OBAMA Caught Confiding in Russia: he's FLEXIBLE with their Missile Pgm as He WILL be RE-elected

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by justwokeup

 

Any massive nuclear strke/impact(s) anywhere on the planet will provide for MAD regardless.
We'll all die anyway. Just slower, perhaps, than others. BMD provides for protection against a limited atack. A surgical strike.

The principle remains the same. Granted at the present a few interceptors are chicken feed compared to the Russian arsenal but they are attempting to nip it in the bud now. You have to be wilfully blind to not see where its going.

The interceptor tech will only get better and cheaper with each iteration and the missile makers will make the case for a bigger system each year. Thats their job after all. What politician will oppose a 'nuclear defence shield' it sounds so noble and cuddly doesn't it...

Its a guaranteed new arms race for no good reason.

If you are attacked by an ICBM its the work of a state and thats what deterrence is for. Terrorists can not be deterred but neither are they likely to be deploying ICBMs. The terrorist weapon will come across a porous border in parts and be assembled in situ or be hidden in something else.

The money is better spent on the intelligence services so that when some lunatic Jihadi with a 2nd hand low yield enriched uranium bomb tries sailing it into a US port he's intercepted mid ocean.

Originally posted by ProudBird

You may wish to fact-check that number of "8,000".

As of 2009, the USA has a combination of about 5,000 active, active reserve, and inactive storage warheads.

LOL Americans like to fantasize/assume they have more nuclear warheads than Russia.. dream on.

Latest figures actually show Russia has a whooping 10,000 total declared nukes

while America has "only" 8,500 total declared nukes

en.wikipedia.org...

You didnt reference anywhere, so wiki's better than none at all, in the interim

reply to post by The Vagabond


This might also shed some light on this...

drezner.foreignpolicy.com...

Is Obama going to win a second term? More than likely. The right wing is far too fractured at this point to put a candidate up that will be a challenge to the current administration. I'm sure that Obama knows this and is working as if he will be around for another 4 years. It would be pretty self destructive of him to think otherwise.

As far as the comments themselves? They aren't all that controversial either. Obama will indeed have more flexibility after the election. He won't have to worry too much about pandering to his own party policies and he can actually go for what is needed to be done. As the article I linked says, he may go more conservative in his next term in office.

I'm not an Obama fan, but I don't think this is an admission to voter fraud or that his election is a foregone conclusion, quite the contrary, he is playing politics, which is sad from a president who ran on a campaign of change.

What I think he is saying though, is that if he wins, he has more leniency to do what he likes as there is no election to lose, if he were forced to now, it could cost him the election, it's slimy, but it's not the president saying I will be elected rah rah rah, I expect he will be as it's part of the plan, but this little blurp here is nothing.

Yet again, an open mic with a comment showing he believes the election results are predetermined. Surely we haven't forgotten the comment about Romney being the one that "the powers that be" want on the ticket. Now, we hear, on another open mic, this comment. Yeah, our votes mean something.....sure they do.......

Oh no, a sitting president is projecting confidence that he will be re-elected, just like the president before him, and the president before him, but not the president before him although he was the vice president for the president before him, who served two terms...

I suppose the President should have said "if I'm re-elected..."wait, no, then it would have looked like he was conspiring with the Russians to get re-elected, and all the Obamaphobes would accuse him of being a Kenyan KGB plant.....that and he wouldn't have been projecting the confidence a sitting US President should project...

Oh...how dare he say something...anything...to someone...

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
I'm not an Obama fan, but I don't think this is an admission to voter fraud or that his election is a foregone conclusion, quite the contrary, he is playing politics, which is sad from a president who ran on a campaign of change.

What I think he is saying though, is that if he wins, he has more leniency to do what he likes as there is no election to lose, if he were forced to now, it could cost him the election, it's slimy, but it's not the president saying I will be elected rah rah rah, I expect he will be as it's part of the plan, but this little blurp here is nothing.

I think this is the most reasonable and likely scenario. It's a request and an offer - he's bargaining. You don't make deals when it's a sure thing.

Unless of course Obama is secretly from Russia!

reply to post by madhatr137

Oh...how dare he say something...anything...to someone...

Don't you know the only thing these people will accept is his resignation, and even then, they will say he didn't go far enough.

No matter what this guy does, or does not do, to the anti Obama crowd is bad, and they will try anything to paint anything as bad coming from him.

That doesn't sound like Obama's voice guys.....at all.

