So Polish news sites are reporting that Obama confirmed that the US will not be building missile rocket launchers in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Kudos to Obama for choosing a perfect date to announce that: 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion against Poland.
Is there a fear that Russians will paratroop into Poland from ICBMs or is it you just wanted to be primary strategic targets in a nuclear war?
CNN is covering it now:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/17/united.states.missile.shield/index.html
QuoteReports: U.S. suspends missile defense shield plans
Story Highlights
Newspaper reports U.S. has shelved plans for missile defense shield
Spokeswoman for Polish Defense Ministry says plan suspended in Poland
Spokeswoman for U.S. Embassy in Warsaw says no final decision made
Decision would likely appease Russia which had fiercely opposed the plans
(CNN) -- The United States has suspended Bush-administration plans for a missile defense shield in Poland, the Polish Ministry of Defense said Thursday, a move likely to appease Russia, which had fiercely opposed the plans.
"This is catastrophic for Poland," said the Polish Ministry of Defense spokeswoman, who declined to be named in line with ministry policy.
A spokeswoman at the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, however, said the decision had not been finalized.
"At this point, the review (of the decision) is still ongoing," said Jeanne Brigante, the embassy's press attache. "We don't have an announcement of a decision yet."
The Wall Street Journal reported overnight that the White House will shelve plans to build the system in Poland and the Czech Republic, according to people familiar with the matter.
The paper said the United States will base its decision on a determination that Iran's long-range missile program has not progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental United States and major European capitals, according to current and former U.S. officials.
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden declined to comment Thursday on whether a decision had been made to end plans for the missile defense shield.
Speaking to CNN's Chris Lawrence in Baghdad, Iraq, where Biden is on a brief trip, the vice president said only that he doesn't think there is an immediate threat to the United States and its allies from Iran.
Is the U.S. right to scrap plans for a missile defense shield in Europe? Sound Off below
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. James E. Cartwright, who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are scheduled to hold a news conference on Thursday morning. The Defense Department has not announced what will be discussed, but Cartwright is the point man for the missile defense shield program. See how the system would work »
A U.S. delegation held a high-level official meeting with the Poles on Thursday morning, at which they discussed the missile defense system, a spokesman for the Polish Foreign Ministry told CNN. The talks lasted for about an hour, after which the delegation left Poland for the Czech Republic, where a similar meeting was planned, he said.
The spokesman said he would not confirm the outcome of the meeting until U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about the issue.
The meeting in Prague was to include the Czech Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Defense and the U.S. delegation, at which an analysis of the defense shield would be presented, a spokesman for the Czech Ministry of Defense and U.S. Embassy spokesman John Vance told CNN.
The defense ministry spokesman did not say the program had been scrapped.
There was no comment Thursday morning from officials in Russia, which has opposed the U.S. plans to build the missile shield so close to its western border. The United States proposed the plan under then-President W. George Bush; the Obama administration has since been reviewing the plan.
The missile shield issue came up in July during a meeting between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow. Obama maintained that Russia had nothing to fear from such a system, which would be designed to intercept a solitary missile from Iran or North Korea, as opposed to "a mighty Russian arsenal."
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2009, 07:03:03 AM
Is there a fear that Russians will paratroop into Poland from ICBMs or is it you just wanted to be primary strategic targets in a nuclear war?
The Poles wanted uniformed American personnel on Polish soil as well as being useful to their largest and most important ally.
:(
Regardless of the substance of hte decision - awful, awful timing.
The date is very symbolic...symbolic of the new non-aggression pact Obama just signed with the Russians.
The United States gets everything west of the Vistula.
:yeah:
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2009, 08:01:53 AM
The date is very symbolic...symbolic of the new non-aggression pact Obama just signed with the Russians.
The United States gets everything west of the Vistula.
I can live with that. :P
Quote
The paper said the United States will base its decision on a determination that Iran's long-range missile program has not progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental United States and major European capitals
Nothing to worry about, the Iranians will only be able to wipe out the Jews
It's a matter of cultural sensitivity.
The US will not interfere with Russia's rights to carry out its traditional "trample on Poland when it wants to" folkway. ;)
The Poles should threaten to build their own nuclear deterrent if the missile system is not put in.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 17, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
The Poles should threaten to build their own nuclear deterrent if the missile system is not put in.
The Poles can rely on the French and the British to loyally protect them.
They should build a Maginot missle shield.
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2009, 08:17:56 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2009, 08:01:53 AM
The date is very symbolic...symbolic of the new non-aggression pact Obama just signed with the Russians.
The United States gets everything west of the Vistula.
I can live with that. :P
No marriage for you.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 17, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
The Poles should threaten to build their own nuclear deterrent if the missile system is not put in.
Oh that's fucking brilliant.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2009, 09:44:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 17, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
The Poles should threaten to build their own nuclear deterrent if the missile system is not put in.
Oh that's fucking brilliant.
It would be made of packing peanuts and have the detonator in backwards.
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2009, 07:08:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2009, 07:03:03 AM
Is there a fear that Russians will paratroop into Poland from ICBMs or is it you just wanted to be primary strategic targets in a nuclear war?
The Poles wanted uniformed American personnel on Polish soil as well as being useful to their largest and most important ally.
Poles will not be useful ever. Doesn't the US already have personnel on Polish soil? If not we can just occupy Warsaw to make them feel better.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2009, 09:46:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2009, 09:44:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 17, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
The Poles should threaten to build their own nuclear deterrent if the missile system is not put in.
Oh that's fucking brilliant.
It would be made of packing peanuts and have the detonator in backwards.
