|
|
Post by Bonobo on Dec 9, 2008 20:07:39 GMT 1
Yes, you do know Poland, but you don't know the U.S.A. We do, we do. Poles still remember how US betrayed Poland during WW2, giving it away to Stalin for 50 years...  We didn`t read about it in the press. We had to f...ing live in a f....ing communist system which made people happy when they had a f...ing sack of potatoes for winter!!!!! OH, WHY YOU LOOK SO SAD? TEARS ARE IN YOUR EYES COME ON AND COME TO ME NOW DON'T BE ASHAMED TO CRY LET ME SEE YOU THROUGH 'CAUSE I'VE SEEN THE DARK SIDE TOO WHEN THE NIGHT FALLS ON YOU YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO NOTHING YOU CONFESS COULD MAKE ME LOVE YOU LESS I'LL STAND BY YOU I'LL STAND BY YOU WON'T LET NOBODY HURT YOU I'LL STAND BY YOU SO IF YOU'RE MAD, GET MAD DON'T HOLD IT ALL INSIDE COME ON AND TALK TO ME NOW HEY, WHAT YOU GOT TO HIDE? I GET ANGRY TOO WELL I'M A LOT LIKE YOU WHEN YOU'RE STANDING AT THE CROSSROADS AND DON'T KNOW WHICH PATH TO CHOOSE LET ME COME ALONG 'CAUSE EVEN IF YOU'RE WRONG I'LL STAND BY YOU I'LL STAND BY YOU WON'T LET NOBODY HURT YOU I'LL STAND BY YOU ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Our conversation becomes 'empty' Mike. How can you know WHAT press I read? I told him you read Fakt and Trybuna. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Hollow seems better than empty. Or void. Hey, natives, correct me if I am wrong! Yes, Mike, it is true and so natural. Big fish always eat small fish. Forgive me my outburst in the first part of my post, all this cursing etc. Now I a cool guy again... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Dec 10, 2008 2:26:29 GMT 1
What could, or should have done for Poland after WW II ?
What would you have liked them to do, if you were living than?
Was the U.S.A. forced to do what they did? By who and why?
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Dec 11, 2008 3:09:48 GMT 1
You got me fired up, and than nothing. Why do you think the U.S.A. let down Poland, and not England, or France or any other place.
What could we have done more?
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by locopolaco on Dec 11, 2008 16:45:16 GMT 1
You got me fired up, and than nothing. Why do you think the U.S.A. let down Poland, and not England, or France or any other place. What could we have done more? Mike what do you think US or the other allies could have done? or needed to do anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Dec 11, 2008 19:52:30 GMT 1
This was my question also. I don't know, does anyone.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Dec 11, 2008 23:45:31 GMT 1
You got me fired up, and than nothing. Why do you think the U.S.A. let down Poland, and not England, or France or any other place. What could we have done more? Mike Hmm, read this. It is about Roosevelt who preferred to cooperate with Stalin who had a military potential than with Poland. buchanan.org/blog/1997/08/pjb-the-betrayal-of-poland-1939-1945/
PJB: The Betrayal of Poland 1939-1945
by Patrick J. Buchanan - August 29, 1997
With Poland’s membership in NATO at issue, a question has arisen as to whether America owes a debt to the Polish people for Franklin D. Roosevelt’s having “betrayed” the Polish nation to Joseph Stalin at Yalta.
Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat has lately raised the issue of a moral debt to Poland for the 1945 summit where FDR accepted Stalin’s assurances of free elections. Eizenstat was taken to task by columnist Lars-Erik Nelson for repeating a “50-year-old right-wing slander.” Robert Novak defended the “betrayed” thesis.
Nelson’s point: By 1945 Stalin had 12 million troops in Eastern Europe, and Dwight Eisenhower only 4 million in the West. Conservatives who condemn FDR for Poland’s fate, says Nelson, are joining the “Blame America First” crowd. We couldn’t save Poland!
But, in truth, Yalta was only the final betrayal of Poland, and not only FDR but Winston Churchill bears moral responsibility for a half-century of communist enslavement of the Polish people.
The first betrayal came with the British guarantee to Poland, after Neville Chamberlain was exposed as a dupe when Adolf Hitler tore up his Munich pact and marched into Prague. As Hitler pressed Poland for the return of Danzig, stripped from Germany after World War I, and demanded rail and road transit to the city across a “Polish Corridor” also taken from Germany, Warsaw, encouraged by British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, refused even to negotiate. The Poles were assured that if war came, Britain would be at their side.
But when Hitler invaded Poland from the west and Stalin invaded from the east, Britain declared war on Germany alone. Then, the British sat behind the Maginot Line while Poland was crucified. The British had goaded the Poles into standing up to Hitler though they had no plans to save or rescue Poland. Six million Poles would die as a result of having trusted in a British alliance.
