Thursday, September 17, 2009

Obama Surrenders to Russia on Missile Defense

It's official. The usurper currently residing in the sacred house that belongs to WE THE PEOPLE - is a traitor and DOESN'T CARE ABOUT AMERICA OR OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES!! The latest stupid move by Obama & cohorts is the scrapping of the missile defense shield plans that were proposed by the Bush Administration. Joel Rosenberg's headline and post tells the real story:

KREMLIN VICTORY: WHITE HOUSE TO ABANDON MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD IN EUROPE, DESPITE THREAT FROM RUSSIA & IRAN

What's even worse is the symbolism of today's date:


President Obama is making his announcement to abandon the defense of the Czech Republic (and the rest of Europe and the U.S.) on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia


Now isn't that special?? Coincidence? I'll let each reader decide.

Here's the excuse being used:


Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed Thursday that a ‘major adjustment’ is planned and said the decision was made to better protect U.S. forces and allies in Europe from Iranian missile attacks. The U.S. is basing its move on a determination that Iran’s long-range missile program hasn’t progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals, according to current and former U.S. officials.”


So....what are we going to do? Wait until Iran's long range missile program HAS PROGRESSED? That was a strategic location which cannot be denied as an important goal for the security of our European allies as well as the United States and our military!!

Stupid...absolutely stupid - IMO.

Look at who is surrounding Obama regarding Foreign Policy. Hot Air reports: [Clueless] Joe Biden: Iran not a threat

Excerpt:
Nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in the hands of millenial Islamist lunatics in Tehran? No big threat … to us. Why should we risk annoying Russia to protect our allies against it? After all, Russia will use its influence to stop Iran from getting nukes, right? Right? Er …

Imposing swift additional sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme would be a “serious mistake,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday.
“Today there is a real chance to conclude talks whose results should be an agreement restoring trust in the purely peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme,” Lavrov said in televised remarks.

“Disrupting this chance by demanding swift imposition of sanctions would be a serious mistake,” he added.


So we threw our allies under the bus to not get Russian cooperation in isolating Iran’s mullahs? This must be that smart power that Obama’s allies like to proclaim.
Don’t worry, the White House assures everyone. We’re not abandoning the allies who took significant geopolitical risks in standing up to Moscow over the missile-defense shield. The US will still provide some form of missile defense, even if it is much less reliable. Michael Goldfarb explains:

The White House has put out a “fact sheet” on their policy of Russian appeasement/missile defense surrender. The fact sheet says that the new approach — focusing on SM-3 and sea-based systems (presumably in Turkey) — will “augment our current protection of the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats.” That is a lie. This system will provide zero, nada, zilch protection to the U.S. homeland, providing only defense against short- and medium-range missiles to Europe.

The fact sheet says this system will protect “our Allies in Europe sooner and more comprehensively than the previous program, and involves more flexible and survivable systems.” That is a lie. The system that was being placed in Poland is already operational in Alaska. These new plans will now take years of negotations to implement and will necessarily be less survivable as they will not be underground.
The fact sheet says that “The Czech Republic and Poland, as close, strategic and steadfast Allies of the United States, will be central to our continued consultations with NATO Allies on our defense against the growing ballistic missile threat.” That is a lie. The Czechs and Poles get a midnight phone call from the president while Tauscher is already in the air. They were not consulted with and have been given no assurances — because the president is selling them out.
The fact sheet says, “We also welcome Russian cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests.” If that’s true, our president is totally clueless about Russian capabilities and intentions — even Bush, who looked into Putin’s soul, was not so delusional as to think U.S. missile defense could be dependent on Russian good will and cooperation. How long til the Russians threaten to throw us out of our “joint” missile defense facilities in order to coerce us into staying out of an attack on Georgia or some other democratic state in their near abroad.


We’ve sold out the Poles and the Czechs, who have seen the West do this before.



Here's another article:

Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence

Excerpt:


This is bad news for all who care about the US commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the defence of Europe as well as the United States. It represents the appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency. A deal with the Russians to cancel missile defence installations sends a clear message that even Washington can be intimidated by the Russian bear.

What signal does this send to Ukraine, Georgia and a host of other former Soviet satellites who look to America and NATO for protection from their powerful neighbour? The impending cancellation of Third Site is a shameful abandonment of America’s friends in eastern and central Europe, and a slap in the face for those who actually believed a key agreement with Washington was worth the paper it was written on.


Some good comments there:


The can be no doubt that this man is a danger to the world in frightening ways. The fools, posing as supporting cast like Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher ‘The first member of her family to attend college, she graduated in 1974 from Seton Hall University, where she obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in early childhood education.Are you shitting me? As I said it’s going to get bad until we purge these people.. Bobby on Sep 17th, 2009 at 1:46


Just like the Carter years, only it’s going to be far, far worse, for both Americans and their allies.

Pelosi & crew have been sabotaging Iraq, Afghanistan etc for years, they don’t care their actions can cause the deaths of servicemen. Treason used to be the word.

Now the President and his leftist advisors are in the mix as well.

Dark days ahead for the civilised world. yak40 on Sep 17th, 2009 at 3:15


Yep...Obama is Carter Jr. - on steroids.

Hat Tips:

Joel Rosenberg's Weblog

Telegraph.co.uk

Hot Air

*******
Others reporting:

Gateway Pundit: Shameful-- Obama Surrenders to Russia & Snubs US Allies... Scraps European Missile Defense Program

Comment there:

If I didn't know better, I'd swear this guy is working for the bad guys. I mean if you were working for the communists would you have done anything differently over the past 9 months?!?

Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot
theadmiral 09.17.09 - 6:58 am


Kevin - if you are still reading my posts - now you have even MORE examples of Obama's Communism within his dangerous policies!

*******
UPDATE:

Go to Heritage.org and VIEW THE TRAILER OF A DOCUMENTARY CALLED "33 MINUTES - PROTECTING AMERICA IN THE NEW MISSILE AGE

About 33 Minutes
Protecting America in the New Missile Age

33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age is a one-hour documentary produced by The Heritage Foundation that tells the story of the very real threat foreign enemies pose to every one us. The truth is brutal - no matter where on Earth a missile is launched from it would take 33 Minutes or less to hit the U.S. target it was programmed to destroy.

Nuclear proliferation around the world, and the threat of a ballistic missile attack of some kind is mounting as more and more countries obtain nuclear technology. The ongoing threat toward America is also accelerating due to the fact that there are many rogue nations and terrorist organizations who either have or are seeking ballistic missiles and nuclear technology.

The challenges of protecting America and its citizens for President Obama's administration are great. Featuring rare footage and in-depth interviews with leading experts in the field, 33 Minutes is the definitive documentary exposing the untold vulnerability we all face and the action plan necessary to revive a strategic missile defense system that America uniquely can develop, maintain, and employ for its own defense and the peace-loving world's security.


Go to the Heritage.org link above and scroll down a bit below the 7 minute film trailer to view a simulated demonstration and explanation on how missile defense works.

9 comments:

Christinewjc said...

Anonymous -

If you will notice, the three words "share some wisdom" are written below "leave your comment" here at this blog.

Your two disparaging comments share NO wisdom, misstate several facts, are only written to show your hatred towards those with whom you disagree, and aren't in the least bit credible. Therefore they have been rejected.

Now SHOO! Scurry away like the ObamaBorg Bot cockroach that you obviously are and continue to mindlessly drink that Obama Kool-Aid...

Kevin said...

Hi Christine! I still am reading your posts--I've been a bit swamped here with teaching and remodeling our bathrooms.

About the missle defense shield: I wonder (and I am not asking you specifically) how much that would have cost and where we would get the money from to build such a defense. Do we have the money right now to do it? It seems we don't but I have to admit that defense is pretty important. I also wonder if we have the technology to make it work.

For me, foreign policy should be built on treating countries with respect, even though they may be against us. Calling Iran an evil empire is not the way to go about a solid foreign policy. Imagine what would have happened if Bush had instead extended a hand to Iran instead of calling them evil. Be friendly first, but of course I believe in a strong defense just in case it doesn't work. But there is no valid reason to demonize another country--it just leads to more problems.

