Bush's interceptor-missile system (in Europe)?

Question

If Putin's concern that Bush's interceptor-missile system in Eastern Europe is honest, then why doesn't Putin suggest to Bush:

"Mr. Bush, Why don't you install the system in Georgia or Azerbaijan, which actually borders Iran itself, and aim it towards Iran!??"

I know that Putin does not approve of NATO presence on former Soviet territory, BUT if it is true, that the interceptor-missile program is aimed in reality at Russia, and that Iran is just a pretext and excuse, then wouldn't it be brilliant of Putin (to make an exception in this case "in the name of global security, in solidarity with the West") to thwart the whole purpose of this multi-billion dollar system by having it actually point away from Russia!!

And if Bush actually REFUSES to install the system in either Georgia or Azerbaijan (but aiming away from Russia itself) then it would actually put Bush in an awkward situation because then it would really suggest that the whole point of the system is to confront Russia!

So, if Putin makes this compromise to Bush, it would put Russia in a position to win either way, and at the same time back Bush into a corner politically.

Answer 1

In my opinion, if Bush was being a diplomatic world leader, he would have approached Putin about it proactively. He should have asked for his support and perhaps, participation, as you suggest. But once again, his lack of diplomacy and overall intelligence has created a mess where one didn't need to exist.

Answer 2

I almost consider myself on the "front lines" of this issue. My apartment here in Prague faces Wenceslas Square, and they had a demonstration against the interceptor missile system last week. I find it endlessly ironic that so many people here oppose the country responsible for freeing them from the Evil Empire. They are actually protesting in favor of their former slave masters. What the hell is this, the Stockholm Syndrome?



Russia's opposition to any missile defense shield is ridiculous. We have proven over and over in our history that we are not the enemies of Russia. When the U.S. was the only power on earth with nukes, we could have laid down the law to the entire world: "The U.S. never intends to use nukes ever again. The nuclear option ends now. If any country ever develops nukes, we will automatically nuke their capital city."

In retrospect, we should have done that. We could have ended nuclear proliferation with a type of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" scenario.



Everyone downplays the end of the Cold War. If it were the United States that couldn't keep pace with Russia, they would have issued us thinly-veiled terms of surrender. We instead extended the hand of friendship. We even lent them money to facilitate their conversion to a capitalist system. Russia knows we have no ill intentions towards them. But they need to huff and puff to convince themselves they are still a major power in the world.



By the way, it took me forever to mention this, but your idea is brilliant. I wonder if Putin's government has considered it. I think it would be great to put some interceptor missles there, and perhaps it will be the start of Russia becoming an eventual member of NATO. There is no reason anymore why they can't "enter the fold". Nowadays, it is really Western Civilization against Islama Fascism anyway. We should unite.

Answer 3

So, what you want to do is back our President into a corner, which means to me that you really support Putin on this, which, therefore, means that you think the interceptor-missile system is aimed at Russia? You people never cease to amaze me!



First, what's wrong with intercepting missiles that come from Russia? Shouldn't we be intercepting missiles, especially nuclear missiles from anywhere, including Russia? If Russia isn't a threat, why is Putin so upset over the whole thing? Shouldn't he just be shaking his head, chuckling and saying, "Well, if you want to waste the money to point an interceptor system at us, go ahead."? If Putin is so angry at this, maybe Russia is a bigger risk than we previously thought.



Second, why wouldn't Putin want to intercept missiles coming from anywhere else? What's up with him? I think the ex-KGB agent is longing for the Cold War days when he and his cronies had something to do!



Bush HAS approached Putin proactively and invited him to actively participate in the program! I don't know what you people are listening to but maybe if you stopped hating our President for a moment, you might actually be able to hear the truth and think logically!

Answer 4

Your question is actually really thought provoking. Here are my thoughts. Citizens serve the primary purpose of deciding moral issues. Judges to interpret the rules of law, and to apply the penalties as they think are appropriate. Where we have run into problems is two areas. One, The legislature has decided that they should mandate the length of time for sentences, in politically advantages ways. This has lead to great unevenness in sentencing.under current interpretation to determine new laws, or fail to enforce laws via jury nullification. Two, the other is that juries are told that they are not permitted to use nullification. An example of this is drug laws, most people have done drugs, and have reservations about sending first time offenders to prison, however, mandatory minimums as they are written would require that. Just some thoughts. if you remove the Jury from criminal procedures then you remove the human element. In the event of contract disputes, judges should be the deciding official, since the issues are often complex and beyond the scope of knowledge of the average jury.

Answer 5

I don't believe Putin's concern is honest. He wants to lean on Eastern Europe to follow Russian directives by threatening it with his new missiles like the bad old Soviet Union used to do, but he knows American power in the form of missile defense will make that kind of intimidation problematical.



Bush has offered (as Reagan did) to open the technology to inspection by all sides. Putin isn't interested. Should tell you something bad about his intentions!

Answer 6

We have already pushed President Bush into a corner. For years he has repeated himself on how he is trying to work diplomatically with Iran. They consistently further their nuclear capabilities. When they nuke someone President Bush will be blamed for not taking military action. If he does take military action to deter this, this will also be his fault. Talk about a no-win situation, he can't win either way.

Answer 7

About seven years ago, Putin had this same idea about the defense system.



Bush is asking Putin to come on-board, if his country is really interested in peace, he will.



I am so very weary of US aide going to countries that turn around and call us "enemy," and then listening to all the lunatic libertine liberals bad-mouth us from within . . .



Good-grief!

Answer 8

Dude, who's side are you on? Putin is old KGB. Why shouldn't we want to keep Russia in our sights?

Answer 9

Why worry? Be happy! That stupid anti missle missle system has never worked. Not ONCE! Putin should insist on inspections and save his money.

Answer 10

Or he could agree as long as US taxes paid for it, and after half completed put pressure on China and USE. not to buy anymore bonds and redeem everyone that is mature, and watch the wheels come off USA economy.

Answer 11

Putin is a terrorist, th United states will do what ever in the hell we want, woe unto those that get in our way