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.

 

OBAMA Caught Confiding in Russia: he's FLEXIBLE with their Missile Pgm as He WILL be RE-elected

page: 1
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   





President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you...

President Obama: [This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.


This is a double whammy of caught off guard over mic admitting:

- he has knowledge he will be elected (by Rothschilds again, not America)

- hes submissive to Russia and tolerant of their 8,000 nuclear warheads/missiles pointed wherever they want

- that his last term will be even more lax, flexible, who cares, anything goes..


Just what American needs, eh??




posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
He has less than a year to the vote. A gaff like this back in 2009 or 2010 could have been fatal to his chances of re-election. This close??? Wow..... I think I hear groaning from the White House campaign staff from clear out here in Missouri. If Romney has a brain and at least some basic ambition to win and not Sandbag the race for Obama, then we'll hear this little clip repeated often between now and Nov.

We haven't seen anything yet, is what he's telling us..IMO. Hopefully, we'll see nothing of it at all. I'd much rather imagine what it would have been....in nightmares.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
This won't hurt him at all. Even if it was played on every channel and news station from now until election time, it will be taken differently based on who you already support. For a supporter it will mean confidence in his re-election chances and to a opposition it will have a ring of conspiracy to it. There is no substance to argue over the missile shield itself. "More flexibility" can mean anything without context.

My analysis is that Obama is saying he will campaign on the issue differently than he will govern it, and doesn't want the Russian government taking seriously any stray remarks he might make on the campaign trail.
edit on 26-3-2012 by nuclear12346 because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
That he is even willing to negotiate with the misslile defense system is abhorent!

The missile defense shield is a DEFENSIVE WEAPON!!!!

It is used to protect from an attack!!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
That he is even willing to negotiate with the misslile defense system is abhorent!

The missile defense shield is a DEFENSIVE WEAPON!!!!

It is used to protect from an attack!!!!


According to you, to those who don't live in the U.S. it is a first strike weapon as it eliminates MAD.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 
How can a defensive weapon be considered "first strike"?

It can only be used AFTER an enemy has attacked!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


Read between the lines. He can't tell the Russians that if they put the screws to him on defense it's going to increase the chance of him losing to a Republican- it puts him in a position of weakness. He's just saying that the Russians have something to lose if they create a policy problem that complicates his bid for reelection.

And in case you've forgotten, the only Republicans that anybody truly likes are losing the election and have little hope other than to become spoiler candidates... which would just hand the election to Obama. It's hardly a stretch for Obama to be confident about reelection, short of the Republican Party giving Ron Paul the nomination and a public apology for trying to ignore him and keep the status quo going.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by antonia
 
How can a defensive weapon be considered "first strike"?

It can only be used AFTER an enemy has attacked!!!



So you proclaim. What if I launched my missiles and then shot down the missiles my enemy would launch in retaliation?

Come on, you can't be that obtuse.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


Calm yourself.

This is business as usual, has been for decades, whether Republican or Democratic administrations.

And:


- hes submissive to Russia and tolerant of their 8,000 nuclear warheads/missiles pointed wherever they want



You may wish to fact-check that number of "8,000".

Best sources I see say about half that. (In terms of "strategic" nukes. Hard to nail down the "tactical" nuke numbers).

As of 2009, the USA has a combination of about 5,000 active, active reserve, and inactive storage warheads.

It's more complicated of course (and with both nations, this is only what is "publicly" admitted), but in any case, seems the 'fears' about President Obama are once again being inflated.

Guess that's par for the course, when the opposition party is desperate, eh?



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by antonia
 
How can a defensive weapon be considered "first strike"?

It can only be used AFTER an enemy has attacked!!!



So you proclaim. What if I launched my missiles and then shot down the missiles my enemy would launch in retaliation?

Come on, you can't be that obtuse.


It is still a defensive weapon. It is a shield. Just because we have a better shield against attacks, does not mean that we will attack first!



