Nelson....be safe out there....

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Before you start in with the hyperconservative bullsh!t, you should know that this was done at the recommendation of the SecDef and the Joint Chiefs. There's a new and improved plan that's going to be revealed by the SecDef later today.
 
Obama makes another show of weakness to the world....
Click to expand...



This is the typical reaction from the Wing Nuts, Tea Baggers, and Birthers to anything Obama does. You people are so predictable in your criticism of the President you've lost credibility.



Did you even read the article you posted? This decision was based on the unanimous recommendations from the Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This missile defense shield was ineffective, and was designed to defend against Iranian missile technology that doesn't exist. It wasn't even going to be ready until 2012.



Obama is replacing it with a better missile defense system that's designed to defend against current Iranian missile technology, at half the cost. Plus, he gained a diplomatic opportunity to negotiate with the Russians over nuclear proliferation.
 
This is the typical reaction from the Wing Nuts, Tea Baggers, and Birthers to anything Obama does. You people are so predictable in your criticism of the President you've lost credibility.
Click to expand...



And the name calling makes you more credible?

We need to support our allies in these dangerous times.



Did you even read the article you posted? This decision was based on the unanimous recommendations from the Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This missile defense shield was ineffective, and was designed to defend against Iranian missile technology that doesn't exist. It wasn't even going to be ready until 2012.
Click to expand...



Is that why the Polish Prime minister will not take calls from Hillary Clinton?

SecDef and the JCS could be wrong, I wonder if this reasoning were used to invade Iraq,

W wouldn't have got so much flak from the left?



Obama is replacing it with a better missile defense system that's designed to defend against current Iranian missile technology, at half the cost. Plus, he gained a diplomatic opportunity to negotiate with the Russians over nuclear proliferation.
Click to expand...



Yeah, Obama is all about saving taxpayer dollars, and negotiating with the Russians is a good thing also. :lol:

Get real people, Obama is not your Ronald Reagan...He's making Jimmy Carter look good!:banana:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the typical reaction from the Wing Nuts, Tea Baggers, and Birthers to anything Obama does. You people are so predictable in your criticism of the President you've lost credibility.
Click to expand...



geez...
 
Here's what an Iraq veteran who's currently in Afghanistan said on another forum:



Jesus, are you guys even bothering to listen to the DoD on this?



Look... the DoD is not cutting and running. They are taking a more practical approach to this. The RIM-161 SM3 missile is proving to be the most successful of all our current ABM systems, and is one furthest along in development and testing. Ship based missiles are mobile and can easily sail into the theater to provide necessary protection.



However, the DoD is not stopping there!! Do you think that it is mere coincidence that in the last month there has been heavy discussions with Raytheon, regarding a land based SM3 missile system? Come'on you guys are smart enough to connect the dots.



...Land based SM3s will become a reality. They are far smaller, far cheaper... and a land based system will be able to be deploy far sooner than the GMD system envisioned under the Bush administration.



Oh yeah, lets not forget that Iran is expected to develop their short and medium range missiles faster than first anticipated. Lets not forget that these missiles threaten us now, and we cannot afford to wait until after 2015.



All of you are wrong. This is not cutting and running. This smart. SM3, sea and land based, are the way to go. Esepcially when augmented with Boeing ABLs and PAC3 Patriots.



SecDef has said, "Those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing, It is more adapted to the threat we see developing."
Click to expand...
 
Here's an interesting observation: In this and many other major foreign policy matters over the last nine months, we've seen very little of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In past administrations, the SecState has usually been right out in front as the primary spokesperson for the administration at press events, and major foreign policy meetings with high level foreign officials. Not Hillary. She's been sent off on jaunts to places like Africa, Indonesia, and third-world countries in Asia. The major foreign policy visits have primarily been done by the President himself, and any press/photo ops are usually with the President, or his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs.



Gotta give BO credit for this. He brought an opponent into his fold and quickly minimalized/marginalized her so that she'd no longer be a potential threat in the Senate or in 2012. Stick a fork in Hillary 'cause her political career is done if she stays in her current position. I think she knows it too, 'cause rumors are circulating of her discontent, and that she may resign as SecState before 2012.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have to wonder about what this administration's true foreign policy motives are...



Obama's Missile Offense



It's better these days to be a U.S. adversary than its friend.



September 18, 2009



President Obama promised he would win America friends where, under George W. Bush, it had antagonists. The reality is that the U.S. is working hard to create antagonists where it previously had friends.



