Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on December 27, 2010, 09:04:43 AM
-
Obama Has Lost The World
Eurasia Review ^ | December 26, 2010 | Daniel Greenfield
________________________ ________________________ ___________________
After the 2010 elections, it’s not exactly news that Obama has lost America. But in a less public referendum, he also lost the world. Obama’s cocktail party tour of the world’s capitals may look impressive on a map, but is irrelevant on a policy level. In less than two years, the White House has gone from being the center of world leadership to being irrelevant, from protecting world freedom to serving as a global party planning committee.
Even the Bush Administration’s harshest critics could never have credibly claimed that George W. Bush was irrelevant. He might have been hated, pilloried and shouted about– but he couldn’t be ignored. However Obama can be safely ignored. Invited to parties, given the chance to show off his cosmopolitan sophisticated by reciting one or two words in the local lingo, read off a teleprompter, along with some cant about the need for everyone to pull together and make the world a better place, and then dismissed for the rest of the evening.
As a world leader, he makes a passable party guest. He has a broad smile, brings along his own gifts and is famous in the way that celebrities, rather than prime ministers and presidents are famous. On an invitation list, he is more Bono than Sarkozy, Leonardo DiCaprio not Putin. You don’t invite him to talk turkey, not even on Thanksgiving. He’s just one of those famous people with a passing interest in politics who gets good media attention, but who has nothing worthwhile to say.
The only countries who take Obama seriously, are the ones who have to. The leaders of Great Britain, Israel and Japan– who have tied their countries to an enduring alliance with America based on mutual interests and values, only to discover that the latest fellow to sit behind the Oval Office desk no longer shares those values and couldn’t give less of a damn about American interests. It’s no wonder that European leaders ignore him as much as possible. Or that Netanyahu visited America, while Obama was abroad. Or that Japanese politics have become dangerously unstable.
On the enemy side, the growing aggressiveness of China, North Korea, Iran, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda can all be attributed to the global consensus that no one is at home in the White House. And if no one is at home in the White House, then that’s a perfect time to slap the big boy around the yard. China is doing it economically, the rest are doing it militarily. They’re all on board with Obama’s Post-American vision of the world. But unlike him and most liberals, they have a clear understanding of what that means. The America of some years back, which actually intimidated Libyan dictator Khaddafi into giving up his nuclear program, without lifting a hand against him is long gone. So is the Cedar Revolution. Syria and Iran are back in charge in Lebanon. And in Afghanistan, the Taliban are laughing at our soft power outreach efforts.
Obama’s soft power approach emphasizes the ‘soft’ and forgets the ‘power’. It neglects even Clinton era understandings about the role of America in the world, and reverts instead to a Carter era sense of guilt that bleeds into hostility toward American interests and allies. While the rest of the world puts their own interests first, they act like a cog in some imaginary global community, turning and turning toward the distant horizon of international brotherhood. While China, Russia and most of the world walk down their backs and up their jellyfish spines, laughing all the way. And America’s allies gird themselves and prepare for the worst.
From the first, this administration has curried favor with America’s enemies by betraying and humiliating its allies. But these hideous acts of moral cowardice have not won Obama the approval of America’s enemies. Only their contempt. And a Nobel Peace Prize from a committee of elderly left wing Swedes, awarded not for any accomplishment, but for the lack thereof. For being a man without a country, a leader without a spine and a representative of America who gives no thought for the interests of that country.
Now that the Koreas stand on the brink of war, Iran continues its drive toward a nuclear bomb, Al Qaeda is going global, Hezbollah is on the verge of taking Lebanon and Mexico is on the verge of imploding– the impact of America’s absence on the global stage is all too clear. The countless cocktail parties and toasts have not changed the world. All they’ve done is highlighted the transition of the White House from world leadership to global party guest. Trip after trip has ended in photo ops and policy failures. Instead Obama is stuck dumpster diving into the futile quest for a Palestinian state, not because such an entity will make the world any better, but because it will make him look good.