The second betrayal occurred at Teheran in 1943, when FDR moved into the Soviet embassy compound and assured Stalin he would not object to his keeping the half of Poland and the Baltic states Hitler had ceded to Stalin in their infamous pact. As Robert Nisbet wrote in “Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship,” FDR asked only that word of his concession not leak out before the 1944 elections, so Polish Americans would not react in rage. FDR told one visitor to Hyde Park he was “sick and tired” of East Europeans and their constant clamoring about boundaries and sovereignties.
The third betrayal occurred in the summer of ‘44. The Polish Home Army in German-occupied Warsaw, heeding appeals from Radio Moscow, rose up against the Nazis. As the Home Army was loyal to the free Polish government in London, which was demanding an investigation of Stalin’s murder of Polish officers at Katyn, Stalin halted his own Red Army outside Warsaw to give the Nazis a free hand in crushing the Polish uprising.
British and Americans sought to aid the Poles with air drops of food and munitions. But Stalin refused to let the allies use air fields behind his lines to refuel for the return flight to England. Churchill drafted a strong letter to Stalin, asking that the allies be allowed to use the air fields assigned them, but to appease Stalin, FDR cravenly refused to sign the letter. The Home Army was butchered.
By February 1945, Poland had been overrun by a Red Army that could not be dislodged short of a new war. Yalta, writes Nisbet, “is not the source of the Soviet possessions in Eastern Europe … Teheran is. But Yalta performed a service that was almost as important to Stalin. … This was the invaluable service of giving moral legitimation to what Stalin had acquired by sheer force.”
Britain had gone to war and lost 400,000 men and an empire for Poland’s independence. Yet, as Poland receded into the darkness, not once did Churchill vent upon Stalin the oratory he used so often on Hitler. The rape of Poland by Hitler and Stalin was the moral cause that precipitated the war. Yet, Churchill and FDR, to appease Stalin, meekly acquiesced in the betrayal of that moral cause.
“Of one thing I am sure,” FDR said at Yalta, “Stalin is not an imperialist.” How explain his naivete about Stalin, to whom he gave everything, including a third of the Italian fleet and recognition of his puppet government in Poland? “Puerility,” writes George F. Kennan. FDR once told his friend, ambassador William Bullitt: “I think if I give him (Stalin) everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.”
And thus was Poland betrayed.
Mike, be a realist. US thinks globally, as a superpower it works with other superpowers and doesn`t treat small countries like Poland seriously. If US government deems it necessary to drop Poland, they will do it without hesitation. |
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Dec 12, 2008 1:37:23 GMT 1
Roosevelt was a very poor leader, and the rest of the Americans could do nothing at the time, like we will have with this new leader. When the wrong party get in office, and has all there people in place, the rest of the good Americans can't do much, but protest, and many of us will.
But what more can we do? What would you, or do you do when your leader does the wrong thing?
The Americans as a whole love the Polish people, and want to be there when they need our help.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Dec 12, 2008 10:11:55 GMT 1
Mike, your personal devotion to Poland as you decribe it is enormous and so is your readiness for any sacrifice needed, including protests in case we need help from your homeland. But what you have written indirectly proves what I have been trying to point out. US does not and did not help ANY country unless that help wasn't in the long run to help US. This is a perfect and realistic doctrine and makes USA a very valuable and accountable ally. In contrast to some European allies I would add to make you feel good Mike. But what you say is virtually something like - the Americans as a whole love the Polish people and want to be there when Polands needs help unless one of the parties ( „the right one ” whichever that might be) gets in office, otherwise they will not be able to do much but protest. Well thank you very much. BTW. I have to be sincere with you Mike and need to tell you that your groundless assurance sounding like 'great USA coming to help Poland in need' may be irritating. I think – and I a normal Pole, remember  we don't need nor want nor do we believe in your idealistic help founded on love of all Americans to Poland. If you have read the text provided by Bo ( have you?) you should understand. We have had difficult history, we did great things and we did mistakes -as any other nation. We are able to learn from the mistakes of the past. The main lesson is – count on youself in given circumstances. That is how our political, economic, military, intelligence machine is working now. One of the most important aspects of this work is to make our situation such, so our great allies would have to stand for their otherwise hollow words. Do you understand now Mike? Roosvelt and Churchil didn't HAVE TO stand by their ally and the fourth mililtary force of coalition. They could sell Poland and 'nothing happened' to them. So, an enormous task we are perfming, not always quite visibly but steadily forward. To make such a situation when not standing to their words by our allies would be directly harmful to them. Sorry Mike, you might not like it, but that is a word of truth. |
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Dec 12, 2008 13:21:06 GMT 1
Who did stand by Poland, and how? Why did no one help her, in her time of need.
This is the truth, the way you see it, if I asked someone, they may say otherwise.
You make the U.S.A. sound like a bad place, when we have helped so many, without gain to us, at high cost.