That's one conclusion to draw from President Obama's decision yesterday to scrap a missile-defense agreement the Bush Administration negotiated with Poland and the Czech Republic. Both governments took huge political risksincluding the ire of their former Russian overlordsin order to accommodate the U.S., which wanted the system to defend against a possible Iranian missile attack. Don't expect either government to follow America's lead anytime soon.



"If the Administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it," Jan Vidim, a conservative Czech lawmaker who voted for the system, told the Associated Press.



The White House justifies its decision by claiming to have new intelligence showing that Iran's long-range missile capabilities are not as advanced as previously believed. Instead, it intends to upgrade and deploy currently available missile interceptors that are useful mainly for intercepting short- and medium-range missiles, where, it says, Iranian capability "is developing more rapidly than previously projected."



We're all for deploying interceptors to stop Iranian missiles of every range. But the Administration's argument is difficult to credit, not least because our sources told us as early as February that the Administration was prepared to abandon those siteswhich is to say, well before the allegedly new intelligence became available.



It's also hard to square the intelligence community's sanguine assessment with Iran's successful launch of the solid-fuel Sejil missile in May. With an estimated range of 1,560 miles, the Sejil could deliver a one-ton payload as far as Warsaw. That cannot be comforting when the International Atomic Energy Agency is now saying that Iran has "sufficient information" to build an atomic bomb and will also "overcome problems" involved in its delivery system.



The Administration's likelier motive for scrapping the interceptors is that it hopes to win Russia's vote at the U.N. Security Council for tougher sanctions on Iran. Maybe the Russians have secretly agreed to such a quid pro quo, though publicly they were quick to deny it following yesterday's decision.



And as Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov has noted, Vladimir Putin's Kremlin benefits by keeping the Iranian crisis on a low boil, because the threat of a Middle East crisis drives energy prices up while putting U.S. interests at risk. Russia also likes spooning out dollops of diplomatic help at the U.N. in exchange for material Western concessions. This time, the concession was missile defense. Next time, perhaps, the West can be seduced into trading away the pro-Western government of Georgia, or even Ukraine.



That's hardly an idle fear. It has been the tragic fate of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe to be treated as bargaining chips in the designs of their more powerful neighbors. Their inclusion in NATO and EU was supposed to have buried that history, but Russia's new assertiveness, including its willingness to cut off energy supplies in winter and invade Georgia last year, is reviving powerful fears. Officials in Warsaw surely noticed that President Obama canceled the missile system 70 years to the day that the Soviet Union invaded Poland as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany.



The U.S. decision also undermines the credibility of the U.S. nuclear defense umbrella. The Bush Administration sought to develop a global defense posture in part to reassure allies that they don't need their own nuclear deterrent, even as rogue regimes seek nuclear arms and the missiles to deliver them. America's Europe reversal tells other countries that they can't rely on the U.S. so it's best to follow the Israeli path and develop their own weapon and defenses. For that matter, this also makes the U.S. East Coast less safe; the ground-based system in Alaska and California covers the East, but barely. The Polish and Czech sites were to provide added protection.



The European switcheroo continues Mr. Obama's trend of courting adversaries while smacking allies. His Administration has sought warmer ties with Iran, Burma, North Korea, Russia and even Venezuela. But it has picked trade fights with Canada and Mexico, sat on trade treaties with Colombia and South Korea, battled Israel over West Bank settlements, ignored Japan in deciding to talk with North Korea, and sanctioned Honduras for its sin of resisting the encroachments of Venezuela's Hugo Chvez.



We're reminded of the rueful quip, by scholar Bernard Lewis, that the problem with becoming friends with the U.S. is that you never know when it will shoot itself in the foot.
Click to expand...



And as for my earlier observation about Hillary: Look at what's happening today. She's the one who's out front speaking to the press in an attempt to justify this controversial decision, not the President or Gibbs. In other words, they throw her to the wolves whenever they need a "whipping girl".

 
we should have negotiated with them and got them to give up something too
Click to expand...



Gawdamned testicles. Producing all that testosterone. Causing that silly male trait of "one-upsmanship.
 
Gotta love our Navy!



Hey...Bill Maher came out on his show against this move by Obama.

Because of the fact that Bill is almost always wrong, that means I have to be FOR it.



I'm siding with the administration this time. Logically it sounds like a good move and will save us money and get things online quicker and more effectively.



Go Navy!!
 

Latest posts

Top