U.S. wants defensive missile system in Europe against Iran

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 9, 2003, 5:15 pm

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

Munich (dpa) - The U.S. government is sounding out the possibility of bilateral agreements with European countries to allow stationing of a defensive missile system directed against Iran, a leading German newspaper reported in its Friday edition.

Countries accepting the missiles would be rewarded by the U.S. with economic assistance, according to the report in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung citing unnamed U.S. State Department officials.

One ranking U.S. diplomat told the newspaper a joint project with European participation would be preferable, creating a missile-defence system to guard against attacks on both Europe and North America. However chances of obtaining NATO approval for the project were slim, the official said.

What would Europe gain by taking such a posture against Iran besides trouble that they currently do not have? I don't get why they would even consider this.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 9, 2003, 5:24 pm

Probably aiming for the "New Europe", because they need serious economical support. I doubt any of the Western European countries (not counting Britain) would be interested.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 9, 2003, 5:37 pm

lol yeah we need to protect ourselves from the militarisic Iranians who any day now will launch a massive missile attack on europe and north america.

this is just the bush administration planting more seeds of hatred for another country so they will have some new brown people to kill in the remote chance that fucking monkey in the white house actually gets re-elected.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » October 9, 2003, 6:04 pm

Looks like a nice subsidy for the weapons manufacturers to me.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 9, 2003, 6:36 pm

Forthe wrote:Looks like a nice subsidy for the weapons manufacturers to me.

yep.

and i look in my crystal ball and see lucrative consultancies for some administration officials down the road.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 9, 2003, 7:48 pm

The worst part of it would be that of all the looney countries in the middle east, I'd put the Iranians as closest to becoming a democracy, or something along those lines at any rate.

Why do we need to go poke a stick into that anthill? Leave them the hell alone, they're "progressing" pretty well on thier own.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 9, 2003, 7:50 pm

well Iraq was easily the most modern and progressive thinking of the major arab countries and look what happened to them.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 9, 2003, 8:05 pm

kyoukan wrote:lol yeah we need to protect ourselves from the militarisic Iranians who any day now will launch a massive missile attack on europe and north america.

this is just the bush administration planting more seeds of hatred for another country so they will have some new brown people to kill in the remote chance that fucking monkey in the white house actually gets re-elected.

unfortunatly i wouldnt doubt it

...i think its all up to clark and what he does with his campeighn, might vote for him this year instead of libertarain...even though florida will prolly go to bush

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 10, 2003, 8:58 am

Clark? You are gonna vote for that flip flopping goon?

Deward · Post by **Deward** » October 10, 2003, 10:00 am

Clark is the only democrat I have seen so far that I would vote for. The rest are all crooked and lifetime politicians.

Look at Braun, wasn't she indicted a few years ago because of some funny contracts with her boyfriend. Far as I know she was forced out of office because of it.

They are all crooks and I will probably just vote Libertarian on principal.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 10, 2003, 10:32 am

I did not watch the Democratic debates last night, but from what I am reading, even the other Democrats are railing him for his flip flopping on Iraq and Bush policies. If he's flip flopping now, imagine the backflips he would perform once in office. I mean, I don't really care one way or another, so far I am not liking a single candidate. I don't agree with what we did in Iraq so Bush is not getting my vote this time. Here is a link to the debate reviews.

http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.clicka ... nerID=2001

Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the most unwavering supporter of the Iraq war among candidates in the Democratic field, said he was "very disappointed" by Clark's "various positions" on the war.

"A few days before the vote in Congress, he said he would have recommended it and would have supported the resolution. After the war, he wrote a piece in the Times of London praising President Bush and Tony Blair for their resolve. When he became a candidate, he said he probably would have voted for the resolution. There was an uproar. Then he said, 'I never would have voted for the resolution.'"

"The American people have lost confidence in George Bush because he hasn't leveled with them," Lieberman said. "We need a candidate who will meet the test of reaching a conclusion and having the courage to stick with it."

"We have to have the values of the Democratic Party, but in Washington, the culture is, 'Say whatever it takes to get elected.' And the minute you're willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, you lose, because the American people are not nearly as dumb as the people in Washington think we are."

I beg to differ on that.

Clark would be a prime pick for me if he would have had the stance that he has right now, 2 years ago instead of flip flopping. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth that his political stance does a 180 just because he decides he wants to run for office. This will be his downfall. If he would have been against Bush doctrine 2 years ago, he would win by a landslide.