika. Comrade V assures us all fear is overblown. Now be sure pick up Isvetia for daily Pravda.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >I’m against spending $5 billion for anti-missile missiles that don’t work to shoot down missiles that don’t exist to carry warheads that don’t exist that even if they did would never be launched by a nation that cares anything about its own survival.

        Hmm, well, the Poles sure seem to think the anti missile system works. The Russians sure seem to think they work.

        Yet a guy who didn’t know BO was a liberal is the guy we should trust? No thanks.

        By the way, you might want to check into the fact that Iran has repeatedly promised to launch at Israel as soon as possible. I realize someone who was unaware that BO was a liberal might not know this fact, but just thought Id let you know.

        >How you translate that into partisanship or hypocrisy is beyond me.

        Where in the hell did I say that was partisan.

        I never said it was partisan.

        I said that BO has offended a substantial part of Europe over this.

        When Bush supposedly offended Europe it was bad.

        Now that BO is offending Europe its good.

        Blind Dean partisanship at its best!

        Also another great example of Dean not reading before responding.

        >And how you can call yourself a conservative and want to spend this money is also beyond me.

        Once again, get it through your head, conservatives are not against all government spending. Im not even sure I am for the missile defense. I was saying it was an incredible show of weakness on BO’s part, as well as offending Europe, sure hope he got something in return.

        >But have fun with your imaginary pinata.

        I always do Dean, pointing out your errors is entertaining. Although I will say pointing out your sillyness of responding before reading is getting a little old.

        • v person

          I see someone removed my post Rupert. Lucky for you.

          • Anonymous

            what post? or did you you just forget to hit “submit comment” before going to a different page.

            I have NEVER seen censorship at this site. All sorts of rude and stupid comments are left up. If you have something insightful to say, say it again.

          • v person

            Of late, a number of my posts have been removed. Not by Catalyst, but by some hacker who objects to my oopinions.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, because skilled hackers have nothing better to do than target you personally of all the idiot left wing trolls and your posts on a 3rd rate blog with little traffic. Yeah, that is a brilliant use of resources by the vast right wing conspiracy. I’m surpised the black helicopters filled with jackboot thugs haven’t kicked in your door and stepped on your dog.

          • John in Oregon

            Anonymous, keep in mind that even paranoids may have enemas!

      • Dave Porter

        I’m with you v person. I don’t think the Poland/Czech anti-missile system ever made any sense. The primary objective of Gates and Obama is to maximize every defense dollar’s utility for national defense, so adjustments are made. Part of that adjustment is shifting from some big items not related to the Afghan/Pakistan/Iraq wars to resources for those conflicts. While I not yet onboard with going bigger in Afghanistan, I see this a part of that shift.

        When we want to get serious about Russia (and some of our other enemies) we will pass a substantial, revenue-neutral gas tax.

  • Malcolm Grundig

    Proof once again that this guy is an empty suit.

  • John in Oregon

    VPER, you miss the point. > *Why on Earth would Iran attack Poland or the Czech Republic with a nuclear armed missile assuming they eventually may have one? What do they have against these rather harmless and quite distant nations? Isn’t it cheaper and more effective to use our retaliatory umbrella over our NATO allies, so that if Iran ever did such a foolhardy thing they would be vaporized, Mullahs and all?*

    Actually multiple different points. That’s no fault of your own given the poor media coverage.

    First the purpose of the missile shield system installation in Poland and Czech Republic area is not to protect Poland or the Czechs as targets. The major assets provided by the facility are long range tracking and ballistic phase intercept. That is tracking and taking out missiles passing over not targeted on the area. Over the area is the path to the USA. Got that?

    Yes its easier to take out an ICBM in the ascent phase. Not only with interceptor vehicles but the USAF airborne laser, (ABL), designated YAL-1A. But ascent phase has some problems. Mostly political. The decision to intercept has to be made with out knowing the actual planned trajectory of the missile. And the decision has to be made in a 60 to 90 second window and no warning. Is that gonna happen?

    You place a lot of faith in the fear of the Mullahs being vaporized. That’s a lot of faith placed in Amadinizad and those like him who said openly they were ready to sacrifice Tehran and all of Iran to bring the second coming. Sorry but that just isnt a sound strategy.

    Gullyborg is absolutely right in his analyses which dealt a lot with physical assets. There is also a political aspect that is every bit as powerful which Gullyborg hinted at.

    The Pols and Czechs went out on a limb to approve the installation. The US military physical assets represented a physical barrier to future Russian voyeurism. To overrun Poland or the Czech republic would be a direct challenge to the US military facilities.

