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: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
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.


Must Obama talk about all of his plans? I never heard anything either, but it is clear that he is communicating with Russia, and probably doesn't want to be too vocal about it yet.

And what do you think his talk with Iran will yield? Iran hasn't the least amount of trust for the US, nor does US have any trust for Iran. Regardless of how honest the intentions are, it is always best to have a mediator. I am just guessing at this point, but there ougth to be a reason why Obama's reply to Russia regarding the ABM system mentioned cooperation on Iran.




Originally posted by jam321
I am sure Russia would enjoy a dialogue with the US, but not if the US plans to get the upper hand.


I don't think it is about who really gets more out of it or who has the upper hand, but the illusion created by the talks. As I said - both sides are interested to make it look like they each walk out as the winner to their own side and have something to brag about. I don't see why that can't be done.

And I don't see why the US won't be willing to change its approach to diplomacy. The Russians are somewhat curious about Obama, if he really brings the change he preaches to bring. Needless to say there are many skeptics. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given a try.

Personally I have no idea what to expect from Obama regarding foreign policy. After all he may continue the previous arrogant policies under a guise of something more benign.



Originally posted by jam321
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.


I seriously doubted it too. Russia send the first message to Obama about the ABM shield, probably to see if he responds - as a trial. Well he responded. It's a start. Might not lead anywhere of course. But as far as I saw it relations between Russia and US were completely deadlocked under Bush, after the Ossetia War and the gas dispute with Ukraine. It looked like the two sides just ignored each other completely. Now at least there is some communication.




Originally posted by jam321
How do you feel NATO will view the US if the US doesn't go through with this?


NATO? This ABM nonesense didn't involve NATO. It was solely a US idea, and was between US and the host nations. NATO is becoming rather splintered anyway, after a dispute about whether countries like Georgia and Ukraine should be let in.

I think the traditional NATO members, especially France and Germany are somewhat disillusioned with where the US foreign policy was taking them under Bush. I am sure there were many disagreements about the ABM system within NATO behind closed doors. We can only guess how France and Germany feel about it.

Also NATO members are a bit more sophisticated than giving in to instinctual impressions like "Oh look US is abandoning ABM idea and giving in to Russia, they must be so weak and pathetic".



And do you think NATO (especially Western European members) still regards Russia as a realistic enemy that threatens Europe. Oh Russia is the opposing side no doubt, but rather politically than militarily. NATO is already obsolete in terms of its military doctrine, which is why the US is bypassing it in dealing with countries like Polans, Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan directly.




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
You raise a lot of interesting points that I will keep an eye on. Appreciate the feedback. I also agree that the missile shield plan was a US pushed plan.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Well, Folks, here is Russia's answer, hot off the presses:

In other words, Russia will accept nothing short of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER by OBAMA. So much for his "touchy-feely-flower-power diplomacy.


The problem with that logic is that the US can barely afford the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while building up other strategic forces; there just isn't money for a missile shield in Poland that will push the Russians into aggressive moves elsewhere. Bush and the gang clearly wanted to get the war going with Iran and others but apparently the Obama advisers believes that you actually need to finish up the wars in Afghanistan and iraq before going after the bear itself. Different approaches to starting world war three if you like.


When will they realize how much of a hole people like Obama are putting this country in?


Obama is definitely better than Bush but not by a whole lot. Why are you blaming Obama for reaching slightly different decisions as advised by pretty much the same people that server Bush and Clinton? Or do you think Clinton was a commie agent as well?

Bah.


Right, and the tooth fairy really exists. I'll believe that when Obama tells Israel that they can go it alone, that we don't support them anymore, and we will stop giving them the $3 Billion dollars a year in military aid, AND when Obama REVERSES his decision to send 20,000 MORE American troops into Afghanistan, and pulls them all out.


Well American aid to Israel is actually closer to 6 billion once you add up the loan guarantee's ( free money as well) and all the other smaller items. Right OK. I am happy to agree that helping Israel is totally detrimental to American security and that the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan has compromised American conventional forces as badly as Vietnam did. In my the opinion ( which is based on the opinions and knowledge of people who may actually be worthy of your respect ; generals etc) a true defense of the American people would mean a national ABM defense system such as the one the RF operates, the proper maintenance of US surface and general naval assets, and the recreation of whatever additional nuclear &strategic conventional bomber forces that can and will put the fear of whatever god they may have into any country that dares attack US soil with uniformed forces.