Nothing at all to see here. Not news if said by Bush, not news with Obama. Presidents have elections. Some issues are easier after an election. Its the way its always been.

Seriously why is it that the damning Obama evidence always requires so much twisting of thought, but blatant stuff like the whole 9/11 event and subsequent ar mongering and disconnected war in Iraq and the creation of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act only get shrugs from Republicans?

And yet they would tell you if you reallllly think about it, healthcare for poor people is evil.

Seriously guys, good work finding this. This is truly evidence of something hugely evil. Awareness of an election.

Well at least his language was clean :-) unlike Bush

Bush...Apparently not expecting an open mic to pick up his remarks, Bush told Blair: "See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this # and it's over."

www.cnn.com...

To me is seems like such a little thing, the usual talk between politicians, no big deal at all.

Anyone else here feel like this comment was completely scripted? A liberal portrayal of self confidence and extreme agenda initiative? That's the dirty taste I have in my mouth anyways... Notice Medvedev's quickness to accept and respond with the quickness.. I wonder how much taxpayer money that cost..

lol I posted my thread about this about 5 hours before yours ;P

www.abovetopsecret.com...

as I said in my summation on that thread....

"My take? It seems that Obama has felt that his first term was not the place for these kinds of issues, and would risk his getting re-elected if he were to try to tackle them.

I think, if an issue comes up, it should be handled IMMEDIATELY."

......wow I am not big on politics but that is just crazy.

reply to post by BiggerPicture


Wait a minute.....This video doesn't include all the lines you quote Obama as saying. Where is the "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space." ?!?!

Without that very important line, Obama could be talking about anything.....For instance he could simple be saying that his schedule will be more open after he is elected again (and as for him being overly confident that he's going to be elected.....Well what Politician isn't?)

.....Still where is the first line? If it was indeed captured on camera, when why isn't it in this video? Seems kind of odd that the poster would leave that important bit out!

Actually even with the omitted line, his meaning could simply mean that he'll be more flexible to meet and discuss some issue relating to missile defense.....Not that his policies will be more flexible in favor of the Russians. But, admittedly one can read there own meaning into that statement, but alas I ask again...where is the evidence that he even made that remark in the first place? Without it there's no reason to argue about it.

Originally posted by BiggerPicture

Originally posted by ProudBird

You may wish to fact-check that number of "8,000".

As of 2009, the USA has a combination of about 5,000 active, active reserve, and inactive storage warheads.

LOL Americans like to fantasize/assume they have more nuclear warheads than Russia.. dream on.

Latest figures actually show Russia has a whooping 10,000 total declared nukes

while America has "only" 8,500 total declared nukes

en.wikipedia.org...

You didnt reference anywhere, so wiki's better than none at all, in the interim

Good point....But still, the whole 'Nuclear Deterrent' kind of falls apart after a certain amount of nukes is reached....When one side has enough nukes to destroy the planet 3 times over, and the other side has enough nukes to destroy it 5 times over, How does it really matter who's got the most at that point!

The hubris of a dictator showing again. Too bad nobody in Congress has the patriotism to impeach this traitor. He has done absolutely nothing for our country but sabotage our defense and spend money on Socialist entitlements including subsidizing the socialist foreign oil company Petrobas. He is destructive to our country beyond belief. Get ready folks, because the S is definitely hitting the fan, we just haven't quite seen where it's all landing yet.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by justwokeup

 

Any massive nuclear strke/impact(s) anywhere on the planet will provide for MAD regardless.
We'll all die anyway. Just slower, perhaps, than others. BMD provides for protection against a limited atack. A surgical strike.

Then , as you say it is a completely useless, OFFENSIVE system...you sure are a silly bunny sometimes.

Does not stop any real attack, only would provoke a MASSIVE ATTACK...what the hell is the problem here ??

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The hubris of a dictator showing again. Too bad nobody in Congress has the patriotism to impeach this traitor. He has done absolutely nothing for our country but sabotage our defense and spend money on Socialist entitlements including subsidizing the socialist foreign oil company Petrobas. He is destructive to our country beyond belief. Get ready folks, because the S is definitely hitting the fan, we just haven't quite seen where it's all landing yet.

What are you talking about? All you guys do here on ATS is talk big talk and provide
zero evidence to back it up. Obama took out Osama, buddy, so you should eat his shorts.
Hopefully he has worked out in them and farted a bunch too.

This is just more evidence to me that all world leaders are in cahoots, and they are only 'enemies' for propaganda reasons. In order to control and exploit the worlds working people.

The whole system is a scam.