Obama waves the White Flag

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by 22WRF, Sep 17, 2009.

  1. 22WRF

    22WRF Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,525
    Location:
    Pea Ridge, FL
  2. mrkirker

    mrkirker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,067
    Wasn't there a 'little problem' 40-something years ago with the response regarding our placing missles in someone's backyard? LOL!
  3. momo

    momo Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    300
    I'm glad this fool wasn't in charge at the Alamo!
  4. navis128

    navis128 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,392
    Location:
    Texas
    Polland gets screwed again!
  5. mrkirker

    mrkirker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,067
    I'm glad this fool wasn't in charge at the Alamo!

    That didn't turn out too well, either!
  6. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    Interesting timing. I wonder if Barry is being subtle in trying to give the Russians a message.:rolleyes: I know he's giving a message to everyone that hates us:mad::mad::mad:
  7. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,703
    Location:
    NE Ar. W. of Black River
    Did we get anything in return except scre**d.
  8. 22WRF

    22WRF Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,525
    Location:
    Pea Ridge, FL
    Yep we did, we got happy Russians, Chinese, N Koreans and Iranians :mad::mad::mad:
  9. 40CalJoe

    40CalJoe New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    Location:
    In the middle
    Translation in Russian......"we democrats are a weak minded people, take what you want my good comrad Vladamir".
  10. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Messages:
    3,555
    Location:
    Issaquah WA
    He made the right choice, unfortunately Bush had made the wrong one by promising it in the first place. Most experts agreed that the shield wouldn't even work- I don't want my tax dollars going for that. It would be a horrible upset to the balance of power in the world and looking at it from a completely rational standpoint it is easy to understand the frustrations (would we be happy if Russia was putting a missile defense shield in Canada?).

    But maybe I have just been reading too much Kissinger :D.
  11. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    You mean the guy that's been helping to push the one global government crap that the UN is spewing and was also in favor of friendly relations with many military dictatorships in South America Not to mention that Kissinger is a member of the Trilateral Commission:rolleyes:
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2009
  12. artabr

    artabr New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,859
    Location:
    New Iberia, Louisiana
    They don't need to. They already have one 50 miles from Alaska. Just saying. ;) :D


    Art
  13. cycloneman

    cycloneman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    8,125
    Location:
    Louisiana
    this is real interesting. Russia wants the eastern block. Remember those missles they moved 24 hours after Barry was elected? Keep in mind Putan has rewritten history recently to praise Stalin. Still wondering why? I just want to know who the fed loaned out 1 1/2 trillion dollars to while we borrow money from china. Put your thinking caps on fellas.
  14. dbrodin

    dbrodin New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    Messages:
    427
    Location:
    Duluth MN
    Two points,

    The "experts" can't agree at all on this. Every one of them has a different opinion. The actual fire testing over the pacific has had mixed results. Last I heard they were running about 50/50, but improving.

    The system as it was planned is no threat to Russia. It only had the capability of dealing with a small number of missiles at a time. Even if they had a 100% kill rate, Russia could overwhelm the system with sheer volume.

    I hear a "breaking news" report this morning that NATO had proposed that Russia be tied into the system.
  15. mrkirker

    mrkirker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,067
    Good points, despite some of the 'boiler-plate' responses to the contrary.

    Counter point, if I may:
    Installing a defense (loosely termed) system that is known to be only 50% functional at this time does not seem prudent.

    Unnecessarily provoking enemies at this time (esp with THIS president) doesn't seem to be the best move for our country.

    Would like to see the 'breaking news' in which NATO suggests adding Russia into the system. Do you have a link, db? Thanks!
  16. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Messages:
    3,555
    Location:
    Issaquah WA
    Russia suggested a cooperative system a long time ago and Bush said he wouldn't be willing to build a system that Russia could just "flip off" and nothing ever came of it. I think NATO is always looking for projects they can cooperate with Russia on.
  17. mrkirker

    mrkirker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,067
    Found article:

    NATO hits "reset" button, belatedly
    Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:59am EDT

    By Paul Taylor

    PARIS (Reuters) - NATO proposed a new era of cooperation with the United States and Russia on Friday, calling for joint work on missile defense systems after Washington scrapped a planned anti-missile system.

    * This is NATO's attempt to press the "reset" button with Moscow, choreographed in the slipstream of U.S. President Barack Obama and with a pre-arranged positive Russian response. It is not, or not yet, the second end of the Cold War.