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer


It is still a defensive weapon. It is a shield. Just because we have a better shield against attacks, does not mean that we will attack first!


You are asking a group of people who have traditionally been seen as the enemy of the U.S. to trust you when you say that (and in many ways still treated as an enemy). Looking from the other side, it would be pretty easy to see why they would not be ok with that.
edit on 26-3-2012 by antonia because: forgot something



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I don't think sabre rattling is the only form of diplomacy. I think we should at least make the appearance of confiding with our fellow nations.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
That he is even willing to negotiate with the misslile defense system is abhorent!

The missile defense shield is a DEFENSIVE WEAPON!!!!

It is used to protect from an attack!!!!


Another poster has already made the point but its worth making again.

From the point of nuclear deterrence there is no difference between attack/defend. The entire concept relies on the fact that in the event of an attack by either, both will be mutually annihilated. In this case neither can strike.

If side A builds a defence shield then side B is no longer able to guarantee a devastating response if attacked. This makes a first strike by side A on side B a viable tactic and undoes the pillar of global nuclear security for 50 years.

The russians will either have to field their own defence system or (more likely) increase the size of their striking force to overwhelm projected western shield abilities. They would rather not spend the money on either.

It does precisely nothing against the non state actors deployment of a nuclear weapon smuggled to them by (insert bogeyman of the week). BMD is security theatre, on a massive taxpayer wallet emptying scale.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by beezzer


It is still a defensive weapon. It is a shield. Just because we have a better shield against attacks, does not mean that we will attack first!


You are asking a group of people who have traditionally been seen as the enemy of the U.S. to trust you when you say that (and in many ways still treated as an enemy). Looking from the other side, it would be pretty easy to see why they would not be ok with that.
edit on 26-3-2012 by antonia because: forgot something
When Russia made aggressive moves to Georgia a few years ago, it ws over the shield that we were providing to allies. Obama will give this to Putin, for what? A promise? A campaign endoresment?



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 
Any massive nuclear strke/impact(s) anywhere on the planet will provide for MAD regardless.
We'll all die anyway. Just slower, perhaps, than others. BMD provides for protection against a limited atack. A surgical strike.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
When Russia made aggressive moves to Georgia a few years ago, it ws over the shield that we were providing to allies. Obama will give this to Putin, for what? A promise? A campaign endoresment?


Firstly, calling Russia's actions aggression shows you don't know the whole story. Russian territory was subject to terrorist actions and shelling from South Ossetia. it was not over a simple shield. As for providing that to our "allies"- Don't make me laugh. It is a strategic move to get as close to Russia as possible.

As for this "deal", you are assuming there will even be a deal and that Obama will give him anything. the Senate has to ratify treaties so it won't happen.
edit on 26-3-2012 by antonia because: forgot something

edit on 26-3-2012 by antonia because: opps


I also have to say-If you believe this two party crap-the simple fact is the Russians are better off with Obama than anything the Republicans are offering. That might be why Obama said that.
edit on 26-3-2012 by antonia because: forgot something



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 
Yeah, we've all seen how Obama plays by the rules set before the Senate.



I suppose similarites could be drawn between Russia/Georgia and US/Iraq-Afghanistan. But as in all cases it should be justified.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by antonia
 
Yeah, we've all seen how Obama plays by the rules set before the Senate.



I suppose similarites could be drawn between Russia/Georgia and US/Iraq-Afghanistan. But as in all cases it should be justified.


That's the point-It was justified. As justified as our foray into Afghanistan. The west just cried because it was big bad Russia.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Think of it like this:

If it goes into production, we'll have defenses against nuclear missiles that the Russians, or anybody else doesn't.

That means we can dictate terms to them.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer
 


Think of it like this:

If it goes into production, we'll have defenses against nuclear missiles that the Russians, or anybody else doesn't.

That means we can dictate terms to them.



As I'm an old Cold War vet, I really don't see a problem where we have an advantage. Losing that advantage provides an even playing field. . . . until the other side comes up with a better weapons system.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join