I thought Tim would at least be smart enough not to promote nuclear proliferation.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2009, 09:47:16 AM
I thought Tim would at least be smart enough not to promote nuclear proliferation.
Nuclear weapons for some, falling American bombs for others.
Presumably the Americans get some quid pro quo from the Russians. Right?
Quote from: Legbiter on September 17, 2009, 11:41:18 AM
Presumably the Americans get some quid pro quo from the Russians. Right?
Free Caviar.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2009, 11:41:53 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 17, 2009, 11:41:18 AM
Presumably the Americans get some quid pro quo from the Russians. Right?
Free Caviar.
Well, if they manage even that I'll be impressed.
Quote from: Legbiter on September 17, 2009, 11:41:18 AM
Presumably the Americans get some quid pro quo from the Russians. Right?
Not bloody likely.
I find it amazing - let's do something that pleases Russia despite their recent track record (Georgia, Ukraine etc.) while making America look weak and pissing off several of America's most reliable allies in Eastern Europe; nations whose leaders have expended a great deal of political capital in supporting the scheme up to this point. Let's even do it on a significant anniversary for the region as well.
Bravo, "Own Goal" Obama!!! :lol:
Quote from: Legbiter on September 17, 2009, 11:41:18 AM
Presumably the Americans get some quid pro quo from the Russians. Right?
Not with the Democrats in Office. We probably gave the Russians something else behind closed doors as well.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgreatersurbiton.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F08%2Fputin_missile.jpg&hash=e84c3a83a845100f57695fe2d642fdd26eb02e58)
Excellent ...
Maybe we can offer Poland a "rent to own" type deal.
Obama was just on CNN talking about installing a different kind of missile shield, one that's stronger, faster, swifter than the old one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 12:26:42 PM
Obama was just on CNN talking about installing a different kind of missile shield, one that's stronger, faster, swifter than the old one.
He was talking about condoms that will be offered via his new healthcare reform.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 12:26:42 PM
Obama was just on CNN talking about installing a different kind of missile shield, one that's stronger, faster, swifter than the old one.
And
cheaper. I noticed that especially when the clip was shown on the BBC.
The program made little sense technically or strategically; the question always was how long we were going to stick to it simply for the purpose of avoiding handing the Russians an empty PR victory.
I agree the timing could have better. Like Day 1 of the Administration.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 12:34:50 PM
The program made little sense technically or strategically; the question always was how long we were going to stick to it simply for the purpose of avoiding handing the Russians an empty PR victory.
I agree the timing could have better. Like Day 1 of the Administration.
Did you miss the memo? Looks like they are going to stick to it, only better in every concievable way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 12:40:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 12:34:50 PM
The program made little sense technically or strategically; the question always was how long we were going to stick to it simply for the purpose of avoiding handing the Russians an empty PR victory.
I agree the timing could have better. Like Day 1 of the Administration.
Did you miss the memo? Looks like they are going to stick to it, only better in every concievable way.
The memo I read said they are going to use different platforms, different architecture, different deployment. Other than it being "missile defense" and involving Europe it is totally different.
Quote from: Strix on September 17, 2009, 11:47:16 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 17, 2009, 11:41:18 AM
Presumably the Americans get some quid pro quo from the Russians. Right?
We probably gave the Russians something else behind closed doors as well.
The Russians will view this climbdown as the US having sold Ukraine and Georgia down the river. The Ukrainian presidential election next January will be revealing.
Wasn't Obama born in Moscow and attended a Party school in Pskov?
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2009, 01:17:37 PM
Wasn't Obama born in Moscow and attended a Party school in Pskov?
AFAIK he was known as Obamarx back then.
Quote from: Legbiter on September 17, 2009, 01:14:27 PM
Quote from: Strix on September 17, 2009, 11:47:16 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 17, 2009, 11:41:18 AM
Presumably the Americans get some quid pro quo from the Russians. Right?
We probably gave the Russians something else behind closed doors as well.
The Russians will view this climbdown as the US having sold Ukraine and Georgia down the river. The Ukrainian presidential election next January will be revealing.
I heard iron is in for curtains this season
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 12:26:42 PM
Obama was just on CNN talking about installing a different kind of missile shield, one that's stronger, faster, swifter than the old one.
Didn't he also say that he hopes Iran will keep to its diplomatic promises? :P
Maybe has a drinking problem. :P
Quote from: Legbiter on September 17, 2009, 01:14:27 PM
The Ukrainian presidential election next January will be revealing.
In that case we all better hope Tymoshenko wins b/c I don't want to know what Yanukovich looks like once the flashy suits are taken off.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 12:53:19 PM
The memo I read said they are going to use different platforms, different architecture, different deployment. Other than it being "missile defense" and involving Europe it is totally different.
And bound to make sense technically and strategically.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 01:35:01 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 17, 2009, 01:14:27 PM
The Ukrainian presidential election next January will be revealing.
In that case we all better hope Tymoshenko wins b/c I don't want to know what Yanukovich looks like once the flashy suits are taken off.
Will he be running against Tymoshenko? Or are you thinking of Yuschenko?
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2009, 01:37:59 PM
Will he be running against Tymoshenko? Or are you thinking of Yuschenko?
Dont know - but Yuschenko is pretty fit so it doesn't work as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 12:53:19 PM
The memo I read said they are going to use different platforms, different architecture, different deployment. Other than it being "missile defense" and involving Europe it is totally different.
And bound to make sense technically and strategically.
That I do not know. But if it costs less, already it is ahead on points.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2009, 09:47:16 AM
I thought Tim would at least be smart enough not to promote nuclear proliferation.
If the nuclear powers refuse to maintain world order, then every country with the ability to do so must embrace nuclear armament.