Gary Baker said...

Interestingly, there were similar comments made about the Soviet Union when Regan called it the evil empire and told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the wall. Critics said that we were provoking the Russians, that we would have WWIII. Instead, the soviet empire imploded.

As for Iran, we have pretty solid information that they were supplying arms and fighters to the Iraq insurgency which put our troops and the Iraqi people in much greater danger, required much greater damage to the country to subdue, and were a continuing threat to the stability of the region. While I don't believe in "demonizing," I do believe that a demonstrated enemy deserves to be approached as such until they show some inclination to change. The anti-American rhetoric, the shots of celebration that were fired when the twin towers were brought down, and the continuing nuclear program show no such inclination. If Mr. Bush had approached them as a friend, he would have been perceived as weak. The results would likely be similar to Korea's response: Increased threats and hostility, increased testing, etc. Clinton approached them as a friend. They took everything he offered as an incentive to stop their nuclear program, said they would, and didn't.

When I was in the Navy, I was stationed in some of the primary targets should hostilities break out. I have no desire to encourage aggressive action by our country, but if history shows anything, it shows that tyrants are excellent at manipulating people willing to appease them in the name of peace. So far, I have not been impressed with Mr. Obama's performance in that regard. I am curious to see what will happen now that we have given major concessions to the Russians.

Tech said...

What was Obama supposed to do, push the missile defence system and instigate hostility towards Russia when the system was overly aggressive from the start?

Christinewjc said...

Kevin,

Gary might be able to correct me if I'm wrong - but I thought that we already have short range missile defense capabilities. Don't we have some already placed in strategic areas around the world?

It bothered me that I wasn't sure so I looked it up at Wikipedia I don't have the time right now to read the entire article, but while skimming through it, I read this:

An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is a missile designed to counter ballistic missiles (a missile for missile defense). A ballistic missile is used to deliver nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional warheads in a ballistic flight trajectory. The term "anti-ballistic missile" describes any antimissile system designed to counter ballistic missiles. However the term is used more commonly for ABM systems designed to counter long range, nuclear-armed Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

Only two ABM systems have been operational previously against ICBMs, the U.S. Safeguard system, which utilized the LIM-49A Spartan and Sprint missiles, and the Russian A-35 anti-ballistic missile system which used the Galosh interceptor, each with a nuclear warhead themselves. Safeguard was only operational briefly; the Russian system has been improved and is still active, now called A-135 and using two missile types, Gorgon and Gazelle. However the U.S. Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD, previously called NMD) system has recently reached initial operational capability. It does not have an explosive charge, but launches a kinetic projectile.

Three shorter range tactical ABM systems are operational currently: the U.S. Army Patriot, U.S. Navy Aegis combat system/Standard SM-3, and the Israeli Arrow missile. The longer-range U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system is scheduled for deployment during 2009. In general short-range tactical ABMs cannot intercept ICBMs, even if within range. The tactical ABM radar and performance characteristics do not allow it, as an incoming ICBM warhead moves much faster than a tactical missile warhead. However it is possible the better-performance Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile could be upgraded to intercept ICBMs.

Latest versions of the U.S. Hawk missile have a limited capability against tactical ballistic missiles, but is not usually described as an ABM. Similar claims have been made about the Russian long-range surface-to-air S-300 and S-400 series.

For current US developments, see Missile Defense Agency. For other short-range missiles, see Sea Wolf, Aster 15 and Crotale missile.


There are lots of links within the text that I plan to read when I get the chance. I am wondering if this has been done yet:

The longer-range U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system is scheduled for deployment during 2009.

Need to take our dog out. Be back soon.

Christinewjc said...

Ahh! I have a very busy day today. But I wanted to address this portion of your comment, Kevin:

Imagine what would have happened if Bush had instead extended a hand to Iran instead of calling them evil.

Probably the same thing that has happened to Obama. Iran now sees our U.S. government as weak and laughs at our LIAR IN CHIEF.

