Dante Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-will-give-missile-technology-to-russia/ Like I needed any convincing but more than ever I know this guy hates the USA. Edited January 21, 2012 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 we should have long ago.... But over the last few decades, it's been steadily drummed into us, that "if we don't like the elected official, vote against them in the next election" And that, has brought us to the state we're in today... It's disgusting that so many that complained about Bush attacks on personal liberties, now defend Obama's expansion of the same laws they despise.... Hmmmmmm................ But just wait.... next election my a55... The Constitution gave us the ability to impeach for this very reason.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 For something this big there should be some sort of footnote so that we can track this back to the source. I can't find one attached to the article and I am having trouble finding this in any other news feed. Could just be they haven't gotten it up yet. But I have a hard time believing that he would hand the Russians top secret us defense information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 He sure would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 For something this big there should be some sort of footnote so that we can track this back to the source. I can't find one attached to the article and I am having trouble finding this in any other news feed. Could just be they haven't gotten it up yet. But I have a hard time believing that he would hand the Russians top secret us defense information. The most "credible" source I've found so far is the Moonies (Washington Times). And according to them, he's not just "handing over secrets." He just signed the most recent appropriations bill, which contains a clause specifically prohibiting the sharing of performance data of the SM-3 missile with the Russians. Obama signed it with a signing statement saying that he'll ignore that clause as it impinges on his constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy. Which sounds a lot sillier than it actually is; since the reason he wants to share it with the Russians is as part of the missile defense negotiations with them, he's not entirely without a point. The whole thing's childish, though. The Republican House tries an end-run around Obama's foreign policy with a paragraph in an appropriations bill, Obama, in classic Bush form, decides to say "This bill is law, but not binding law." Because he wants to give the information to the Russians, not as part of a treaty, but as a prerequisite to negotiating the treaty. They're all idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 The most "credible" source I've found so far is the Moonies (Washington Times). And according to them, he's not just "handing over secrets." He just signed the most recent appropriations bill, which contains a clause specifically prohibiting the sharing of performance data of the SM-3 missile with the Russians. Obama signed it with a signing statement saying that he'll ignore that clause as it impinges on his constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy. Which sounds a lot sillier than it actually is; since the reason he wants to share it with the Russians is as part of the missile defense negotiations with them, he's not entirely without a point. The whole thing's childish, though. The Republican House tries an end-run around Obama's foreign policy with a paragraph in an appropriations bill, Obama, in classic Bush form, decides to say "This bill is law, but not binding law." Because he wants to give the information to the Russians, not as part of a treaty, but as a prerequisite to negotiating the treaty. They're all idiots. Reagan was smart enough to sell the Russians on the fact that we had super space satellites that could hit an ICBM moving at "ludicrous speed" with lasers, particle beams, whatever from ludicrous distances. Is Obama smart enough to sell them on this performance data, and use the same tactic? I bet the Russians are certainly dumb, or more likely paranoid, enough to fall for it twice. Or does he actually want to give them the actual performance data, like the foreign policy dope he has proven to be so far? Hey if the Republicans know he's being a dope, and their only recourse for preventing dopiness is dopliy inserting it into an appropriations bill, thus making his potential dopiness public, doesn't that have the same effect as a double negative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barack Obama Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Let me be clear. We have the technology. They do not. Spread the wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Forget the election! Yup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Forget the election! Yup! Unsurprising that you would support forgetting elections. As your girl Princess Pelosi once said, "elections shouldn't matter". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Despite commentary to the contrary, Russia's interests are not completely counter to our own- they have just as much of a fear of Iranian/North Korean/rogue activity as we do. Putin may appear to be a relic of the old Soviet system, but he's no fool. We are ensuring a bulwark of defense against the most dangerous elements of the world. This idea that Russia and China are our mortal enemies is silly- radical Islam by far wins that distinction, and if certain strategists weren't so stuck in a Cold War mentality and hell bent on an outdated way of thinking, we'd be in a better position. Let Israel do the dirty work in Iran, let China keep North Korea in line, and we can focus on reducing the Islamic threat. This story is just a red herring for conservatives to steam over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Despite commentary to the contrary, Russia's interests are not completely counter to our own- they have just as much of a fear of Iranian/North Korean/rogue activity as we do. Putin may appear to be a relic of the old Soviet system, but he's no fool. We are ensuring a bulwark of defense against the most dangerous elements of the world. This idea that Russia and China are our mortal enemies is silly- radical Islam by far wins that distinction, and if certain strategists weren't so stuck in a Cold War mentality and hell bent on an outdated way of thinking, we'd