Trying to negotiate with that idea on the table was like trying to talk to a person with a loaded gun in their face. I'm glad to see that the idea was shelved. It would have been horrible for US-Russia relations if it went through.

Looks like missile defense isn't scrapped, it's just shifting gears to actually address the missiles that Iran is developing:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jH0YjpygDi5_ckf0EOh5tBGbOnMAD9AR5R581

Russia seems mollified, and says it will scrap plans to deploy new missile sites aimed at Europe, while Gates insists that Russia was not a factor in the decision and he doubts they'll like the new missile defense plan any better. The plan still calls for LRBM interceptor sites later down the road, which the US would like to station in Poland.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091700639_2.html

"As described by Gates and his top generals, Obama's new missile defense plan will unfold in three stages. By 2011, the Pentagon will deploy Navy Aegis ships equipped with SM-3 interceptors in the eastern Mediterranean.

A second phase in about 2015 will field an upgraded, land-based SM-3 in allied countries, and discussions are underway with Poland and the Czech Republic on basing the missiles in their territory, Gates said. In 2018, the third phase will deploy a larger and more capable missile, which will allow the defense shield to protect Europe and the United States against short- and intermediate-range rockets and, eventually, intercontinental ballistic missiles. "

That last bit could be tricky, because after years of being taken for a ride over missile defense, it looks like the people of Poland are glad to be getting off:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/But_the_Polish_public_likes_it.html?showall

I guess the best that can be hoped is that the decision to place interceptors closer to Iran and the Obama administration's general change in tone will convince Russia that this is actually aimed at Iran, rather than Russia.

Um, sorry, but no.

It's designed to stop an attach, not launch one.

A better analogy would be "it's like wearing a bullet proof vest while you talk to someone with a gun".

How is it that everyone in this thread went ahead with the assumption that Russia objected to the shield because it threatened their security? As was pointed out very early on, this system is easily overwhelmed by a nation like Russia. It's effectiveness, and indeed its intended goal, was to be a countermeasure to rogue launches....something that many suspect Russia has been promoting in this region (Russia has historically profited greatly from destablization in the region). If that is the case then their interest in stopping it is in helping to facilitate Rogue missile launches and in stopping that we have furthered that goal. I think it is reasonable in light of those possibilities to ask why we stopped and to not simply ignore common sense in favor of a pacifistic greedy algorithm type approach to foreign policy.

Furthermore, this concept that we should capitulate to Russia simply because we want good relations with them is devoid of basic forethought, this issue, and indeed relationships in general, are never that simple. A relationship is a two-way street, if you want a relationship with Russia you have to have both a common ground to stand on as well as common respect for one another. One without the other is not a relationship, and pursuing one of those non-relationship at all will be deeply damaging to all of our actual international relationships, not just potential relationships with Russia.

So yes, you folks on the left who want to just give Russia whatever they want to keep the peace, you are insane. To believe the most simplistic policies of an already simplistic philosophy of pacifism could be a legitimate foreign policy solution to one of the most complex foreign policy situations in the world...is quite simple insane. Pacifism doesn't work...in fact pacifism produces world-threatening leaders like Hitler. Capitulating over and over again creates the kind of nightmare you want to avoid, and since the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results...yes this "give'em what they want" foreign policy is completely and utterly batshit insane.

Russia is deliberately and strategically forcing the tensions for the express purpose of using them as a political lever to get exactly this kind of response. There are only 2 ways this can go down, either we give in and they keep asking for more or we force them to meet on common ground with common respect (in which case they have the choice between war and peace).

What Obama got for this will determine how this issue plays out from here. That anyone could think these things are isolated or that this most crucial of details could be considered unimportant reveals a deep ignorance and/or misunderstanding of foreign policy.

"Pacifism doesn't work...in fact pacifism produces world-threatening leaders like Hitler."

That's only if certain nations aren't pacifist. In other words, there's not pacifism then. And that's hardly an excuse for saying that we strike war whenever it suits us. Hitler was a product of hardship, and that hardship was a product of war.

This oddly reminds me of Star Trek Birth of the Federation.

There is a race of pacifists called the Mizarians...

and basically all someone needs to do to conquer them is threaten them.

Which is the problem with pacifism.

It's not that if other nations aren't pacifist it's a problem.

It's if one guy isn't a pacifist it's a problem... because that one guy can just get a stick with a nail in it and then he's running the show.

That game wasn't very good... but the battles themselves were amazing.  Just the resource management part was annoying.

We can get into minutia about Hitler but it's not overly relevant here, the basic point is that the pacifism of other nations is what enabled Hitler to come as close to his goal as he did.  It was a failure to recognize the threat and have the political fortitude to do what needed to be done, that put us in that situation.  Honestly the similarities are there, Hitler invaded several local neighbors before he went full scale.  Russia has already invaded Georgia once and was only pushed back by international political pressure and the threat of potential multi-lateral military action. So we can discuss what brings about a Hitler type person (and note i'm not suggesting we are dealing withanyone as bad or as ambitious as him), but there are several leaders poised around the globe already with malicious goals and a lot of initiative/incentive to cause trouble.  They will take strategic cues from how Obama handles this differently than Bush handled Georgia to make decisions about their future goals and objectives. For that reason alone what we got out of this deal is massively important to a myriad of foriegn policy issues down the road.

As for starting wars whenever it "suits us".....well I don't think I said we should treat going to war lightly.   What I said was that we can't allow other nations to walk all over us just to avoid a potential political conflict.  More to the specific point though, every nation has the right to go to war when it "suits them".  Now the choice should not be based on something as simple as "is there a potential benefit for us?", but the entire point of sovereignty is that you have a right to protect your interests.  The key is that war is very rarely a good option and is in fact very commonly not in a nation's best interest. But when it does "suit us" and when it is in our best interest, in those cases we can and most certainly should be ready for the undertaking.

The ideal scenario is for everyone to get along...but that is completely out of touch with reality.  The best we can hope for, without opening ourselves to an unneccessary existential threat, is to be completely ready for any/all opponents...but never actually have to engage them or even overtly threaten them. 

PS - Your point was still a bit vague to me so I tried to address everything I thought you might have meant by it (I'm not sure what/how much you disagreed with) .  I do agree there was more to hitler's rise than pacifism, but the point I was making is that pacifism played the star role in enabling his rise to the heights of world power unchecked. 

No, you wrote too much and over-analyzed a point, again. Why do I ever bother...

I don't know...your point was pretty vague and now you seem to be upset with me because you failed to explain it well.

The irony is you seem annoyed with my over-explaining myself....which I do to avoid having the exact problem you have on a regular basis.

No, I'm upset with you because you feel that every post should be a 3 paragraph argument.

Pacifism is only a poor policy when one side follows it and the other doesn't. In this case, these aggressors aren't going to cause serious harm just because of the absence of the Missile Shield. Now, expanding on my earlier point, bringing up Hitler was a really random excuse for war. The reason Hitler rose to power was not just because he was unopposed, but because of hardships that Germany had faced from the aftermath of World War I. If Germany had avoided starting World War I in the first place, they likely never would have faced those hardships. The German people were willing to accept anything after the economic collapse and humilation. The U.S. has had a habit of getting in unfruitful wars, so it would be in its best interest to avoid them whenever possible. Now obviously, the U.S. can't let other nations walk all over it. But the costs of war aren't always worth the pride.

If a dictator seems to be rising to power, I'll be calling for war with everyone else. But in a case like this, removing the missile shield was a good idea, and not being pacifist isn't a good enough reason against it.