What is it you don't like of the U.S.A., you know you can like both, Poland, and the U.S.A.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Dec 12, 2008 13:56:01 GMT 1
Who did stand by Poland, and how? Why did no one help her, in her time of need. This is the truth, the way you see it, if I asked someone, they may say otherwise. You make the U.S.A. sound like a bad place, when we have helped so many, without gain to us, at high cost. What is it you don't like of the U.S.A., you know you can like both, Poland, and the U.S.A. Mike None of us Poles here said US didn't help Poland. Try to read what is written Mike. And I will tell you a secret - I do like US, I really do although I would never want to live there - it's simply not my homeland. As to liking both Poland and US, sure but I haven't got American roots, so it's different liking And if USA is a good or bad place -you tell us what place it is, please. From what you are writing here it would seem it is a terrible place to live with martial law on the verge of breaking out next month. If you have a martial law introduced next month, as you say, woul you leave or stay where you are and fight for the betterment of your country? |
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Dec 14, 2008 0:16:40 GMT 1
I don't know, I will have to think it over when it happens.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Dec 21, 2008 15:44:02 GMT 1
From Russia with love?
thenews.pl
19.12.2008
Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Przemyslaw Grudzinski is meeting with his Russian counterpart Sergei Ryabov in the third-round of
negotiations regarding the anti-missile shield.
Moscow has seen much activity this week – talks with the various
parties involved in the negotiating of the anti-missile defence
system have been meeting in the capital in an effort to work out the
terms of Russian inspections of the American system to be placed in
Poland and the Czech Republic. Today is Poland's turn to partake in
talks.
So far, Russia has stated that it is willing to back down from
modernizing its arsenal of nuclear weapons – and has threatened to place ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad province which borders
with Poland - if the United States will resign from the missile
program in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Russian General Nikolai Solovtsov, the chief of the Strategic Rocket
Force, stated that the country is prepared to abandon further
nuclear aspirations if the United States will drop its plans for the
shield.
"Simply, we will do what reality requires," claims Solovtsov,
regarding Russia's further nuclear ambitions, but highlighted the
fact that they do not seek to build up a nuclear arsenal as a scare-
tactic.
The General added that Russia intends to extend the 30-year
guaranteed term of operating life of the RS-20 `Voyevoda' missiles,
and in the future, could acquire additional similar arms. An RS-20,
known in NATO as the `Satan' missile, weighs 211 tonnes and is an
intercontinental ballistic missile (effectively a long-range missile
intended for nuclear weapons delivery).
While this statement appears to serve as a warning to the United
States, talks between John Rood, the U.S.' Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, that took place
earlier this week have indicated that the two parties are well into
detailed negotiations.
Politicians from both countries claim that nothing concrete is
expected to be achieved today, rather, it is an exercise in trust-
building amongst sometimes hostile neighbours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 6, 2009 21:22:36 GMT 1
Missile rethink would leave Polish and Czech leaders twisting in the windBy Jan Cienski in Warsaw and James Blitz in London
The Financial Times
March 3 2009
The Obama administration' s repeated hints that it might back off from implementing a missile defence programme has been of growing concern to the two countries that agreed to site the US missile shield on their territory – Poland and the Czech Republic.
Both governments have signed preliminary agreements with Washington that would see 10 interceptor missiles stationed in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic. Their decision to sign the agreements angered Russia and has been unpopular domestically.
European diplomats say the prospect that the Obama administration might suspend work on the programme risks leaving the Polish and Czech leaderships twisting in the wind.
Both governments believe the siting of the missile shield on their territory would have the benefit of tying the US into a security relationship with their countries.
It would mean US troops would have to be stationed in their countries, acting as insurance against future Russian aggression. One of the key factors inducing the Polish government to agree to the shield last October was the US promise to station a Patriot anti-missile battery to protect Polish airspace – where the only credible threat comes from Russia.
As they wait for the US to clarify its intentions, both governments argue that the missile defence plans are valid. "There is no reason to give up on the missile defence shield because Iran, with its nuclear programme, is still a threat," said Zuzana Opletalova of the Czech foreign ministry.
The question now is when the US will make a decision. A senior US official said the Obama administration was focused on the issue but it had much else to manage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Mar 17, 2009 21:37:47 GMT 1
Poland leader demands that the US fulfil its missile shield obligations
Poland's president has warned that Poland would interpret any move by the United States to scrap an anti-missile shield due to be located in his country as an "unfriendly gesture".
By Matthew Day in Warsaw
Telegraph.co. uk
09 Mar 2009
Lech Kaczynski: Poland leader demands that the US fulfil its missile shield obligations
President Lech Kaczynski said Washington was obliged to install the system under bilateral agreements signed last summer Photo: AP
In a television interview President Lech Kaczynski said Washington was obliged to install the system under bilateral agreements signed last summer.
"A deal was signed, and I think regardless of which administration is in power in the US, agreements have to be implemented, " he said.
The president's blunt words reflected growing anxiety in Warsaw that President Barak Obama will sacrifice the missile shield, which is intended to protect the West from attack from Middle-Eastern states, in order to improve ties with Russia.
The country's moderate prime minister Donald Tusk has adopted a more diplomatic approach to reports that Washington might withdraw the system to ensure better ties with Russia.
Moscow has vehemently opposed the system, describing it as a threat to national defence and last year the Kremlin threatened to deploy nuclear-capable missiles on Poland's border if it was installed.
