It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Obama Offers to Scrap Missile Shield If Russia Cooperates on Iran

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
My God, NO, NO, NO!!!

This PROVES that Obama is a fool. Isn't there ANYONE in his inner circle that can tell him that you cannot trust the Russians.


It's pretty much the same bunch of Clinton/Bush people who were responsible for the aggressive US policy in the last two decades so why would anything different happen? I mean they compromise where it matters while doing their best to encircle the Russian federation with manpower and new 'allies'? What's new?


First of all, the Russians are providing Iran with help in gaining nuclear material.


Yes, for power generation which is perfectly legal.


Second, look at what Putin did in Georgia.


What did he do but respond in kind to stupid Georgian attack on Russian citizens?


Third, as a former KGB, Putin's background makes it clear that HE cannot be trusted.


Right. what more needs to be said in a perfect world where everything is crystal clear.



Bush was foolish enough to fall for Putin's "charms", saying that he looked into his eyes, and saw his soul.


Bush kept up the pressure with the new shield while moving NATO boundaries closer and closer to the Russian federation. What led you to believe that Bush ( or rather the American national security state) were 'fooled' by the Russians?


Yeh, the SAME soul that ordered Russian troops into Georgia, and is threatening to take control of the northern polar area.


Right and how long did the Russians state in Georgia? How long has the US been in Iraq and Afghanistan? When did Iraq and Afghanistan ever attack the US which Georgia clearly did against Russia?


If Obama goes through with this, he has just given the Russians the signal to continue to take over former USSR republics, as well as Eastern European countries such as Poland.


Which former republics are they taking over? Aren't most trying to join the European union and or NATO? How is Russia taking them over?


It is no secret that Russia wants to PUNISH POLAND for their staunch alliance with the US.


What staunch alliance with the US? The same type of alliance it had with Britain and France which never did a thing to protect Poland? Poles may be a whole lot of things but i don't think trust of their neighbours is one of them.


Obama is throwing Eastern Europe under the train.


I dont see how Eastern Europe is better off under capitalist/western 'protection' than it was under the USSR and neither are Russians really.


First, he continues the destruction of our economy,


Well it's not so much the destruction of the economy , that's merely coincidental, as it is the enrichment and protection of the wealthy minority who runs the country. No surprises here.


then our culture,


What culture? Consumerism is a culture? ( lol )


and now our allies,


There never was a 'ally' of the US that didn't regret being forced into the arrangement which largely rests on accepting US debt and creating a profitable environment for global corporate capitalism .



while Iran, with Russia's covert help, develops nuclear weapons, with NO COUNTERMEASURE.


Russia could simply give Iran nukes but frankly i don't know why they would bother when they have more than enough to finish of any alliance of enemies. Why pray tell would the Russian help the Iranians get the bomb thus allowing them at least the theoretical power of dragging Russia into a war against the US and Israel when Iran acts in self defense against the continued aggressive moves by Israel and the US national security state?

And yes, there are plenty of countermeasures to ballistic missiles so what's this nonsense about no defense being possible?

Stellar




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   


I don't think Iran cares, they know they do not pose any threat therefore they have nothing to worry about.

This is what the future will hold, America will scrap its missile shield program without having Russia's cooperation on Iran.

I was right



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
So sad to see how many people witnessed the deeds (read misdeeds) of the Bush administration, and still fail to realize what both Obama and Russia are trying to accomplish here.


This has nothing to do with safety or defense of US or Europe or anyone. The ABM shield in Europe was an extremely idiotic idea anyway you look at it. It created much animosity between US and Russia at the time that US desperately needed allies and Russia desperately needed the West to understand its interests. It unnecessarily placed Poland and Czech Republic in Russia's nuclear crosshairs, and it created a perception of NATO and US as an aggressor in Russia's eyes.

