Was it only April? There was President Obama, speaking (as is his wont) in Prague, about the Iranian nuclear program and ballistic-missile capability, and saluting America’s plucky allies: “The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles,” he declared. “As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile-defense system that is cost-effective and proven.”
On Thursday, the administration scrapped its missile-defense plans for Eastern Europe. The “courageous” Czechs and Poles will have to take their chances. Did the “threat from Iran” go away? Not so’s you’d notice. The dawn of the nuclear ayatollahs is perhaps only months away, and, just in case the Zionists or (please, no tittering) the formerly Great Satan is minded to take ’em out, Tehran will shortly be taking delivery of a bunch of S-300 anti-aircraft batteries from (ta-da!) Russia. Fancy that.
Awesome. Not only taking a giant dump on our allies, but also kowtowing to those who would gladly arm our enemies.
Oh, and flat-out lying. I’m amazed that anyone still supports Barky. Now, couple the foreign policy of appeasign those who would harm us while crapping on our allies with this:
Rising Debt May Cause Sun to Set on U.S. Economy
As an economic power, the U.S. may go the way of the British Empire because of the government’s increasing debt burden, according to Richard A. Posner, an economist and federal judge.
The CHART OF THE DAY shows how the public debt, or the national debt aside from liabilities for entitlement programs, has climbed in the past year.
…
Declining tax revenue, rising Medicare costs, congressional reluctance to cut spending or raise levies, and the likely cost of efforts to overhaul health care and promote climate control will push the debt higher, in Posner’s view.“At some point the wheels may start coming off the chassis,” he wrote. “The United States may find itself in the kind of downward economic spiral in which ‘developing’ countries often find themselves.” He drew the comparison with the British Empire, whose economic position in the early 20th century was similar to the U.S. role today.
It’s becoming more and more difficult to see Obama’s long term goals as anything but eliminating the US as a world player.
15 Responses to “Obama’s latest foreign relations success story”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Oh it gets better. Much better. How does Russia respond to Barky’s appeasement in Europe? Why by announcing a new regiment of Topols.
http://globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090917_8178.php
Then there’s Brzezinski (Carter’s national security advisor) saying that if Israel attacks Iran the US should shoot down Israeli aircraft to prevent it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-18/how-obama-flubbed-his-missile-message/
“The “courageous” Czechs and Poles will have to take their chances.”
Oh please. The US sounds like a maffia government talking other governments into getting “protection”. The only protection they might actually need is from the US government.
> The only protection they might actually need is from the US government.
Well, protection from being insulted and stabbed in the back by *this* government, yeah.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-18/how-obama-flubbed-his-missile-message/
“The way it was conveyed to the Czechs and Poles could not have been worse. It involved [laughs] waking up the Czech prime minster after midnight with a sudden phone call from President Obama. The Polish prime minister was at least allowed to sleep late. But as far as Poland was concerned, unfortunately, poor staff work did not alert the United States that today, September 17, is a particularly painful anniversary for Poland. In 1939, the Poles were still fighting the Germans when on September 17 the Russians stabbed them in the back. To the Poles, that is something very painful. And since they misconstrued—and I emphasize the word “misconstrue”—that the missile shield somehow strengthened their relationship with the U.S. when it comes to Russia, it was immediately suggestive of the notion of a sellout.”
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/09/in-case-you-missed-it.html
It’s being replaced by an effective system. Our allies weren’t abandoned.
And better still:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/20/barack-obama-us-nuclear-weapons
“Obama has rejected the Pentagon’s first draft of the “nuclear posture review” as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.
Those options include:
• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.
• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.
• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.”
> It’s being replaced by an effective system.
I *like* the SM-3. i worked on it both at ATK and United Tech. But it is a *sea* *based* system. As in “requires a destroyer-class vessel or bigger for all the rader and such.” Now, take a look at a map of Eastern Europe. There is the Black Sea conveniently located between Iran and the Czechs and the Poles. But does the US Navy have much of s presence in the Black Sea? I don’t know. I don’t *think* so. OK, now look for a large body of water between the Czech Republic and Russia, or between Poland and Russia. I don’t seem to see one. Do you?