be in a better position. Let Israel do the dirty work in Iran, let China keep North Korea in line, and we can focus on reducing the Islamic threat. This story is just a red herring for conservatives to steam over. Be careful John Marshall. Just because Russia and China are not our dire mortal enemies doesn't make them our friends. And just because they have reason to fear nuclear arms in the hands of North Korea and Iran, doesn't mean they have nearly as much reason to fear as we do; especially in the near future. I'm all for letting Israel do the dirty work in Iran, but I don't rest comfortably in the assurance that China will keep North Korea in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) This is how russia fears Iran Despite commentary to the contrary, Russia's interests are not completely counter to our own- they have just as much of a fear of Iranian/North Korean/rogue activity as we do. Putin may appear to be a relic of the old Soviet system, but he's no fool. We are ensuring a bulwark of defense against the most dangerous elements of the world. This idea that Russia and China are our mortal enemies is silly- radical Islam by far wins that distinction, and if certain strategists weren't so stuck in a Cold War mentality and hell bent on an outdated way of thinking, we'd be in a better position. Let Israel do the dirty work in Iran, let China keep North Korea in line, and we can focus on reducing the Islamic threat. This story is just a red herring for conservatives to steam over. Yeah any thing we give Russia is to protect the world from Iran. The construction of the Bushehr nuclear power station is nearing completion, and we are ready to continue collaboration with Iran in the sphere of nuclear power engineering, taking into consideration our international nonproliferation obligations, and to look for mutually acceptable political solutions in this area. Vladimir Putin, in a message to the new Iranian President, Mahmud Ahmadinezhad1 Edited January 22, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Despite commentary to the contrary, Russia's interests are not completely counter to our own- they have just as much of a fear of Iranian/North Korean/rogue activity as we do. No, they don't. If it weren't for Russia and China, Iran and NK wouldn't even have weapons programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 No, they don't. If it weren't for Russia and China, Iran and NK wouldn't even have weapons programs. They won't miss an opportunity to make money, but they know that they still hold control. It is precisely this control that maintains the current status quo, and if these nations dare to disrupt it there will be hell to pay. The incidents against South Korea did not lead to a war because of China, and this is obvious. North Korea must show that it is strong without going too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 This whole thing is about putting SM-3 interceptors as part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense on land in Central Europe by 2015. Russia wants proof that the missiles will not compromise their ICBMs if proof is not shown then Russia will place short and medium ranged Iskander ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad to neutralize the Anti-missile defenses also Russia promised other counter measures such as adding stealth and other anti-missile defeating measures- also policy changes like changes to launch on criteria and considering Poland and others as hostiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I love it when a bunch of morons opine about **** they gloss over on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-will-give-missile-technology-to-russia/ Like I needed any convincing but more than ever I know this guy hates the USA. I know right! And to think that he would have the audacity to do that when the U.S.S.R. faciliated those missles being placed only 90 miles from the continental U.S. just last week. /Sarcasm It's not about conservative and liberal; it's about common and sense. Respectfully submitted for your perusal, a Kanamit... http://www.pragueproject.org/2011/03/23/the-true-legacy-of-reagan%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98star-wars%E2%80%99/ From the very beginning, Reagan had in mind that SDI would catalyze the elimination of all nuclear weapons, and that sharing a missile defense with the adversaries of the United States would play a role in that process. http://armscontrolnow.org/2011/06/10/why-sarah-palin-is-wrong-about-missile-defense-cooperation-with-russia/ Edited January 23, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 This whole thing is about putting SM-3 interceptors as part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense on land in Central Europe by 2015. Russia wants proof that the missiles will not compromise their ICBMs if proof is not shown then Russia will place short and medium ranged Iskander ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad to neutralize the Anti-missile defenses also Russia promised other counter measures such as adding stealth and other anti-missile defeating measures- also policy changes like changes to launch on criteria and considering Poland and others as hostiles. So if I understand you correctly President Los Gatos is eager to assure the Russians that their ICBMs are still free to fly into our air space and annihilate us all. And he will gladly turn over the blueprints to one of our weapons systems to ease their mind that their ICBMs are still free to fly into our air space and annihilate us all. Do I have that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 As a second point, I think that people underestimate the psychological impact of MAD. It really is more diversionary than one would think at first blush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 As a second point, I think that people underestimate the psychological impact of MAD. It really is more diversionary than one would think at first blush. Start a new thread for this ok? I know those ladies can be controversial and even annoying and at times probably too harsh, but consider their loss. I don't think they're trying to be diversionary but their strong personalities can get in the way. If you ask me they are actually concerned with staying on point. Imagine the diversion they must feel every day having suffered the way they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts