Sorry about this, but appropos of nothing, every time the decider opens his mouth (today it was to threaten Iran with war and to veto stem cell research), I become more convinced than ever that it's just too late for America. I don't think we will recover from this menace. Depressing ...

Sorry about this, but appropos of nothing, every time the decider opens his mouth (today it was to threaten Iran with war and to veto stem cell research), I become more convinced than ever that it's just too late for America. I don't think we will recover from this menace. Depressing ...

Sorry about this, but appropos of nothing, every time the decider opens his mouth (today it was to threaten Iran with war and to veto stem cell research), I become more convinced than ever that it's just too late for America. I don't think we will recover from this menace. Depresing ...

Mr. Arkin,

The utility of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) is that it reduces the threat to civilian populations from WMD equipped ballistic missiles, thereby enabling US deployment of conventional forces to enact national will.

The only scenario under which America might be threatened by ballistic missile attack is a hostile nation seeking to advance an international agenda inimical to our interests.

In the case of a non-nuclear power, US conventional force superiority provides assurance that in the event of hostile action, the outcome will be favorable to our national interests. In the case of a nuclear capable power with ballistic missile capability, threats against CONUS could negate our conventional force superiority and undermine our national will.

In the past, no state capable of ballistic missile attack on CONUS has ever launched such an attack ... nuclear retaliation would make that an act of national suicide. In the future, the certainty of nuclear retaliation will remain. The only military value of BMDS is as an enabler for the necessary use of conventional military means.

Why this? Why now?
Another "weapon of mass distraction" of course. Plus, why not prepare for more dollars to flow to your "defense" arms industry supporters?
Build up the "boogeymen" so the Republican base can yammer about them. "Base" indeed.

What is stupid about this arguement is that the Missile Defense System is not needed and will not work. Russia is not a threat, unless Bush makes it a threat. It is a waste of money, that could have gone to really giving the troops the equipment they need.
I was walking my dog one evening, and looking in the direction of the Pacific. I saw this missile going South, more or less, in the direction of San Diego being exploded over the Pacific. It looked just like the explosion of the space shuttle. These things are more dangerous to the people who use them.
It is difficult to know what passes through the idiot minds of the Administration. Bush may be trying to sell this piece of junk to the E.U., or he may think he is pressuring Russia into being more "democratic" so the multinationals will have a freehand to rape that country. Paul may be the only sane man in the Republican party.

Russia perceives, perhaps correctly, that the true purpose of a missile defense system sited on their doorstep will be to "mop up" any remaining Russian missiles after a preemptive first strike by the United States. Sound ridiculous? To you, maybe. Set against a framework of the following - neither Iran or North Korea, the purported threat, has anything that will reach Europe; the United States has formally adopted a first-strike doctrine, used it to invade Iraq, and expressed eagerness to build more sophisticated nuclear weapons while yielding none of its present nuclear arsenal, and finally: almost everything that comes out of Bush's mouth is later exposed as a lie - it makes perfect sense. It isn't necessary to be Russian to see that.

Russia perceives, perhaps correctly, that the true purpose of a missile defense system sited on their doorstep will be to "mop up" any remaining Russian missiles after a preemptive first strike by the United States. Sound ridiculous? To you, maybe. Set against a framework of the following - neither Iran or North Korea, the purported threat, has anything that will reach Europe; the United States has formally adopted a first-strike doctrine, used it to invade Iraq, and expressed eagerness to build more sophisticated nuclear weapons while yielding none of its present nuclear arsenal, and finally: almost everything that comes out of Bush's mouth is later exposed as a lie - it makes perfect sense. It isn't necessary to be Russian to see that.

BUSH SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE UNTIL HE IS IMPEACHED.........THE MAN IS A MENACE TO THE WORLD!

BUSH SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE UNTIL HE IS IMPEACHED.........THE MAN IS A MENACE TO THE WORLD!

Your Commander-In-Chief Is Spinning Of The Planet! Darn Straight And Words To Die By "live by war die by war"

Looking objectively at who are the real threats to freedom and democracy in the world, maybe the Free World should put a missile defense system in Niagara Falls, Ontario just a few miles away from Bush´s border stormtroopers with their rubber rectal gloves. Speaking of which, I hear they are planning to tear a new one for Leaky Dick´s Lewis Libby in Bush´s anal rape rooms.