Obama has declared that he welcomes the conquest of Europe by Russia, and will do everything in his power to ensure that an aggressive Russian regime is building murder camps in occupied Poland before his administration leaves office. The Poles would be crazy not to build atomics.
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2009, 07:01:13 AM
Kudos to Obama for choosing a perfect date to announce that: 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion against Poland.
:lol:
That is great.
It was a silly idea anyway. Good decision.
There's far better things to spend money on- even if the money stays in the military domain there are better options.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 12:53:19 PM
The memo I read said they are going to use different platforms, different architecture, different deployment. Other than it being "missile defense" and involving Europe it is totally different.
And bound to make sense technically and strategically.
Or it will end up like the Big Dig!
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2009, 07:01:13 AM
Kudos to Obama for choosing a perfect date to announce that: 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion against Poland.
Stuff like this makes one long for the diplomatic finesse of the Bush administration.
It seems to me that the US diplomacy is like antics of a bipolar person.
First you offend half of the world. Then you change your mind and offend the other half in the attempt to make up to the first half. :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 12:34:50 PM
The program made little sense technically or strategically; the question always was how long we were going to stick to it simply for the purpose of avoiding handing the Russians an empty PR victory.
I agree the timing could have better. Like Day 1 of the Administration.
Ditto. A GOP feel-good boondoggle that did nothing but piss away money and needlessly alienate people we could already needfully alienate anyway.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 03:13:26 PM
There's far better things to spend money on- even if the money stays in the military domain there are better options.
Yeah, but unfortunately, I doubt Obama will spend it on new battleships.
Heck, he'll probably give it to GM to give to their executives as bonuses.
QuoteEastern Europe grumbles about downgrade in US ties
By KAREL JANICEK and WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press
PRAGUE – Scuttling a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland helps smooth relations between the U.S. and Russia. But at what price?
Some of America's staunchest allies are the East Europeans — and on Thursday, they expressed dismay at what many see as a slight after decades of their support for the U.S.
Among them were some famous names, including Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Polish ex-president. "I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing toward this part of Europe," he said ruefully, adding: "The way we are being approached needs to change."
For most of the past decade, cozy relations with Washington were practically a given across the "new Europe." George W. Bush famously courted the region after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and leaned on it for troops to fight alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Barack Obama took office undecided about Bush's plan to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and sophisticated radar in the Czech Republic — a system designed to shoot down long-range missiles that might be fired from Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. Building had not started in either country.
The Czech installation was planned for the Brdy military installation 55 miles (90 kilometers) southwest of Prague. The Polish site was to be at a former military air base near the town of Redzikowo, about 115 miles from Russia's westernmost edge.
Obama has been reaching out to Russia, which had expressed outrage at the notion of missiles being pointed in its direction from a region that was firmly in the Soviet orbit just 20 years ago.
On Thursday, Obama announced he was shifting the plan from Eastern Europe to other locations. He and other administration officials said they have concluded that Iran's medium- and short-range missiles pose a greater threat and require more flexible technology.
Obama's decision got a positive reception in Russia, hailed by President Dmitry Medvedev as a "responsible move."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she viewed the shift as "a hopeful signal for overcoming difficulties with Russia when it comes to a uniform strategy to combat the threat of Iran together."
Officially, Czech leaders said they understood the rationale for abandoning the shield, and they expressed confidence that the country would remain secure.
But some expressed dismay at the reversal.
Former Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose government signed treaties with the Bush administration to build the radar system — and took a lot of heat from Czechs who feared it would make their country a terrorist target — went on Czech radio to vent his frustrations.
"The Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before," he said. "It's bad news for the Czech Republic."
Obama's decision also drew flak in Washington. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called it "shortsighted and harmful to our long-term security interests."
"We must not turn our backs on two loyal allies in the war on terror," he said.
Although Obama said the United States will continue to work cooperatively with "our close friends and allies," the future implications of the move appeared mixed.
Poland's prime minister held out hope his country might play a role in the revamped U.S. defense.
"There is a chance for strengthening Europe's security with special attention given to Poland," Donald Tusk told reporters, adding: "I would not describe what is going on today as a defeat for Poland."
But a prominent Czech legislator suggested the rebuff would have consequences should Washington ask for troops — or anything else.
"If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it," said Jan Vidim, a lawmaker with the conservative Civic Democratic Party, which had supported the missile defense plan.
Opponents of the shield, such as Jan Tamas — an activist who had organized numerous protests — hailed Obama's decision.
"It is a big victory for the Czech Republic. We are happy that we will be able to continue to live in our beautiful country without the presence of foreign soldiers," he said.
And Mariusz Chmiel, a top official in the northern Poland region where the missiles would have been based, proclaimed himself "the happiest man in Poland" now that the plan has been shelved.
Even so, scrapping missile defense comes as a huge setback to many Polish and Czech leaders, who viewed it as a way to strengthen military ties with the U.S. in a form of defense against a resurgent Russia.
Fears of Moscow run especially deep in Poland, highlighted by a key anniversary Thursday. Exactly 70 years ago — on Sept. 17, 1939 — Poland was invaded by the Soviet Union at the start of World War II.
Aleksander Szczyglo, head of Poland's National Security Office, characterized the change as a "defeat primarily of American long-distance thinking about the situation in this part of Europe."
"It's quite unfair," said Petr Boubin, 36, who owns a cafe in the Czech capital. "I think Obama is making too many concessions to Russia."
Kole reported from Vienna. AP Writers Monika Scislowska and Vanessa Gera in Warsaw and Jim Heintz in Moscow contributed to this story.
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2009, 05:31:59 PM
It seems to me that the US diplomacy is like antics of a bipolar person.
