Pat Buchanan praised Obama’s reversal of the Bush policy on the missile shield as “gutsy” and “the right thing to do”, and had nothing but praise for how he’s handled Russia (unless he’s said something about Georgia that I missed).
Perhaps he had Georgia on his mind…
Pat Buchanan also praised Obama’s handling of the whole Iranian Elections debacle. I heard him go on Hannity and defend Obama’s stand when Hannity thought America should go in guns blazing and send the protestors bazookas.
I’m having a hard time imagining what could be gutsy about cutting a missile defense program which couldn’t even shoot down practice missiles it knew were coming.
Gutsy politically, because it’s not hard to predict the assertions that “He’s weak on defence…”.
You guys might want to hang on with the missile defense cheering:
Obama’s new Missile Defense Plan
Looks like the Russians didn’t play ball after Obama offered to pull missiles out of the Czech Republic and Poland, because they’re going right back in. Both countries have now agreed to host new land-based interceptors.
So here’s some good words for Obama from me - I thought he was naive to think that a unilateral withdrawal like that would be seen as anything but weakness by the Russians, and I was right. If anything, the Russians became more bellicose afterwards, and are now taking a harder line against helping Iran and even threatened to leave their own missiles in the region (the ones they said were only there to counter the U.S. missiles).
To Obama’s credit, he showed flexibility in changing course, and he’s putting the missiles back. Granted, they are a different missile type (for now), and I’d have to study the issue to see if they are as good as the old ones, but it’s really the principle that matters - signing agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland re-affirms the U.S. commitment to the defense of those countries, and that’s really what Russia was trying to undermine. So good work, Mr. Obama.
Of course, all of you who thought missile defense was a joke and Obama was too smart to think they would do any good have to question either your own judgment, or his.
Does “He’s very well spoken” count?
Sam Stone, you are aware that these missiles that the US is “pulling out” and “putting back” are imaginary, hypothetical missiles, right? These are just plans that don’t exist in actual reality yet, and I’m not convinced that they ever will.
The title of the thread was “Has any conservative pundit ever said anything good about Obama?” and that is exactly what I posted about.
“…study the issue to see if they are as good…”?
He’s made the trains run on-time?
You realize you posted a 5 year old cite, don’t you?
And do you understand why weapons systems (or anything else) are tested? Hint: it’s because they are under development. When you’re engineering things, testing them is a good idea, and you don’t expect all tests to pass.
If I link to a test that was a success, do I win a prize?
I love how for some people, government can do anything if you just give them enough money. Solve fusion power, create a ‘green’ economy, rebuild the health care system, solve hunger in Africa, create a hydrogen economy, eliminate CO2 from the energy infrastructure, make high speed rail economical…
But when it comes to a straightforward engineering problem like missile defense, suddenly it’s flatly impossible, can never be solved, it’s a fool’s errand, progress will never be made, don’t even bother to try, it will never work.
Why is that?
He may as well have posted a 25 year old cite. Wake me when BMD is more than a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle.
Well, one of them passing under extremely contrived circumstances would be a nice start. See for example from that 5 year old cite:
Sure, the Ballistic Missile Defense is actually feasible and reliable for deployment within a few years award. Sadly, there have been no winners since Nike Herculesentered the fray in the early 1950s.
Need any more hay for your strawman?
So straightforward that it hasn’t come remotely close to being solved after 60 years and trillions thrown at the problem?:dubious:
The “missile shield” jockeying is basically the same as the battle between those two “squishing your head” guys in that old Kids in the Hall sketch. Missile shields are imaginary. It doesn’t matter where we pretend to put them.
And the Cold War is over, by the way. The Red Menace is not going to get us.
In theory, the missile shield is supposed to protect the west from Iran. That’s what we keep telling the Russians, anyway.
I have a hard time with this topic because while intuitively I think the missile shield is a stupid idea, I had to do a major project on NATO expansion for my foreign policy class last year, as written from the perspective of Poland. I can’t seem to stop myself from viewing this from a Polish lens as a result. We need missiles! Must protect ourselves from [del]Russia[/del] Iran!
Curious series of examples you’ve got there. I’ve never heard any government official suggest that the government is going to “solve” fusion power, solve hunger in Africa, or eliminate CO2 from the energy infrastructure.
Hell, even Live Aid didn’t claim it was going to solve hunger in Africa, and there’s nothing more liberal than musicians. British musicians, even.
I will be interested in seeing whether government can create a green economy or a hydrogen economy. Since they haven’t tried yet, I’m willing to given them the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
As far as economical high speed rail… well, those pinko Frenchies and the Japanese did it already, but, hey, what the hell. Let’s boldly go where 200 million passengers have gone before.
Yep, that’s us liberals, always telling people that straightforward engineering problems can’t be solved.
Probably for the same reason that conservatives have been telling us lately that government is by its very nature inept and inefficient, but still think it’s going to magically brainwash their kids or round them up for resettlement in FEMA camps or impose martial law.
2001: Missile Defense Test a Success
2007: US carries out successful missile defense test
2008 - Patriot PAC-3 missile Defense Test Success
July 2009 - Israeli Missile Defense Test Success
August 2009: U.S. Missile Defense Test Hailed as a Success
23 firings, 19 successes. This is the system that is being deployed in Eastern Europe, I believe.
I could go on all day. There have been dozens of successful tests of various missile defense systems. I have no idea how you’ve avoided hearing about any of them. The recent test that shot down the satellite made all the papers.
There is no such thing as a “missile shield.” It’s all theoretical and, to this point, still technically impossible. Being able to hit a few missiles in the air (with a lousy success rate) does not a shield make.
That’s right, just put your hands over your eyes and go, “lalalalalala”. There’s a good boy.