America has sought to allay Polish concerns by saying would still deploy a Patriot missile battery but the prospect of Washington reneging on an agreement could infuriate Warsaw, which regards the shield as a sign of American willingness to protect Poland from an increasingly assertive Russia.
"Missile defence is extremely important for Poland," President Kaczynski continued. "Not from the point of security from so called rogue states, but for other political reasons it is very, very important."
The fear that Polish interests are being sacrificed at the altar of great-power politics also touches on a deep Polish fear.
Few Poles have forgotten that in the Second World War, the Western allies abandoned Poland to the fate of Soviet occupation, in return for good relations with Stalin.
|
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Mar 18, 2009 0:07:38 GMT 1
This is only the thinking of our new President, who is only following party ideas. Most of all Americans don't want to change things, and we want to put up the shield.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on May 31, 2009 12:09:55 GMT 1
Poland Seeks Missiles Regardless of Shield
By JUDY DEMPSEY
The New York Times
May 29, 2009
BERLIN — The Polish government is pushing hard to reach agreement with the United States over stationing a battery of Patriot missiles near Warsaw by the end of this year, despite President Barack Obama's decision to examine the costs and reliability of deploying a separate, and controversial, missile defense system in Eastern Europe, Polish officials said this week.
If Poland succeeds, it will represent a success for Donald Tusk's center-right government, which had taken a tough stance with the Bush administration after it proposed stationing the missile defense system there.
Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, Poland's chief negotiator, had insisted that an agreement to deploy 10 interceptors for the antimissile system depended on another accord whereby the United States would modernize Poland's air defense system by providing Patriots.
Last August, days after Russia invaded Georgia and after months of wrangling between Warsaw and Washington over the terms of deploying the interceptors, Poland signed a strategic cooperation agreement with Washington, alongside a missile defense accord.
But when Mr. Obama took office in January and soon afterward called for a review of the missile system, the Polish government moved quickly to speed up talks over stationing the Patriot missiles on its territory — concerned about backtracking or attempts to link the future of missile defense to the stationing of the Patriot missiles.
"The declaration on strategic cooperation from August of last year clearly says that the installation of the first battery of Patriot missiles should take place no later than the end of this year," Bogdan Klich, Poland's defense minister, said this week in interviews. "We stick to this date in talks with our American partners."
Russia strongly opposes any plans to deploy the interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic, both satellites of the Soviet Union. Moscow even threatened to retaliate by placing missiles in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, which is sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania.
It has since dropped those threats as the United States and Russia seek to improve ties, particularly in nuclear weapons control and in trying to work together to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates had already said in March that if there were no Iranian threat, there would be no need for the missile defense system in Europe.
That stirred security concerns in Warsaw and Prague, where the missile shield is seen as an extra layer of American guarantees of security because it would entail the physical presence of U.S. troops in each country. Mr. Obama moved quickly to try to allay the Polish and Czech suspicions, saying there was no linkage between Iran's nuclear program and the scrapping of plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe.
Despite the optimistic assessment on the Patriot negotiations this week from Mr. Klich, the Foreign Ministry said negotiations on stationing those missiles still faced several hurdles before the missiles could be delivered.
Poland is insisting that after a certain period of time, the Patriot missiles should be based permanently on its soil. So far, the United States is prepared only to rotate the missiles, sending them for a couple of months at a time from Germany to Poland, where U.S. personnel would train the Poles.
"Poland eventually wants the missiles to be based permanently in Poland," said a U.S. official who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "If not, then Poland might even consider purchasing them."
Both sides are also discussing a status of forces agreement, which regulates the legal and judicial status of any U.S. troops based in Poland. This means establishing tax rules and determining under which judicial system any American soldier would be placed if accused of a crime. Under the terms of almost all such accords, American troops stationed abroad are subject to trial under the U.S. judicial system. Up to 110 Americans would be stationed in Poland once the Patriot missiles were sent there.
Further talks are expected in June and July, said a State Department official who insisted on anonymity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jun 10, 2009 21:46:56 GMT 1
Controversy Over Patriot Missiles
The Warsaw Voice
3 June 2009
Difficult negotiations surround the expected deployment of an American Patriot missile battery in Poland amid speculation the country will get missiles intended for exercise purposes only.
According to American government sources, there are differences between the U.S. administration and the Polish government over the interpretation of the August 2008 agreement on the deployment of a Patriot missile battery to Poland. The agreement was signed by Polish Foreign Affairs Minister Rados³aw Sikorski and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice together with an agreement on the deployment in Poland of interceptor missiles as part of America's planned so-called missile shield.
"I will expect full information from Minister Sikorski and Defense Minister Bogdan Klich on the phase of negotiations with the Americans concerning the deployment of Patriot missiles to Poland," Prime Minister Donald Tusk said May 24 after the media reported that the missiles may not have operational capability.
The aim of the American missile shield project is to protect the United States from long-range missiles launched from countries such as Iran that Washington regards as "rogue states." The Patriot missiles agreement was supposed to increase Poland's defense capabilities, especially regarding its capital Warsaw, against short- and medium-range missiles.
