Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011

Goodbye, Theoretical Missile Shield

It’s totally horrible that President Obama scrapped a useless initiative in favor of a sane, realistic one.

Seriously I don’t see any evidence that these types of devices work in any real world capacity, nor do I see the point of spending a whole lot of cash on them to make certain hawks feel better about it.

President Obama is in his job largely due to his stated policies of not being George W. Bush on foreign policy and national security.

Thank God.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

56 Responses to “Goodbye, Theoretical Missile Shield”

  1. jr says:

    trillions in defense contractor corporate welfare is “limited government” to the connies

  2. Quaker in a Basement says:

    From today’s NYT:

    Anticipating the criticism, Mr. Obama said the decision was based on the unanimous recommendation of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

  3. Apparently, all those ignoramuses in Eastern Europe are too stupid to realize it doesn’t work, as well.

    And Czar Vladimir I wasn’t furious about their being placed there, because they don’t work, either.

    Whoops!

    Apparently, Pres Obama knows as much about missiles as he does about medicine.

  4. And Robert Gates, he clearly knows nothing right? We could use a man like Donald Rumsfeld again….

  5. Impaler says:

    Oliver, so was Gates right when he supported or right when agreed to support the mobil (pea shooter) option. He supported both. But this is not a suprise to anyone, get into office gut the military, Carter, Clinton, now Obama, not a suprise at all.

  6. Burn says:

    OMG this is like total proof that like Obama the Muslim Socialist Terrorist Appeaser hates all our friends and allies in Europe, oh noez, like this means like Russian tanks will be rolling across Poland anyday now!

    Oh noez, help me John Bolton! Help me Bill Kristol! Help me Joe Liberman!

  7. He supported both
    He supports a modification of the policy. You know, making it more sane. Shocker.

    Yes, Dems support sane spending for the military. As opposed to treating them like cannon fodder like the last administration.

  8. Impaler says:

    Oliver if sane = cuts here then ok, I do take offense to the last statement, but cool its your blog. One question though, can you privide me a link on how to do Italics and such in the blog, I am new to this, I went to site admin, but could not find the info. Thanks.

  9. Quaker in a Basement says:

    You’re just helpless aren’t you?

  10. Here, Impaler:

    http://www.transaction.net/web/tutor/cmdtable.html

    as a poster, only a few will work for you

  11. Impaler says:

    ok, thanks Frank I didn’t know wordpress used html for this most helpful, and to you too as well Quaker.

  12. canadian bacon says:

    The road to the military industrial complex is no longer paved in gold.

  13. Duros62 says:

    I do take offense to the last statement,

    What, the cannon fodder statement? Still pissed at the Marines because they wouldn’t take you, sociopath?

  14. liberalrob says:

    Apparently, all those ignoramuses in Eastern Europe are too stupid to realize it doesn’t work, as well.

    They don’t care about the non-functional “missile shield,” they just want the American troops (and the accompanying military spending) that would go with it. In other words, they want to outsource their military deterrent to us and have us pay for it. Brilliant!

  15. Wilbur says:

    Wingnut fiscal sanity: millions for useless ineffectual weapons systems, not a penny for health care.

  16. Impaler says:

    Not a penny for health care, well except Medicare and Medicaid and the VA, except for that not your right.

  17. Impaler says:

    *except for that, your right.

  18. Wilbur says:

    except Medicare and Medicaid and the VA

    You goddamn socialist!

  19. SaveFarris says:

    Yes, better to spend the money on theoretical, non-functional “green technology”.

    This is going to really help our push to get NATO more involved in Afghanistan.

  20. Indeed says:

    Yes, better to spend the money on theoretical, non-functional “green technology”.

    How about practical, functional “green technology”? Sounds good to me!

  21. Here’s a point to ponder, as the trees in my neighborhood start turning colors a month early: If gasoline were to cost $1.00 a gallon, the Alternative Energy meme would disappear.

  22. abanterer says:

    It IS a point of pondering. Not that it requires much pondering, since it’s very unlikely that gas will ever cost that much in the near future. barring the government placing some sort of price cap of some sort. Yeah, I thought it was funny too.

    However, this is a smart move. these missile programs have had decades of work pout into them, and simply haven’t shown the promise. The technical gaps required to make it work on a regular basis are immense and any enemy capable of lobbing a missile at us can lob 3 dummies along with, and overload the system.

  23. ‘Apparently, all those ignoramuses in Eastern Europe are too stupid to realize it doesn’t work, as well. ‘

    This wouldn’t be some form of the incredibly realistic Star Wars missile defense system that Ronnie Raygun creamed his pants about over 20 years ago, despite every single test of the system’s components being a complete and utter failure, would it?