The only reason to be against a missile defence system is that it doesn't work. Well, the truth is that it doesn't work YET. What other alternative do we have agains Iran? What army would we attack them with? Do you seriously think we or anybody else can just talk them out of whatever it is they take a notion to do? You mentioned deterrance. I suppose you think the leadership isn't capable of personal acts of martyrdom. Do we even know which leader would send missiles our way when they have the capability? We don't have to take a poll among nations to decide whether and how to defend ourselves, we just have to decide to do it and then execute competently. And least of all, we certainly don't have to listen to Putin's fulminations when they are all about keeping up his political popularity at home and not much else. Let him bluster and threaten to point missiles wherever he wants. We have a good track record when it comes to deterring the deterrable, and the Russians have proven themselves to be eminently deterrable.

Lets see now, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afganistan, Lebanon...how may more countries does Bush want to fight? Is Russia next? The emperor has no clothes.

Putin is a new Stalin, he does not have a specific ideology like this tyrant, but it is quite clear that he doesn't want any kind of freedom in Russia with the exception of the freedom of being his humble subject and obey him without any hesitation. Russians should overthrow him, and in my opinion the restoration of a constitutional monarchy will provide a solution to the current situation and will be in the best interest of Russia bringing her back to Europe like it was for three centuries under the Romanov dynasty. Disgracefully the vast majority of the well-educated Russians were murdered and their descendents had forgotten their roots, with very few exceptions. Most of the new Russian elite, were members of what was called the Nomenclature, they inherited their current positions thanks to their links with the consecutive governments of the Soviet era. Putin himself a former KGB, was part of this dictatorial system, and he will never give up his ideas of a total control of Russia. The murders of Anna Politkovskaya the wonderful journalist and writer had the aim of silencing any opposition to the horrendous way that the Kremlin has been conducting the war waged in Chechnya. This assassination was not the only one; Alexander Kirilenko as we know now, was another victim of the Russian secret service, most of them former KGB men. But in connection with the current crisis I find hard to believe that it is necessary to build the new defence system to protect the USA from Iran or North Korea, none of these countries have the capabilities to threaten Europe now or in the near future. George W. Bush is absolutely wrong and as he did in Iraq, he is pushing the world to a new confrontation, this time against Russia, which is completely unnecessary and extremely dangerous.

Mr. Putin,

As a peace loving American I can state with resounding certainty that I do not support our idiot president and what he is proposing and most probably am not alone here when I say loud and clear that "I AM NOT WITH STUPID"!! Do not think for one moment that he speaks for the American people. He certainly does not speak for me.

Missle defense systems are like the Maginot Line. They assume the nuclear threat is coming from one way, the sky.
The Germans defeated the expensive Maginot line by going around it and attaching from the rear.

Missles leave a footprint that tells us where it was fired from and gives us the means of obliterating the trigger country. Why would a sane person fire a missle when there are other, more reliable, less detectable ways to smuggle in bombs or materials and detonate them where they want and get away with it.

If drugs or aliens can get across our borders, why can not a terrorist with a suitcase bomb. Look at the major cities in this country on the ocean or major water ways. Only 5% of cargo is inspected coming into our ports. One does not need missles to hurt us.

You're right about the missiles, Arkin, but you lost me with the pre-emption.

"So why does the U.S. want to throw gasoline on the fire?"

Could it be because large numbers of people in Washington actually WANT to restart the Cold War?

On the surface this whole thing does look ridiculous, even nutty. A bunch of paranoid neocons versus a bunch of paranoid exKGB agents hell bent on restarting the cold war, as if there were not enough troubles in the world!

On the other hand this could be part of the plan to attack Iran from Eastern European bases. It's hard to think of any govt in old Europe, Britain included, that would let Bush attack Iran with planes based in its country. The same with Middle East govts, Iraq included. A land attack in the near future is out of the question. A carrier based attack is probably not enough. And flying bombers all the way from the US or Pacific bases repeatedly is also not practical. Hence Eastern Europe missile defense...

Krazy isn't it? But hey between Bush, Cheney, Putin, and Ahmadinejad...

What farce involving such serious issues

The missle defense is not effective, but we'll sell it anyway .... which will prompt those "rogue" states to build more attack missiles to overwhelm the defense system ... which will shift resources from butter to guns in every country involved

how tragic ... and our country leads this tragedy through the bellicose talk and action of our President and Vice President

Is it possible that this Czech/Polish shield is simply a "testing the waters" action, both politically and operationally?