Stanis³aw Komorowski, deputy defense minister and one of Poland's chief negotiators on Poland's military cooperation with the United States, has said that Polish-American talks are proceeding as planned and will be finalized in July. The talks are supposed to lead to the deployment in Poland of 100-110 U.S. troops and 96 missiles by the end of the year.
The U.S. Department of State has confirmed that the Patriot missile battery will be deployed in Poland regardless of what happens with plans for the missile shield system. Ian Kelly, spokesman for the Department of State, has said the Patriot battery will be set up in Poland as part of measures to modernize the Polish armed forces and as a result of the August 2008 agreement on military cooperation.
But a Pentagon spokeswoman said the battery will be deployed in Poland only for training and exercise purposes. This means that Poland may receive missiles without operational capability and thus could not be used for combat purposes. A Patriot missile battery would be deployed in Poland on a permanent basis in 2012.
According to other reports, the missiles intended for Poland would not have warheads. It is unclear whether these parts would be stored in a U.S. base in a country bordering Poland, for example Germany, or in other Polish bases, to be installed in the Patriot missiles in case of a military threat
The Polish defense ministry has denied these speculations. "We are bound by the provisions of the agreement already concluded, details are still negotiated by the Polish and American sides. We do not confirm that the missiles would be installed only for training purposes," Robert Rochowicz, defense ministry spokesman said.
The cost of one Patriot battery ranges from $3 billion to $5 billion, depending on missile type and additional equipment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jun 16, 2009 19:28:50 GMT 1
Dashed Hopes for Poland's Defence
Poland to receive unarmed Patriots, no MRAP vehicles
The Krakow Post
12th June 2009
It seems that Polish hopes have been dashed two-fold recently. During talks in Brussels, Polish Defence Minister Bogdan Klich was told that Poland will not receive MRAP-type vehicles, and while they will receive the promised Patriot missiles, the missiles will be unarmed.
The MRAP-type vehicles, or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, are specifically designed to survive attacks from IEDs, which have been the most dangerous to coalition troops in Afghanistan. The vehicles, weighing in at over 14 tonnes, have significantly reduced the number of deaths since their introduction to the war in Iraq, and the Polish military had hoped to protect its soldiers in Afghanistan through their use.
For now, Polish soldiers in Afghanistan will continue to use MRAPs borrowed from the American military, as well as the Polish-made KTO Rosomak (Ko³owy Transporter Opancerzony, or Wheeled Armored Vehicle) that is already in use.
After the meeting with his American counterpart Robert Gates, Minister Klich explained that "The Americans at the moment have their own substantial needs, and these additional vehicles, which are being transferred to Afghanistan, will be used primarily for personal use."
In that same meeting, the Polish defence minister was also told that while Poland will receive the 10 Patriot missiles as promised by the Declaration on Strategic Cooperation signed in August 2008, they will not be armed.
Originally, the Patriot missiles were meant to be a key part of Poland's defensive arsenal and a part of the missile shield deal. However, according to information leaked to journalists from the American side, Defence Minister Gates was to tell Klich that the Patriots are only meant to be used for training purposes, and therefore do not need to be armed. This has thrown even more speculation on whether or not the missile shield plan will be actualised.
The Patriot missiles are still scheduled to arrive by the end of this year, regardless of whether or not the Obama Administration decides to implement the missile shield plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Jun 17, 2009 18:48:38 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jun 17, 2009 18:53:23 GMT 1
Why do you think it is important? That they will build some Agency in Portland?