And while at its current state it wouldn't provide much protection to anyone, ABMs further development was bound to destabilize the global nuclear arena - paving the way for a possible new Cold War. Now where is the safety and security in that? Russia never felt threatened by a miserly 10 or 20 ABM launchers. It felt threatened or rather cautiously puzzled about the idiotic motives behind America's new ABM plans, coupled with NATO eastward expansion.



So what we have here is good old fashioned diplomacy between US and Russia - which at this time is much welcomed. Russia made the first step by offering Obama to withdraw the ABM plans for Eastern Europe, in return for Russia easing back on plans to install missiles in Kalinigrad. Now the US is replying with a counter offer - a reasonable one but one that will still need to be worked on. This shows that both sides are willing to hold dialogue and willing to ease the tension, even if it requires compromises.

The scrapping of the ABM system in Europe is a symbolic gesture. Russia and US still have significant differences regarding NATO's expansion, Iran, and the Caspian Basin. If the ABM negotiations prove a success, the two nations can move on to work on those more important issues. The most critical issue as far as Russia is concerned is not Iran - it is NATO's plans to include the likes of Ukraine and Georgia in its obsolete alliance. This could take much of Obama's first term to deal with, but I think there is a good possibility that he will look into this issue of contention.




Now as for whether Russia will be willing to stop aiding Iran's development of nuclear technology: I can't see why it won't. Russia's main interest in helping Iran develop its nuclear technology, was to offset what it saw as dangerous US military expansion through the Middle East, and NATO's expansion eastward. The more aggressive US got, the more aggressive Russia's veiled reply was.

Russia would likely be willing to stop supplying Iran with nuclear reactor technology, and possibly could even help pressure Iran to abandon it. But first both Russia and Iran will need assurance (and rightfully so), that US will not pose a threat to Iran's sovereignty. As for Russia's other dealing with Iran - there is no reason why they should stop. Iran is facing countless sanctions from the West, and needs any economic, political or military ally it can get. Despite what you may think the relationship between Iran and Russia is not all about nuclear power.

I am more than sure this recent announcement is not the final proposal. It will likely go back and forth for months, possibly working up its way to an actual meeting between US and Russia on this and other issues. It is important that both sides be willing to make compromises, but also work out a deal that leaves neither unsatisfied or feeling cheated.



Oh sure there will be talk that Obama is showing weakness, and that big bad Russia will be ready to pounce on poor defenseless Europe any chance it gets. Let the fools criticize, and let elected politicians mend broken ties thereby enhancing security where it really matters.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Why would Obama make such an offer knowing that he would put himself in a dilemma if Russia said no?


Because he is confident that Russians will not say no, and rightfully so. Remember it was Russia that innitiated this dialogue regarding the ABM shield. As soon as Obama took power, Russia offered to make compromises if the US withdrew the ABM system from Eastern Europe. At that time Russia said it was willing to stop deployment for ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad, but more importantly it hinted that it is willing to make further compromises.

Now I agree that Russia will likely not accept this offer right away - but it will not be with a simple no. Instead Russia will most certainly make a counter offer, and Obama is probably counting on just that. From then on it will go back and forth for a while - and there is nothing wrong with that. Russia isn't interested on placing Obama in a dilemma and it stands nothing to gain from it. On the contrary Russia wants to do this so that both sides can claim a small diplomatic victory, which would pave way for further negotiations and dialogue.




Originally posted by jam321
Now if he withdraws the missiles, the Russians will view him as weak.


You (and most Westerners) seem to misunderstand how Russians view this issue. They viewed Bush and his aggressive actions as a sign of America's weakness. They saw these steps as an act of desperation. The ABM system didn't make America stronger but only more aggressive and confrontational - sort of useless sabre rattling if you will. Russians will welcome dialogue with Obama, and frankly Russia has more pressing issues (economy, social concerns) to worry about right now than about how weak or strong America appears to be.



Originally posted by jam321
And whatever happen to Obama's plan of sitting down with Iran for talks?


