Al Jazeera English: Romania 'to host US missile shield'

[SealLion]

This is for all the vampires on this board LOL. No offense, eh??

So anyways, considering that Romania is part of NATO, it's no surprise that NATO is expaninding it's operations within Europe. Both militarily as well as expanding further east.....

HINT: There's only one other LARGE country that goes eastward from Europe.

check it out:

Romania has backed a US plan that would see interceptor missiles deployed in the country as part of a missile shield to protect Europe,.....

So the big question is: Protect Europeans from what??
It ain't from cows that fly in without passports from the moon, that's for sure.
Look at the HINT I gave above.
I strongly believe that it's part of a containment strategy against Russia.

......the country's top defence body had agreed to be part of a system against "potential attacks with
ballistic missiles or medium-range rockets".......Traian Basescu sought to assure Russia, which had previously condemned plans for a missile shield, that the proposed move was not a threat.

"The new system is not against Russia. I want to categorically stress this, Romania [will] not host a system against Russia, but against other threats,

Ya, right. Like when cows turn pink and 'milk' little green men, it will.

....The announcement of a planned missile defence in Romania comes months after Washington shelved a plan to place missile defence facilities in the Czech Republic and Poland - a move welcomed by Moscow

Well, if Russia welcomed the plan then why do you think they did??
Obviously b/c Chech and Poland are pretty much on Russia's frontier, yes??

And Romania has proximity to Russia, yes??

"Russia's official position is that only that missile defence is good which is missile defence together with Russia, a joint control.

Well, yes. I can see the logic of that. Defense against let's say other aggressors such as China or some other country in the Middle East, or as the US strongly believes and perpetuates across it's allies, North Korea.
Or even other nations that are viewed as aggressors by the West, such as Iran.

But overall, there are other reasons for placement of missiles within Romania. Remember the conflict in Georgia last year??
I think that such moves within NATO could be established as part of such contingencies and plans.
From what I do understand, Georgia is also extremely interesting in joining NATO.

But let's continue on with potential reasons for placement of missiles inside Romania. Here's one such reason that I briefly made mention of above:

A plan unveiled last September by Barack Obama,...includes land-and sea-based missile systems in and around the Gulf to defend against what it says is a growing Iranian missile threat...........In past years, Romania's parliament has solidly backed participation in US and Nato-led military ventures, including Romanian troop deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

and that last enbolded bit is one reason why these 2 countries are cooperating so strongly over such an issue and could also possibly explain the reasons for the US to have sought cooperation from Romania.
Now think about other benefits that Romania could benefit from such cooperation...well, there's economic benefit for one thing. That's a plus for any small European country that may desire to expand busineess of it's own in the US.
But is that ethical??

Weapons for business. In today's climate, apparently it is ethical from a business and industrial perspective. But from the perspective of peace vs. war, that is not ethical.

here's the link:

Al Jazeera English - Europe - Romania 'to host US missile shield'

As a side note. Is it ethical and morally correct that another country that has, and strongly desires to have more international clout than what other nations deserve, to do business such as how the US government is acting towards??
That's a rhetorical question.
So you answer it yourself.

[slikrapid]

This is for all the vampires on this board LOL. No offense, eh??

i'll make a wild guess here by saying that they are probably proud of having such famous characters/creatures connected to the country, its like a major tourist attraction, definitely recognizable on the 'who is who' map of the world

So the big question is: Protect Europeans from what??
It ain't from cows that fly in without passports from the moon, that's for sure.

Look at the HINT I gave above.

there's another one lurking 'behind' it, equally (if not more) impressive in size (i see you mentioned it later on)

i suppose to prolong the old 'we must fight against the external enemy' game one would need an enemy like that, so if no one volunteers why not create one out of thin air and with a help of a few illusionist tricks that have previously been proven quite effective in the past

includes land-and sea-based missile systems in and around the Gulf to defend against what it says is a growing Iranian missile threat

but in romania, a shield towards iran, doesn't make much sense, its a long way off, and there's plenty of 'allies' in between with a far better location

for now i would say that the profit from weapons sales is top priority - as for the missiles location, to have a backup in every country is quite a strategic advantage, even if it looks like overkill (imagine the insanity, usa so paranoid about its 'safety' that it needs to have a missile shield of some kind in almost every country in the world, further every government manages to find an excuse why it is necessary and furthermore the majority is still 'buying' the stories - finally, when there's no buyers left, the weapons will have to be used against someone, otherwise a new economic crisis will threaten usa...and dear citizens, we cannot allow that to happen, can we? with the current general population state of mind one needs not to guess twice what the outcome will be)

Is it ethical and morally correct that another country that has, and strongly desires to have more international clout than what other nations deserve, to do business such as how the US government is acting towards??

ethical or not put aside for a moment, what can a country do when they hear a chilling 'howdy, partner...listen...' coming from the big bad world sheriff, still chewing on the remains of his previous victim?