Obama has no mandate at home, and he has even less of one abroad. America’s enemies do not fear him. Only our allies do. Kim Jong Il does not sit up nights worrying what Obama will do. Because the consensus in North Korea, Iran and the rest of the world is that the sea will rise, the sun will set and Obama will do nothing. Except maybe write a strongly worded letter, offset by some quiet backchannel diplomacy from his coterie of international left wing stooges reassuring the offender that, “No, Barry really isn’t mad at you. He’s just concerned. Really, really concerned.”
Liberal pundits mock the rough and ready style of conservatives like Reagan, Bush or Palin in world affairs, but what they fail to realize is that the over-educated naivete, trendy cosmopolitanism and buzzword rich approach of a Kerry or Obama come off as laughably pathetic on the world stage. Republicans might be hated, but they can’t be ignored. Democrats on the other hand are catspaws and pawns, fools who are so sure of their cleverness and determined to embrace every culture in the way that only the graduates of Ivy League institutions can, that any Third World vendor could twirl them around his fingers.
World leaders are rarely liked, but effective ones are respected. And effective world leaders don’t lead with appeasement, don’t compromise before the other side has even made an offer and negotiate on behalf of their country, rather than some intangible global consensus. They understand that they represent a country, not a popularity contest. They don’t travel abroad to be adored or be greeted with parades and gifts, but to achieve tangible results on specific issues. To do otherwise is not to be a world leader, but a celebrity who happens to have picked up a big title along the way.
To be a proper American president on the world stage, means choosing to be respected, rather than liked. Obama always chooses to be liked, rather than respected. Because respect comes from accomplishment and character, while ‘liking’ is a function of appearance and image. Aiming to be ‘liked’ is playing to Obama’s strengths. But being liked is irrelevant outside of an afterschool special. World affairs is not a networking seminar, it is a negotiation between countries who have billions of dollars and millions of lives on the line. And Obama has no idea how to play that game. Like the kid who never fit in anywhere, he’s still trying to be liked. And he’s willing to sell out American interests and allies to get the cool UN kids to like him.
Unfortunately Obama’s irrelevance is also America’s irrelevance. A Republican House of Representatives cannot do what Obama should be doing. And any attempt to show strength gets shouted down by the liberal punditocracy as treason and undermining the White House. As if anyone, anywhere could undermine Obama internationally as much as he undermines himself. The same liberals who considered Ted Kennedy’s treasonous offer of cooperation with the Soviet Union or Kerry’s trip to Latin American Marxist terrorists to be acts of courage, damn Republicans who supported allies in Ecuador and Israel as traitors. And so Obama must have a free hand to do it all on his own. To do what Kennedy or Kerry could have only dreamed of.
Obama has lost the world. He has made the country that he claims to represent into a shadow of its former strength and glory. And his irrelevance endangers American lives. Not just those of soldiers in war zones, laboring under restrictive Rules of Engagement, written so as not to offend Muslims. Not just those of Americans at risk for domestic terrorism under an Attorney General who sympathizes with terrorists, more than with Americans. But to everyone living in a world where countries like North Korea and Iran feel free to do what they want, where our economic rivals such as Russia and China advance their interests and their espionage, and where terrorists across the Muslim world grow in boldness and number because they have no one left to fear anymore. In America and around the world– Barack Hussein Obama endangers us all.
________________________ ________________________ ______________
Ouch. Cold hard truth right there.
-
Great article. It's not even two years into his term and yet Obama has managed to set this country farther back than any president we've ever had.
-
Great article. It's not even two years into his term and yet Obama has managed to set this country farther back than any president we've ever had.
wow youve been drinkin from the same well as 3333... uh ohhhh i thought you were one of the smart ones
-
Great article. It's not even two years into his term and yet Obama has managed to set this country farther back than any president we've ever had.
The world kneepad tour set the stage for the chaos we see today with iran, NK, etc.
-
wow youve been drinkin from the same well as 3333... uh ohhhh i thought you were one of the smart ones
What do you disagree with in this article?
Its true and started day 1 when Bama pissed on the Churchill Bust and got worse and worse.
-
Obama's White House is Falling Down
Daniel Greenfield: Obama's Plan to Destroy Israel - Israel Insider
Obama Has Lost The World - Sultan Knish a blog by Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield: "Obama's Jerusalem Apartheid" - IsraelitKan
The Left's War on the Economy
Obama's Global Failure
These are some of Greenfields Other works..lol
he drinks the 3333 kool aid too
-
wow youve been drinkin from the same well as 3333... uh ohhhh i thought you were one of the smart ones
Drinking what? Realism kool-aid? Fact of the matter is that this guy has about as much clout on the world stage as I or you do. This country has turned into a laughing stock. And where has his brilliant foreign policy gotten us? Enlighten me because I can't think of one accomplishment. He did a great job getting rebuked at the G20 a few weeks ago. Made us look real good.
UN maps of Afghanistan released today show that, despite Obama's lies that the situation is improving, it has actually gotten worse in areas that were once considered decent over the last year. Looks like that "winning the hearts and minds of psychotic mass murderers" strategy is paying off.
The world kneepad tour set the stage for the chaos we see today with iran, NK, etc.
But far-leftists tell me that America is the enemy and that if we change our country they'll play nice. After all, they're just misunderstood and looking for someone to set an example. ::) ::)
-
The world kneepad tour set the stage for the chaos we see today with iran, NK, etc.
because lil kim didnt set off missles while Bush was in the whitehouse huh?.. fuckin idiot
-
because lil kim didnt set off missles while Bush was in the whitehouse huh?.. fuckin idiot
Why do you rationalize Obama's failures by comparing him to Bush? Wasn't Bush the worst president ever?
-
Why do you rationalize Obama's failures by comparing him to Bush? Wasn't Bush the worst president ever?
Im not.. i go post by post.. and 333 said that Obama set the stage for NK wildin out.. but i just said they were wilding out before Obama took office. But since Obama is in office.. its his fault now..
You said Obama is the worst President ever.. but its just not adding up. Now 3333 is gonna go with his buckshot approach and list about 17 things in which some are repeats and opinions and others are of no consequence
-
North Korea never shelled South Korean territory or sunk a South Korean ship while Bush was president. The best story 240 could muster is some embellished tale about them launching missiles at California.
-
North Korea never shelled South Korean territory or sunk a South Korean ship while Bush was president.
Who was president of USA when NKorea set off a nuke?
-
so sweep it under the rug because when he did it during Bush's term it wasnt that bad? do you hear yourself?..3333 said " set the stage" if any stage setting was done it was under Bushs term.. see im not gonna let off the cuff statements or bullshit sly remarks slide.. you better be able to back your shit up with me..
-
North Korea never shelled South Korean territory or sunk a South Korean ship while Bush was president. The best story 240 could muster is some embellished tale about them launching missiles at California.
LMFAO you beat me to it...
add that to the nat enq cover he took as truth about palin cheating on her husband and her son being bristols
LOL man him and straw man could have a pretty good competition for the stupidest things ever said on the getbig politics board
-
Who was president of USA when NKorea set off a nuke?
that dont matter because it wasnt aimed at South Korea.. am i right BF.. cmon man i swear i thought you were one of the smart ones.. ok disagree with Obama on things.. thats fine.. i Disagree as well.. but the bullshit.. cmon you are better than that.. i expect that out of 3333.. the dumbshit.. but not you
-
Who was president of USA when NKorea set off a nuke?
How's North Korea's nuke program doing now? I believe they just uncovered a recently built plant and there were wikileaks cables about the ever-growing list of nuke and other weapons tech they've been selling to anyone with the cash, all without any repercussions whatsoever.
Bush had them on the verge of getting rid of their nuke program at one point. Obama hasn't come anywhere close to accomplishing that. I wonder why.
Sink a ship and kill dozens of South Korean sailors? Get a strongly worded letter of protest from Obama.
Shell South Korean territory and kill civilians? Get a strongly worded letter of protest from Obama.
No wonder they do what they want. Not much different from the Islamists taking over the world.
that dont matter because it wasnt aimed at South Korea.. am i right BF.. cmon man i swear i thought you were one of the smart ones.. ok disagree with Obama on things.. thats fine.. i Disagree as well.. but the bullshit.. cmon you are better than that.. i expect that out of 3333.. the dumbshit.. but not you
I'm looking at it from an objective standpoint. I can't for the life of me think of one major foreign policy accomplishment of Obama. The closest I can get is START but in the grand scheme of things that shit is completely useless and not the least bit relevant.