First you offend half of the world. Then you change your mind and offend the other half in the attempt to make up to the first half. :P
US foreign policy is much like a drunk, blindfolded blind man, stumbling about in a dark room.
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2009, 05:31:59 PM
It seems to me that the US diplomacy is like antics of a bipolar person.
First you offend half of the world. Then you change your mind and offend the other half in the attempt to make up to the first half. :P
I think it's just that Poland's adjusting into the sort of relationship everyone else has with the US. I think Hoggart's law has some truth is that no matter how much you think your country's relationship with the US matters the US notices you about as much as they do Norway and care about Polish/British/French sensibility about as much as they do Norway's.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2009, 09:18:26 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 17, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
The Poles should threaten to build their own nuclear deterrent if the missile system is not put in.
The Poles can rely on the French and the British to loyally protect them.
They should build a Maginot missle shield.
Fuck the Poles.
The line just moved east a little. We'll nuke the red tanks on the polish plain instead of the german plain. Big whoop.
Quote from: Kleves on September 17, 2009, 04:11:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2009, 07:01:13 AM
Kudos to Obama for choosing a perfect date to announce that: 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion against Poland.
Stuff like this makes one long for the diplomatic finesse of the Bush administration.
Are we going to invade them now?
It would appear that the reaction of the Czechs and Poles is exactly that which could have been predicted by your average kindergartner. It seems Obama is even more clueless about how to treat allies than his predecessors.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 18, 2009, 04:16:07 AM
It would appear that the reaction of the Czechs and Poles is exactly that which could have been predicted by your average kindergartner. It seems Obama is even more clueless about how to treat allies than his predecessors.
Either that, or both the thing and the date were chosen to please Russia... which is an interesting but worrying possibility.
For Christ's sake, stop freaking out, Euroweenies.
Here, here's the straight dope. I don't see anything in there saying ZOMG TEH NIGGER'S TOSSING EASTURN UROPE TO TEH RUSSKIS
QuoteTHE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 17, 2009
Fact Sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy
A "Phased, Adaptive Approach" for Missile Defense in Europe
President Obama has approved the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe. This approach is based on an assessment of the Iranian missile threat, and a commitment to deploy technology that is proven, cost-effective, and adaptable to an evolving security environment.
Starting around 2011, this missile defense architecture will feature deployments of increasingly-capable sea- and land-based missile interceptors, primarily upgraded versions of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), and a range of sensors in Europe to defend against the growing ballistic missile threat from Iran. This phased approach develops the capability to augment our current protection of the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats, and to offer more effective defenses against more near-term ballistic missile threats. The plan provides for the defense of U.S. deployed forces, their families, and our Allies in Europe sooner and more comprehensively than the previous program, and involves more flexible and survivable systems.
The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to the President that he revise the previous Administration's 2007 plan for missile defense in Europe as part of an ongoing comprehensive review of our missile defenses mandated by Congress. Two major developments led to this unanimous recommended change:
* New Threat Assessment: The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran's short- and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected, while the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities has been slower to develop than previously estimated. In the near-term, the greatest missile threats from Iran will be to U.S. Allies and partners, as well as to U.S. deployed personnel – military and civilian –and their accompanying families in the Middle East and in Europe.
* Advances in Capabilities and Technologies: Over the past several years, U.S. missile defense capabilities and technologies have advanced significantly. We expect this trend to continue. Improved interceptor capabilities, such as advanced versions of the SM-3, offer a more flexible, capable, and cost-effective architecture. Improved sensor technologies offer a variety of options to detect and track enemy missiles.
These changes in the threat as well as our capabilities and technologies underscore the need for an adaptable architecture. This architecture is responsive to the current threat, but could also incorporate relevant technologies quickly and cost-effectively to respond to evolving threats. Accordingly, the Department of Defense has developed a four-phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe. While further advances of technology or future changes in the threat could modify the details or timing of later phases, current plans call for the following:
* Phase One (in the 2011 timeframe) – Deploy current and proven missile defense systems available in the next two years, including the sea-based Aegis Weapon System, the SM-3 interceptor (Block IA), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/TPY-2), to address regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and our deployed personnel and their families;
* Phase Two (in the 2015 timeframe) – After appropriate testing, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea- and land-based configurations, and more advanced sensors, to expand the defended area against short- and medium-range missile threats;
* Phase Three (in the 2018 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant currently under development, to counter short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missile threats; and
* Phase Four (in the 2020 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB to help better cope with medium- and intermediate-range missiles and the potential future ICBM threat to the United States.
Throughout all four phases, the United States also will be testing and updating a range of approaches for improving our sensors for missile defense. The new distributed interceptor and sensor architecture also does not require a single, large, fixed European radar that was to be located in the Czech Republic; this approach also uses different interceptor technology than the previous program, removing the need for a single field of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland. Therefore, the Secretary of Defense recommended that the United States no longer plan to move forward with that architecture.
The Czech Republic and Poland, as close, strategic and steadfast Allies of the United States, will be central to our continued consultations with NATO Allies on our defense against the growing ballistic missile threat.
The phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe:
* Sustains U.S. homeland defense against long-range ballistic missile threats. The deployment of an advanced version of the SM-3 interceptor in Phase Four of the approach would augment existing ground-based interceptors located in Alaska and California, which provide for the defense of the homeland against a potential ICBM threat.
* Speeds protection of U.S. deployed forces, civilian personnel, and their accompanying families against the near-term missile threat from Iran. We would deploy current and proven technology by roughly 2011 – about six or seven years earlier than the previous plan – to help defend the regions in Europe most vulnerable to the Iranian short- and medium-range ballistic missile threat.
