|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 20, 2009 7:11:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 20, 2009 17:12:53 GMT -8
Yeah, the Russians are going to lob nukes into Poland  . Just more right-wing hyperbole. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 20, 2009 19:26:40 GMT -8
Yeah, the Russians are going to lob nukes into Poland . Just more right-wing hyperbole. =Bob The real problem is that the Russians no doubt believe that they got something of value (I'll comment on that point in a moment) for absolutely nothing. This will, I'm afraid, convince them that belligerence and obstinacy will work wonders when dealing with Barack Obama. This whole business of hitting reset with Russia is simplistic nonsense. The idea that our troubles with Russia have been caused by George Bush's ineptitude and, consequently, that the oh-so-smooth and charismatic Barack Obama will be able to sort out all issues between the U.S.A. and Russia is just laughable. Putin is a very, very hard nosed adversary (I'll stop short of using the word enemy at this point). He has his goals, and a bit of charm from The One will not move him once inch from his positions. Now to the issue of what Russia got. They claim to have been worried that the missile defense system (intended to stop potential Iranian missiles) to be stationed in Poland and the Czech Republic was in reality aimed at them. I am not a defense expert, but I have read that such a claim is ridiculous and the Russians doubtless know that it is ridiculous. A more likely motivation for the Russians is to make it clear that they still have influence in Eastern Europe, and that countries like the two mentioned above had best not get too buddy-buddy with the Americans since the Yanks are mostly bluster and cannot be counted on. Let's now look at Obama. He says that the less ambitious system that's going to be substituted for the Bush plan is appropriate for anything Iran now has or is likely to have for several years. The problem with that is that it will take several years for the Bush system to become operational. In the strange minds of the current administration it is just fine to not start building a defensive system until the threat it is designed to counter is operational. Very puzzling thought process. Here's another problem with Obama's foreign policy with respect to Russia. I think it is likely that Obama has caved on the missiles because he believes that the Russians will reciprocate by helping us with more stringent sanctions aimed at Iran when the Mullahs give The One the middle finger. I believe that I am correct in saying that Putin, after having himself a hearty laugh, has already rejected that. Or am I thinking of the hearty laugh followed by rejection from Ahmadinejad?  I would love to be proven wrong in my assessment of Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran and Russia. I think we will see well within a year how that turns out. If, as I fear, Obama's plans prove to be fallacious, I am wondering how he will spin that reality. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 21, 2009 10:43:19 GMT -8
I dislike that idea that other countries see us as unreliable in our policy. We agreed to put this system in place to protect our allies. More and more world leaders are starting to see Obama as weak willed and unreliable just as more than half of us here at home do. I just hope that Obama is not able to do irreparable damage before we are able to give him the bums rush.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 21, 2009 16:57:09 GMT -8
I dislike that idea that other countries see us as unreliable in our policy. We agreed to put this system in place to protect our allies. More and more world leaders are starting to see Obama as weak willed and unreliable just as more than half of us here at home do. I just hope that Obama is not able to do irreparable damage before we are able to give him the bums rush. Well, that's total nonsense. In a Western democracy there is never a guarantee that a new Administration will rubber stamp the policies of the old Administration. "More and more world leaders"? Who, Pooh? Your argument is incredibly simplistic, not that I'd assume it would be otherwise. Obama isn't rubber stamping Bush's policies and therefore, according to you and Cheney, he's "weak". But hey, please offer your ideas instead of just attacking Obama. Please explain to us why some BS ABM system located in Poland with radar in the Czech Republic makes us more safe. Both countries are now NATO members, with all the security considerations being a member brings. And while you're at it, please offer any disagreements with the current policy that our military leaders have brought up (and don't bother with offering some crap from "former" military leaders who are now working in the private sector and are arguing their points based upon what defense contracts their current employers can get). =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 21, 2009 18:23:21 GMT -8
I dislike that idea that other countries see us as unreliable in our policy. We agreed to put this system in place to protect our allies. More and more world leaders are starting to see Obama as weak willed and unreliable just as more than half of us here at home do. I just hope that Obama is not able to do irreparable damage before we are able to give him the bums rush. Well, that's total nonsense. In a Western democracy there is never a guarantee that a new Administration will rubber stamp the policies of the old Administration. "More and more world leaders"? Who, Pooh? Your argument is incredibly simplistic, not that I'd assume it would be otherwise. Obama isn't rubber stamping Bush's policies and therefore, according to you and Cheney, he's "weak". But hey, please offer your ideas instead of just attacking Obama. Please explain to us why some BS ABM system located in Poland with radar in the Czech Republic makes us more safe. Both countries are now NATO members, with all the security considerations being a member brings. And while you're at it, please offer any disagreements with the current policy that our military leaders have brought up (and don't bother with offering some crap from "former" military leaders who are now working in the private sector and are arguing their points based upon what defense contracts their current employers can get). =Bob Well, I guess that you can point to the leaders of each of the countries that had interest in this system among those who are starting to see Obama as a 90 lb. weakling. It is both our allies and our potential adversaries who are seeing that Obama has no substance. Simplistic? How could it be anything other than simplistic when Obama is the subject? This was not about making us safer, it was about support for an allied nation and the worth of the word of the government of the United States. With Obama, the value of the word of our country is in the dumper. The protection of NATO? Now just what kind of support has NATO provided in real terms in the War on Terror? NATO is a step up from the UN, but what does that say? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 25, 2009 16:47:28 GMT -8