The ultimate near-future goal of a missile shield would seem to be to deter an expansionist and heavily-armed China in the next generation or so. Iran and other "rogue states" just don't make sense, for the reasons repeatedly mentioned here.

So the USA sets up these systems in Eastern Europe under more or less of an Iran pretense and gauges international reaction, improves infrastructure and functionality, etc - a "working demo". The knowledge thus gained is used when the system is expanded to other areas to counter the "real" threat - China, and yeah, possibly a resurgent Russia.

The biggest achievement of the Bush administration was to reconcile persians and arabs, by deliberately supporting shiites. In history books, and whatever the outcome, it will be printed in bold characters. Since the 1963 Dallas shooting, heroin and oil have fueled our imagination as a society. Vietnam was a rehearsal, losing a battle to win the war. Go USA, as long as we support both the sionists and the islamists, we can sell arms to both sides! We were used to "divide to conquer". Old school! Now it is "unite to keep satisfied customers". My only complaint? Why Halliburton is not making OEM AK47's? Great market...

"Putting a missile defense in Europe ....signals that U.S. leaders are powerless to do anything but wait for that fateful day to arrive"

Are you kidding?!

The US should take these Russian theatrics exactly as they're intended: political nonsense for Putin's domestic consumers and an attempt to embarrass us. It's a stupid issue to drive a wedge over--except that that is his goal. Let Putin start acting like an ally and look out for our interests elsewhere if he wants us to feign concern over his tantrums. The merits of the system's effectivness is not the issue here.

The US should take this Russian theatrics exactly as it's intended: political nonsense for Putin's domestic consumers. It's a stupid issue to drive a wedge over--except that that is his goal. Let Putin start acting like an ally and look out for our interests elsewhere if he wants us to feign concern over his tantrum. The merits of the system's effectivness is not the issue here.

perhaps it is the people who believe a rogue nation can threaten the US with a ballistic missle that are foolish. Mr Arkin is likely accurate in noting that other threats pose greater danger.

Mr Arkin seems to think that pacifism and "hope" are enough to keep America safe. Others believe that the US will one day be under missile attack from a rogue state. I tend to agree with the latter. I believe that people like Mr. Arkin are simply foolish .

It's interesting to see William advocate attacking Iran instead of working on defensive weapons. I disagree with his opinion. The fact that both parties have members that prefer to attack anyone who might some day become a threat is NOT an argument with any merit. The fact that these defensive system don't address all possible threats doesn't mean you don't work on their development and improvement. Such theories argue against the use of seatbelts as they also only address some causes of death. The theory of 100% safety is only of value to a person or organization looking for personal gain through the encouragement of fear. Life is risky until you finally die. You can only reduce your risk until you finaly lose the battle. Lowering the quality of life in order to increase your safety by an insignificant margin is something that needs to be weighed against other options. Spending that money to improve life instead of improvmg safety needs to be carefully considered.

Karl... I see you logic, the goodwill and deplomacy is a great idea, but when being the "good neighnor" doesn't work paying off the mob is not the solution. It is not sustainable. What about our real allies, should they get paid to just for being nice to us??? It just doesn't work that way. Money can't fix the problem just as war hasn't fixed it yet. I do feel that a big step is the right direction would be to levarage alternative energy and get rid of or reliance on Oil!!! But again that won't fix everything.
My gut says that we can't trust everyone and there does come a point when the carrot won't work with out a stick. As much as society has progressed humans are not much different from those who fought with swords and spears thousands of years ago. The fear, greed, hatred, lust is all still there (on both sides), just new weapons and bigger kingdoms.
What to do???? There is no good answer but the worst of all is ignorance and inaction.

Peace :-)

"All sides are obviously just trying to exploit the situation for their own motives, none of which are in the interest of the people of any country."

And this is news? That's the way the game is played. The U.S. plays by the same rules as its adversaries. Absent anything more effective, it has to and should. The U.S.' best interests will never be pursued by an dedicated adversary.

