http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/...ield/index.html.

I'm so glad the Democrats are friendly to the military and strong on National Defense.

How do you dismantle something that doesn't exist? What we are dismantling is a series of ill-conceived policies and presidential directives issued under George W. Bush without Congress' approval. Maybe now we can re-join the rest of the world by returning to the terms of the ABM Treaty, which was negotiated and signed by a far superior Republican president, Richard M. Nixon.

Or this could be seen as adapting to a changing world by replacing an expensive and obsolete system that was only suited for a Soviet era threat with one that is more significantly more flexible and critical for dealing with a wide variety of enemies in different regions. The fact that much of Europe was not happy with the old system should be a consideration too. Of course, the cost savings should make the fiscal hawks happy, too.

I guess it's all just a matter of perspective.

Oh, here you go. This fixes it all.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/mis...ield/index.html

Since President Bush proposed the other one, it can't be any good. Try this one. Based on revised intelligence.

So much for not being friendly to the military.

My thoughts exactly.

Patsies, one and all them JCS folks.

Of course they are going to support it, they like their jobs. Didn't you learn anything from Donald Rumsfeld?

The honcho of NATO proposed to join with Russia in a joint missile defense venture. I don't really see Iran and North Korea as posing much of a threat to Europe or Russia. Maybe some day. For now Iran seems preoccupied with destroying Israel. Eventually, as more and more of Allah's agents go nuclear, and other aberrants like North Korea acquire the ability to terrorize billions, the civilized portion of the world, if there is such a thing, may regret not working together on some kind of defense.

Of course, there's a lot of other (and perhaps more more practical) ways to deliver a nuke than on the tip of a missile. However, I can't see Israel allowing the Islamic nuclear threat to go too far. In fact, I'd say a pretty good war may be looming in the near future over that very situation. Given our current administration's kum-ba-ya style of foreign policy toward the Islamic world, I doubt we'll be of much benefit to Israel - or any other threatened nation for that matter.

...

Really?





That seems like a lot of "benefit" to me. I wonder if the 9-12 Project has a problem with giving billions of dollars to other countries, or just when we spend it on Americans.

Good point Idiot!

Now, just for kicks, check out the mechanics of how that money came to be appropriated to Israel and why it proceeded so smoothly through Congress. It's more a matter of the usual congressional pork than any official administration policy. You see, when it comes to pork - all bets are off as to policy philosophy.

See http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22938.htm

Here's a telling part of that article:


Like I said before - money talks louder than principle! Israel spends the $2.775 billion with American defense contractors in certain key congressional districts - so the porkers know that the money will actually help them get re-elected. So - it breezes through passage - no problemo. These bozos would support taxpayer funding of a drug cartel or the Mafia if would somehow help get them re-elected. [No - don't go off the deep end - it's that "hyperbole" again ]

..

I believe it, and think it does happen.

Finally something we can all agree on.