-
Bush had them on the verge of getting rid of their nuke program at one point.
I remember he paid them a million barrels of oil to stop blowing shit up.
When were they on the verge of stopping, and why didn't they stop?
I agree obama is being a total wuss on it as well...
but "bush ALMOST stopped them"? I don't remember that part...
-
that dont matter because it wasnt aimed at South Korea.. am i right BF.. cmon man i swear i thought you were one of the smart ones.. ok disagree with Obama on things.. thats fine.. i Disagree as well.. but the bullshit.. cmon you are better than that.. i expect that out of 3333.. the dumbshit.. but not you
::) ::)
Why do you libs tolerate Obama's failures so much? Seriously?
-
I remember he paid them a million barrels of oil to stop blowing shit up.
When were they on the verge of stopping, and why didn't they stop?
You're still playing that "we sent them a million barrels of oil to stop firing missiles at California" card? You made a fool of yourself in the thread I started about that fairy tale of yours.
According to you and others, Bush was the worst president this country has ever seen. Why do you people insist on rationalizing Obama's failures by comparing them to Bush's?
Fact of the matter is that this is the closest to war the two Koreas have ever been.
-
I remember he paid them a million barrels of oil to stop blowing shit up.
When were they on the verge of stopping, and why didn't they stop?
I agree obama is being a total wuss on it as well...
but "bush ALMOST stopped them"? I don't remember that part...
Which Admn gave NK the nuke materials 240?
-
::) ::)
Why do you libs tolerate Obama's failures so much? Seriously?
go play in the sand or eat clay.. big boys are talking.. you are not capable of being objective..
-
Which Admn gave NK the nuke materials 240?
probably clinton, that fat bj getting slob that so many of you 'republicans' voted for in 92. blah.
-
You're still playing that "we sent them a million barrels of oil to stop firing missiles at California" card? You made a fool of yourself in the thread I started about that fairy tale of yours.
According to you and others, Bush was the worst president this country has ever seen. Why do you people insist on rationalizing Obama's failures by comparing them to Bush's?
Fact of the matter is that this is the closest to war the two Koreas have ever been.
So thats Obamas fault?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_missile_test
-
So thats Obamas fault?
Has he gotten North Korea to make a single concession since taking office? Bush had them dismantling a nuclear reactor at one point. Obama's managed to give them enough room to sink a ship and then shell an island for two hours later in the same year, both acts resulting in the deaths of South Korean citizens. Both acts met with nothing more than a strongly-worded letter of protest from Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_missile_test
This was discussed in the thread I made calling 240 out. Just because a missile has the capability of reaching our shores =/= firing missiles at us.
-
North Korea never shelled South Korean territory or sunk a South Korean ship while Bush was president. The best story 240 could muster is some embellished tale about them launching missiles at California.
have you read what right wing nutbags like Liz Cheney and John Bolton have to say about the North Korea and the Bush Administration?
-
Has he gotten North Korea to make a single concession since taking office? Bush had them dismantling a nuclear reactor at one point. Obama's managed to give them enough room to sink a ship and then shell an island for two hours later in the same year, both acts resulting in the deaths of South Korean citizens. Both acts met with nothing more than a strongly-worded letter of protest from Obama.
Well fuck it.. But if Obama met with military force that would cost more money..it would be "obama strecthing the Military thin and costing more money for the economy"
Fucking disgusting
-
So thats Obamas fault?
His projecting weakness, fecklessness, incompetence, ineptness, and ignorace around the world is having a destabilizing effect.
Example - Iran. Wikileaks proved he was trying to scapegoat the jews on the Ira situation when even other ME countries said the two had nothing to do with one another.
Second - Honduras. another example of disgraceful fecklessness in order to kiss the ass of Chavez.
No wonder Bama is reading up on Reagan, he has no idea how to get himself out of thole he has dug for himself.
-
shut up kid.. no one pays attention to your bullshit.. go play with leggos or something
-
shut up kid.. no one pays attention to your bullshit.. go play with leggos or something
I had breakfast already Dr. Kneepad.