I thought this article was going to be just another "Let's bash Bush" rant, but regardless of the author's feeling towards Bush, he makes some very good points. This is exactly the kind of article I like that passes all the partisan bs and gets to the reality of the situation. It's just too hard to believe why Bush thinks this is a good idea and it seems ridiculous for Russian and China to get their panties in a bunch. All sides are obviously just trying to exploit the situation for their own motives, none of which are in the interest of the people of any country.

Isn't this a Texas based company building these things or at least receiving most of the money? There have been unreported billions going into this project since Cheney and company took over our government.

The cold war was an unparalleled windfall for the Military Industrial Complex; they are just trying to keep the old game going. Ronny tried to escalate the "conflict" (as in more money for the MIC) and accidentally ended the game.

Just look at what they are up to: the Osprey that keeps crashing; the F22 replaces everything, in spite of the fact that without it, nobody on the planet can touch our current arsenal or training. Billions and billions are going to the same industries.

This is just more of the same.

This is the Prez and pals last attempt to dip into the national treasury. Period.

This is the Prez and pals last attempt to dip into the national treasury. Period.

How typical...the U.S. never "gets it" with some people! The U.S. is ALWAYS "wrong" about everything, and the world would be "OK" if the U.S. would just stop dead in its tracks, and begin listening to the "unbiased experts," who are just standing by, waiting to be hired off posting boards into the Pentagon, the State Sept., the CIA, et al. Their "knowlege" and "broad experience" in foreign policy (and EVERYTHING else, actually) would no doubt "save" the U.S. and the world. Conspicuous is the absence of "advice" for Russia, North Korea, Iran, et al, from all of these posting board wonders. Ironic.

The military's job is to identify potential threats to America and find ways to counter that threat. Unfortunately, Russia will likely remain a threat for the foreseeable future since the current government is mostly run by ex-KGB agents that are slowly turning back the clock. However, the Missile shield is more likely to cover a situation like Muslim extremest taking control in an existing Nuclear Armed state like Pakistan. But we can't say that about an Ally state.

"Thinking" above and echoing the "position" that putting missile systems to "protect" against Iran (My jaw dropped at the inanity of such an idea;I couldn't believe this was actually considered. Yeah , Iran is SUCH a threat, uh huh) is so breathtakingly moronic.

You know what, "thinking", I really don't want YOU to be safe. Go out there yourself and protect us from Iran. People with your apparent views are just WRECKING the world with no conscience, only have their bottomless mediocrity, and passive/aggressive and parasitical victim-like contrived self-importance.

Yeah, "deterrence" against whoever is fantasized as the "enemy" is what is protecting us. Nauseating.

Die by the cold war indeed. I have been a large proponent of the failings deeply set within this administration and it begins to now come to a head. We hope that the head will not be a nuclear one but I am not so sure now. September 11 2001 was a chance to unite the world, we had the support of the greatest nations in the world, for the first time since World War 2 there was the whisper of unity. It was America's duty to use this to make a better world and now we have alienated the greatest nuclear power in the world as well as the most populous country with the strongest economic potential - the Sleeping Red Giant. So we shall reap and sow, I'm looking into real estate in the Bahama's, its not a bad time gentlemen, think of the future because its clear that our leaders give not the same consideration...

let usa build missile defence system in europe and let russia move their nucs on the eurpoe border. But, as long as usa missle don't aim or shoot towards russsia, there will not be any conflict. it's called balance of power for peace.

Yes, but this will cause another Cold War for better missiles and weapons, this is peace? God protect the world if every American thinks like this! And face it America is the one waving the sword. There is a saying "He who waves the sword, by sword will fall." But I fear that going down USA will drag all of the world to hell with it.

I think Chuck hit it. Why is it worthwhile to create this friction with Russia, and put our allies into a tug of war between the US ans Russia? Current missile defense systems are woefully unreliable. Intercepting Iranian missiles over Europe is something out of a Clancy novel. With all the covert options available to Iran, if they wanted to actually attack somebody they could do it with plausible deniability using a 3rd party (terrorists). Using an InterContinental Ballistic Missile is like giving a return address to your opponents. Even Iran knows that would be suicide.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.globalresearch.ca

The JFK "plot": another grossly inflated threat
By Bill Van Auken
5 June 2007

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The weekend's news in the US was dominated by screaming headlines and sensationalist broadcast coverage of an alleged plot in New York to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport's jet fuel tanks and supply lines. The attack would have been, according to many accounts, "more devastating than September 11."