    Yes, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen offers fields of cooperation between NATO and Russia, including on missile defense, a joint threat assessment, non-proliferation, Afghanistan, Iran. But it doesn't clear the main contentious issues between Russia and NATO.

    * NATO and Russia remain at loggerheads over the future of the zone between the alliance's current eastern border and Russia's western and southern borders. NATO leaders declared at a summit last year that Ukraine and Georgia would one day become members of the alliance.

    But Germany and France, backed by several other European allies, blocked U.S. efforts to put both former Soviet republics on the official pathway to NATO accession known as the Membership Action Plan. NATO has repeatedly said it will not accept a Russian "sphere of influence" in the former Soviet space. Moscow has made equally clear that it has a special interest in those countries, as well as the former Soviet central Asian republics, and that NATO expansion must go no further.

    For the moment, the West has settled for a de facto status quo in which NATO takes no decisive action to bring Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance. But Moscow is trying to turn back the status quo further by recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, establishing or expanding military bases there, getting rid of OSCE monitors from Abkhazia, and conducting a campaign of pressure on Ukraine over gas, trade and the Russian Black Sea fleet.

    In Russian eyes, this is not just about preventing former Soviet republics from joining NATO but rolling back the "color revolutions" that brought pro-Western forces to power in its "near abroad."

    * Rasmussen's speech doesn't resolve NATO's internal divide over relations with Russia. Coupled with Obama's decision to scrap the missile shield bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, it will leave those allies in central and eastern Europe that are physically closest to Russia and Ukraine feeling more vulnerable to Russian bullying.

    The serving governments have been mostly polite, and Poland under Donald Tusk clearly wants a more constructive relationship with Moscow than it had under the Kaczynski brothers.

    However, the Baltic states in particular want reassurances from NATO that it will make more concrete its Article V pledge that an attack on one is an attack on all. They are pressing for NATO military planners to draw up plans for the reinforcement in crisis and defense of the Baltic states. They also want NATO to conduct exercises to demonstrate deterrence. The French and Germans have opposed such moves for the last two years as unnecessarily provocative to Moscow.

    * Rasmussen appeared to agree to discuss President Dmitry Medvedev's proposals for a new European security architecture, which are seen by the West as a revival of old Soviet efforts to decouple the United States from European security and assert a Russian right of veto over security arrangements on the continent.

    The Medvedev plan was widely regarded as intended to sideline the OSCE, which Moscow detests because of its intrusive election monitoring, human rights and democracy promotion activities in former Soviet republics. It suggests a bloc-to-bloc security pact between NATO and the Collective Security Organization a Russian-run front organization that includes a few central Asian republics.

    Rasmussen's move may have been mainly a courtesy and part of a Western effort to get Russia back to the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty and to a more constructive role in the OSCE. But it may be regarded with suspicion by the central European allies.

    * The proposal for joint work on missile defense is the main olive branch and may help overcome differences among European allies about whether ballistic missile defenses really work reliably and are worth the expense, or whether nuclear and conventional deterrence aren't enough. The French traditionally lead the latter camp, not least because like the Russians, they see missile defense as a threat to their own national deterrent. * Russian leaders will continue for a long time, perhaps forever, to regard NATO as an adversary, and as the instrument through which the United States exercises its hegemony in Europe. The Russians will never learn to love NATO, especially since it took in their former satellites in central and eastern Europe. It will always be easier psychologically for them to cooperate bilaterally with the United States, or with individual European powers, or even with the EU collectively, than with NATO.
  18. USMC-03

    USMC-03 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest
    So what will B.O. do next? The Russians have always wanted Alaska back...
  19. navis128

    navis128 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,392
    Location:
    Texas
    I do not think that Obama is equipped to deal with our (old) adversary. I don't think he has any inkling. Maybe he should have stayed home and went to school.
  20. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    But he's doing such a great job in sucking up to terrorists, Muslims, Iran, N orth Korea, and Cuba.:rolleyes::rolleyes: I wish his sorry commie a** would just move to a commie country and LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Clueless Obama Jul 7, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Future Obama Library?? Jul 6, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Supremes unanimously throw out Obama's recess appointments Jun 26, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr John Hickenlooper, Spineless, Gutless, Obamas an unnamed staff member Jun 19, 2014
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Open letter to Obama from a survivor of Columbine Jun 15, 2014

Share This Page