* Ensures and enhances the protection of the territory and populations of all NATO Allies, in concert with their missile defense capabilities, against the current and growing ballistic missile threat. Starting in 2011, the phased, adaptive approach would systematically increase the defended area as the threat is expected to grow. In the 2018 timeframe, all of Europe could be protected by our collective missile defense architecture.
* Deploys proven capabilities and technologies to meet current threats. SM-3 (Block 1A) interceptors are deployed on Aegis ships today, and more advanced versions are in various stages of development. Over the past four years, we have conducted a number of tests of the SM-3 IA, and it was the interceptor used in the successful engagement of a decaying satellite in February 2008. Testing in 2008 showed that sensors we plan to field bring significant capabilities to the architecture, and additional, planned research and development over the next few years offers the potential for more diverse and more capable sensors.
* Provides flexibility to upgrade and adjust the architecture, and to do so in a cost-effective manner, as the threat evolves. Because of the lower per-interceptor costs and mobility of key elements of the architecture, we will be better postured to adapt this set of defenses to any changes in threat.
We will work with our Allies to integrate this architecture with NATO members' missile defense capabilities, as well as with the emerging NATO command and control network that is under development. One benefit of the phased, adaptive approach is that there is a high degree of flexibility – in addition to sea-based assets, there are many potential locations for the architecture's land-based elements, some of which will be re-locatable. We plan to deploy elements in northern and southern Europe and will be consulting closely at NATO with Allies on the specific deployment options.
We also welcome Russian cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests. We have repeatedly made clear to Russia that missile defense in Europe poses no threat to its strategic deterrent. Rather, the purpose is to strengthen defenses against the growing Iranian missile threat. There is no substitute for Iran complying with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program. But ballistic missile defenses will address the threat from Iran's ballistic missile programs, and diminish the coercive influence that Iran hopes to gain by continuing to develop these destabilizing capabilities.
Through the ongoing Department of Defense ballistic missile defense review, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff will continue to provide recommendations to the President that address other aspects of our ballistic missile defense capabilities and posture around the world.
###
Quote from: dps on September 17, 2009, 07:36:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 03:13:26 PM
There's far better things to spend money on- even if the money stays in the military domain there are better options.
Yeah, but unfortunately, I doubt Obama will spend it on new battleships.
Heck, he'll probably give it to GM to give to their executives as bonuses.
New battleships would be a waste.
As I said, even if it stays in the military there are better options; being use outside the military there are much much better options.
Whether the shield was a good or a bad idea notwithstanding, the diplomatic consequences of this move will be profound.
Essentially, the US have first asked Eastern Europe to support them on a controversial scheme that was actively opposed by Russia and viewed with suspicion in Western Europe, and then left them out in the cold.
Eastern Europeans will now think twice before supporingt the US in any unilateral action that could piss off Russia and/or Western Europe.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2009, 12:19:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 17, 2009, 05:31:59 PM
It seems to me that the US diplomacy is like antics of a bipolar person.
First you offend half of the world. Then you change your mind and offend the other half in the attempt to make up to the first half. :P
I think it's just that Poland's adjusting into the sort of relationship everyone else has with the US. I think Hoggart's law has some truth is that no matter how much you think your country's relationship with the US matters the US notices you about as much as they do Norway and care about Polish/British/French sensibility about as much as they do Norway's.
Indeed.
Frankly, I don't think this decision means a lot for Eastern Europe. Poles and Czechs will feel hurt and abandoned but this does not change the geopolitical situation in the region for the Poles since I don't see Russian tanks rolling into Poland any time soon.
However, this shows a remarkable ability of the US administration to piss off and alienate its allies over and over again. This move is probably worse for the US interests (and the perception of American power) than Polish or Czech ones.
Quote from: Martinus on September 18, 2009, 06:28:22 AM
Frankly, I don't think this decision means a lot for Eastern Europe. Poles and Czechs will feel hurt and abandoned but this does not change the geopolitical situation in the region for the Poles since I don't see Russian tanks rolling into Poland any time soon.
People like you never do.
Have fun getting shot in the back of the neck by your fellow Russians, knowing that neither Europe nor NATO will lift a finger to save you.
QuoteWarsaw Fears Second-Tier Status
By MARCIN SOBCZYK and MARC CHAMPION
Poland's fears that it is becoming a second-class U.S. ally whose interests come after those of Russia were reinforced by Washington's decision to reorient its missile-defense plans away from Central Europe.
While Polish government officials gave a cautious and generally upbeat assessment of the change in U.S. strategy Thursday, many nonetheless were concerned by what the shift said about the changing focus of the Obama administration.
"I don't like this policy. It's not that we need the shield, but it's about the way we're treated here," Lech Walesa, Poland's first post-Communist president, said in televised comments.
Poland, which broke away from the Soviet orbit in 1989 and joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 10 years later, had hoped the deployment of 10 interceptor missiles and the stationing of U.S. soldiers on its territory would improve its security, ensuring that if anyone attacked the U.S. would be compelled to react.
Under Article 5 of the NATO pact, an attack on one member state is treated as an attack on all. Despite that assurance, Polish officials still see the country's NATO status as second-class and seek further security guarantees.
Warsaw has proved a staunch U.S. ally. It sent thousands of troops to fight in Iraq, siding with the U.S. and Britain when Europe divided over the invasion. Poland also keenly supported Westward-leaning governments and democratic elections in the ex-Soviet states, particularly in neighboring Ukraine. These policies antagonized Moscow, however, and the Obama administration is now trying to "reset" the damaged U.S.-Russia relationship.