    The fact that the administration chose to announce the sell out on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland was not lost on the Polish, the Czechs or the Russians.

    International relations is a complex game. With this issue we face two opponents, Russia and Iran. It’s not a linear game like checkers, and more complex even than chess. Its full blown poker, bluff and diplomacy playing the cards dealt. Kenny Rogers said it, in poker you have to know when to holdem and when to foldem.

    In the June Iranian elections the administration was dealt an Ace high flush. Hillary and Foggy Bottom waving their arms and mouthing the words SHUT UP as Obama folds the hand.

    The administration folds the missile shield hand. What did we get in return? Is it just that he wants to be the good guy that disarms first? If so then Thomas Jefferson would remind Obama that “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”

    Yet on Qods Day, Friday last, the administration received a second gift in the form of a Queen high flush. On Qods Day at the end of Ramadan the supreme leaders loudspeaker whips the crowds into a frenzy of Death to Israel, Death to America. This year —

    *Loudspeaker:* Death to Israel
    *Crowd:* Long live Montazeri! Long live Sanei!” [both references to the opposition clerics]

    *Loudspeaker:* Death to America
    *Crowd:* Mousavi! Mousavi! Karroubi! Karroubi! Khatami! Khatami

    *Loudspeaker:* Death to Israel
    *Crowd:* Either Iran, or in Gaza, enough with the killing of people

    *Loudspeaker:* Death to America
    *Crowd:* Death to Russia

    Would someone please inform the administration the name of the game is NOT Texas foldem.

    • v person

      “Over the area is the path to the USA. Got that?”

      So the Poles are upset that we are not defending ourselves by basing useless anti-missiles on their soil? Now I am even more confused.

      “You place a lot of faith in the fear of the Mullahs being vaporized. That’s a lot of faith placed in Amadinizad and those like him who said openly they were ready to sacrifice Tehran and all of Iran to bring the second coming.”

      Sure. And we have our own fanatics here who believe and say the same thing. It doesn’t mean they actually mean what they say. No nation has ever committed suicide just to make a point.

      “To overrun Poland or the Czech republic would be a direct challenge to the US military facilities. ”

      Both nations are already in NATO. We are pledged to defend both. We don’t need $5 billion in useless hardware as a cause to defend them. forward post with a few dozen GIs would accomplish the same thing at far less cost. Russia is not stupid either, and they are not attacking Poland anytime soon.

      “Is it just that he wants to be the good guy that disarms first?”

      He did not “disarm.” We are plenty enough armed. We spend 100 times what the Russians do on arms. He chose to not deploy an expensive, non functional defense system. Again, conservatives are demonstrating their lack of fiscal conservatism by the day. You are against health care options that save money. You are against student loan options that save money. And you are against scarapping useless weapon systems. But then you stage tea parties to whine about the deficit. Unbelievable. This is exactly the sort of thinking that led to our defecits starting with Reagan. Conservatives need to learn how to budget.

      Death to America. they have been shouting that for 3 decades. And you know what? The other day tens of thousands of Iranians instead shouted “death to russia” just to P-off the mullahs.

      Within 10 years Iran will be our friend if we just back off a bit and give them enough rope to hang the Mullahs. They are not firing ballistic missiles they don’t have to carry nuclear war heads they don’t have in the meantime. Relax, and lets spend less of our diminishing money on this idiocy.

      • Anonymous

        “we have our own fanatics here who believe and say the same thing. It doesn’t mean they actually mean what they say”

        The difference is, here those people are called idiot Bible thumping rednecks, whereas in Iran they are called “Mr President.”

        “Within 10 years Iran will be our friend ”

        I thought they were supposed to be our friend the day we elected Obama and had no more evil Bush to blame things on. This sort of lunacy is exactly why people like you should not be allowed to make these decisions. They will NEVER be our friend. Not if we play nice. Not if we disarm. Not if we trade.

        THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL. THEY WANT TO DRIVE THE JEWS INTO THE SEA. THEY WANT THE WORLD TO BE ISLAM. THEY WANT AMERICA DESTROYED.

        These are not the beliefs of people who just don’t get the respect they deserve. These are the beliefs of people who, at the fundamental core of their being, want you dead. DEAD. These are people who videotape themselves beheading people with blunt knives for the crime of BEING AMERICAN.

        You can not reason with them.

        You can not bargain with them.

        They will give you no pity.

        THEY WANT TO KILL YOU.

        And you are a complete idiot if you think otherwise.