[supermarrioh]

I think that neither Russia nor the US are interested in recreating a Cold war Situation.
The goal in This Operation is most likely to Install an Element of pressure right before countries like Iran get the ability to launch intercontis, respectively to create an counterweight to allready existing warheads in much more unpredictable states than russia that have nothing to loose.

[SealLion]

There are some interesting ideas from both of you.

There is one thing here SuperMarrioh, I don't quite understand this:

.....than russia that have nothing to loose.

How do you feel that Russia has nothing to loose over this. It might be true that both countries dont' want another Cold war. The Cold war has been attributed a few times in the past as WW III actually, though could you elaborate on this if you please??

I don't think that I understand your position.

Now I will have to say this that business is definitely one of the reasons why the USA, as well as, a sense of hyper-security is a reason why this is happening.

In all honesty, I've had to re-think my own personal reasoning in believing the fundamental reasons for pressurizing other, as seen from the US's perspective, aggressor states such as Iran. It is true that there are numerous nation states close enough to Iran that are currently allied with the US, such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and so forth.

And if those weren't suitable because of public pressure from those countries.....there's always Israel that will help out. At least threaten to as part of the game in which the eventual creation would be additional creation of fear and chaos amongst a population that is on the edge.

That is, create global threats; create global fear; create global uncertainty always in the face of new and invented threats to global safety and peace.

Making money would be one of the reasons, but it's the Romanians who make money off,of this too. Their most likely charging some amount of lease money for locating the armaments on their soil, yes??

So I can't see the US business conglomerate and thier government making money off, of the Romanians. Kind of more like the other way around, IMHO.

as for this:

....what can a country do when they hear a chilling 'howdy, partner...listen...' coming from the big bad world sheriff, still chewing on the remains of his previous victim?

Now that's an interesting theory and idea. Well, why not should the US partition the world into sectors for it's own hyper-security paranoia. I won't say that all of the world's troubles are to blame for the biggest sherrif in town as many other problems are the result of other nations aggressing against others and so forth.

but I will say this, that if the US would tone down it's foreign policies, it might just be a bit different.

The US want's to be what it wants to be....... A bigger sheriff.
Is this a good sheriff or a bad sheriff??

Is it important to have a global sherrif??
I am beginning to think that it might be, though opinions do change, yes??
In addition, it most certainly depends on where in the world you live; which Hemisphere, from what Hemisphere does your perspective lean too??

Those are important questions too aside from the invention of chaos.

If one can create global chaos and fear to rise amongst a population, then there's always a good opportunity to take advantage of.

Additionally, It is true that the world is divided into security-economic-ge0-political regions. China has a big yard that it has influence in. The US and all of it's allies, and then of course, there's still Russia.
Russia can't be put off. It's not only geographically large, but still has influence within it's sphere and even abroad. It has been doing this over the last couple of years while Putin was in office, which he still is, though only behind curtains controlling what that country's current President does.

[saebrtooth]

@supermarrioh
Russia and China have signed a peace treaty and general good will co-operation treaties

from the way the US is behaving it doesnt take much imagination to understand that they want dominace and of course therfore must control and contain.

I remember a few months ago when the US sent submarines to the boarders of Chinese waters for surveilance but we dont really know for sure how long this had been going on. China then made news of it and askjed why the US sent submarines to Chinese boarders to do surveyance. The US in turn then said they were just in the neighbourhood and objected to China's stance saying that China was againflexing its muscle by questioning ships moving near its borders. China in turn said if there was commotion made by people outside of ones bamboo fence it is rightly so for the owners to question.

The funny thing is not long after Russia taking on board the US stance, sent a sub near US waters and made themselves known. The US in turn complained about Russian presence.

Its stupid politicians and military stragtegist making trouble, but are they really good representative of their countrymen?

No country will want to confront cold war style confrontation but some wont hesitate to do it covertly.

You can find much more detailed information if you look up "Noam Chomsky".

Cheers

[SBfreak]

If a third war starts we're the first to bite the dust.Putin hates us now

[supermarrioh]

@Sealion

in much more unpredictable states than russia that have nothing to loose.

Russia has something to loose, but others not. Cause of this they are likely to act unpredictable.
Sorry, my English is not that excellent.

Hm, you could be right. My first thought was that the US wanted to prevent a second cold war situation (This time against others than russia) by showing hob big their penis is before the others were able to build up a big penis.

But after i read your posts, Im not shure about that anymore.