Black & Veatch Special Projects, Overland Park, Kan., was awarded on Mar. 12, 2009 a 14,838,472 firm fixed price contract for architect engineering services for Missile Defense Agency (65 precent) facilities design. Work is to be performed at Redzikowo, Portland, with a completion date of Dec. 12, 2009. Three Bids were solicited and three bids received. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Europe District, Wiesesbaden Germany, is the contracting activity (W912DY-05-D-0022) |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Jun 17, 2009 18:56:26 GMT 1
The secretary who typed the text doesn't know what Poland is |
|
gigi
Kindergarten kid
Posts: 1,470
|
Post by gigi on Aug 21, 2009 16:41:58 GMT 1
Boeing floats new anti-missile idea for Europe Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:29am EDT By Jim Wolf HUNTSVILLE, Alabama (Reuters) - Boeing Co unveiled a surprise proposal to build a mobile interceptor missile in an effort to blunt Russian fears of possible U.S. fixed missile-defense sites in Europe. The idea was floated on Wednesday as the Obama administration weighs Bush-era plans to put 10 ground-based interceptors, or GBIs, in underground silos in Poland, paired with a radar site in the Czech Republic, as a hedge against Iran's growing ballistic-missile clout. The review is to be wrapped up by the end of this year. Boeing, which manages the hub of a layered U.S. anti-missile shield deployed in 2004, is eyeing a 47,500-pound interceptor that could be flown to NATO bases as needed on Boeing-built C-17 cargo planes, erected quickly on a 60-foot trailer stand and taken home when judged safe to do so. "If a fixed site is going to be just too hard to get implemented politically or otherwise, we didn't want people to think that the only way you needed to use a GBI was in a fixed silo," Greg Hyslop, Boeing's vice president and general manager for missile defense, told Reuters at a U.S. Army-sponsored missile-defense conference in Huntsville, Alabama. A scale model showed a two-stage interceptor designed to be globally deployable within 24 hours at designated launch sites that would provide coverage for the United States and Europe. Boeing had just started briefing the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency on the proposal, Hyslop said. The project could be completed by 2015 at probably less cost than had been planned for the silo-based interceptors, he said. The Government Accountability Office reported earlier this month that military construction costs for the interceptor and radar sites could top $1 billion. U.S. intelligence officials say that by 2015 Iran will have a long-range missile capability. The Polish and Czech sites are scheduled to be ready by then. Moscow strongly opposes the possible Polish and Czech installations as a threat to its security. After the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president in November, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened to base medium-range Iskander missiles near the Polish border if the United States persisted. Boeing is not the only U.S. contractor preparing for a possible abandonment of the Polish and Czech options. Raytheon Co, the world's biggest missile maker, said Tuesday it was developing a land-based version of its existing Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), a star of U.S. missile defense from the sea, that could be used to defend Europe, Israel and elsewhere. A reconfigured SM-3 interceptor was successfully fired by the U.S. Navy's Aegis ballistic missile-defense system in February 2008 to destroy an errant U.S. spy satellite. Japan is co-financing and co-producing a new, more capable version. Lockheed Martin Corp, the Pentagon's No. 1 contractor by sales, builds the Aegis system. A land-based SM-3 could play a role in European defense with or without GBIs in Poland, Michael Booen, a Raytheon vice president, told Reuters. They could be operational as soon as 2013 if funded adequately, he said. The Pentagon has requested $50 million for its development in the fiscal year starting October 1. Army Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, the head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, hailed the SM-3 option Wednesday and was asked about a mobile GBI. "That would be a significant undertaking," he said of the GBI concept after a presentation to the conference. "But we are looking for opportunities and the SM-3 is one we focused in on because of its accomplishments." General James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the session earlier in the day the United States had made "a couple of bad assumptions" in missile defense. He singled out an expectation, at the heart of the U.S. rush to deploy, that "the emergence of the intercontinental ballistic missile threat would come much faster than it did" from countries like Iran and North Korea. "The reality is that it has not come as fast as we thought it would come," Cartwright said. He said the United States, under its current missile-defense plans, had the capability to take on 15 inbound intercontinental ballistic missiles simultaneously using the 30 GBI's being placed in silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. "That's a heck of a lot more than a rogue" nation could fire, he said. (Editing by Bill Trott) www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE57J0RC20090820?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=11613 |
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Aug 21, 2009 18:39:47 GMT 1
This was slowed down, and tried to be stopped, by our new leader, since I won't help his people, and that is all he wants to help. I did not, and would not vote for him, and he, I am sure is only in for one term, unless someone stops him first.
He just wants free medical care for his people what ever it cost the rest of us.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Aug 24, 2009 16:17:44 GMT 1
. vportal.net/
The New Poland in a New Europe
Date: 08/05/09
Speaker(s): His Excellency Radoslaw Sikorski, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Poland
Description: A leading political figure in Polish, European and transatlantic affairs, Radoslaw Sikorski's involvement with politics began with the Solidarity social movement of the early 1980s. Following the events of 1981, he sought political refuge in Great Britain, and later went on to work as a journalist covering the wars in Afghanistan and Angola. After the demise of communism, Minister Sikorski returned to Poland in 1992 to help build a new democratic and free state. Still in his twenties, he served as the nation's Deputy Minister of National Defense and was closely involved with Poland's accession to NATO. Subsequent to serving in both of Poland's legislative bodies and numerous senior posts in the government, he assumed the Office of Foreign Minister in 2007. Join us for an evening with Minister Sikorski as he discusses Poland's new place in Europe and the international community.
Region: Europe & Russia
--- In polishamericanforum @yahoogroups. com, "Tom" <tkchargers@ ... wrote:
A Polish Perspective
Matthew Stannard
The San Francisco Chronicle
8/6/09
Urbane and polished, Radoslaw Sikorski would easily meet a casting director's call to play a European diplomat -- a good thing, since he is currently playing that role for the Republic of Poland.
It is only the latest chapter in a remarkable life that has had Sikorsky play the role of dissident, refugee, and journalist before moving up the political chain as Poland's deputy defense minister and under-secretary of state before reaching his current position, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A past resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and Executive Director of the New Atlantic Initiative, Sikorski is frequently asked to comment on matters relating to the U.S. relationship with the European Union and NATO -- he was at one point rumored to be in the running as secretary general of the alliance.
Sikorski sat down with me Wednesday afternoon shortly before giving an address to the World Affairs Council in San Francisco to discuss Nato's role in Afghanistan, President Obama's role in Europe, and the controversial missile defense shield proposal that has rattled relations between Russia and the United States.
