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: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

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?

His cooperation in dealing with Iran ? Yes I think so. We will need Russian cooperation if we are to negotiate with Iran on any future nuclear issues. ( weapons or industiral developement)




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The sound man will be Brietbarted soon.
This was no accident, that mic was left on deliberately.
It's as if his own people want us to see just how dangeraous this man really is.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
The view from outside the US here in the UK is that Obama will get a second term, no problem.

He will beat Romney by a large majority.

Naturally, like all leaders, he will have a period of strength and influence over congress and the Senate when freshly renewed with a mandate from the people, this is the time when he can indeed be flexible and not constrained by other considerations.

It also allows Russia to wait for the time were it can be more flexible too, although Mr Putin has been re-elected he does not take office for some time yet.

Obama and Putin can do a deal, Romney on the other hand has just called Russia enemy numero uno.

I don't see anything unusual about Obama's comments, both Obama and Medvedev know how it is.

Cosmic..



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Can't believe people are surprised by this. It's called backroom politics (and it's always existed).

However I've actually got quite a big problem with missile defense systems. It has the potential to cause some serious destabilization in the world, regardless of who owns it. Just think of it this way:

Right now, no one (that we know of) has a missile defense capability that is even close to reliable - assuming we're talking about ICBMs. So, even when push comes to shove, the likeliness that they'll be used is so slim it's practically inconceivable. Why? Because as of now, if you shoot, chances are you're going to get shot back. And that's a nightmare scenario no one wants. That, IMO, is the primary reason why we haven't had a world war sine the second one...remember what happened when one country had a significant nuclear advantage over all the others? I'll give you a hint: that country used them.

Let's say some country installs a missile defense system. Let's also say it has a 99% hit rate (which is a very, very generous number). Those are pretty good odds...and increased odds means you're more liable to take a risk; that country is now a heck of a lot more likely to use their nukes than before. I don't care which country we're talking about here (US or otherwise), no sane person should want a nuclear weapon to detonate over any city, anywhere. Not to mention that when you're talking about thermonuclear weapons, 1% is a very, very big number.

I see no good outcomes from this. Possibly the only worse scenario is if everyone had a missile defense system (yikes).



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


I would personally like to thank all the dimwitted fools that thought they would get something for nothing that voted for this fraud, he will be easily be re-elected by the well known process called "Voter Fraud", this is the same process being used in the Republican Primaries. Now if you'll excuse me while I fill up my car at $4.15 a gallon and go to Wal-Mart and buy some more ammo.

edit on 27-3-2012 by Boomer1941 because: I spelled the word 'buy' incorrectly...lol



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Great article, thanks for the link. I have to say that for that article to be right on this particular issue he would have to be stringing the russians along a bit so he could turn around and get a little tough, but I suppose a president should be capable of that.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


This site shows world wide and shows 10K for Russia and 10.5 K for the US. Which still puts us ahead. Dubious distinction I know.

www.cdi.org...



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Right because this couldn't be plain old confidence can it ? If you really feel that way then don't vote. But I bet you will be out there during the next election just like your vote counted for something. Or maybe you don't vote. In that case you have no say in what happens because you didnt vote.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


Ut oh, another birth certificate issue on the horizon. LOL.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rstregooski
Anyone else here feel like this comment was completely scripted? A liberal portrayal of self confidence and extreme agenda initiative? That's the dirty taste I have in my mouth anyways... Notice Medvedev's quickness to accept and respond with the quickness.. I wonder how much taxpayer money that cost..


Nope..
You alone had this thought.
Carry on soldier.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


After reflecting on this for a day, I believe President Obama made the same statement any POTUS would have given the same situation.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


Right. What's the difference in sitting on a powder keg that is upholstered in designer fabric or sitting on a powder keg covered with a dirty blanket? It's still a powder keg.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ClydeFrog42
he point is, Obama is by no means admitting that he will necessarily be elected. He's speaking in absolutes like every other candidate right now. "when I am re-elected.... blah blah blah". Classic Election-time dogma.



The long and short of it is he saying he will be more flexible during his last term.

Because then he has nothing to 'lose', then!


In other words his decisions are based on his own (job) security, not Americas



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnetDrake
 


Who's money should they use then ? Their own ? Then only people like Mittens get to run because no one else could afford to.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ILikeStars
 


Please elaborate on your professionalism. And how it influences your opinion on this matter.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Because the only nation on earth to ever use nukes on another nation now has the capability to launch first and then neutralise any retaliatory strike .



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiggerPicture

Originally posted by ClydeFrog42
he point is, Obama is by no means admitting that he will necessarily be elected. He's speaking in absolutes like every other candidate right now. "when I am re-elected.... blah blah blah". Classic Election-time dogma.



The long and short of it is he saying he will be more flexible during his last term.

Because then he has nothing to 'lose', then!


In other words his decisions are based on his own (job) security, not Americas


yes, no doubt.

But, as I said in my previous post (and gave specific examples) this is by no means a new phenomenon. You speak as if this is unique to Obama... and I cant help but feel that this is because:

1. Hes "different" than all previous American presidents (you know what I mean...)
2. You dont know anything about American politics, and assume that this is the first time a president has made decisions based on re-election.

The fact is, all presidents in American history have taken re-election into account when making decisions in the months leading up to election. And, particularly, decisions that have to do with foreign relations. Because, as you are probably unaware, American's are venomously isolationist and unbearably proud.

In the game of American politics, no administration can afford to forfeit their parties hold on the Whitehouse for any external relations venture; not even for an enemy as important as Hitler's Germany.

Its not because Obamas black, or because hes a jerk... its because he is the President of the United States.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I hope more countries have missile shields, be better when the Alien Monsters come and try and take over



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Do people actually listen and THINK before judging? He doesn't say "Oh yeah I'll be elected". He said "This is my last election". Now how does ANY of that point to 're-election'?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nuclear12346
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.


I completely agree *star* i try to point out this weakness we have when it comes to serious discussion and debates.But i have such a hard time getting people to understand me in a heated political debate. Like people who think the daily show is a serious tv show and others who say no, obviously it is satire.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join