Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:41 am
@okie,
I'd started a thread about this some weeks ago.

But at that time, it was either not interesting for you or I'd been already then on your ignore-list.

Interesting picture - is that in Poland or Czechia?
okie
 
  0  
Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:50 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I did not purposely ignore it, Walter, so don't get all worked up over it. I merely saw the news item and thought it pertinent to Obama and his policies. I did go to your thread and read the posts, and sure enough it always goes back to the subject of the Jews.

I do have a question though, if the U.S. is supposed to remove our presence from Europe, are we also to remove our dead, such as from Normandy, etc.?

You are not on on my ignore list, as you have so far exhibited some standard of decency, only a few gentlemenly insults so far, and I certainly cannot say I have not been sarcastic either.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:53 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I do have a question though, if the U.S. is supposed to remove our presence from Europe, are we also to remove our dead, such as from Normandy, etc.?


I have no idea. But I don't think that the French government will ask for such, that would be really more than stupid.

But why do you ask? Did Sarkozy say something like that?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:08 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I merely saw the news item and thought it pertinent to Obama and his policies.


Well, and what do you think about that the Obama government has said - as reported, too - that the future development of missile defence in Europe will take place within the framework of NATO, rather than through bilateral deals as had been the approach of the Bush administration?
revel
 
  1  
Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:34 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I guess okie has the idea the US is not part of NATO.

White House already has a fact sheet concerning this:

A "Phased, Adaptive Approach" for Missile Defense in Europe
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 17 Sep, 2009 09:43 am
@Walter Hinteler,
okie's assumptions including removal of our dead from Normandy is the foundation of his imagined stupidity; it has no limits.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 17 Sep, 2009 05:40 pm
I know what the Barbarians would have thought if the Romans had reversed a policy and withdrawn their assets from the frontier.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Thu 17 Sep, 2009 05:43 pm
@spendius,
good point but I'm not sure all that many americans think of europe as the frontier but then the Romans went broke didn't they?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Thu 17 Sep, 2009 06:42 pm
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense under President Bush, pushed for the Poland/Czech defense system in central Europe. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense under President Obama, now says that "recent intelligence reports" suggest that Iran does not have long range missile capability. The greater threat is shorter range, which can be better dealt with by air or sea-borne defenses.
Does Mr Gates know what he is talking about or have the evil aliens in the Obama administration taken over his brain?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 17 Sep, 2009 07:40 pm
@realjohnboy,
I think Gate's brain was fried a few years ago...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 18 Sep, 2009 11:15 pm
I respect Gates and it doesn't seem likely that he would flat out lie, but I do think he pushed his integrity to its limit in supporting this move which was so clearly designed to please the Russians.

Perhaps, behind the scenes, the Administration has worked out a quid pro quo with Putin for meaningful support on twisting Iran's arm. We'll find out soon enough. If it did not, it will be further proof of Obama's naive and ultimately dangerous foreign policy.

The question of whether Europe can be better protected by the new approach vs the former is a political smokescreen, and there are already military experts arguing that there is no significant difference between the two approaches or that we are less secure as a result.

I suppose though that you might argue that if Obama says it is so, it is.

As a result of this change in policy we have:

Pleased the Russians who are, at least, not our allies and arguably our enemies.

Frustrated and disappointed the Poles and Czechs who are our allies (By NATO Treaty).

For decades the nations of Eastern Europe have been the pawns of the Great Powers.

The West went to war with the Nazis and ended up giving over Eastern Europe to the Soviets who were just as bad.

The West, thanks to Republican presidents, won the Cold War and the intense loyalty of Eastern European nations: Just about none of them have been unwilling to support our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan with native troops.

Now Obama comes along and tells all of Eastern Europe that they can't trust the promises of the US. For political purposes, our government will always be willing to renege on the promises of prior administrations.

Why will another Eastern European head of state risk domestic political confrontations to support a US global strategy?

If the new approach offered a material improvement over the former, those who subscribe to realpolitiks might manage an argument for screwing new allies, but it does not.

This is all about courting the Russians, which is a weak-kneed Obama foreign policy strategy.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that Obama is satisfied, no matter what befalls America and the world, with being able to say he tried.

I wish I had faith in Obama being the international equivalent of a "cock-tease," but I'm afraid he's proving to be just a common slut.


0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Fri 18 Sep, 2009 11:43 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense under President Bush, pushed for the Poland/Czech defense system in central Europe. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense under President Obama, now says that "recent intelligence reports" suggest that Iran does not have long range missile capability. The greater threat is shorter range, which can be better dealt with by air or sea-borne defenses.
Does Mr Gates know what he is talking about or have the evil aliens in the Obama administration taken over his brain?

