Obama Bows to the Russian Bear, Putin

[OldRegular]

President Obama's decision to scrap former President George W. Bush's plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe came under harsh criticism Thursday from some members of Congress who, invoking Cold War memories, warned that the move would only "empower" Russia at the expense of U.S. allies.*

The Obama administration said its decision had nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with Iran. The president and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the move was made in large part because the latest intelligence out of Iran shows a greater threat coming from short- and medium-range missiles, and the old plans were developed with long-range, intercontinental ballistic missiles in mind.*

But officials in the U.S. and other countries have been warning that Iran is making headway in developing long-range missiles and a nuclear weapon, leading Obama's critics to accuse him of simply caving to Russia, which had been irritated by Bush's proposal to build the defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.*

"It will empower the Russians and it will scare the crap out of the Poles, Czechs, Ukranians and Georgians. It is a huge mistake," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on FOX News Radio.*

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...-missile-shield-empower-russia-lawmakers-say/

 

[Magnetic Poles]

It is in response to changing nature of the Iranian threat. However, I have always thought it disingenuous of the US to nearly go to nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba, yet to think it fine that we poise missiles along the Russian frontier. Sauce for the goose.

 

[OldRegular]

It is in response to changing nature of the Iranian threat. However, I have always thought it disingenuous of the US to nearly go to nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba, yet to think it fine that we poise missiles along the Russian frontier. Sauce for the goose.

Just proves Obama is a "whimp" unless the leftist billionaire's club dictates otherwise. Perhaps he was overly impressed with Putin's pectorals.

 

[canadyjd]

It is in response to changing nature of the Iranian threat. However, I have always thought it disingenuous of the US to nearly go to nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba, yet to think it fine that we poise missiles along the Russian frontier. Sauce for the goose.

Your attempt to morally equate Russia with the United States of America is wrong-headed.

Russia imprisons and kills its citizens that speak out against its leaders. Russia had (and still has IMHO) a stated objective to "bury the United States" and Western Europe. Russia had a stated objective to bring communism to the whole world. Russia had a stated objective to conquer and control surpressing human rights along the way.

For all its faults, the United States of America has sought to bring freedom and democracy to nations around the world.

Can't you see the difference?

peace to youraying:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Your attempt to morally equate Russia with the United States of America is wrong-headed.

Russia imprisons and kills its citizens that speak out against its leaders. Russia had (and still has IMHO) a stated objective to "bury the United States" and Western Europe. Russia had a stated objective to bring communism to the whole world. Russia had a stated objective to conquer and control surpressing human rights along the way.

For all its faults, the United States of America has sought to bring freedom and democracy to nations around the world.

Can't you see the difference?

peace to youraying:

We have no moral authority to tell Russia it cannot have missiles near our border if we do the same thing along theirs. Why should they trust us? Even benevolent nations can make bad decisions.

So your position is it's bad when they do it, but great when we do it.

 

[targus]

We have no moral authority to tell Russia it cannot have missiles near our border if we do the same thing along theirs. Why should they trust us? Even benevolent nations can make bad decisions.

So your position is it's bad when they do it, but great when we do it.

In your opinion is there any country that you believe should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

In your opinion is there any country that you believe should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Not the topic here. Start a thread.

 

[OldRegular]

We have no moral authority to tell Russia it cannot have missiles near our border if we do the same thing along theirs. Why should they trust us? Even benevolent nations can make bad decisions.

So your position is it's bad when they do it, but great when we do it.

MP! MP! What is to be done with you. Don't you know the difference between offensive missiles which the Soviet Union placed in Cuba and defensive missiles [courtesy of Reagan's SDI] which President Bush wanted to place in Poland?

 

[carpro]

Kissin' up to communists comes natural for Obama.

It won't help with Iran at all. That's rationalization , if not just outright wishful thinking.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

MP! MP! What is to be done with you. Don't you know the difference between offensive missiles which the Soviet Union placed in Cuba and defensive missiles [courtesy of Reagan's SDI] which President Bush wanted to place in Poland?

It is a simple matter to repoint defensive missiles, making them offensive missiles.