    Because I thought that joke was played out years ago.

  24. ‘get into office gut the military,’

    Scrapping wasteful, fantasy pipe dream programs isn’t gutting the military.

    Sending tens of thousands of soldiers into a manufactured war zone with no clear mission and no sensible direction for years at a cost of trillions of dollars is gutting the military.

    Remind us which President chose to do that again?

  25. ‘Oliver if sane = cuts here then ok, I do take offense to the last statement, but cool its your blog. ‘

    How fucking generous of you.

  26. Jaim says:

    The military lies about a lot of things, but they absolutely love to lie about missile defense. The only successes they’ve had have come when the interceptor missile knew exactly how high, how fast, and in what direction the target missile was going. Even then they don’t work very well.

    And a rogue state launching a missile is not going to tell us when, how high, how fast, etc.

    So yeah. Obama doing good things as president, acting like an adult. It’s kind of hard to get used to after eight years of Bush. And it drives little cowards like Frank crazy.

  27. ‘This is going to really help our push to get NATO more involved in Afghanistan.’

    NOTHING is going to get the US more NATO involvement; while Dumbya was busy destroying Iraq, who do you think was doing the dirty work in Afghanistan while wondering what the Hell the US was doing starting a war they didn’t care about for 7 years? Now that NATO countries have had enough, the US Right wing is screaming about them not pulling their weight?

    Remember when Bush said the US would fight terrorism alone if necessary? He made damn sure of it, didn’t he?

  28. ‘If gasoline were to cost $1.00 a gallon, the Alternative Energy meme would disappear.’

    Only to short sighted individuals and corporations who are content to poison the Earth and destroy our future because they just can’t give up their gas guzzling SUVs.

    Not everyone is more concerned about making a quick buck at the expense of tomorrow’s oxygen.

  29. Amused Observer says:

    “Seriously I don’t see any evidence that these types of devices work in any real world capacity”

    I find it hard to believe Ollie has the backround to make his opinion worth much. I think he is just having a kneejerk reaction to an Obama moment. I have seen little evidence that Obama has any sort of understanding of matters scientific.

  30. Jaim says:

    Right. So Obama shouldn’t listen to his SecDef or the Joint Chiefs.

    A black president just can’t do anything right can he, Amused Douchenozzle?

  31. Indeed says:

    I have seen little evidence that Obama has any sort of understanding of matters scientific.

    So sayeth Ignatius J. Reilly.

  32. Right. So [Pres] Obama shouldn’t listen to his SecDef or the Joint Chiefs.
    You lefties didn’t want to hear what they had to say when Pres Bush was President.

    There has to be a better word than hypocrisy for that kind of disgraceful lack of principle and integrity.

    Wait! I’ve got it!

    It’s a total lack of principle and integrity.

  33. Amused Observer says:

    “It’s a total lack of principle and integrity” combined with an unabashed desire to extort money from the public purse.

  34. Amused Observer says:

    Obama continues his foriegn policy of kissing ass with our enemies and kicking ass of our allies. Selling out Poland to curry favor with Russia, dissing Honduras and sucking up to Chavez. A continuation of the same attitude that sent Churchill’s bust back to England and gifted the prime minister with a marked down special from Walmart. No class, no guts, no fidelity, no honor.

  35. Quaker in a Basement says:

    You lefties didn’t want to hear what they had to say when Pres Bush was President.

    And you acted as if their every word was divine revelation.

  36. Actually, I did no such thing. You see, I never voted for a NotGore, or a NotKerry, the way for you voted for a NotBush.

    In 2012, all those people that proved they weren’t racists by voting for The One, will vote for NoBama.

  37. Duros62 says:

    Yes, better to spend the money on theoretical, non-functional “green technology”.

    Because what are we without our dependence on foreign oil, anyway?

  38. Duros62 says:

    You lefties didn’t want to hear what they had to say when Pres Bush was President.

    That’s because he had a psychopath as Sec Def, for god sake! No one knew what they were doing!

  39. Parthenon says:

    I’ll translate for those of you who might not speak conservative:

    Real world: President probably AVERTS an attack on Poland by scrapping a system that probably would have done little, apart from transfer a pile of taxpayer money to defense contractors.

    Conservative: President shows weakness and INVITES attack on Poland. Also, is a big wuss,loves commies.

  40. Parthenon says:

    It’s moments like this that the fantasy of President Reagan singlehandedly bringing ruin upon the Soviet Union is at its most dangerous.

  41. liberalrob says:

    Why would Russia want to attack Poland anyway, what possible benefit could result for Russia?

    Wars of global conquest based on political ideology are passe’. Religious fundamentalism is the big threat to peace these days.

  42. liberalrob says:

    Only fools and madmen want to conquer the world.