The thing about sitting down with Iran for talks is that it cannot be easily accomplished merely between US and Iran. Presence of external parties who have interest on the issue is a must, as is a common understanding between all these parties. I am talking about Russia and possibly China. If before meeting with Iran, US and Russia can come to an agreement on Iran, it will give Americans a far better chance to see progress in negotiations.




Originally posted by jam321
Seems like he tried to circumvent or avoid those talks with this offer he made.


I think he is rather working his way up to these talks with Iran. At this point it is far easier for the US to hold dialogue with Russia rather than Iran. So if a consensus can be reached with Russia, US would be far more confident going into talks with Iran.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Medvedev can bloviate all he wants, but what's going on now is haggling, like it or not.


I though haggling is what diplomacy is all about. What's so wrong with that>



Originally posted by xmotex
The installations will stay in the pipeline until the Russians come up with something to trade for it, watch. If not cooperation on Iran (mostly pointless anyway, Ahmedinejad is about to lose his job), then something else.


Unless of course US is looking for a convenient way out of the overpriced and inefficient ABM shield idea. I do agree though that both sides will not give in unless each can walk away saying they won something. I do think Russia and US will find a compromise on something though. Maybe if its not Iran it is the oil-rich Caspian Basin, or perhaps a supply route to help US efforts in Afghanistan.



Originally posted by xmotex
There isn't going to be another Cold War, the Russians are in an even worse position to pay for one than we are, and the people in the US who were gunning for one are now wandering around DC looking for new jobs.


Agreed. But that is not to say that the whole ABM affair is destabilizing and is not making the world any safer.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
This is a bad move by Obama,and i think the ABM shield is a useless idea, xcuse small post





[edit on 3-3-2009 by all2human]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 





Yes, for power generation which is perfectly legal.

Oh, I see, for power generation. Iran, the country that is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world, needs more power.
Give me a break.




What did he do but respond in kind to stupid Georgian attack on Russian citizens?


If there were living in Georgia, they were Georgian citizens, not Russian.




Bush kept up the pressure with the new shield while moving NATO boundaries closer and closer to the Russian federation. What led you to believe that Bush ( or rather the American national security state) were 'fooled' by the Russians?


I told you in my quote above your remark why Bush was fooled.
Furthermore, Bush was a fool. That has no bearing on Obama's sins.




Which former republics are they taking over? Aren't most trying to join the European union and or NATO? How is Russia taking them over?


Russia has been eying the Ukraine for quite a while now.




I dont see how Eastern Europe is better off under capitalist/western 'protection' than it was under the USSR and neither are Russians really.


Oh, and you know that because you live in South Africa?




There never was a 'ally' of the US that didn't regret being forced into the arrangement which largely rests on accepting US debt and creating a profitable environment for global corporate capitalism .

I guess you never heard of WWII.

It is amazing that you have so much to say about what the US is doing. Don't you think you should be more concerned about what is going on in your South Africa:



People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Oh, I see, for power generation. Iran, the country that is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world, needs more power.


No more so than US, the country that is sitting on by far the largest military machine in the world, needs any more military strength.



Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
If there were living in Georgia, they were Georgian citizens, not Russian.


You can't be serious? The amount of non intended humor is rather saddening.



Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Russia has been eying the Ukraine for quite a while now.


What exactly is Russia is eyeing Ukraine for? Unpaid bills? And what does "eyeing" mean? Maybe Russia is admiring Ukraine for its flourishing democracy and its oh so hot Prime Minister Timoshenko. You'd be eyeing her too if you were next door.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 





You can't be serious? The amount of non intended humor is rather saddening.

Yes, I am serious. South Ossetia and Abhazia, like it or not, Tovarich, are part of Georgia. Just as the US would not allow individual states to break away, Georgia is not allowing South Ossetia and Abhazia to break away, regardless of how many ethnic Russians live there. If they love mother Russia, let them emigrate to Russia.