Also SDI was space based. These are not that.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Let's draw an analogy. Suppose that it was not the Soviet empire that fell, but the USA, which divided into some number of countries. Our ally Canada, then joined the Warsaw Pact. Also, let's say Mexico was developing nuclear missiles and acting rather hostile. So the Soviet Union starts putting "defensive missiles" in Canada, along the US border, saying it is to protect Canada from the Mexican threat. Would you not be concerned about this?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

It appears that giving on the missiles is Obama dangling a carrot to Russia to get their help in putting pressure on Iran over their nuclear ambitions.

CLICK HERE

 

[carpro]

I'm sure our allies are paying attention as some of them are sold down the river by another Washington liberal, Obama.

He made a commitment. He's breaking it.

President Obama on April 5, 2009:

"So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. [/QUOTE

Obama simply can't be trusted to confront the the totalitarian leaders of the world. Instead he aspires to be one of them.

It's bad enough he continually lies to the American people. He also lies to our allies.

 

[OldRegular]

It is a simple matter to repoint defensive missiles, making them offensive missiles.

You are wrong again. Does this come natural or do you work at it?

Also SDI was space based. These are not that.

Poor MP! Wrong again. No one could be wrong that often without really trying! Well at least you can do one thing “Right”, you can be consistently wrong!

SDI
A proposal by President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983, to construct a strategic defense system against attack from intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM s), potentially from the Soviet Union. Popularly referred to as “Star Wars” after the science fiction film, the Strategic Defense Initiative was conceived as a way to intercept ICBMs from ground, air, and space using a combination of radar, optical, and infrared detection systems and laser beams. Congress initially approved the program in the 1980s, but political controversy, the fall of the Soviet Union, and problems regarding technological feasibility impeded its progress. The project was renamed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in 1993.

http://www.answers.com/topic/strategic-defense-initiative

 

[OldRegular]

I'm sure our allies are paying attention as some of them are sold down the river by another Washington liberal, Obama.

He made a commitment. He's breaking it.

President Obama on April 5, 2009:

"So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. [/QUOTE

Obama simply can't be trusted to confront the the totalitarian leaders of the world. Instead he aspires to be one of them.

It's bad enough he continually lies to the American people. He also lies to our allies.

Obama is both a wimp and a liar.

Which is worse:
1. lying to our allies or
2. groveling before our allies and our enemies?

 

[OldRegular]

Let's draw an analogy. Suppose that it was not the Soviet empire that fell, but the USA, which divided into some number of countries. Our ally Canada, then joined the Warsaw Pact. Also, let's say Mexico was developing nuclear missiles and acting rather hostile. So the Soviet Union starts putting "defensive missiles" in Canada, along the US border, saying it is to protect Canada from the Mexican threat. Would you not be concerned about this?

MP you said on another thread: "No, I do not engage in prognostication." Consistency is not one of your strong points.

 

[Nonsequitur]

We have no moral authority to tell Russia it cannot have missiles near our border if we do the same thing along theirs. Why should they trust us? Even benevolent nations can make bad decisions.

So your position is it's bad when they do it, but great when we do it.

"Moral authority?" It doesn't have anything to do with morals. It has to do with a regime that has repeatedly tried to take the world over.
The part about 'defensive' and 'offensive' has already been addressed.
"So your position is it's bad when they do it, but great when we do it?"
Uh, yeah.....it is.
Unless of course one is on the other side.

 

[alatide]

I'm sure our allies are paying attention as some of them are sold down the river by another Washington liberal, Obama.

He made a commitment. He's breaking it.

President Obama on April 5, 2009:

"So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. [/QUOTE

Obama simply can't be trusted to confront the the totalitarian leaders of the world. Instead he aspires to be one of them.

It's bad enough he continually lies to the American people. He also lies to our allies.

You just don't have a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------

White House Scraps Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield

By PETER BAKER
Published: September 17, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18shield.html?_r=1&hp


WASHINGTON — President Obama scrapped his predecessor’s proposed antiballistic missile shield in Eastern Europe on Thursday and ordered instead the deployment of a reconfigured system designed to shoot down short- and medium-range Iranian missiles.

 

[OldRegular]

The point is "whoever" that Obama betrayed two allies and in effect abandoned Eastern Europe to Russian aggression. However, as a radical leftist that suits you just fine. You are probably still grieving over the whupping President Reagan laid on the Soviet Union.

 

[carpro]

The point is "whoever" that Obama betrayed two allies and in effect abandoned Eastern Europe to Russian aggression. .

Without consultation or notice to our allies.

Obama is an egomaniacal moron.