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.

 

Russia: Obama Signed Away Missile Defenses! (USA=Suckers!!!)

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Russia’s legislature says the New START nuclear arms treaty ratified last month by the U.S. Senate restricts the U.S. from building and operating missile defenses against nuclear attacks. President Obama says the opposite: that the treaty “places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs.”

There may never have been such a huge dispute on such a fundamental aspect of a high profile treaty between two major world powers. As reported by the Voice of Russia on Monday, Russia’s Duma, the lower house of parliament, “plans to confirm the link between the reduction of the strategic offensive arms and the restriction of antimissile defense systems’ deployment in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START),” according to the lawmaking body’s foreign policy chief.

The Russian news agency quoted the chairman of the Duma Committee on International Affairs, Konstantin Kosachev, who was apparently sneering that U.S. negotiators had been tricked. Kosachev claimed, “our American colleagues do not recognize the legal force of the treaty’s preamble. The preamble sets a link between strategic offensive arms and defensive arms.”

When asked by ABC News on Monday if the Russians were right about New START squashing future missile defense breakthroughs, White House

But as ABC News pointed out back in April on the eve of the signing of the New START treaty, Russian officials have been saying all along that the agreement restricts U.S. efforts toward building missile defenses.

In a letter to Republican senators encouraging them to vote for New START, President Obama pledged, “As long as I am President, and as long as the Congress provides the necessary funding, the United States will continue to develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies and partners.”


Source: www.newsmax.com...

Well? Go ahead. Start defending him. IT's BUSH's Fault... I am sure that will begin now.

I am amazed on how many alleged intelligent people still support this numb nut. Just another example of Obama's on-going effort of bring the USA down even more than he already has.

Russia must be chuckling their butts off on this one. But, realistically, how hard was it to pull a fast one on the Village idiot and his merry group of morons?

The biggest/saddest thing is that many of people tried to warn him/us that this was a bad deal.

What sickens my stomach even more is that at least 8 alleged Republican Senators signed onto it.

It's just a matter of time for WHEN the next world war starts.... and I say soon.




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
WW III is only a hop, skip and a n jump away. These political idiots must not know, that there is no such thing is
" bartering " with a countries defense. Not Surprisingly, these idiots are playing with fire. Suggesting to big power in the globe, reduction of defense's is inherently dumb!
Just gives the Russkies the upper hand in a possible attack strategy.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I think it is all a dog and pony show. Something for the mainstream to look at and say, see we are making a move towards peace. Behind the closed doors at the pentagon there is a more sinister plot with this whole defense deal. Maybe to make the Ruskies believe that we have been duped. I don't know, but I believe that every nation knows that their missiles are useless.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
You wait and see, there will be a defense missile system established, say Poland or something. And the Russians are get their panties in a bunch!
edit on 6-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Well one thing is for sure. If something ever happens, I want animal mother on my side.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Well one thing is for sure. If something ever happens, I want animal mother on my side.


I have to ask.... who is Animal Mother.

I have a littel bell going off indicating I should know... maybe from a movie etc. You got me.

IF something ever happens. My man... it's WHEN something happens. tic tic tic tic



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Well one thing is for sure. If something ever happens, I want animal mother on my side.


I have to ask.... who is Animal Mother.

I have a littel bell going off indicating I should know... maybe from a movie etc. You got me.

IF something ever happens. My man... it's WHEN something happens. tic tic tic tic


Animal Mother is depicted in Whereweheaded's avatar. He is a character from Full Metal Jacket. He was a psycho with a military license to murder. I would not want him on my side...nor the enemies side. He should have been taken out back and shot.

P.S. No offense to Whereweheaded intended. I just didn't care for the character.
edit on 6-1-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
The TRillion or Trillions we wasted on missile defense was in vain. The Chinese and Russians aren't idiots.

They can engineer things to defeat THAAD. Then you have to spend Trillions to develop the next thing to defeat their defeat'er...and on and on and on....

The money we wasted creating THAAD could have been used to fix America's crumbling drinking water infrastructure.

We've still got LEAD water pipes in the ground providing public water to communities in America.

Which I think is why we've collapsed as a society. Our Leaders have all gone mad from LEAD poisoning.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012602402.html
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/19/AR2010051902599.html

We are sooooooo screwed.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Well, I have to say, you make a pretty good argument. We should/need to focus more on ourselves and our stuff.

It just seems like we are going backwards and FAST with this POTUS. He's changing things alright... for the worse.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


If you don’t spend enough on defense, then all the money we spend on ourselves is a total waste, because we will be wiped off the map. That fact has been proven time and time throughout history.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


WIth what you just wrote/indicated..... take this story and apply!!!

Pentagon to cut spending by $78 billion, reduce troop strength
www.washingtonpost.com...

enough said. Obama has set out to destroy and/or weaken the USA.


edit on 1/6/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Seems as if Obama's goal is to weaken us and form a more perfect North American Union.. and pretend we are Europe too. IE Obama has NO clue what he is doing. I dont even know if we can get out of this mess IF.. BIG IF.. we ever got some control over Washington. Things seem to be way past the rescue point. I am just waiting to see what comes next.. economic collapse a la Greece or what.

IMO we have weaponry that will trump use of nukes.. but used on who and with who's blessing or compliance? Exactly what unions are being formed behind the scenes while we are babbling over obamacare and etc? I always question why we are bing so distracted.. and why things are seeimgly engineered to be distracting.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Russia is no threat. I am an American citizen and living in Moscow. I have perspective from both sides.

This treaty is nothing but symbolism. As everyone already figured out, by limiting each country to relatively half their current nukes does the world no good, or bad. The world can still be destroyed 10 times over. The US and Russia are trying to build new ties and relations after the Cold War, and what better way to do this than to trust each other to limit their nukes down a bit which were a reaction of the Cold War. We can't take away all of our nukes, of course, because countries like North Korea and Iran exist.

Russia is not going to attack America. America is not going to attack Russia. It will never happen. Please get this Cold War mentality out of your heads. If anything, we are closer to Russia than ever after the recent terror attacks of 9-11 and the Moscow metro bombing and all the crap the muslims pull in the Caucus region.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Anyone who blames Obama for anything doesn't understand how things work. Get over the red/blue paradigm.

He has advisors, the same advisors as the last president. All he is, is a mouthpiece.

About damn time we reduce our military budget, anyways.

And about the treaty restricting us from building anti-missle defenses - we'll build whatever we damn well want, treaty or no treaty. Trust me.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by againuntodust
Anyone who blames Obama for anything doesn't understand how things work. Get over the red/blue paradigm.

He has advisors, the same advisors as the last president. All he is, is a mouthpiece.

About damn time we reduce our military budget, anyways.

And about the treaty restricting us from building anti-missle defenses - we'll build whatever we damn well want, treaty or no treaty. Trust me.



So in your opinion, Obama deserves blame for nothing? He wants to be the mouthpiece because he believes in the agenda that he helps move forward; he deserves some blame, and so does every other mouthpiece/POTUS, regardless of party affiliation. Why should we trust you that the U.S. will not comply with the treaty? Which advisors are the same?
edit on 6-1-2011 by devildogUSMC because: corrected an error

edit on 6-1-2011 by devildogUSMC because: typo



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
It's all a matter of costs.

Is it cheaper to build nukes or missile defense systems? My hunch is that nukes would be cheaper to build and maintain.

To build and maintain missile defense systems, it would be costly, mostly borne out american taxpayers and the host nations will have to accept 'american eyes' over their soveriegn terrorities. Not an issue if america is a democracy, but it a corporatist dictatorship with a hidden shadow govt.

In these lean and hungry times, ALL nations can no longer afford to maintain high defence budgets. Better the money be spent on the people than machines, because massed hunger and lack of opportunity is far worse than an enemy attack in terms of survival.