Russians will welcome dialogue with Obama


Sure, that'w why they told Obama to shove it, concerning Iran.


Russian President Won't "Haggle" Over US Missile Defense Plans
www.dw-world.de...

haggle:To argue in an attempt to come to terms.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by ProfEmeritus]

Anyway, it is all a moot point now. The real power behind the US has just dictated to the US concerning its Iran policy, and Obama will dutifully obey his true leader:


Israel draws 'red lines' for Obama on Iran Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:24:20 GMT
Israel prepares a set of red lines for Washington to inject into its Iran policy as the current US approach toward Tehran rankles Tel Aviv.

The revelation that the White House will be briefed on its 'red lines' came ahead of a visit by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Israel and the West Bank, during which she is scheduled to meet with various high-ranking Israeli officials.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry and the defense establishment have been working together to formulate a set of redlines for the newly-established US administration of President Barack Obama.



[edit on 3-3-2009 by ProfEmeritus]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Yes, I am serious. South Ossetia and Abhazia, like it or not, Tovarich, are part of Georgia.


Get a history book on Georgia, and especially on the post-Soviet Georgia.


Fistably- boundaries of Caucasus republics like Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and even Russia have never been clearly defined untill the Soviet Era - and even then constantly redrawn. Each one of these 4 nations have territorial disputes and issues, where every side has some legitimate arguement. Ossetia and Abkhazia continuously alternated between being part of Georgia, Ottoman Empire, and Russian Empire. They are populated by a Caucasus ethnicities which never considered themselves either Georgian or Russian. Borders in that region have throughout history been drawn by war.

It is not up to me to like it or not. Most of today's conflicts around the world happen due to territorial disputes. Virtually all of them involve legitimate arguements. I too am usually against further partition of any nation. However in dealing with separatists, the bigger nation must tread very carefully and not get hotheaded. Georgia made the mistake of trying to deal with its separatist problem by bombing that problem into oblivion. Russia made the same mistake in Chechnya in 1994, and has learned from it through years of bloodshed. As fate would have it - Georgia could not afford to make the same mistake that Russia did - and it should have known better considering it has been warned.


Secondly - untill Georgia's recent attack Russia never claimed that the two republics are independent, and was against them separating from Georgia. Russia was the one who mediated the first war in Ossetia and Abkhazia in the 90's, after Georgia lost to the separatists.


Russia got involved in the recent war in South Ossetia, because Georgia attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers without provocation. These peacekeepers were sanctioned by the UN, and their presence was ratified by Georgia itself during the peace accords in the 90's. An attack on a nation's sanctioned peacekeeping force alone is enough to justify a limited military intervention for the purposes of restoring peace - which is exactly what Russia did.


Now what would happen if say today Serbia launches an artillery barrage on NATO peacekeepers stationed in Kosovo (a republic which Serbia and many nations consider to be part of Serbia), killing tens of peacekeepers?


Now mind you - Russia at the peak of military actions occupied about 1/8 of Georgia. Russian forces withdrew from all nondisputed terrories within a month - as agreed to by peace negotiations.



Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Just as the US would not allow individual states to break away, Georgia is not allowing South Ossetia and Abhazia to break away


An do your thoughts regarding Kosovo mirror those perceptions of yours? If so were you very active in arguing agaisnt US illegal actions in regards to partition of Russia's ally?

And boy do I have a story for you about a country called Mexico and the territory of Texas.


Either way - what does any of this have to do with a perceived threat to Ukraine? Ukraine has no separatist conflicts, and no outside peacekeepers. Nor does Ukraine have a hotheaded warmonger idiot like Saakashvili as its President - just a regular idiot.


Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
regardless of how many ethnic Russians live there. If they love mother Russia, let them emigrate to Russia.