[slikrapid]

So I can't see the US business conglomerate and thier government making money off, of the Romanians. Kind of more like the other way around, IMHO.

you know, imo they wouldn't even enter the deal without some profitable arrangement, so the usa profits no matter what, maybe not always directly but surely indirectly, in the long run (future deals, power constellation) or through side-projects connected to this one - take the iraqi example, they lost a lot on the military actions there, but if we dissect every segment of it, an array of various companies, partners, business deals emerge, that actually accompany the original action - not to mention enormous domestic financial means pumped into the action (no need to guess twice whether these amounts are exaggerated or not) & finally long run gains, like oil control in the sector and so on - ultimately, the government may have a negative balance, but the accompanying industry (lets not forget the banking loans for everyone involved, including the government) surely won't

...Russia has nothing to loose over this. It might be true that both countries dont' want another Cold war.

ok, this was explained, but let me add that imo every country has something to lose, the big ones are just more accustomed to sacrificing its own pawns, so its no big deal to them - as for the cold war & wars in general - they are often used as means of accomplishing certain goals (a wide variety actually), as we mentioned before, when discussing the nwo - its hard to expect a change in this - what serves you well, you wouldn't abandon/discard just like that, right?

USA, as well as, a sense of hyper-security is a reason why this is happening.

well, this is what they have been telling/selling to their citizens for years now, virtually with every single military incident - some external threat needs to be addressed, either by direct military action or by preparing defense (say, like a missile shield in romania) against that imaginary enemy - because, seriously, does anyone think iran represents a real threat? what evidence is there of any kind (harassing the media?) afaik they are even milder than iraq - we saw how that one went

generally, everything suitable to use as an excuse or reason for some action that needs justification is being used by the usa to further their agenda (today may be more suitable to blame the islamist terrorists, yesterday it was the vietnamese, tomorrow some other 'poor victim'), as long as on one side the military-industrial complex keeps rolling towards perpetual growth/profit

I won't say that all of the world's troubles are to blame for the biggest sherrif in town as many other problems are the result of other nations aggressing against others and so forth.

but they seem to be, in many cases, quite close & involved in the conflicts in one way or another (the visible area of engagement) - in the meantime or later on more information may surface that shows even more & earlier involvement (the invisible area of engagement at the time of the conflict) and also subsequent benefits of the conflicts

Is it important to have a global sherrif??
I am beginning to think that it might be, though opinions do change, yes??

well, for one thing, its certain that the nwo would say definitely yes to this question

imo eliminating or significantly reducing any foreign military involvement (apples to any country, especially the usa) would be a big step in the right direction - unfortunately those in control have some other plans

[SealLion]

very interesting post, slik.So basically, there isn't really a threat to either the Romanians or to the US. Neither of them really suffer from some kind of external threat.
A 'threat' is basically being invented agian is what I think that your trying to say. In addition to the fact that the business-military industrial sector of the US is benefiting the most from such maneuvers.
Not only them I can imagine, but most likely also other business spin off's as well. Like you suggest, there's banking loans as well that may very well benefit from such moves as well.

Not only for the large international and domestic banks, but also for industries involved in defense building.

[saebrtooth]

If a third war starts we're the first to bite the dust.Putin hates us now

A lot of people succumb to spin, but we should not fall into the they hate us we hate them trap. Thats the way the powers that be get their support.

Its politicians weaving their magic, news agencies doing their thing show us what they want us to see, hear and know and thus shaping our perspective.

As some has said in previous threads and post initiated by SeaLion, the Government is different to the people. Just because Putin doesnt agree with or dislikes the policies of Bush doesnt mean he hate the US. Doesnt mean Russians in general hates the whole US population.

There are good and bad in any country but usually the face we see is the Governments of that country and they might not be a true representive of its people.

Can we say the our own Government truely is a representation of ourselves in everthing it does and says?

[SealLion]

....Can we say the our own Government truely is a representation of ourselves in everthing it does and says?

exactly!!

In my personal opiniion, and I know that the US is mentioned a lot in the News section doesn't make the people an exact representation of it's own government.
I am of the personal opinion, that if more Yanks knew of what the wayside dealings were of thier own government, most would be astounded to learn of such.
Most would be upset with the known fact that thier president's foriegn policies are not much different than of a another person than the one-whom-everyone-loved-to-hate (Read George Bush...but he was a monstrous abnormality and a puppet of those whom have the real control).

The government is not necessarily a true representation of it's government. The Yanks do suffer an image problem, but they deserve it for having elected dorfs.
I can say much the same for my own country's politicians.
There's politicians that are really arrogant.

[saebrtooth]

Thats so true SL
Usually when some people see the headlines or even through the pages of script they think that thats the whole story just from one piece. Only by reading profusly and thereby try to gain a bigger picture can we star to understand what the direction, the agenda of our own Gov is doing.

Actions speak louder than words. Just like in the US the Gov says they are trying to reduce deficit but they on the other hand filling the balance sheet of the banks. Also saying to the public they want to keep the Dollar strong but at the same time devaluing it.