************ ********* *********
You gave a speech for the 60th anniversary of NATO and talked about the role of NATO in the modern world. Can you sum up what you said?
Poland is a true believer in the transatlantic community of interests, and we believe NATO has two roles: its core role of defending its members' territory, and the new role of anticipating threats where they emerge, which has resulted from NATO invoking article five for the first time in response to an attack on the United States. And it's in that spirit that Poland has 2,000 troops in Afghanistan and we are providing security for 1.1 million Afghans in the Ghazni province. It is of course a historical irony -- NATO was launched to give the legal basis and military capability for the United States to defend Europe; what actually happened was that Europe rallied around to the United States after you were attacked. But that is the meaning of an alliance: that you prepare for what is not predictable and that you help one another in need.
What impact has the recent events in Georgia vis a vis Russia had on the strength of that alliance and its relationship with the US?
Well, Georgia is not of course a member, but she is perceived as a friend of the United States and therefore we watch quite closely what the United States does to help sustain Georgia's independence and integrity. In the crisis last year, it was the EU under the French presidency that sprang to action and negotiated a truce, which unfortunately has not been fulfilled by the Russian side.
If you look at the reaction to Vice President Biden's recent comments there is obviously still some sensitivity.
As regards President Biden's comment, by the way, I have formulated the Sikorsky law of politics, which says that you cause the most controversy not by what you do, but by what you say, particularly if it's true. And what Vice President Biden said about Russia's demographic problems is self evidently true, and Russian authorities are saying that they are addressing the crisis.
What role do you see Poland playing as the US seeks to reset its relationship with Russia?
We are advocates of the best possible relationship between Russia and the west. Of course it takes two to tango. But for example, nuclear disarmament is in our interest, since we are not a nuclear power. But we believe it should cover not just intercontinental but also tactical missiles. As a border country of both NATO and the EU, we have the most to lose by any worsening of relations with RussiSo we are in favor, providing it is not the expense of the security interests of Russia's neighbors, because we don't subscribe to 19th century notions of spheres of influence.
There has been some criticism of this administration by Europeans urging the administration to reengage with the European community. Do you feel this administration' s relationship with Europe is all it could be?
These are early days yet. We were certainly delighted by President Obama's meeting with us, both in the NATO context and in the EU context. We believe that the US needs all the friends it can get these days, and you have particularly tried and tested friends in central Europe -- but also friends who can now contribute, not just in Afghanistan, but in the post Soviet space. Poland is the co-author of a program called Eastern Partnership, which is an EU policy to create a free trade zone and a visa free travel zone with six countries that were formerly parts of the Soviet Union. That, I believe, is also a US interest. Poland has also launched an organization called the Community of Democracies, and there I think the new administration could find a smarter way of promoting democracy around the world. And, by the way, this is something that we think we are experts at. Poland is a country that has carried out a successful transformation both in terms of politics and in terms of the economy. We want to be used to transmit that experience to others, not just in Europe, but in other parts of the world.
There is a perception, right or wrong, in the US that its European allies are not doing all they could in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that a legitimate criticism?
As regards Iraq, it's somewhat unfair, because Iraq was not a NATO mission. It was a coalition of the willing, and some were simply not wiling, because they were not convinced. And they were not convinced because the case was not convincing -- because the weapons of mass destruction, for example, were not found. So I believe that what Europeans did in Iraq -- and some did a great deal, we've put 18,000 troops through Iraq, we were in command of the 26-nation international division for five years, and others did to -- I think that was a bonus, rather than reason for complaint. Afghanistan is different because it is a NATO mission -- we have jointly taken a decision to do it. And there I think Europe, NATO, should do more. Even when I was defense minister I coined the phrase that who gives without caveats -- meaning troops to NATO missions -- gives double. We should devise better mechanisms of burden sharing and we should simply provide more troops; Poland has already increased its contribution and is considering increasing it even more, because we believe NATO's credibility is at stake in Afghanistan. But Europe is also contributing to the other part of the job, namely developmental assistance. The latest figure I have seen is we are providing 900 million Euros this year, which is something. I was initiator of a group of Friends of Afghanistan inside the EU that advocates greater EU commitment to Afghanistan. I believe that we can prevail in Afghanistan if EU and NATO act together, both on the military and on the developmental front.
Is it accurate to say that -- for whatever reason -- the previous administration left a difficult diplomatic relationship between the US and many of its EU partners?
I don't think it's up to me to criticize and US administrations. Family discussions are as old as the family itself, and will probably always be with us.
Has the way this administration has handled itself to far created any new opportunities or created any challenges for the US's relationships?
Well, as I said, it's early days. But Europeans are looking to how effective America will be in fostering the Middle East peace process, but also I think the US is right in calling our bluff. We were mostly very fulsome in welcoming President Obama to office, so yes, I believe we should do as much as we can to help him fulfill the jointly agreed agenda in places like Afghanistan.
What would you see as the top issues you'd like to see Poland, the EU or NATO address with the US?