They are not ethnic Russians - they are ethnic Abkhaz and Ossetians. They have lived on that land throughout history. Their clans have alternated between being part of Russia, Ottoman Empire Georgia, and being independent. If the bigger state which they were a part of did not allow them to practice their customs or speak and teach their language, they took up arms. This is what happened in the early 90's. This is the history of much of the Caucasus.




Sure, that'w why they told Obama to shove it, concerning Iran.


Russian President Won't "Haggle" Over US Missile Defense Plans
www.dw-world.de...



Read that article carefully. It states that there has been a misunderstanding in the language of Medvedev's letter.



The Russian president welcomed the "positive signals" coming from the Obama administration with which he said he hoped to reach "agreements." "Haggling," however, was "not productive," added Medvedev on Tuesday, March 3.

The Russian president also said Obama's letter had not presented the issue in such a way.

Obama on Tuesday said the Times report did not "accurately characterize the letter" he sent Medvedev.


Russia did not give a "no" to Obama's proposal. Whether the said "haggling is productive or not remains to be seen, but as I said no one really expected a quick resolution to this dispute. This will take time. Maybe the two sides will try and work on something to make it seem less like "haggling" - but that is only to save face in front of the media.




On Sunday, the Russia president was quoted as saying that Moscow was waiting for new US proposals to resolve the missile dispute.


So Russia is not saying "no" but waiting for US to rework its proposal. Of course it would be more appropriate for Russia to take the next step and make a counter offer, but then you got "haggling". This is just an example of political intrigues getting in the way.


Remember that there is also an issue of trust. Russia has many reasons to distrust the US, after various US actions of the last 15 years. Similarly the US is cautious of trusting Russia. This will take a while to overcome.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by maloy]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 





Remember that there is also an issue of trust. Russia has many reasons to distrust the US, after various US actions of the last 15 years. Similarly the US is cautious of trusting Russia. This will take a while to overcome.


Yes, it will. However, will the world still be around by then, my friend? Between the economic worldwide crisis, the terrorist threats, and human-modified viruses, we may not have that much time to bring the world to peace. No sane person wants war, it is the insane we must worry about.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 





No sane person wants war, it is the insane we must worry about.

Don't make comments like that, people will catch your ignorance
. War is a broader term then you think.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
My God, NO, NO, NO!!!

This PROVES that Obama is a fool. Isn't there ANYONE in his inner circle that can tell him that you cannot trust the Russians.



Trust? It's the Russians you have trouble trusting?

Here's the rest of the world, looking cautiously over their shoulder at the US because you've proven you can't be trusted to respect our borders or our civilians lives, nor can you be trusted to actually look into anything before you go bombing on "suspicion"...

...and it's the Russians you have trouble trusting?!

[edit on 3-3-2009 by johnsky]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
^ Dedicated nationalists can't see it that way, no matter what country they're in.

If you are a diehard nationalist, whatever your country does is right, therefore what is right is whatever your country did/is doing/will do.

It's not anything exclusive to Americans, though we do seem to have a lot of it these days



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Foppezao
Pretty ironic, Reagan got the USSR financially on its knees in the 80's through the last arms race[of the cold war] with the Star wars program.


No he did not. I am not even aware of any actual historians who suggests this. Sure there are a few politicians and pundits but who believes the people who were as surprised as the rest of us when the USSR felt apart almost overnight?


Now Obama bows before Russia to cancel the shield program.


And what is he supposed to do when it was always a way to draw other countries into America's problem? Why should the poles risk having their heads blown off to help American catch up with Russian strategic power? Would you sign up to be POland given their recent history?


One way or another the Russians already know the shield is worthless cause their RS-24 ICBM's can counter the shield.


The shield isn't 'useless' in that it can't shoot down ICBM's ( Even with MARV's ) but useless in the sense that it's based so far foward and so small that it can be overwhelmed with either far cheaper short range IRBM's or cruise and coventional weaponry dragging Poland into a war it can't win and leaving the US no better defended than it was. Mostly i suspect that is the aim of all the 'foward' US bases; their hoping to draw nations that would choose to be neutral into the war by inviting the attacks Russia would have to make to neutralize American strategic forces.