"The American decision [to shelve the missile program] was made in the well-understood American interest that now means good relations with Russia, for which President Obama is ready to sacrifice the interests of Central European countries," said Zbigniew Lewicki, professor of American studies at the Warsaw University.
The conservative government and president that came to power in Warsaw in 2005 embraced the Bush administration's missile project. They also had a fraught relationship with Poland's two historic foes, Russia and Germany. Thursday, by coincidence, was the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, launched just weeks after Nazi Germany began its assault. The two powers divided their neighbor between them.
But a center-right government that took power in Poland in 2007 proved more skeptical of the U.S. project. It tried to improve relations with Moscow and Berlin and worried that while Iran -- the ostensible aggressor that the defense shield was meant to contain -- was unlikely to target Poland, hosting the installations could trigger a response from Russia. The new government bargained to get U.S. Patriot-missile batteries and a bigger U.S. troop contingent as part of the deal, delaying signature of the agreement until August 2008.
Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said he had received assurances from Washington that Poland would still get the Patriot missiles, a legal requirement under the 2008 deal, and that it would play a role in the revised missile-defense system.
U.S. and Polish officials had hoped to begin rotating American Patriot batteries based in Europe into Poland for month-long tours by the end of this year, but the slow pace of negotiations is likely to put off the first deployment until next year.
The U.S. missile shield has become a contentious issue in domestic Polish politics. The ousted conservatives accuse the current government of contributing to Washington's U-turn by delaying the signature and then ratification of the deal. The left-wing Democratic Left Alliance, or SLD, welcomed the shift.
"We know very well that if the project was executed, Poland would become a target for all the countries that would like to attack the U.S.," said SLD leader Grzegorz Napieralski. "This is a great failure of the entire right-wing camp."
The SLD, however, has been sidelined in Polish politics. A majority of Poles supported the U.S. missile-defense shield, according to the most recent opinion poll, published last month.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125321522477320479.html?mod=sphere_ts&mod=sphere_wd
"becoming" a second-class ally? No offense but when was Poland ever a "first-class" ally?
We're forgetting Poland. :(
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2009, 07:45:13 AM
"becoming" a second-class ally? No offense but when was Poland ever a "first-class" ally?
:lol:
I didn't say that - it's WSJ. :P
I know, but I put the "no offense" thing in there because you're touchy and I don't want to hurt your feelings. :)
Quote from: Martinus on September 18, 2009, 06:22:46 AM
Whether the shield was a good or a bad idea notwithstanding, the diplomatic consequences of this move will be profound.
Please.
The plain fact is that after years of discussing this, Poland had still not ratified the agreement and the present government showed little interest in getting it done. The same was true with the Czechs. If this were so important, that would have been taken care of long ago. In fact, Tusk is probably relieved this problem has conviently gone away.
This was always a pure show project -- it was the Bush administration's way of thumbing their nose at "old Europe" and showing that the US could go over the EU's head and coordindate defense policy with "new Europe." the problem was that the Poles had no real interest in having 10 ineffective missiles sitting on their territory - what they really wanted were more concrete US security gurantees and practical defense cooperation. If the US were serious about backing up EE that is what we would have done in the first place, not focus on building the equivalent of a $5 billion high school science project.
The question the new administration had to face is whether this boondoggle should be continued indefinitely simply because of how cancelling it might "look" to the Russians. It should be a very easy question to answer. It is ludicrous to suggest that US strategy and defense policy should be held hostage to concerns about what the Russians might think like some adolescent girl worrying about what the skanky girl may be saying behind her back. The Russians are a third rate power. If they misinterpret this and get delusions that they are now a second rate power, it is not a major concern. But more likely even the Russians aren't as stupid as that - they will understand that as a practical matter, this does not make them any stronger; they will boast about it internally and claim political credit and that will be the end of it.
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2009, 07:45:13 AM
"becoming" a second-class ally? No offense but when was Poland ever a "first-class" ally?
Presumably in their eyes when they committed "thousands of troops" to support the USA when the USA's former "first class" allies, except Britain, refused.
It does sound a bit ridiculous, I agree...but then the fact that they can consider themselves "second class" allies given their membership of Nato is perhaps more worrying still.
Our first-class ally is supposed to be France. You know, Lafayette and all that.
America should treat all its allies with contempt and scorn. Like Sparta did during the Hegemony.
I do have to say I never thought the diplomatic offensive to split Eastern Europe from Western Europe was going to have much staying power. They are all Euros and will probably agree on most things eventually.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2009, 11:58:37 AM
I do have to say I never thought the diplomatic offensive to split Eastern Europe from Western Europe was going to have much staying power.
That's a nice piece of historical revisionism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 12:08:19 PM
That's a nice piece of historical revisionism.
Are you going to tell me your opinion or just insult mine?
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2009, 12:44:25 PM
Are you going to tell me your opinion or just insult mine?
Rumsfeld's comment about new and old Europe was in response to a comment either by Chirac or that ding dong in the UNSC that "Europe is opposed to an invasion of Iraq." Rumsfeld was pointing out that "Europe" was already split on the issue. He wasn't trying to *create* a split, he was pointing out one that already existed when France tried to pretend that wasn't the case.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 12:55:56 PM
Rumsfeld's comment about new and old Europe was in response to a comment either by Chirac or that ding dong in the UNSC that "Europe is opposed to an invasion of Iraq." Rumsfeld was pointing out that "Europe" was already split on the issue. He wasn't trying to *create* a split, he was pointing out one that already existed when France tried to pretend that wasn't the case.