We want to extend a hand to the people of Iran - but the corrupt and evil mullahs there (with their puppet IminaJihad) want to continue their tyranny and oppress the people who desperately want FREEDOM from them!!! As the month long plus days of protest after the bogus election have all shown - many citizens of Iran are willing to die for their freedom.

America had become complacent and took our freedoms for granted (myself included). But now that the Obama regime (well - Obama is just the puppet behind the REAL CULPRITS - See Glenn Beck's T.V. show today) is rapidly working their Cloward-Piven strategy to take more and more freedoms away from the American people, a sleeping giant has awoken!

We are now busily working to restore our Republic - not to allow Obama & cohorts to "transform" us into a Marxist state.

WE THE PEOPLE will bring our nation back to what our Founding Fathers intended - a Constitutional Republic free from the Marxism and heavy handed corruption that is currently going on in Washington.

WE WILL VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

Kevin said...

Hi Gary, You certainly have more experience than I do in military matters, so what I have to say is probably going to reflect that! I just feel that if we entered into dialogue with our so-called enemies, it would make things much easier. Presidents have to get over seemingly appearing as weak when they speak to other nations. My personal opinion is that if we support the Iranian people (instead of calling them an axis of evil), then they will take things into their own hands. Of course, as I said above, I believe in a strong defense system. There is no doubt we need this. But to antagonize the Russians (as President Bush did) does us no good and if fact, does more harm. Then not only would we have Iran to deal with, then we would have Russia now as well. Now maybe the Russians will build some of their own missle defense systems against Iran, or at least the U.S. and Russia can work together to try and solve this.

Hi Christine, thanks for the links about the missle shield. I have no clue eithe whether what we have actually works or what is in the research stage.

Again, what freedoms are being taken away from the American people under President Obama? I know the so-called Patriot Act took a few away (and President Obama has agreed with some of this), but I can't think of a single right that has been taken away from me by the current administration. Do you know of any other marxist states that exist today and how do they compare to what you see happening in the U.S.?

"We the People" also includes Democrats, who elected the President by majority vote. There was corruption in the last administration, just as there has been corruption in every single administration since the founding of our country. That is part of politics. Republicans may get to be the majority in 2010 (although I can't see that happening just yet) but President Obama will be president until the next election.

Gary Baker said...

Hi Kevin,

"Again, what freedoms are being taken away from the American people under President Obama? "

As mentioned in my other posting, the investors/stockholders were denied right to due process in the bailout of GM by losing their equity to the government and unions without judicial revue. Though relatively little of the Obama backed legislation has been passed, there have been a number of provisions brought forward to restrict rights, including:

1. HR 3200 - Major losses of right to privacy and unreasonable search by giving government large access to personal data. Loss of basic liberty as all US citizens will be required to purchase health insurance. Nowhere in the Constitution is anything like that power given to the federal government.

2. Loss of free association as Obama backs Card Check bill to abolish use of secret ballot for union approval.

3. Restrictions on property and business as plans go forward to give appointed groups power to fine radio stations for content, such fines used to support PBS.

4. Restrictions on business as the US has just basically federalized the mortgage program and is planning on doing the same thing to the student loan program.

5. Loss of equal protection - Memos have gone out showing that the Holder AG office is not planning to pursue equal justice with regards to all citizens. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-did-holders-justice-department-dismiss-the-black-panther-case/

These are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.

"There was corruption in the last administration, just as there has been corruption in every single administration since the founding of our country. That is part of politics."

I would be interested in some verifiable examples that related directly to President Bush and his staff. So far, most everyone that Obama has appointed has at least been in violation of tax law. At any rate, claiming corruption from past administrations does nothing to reduce the seriousness of corruption in this administration. So far we know that President Obama was heavily tied to ACORN. We are now getting a picture of what that might entail, and despite the evidence some major news organizations are sticking up for them, basically claiming entrapment. So are some democrats for that matter. I think we deserve better.

sh007r said...

Wow, lots of possible good reading here....have to come back tomorrow to finish up.
Glad to have you here, sailor (sir).