Obama; the Nuclear Freeze President
Timothy Birdnow
Obama promises "more flexibility" over missile defense to the Russians after his re-election.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/president-obama-asks-medvedev-for-space-on-missile-defense-after-my-election-i-have-more-flexibility/
Here is the exchange between Obama and Russian puppet President Medvedev:
"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.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir (Putin)."
End excerpt.
Of course, the Administration talking heads immediately began to try to spin this as a private conversation that went public, and a typical comment by a President to calm an overeager foreign leader. But what does it say about Obama?
It says the man is duplicitous. It says he plans monumental actions once the Sword of Damoclese that is the 2012 election is removed. It says that we had better watch out, because Hell is coming should this man be re-elected.
One must ask, what is Obama's motivations? A charitable view would be that he is perhaps trying to get the Russians to stand down in Syria, Iran, and the Middle East, and the top sticking point is missile defense. Missile defense has been a deal-breaker for the Russians since Ronald Reagan proposed it; it led to the breakup of the Soviet Union since the Soviets knew they could not compete against the technological power displayed by the U.S. and it meant the huge sums of money they were pouring into missiles would be largely worthless. They couldn't afford to overwhelm a defensive system, and they knew it. They still can't, and they seek to gain the upper hand in terms of nuclear arsenals. (Theirs was built in 2005 and is slightly larger than our 1980's vintage junkyard stockpile. And while they are reducing the numbers they are laboring to develop more Multiple Re-entry Vehicles, allowing multiple warheads on fewer missiles. http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2012/03/russia2012.php The Russian Defense Minister recently called for more nukes. http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/russia-might-need-larger-nuclear-arsenal-defense-official-says/) Putin, the real power in Russia, knows this, and knows that their technology could easily be circumvented with missile defense systems. Without a crushing nuclear arsenal the Russians have no way to project power. They understand that they cannot stop America from acting without this capability. Obama could be trying to promise a future cut if the Russians leave us alone to deal with Iran. Maybe.
But Obama has already cut our nuclear arsenal, made agreements to restrict it http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-cuts-us-nuclear-arsenal-ndash-but-keeps-sights-trained-on-iran-1937608.html, and is suggesting a massive cut www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-nuclear-summit-idUSBRE82P01620120326 that would leave us with just a fraction of the nuclear weapons we already have. At this point a nuclear shield is no longer a luxury but a necessity, something vital to our security interests. Without a counterbalancing arsenal we cannot rely on mutual assured destruction, and if Obama kills the Star Wars system there is no way to defend America - or anybody else - except with conventional troops. Those troops are already overextended and geared to fight a certain kind of war. We have not replaced our planes, our ships, our tanks, etc. The Afghani and Iraqi wars have depleted our resources, and the ability of America to defend the nation has declined under this Administration. Nuclear is the only real tool we have should the Big One come. The Russians know this, hence their insistence that we get rid of missile defense.
But I don't think Obama is a strategic thinker, and I don't think he concerns himself so much with Brownshirted ex-Marxists. Obama sees America as the problem, not the rest of the world. As already mentioned, he has cut our nuclear capabilities already, and promised staggering cuts to come. His actions bespeak a man who is philosophically in tune with the old nuclear freeze movement. I think he meant what he said.
And he said plenty during the actual nuclear freeze movement.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/obama-s-1983-college-magazine-article/original.pdf
Obama is fundamentally a professional agitator, a community organizer, a man who has spent his life stumping for pet causes. His promise to Medvedev seem likely more an honest assessment of where he is at politically than a calculated statement intended to put the Russians at ease. (Remember Ronald Reagan saying "that was another time" when asked if he still thought Russia an evil empire; that was purely intended to ratchet down tensions at a time when reform was occuring in the Soviet Union - Reagan had already proved himself by standing strong and building up the military.) Barack Obama has shown himself to be in favor of arms cuts, of weakening U.S. foreign involvement, and when he says such things to foreign leaders one must take him at his word.
Barack Obama is single-handedly wrecking America both at home and abroad.
