That's all I get from this article.

That pro-American leaders have popped up in France and Germany gets only an off-handed mention, when it is far more important than the anti-missile matter. The US is only one factor in elections there, but things have clearly been trending our way.

Yes, Russia's hacked off, but they're generally hacked off anyway, and not even mostly at us. Look at the games they've been playing with Europe's energy supply, which has nothing to do with Bush.

It's idiotic to pretend that a bit of diplomacy here or there could have made a big difference. Europe got all in a tizzy when Reagan put missiles there, too. His diplomacy was no better, Russia was upset, there were mass demonstrations. But it didn't end up damaging our relationships, and neither will this. That's because our relationship isn't a tactical matter, dependent on niceties. Instead, it is strategic to both parties, and will effortlessly withstand stuff like this. In a year or two, the increased security the missile defense provides will knit the alliance more tightly together than ever.

As is true everywhere else, the grumpiness is much more about Iraq than about missiles.

Your remarks might make some sense if there were indeed such a thing as "increased security the missile defense (provides)" but in fact missile defense systems are so totally hopeless at this stage of development that they provide almost none. Reagan's missile placement wasn't symbolic at all, because it was well known that a) the missiles would work, and b) they would augment a policy of deterrence that had proven itself effective against the Soviet Union for decades. Those in Europe who shared Reagan's view of the Soviet Union knew this, and could support it.

But a missile attack on the United States from Iran is at least a decade or more away. The Iranians do not have The Bomb and do not have ICBMs. If and when they do get an ICBM, how on Earth can we expect to shoot it down FROM EUROPE? The logical place to counter an ICBM is from THIS side of the ocean, where the window of warning is greater. Not that I want to be thought to hold a brief for the useless missile defense system now being built in Alaska to counter North Korea's threat, but at least it's where it ought to be (if it worked, which it doesn't).

You may not know all of this, but Europeans do, and wonder what the REAL agenda is here. And even those inclined to trust America must question it when its leaders want to do something whose benefits to Europe are so UN-evident.

the_slasher14:

Your remarks might make some sense if there were indeed such a thing as "increased security the missile defense (provides)" but in fact missile defense systems are so totally hopeless at this stage of development that they provide almost none.

The point is to increase the erstwhile attacker's uncertainty, not to provide a foolproof answer. And once the defense system is in, it can improve incrementally as our stuff gradually solidifies.

the_slasher14:

Reagan's missile placement wasn't symbolic

That didn't stop the protests and screams in the press.

the_slasher14:

But a missile attack on the United States from Iran is at least a decade or more away.

This system isn't designed to stop ICBMs. It's good for the intermediate range stuff that Iran will have much sooner.

the_slasher14:

The logical place to counter an ICBM is from THIS side of the ocean, where the window of warning is greater.

Actually, it's more about catching them during boost phase while they're stilling moving slowly. That's why we want to be close.

the_slasher14:

You may not know all of this, but Europeans do, and wonder what the REAL agenda is here.

The real reason? And what might that be? Russia surely knows that:

• we're not targeting them
• the system can't handle the volume and sophistication of their stuff if we did

the_slasher14:

And even those inclined to trust America must question it when its leaders want to do something whose benefits to Europe are so UN-evident.

They are not unevident to the governments involved!

We have vast differences. To address just two:

The protests against Reagan's placement of missiles in Europe were, to a significant extent, the product of pro-Soviet political parties and by pacifists in the West. The governments involved, after giving them as much lip service as their particular political scenery required, ignored them because they took the missiles to be part of America's defense against the Soviet armies, which European governments saw as a serious threat.

Few in the EU today regard Iran this way now and, as for Russia, they regard it as a very necessary source of energy and worry about anything which threatens that. It is the view of many European LEADERS -- not the half-assed fellow travelers who opposed Reagan -- that the Bush Administration shares much of the blame for Iran's present militance by having blown it in 2002, when Iran was more than willing to cooperate (it actually WAS cooperating in attacking Al Queda) with the United States against terrorism if granted diplomatic recognition. Nobody wants to piss the United States off with a direct "take your hardware home and shove it," but nobody in Europe will lose any sleep if Bush is forced to back down by the Polish and/or Czech parliaments.

As for your argument that we should now build a missile defense system that can work only through blind luck -- if even that -- with the intention of fixing it afterwards, I find that a strange set of priorities. Spend billions of dollars -- at a time when the nation is deep in deficit and facing far worse deficits in the future -- on something that is necessary PRIMARILY because the Bushies have been unwilling to adopt diplomatic measures that worked -- for better or worse -- in the past. Spend it not on something that fixes the problem, but on something that MIGHT fix it someday although we have no idea when that would be.

Rational people don't do things like this, Larry, and you know it. This is another example of "starve the beast." Jack up the deficit as far as possible -- and after all the money ends up mainly in the hands of aerospace corporations -- and then we can shoot down Medicare and Social Security because "there isn't any money left."

Tell you what: when I see you demand that Bush repeal some of his tax cuts to pay for missile defense, then I'll take you seriously.

Reagans Pershing deployment in Germany cost the SPD (Helmut Schmidt & Co) their jobs as a West German Gov't , drove the Greens (@6%) into the Bundestag (from which posts they later, under Schöder and Fischer came into the ruling Gov't) into power(s) and forever poisoned the US-German lovefest.

Now, for example when both countries are run by right wingers-they are as far apart as ever. The Bush Doctrine is really Reaganll and Reagan was really Nero version 100,001.

When JFK famously talked down Kruschev on his dinky ss-4's on Cuban soil he also had to redirest his Titans both in Omaha and in Turkey. Balance, couterbalance,counter-counterb­alance- all a myth rewritten every generation by mediapolems. Nobody likes to look as if they backed down.

The crazy Kaczinsky twins who run Poland have no support from their people on this new Arms Race- the Czechs have their domestic problems, too over the BushCheney dream shield. These antagonisms will undoubtedly further marginalize our NeoBabylon.

Soon it will be The US and Israel against everybody else. The new Iron Curtain will be a tent.