Thread: What do the Fools Say?

Rice Begs For Candidates to Support Missile Defense

PRAGUE -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued an impassioned plea to likely presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain
Tuesday to continue pushing for a missile defense shield in Europe.
Miss Rice made the remarks while signing an agreement with the Czech Republic to base a tracking radar here.

The secretary conceded that an effective missile shield system is yet to be fully developed, but she insisted that construction should begin soon nevertheless because the missile threat from Iran is not "imaginary."

Czech Republic's Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, left, and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, right, walk together after their meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, Tuesday, July 8, 2008. Rice arrived to Prague to sign a treaty to build part of a disputed missile defense radar system on Czech soil. (AP Photo/Bela Szandelszky)


"This missile defense agreement is significant as a building block, not just for the security of the United States and the Czech Republic, but also for the security of NATO and the security of the international community as a whole," Miss Rice said.

"Ballistic missile proliferation is not an imaginary threat," she added. "It's hard for me to believe that an American president is not going to want to have the capability to defend our territory, the territory of our allies -- whether they are in Europe or in the Middle East -- against that kind of missile threat."

Neither of the two presumptive presidential candidates has spoken at length about the Bush administration plan to put radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland.

Mr. McCain, however, is considered a supporter of missile defense in principle, saying it could protect the U.S. from blackmail by rogue states and also protect against potential threats from strategic competitors such as a resurgent Russia or China.

Mr. Obama has voiced doubts about the effectiveness and the cost of existing technology to shoot down incoming missiles.

"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space," Mr. Obama said last year.

Dumbshit. Space is already "weaponized" (use GPS lately, Mac?) and putting ground based radars in the Czech Republic is somewhat different than "space", right?

Hmmm?

Critics of the system say there is no proof it works, and the Iran threat is too distant.

These will be the same damn traitorous fools who have been stopping us from building nuclear power plants, drilling for oil, and building refineries for decades.

Now that we need them, we still won't have them for year and years and more years after that, because these same dumbfucks STILL oppose drilling, nuclear power, and refineries.

How much time do you think we'll have to build an ABM system after Iran launches it's missiles? Ten minutes, twenty? Hmmm....dumbfucks rule the world, apparently.

The time to prepare a defense is before you need it.

Grow up, you idiots.

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency estimates that Iran could develop a long-range missile capable of striking the United Sates by 2015.

Miss Rice's call on Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain to continue the Bush administration's pursuit of the European based system was a tacit acknowledgement that key decisions await the next administration.

A deal to put interceptor missiles in Poland has proven elusive, because Warsaw has not been satisfied with the U.S. commitment to modernizing Poland's air defenses, which would cost billions of dollars.

Even if an agreement with Poland to base 10 interceptors there were to be reached this year, construction of either the Czech or the Polish site would not begin until next year at the earliest. That would allow the next president to pull the plug on the project.

"We face with the Iranians, and so do our allies and friends, a growing missile threat that is getting ever longer and ever deeper, and where the Iranian appetite for nuclear technology ... is still unchecked," Miss Rice said Tuesday.

Hmmmm....tens of gigabucks sounds like a lot just to put some radars and shit down. Maybe we should just look to Lithuania for a spot and tell the Poles that freedom is fleeting for the foolish.

(We know all about that, look what's happened to our freedom under the Democrats and Republicans)

Poll:

Do you support a national anti-ballistic missile defense, or are you foolish?

I support doing what you need to do to make sure you don't get sucker punched.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Do you support a national anti-ballistic missile defense, or are you foolish?

Neither. I'm cheap. Pay for this overpriced pong technology with your own money. Let the private sector finance it with venture capitalism. I'm sure it will be built better, faster and cheaper that way.

Besides, if Iran launches a missile, it will be aimed at Washington DC. Maybe we should be selling them better navigation equipment so they don't miss.

I support investing defense into cyber warfare. China is already a go on this and it would be dangerous to us espeically since we've moved away from traditional technology in weapons systems to far more advanced systems. Even with ever-increasing uavs, and close in the future unmanned fighter jets, it would have high security network systems.

Then again I don't support the US missile system in Europe.

Hmmm....

so far, as expected.

The usual suspects don't believe other nations with nuclear bombs are a threat to us.

Will we be allowed to lynch them when the attack is finished, or will it be like hanging a deep-fried turkey?

A missile defense system won't protect the United States against a terrorist nuclear strike (i.e., a warhead detonated by a suicide bomber, or placed on a container ship and detonated in harbor, or placed on a train/plane/automobile/etc.), which seems to be what we are really worried about these days.

Also, if a country actually does want to launch a long-range missile successfully at the US ... well... the missile defense system's test record has hardly been sterling. Many of its successes have been "cooked," and even to the extent that it has a reasonable probability of defeating a lone incoming missile, it is not terribly hard to defeat -- decoys, chaff, and the simple expedient of launching more missiles. Once a country has one or a few nuclear missiles, making a few more and counting on probability to sneak one or more through the leaky-sieve defense is not that hard, and cheaper than the defense itself certainly.