  • John in Oregon

    > *Death to America. they have been shouting that for 3 decades. And you know what? The other day tens of thousands of Iranians instead shouted “death to russia” just to P-off the mullahs.*

    If I should in a weak moment falter, remind me to never have you negotiate for me on my behalf.

    Is that really what you think? That the people of Iran turned out in the streets just to PO the mullahs? Are you gonna call them teabagers next?

    Last June in Iran was a gift. A gift only redeemable by giving another gift.

    For seven years George Bush wanted and worked for what happened in Iran this last June. Instead Obama was given and squandered that gift. Its debatable that Bush could have done better so lets look at another president given the same kind of opportunity.

    I will let someone who lived that time speak. Lech Walesa:

    *”* When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can’t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.

    Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.

    I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain … Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.

    Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didn’t fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.

    I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, “High Noon.” Under the headline “At High Noon” runs the red Solidarity banner and the date–June 4, 1989–of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the “Wild” West, especially the U.S.

    But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together. *”*

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005204

    > *Within 10 years Iran will be our friend if we just back off a bit and give them enough rope to hang the Mullahs.*

    Well, how did supporting the Mullahs work out for Jimmy Carter? Do you think it will work better for Obama?

  • John in Oregon

    > *He did not “disarm.”*

    Oh really? Then explain this.

    The Guardian, UK … *Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal*

    Rick Moran … *Get ready for massive unilateral disarmament*

    According to the Guardian article Obamas goal is to cut the 2,100 US warheads to a 28 to 1 Russian advantage.

    *”Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”* Thomas Jefferson

    • v person

      Your examples are flawed. Obama has not “disarmed.” Period. canceling a not yet deployed and not operational system is not disarming. Stating a goal on how many nukes to kep is not disarming. Deal with reality John. No need to make things up.

    • John in Oregon

      > *Deal with reality John. No need to make things up.*

      Wow. I didn’t know. I thought an order to the Pentagon to produce a nuclear posture change from 3 to 2 Russian superiority to 28 to 1 Russian superiority was like, you know, an actual order. Who knew it was just a suggestion.

  • John in Oregon

    In my discussion I believe I may have inadvertently crated an unrealistic either / or image of the current conditions in Iran. In fact there are four possible outcomes.

    I spoke of Ronald Reagan’s support of Solidarity in Poland as am example of one possibility. The other was folding a royal flush on the present situation in Iran following the elections.

    When Reagan spoke in support of Solidarity he did so knowing full well of the possibility the freedom movement could fail. Reagan chose to support liberty and freedom and did so until his last days.

    Similarly this June last when the administration chose to back the present Iranian government the possibility existed then, as it does today, that the movement for liberty and freedom could yet triumph in Iran.

    If the people of Iran should prevail I am reminded of an observation of a man I have come very much to respect.

    *”In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”* Martin Luther King Jr
    *”Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”* Thomas Jefferson

    • v person

      “I spoke of Ronald Reagan’s support of Solidarity in Poland as am example of one possibility.”

      What did that support amount to beyond rhetoric? And How many years passed between that support and Poland’s freedom from communism? How many years did Solidarity have to endure persecution before they prevailed? How long was Lech Walesa under house arrest?

      That is where we are with Iran. We have the stirrings of an opposition, and it is going to take them years to overthrow the Mullahs. Rhetoric means nothing. Their persistance and ability to take punishment will matter. It is up to the Iranians, not us.

      “Similarly this June last when the administration chose to back the present Iranian government ”

      Back the Iranian government? I don’t think so. They don’t “back it.” They accept it as present reality, as Reagan did with the Soviets when he negotiated with them over arms control even while Solidarity was being surpressed.

      • Anonymous

        “What did that support amount to beyond rhetoric? And How many years passed between that support and Poland’s freedom from communism?”

        Seriously?

        Are you THIS stupid?

        You have the words of LECH WALESA HIMSELF describing Reagan’s support, and the complete fall of communism in Europe before Reagan’s VP successor leaves the White House, and you STILL have to ask questions like this?

        That’s it. Your argument priviliges are hearby revoked. There is no point in even trying to discuss events with you. Henceforth, we shall simply ignore anything you type and instead offer only a link to this comment in rebuttle.

  • Gullyborg

    so… any more bright thoughts?

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZiN2E5ZjVlZDQ0ZjZlODQ3NTJlZGI0M2E1MzNjYjI=

    no, no reason to worry. those non-existent warheads from that non-existent nuclear program that Iran didn’t just confess to can’t reach Europe with any non-existent missiles…

    nothing to see here…

  • Pingback: Ann Younts()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)