Such a strong national defense coupled with a non interventionist strategy ( never held before by any US administration in at least the last two centuries ) would lead to a country that creates no enemy's in and of itself and one that can not be dragged into the conflicts of others by virtue of having uniformed men in the firing lines of most large guns in the world ( what were American ships doing the gulf of Tonkin; protecting British supply ships in the Atlantic DESPITE the best efforts of American voters not to get involved? ) . Sure it might still become the target of those rulers who wish to build their own empires ( like the US governments have been attempting ever since the British and Spanish empires collapsed) no matter what their people want but there is nothing quite like national self defense where you don't need a draft to get men into uniform and off to protect the countries borders.

If some group manages to stage a 'terrorist' attack on US soil ( that doesn't look too obviously planned by the Pentagon, etc) despite a policy where no terrorist are backed, foreign leaders assassinated, elections rigged, economies sabotaged and tyrants and dictators sponsored the current president, secretary of defense and or entire government should be replaced for their failure to protect the American public from enemies they should not have for lack of provocation. Why should the government survive their failures when small business all over American are failing for either their own mistakes or policies created by their very own government?

IF such a policy where sponsored by the American public, and maintained for a few decades there wouldn't only be even less 'terrorist attacks' ( name some other than 9-11 on home soil that doesn't smell of the states doing) but there wouldn't be any chance for one as there aren't in fact mindless nations who desperately wish to attack the US without because of it's 'freedom's. Currently there are however many nations that have not forgotten what the US national security state did to them and who will join alliances intended to stave off the continued American imperialist moves against the re-developing world and their protectors.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 





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


The word is "than", not "then". When you learn to speak properly, maybe you'll see who the ignorant one is. Only insane, ignorant people WANT war.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 





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"...


If you've read my posts, you would know that I do not support war. Why do you make assumptions that have no basis? In an earlier post on this thread, I slammed Obama for not withdrawing all troops and bringing them home, as he promised. Don't blame me for Obama's lies, and Bush's stupidity. I don't support EITHER party. I have been, and still am, a Ron Paul supporter.
My comments deal with diplomacy, and negotiations, not war.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Ownification
 





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


The word is "than", not "then". When you learn to speak properly, maybe you'll see who the ignorant one is. Only insane, ignorant people WANT war.

I'm ignorant because I don't know the difference between than and then, I will admit I don't. Language is about communication, as long as you get the idea. If you are going to pick up on things like that, I can do the same.




When you learn to speak properly


If one was to pronounce 'then' and 'than' it is the same but that doesn't show your ignorance, heck we are not even speaking we are writing back and forth. It is the idea that anyone who want war is insane which makes you ignorant to reality.

The reality is that you are calling the whole world crazy, I don't think there is many people out there who does not support a war, are they crazy and insane also? Or is it only the people who implement war, or is the people who give orders, or is it the people who support those orders.

Are you saying the people who want the term 'war' is crazy? What does war mean, what about wars with your neighbors? not in world wide term but in community terms.

Explain to us what 'war' in your vocabulary mean. War in different context means different things. Some people have wars against themselves, against ones desires. Hey what about "the war on poverty", "the war against crime". So what is it that you are referring to when you say war. Are you just stating war against another nation? Or Civil wars? Do you just mean that anyone who supports a war where people die is insane? But in that context are you talking about innocent people dying or any individual who dies.

Please explain in paragraphs your statement so we can have a discussion, and hopefully in the end you come back to reality and avoid looking at the world in black and white.

By the way English is my second language, as long as the message gets across.

[edit on 103131p://31b3 by Ownification]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

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?


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


Frances Fitzgerald actually wrote a book about that period of the last arms racein the 80's, Aaron Swartz blogged about it..most Reagan supporters will agree with that notion (afterwards) that the SDI program was too much for the USSR during that periode and pulled them into bankruptcy.The Russians were trying to develop the same system, for instance they also developed the Buran, the Russian version of the Space shuttle.All too much for them financially.

