Is anybody really fucking surprised? His cronies are all in the oil/defense/reconstruction industry.
Pleae bring back Slick Willie. This current president, George the village idiot Bush, is a joke. He’s, actually, an embarrassment.
Nothing he’s doing, or anything he’s ever done has been a success. It’s all one giant fleece. But, I guess that’s actually a success to some people.

Linky no worky. Forgot dot in dotcom.

he’s been having quite alot of trouble in that regard lately, the link to the ‘Edwards &*T#’s a brick’ story is also broken.

Fix the link

This article makes significant progress towards proving the point that it is much more difficult to actually design and construct something as sophisticated as a (layered) missile defense system than it is to talk and/or write about one. Jack Hitt does a fine job of pointing out the following:

1. the system depends on sophisticated application and integration of new and old technologies;
2. the system requires substantial management acumen; and
3. the system is a conspicuous display of optimism about what human ingenuity is capable of achieving.

One thing that the article fails to do – which might have be helpful – is to provide a simple metric for evaluating the efficacy of the system to date. A simple scorecard might have done a lot to clear up some of the confusion. I would like to suggest the following as a way of summarizing the system’s efficacy: the system has had 11 trials of its ground-based missile defense capability since 1999, it has had 6 successes.

If we were talking baseball, a .545 batting-average would be a tremendous achievement. Since a missile defense system is somewhat different, I think we should avoid the tempting convenience of such comparisons; though, lacking data for prior missile defense systems on which to base a more valid comparison, we are faced with something of a dilemna. In any case, the aforementioned statistic provides us with a good place to start a real and informed discussion about missile defense. I, myself, would prefer to see a close to 100% success rate, but am satisfied with the progress to date. Concerning Tim Dickinson’s point that the missile defense system is “completely unnecessary,” I don’t think the article does much to address this notion, but it does do a wonderful job of describing the aesthetics of the radar platform – perhaps in lieu of such a discussion. In any case, it’s worth inserting the missing . into the broken link and reading it.

Bush’s desire to put in missile defense system in Europe makes no sense. He says it is to deter Iran from using nuclear weapons against Europe. However, France, Germany and Russia continue to provide Iran with the materials to construct a nuclear plant. A plant which Bush believes Iran will use to produce the nuclear devices to attack Europe with. Why should the US tax payer pay to build a missile defense system to protect Europe from Iran if the European nations are helping to make such an attack possible?

F.T.W. -

If a missile were to obliterate a European city (or any city for that matter), do you think it would good or bad for the US – or not matter at all? Of course, the issue is a helluva lot more complicated than how I’ve framed it, but I suppose that’s my point.

Blood: Don’t you see how the rules of engagement have, somehow changed? Now America starts wars on ‘IF’. Countries that invade, control, then occupy based on ‘ifs’, or ‘isms’, or religion, have traditionally been looked at as the enemy. Every other American war has been in a retalliatory way.
So, this begs the question: How long before we’re looked at as the occupier, akin to the theme of WWII?

Terrorism has been going on in that region for EVER. Nuclear weapon rhetoric is being used as a threat by BOTH sides. They’re professing their aim to acquire, and we’re professing the threat of their use. However, it still remains fact that we’re the only country to ever use one.

But, we still have so many people that believe we need to be the initiator. Even, a bit, in defiance of history.

Coach -
What does any of that have to do whith missile defense? I get your point and I even agree to some extent, but by posting on this thread I can only assume that your comments are somehow connected to missile defense. I do not see the connection.

Blood: It was in reference to this statement made by you:

“If a missile were to obliterate a European city (or any city for that matter), do you think it would good or bad for the US – or not matter at all?”

It was a response to the ‘IF’ you posed. We’re reacting to ‘IFS’, unlike ever before……..

Fair enough…I understand what you are saying now. I think that’s a good point, and I agree that this is problematic. I think, though, that the IFS are a lot scarier than they used to be. Nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile-technology proliferation forces us to consider a new kind of IF. 9/11 taught us that these IFs can take on forms we might not have considered. So, I agree, this reacting to IFs is a new trend, and it does suggest that policymakers should be aware of the effect that has on the perception of the US. It also demands us to be vigilant against becoming too paranoid. I think, though, that the world we live in is just too dangerous not to consider the IFs.

TIME TO ENRICH MY FRIENDS FOR NO REASON!

WHEEEEEE!!!!! I LOVE BEING THE PRESIDENT! WHEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

911 Taught us that we should NEVER elect a republican. EVER AGAIN.

Actually, it was Nixon who taught us that. Some of you are too young and some of you forgot.

Actually, DoubleD, that if we should’ve learned anything by now, it’s that the last 5 republican presidents should’ve taught us ALL to be cynical, I think.

The heartland!

the thought of having a laser defensive is nice since we already have mounted them on planes and they work against missles