> Our allies weren’t abandoned.
That’s not what *they* seem to think.
SM-3 Block II will have a lot of ability but the thing is how much will it cost to cover a Poland-based GBI footprint? 10 missiles sitting in holes in the ground with 24/7 coverage vs how many Aegis ships on deployment 24/7?
In December of last year Boeing won the GMD CCC (Ground-based Mid-course Defense Core Completion Contract) which extended their contract to run, maintain and expand the anti-ballistic missile defense system we currently have in place. Part of this contract included the “European Option” to install both the radars and the interceptors in eastern Europe. Nothing new here, nothing requiring development or testing. Just more of the same that the US already has up and running. Up and running quite successfully as well.
Had Obama not canceled the Option then the US would have deployed a handful of interceptor missiles to Europe. A handful. Enough, hopefully, to have dealt with a couple of missiles lofted from Iran. Hopefully. It would have been next to useless in defending against the thousands of missiles the Russians still have. As good as the GMD system is it would be completely overwhelmed by a full scale Russian attack. Thus, the system is no threat to Russia at all.
The Russians are only using its hoped for presence as a tool for domestic political purposes.
Now, I have heard that Obama traded off the defense of our allies in eastern Europe for a Russian guarantee of land access through Russian territory to Afghanistan in order to keep our forces supplied there. In the world of real politik this might be worth it. Might. Be.
The way the Zero handled it however, makes me suspect this point. The Russian plans to deploy more Topols however, makes me think Obama simply caved to Moscow and did so without extracting much in exchange. Kinda like Carter’s canceling the B-1 without getting the Soviets to do anything in return.
Three more years of this folks. Three more years. Let’s make sure that the Democrats no longer have a lock on Congress next year and then do what we can to get the least odious Republican in office come 2012.
Madoc
admin Says:
September 21st, 2009 at 11:59 am
The sea based solution is temporary (using American warships), until a land based version is deployed sometime around 2015.
>a land based version is deployed sometime around 2015.
What makes you think there will *be* a land-based version of it? The sea-based version got built because it was sellable as an anti-aircraft missile, just an improvement of existing systems. It snuck in under the radar, as it were. But a devoted land-based ABM version of it would be easy meat for the politicians.
“Well, protection from being insulted and stabbed in the back by *this* government, yeah.”
The US has been insulting and stabbing the Poles in the back at least one governments ago with their visa rules for the Polish. Also, regarding the “protection” the US offers Europe, to “protect” Germany from a Russian tank invasion they would have used nuclear landmines and neutron bombs ON GERMAN SOIL. I guess the Germans were rather radioactive than red.
> their visa rules for the Polish
Agreed, that was ridiculous.
>I guess the Germans were rather radioactive than red.
In the long run, yes. A Europe dominated by the communists would be approximately as bad as a Europe dominated by the Nazis.
“A Europe dominated by the communists would be approximately as bad as a Europe dominated by the Nazis”
Regardless of whether YOU would rather have your living area radioactive rather than under communist rule, the US government decided that on behalf of the German populace without any consultation of what THEY would rather have. Taking decisions for a general populace without their consent, where have I heard that before? Oh right, communism and nazism.
When Iran’s nuke’s are operational, wouldn’t Isreal send in a small team to blow up the facilty so it could appear that Iran had an accident?
>Taking decisions for a general populace without their consent, where have I heard that before?
Every government *ever.*
A commie dominated Europe would have pretty much assured a radioactively ruined Europe. Better to make it clear to the enemy that any attempt at taking Europe would result in a small area of radioactive ruin than let them think they can actually succeed, and then watch the whole place go up in smoke.
Germany simply had the misfortune of being the front line of World War III. Of course, Germany would not have been the WWIII front line if they hadn’t started WWII in the first place. Whining about being an occupied nation makes about as much sense as the Japanese whining about Hiroshima after they’d pulled off Pearl Harbor.