Maybe the Russian still don't like those toys in their backyard and cooperate,


Would you? What did the US national security state do when , after it told Castro to take a hike when he were looking for allies to guard the revolution, Castro decided that the best way to prevent a US invasion was to allow the USSR to stage short and medium range nuclear weaponry in that country? Right. What does people expect Russia to do when it has been invaded by the west three times in less than ninety years?


on the otherhand maybe they also make more profit from a war with Iran,


If The Russian leadership wanted to make 'profit by war', instead of just robbing Russians blind which seems to be making them quite rich, they in my knowledge destroy US strategic forces without suffering but a small proportion of the damage they can inflict. In fact if i am not far wrong they aren't doing so mostly becuase the US has not given them a sufficiently large excuse to mobilize the Russian public who are very much uninterested in wars of any kind.


in fact both the US and Russia can gain some, still they're both the same countries with its militairy-industrial complex..its like xman_in_blackx said, they might be handy to each other..


The US has everything to lose by a war with Russia and nothing i can think of to gain from it's devastation. The Chinese will economically exploit a failing Russian state ( that the US wont have the economic or manpower means to control or exploit if they could somehow 'win' the nuclear exchange) so fast it wont only make the US national security state's head spin but leave them with a China they have even less control of having used up what meager strategic and conventional forces they retain in a ongoing struggle with Russia.

Basically i can see that a Russian/Chinese alliance ( as they are) coming out victorious but i can't say the same for Western Europe and the US.....

Stellar



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gregarious
Guy, you are absolutely right about the Demoncrats and the reBumblicans both being anti-our best interests. But you are not watching BO bin Kenya very much.


It's not exactly a very insightful thing to agree on but i suppose everything helps.
I may not be 'watching' Obama but i can see what his doing and it's not very different from what Bush did when he wasn't flubbing his lines; not much other than image.


He was THE most leftist congressman, when he actually voted, not just 'present' votes.


Not by far ,no. In fact you will find more leftist republicans ( which may perhaps just show how similar they are) than Obama ; he wasn't the most 'leftist' democrat by any means of measurement i can think of.


We have another Adolph in power right now, thanks to criminal manipulation and funding by ACORN and others.


Well he is a war criminal for illegally ordering the bombing of Pakistan so we can agree on that much. As for comparing him with Hitler i wouldn't go nearly that far.


He is a very persuasive speaker, says what the people want to hear, and does the exact wrong thing, subtly.


There is nothing subtle about the same old strategy as every American president ( and most around the world ) follows. It's not that people don't expect that presidents wont do everything they asked for but the perpetual lies and misinformation that so confuses people that they can't even tell if they got what they asked for or who to blame for not getting it.


If/when the whole thing about his actually being an illegal immigrant is exposed, all his signed laws will be moot.


The chances of that happening is no bigger than the chances of the Bush or Obama administrations being brought up on war crimes charges. You could hold your breath ( or start counting the decades) but frankly i trying to get past wasting my energy on the virtual impossible. The guys that got both presidents into power are not going to let a question of where someone was born or bombing innocents from the air stop them any time soon.


There are currently massive demonstrations going on all over the US, in spite of the leftist medias' best efforts to squelch.


The American media is not leftist, never has been , and are not showing any tendencies in that regard. If you believe the American media is leftist that kinda disqualifies you from being able to claim to know the difference between left and right in even the United States. If you wish to argue the point could you tell me why you think the Corporate owners of the media houses would hire leftist to run their news channels while these same corporate owners use both political parties to bring about reactionary changes to further destroy the American worker's power to defend his economic and political interest?


The Demoncrats will be set back to their Civil War status.