In times of global economic crisis, we really should get serious about the Doha round of trade negotiations, and we should overcome selfishness on both sides of the Atlantic in agricultural policies, which is what's blocking the success of the new round. I think it is very important to send a signal that protectionism must not return. And that would give new stimulus to global trade, which we greatly need. By the way, Poland is the only major country in Europe which is still likely to grow this year. So we feel we must be doing something right economically.
Missile defense.
I knew you would come to that.
Where do we go from here?
It's up to the US. But I hope that the decision gets taken on legitimate technical grounds of efficiency and cost. I signed the agreement with Condi Rice, who I am seeing tomorrow. And we did it because we jointly agreed that it was the best solution, giving the most protection to both the United States and Europe for the least money. If you believe successive Congressional reports, that still is the best available solution. But we don't question the new administration' s right to examine the issue afresh.
There is also a broad perspective among many Americans that the technical benefits are questionable and the diplomatic impacts with Russia at a sensitive moment are severe. Is that a fair perception for the situation?
When we engaged in considering the US request to put the THAAD site in Poland, we were assured that the United States would deal with Russia and with Russia's sensitivities. But the sensitivities have to be based on reality rather then on propaganda.
Bottom line, do you want those missiles there?
Bottom line, we have signed the deal and we are ready to honor it. But it is up to the US to make up its mind.
What priorities would you tell the President to emphasize?
I would say the more you talk to Russia, the more you should talk to Russia's neighbors, so that it is a win-win situation for all. One of the best things for the world the United States can do is fixing America's own finances, which is something that the US government and US Congress control, and preserve the transatlantic bargain in NATO, namely the balance between expeditionary activities and territorial defense. For us, as a border country, that's particularly important. And as you look to nuclear disarmament, pay as much attention to the short range as to the long range means of delivery.
President Obama's critics will say he's talking too much and doing too little. As a diplomat yourself, what do you think?
I think President Obama's election has restored America's moral stature in the world; has given the US a new start and a fresh opportunity to lead the free world. And of course that moment of anticipation and of hope will not last forever, but it's still with us, and therefore strengthening the relationship with Europe, fixing the Middle East, facing up to Iran and to the remnants of the Taliban are the things that America's friends in the world expect President Obama to achieve.
Americans don't always pay a lot of attention to European affairs, in our media or in the general public. Is that a problem?
Most Europeans don't pay that much attention to internal American affairs either. We are an ocean apart. But we are the two greatest economies on Earth. We are 18 trillion dollars of GDP and 500 million people, you are, I think, 14 trillion and 400 million people [Actually about 300 million]. If we act together, we set the global agenda. And therefore, I think we should.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Sept 3, 2009 20:32:21 GMT 1
Very well!!
U.S. to Abandon European Missile Shield Proposal, Report Says
globalsecuritynewsw ire.org
Thursday, Aug. 27, 2009
The Obama administration intends to abandon its predecessor' s proposal to field missile interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic, the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza reported today, citing Washington lobbyists and an unnamed U.S. congressional source.
Washington is considering alternate deployment sites for the defenses, including warships stationed in the region as well as bases in Israel, Turkey and the Balkans, Agence France-Presse quoted the report as saying. The purpose of the shield would ostensibly be to counter a long-range missile threat from Iran, but Russia has loudly characterized the Bush administration plan as a threat to its strategic nuclear deterrent.
Since taking over the White House in January, the Obama administration has sought to strengthen ties with Moscow. Administration officials have been "testing the water" among U.S. legislators over several weeks on abandoning the planned Polish and Czech bases, the congressional source said.
U.S. military officials "never once" mentioned the sites at a missile defense conference last week, said Ri ki Ellison, head of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (Agence France-Presse/ Defense News, Aug. 27).
Czech and Polish leaders had signed off on the missile shield sites, which were to be operational by 2013. That no longer appears likely to occur, Ellison said.
"The signals that the generals in the Pentagon are sending are absolutely clear: as far as missile defense is concerned, the current U.S. administration is searching for other solutions than the previously bases in Poland and the Czech Republic," he told the Polish newspaper (United Press International, Aug. 27).
|
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Sept 3, 2009 22:32:11 GMT 1
Like I said before, our leader picked Russia over Poland, but I don't. Now what can we the people of the U.S.A. do?
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by locopolaco on Sept 4, 2009 6:51:09 GMT 1
well, it would be nice if more americans would actually know where Poland is. that'd be a great start.
|
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Sept 4, 2009 13:31:24 GMT 1
Do all Polish know where America , the U.S.A. is, for sure? But not where Poland is, but the leadership need care for Poland.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by locopolaco on Sept 4, 2009 18:01:48 GMT 1
yes, all poles know exactly where america or usa is.. that is 4th grade geography.
|
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Sept 4, 2009 22:28:11 GMT 1
Are you sure, I talked with some adults in Poland, and showed them a map, and they could not find it, and the U.S.A. is much larger than Poland.
These people must not have gone to fourth grade, they must have drooped out of school to be doctors and nurses, and bankers.
Mike
|
|
