http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8260230.stm

- Hmm, this sounds dodge. Abandoning a previously determined forward defense system, even when it meant causing foreign relation nightmares, just because Iran's systems are not yet *that* advanced?

I wonder whether this is actually due rather to a sobering analysis of America's more restricting expenditure/strategic concerns? Akin to Britain 'calling the fleets' home in WW1, or the Romans reeling back the legions at the outset of the Invasions.

The public reason is just whatever made sense today, we all knew that was dead in the water, as it deserves to be, the moment Obama took office, because anyone who wasn't retarded could see that it was not worth the cost and probably never going to work anyway. After 30 years it still wasn't able to hit programmed drones reliably.

Here it comes....wait for it......Obama is weak on national security!

Here it comes....wait for it......Obama is weak on national security!I thought it was because he was a double secret Muslim, and he's defending other Muslims?

It may have been canceled due to the relations nightmare as well. If it had been proposed as a generic defense, perhaps it would work, but listing the 'bad guys' like Iran doesn't help.

It was widely reported at the time it was first proposed as being a very antagonistic move towards the Russians (from their perspective) and runs counter to Obama's goals of trying to move towards disarmament, in addition to being a huge boondoggle that has never worked anyway. This is not so much a 'call home the legions' moment as a bit of sanity, as the project was both asinine and (somewhat justifiably) stoked Putin's paranoia and provided justification for further militarization on *their* side of the former 'Iron Curtain'.

Regards,
Nydia

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8260406.stm

I pretty much agree Nydia, but I do think the general response and consequence may be a bit more ambiguous - the change in policy will mean different things to different states, as I think the article above outlines well.

I am not surprised in the least by the decision; nor am I surprised by the Bolton response.

This was an antagonistic move by President Bush, which I am not at all convinced from some reports the hosting countries were all that comfortable with in the first place. This was not so much a device to protect against Iranian aggression as it was a move to show American dominance over a sphere once controlled by Russia.

I applaud President Obama for seeing better uses for the monies that would have been spent and for seeking conversation rather than confrontation with Russia and other regional 'powers'.

Is there a stronger possible statement made in support of anything than a condemnation from Bolton?

I applaud President Obama for seeing better uses for the monies that would have been spent and for seeking conversation rather than confrontation with Russia and other regional 'powers'

Yea that!!! and now we are free to put monies into more important weapons and defense systems. like....Light Sabres!!!

Is there a stronger possible statement made in support of anything than a condemnation from Bolton?


If John Bolton were running things we would be about 20 years into our Nuclear Winter now.

Is there a stronger possible statement made in support of anything than a condemnation from Bolton?


I still get a giggle thinking about that Matt Lauer interview with Hillary Clinton a month or so ago when he mentioned John Bolton's 'condemnation' of Bill's involvement in negotiating the release of the two journalists from North Korea. As soon as he mentioned Bolton she let out this ringing and genuine laugh that in one fell swoop decimated any question that she or anyone else should hold his opinion in any regard whatsoever... and finished up her reply by saying that "if Barack Obama walked on water Mr. Bolton would comment that it was because he couldn't swim."

Such a ballsy lady :) - and seriously, what do you expect from someone who was sent to the UN (and had to be crammed in as a recess appointment because his confirmation had been *denied*) while possessed of the belief that the whole institution should be dismantled? As Clinton also said in that interview, what a piece of work he is...

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. I see western Europe as having been (and being) in a love-hate relationship with the prospective US presence in eastern Europe. While they don't like the idea of the armaments being there, they're also more than a little uneasy about Russia's recent surge in nationalism and militarism (and shirtless tiger-shooting Vladimir Putin seemingly everywhere and contemplating running for a third term) and on a certain level some parties wouldn't mind having our presence there in some form. I'm glad, however, that Obama has decided to dump the project as it was both worse than useless and provocative/counterproductive.

Ya my parents have already been puppeting to me how we are lowering our defenses etc etc. It kills me but its not worth spending my time with them fighting.

I personally thought it was a good idea that failed to live up to expectations and therefor is rather useless.