Things were in my opinion more interesting back then ( in terms of parties and voter blocs) than now but perhaps you are referring to the split between the Southern and Northern 'Democrats' ( or rather the republican/democrat alliance) ? Should i take that to mean that you do not know that even with the split the Northern democrats got within 10% of 38% that elected Lincoln? Hell Obama practically won by that percentage this time? Short of officially surrendering the US to Russia or China ( on the Iowa perhaps?) there isn't much Obama will do that the republicans wouldn't have done so a republican resurgence is a few elections away.


It may not happen right away, as he has Lucifers support.


I am going to pretend i didn't see that as i don't want to be associated with someone who believes that the devil is actively aiding Obama.


But eventually, his destroying Americas' constitution and freedoms, not mentioning the reckless financial stuff, will make him the most hated man in America.


Democrats are destroying the Us Constitution somewhat slower than the republicans so that's hardly a reason to stop voting for them! The reckless financial stuff is reckless but under McCain it wouldn't only have been as bad but totally without oversight and compromises with unions. If the EFCA passes under Obama ( his giving it support) that would go a long way to make up for the corporate bailouts; there wouldn't have been a chance for such a act under a republican president.


Many Democrats are actually good people, trying to do the right thing. They are just misled. Same with Republicans.


This needs to be said in your opinion? I mean what alternative is there? The voting public of the US is 'evil'? I would laugh but i feel like crying.


They are being misled by a lot of rich and powerful people who do not want the public to suceed.


And you managed to come up with this reasonable conclusion based on all the beliefs you have so far noted? Miracle's do indeed happen!


America's government is the worst in all the world, with the exception of all the rest.


America's government is not the worse in the world in itself but when you add up who they support and who they have funded over the last two centuries nothing, in my opinion, in recent times comes even close to how inhumanly they have behaved.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
How do you think the Iranian's will respond to this effort?

The government will do exactly what it has always done. It will smile .. say 'yes this is wonderful we accept the terms' ... and then continue to work on it's nukes in a secret program.

Then when they have the nukes, we will have no missile shield because we will have STUPIDLY believed the Iranian government.

We will trust - without verification - and even if we send in verification, the truth will be hidden from us until it is too late.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



We will trust - without verification - and even if we send in verification, the truth will be hidden from us until it is too late.


North Korea came to mind as I was reading your post.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 



I think he is rather working his way up to these talks with Iran. At this point it is far easier for the US to hold dialogue with Russia rather than Iran. So if a consensus can be reached with Russia, US would be far more confident going into talks with Iran.


Although I see where your coming from, Obama never talked about sitting down with Russia about Iran. I understood he would sit down with the Iranian leader.


Russians will welcome dialogue with Obama, and frankly Russia has more pressing issues (economy, social concerns) to worry about right now than about how weak or strong America appears to be.


I am sure Russia would enjoy a dialogue with the US, but not if the US plans to get the upper hand. You know as well as I that the US has gotten use to the role of demanding and dictating rather than compromising. I seriously doubt that a change of president is going to lessen that role.

How do you feel NATO will view the US if the US doesn't go through with this?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Everyone who thinks ABM installations in Czech Republic were in any way meant to counter Iranian missiles (if there were any) please raise your hand. For that matter anyone who thinks that Iran with nuclear weapons (if there were any) will somehow worsen global instability and the sh*t pile that is the Middle East please raise your hand.


Somehow I think Iran and the danger posed by Iran and its nuclear capabilities (ha!) is not really the main issue here. The main problem is the wedge that had been driven between US and Russia, and where it's heading. The ABM shield and recent communications between Obama and Russia do not so much concern Iran as they do trust.


How long will everyone be chasing Iranian nukes and other demons of your imagination? Isn't it obvious - the more US pokes Iran, the harder Iran squeels about nukes and missiles and what not. And you just keep on poking, and poking and poking. Do you expect it to stop squeeling?


The West's obsession with Iran is rather humorous if not trivial. I get it - Iran is evil and will nuke someone the first chance it gets. Haha.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join