And "old" and "new" just happened to be the entirely value-neutral terms that he employed to make this abstract point. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 01:21:48 PM
And "old" and "new" just happened to be the entirely value-neutral terms that he employed to make this abstract point. :)
And it follows from the use of "old" and "new" that Rumsfeld was trying to split Europe?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 01:29:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 01:21:48 PM
And "old" and "new" just happened to be the entirely value-neutral terms that he employed to make this abstract point. :)
And it follows from the use of "old" and "new" that Rumsfeld was trying to split Europe?
I thought that was the point.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2009, 01:43:42 PM
I thought that was the point.
QuoteRumsfeld's comment about new and old Europe was in response to a comment either by Chirac or that ding dong in the UNSC that "Europe is opposed to an invasion of Iraq." Rumsfeld was pointing out that "Europe" was already split on the issue. He wasn't trying to *create* a split, he was pointing out one that already existed when France tried to pretend that wasn't the case.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 01:29:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 01:21:48 PM
And "old" and "new" just happened to be the entirely value-neutral terms that he employed to make this abstract point. :)
And it follows from the use of "old" and "new" that Rumsfeld was trying to split Europe?
it follows that he was trying to exploit a difference of opinion on a particular issue by making a much broader distinction.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 01:53:08 PM
it follows that he was trying to exploit a difference of opinion on a particular issue by making a much broader distinction.
Such as the distinction between long-standing members of the EU and recent entrants?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 01:54:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 01:53:08 PM
it follows that he was trying to exploit a difference of opinion on a particular issue by making a much broader distinction.
Such as the distinction between long-standing members of the EU and recent entrants?
Yes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 12:55:56 PM
Rumsfeld's comment about new and old Europe was in response to a comment either by Chirac or that ding dong in the UNSC that "Europe is opposed to an invasion of Iraq." Rumsfeld was pointing out that "Europe" was already split on the issue. He wasn't trying to *create* a split, he was pointing out one that already existed when France tried to pretend that wasn't the case.
Right I thought he was trying to reduce France and co's diplomatic influence in Eastern Europe and bring them closer to the United States by making that distinction. Granted it probably was a result of Franco-German opposition to the Iraq War.
I wonder by whose taxonomy the UK should find itself in "new" Europe.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2009, 01:21:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2009, 12:55:56 PM
Rumsfeld's comment about new and old Europe was in response to a comment either by Chirac or that ding dong in the UNSC that "Europe is opposed to an invasion of Iraq." Rumsfeld was pointing out that "Europe" was already split on the issue. He wasn't trying to *create* a split, he was pointing out one that already existed when France tried to pretend that wasn't the case.
And "old" and "new" just happened to be the entirely value-neutral terms that he employed to make this abstract point. :)
:lol:
Quote from: Warspite on September 18, 2009, 06:38:54 PM
I wonder by whose taxonomy the UK should find itself in "new" Europe.
They were late joiners to the Roman Empire. :bowler:
Quote from: Warspite on September 18, 2009, 06:38:54 PM
I wonder by whose taxonomy the UK should find itself in "new" Europe.
They're not even really in Europe at all. The UK, like the US, is itself.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 18, 2009, 04:16:07 AM
It would appear that the reaction of the Czechs and Poles is exactly that which could have been predicted by your average kindergartner. It seems Obama is even more clueless about how to treat allies than his predecessors.
Yeah it is totally understandable to be furious that a ridiculously overpriced and useless boondoggle like the missle defense system, built in the incredibly unlikely scenario Iran decides to nuke Euroland, was cancelled. I mean it was only a sign of Russia's insanity that they made such a big deal about this at all.
Wow I would be furious if one of our allies cancelled the building of a super expensive useless piece of shit designed to protect us from an enemy that is never likely to attack us.
Huh? The shield was never intended to defend Europe.
Anyway, as I've said a zillion times, that money would've been better spent in humint, the USCG or customs officials.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 19, 2009, 02:05:25 PM
Huh? The shield was never intended to defend Europe.
Of course it was otherwise it would have been set up in Greenland and Hawaii. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2009, 02:01:06 PM
Yeah it is totally understandable to be furious that a ridiculously overpriced and useless boondoggle like the missle defense system, built in the incredibly unlikely scenario Iran decides to nuke Euroland, was cancelled. I mean it was only a sign of Russia's insanity that they made such a big deal about this at all.
Wow I would be furious if one of our allies cancelled the building of a super expensive useless piece of shit designed to protect us from an enemy that is never likely to attack us.
Is this rant serious or just a joke? I really cannot tell sometimes... :huh:
I'd like to see some evidence that the Polands and Georgia are super important, super special, super faithful allies.
They sound more like obligations to me, taken on largely to spite the Russians.
from bbc news:
QuotePOLISH REACTION - ADAM EASTON, WARSAW
The reports did not come as a surprise to anyone in Poland. Indeed the government was concerned the incoming US administration might change its policy when it signed the missile defence agreement with Washington last August.
Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said his government would not be commenting on the US decision until Washington had made its announcement public. He said he would shortly discuss the issue with the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. He asked journalists to reserve their judgement because the US decision could be different from what they expected.
However, the news came as a disappointment to the president's circle. President Lech Kaczynski is a keen supporter of the system. The head of the country's national security office, Aleksander Szczyglo, told TVN24 news channel that it would be a "failure in the long-term thinking of the US administration about the situation in this part of Europe".
Former President Lech Walesa told the same channel: "We should reconsider our approach to the US."
In July Walesa signed an open letter along with Vaclav Havel and others warning that the US's credibility in the region could be undermined if it abandoned the missile shield without consulting Warsaw and Prague.
Bartosz Weglarczyk, foreign editor at Gazeta Wyborzca, a leading Polish daily, told the BBC the decision represents the most important shift in US-Polish relations since 1989.