Four men were charged in an indictment [http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nye/pr/2007/Defreitas.complaint.pdf] unveiled Sunday that included features that have become almost invariable in every such "terror" case brought by the government in recent years. First, the suspects had not only carried out no acts of terror, but they apparently lacked any means to realize such an attack. Second, a central figure in the alleged plot was a paid undercover informant of the FBI.

Broadcast networks spoke of the worst threat since the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001, while reporters were sent out to conduct random interviews with passengers passing through JFK as well as residents living near the pipelines, asking how they felt about their supposed near brush with death.

As usual, New York City's tabloids excelled in this sensationalism. Rupert Murdoch's New York Post Sunday referred to the alleged plot in its headline as an "inferno plan" and carried an editorial stating that the purported plan "to do calamitous damage to JFK International Airport and surrounding residential neighborhoods underscores yet again the overarching threat Islamist terrorism poses to America."

The New York Daily News on Monday carried five pages on the "plot," with a ludicrous front-page headline, "Evil Ate at Table Eight," promoting an inside interview with the Brooklyn waitress who served a meal to Russell Defreitas, whom the paper describes as the "mastermind" of the alleged plot, just before he was picked up by federal agents and police.

Yet the profile of Defreitas, a 63-year-old US citizen who emigrated from Guyana 25 years ago, hardly suggests a terrorist "mastermind." A former friend describes him as someone who, before becoming a Muslim, had declared himself a Rastafarian and grown dreadlocks. He recalled his involvement in various business schemes to ship air conditioners or refrigerators to Guyana, none of which ever came to anything.

"He couldn't even fix brakes," the former friend said. "He never built bombs."

Other accounts described him as a retired worker living in an impoverished Brooklyn neighborhood, who on various occasions had been homeless. New York Newsday, for example, reported, "Since being laid off from his job as a cargo worker several years ago, Russell Defreitas has lived a meek existence--at times sleeping in trains and trying to eke out a living running two-bit scams, selling incense on street corners and collecting welfare, acquaintances said."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/jfk-j05.shtml

As always, there are a lot of reporters that will explain why all these options will not work, but they never dare an opinion on how to deal with the problem. They just use it as a tool to issue negative comments against government, but will not embrace a position that may bring accountability to them. Clowns.

a nightmare is upon us,biblical witchery fore sure,the end of day,s ha what a witches brew we are conjering up,all because of a jewish and arabic god,give me a break america must get a grip foreget israel and the arabs,and come home and instead change our technology to alternative energy

I wonder what Bushes reaction would be if Putin announce a missle defense system for the Carribean. The Neocon think tank is retarded.

"The United States has a policy of preemption, supported by both parties"

let usa build missile defence system in europe and let russia move their nucs on the eurpoe border. But, as long as usa missle don't aim or shoot towards russsia, there will not be any conflict. it's called balance of power for peace.

I understand this missile system is to defend us against Iran and even North Korea. Look at the globe. Does really make any sense geographically? Bush certainly is gifted at making international enemies.

A point was missed here: Follow the money.

Who in the military-industrial complex is benefiting financially through the development of this system?

Is Bush willing to pull the plug on the project and put his corporate-cronies' wallets at risk?

Probably not. This is still a prototype of a working system with almost no chance of success at knocking out one missile, to say nothing of multiple missiles. Yet another example of a policy that does nothing but make matters worse for everyone in the world except the wealthy few.

"Putting a missile defense in Europe essentially communicates to Tehran that the U.S. expects Iran to be successful in matching America as a conventional military force. It also signals that U.S. leaders are powerless to do anything but wait for that fateful day to arrive"

That is one of the least intelligent statements I have ever read. Of all the aurguments against missle defense, that's the worst. I assume the author doesn't lock his doors, because that would signal to a robber that he is powerless to do anything but wait for that fateful day to arrive!

This article has merit on its face; however, perhaps this move by Bush is a chess gambit to move the Soviets to a harder line against Iran's nuclear intentions. While we may not feel Bush is too smart, this is not a real complicated idea.

Read the neo-con documents that relate to a Pax Americana. It's peace through superior firepower enforced on the rest of the world because "we can". I enclose this phrase in quotes because this is the perception of the neo-cons that we can do this. The reality is woefully clear that we lack the ability to wage the global wars that are the basis of the pax americana. We can't plan it right, execute it right, or take care of the poor souls we send into the losing battles right when they come home maimed for the oil profits. Seems like Exxon should be paying the VA benefits to me...

Impeccable logic, the US government doesn't "get it" as usual. This has been par for the course since the end of WW2, when we didn't realize that the USSR was a third world nation with a first class military. We had to read in the newspaper that India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons. The US government is so busy with paperwork and politics, they're completely failing in their mission to sponsor and protect freedom.

Mr Arkin, why don't you mention the real reason for this build-up, i.e., campaign contributions from defense contractors? Are you on the take from K Street also?

Mr Arkin, why don't you mention the real reason for this build-up, i.e., campaign contributions from defense contractors? Are you on the take from K Street also?

Mr Arkin, why don't you mention the real reason for this build-up, i.e., campaign contributions from defense contractors? Are you on the take from K Street also?

The missile system says to Iran that we can't stop them from going nuclear and making missiles that can contain that type of warhead.

If we are Russia's friends then we should sell them this missle interceptor system. Then we'll see how much of a good friends we are to each other. Administration officials won't see Russia as a good friend. It's doublespeak. Lets say we were to get concessions from Russia like cheap oil, miltary staging areas or bases in the former CIS states, open trade and democracy then sure lets be friends. I doubt very much however that the Bush administration is intelligent enough to even enter into discussions over this.

Likewise, with the amount of money we have spent on Iraq, we could have taken that money and built goodwill with the people of Iraq and Sadaam would be our best friend now. We could have paid off every single official and then some and we wouldn't have this stupid war. That money could have gone to lift Iraq out of poverty and we could have sent agricultural advisors and technical advisors steering them towards capitalism like the China model.

A great leader succeeds without resorting to violence.

If we are Russia's friends then we should sell them this missle interceptor system. Then we'll see how much of a good friends we are to each other. Administration officials won't see Russia as a good friend. It's doublespeak. Lets say we were to get concessions from Russia like cheap oil, miltary staging areas or bases in the former CIS states, open trade and democracy then sure lets be friends. I doubt very much however that the Bush administration is intelligent enough to even enter into discussions over this.

Likewise, with the amount of money we have spent on Iraq, we could have taken that money and built goodwill with the people of Iraq and Sadaam would be our best friend now. We could have paid off every single official and then some and we wouldn't have this stupid war. That money could have gone to lift Iraq out of poverty and we could have sent agricultural advisors and technical advisors steering them towards capitalism like the China model.

A great leader succeeds without resorting to violence.

If we are Russia's friends then we should sell them this missle interceptor system. Then we'll see how much of a good friends we are to each other. Administration officials won't see Russia as a good friend. It's doublespeak. Lets say we were to get concessions from Russia like cheap oil, miltary staging areas or bases in the former CIS states, open trade and democracy then sure lets be friends. I doubt very much however that the Bush administration is intelligent enough to even enter into discussions over this.

Likewise, with the amount of money we have spent on Iraq, we could have taken that money and built goodwill with the people of Iraq and Sadaam would be our best friend now. We could have paid off every single official and then some and we wouldn't have this stupid war. That money could have gone to lift Iraq out of poverty and we could have sent agricultural advisors and technical advisors steering them towards capitalism like the China model.

A great leader succeeds without resorting to violence.

If we are Russia's friends then we should sell them this missle interceptor system. Then we'll see how much of a good friends we are to each other. Administration officials won't see Russia as a good friend. It's doublespeak. Lets say we were to get concessions from Russia like cheap oil, miltary staging areas or bases in the former CIS states, open trade and democracy then sure lets be friends. I doubt very much however that the Bush administration is intelligent enough to even enter into discussions over this. Likewise, with the amount of money we have spent on Iraq, we could have taken that money and built goodwill with the people of Iraq and Sadaam would be our best friend now. We could have paid off every single official and then some and we wouldn't have this stupid war.

If we are Russia's friends then we should sell them this missle interceptor system. Then we'll see how much of a good friends we are. The US doesn't see Russia as a good friend. It's doublespeak. If we were to get concessions from Russia like cheap oil or gas, miltary staging areas or bases in the former CIS states opened trade and democracy concessions from the Russia then sure, lets be friends. I doubt very much however that the Bush administration is intelligent enough to ever do this.