Comments:Bush says missile shield "urgently" needed to counter Iranian threat
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Russia doesn't like the US putting an Anti-Missile System in Europe, the US doesn't like Russia helping Iran finish their Nuclear Power Plant... Seems fair...
-12.217.179.160 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Takashi Ookami
- Fair isn't the word for it. It's more like balance. If you think about it, it is easy to separate it into two viewpoints:
The enemy's ignorant viewpoint: The west doesn't want Iran to complete it's peaceful atomic power tech, and the U.S. is trying to render Russia's atomic weapons nearly useless.
The suspicious allied viewpoint: Iran is building nukes in secrecy so they can nuke Israel or just give it to terrorists in general, and Russia wants to help them hurt the west. The missile defense shield is to help protect the west from Iranian atomic missiles. Contralya 05:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's "easy" but also simplistic. --SVTCobra 05:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Balance
editI dont like it. The balance of superpowers needs to be preserved. USA will have to find another way to protect against possible Nuclear strikes from Iran. 80.57.174.103 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
And the pieces slowly move into play...
Europe
editShouldn't Europe protect Europe?? Typical America policing the world and turning a blind eye to the issues at home...68.147.60.166 16:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I guess we should have taken that attitude during WWII. --SVTCobra 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You mean after Japan bombed Pearl? Or before? Oh wait that is what the US was doing before...68.147.60.166 18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly, we should have just gone after Japan and left Europe to sort out their own problems. --SVTCobra 19:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Iranian missiles can barely reach Israel.. Also, it's strange the defense goes to fmr. Warsaw Pact countries and not Turkey, which is close to Iran...--TheFEARgod 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"Today, we have no way to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat, so we must deploy a missile defense system there that can."
Since when is it the United State's job to protect Europe? I know it isn't a nice thing to say, but a country is to act in self interest, and in this case, all I hear are excuses on Bush's side to facilitate the installation of a system near the Russian Federation in an attempt to establish a foothold in what might turn into a conflict thanks to the efforts of both Bush and Putin.