Let the nukes stay, maintain control and vigilance over it, and each nation gets a few nukes, be responsible for it, would save the world from wars and further poverty caused by military expansion on a planet where there are no state enemies except for non-state manipulated guerillas which ordinary LEO and intelligence can deal with.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
S&F.
Great thread, Anon.
I'm glad you made this thread. That treaty made no sense to me. It won't make sense to anybody lookng for something that benefits the U.S. in any way.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
The American military budget is just insane, it always shocks me how people call for budget cuts and moan about America drowning in debt yet the military budget doesn't get talked about much. And fear mongering nonsense about being wiped off the map for reducing the budget is silly.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I never like Barack Obama. Crooked as the rest of the people in DC. I believe I will never vote in my life for scum.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by devildogUSMC
So in your opinion, Obama deserves blame for nothing? He wants to be the mouthpiece because he believes in the agenda that he helps move forward; he deserves some blame, and so does every other mouthpiece/POTUS, regardless of party affiliation. Why should we trust you that the U.S. will not comply with the treaty? Which advisors are the same?


To blame Obama for problems, is akin to blaming an electric guitar for making noise - the real problem is the guitar player. The U.S. will does what it wants as has been proven time and time again throughout history, you don't have to trust me, Congress can break any treaty as is seen in the Head Money Cases. And just look at 2005 when North Korea signed a non-nuclear treaty and 4 days later the US broke it.

Which advisors are the same? Folks can feel free to add onto this list:


Susan E. Rice - Council on Foreign Relations, The Brookings
Institution - Served as Assistant Secretary of State for African
Affairs under Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Former Secretary of
State Madeline Albright is a longtime mentor and family friend to
Rice. Critics charge that she is is ill disposed towards Europe, has
little understanding of the Middle East and would essentially
follow the same policies of Condoleeza Rice if appointed the next
Secretary of State or the National Security Adviser.

Anthony Lake - CFR, PNAC - Bill Clinton’s first national
security adviser, who was criticized for the administration’s failure
to confront the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and now
acknowledges the inaction as a major mistake.

Zbigniew Brzezinski - CFR, Trilateral Commission - Brzezinski
is widely seen as the man who created Al Qaeda, and was
involved in the Carter Administration plan to give arms, funding
and training to the mujahideen in Afghanistan.

Richard Clarke - CFR - Former chief counter-terrorism adviser
on the U.S. National Security Council under Bush. Notoriously
turned against the Bush administration after 9/11 and the invasion
of Iraq. Also advised Madeleine Albright during the Genocide in
Rwanda.

Ivo Daalder - CFR, Brookings, PNAC - Co-authored a
Washington Post op-ed with neocon Robert Kagan arguing that
interventionism is a bipartisan affair that should be undertaken
with the approval of our democratic allies.

Dennis Ross - CFR, Trilateral Commission, PNAC - Served as the
director for policy planning in the State Department under
President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator
under President Bill Clinton. A noted supporter of the Iraq war,
Ross is also a Foreign Affairs Analyst for the Fox News Channel.

Lawrence Korb - CFR, Brookings - Director of National Security
Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Has criticized manor
of the invasion of Iraq but has detailed plans to increase the
manpower of the United States Army to fight the war on terror and
to "spread liberal democratic values throughout the Middle East".

Bruce Reidel - CFR, Brookings - Former CIA analyst who wishes
to expand the war on terror to fight Al Qaeda across the globe.
Considered to be the reason behind Barack Obama’s Hawkish
views on Pakistan and his Pro India leanings on Kashmir.

Stephen Flynn - CFR - Has been attributed with the idea for
Obama’s much vaunted "Civilian Security Force". Flynn has
written: "The United States should roughly replicate the Federal
Reserve model by creating a Federal Security Reserve System
(FSRS) with a national board of governors, 10 regional Homeland
Security Districts, and 92 local branches called Metropolitan AntiTerrorism Committees. The objective of this system would be to
develop self-funding mechanisms to more fully engage a broad
cross-section of American society to protect the country’s critical
foundations from the widespread disruption that would arise from
a terrorist attack."

Madeline Albright - CFR, Brookings - Currently serves on the
Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors. Secretary of
State and US Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton.
Did not take action against the genocide in Rwanda. Defended the
sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein. When asked by
CBS’s 60 Minutes about the effects of sanctions: "We have heard
that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children
than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price
— we think the price is worth it."

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Of course, had John
McCain become president, being a member of the CFR himself,
his administration would have been replete with CFR
representatives also. Max Boot, Lawrence Eagleburger and Henry
Kissinger, to name but a few, are all CFR members and were all
advisors to the McCain campaign.




top topics



 
4

log in

join