  43. Not a Lizard from Alpha Centauri, Really says:

    Only fools and madmen want to conquer the world.

    You can’t have everything. Where would you keep it? –S. Wright

  44. Back up the truck, Rob. If we wanted to build an anti-missile defense system (I repeat – an anti – missile defense system), what would Russia be angered about?

    Choose one:
    1) Because anti – missile defense systems are prohibited by the Russian Orthodox Church?
    2) Because they are offended that we still think they are aggressors, and their feelings are hurt?
    3) Because the Russians plan on intimidating the Poles with missiles as a means of political /economic extortion?

  45. Duros62 says:

    In 2012, all those people that proved they weren’t racists by voting for The One, will vote for NoBama.

    Another prognostication, Frank? What’s your record again?

  46. Duros62 says:

    “It’s a total lack of principle and integrity” combined with an unabashed desire to extort money from the public purse.

    You shouldn’t talk about Bush and Rummy that way.

  47. Duros62 says:

    Why would Russia want to attack Poland anyway, what possible benefit could result for Russia?

    Especially when Poland is upwind.

  48. Amused Observer says:

    This has been a quite informative thread. It really showcases the ignorance of the left. I guess the big questions are ignorance or stupidity, nature or nurture?

  49. Why would Russia want to attack Poland anyway, what possible benefit could result for Russia?

    Oh, I don’t know, Duros, maybe because Poland was their satellite for about 40 years, until the team of Walesca , Thatcher, Reagan and Pope John Paul II took it, and the rest of the U S S R, away from them…

    But, of course, we can tell Putin is the kind of guy who forgives and forgets.

  50. abanterer says:

    How would making Poland a nuclear desert make it a desirable satellite for Russia? Wouldn’t you try to use ground forces for that instead?

  51. all I can say, Duros and abanterer, is if you were running World War II , we’d all be speaking German and Japanese.

    Let’s say you’re Poland, and you want to make a deal with, say, Bermuda. Let’s say, Russia no likee. They move a few thousand tanks to your border.

    What do you do?

    Answer: Nothing. You had a friend in the USA who would kick their ass, or at least prevent them from kicking your ass.

    Now you have a wuss who backs down from Putin.

    Imagine if FDR had said, “If we go to war with Japan and Germany, our Armies will be stretched out on two fronts. We’ll lose a lot of American lives! Let them have what they want, and they’ll go away”.

    In answer to your

  52. abanterer says:

    Dropping an unusable and expensive program that has difficulty with a single missile launch in optimal conditions and no chance against an actual strike is not ‘giving in to Putin”, Frank. This program has been over funded well beyond it’s capacity to deliver. It’s a classic area of ‘wasteful government spending’, and I’m sort of surprised that you’re for it.

    Let’s not make it into something that it isn’t – the US has a lot of tools in the box for diplomacy besides a rusty saber, let’s use ones that work for a change.

  53. Jody says:

    Oliver, don’t you understand that the money that goes into national defense spending comes out of a magical money hole, and has no effect on the rest of the budget?

    Further, don’t you see that it’s entirely necessary that we spend more on defense than the entire rest of the world combined, because shut up that’s why? Anything less is surrendering to terrorists!

    Or maybe we’re just giving too much voice to a mob of pants-pissing dumbshits who think China wants to invade us at the drop of a hat while totally ignoring the Russians on their border.

  54. calling all toasters says:

    The Frank plan:

    1) Russia sends nukes at Poland, in order to soften them up for invasion.
    2) We launch interceptors, which knock out 1 or 2 incoming missiles.
    3) Poland is annihilated.
    4) Russians march in, get radiation sickness, and die.
    5) Republicans call Obama weak.

    OR

    1) Russia threatens to nuke Poland.
    2) Poland says “go fuck yourselves,” knowing that a nuked Poland is worth nothing to Russia (they assume Russian leaders are smarter than Frank).
    3) Russia doesn’t launch nukes.
    4) Russia considers a conventional invasion
    5) Russia remembers Chechnya and Afghanistan, and says “fuck it.”
    6) Republicans call Obama weak.

    It’s win-win!

  55. calling all toasters: You have outdone yourself !

    That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in this blog, and I have been reading it for a long time.

    You know nothing about the history of Russia, and how it relates to Poland.

    You know nothing about the history of Poland , and how it relates to Russia and Germany.

    You nothing about International Relations, as the US relates to the rest of the world.

    You have exactly one thing right, whatever Pres Obama does, he will be perceived of as weak, because he is weak.

  56. Duros62 says:

    Oh, I don’t know, Duros, maybe because Poland was their satellite for about 40

    I didn’t say that first part, Frank. Don’t yell at me.