Obama promises "more flexibility" over missile defense to the Russians after his re-election.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/president-obama-asks-medvedev-for-space-on-missile-defense-after-my-election-i-have-more-flexibility/
Here is the exchange between Obama and Russian puppet President Medvedev:
"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.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir (Putin)."
End excerpt.
Of course, the Administration talking heads immediately began to try to spin this as a private conversation that went public, and a typical comment by a President to calm an overeager foreign leader. But what does it say about Obama?
It says the man is duplicitous. It says he plans monumental actions once the Sword of Damoclese that is the 2012 election is removed. It says that we had better watch out, because Hell is coming should this man be re-elected.
One must ask, what is Obama's motivations? A charitable view would be that he is perhaps trying to get the Russians to stand down in Syria, Iran, and the Middle East, and the top sticking point is missile defense. Missile defense has been a deal-breaker for the Russians since Ronald Reagan proposed it; it led to the breakup of the Soviet Union since the Soviets knew they could not compete against the technological power displayed by the U.S. and it meant the huge sums of money they were pouring into missiles would be largely worthless. They couldn't afford to overwhelm a defensive system, and they knew it. They still can't, and they seek to gain the upper hand in terms of nuclear arsenals. (Theirs was built in 2005 and is slightly larger than our 1980's vintage junkyard stockpile. And while they are reducing the numbers they are laboring to develop more Multiple Re-entry Vehicles, allowing multiple warheads on fewer missiles. http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2012/03/russia2012.php The Russian Defense Minister recently called for more nukes. http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/russia-might-need-larger-nuclear-arsenal-defense-official-says/) Putin, the real power in Russia, knows this, and knows that their technology could easily be circumvented with missile defense systems. Without a crushing nuclear arsenal the Russians have no way to project power. They understand that they cannot stop America from acting without this capability. Obama could be trying to promise a future cut if the Russians leave us alone to deal with Iran. Maybe.
But Obama has already cut our nuclear arsenal, made agreements to restrict it http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-cuts-us-nuclear-arsenal-ndash-but-keeps-sights-trained-on-iran-1937608.html, and is suggesting a massive cut www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-nuclear-summit-idUSBRE82P01620120326 that would leave us with just a fraction of the nuclear weapons we already have. At this point a nuclear shield is no longer a luxury but a necessity, something vital to our security interests. Without a counterbalancing arsenal we cannot rely on mutual assured destruction, and if Obama kills the Star Wars system there is no way to defend America - or anybody else - except with conventional troops. Those troops are already overextended and geared to fight a certain kind of war. We have not replaced our planes, our ships, our tanks, etc. The Afghani and Iraqi wars have depleted our resources, and the ability of America to defend the nation has declined under this Administration. Nuclear is the only real tool we have should the Big One come. The Russians know this, hence their insistence that we get rid of missile defense.
But I don't think Obama is a strategic thinker, and I don't think he concerns himself so much with Brownshirted ex-Marxists. Obama sees America as the problem, not the rest of the world. As already mentioned, he has cut our nuclear capabilities already, and promised staggering cuts to come. His actions bespeak a man who is philosophically in tune with the old nuclear freeze movement. I think he meant what he said.
And he said plenty during the actual nuclear freeze movement.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/obama-s-1983-college-magazine-article/original.pdf
Obama is fundamentally a professional agitator, a community organizer, a man who has spent his life stumping for pet causes. His promise to Medvedev seem likely more an honest assessment of where he is at politically than a calculated statement intended to put the Russians at ease. (Remember Ronald Reagan saying "that was another time" when asked if he still thought Russia an evil empire; that was purely intended to ratchet down tensions at a time when reform was occuring in the Soviet Union - Reagan had already proved himself by standing strong and building up the military.) Barack Obama has shown himself to be in favor of arms cuts, of weakening U.S. foreign involvement, and when he says such things to foreign leaders one must take him at his word.
Barack Obama is single-handedly wrecking America both at home and abroad.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home