and so......it begins

jaggeh

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/23/bush.defense/index.html

---

Bush: U.S. to have own timetable for ABM pullout
August 23, 2001 Posted: 6:35 PM EDT (2235 GMT)



President George W. Bush will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in November.

---

---

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President George W. Bush said Thursday the United States will withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia, but did not specify a timeline for backing away from the longstanding arms control agreement.

"We will withdraw from the ABM treaty on our timetable," Bush said, speaking at a school in Crawford, Texas, where he is on vacation.

Abandoning the ABM treaty would be a step toward the eventual creation of a national anti-ballistic missile defense system. Thus far, Russian President Vladimir Putin has rejected the Bush administration's push for a joint withdrawal from the treaty, which bans missile defense programs.

Bush said, however, that "Mr. Putin is aware of our desire to move beyond the ABM treaty, and we will."

The treaty requires notice of six months before a party can withdraw. The president is scheduled to meet with Putin in November at his Texas ranch.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld indicated Thursday he was not aware of Bush's comments when he spoke with reporters at a Pentagon briefing a short while later, and he declined to discuss a possible timeline. "That's a presidential call, and that's something that he'll address -- what he decides to do about it at all, as well as when he decides."

Rumsfeld also denied recent reports that he has scaled back his expectations for reshaping the U.S. military as he continues his review of the services.

"To be able to scale back your expectations, one would have to know what my expectations had been and where they are now, neither of which have been publicly revealed because I was still developing my expectations and have not gotten to the point where scaling back is appropriate."

He said his expectations for his Quadrennial Defense Review, which reports say has gotten a chilly response from military brass and some officials, were "realistic" at the beginning of the review process, and remain so today.

"The idea that we've gone from telling the services what to do down to telling the services 'do anything you want' reflects an inability to understand nuance," Rumsfeld said.


Rumsfeld calls his review of the military "ongoing."
Rumsfeld said the review was ongoing, and did not say whether it will result in a smaller military.

Among the ideas discussed during the preparation of the so-called defense planning guidance is eliminating some Army troops, Navy aircraft carriers and Air Force planes.

But Pentagon officials said the final guidance will not contain specific numbers for troop levels or weapons, and it remains uncertain whether there will be any cuts.

Additionally, Rumsfeld is scheduled to travel to Crawford on Friday with Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, where he and Bush will announce that Myers is the president's choice as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

---

is it just me thinking this but
the term "WTF?!?!" comes to mind

i personally hope someone tops him before he can do any more damage

azezil

Well it was rather inevitable. But if the Russians don’t agree and the Europeans don’t agree I think or rather, I hope it’s only a matter of time before his plans fall apart.

We can only hope…

---

"just because you're not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after you!"

jaarius

he is a puppet! daddy and the rest of those S&B folk are benefiting massively from his 'administration'. the tech market falls on its @$$ so the money boys reinvest in the blue chip stock putting money back into republican hands. whats the next step? keep it there! alienate the eurofolk with irresponsible statements about europe. tech market smarts REAL bad and tech companies concentrate the resources on the US. next step is to slap progress in the face and start shi7 with the russians (cos you know their gonna like that) and pull out of the ABM treaty. lookie at what happens! no ABM, means more weapons research and production. now boys and girls! who researches and manufactures weapons in the US? thats right! republican supported/supporting companies. more business and money rolling around in the rep. camp and every gun-toting, dixie flag waving republican is all happy that their boy in the oval office is giving them business.

all this cos clinton made a big fu<king joke out of his opposition, for the last 8 years.


j

---

"Why not put the match in a shark tank, with real live sharks, hungry sharks, and the only way to beat your
opponent is to stuff them down a shark's throat and pin a shark".
-Kurt Angle to Lilian Garcia

seamus

AAAHHH!! Why is he such an ignorant f*uckwit?!! The anti-ballistics treaty is practically the same as some defense system, and won't cost anything. He just wants to bring America back to the days of the 'good 'oul boys' and America being a superpower.

(Loading rifle) Right, I'm off to Washington for a.....vacation.....yeah....anyone coming?

---

When I was young, I dreamed of being a Fireman. Then I learned that they put out the fires.

adnans

http://a1736.g.akamai.net/7/1736/1392/1dcf6501c8f9fc/images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2001/db010817.gif

jaarius jas a good point. its not worth one penny, and by the time Bush ends his presidency he will have brought USA back to 1980's.

adnans

---

Children need encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell him it was a lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky feeling.

pepperkin

As stupid as this sounds (and it will)

I didn't vote for Bush. I didn't vote for Clinton, either. *scream*

I'm moving.

_CreeD_

If you take it as direct provocation of the Russians, building up a new defense system while they are weak, then it's an act of idiocy.
But, as much as I despise the man there is one logical reason to push forward with this. The treaty worked when you were dealing with a balance of power between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries, but where is the biggest threat now? A small billigerant state getting hold of just one missile. Do you think somebody like Saddamn Hussein would give 2 flying fks about the threat of retalliation if he knew he was on his last legs? Nope.
A world where a nuclear launch does not mean World War 3 is actually more potentially dangerous - human nature makes it so.

Evil Phil

I think the big threat the US is facing is either from biological or chemical weapons produced by terrorists on US soil. It seems that GWB is hell bent on starting a new arms race, for the profit. Even if he doesn't get a second term it will take decades to undo the damage he's done.

Oh, and Hi Pepperkin.

[This message has been edited by Evil Phil (edited 25-08-2001).]

Magwitch

I did notice a rather timely statement around the same time by Bush stating sternly and in no uncertain terms that "Chairman Arafat is not doing enough to stop terrorism". It seems that President Bush is prepared to endanger world security buy choosing a partisan approach to the middle-east problem to secure the support of the American-Jewish lobby for his space toys. However it is worth pointing out that the Patriot intercepor missle never worked (the techmology that SDI was to be based on), however Isreal is in the advanced stages of developing an interceptor missle that does. Any co-operation would shorten development time and cut costs (hence getting prouction and jobs on-line quicker).

This in itself is enough to show Americas allies that Bush has a reckless and money driven political agenda when it comes to defence policy.

I put this in light of the fact that Egypt has stated that it will move its 23rd Armoured division into the Sinai desert breaking the terms of the peace agreement signed after their last war, if Isreal moves to occupy Palistine territory. This directly threatens Isreal with military might (and its not 1976 anymore, Egypt would kick Isreals ass). And OPEC is waiting in the Wings to add presure to a slowing western economy.

So whats Space defence for if its worth risking everything? Short term its about major jobs and federal money going to republican voting states. Long term: Well the eventual idea is to move weapons into orbit "To project power from outer space to any point in the globe": a quote from American Space Commands own development document.

Bushes efforts to tap more oil resources in Alaska and off the Florida coast is an effort to isolate America from OPEC's influence and that of the global economy. SDI will support an ailing American economy while this drilling is being prepared. When it is all over - America has 1. Unparelled Missle defence, 2. Immunity from OPEC sanctions 3. A trump card to play economically if other countries find themselves feeling recession.

It is a scary prospect, America with unchallanged military and economic might.

GreenHell

Gób****e.

popinfresh

That f)uking thick ****ed hilbilly. How did a racist hillbilly become the most powerful man in the world. He is undoubtably gonna start another serious war before his term is out,

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Precisely why I voted for McCain in the Republican nomination college, and Nader in the national election. A President without the popular vote, keeper of the most active gas chamber in our country AND a village idiot? God help us.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

---

My name is Dr. Gathermole Lipharvest the Third...the other two died of embarassment.

Winning Hand

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Magwitch:

America has 1. Unparelled Missle defence, 2. Immunity from OPEC sanctions 3. A trump card to play economically if other countries find themselves feeling recession.

It is a scary prospect, America with unchallanged military and economic might.</font>

Unparalled? Yes, effective? hell no. As it is now they have had either 33% or 50% (cant remember whether they fired two or three) success so far shooting down one missile which they knew everything about it, launch time, launch site. Also this is where the size geographically of the US will be a hindering factor.
It is compared to shooting a bullet with a bullet, nice analogy but useless if the missile developers put thought into it, why not fire thousands of dummy missiles? or give the first bullet wings and a ps2 to plot the continuously variable flight. The main point of the ICBM treaty was that both superpowers had the ability to end the world (MAD), bush seems to be under the impression that russia isnt a superpower and thus has free reign of the world, thats a big assumption to make with Putin in charge (who imo is one of the most intelligent world leaders atm)

As of yesterday bush was ready to appoint a new guy as defence secretary, i think, who is mad into the space warfare idea. Brings the phrase "What if we had a war and nobody came?" into mind. Now though, things are alot different in the congress than it was a few months back, back then the republicans had control of the senate, a large surplus projection, a "popular" tax cut and a dumbass president with a veto to keep moderates in line.
Today its a different story, Democrats have a majority, surplus projection has been torn to sh*t both these mean they republicans dont want the holiday to finish, the democrats will rip into the republicans for financing a tax cut for the rich while the world is in recession. Plus the democrats have hinted at their opposition towards the missile defence system.

Finally we cant forget the piles of oil they have in texas for when OPEC runs dry

Magwitch

I would be of the opinion that any co-operation with Isreal on missle defence development would yeild an effective weapon system. American expertise in aviation and rocket technology is sadly lacking of late and hindered furter by inevitable cost over runs. I think they can insure an effective system (They only have this one shot and cannot affort to mess it up).

As for dummy missles, apart from the expence of building and maintaining such a fleet it may well be rendered useless if (and lets face it, when) America puts other weaponery in space of a purely offensive nature.

popinfresh

I can personally see him being assanated by a bunch of Mexicans before his term is out..

Shinji

We can but hope. Do bear in mind that there is something of a hex on presidents elected on 20 year boundaries and assasination attempts....

Hobbes

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shinji:
We can but hope. Do bear in mind that there is something of a hex on presidents elected on 20 year boundaries and assasination attempts.... </font>

http://www.snopes2.com/history/american/curse.htm