Well, that's total nonsense. In a Western democracy there is never a guarantee that a new Administration will rubber stamp the policies of the old Administration. "More and more world leaders"? Who, Pooh? Your argument is incredibly simplistic, not that I'd assume it would be otherwise. Obama isn't rubber stamping Bush's policies and therefore, according to you and Cheney, he's "weak". But hey, please offer your ideas instead of just attacking Obama. Please explain to us why some BS ABM system located in Poland with radar in the Czech Republic makes us more safe. Both countries are now NATO members, with all the security considerations being a member brings. And while you're at it, please offer any disagreements with the current policy that our military leaders have brought up (and don't bother with offering some crap from "former" military leaders who are now working in the private sector and are arguing their points based upon what defense contracts their current employers can get). =Bob Well, I guess that you can point to the leaders of each of the countries that had interest in this system among those who are starting to see Obama as a 90 lb. weakling. It is both our allies and our potential adversaries who are seeing that Obama has no substance. Simplistic? How could it be anything other than simplistic when Obama is the subject? This was not about making us safer, it was about support for an allied nation and the worth of the word of the government of the United States. With Obama, the value of the word of our country is in the dumper. The protection of NATO? Now just what kind of support has NATO provided in real terms in the War on Terror? NATO is a step up from the UN, but what does that say? Thanks for proving my point that you have nothing to offer. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 25, 2009 16:54:19 GMT -8
"Got nothing"? Well, given that the Administration has exposed Iran as being liars and Russia is likely to go along with sanctions, I'd like to see an argument that Obama "got nothing". news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8271990.stmIt's really rather sad that the ideologues on here have no clues when it comes to international politics, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given that most of the comments come from those who floated on boats (Dave excepted, but being on a swift boat on the Mekong in the '60s does not give anyone an insight into current foreign policy). =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 26, 2009 5:59:32 GMT -8
"Got nothing"? Well, given that the Administration has exposed Iran as being liars and Russia is likely to go along with sanctions, I'd like to see an argument that Obama "got nothing". news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8271990.stmIt's really rather sad that the ideologues on here have no clues when it comes to international politics, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given that most of the comments come from those who floated on boats (Dave excepted, but being on a swift boat on the Mekong in the '60s does not give anyone an insight into current foreign policy). =Bob A quote from your link. "On Wednesday, a Russian official said Moscow could support fresh sanctions if there was enough evidence from UN inspectors. Mr Medvedev said sanctions were rarely productive but he opened the door to the possibility if Iran pressed ahead with its suspected nuclear weapons programme." If there was evidence from UN inspections? How likely is that the UN will find anything? Medvedev believes sanctions don't work so what did he give up and Obama gain? A bucket full of empty! This weakling named Obama is willing to throw Poland under the bus for the great big commitment to nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 26, 2009 9:31:55 GMT -8
"Got nothing"? Well, given that the Administration has exposed Iran as being liars and Russia is likely to go along with sanctions, I'd like to see an argument that Obama "got nothing". news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8271990.stmIt's really rather sad that the ideologues on here have no clues when it comes to international politics, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given that most of the comments come from those who floated on boats (Dave excepted, but being on a swift boat on the Mekong in the '60s does not give anyone an insight into current foreign policy). =Bob A quote from your link. "On Wednesday, a Russian official said Moscow could support fresh sanctions if there was enough evidence from UN inspectors. Mr Medvedev said sanctions were rarely productive but he opened the door to the possibility if Iran pressed ahead with its suspected nuclear weapons programme." If there was evidence from UN inspections? How likely is that the UN will find anything? Medvedev believes sanctions don't work so what did he give up and Obama gain? A bucket full of empty! This weakling named Obama is willing to throw Poland under the bus for the great big commitment to nothing. And Russia's tone has increased since then, so your comments are still nonsense. The inspections are by AEIE and they do in fact "find things". You really don't understand this stuff, do you, Pooh? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 27, 2009 7:22:59 GMT -8
A quote from your link. "On Wednesday, a Russian official said Moscow could support fresh sanctions if there was enough evidence from UN inspectors. Mr Medvedev said sanctions were rarely productive but he opened the door to the possibility if Iran pressed ahead with its suspected nuclear weapons programme." If there was evidence from UN inspections? How likely is that the UN will find anything? Medvedev believes sanctions don't work so what did he give up and Obama gain? A bucket full of empty! This weakling named Obama is willing to throw Poland under the bus for the great big commitment to nothing. And Russia's tone has increased since then, so your comments are still nonsense. The inspections are by AEIE and they do in fact "find things". You really don't understand this stuff, do you, Pooh? =Bob I do know for sure that one of us does not understand what is going on and on close inspection and observation it is not me. When are you going to face up to the fact that Obama is in way over his head and is surrounded by leftist idiots? You can't or won't even recognize the weakness in your own link to support this horrible administration. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 27, 2009 9:19:58 GMT -8
Now that Obama has shown Iran that we have no will, Iran tests missles to deliver what Obama is afraid to confront. That is they way to go Mr. No Clue!
|
|
. Just more right-wing hyperbole.