I actually mentioned a war with Iran, and Russia as the supplier of weapons for Iran, just a good old proxy war with profits for both American and Russian military industrial complex. I don't think they will clash into each other because of that..

But i wonder, since this ABM shield has come a long way, didn't they reached a tipping point? [of no return].. why wont Obama cooperate with NATO allies on completing/developing a small version of the shield to keep future long distance missiles from Iran/Pakistan ?
at bay?
Or is the Czech republic for instance also involved in developing the Radar site? [cause from what i know Czech are pretty good in developing radar systems]..

From this site Obama actually promised poland to continue the projectfinance.varolmak.com...


From a technical standpoint, the best way for antimissile systems to destroy ballistic missiles is to hit them in their boosting stage[from above].Here comes the discussing of space weapon platforms in which China is also eagerly involved right now.



[edit on 5-3-2009 by Foppezao]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
All of this proves,is that Americans are still too focused on believing lies. Obama was a big mistake,and he is going to ruin this country. Underneath all his B.S. and razzle dazzle is a book smart idiot,who dosent have a lick of common sense. The Russians are on to us,they see how things are going here and view us as weak and vulnerable. Obama is way too left,so far left he has left the ball park. I feel we could be in grave danger if we continue on the lieing Obama path.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
The Bushehr power plant has completed pre start up tests and is allready `hot` - its just completing testing before generating commercial power

as an LPR it is totally not suitable to the fuelcycle required for plutonium production - it uses `standard` 5% enriched uranium fuel cells , doesn`t run on MOX - and its the design `green lighted` by the IAEA for iran.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 
Well guess what here is your proof ...directly from the the website.
Hawaii has birth and death records beginning in 1853. Prior to 1896, however, the records are incomplete. Early vital records were kept by local government authorities and clergymen. There are a few missionary reports that date back as early as 1826. They are on file at the Hawaii State Archives, the Department of Health, and the Daughters of the American Revolution Library in Honolulu, and many are at the FHL in Salt Lake City. Since 1911, delayed birth certificates can be applied for in Hawaii. They often contain valuable genealogical information. The FHL has seventy microfilm rolls of delayed birth records for Hawaii. This collection contains 50,000 delayed birth records and covers the period from 1859 to 1903, with indexes from 1859 to 1938. Most records are now deposited with the State Department of Health.

Hawaiian Birth certificates
Hawaiin Eligilibiltity This is the clincher
It's amazing what a little google can do.




[edit on 5-3-2009 by djvexd]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by djvexd]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by djvexd]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 





Explain to us what 'war' in your vocabulary mean. War in different context means different things. Some people have wars against themselves, against ones desires. Hey what about "the war on poverty", "the war against crime". So what is it that you are referring to when you say war. Are you just stating war against another nation?

Since I was talking about the wars between countries, let me be specific. I mean the military actions started by one country against another one. What I said, was that no sane person WANTS war. It does not mean that, if war is thrust upon them, such as an attack on one's homeland, they cannot respond.
Wanting war, and waging war are two different things. I stand by my remark that no sane person WANTS war. War destroys lives, homes, and the earth. Show me a person that WANTS to do that, and I will gladly call them insane. Yes, that includes leaders of countries that attack other countries without provocation.
As to the "war" on poverty, etc. I would prefer to call it an attempt to rid the world of poverty.
I was referring to this definition:


war:the waging of armed conflict against an enemy


Do you believe that any sane person would WANT to INITIATE such an action?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Just a general question:

Would you guys like it if Russia or Iran installed a missile shield say in...uh Canada, Mexico, or even Venezuelda? (Hypothetical, of course).



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by haika
 





Would you guys like it if Russia or Iran installed a missile shield say in...uh Canada, Mexico, or even Venezuelda? (Hypothetical, of course).

I seriously doubt that Russia would be allowed to install such a shield in either Canada or Mexico. Furthermore, the US has no intent on taking over Canada or Mexico, so such a shield would make no sense. As for Venezuela, let them go ahead. Within two years, that nutcase there will be gone, and their missile shield would be dismantled by the new government. Even if Chavez survives, he'd probably nationalize the shield.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
My alert system goes off when theres such animosity over a DEFENSE shield. Wow. Can you imagine going to war in medieval times with swords and shields, against guys with swords? And they say "hey no fair! you cant use shield".

Dont attack me with the sword and I wont use my shield!

Putin is empowering Iran so that the Shield is needed, and yet he wants us to lay down the defense shield?

We cannot abandon countrys who stand behind us with freedom, please lets support the defense shield. I promise you, we will not hurt anyone with it.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


cuz the countries you refer to; their current missle tech cannot reach allied territories. EVEN if they can reach allied territory or even the U.S., there would not be enough to destroy us- even if there were= welcome M.A.D.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by calibanvov
 


I believe you also but they feel at home just as do we- for better or for worse...



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

G. W. Bush owns your brain it seems

doing the same of they've always being doing, meaning ticking off and aggravating the rest of the planet, is what got them this global hate to begin with. You want more of that?

Which enemy would rape you in the rear?
russia or the defenseless and blockaded Iran?
[edit on 2-3-2009 by ModernAcademia]




No, REALITY owns my brain, as I operate with Logic and Common Sense. You on the other hand remind me of some individuals I know who happen to have their heads shoved so far in the sand, you would likely fail to take witness of the oncoming Storm until it buried you even deeper.

I care little whether or not you are with or against America, but I care about my Countrymen above all others, and I care for our Allies above our Enemies.

Russia is one in the same with Iran, who in turn supplies Syria, who in turn engages the use of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas in order to Meet their Means.

As for "Global Hate", LOL, yes, the United States is so hated, and that is why we continually fail to cease the oncoming hoards of Immigrants who arrive at our Shores EVERY Year; Risking Life and Limb to make it to a Great Nation of Amazing Tolerance.

It is a pity that you fail to realize the realities of this World.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Ownification
 





Explain to us what 'war' in your vocabulary mean. War in different context means different things. Some people have wars against themselves, against ones desires. Hey what about "the war on poverty", "the war against crime". So what is it that you are referring to when you say war. Are you just stating war against another nation?

Since I was talking about the wars between countries, let me be specific. I mean the military actions started by one country against another one. What I said, was that no sane person WANTS war. It does not mean that, if war is thrust upon them, such as an attack on one's homeland, they cannot respond.
Wanting war, and waging war are two different things. I stand by my remark that no sane person WANTS war. War destroys lives, homes, and the earth. Show me a person that WANTS to do that, and I will gladly call them insane. Yes, that includes leaders of countries that attack other countries without provocation.
As to the "war" on poverty, etc. I would prefer to call it an attempt to rid the world of poverty.
I was referring to this definition:


war:the waging of armed conflict against an enemy


Do you believe that any sane person would WANT to INITIATE such an action?




Your statement is very unclear. If an individual starts war does it mean he wants war? How are we suppose to know if someone wants war? Did Bush want war? But then again he had a legitimate reason, his reason was that the best defence is a good offence. That is why I state that one should not look at the world in black and white. It is much more complex than the idea that who ever wants war is insane.

Here's a simple point to take in to consideration. If an individual doesn't want war, he would not fight hence Ghandi. Yes Ghandi was very sane, he was so sane that he told his followers not to defend themselves, the British loved Ghandi since he didn't call for the killings of the killers. He wrote to the Jews in Germany to stay peacefull
don't fight back, because we don't want war.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 





Your statement is very unclear. If an individual starts war does it mean he wants war? How are we suppose to know if someone wants war? Did Bush want war? But then again he had a legitimate reason, his reason was that the best defence is a good offence.

Actually,I believe my statement is quite clear. You just don't want to accept my premise, which is your prerogative, as is mine to state it.
In fact, your example of Bush proves my point. Bush's behavior borders on the insane, in the classic sense of the word.
Bush waged a war against a weak enemy, and a helpless civilian population, where the outcome was never in doubt, and the sheer destruction and mass casualties certainly bordered on the insane. In addition, your comment that the rationale for Bush was basically preemptive. Now tell me, what harm could Iraq have inflicted on the mainland of the US? In addition, it was sheer insanity to destroy an entire country's infrastructure, when it was obvious that there was not much military resistance. The "Shock and Awe" campaign rivaled the firebombing of Dresden, in intensity and lunacy, in that the war was already won in Germany, and Iraq was certain to fall.
Then, the US turns around and has to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to restore the infrastructure that it destroyed! Insanity? Yes!
Bringing up Gandhi is another red herring. On my previous post to you, I made it clear that I had no problem waging a war that was thrust upon us.
Furthermore, war is a serious topic, not one for mental masturbation of words. I have made my point clearly, for the average person to understand. I do not wish to play a wordsmith game with you.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Foppezao
Frances Fitzgerald actually wrote a book about that period of the last arms racein the 80's, Aaron Swartz blogged about it..most Reagan supporters will agree with that notion (afterwards) that the SDI program was too much for the USSR during that periode and pulled them into bankruptcy.


As i said there is no surprise in fact that they do; what other excuse will they attempt to present for the stagflation of the eighties but the fact that their arms race, which only marginally narrowed the gap created earlier, achieved something?


The Russians were trying to develop the same system, for instance they also developed the Buran, the Russian version of the Space shuttle.All too much for them financially.


Well the Russians HAD SDI since the 60's ( in the same way that the US had SDI in the 60's before dismantling it all) so why would it suddenly bankrupt them in the 80's? Sure the general arms race had a terrible effect on the Russian economy with the main difference being that the entire western world were in effect funding the weapons of the US army while the Russian people stood very much alone. Despite all of that the American economy were in dire straits by the 80's with the American citizens working ever hard just to maintain their income's they had achieved by the mid 70's.


I actually mentioned a war with Iran, and Russia as the supplier of weapons for Iran, just a good old proxy war with profits for both American and Russian military industrial complex. I don't think they will clash into each other because of that..


The cold war never really ended ( the breakup of the USSR didn't leave Russia by any means outmatched) and wasn't cold since at least the mid 70's at which point new classes of weapons were being tested and actively used by both sides. As for military industrial complexes profiting there is a fine line between having nice little profitable proxy wars, as you indicated, and having world wars where massive profits are by no means guaranteed.


But i wonder, since this ABM shield has come a long way, didn't they reached a tipping point? [of no return].. why wont Obama cooperate with NATO allies on completing/developing a small version of the shield to keep future long distance missiles from Iran/Pakistan ?
at bay?


There is nothing technologically unfeasible about BM defenses and if the US government were not , as i believe, on the back foot trying to get back in to the game by surrounding Russia with conventional forces and gang pressed allies there would be no need for forward deployed ABM 'shields.


Or is the Czech republic for instance also involved in developing the Radar site? [cause from what i know Czech are pretty good in developing radar systems]..

From this site Obama actually promised poland to continue the projectfinance.varolmak.com...


It's a open question of the Czech republic or even the Poles will find much financial benefits by helping the US given their proximity to the Russian federation. Who supplies their energy and who do they trade with mostly? I do not believe that the Poles are willing players in this but what is the threat of future Russian aggression compared with what the US national security state can do to your economy and financial markets tomorrow? I think the main reason Obama may be withdrawing from this commitment is because the US has lost much of it's financial ability to blackmail the Poles into accepting this provocation of the RF in their back yard.


From a technical standpoint, the best way for antimissile systems to destroy ballistic missiles is to hit them in their boosting stage[from above].Here comes the discussing of space weapon platforms in which China is also eagerly involved right now.


From a technical standpoint it's no easier to shoot down ICBMs in the boost phases than it is to shoot them down in their terminal ballistic phase. How would you even know where mobile ICBMs will be firing from? How do you get close enough with missiles/lasers or like weaponry? Basically this is a complex but proven technology which can't be had 'on the cheap' by trying to forward deploy it in the hopes of making it 'easier'. I believe it's all about encircling Russia and inviting their attacks upon nations that might have chosen to stay neutral in a coming world war three...

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join