Even if Gates does know what he is talking about, does it make sense that Iran cannot or will not develop long range missiles in a pretty short time? It doesn't make sense to me that they won't be working on it, and it also does not make sense to install a defense system after intelligence indicates that they have long range missiles, after all the time to build the defense is in anticipation of a threat, not after the threat is in place.

I think Obama is a foreign policy disaster and a national security disaster. I don't know about Gates, but something is haywire, perhaps he is just going along to get along, figuring things would get worse if he left.
revel
 
  1  
Sat 19 Sep, 2009 07:07 am
@okie,
Okie wrote:
Quote:
Even if Gates does know what he is talking about, does it make sense that Iran cannot or will not develop long range missiles in a pretty short time? It doesn't make sense to me that they won't be working on it, and it also does not make sense to install a defense system after intelligence indicates that they have long range missiles, after all the time to build the defense is in anticipation of a threat, not after the threat is in place.


Quote:
Advances in Capabilities and Technologies: Over the past several years, U.S. missile defense capabilities and technologies have advanced significantly. We expect this trend to continue. Improved interceptor capabilities, such as advanced versions of the SM-3, offer a more flexible, capable, and cost-effective architecture. Improved sensor technologies offer a variety of options to detect and track enemy missiles.

These changes in the threat as well as our capabilities and technologies underscore the need for an adaptable architecture. This architecture is responsive to the current threat, but could also incorporate relevant technologies quickly and cost-effectively to respond to evolving threats. Accordingly, the Department of Defense has developed a four-phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe. While further advances of technology or future changes in the threat could modify the details or timing of later phases, current plans call for the following:



The above is from the link I left earlier.

If Gates has been brainwashed what about Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser to Ford and both Bush presidents.

Quote:
Scowcroft Agrees With Obama on Missile Defense Shift

President Obama's decision to shift direction on missile defense in Europe has produced howls from many Republicans, but one prominent GOP foreign-policy heavyweight weighed in Friday with support for the president's plan.

"I strongly approve of President Obama's decision regarding missile defense deployments in Europe. I believe it advances U.S. national security interests, supports our allies, and better meets the threats we face," Brent Scowcroft said in a statement issued through the Atlantic Council, a policy group.

Scowcroft was national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Bush's son, George W. Bush, pushed as president for the missile defense plan abandoned by Obama.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, also a Republican, was Scowcroft's deputy during the first Bush administration.


source
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 19 Sep, 2009 07:14 am
This is interesting.
The Obama admin wants to extend parts of the patriot act, including the right to wiretap WITHOUT a warrant.
I thought the dems opposed that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090915/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_patriot_act

Quote:
WASHINGTON " The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.

Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.


snip

Quote:
From 2004 to 2007, the business records provision was used 220 times, officials said. Most often, the business records were requested in combination with requests for phone records.

The lone wolf provision was created to conduct surveillance on suspects with no known link to foreign governments or terrorist groups. It has never been used, but the administration says it should still be available for future investigations.

The roving wiretaps provision was designed to allow investigators to quickly monitor the communications of a suspects who change their cell phone or communication device, without investigators having to go back to court for a new court authorization. That provision has been used an average of 22 times a year, officials said.


Its funny.
These are some of the same provisions that the left so adamantly opposed when Bush was President.
Where is that opposition now?

And using the "lone wolf" provision, whats to stop the govt from labeling anyone a terrorism suspect, especially someone that opposes the admin?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Sat 19 Sep, 2009 07:27 am
@okie,
you're funny.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Sat 19 Sep, 2009 07:29 am
@mysteryman,
I have said before that I am opposed to Obama keeping and in some re-newing Bush era policies of which most is in these areas of issues, and if what you left is what it appears to be, a case where the government can wiretap without a warrant, then I am opposed.

What about you, are you opposed now that we have a democratic president?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 19 Sep, 2009 07:32 am
@revel,
I'm not sure I understand the question.

Am I opposed to what???
revel
 
  1  
Sat 19 Sep, 2009 07:59 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand the question.

Am I opposed to what???


To extending parts of the patriot act, including the right to wiretap WITHOUT a warrant.
maporsche
 
  1  
Sat 19 Sep, 2009 10:10 am
@mysteryman,
God ******* DAMN Obama.....this man is nothing but a dirty politician. How many more things can this president **** up on?
revel
 
  1  
Sat 19 Sep, 2009 10:33 am
@maporsche,
do you think Hillary would have done any differently or for that matter, McCain? I seriously doubt it.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1415
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 04:44:56