"Nothing will be the same," he said. "I think we will have to look at the US from the European perspective and focus on Europe more now."
Poor Hillary, she has to suffer being taken to task by Poles. A fate worse than losing the presidency. :(
Quote from: Iormlund on September 19, 2009, 02:05:25 PM
Huh? The shield was never intended to defend Europe.
Anyway, as I've said a zillion times, that money would've been better spent in humint, the USCG or customs officials.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you being a "useful idiot"? The point of the shield wasn't to defend Poland. Poland's safety, however, would be increased (or at least the perception thereof) by having the US military personnel stationed in Poland, and giving Poland the Patriots that were part of the deal.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 19, 2009, 09:41:21 PM
I'd like to see some evidence that the Polands and Georgia are super important, super special, super faithful allies.
They sound more like obligations to me, taken on largely to spite the Russians.
You know putting Poland and Georgia next to each other is pretty ignorant. Poland has the largest economy of all former Soviet bloc countries, excluding Russia; it has the fastest growing economy in the EU; and is the fifth biggest country in the EU.
Poland has also sent significant number of troops to Afghanistan and to Iraq.
I guess Lenin was right when he said Russia will always have "useful idiots" in the West to champion its cause. Were you always like this or is this pot-related brain damage?
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:39:43 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 19, 2009, 02:05:25 PM
Huh? The shield was never intended to defend Europe.
Anyway, as I've said a zillion times, that money would've been better spent in humint, the USCG or customs officials.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you being a "useful idiot"? The point of the shield wasn't to defend Poland. Poland's safety, however, would be increased (or at least the perception thereof) by having the US military personnel stationed in Poland, and giving Poland the Patriots that were part of the deal.
I think the Patriots are still on.
Quote from: citizen k on September 20, 2009, 02:44:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:39:43 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 19, 2009, 02:05:25 PM
Huh? The shield was never intended to defend Europe.
Anyway, as I've said a zillion times, that money would've been better spent in humint, the USCG or customs officials.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you being a "useful idiot"? The point of the shield wasn't to defend Poland. Poland's safety, however, would be increased (or at least the perception thereof) by having the US military personnel stationed in Poland, and giving Poland the Patriots that were part of the deal.
I think the Patriots are still on.
I think that part of the deal was downgraded significantly by making the arrangement temporary/periodical.
Quote from: citizen k on September 20, 2009, 02:29:41 AM
from bbc news:
QuotePOLISH REACTION - ADAM EASTON, WARSAW
The reports did not come as a surprise to anyone in Poland. Indeed the government was concerned the incoming US administration might change its policy when it signed the missile defence agreement with Washington last August.
Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said his government would not be commenting on the US decision until Washington had made its announcement public. He said he would shortly discuss the issue with the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. He asked journalists to reserve their judgement because the US decision could be different from what they expected.
However, the news came as a disappointment to the president's circle. President Lech Kaczynski is a keen supporter of the system. The head of the country's national security office, Aleksander Szczyglo, told TVN24 news channel that it would be a "failure in the long-term thinking of the US administration about the situation in this part of Europe".
Former President Lech Walesa told the same channel: "We should reconsider our approach to the US."
In July Walesa signed an open letter along with Vaclav Havel and others warning that the US's credibility in the region could be undermined if it abandoned the missile shield without consulting Warsaw and Prague.
Bartosz Weglarczyk, foreign editor at Gazeta Wyborzca, a leading Polish daily, told the BBC the decision represents the most important shift in US-Polish relations since 1989.
"Nothing will be the same," he said. "I think we will have to look at the US from the European perspective and focus on Europe more now."
Fuckers are covered by 2nd and 6th fleet and the sea based system. But our ships don't have screen doors on the bottom.
Polack whiners.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 19, 2009, 09:41:21 PM
I'd like to see some evidence that the Polands and Georgia are super important, super special, super faithful allies.
They sound more like obligations to me, taken on largely to spite the Russians.
Well they do have lots of pornstars from Poland. Also Georgia has lots of mobsters.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:44:02 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 19, 2009, 09:41:21 PM
I'd like to see some evidence that the Polands and Georgia are super important, super special, super faithful allies.
They sound more like obligations to me, taken on largely to spite the Russians.
You know putting Poland and Georgia next to each other is pretty ignorant. Poland has the largest economy of all former Soviet bloc countries, excluding Russia; it has the fastest growing economy in the EU; and is the fifth biggest country in the EU.
Except East Germany.
Really though, only the Poles would feel safer by having someone else place a series strategic nuclear targets in their territory.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:44:02 AMand is the fifth biggest country in the EU.
Did you by chance forget about Spain? :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:44:02 AM
Poland has the largest economy of all former Soviet bloc countries, excluding Russia; it has the fastest growing economy in the EU; and is the fifth biggest country in the EU.
Does any of that really matter? They're still small fry.
Quote from: Zanza on September 20, 2009, 08:03:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:44:02 AMand is the fifth biggest country in the EU.
Did you by chance forget about Spain? :P
Normally everyone remembers Spain and forgets Italy :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2009, 08:34:51 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 20, 2009, 08:03:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2009, 02:44:02 AMand is the fifth biggest country in the EU.
Did you by chance forget about Spain? :P
Normally everyone remembers Spain and forgets Italy :lol:
Yeah I forgot Italy. :P
Geographical expressions don't count anyway :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.imageshack.us%2Fimg3%2F3080%2Fdeathtopoland.jpg&hash=667b5ed193d3489c2bf4c911d5d51b294ef145b5) (http://img3.imageshack.us/i/deathtopoland.jpg/)
This artist used to make caricatures of Jews, didn't he?