-
Well fuck it.. But if Obama met with military force that would cost more money..it would be "obama strecthing the Military thin and costing more money for the economy"
Fucking disgusting
Where did I say military force was required? Did Bush ever use military force on North Korea? No, he didn't.
Obama has taken the soft approach to world affairs and to this point it has done nothing but severely damage this country. I'm just calling it like I see it, dude. Not from a right or left perspective.
The rebuke at the G20 two months ago shows how far this country has fallen in global clout on Obama's watch.
His projecting weakness, fecklessness, incompetence, ineptness, and ignorace around the world is having a destabilizing effect.
Example - Iran. Wikileaks proved he was trying to scapegoat the jews on the Ira situation when even other ME countries said the two had nothing to do with one another.
Second - Honduras. another example of disgraceful fecklessness in order to kiss the ass of Chavez.
No wonder Bama is reading up on Reagan, he has no idea how to get himself out of thole he has dug for himself.
You may not like 333, Mal, but these are good examples.
-
i dont read his shit.,.if you post it i will atleast read it.. but ive gotten to the point where i expect 3333 to go with the "buckshot, total circumstantial 1+1=4 if youre in the political loop" approach..
and it means nothing so i dont waste my time
-
Where did I say military force was required? Did Bush ever use military force on North Korea? No, he didn't.
Obama has taken the soft approach to world affairs and to this point it has done nothing but severely damage this country. I'm just calling it like I see it, dude. Not from a right or left perspective.
The rebuke at the G20 two months ago shows how far this country has fallen in global clout on Obama's watch.
You may not like 333, Mal, but these are good examples.
Bush gave them money/oil.. We dont have that luxury right now.
And severely Damage the country, in global status. Give me some polling to back that up.
-
Bush bribed them, and they continued their nuke program.
Obama didn't bribe them, and they continue their nuke program.
So all obama has done here, is save us a shitload of $. That's cool.
-
i dont read his shit.,.if you post it i will atleast read it.. but ive gotten to the point where i expect 3333 to go with the "buckshot, total circumstantial 1+1=4 if youre in the political loop" approach..
and it means nothing so i dont waste my time
ha ha ha - that is the new tactic of Team Bama - "Hear no Evil - See no Evil"
-
Bush gave them money/oil.. We dont have that luxury right now.
And severely Damage the country, in global status. Give me some polling to back that up.
How can you even poll that stuff? By Obama's approval numbers in other countries? That won't say much.
-
How can you even poll that stuff? By Obama's approval numbers in other countries? That won't say much.
So how do you derive the statement...he has set us back.. that is an opinion thing i guess
-
ha ha ha - that is the new tactic of Team Bama - "Hear no Evil - See no Evil"
fool thats just you.. i respont to Mcway BF Beach and others...just not you chicken little
-
fool thats just you.. i respont to Mcway BF Beach and others...just not you chicken little
::) ::)
Than why did you post in ths thread?
-
So how do you derive the statement...he has set us back.. that is an opinion thing i guess
Yup, in the end it's my opinion. I don't think anyone but people in the government who are privy to information that you and I aren't can offer anything but opinions.
-
More failures that the obamazombies like Mal, Benny, and the 95%'ers cheer on
________________________ ________________________ ________________
Nuclear treaty 'goes easy on Russia'
Dec 26 08:20 AM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=CNG.cdc63f449543115516a6ee1f2c569704.171&show_article=1
The new Russia-US nuclear arms pact may have been hailed as historic but analysts said that all Moscow really has to do is phase out Soviet-era missiles and warheads that are already out of date.
The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was ratified by the US Senate on Wednesday after a passionate months-long debate and given initial approval by Russia's State Duma lower house of parliament two days later.
It will face two more hearings in Russia and almost certainly come into force within the next few months.
The first nuclear pact in two decades has been feted as vital to global security because it reduces old warhead ceilings by an impressive 30 percent and sets a streamlined new inspection procedure designed to eliminate cheating.
The new START limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed long-range missiles -- including those fired from submarines -- and heavy bombers.
The two sides may also have up to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers and bombers.
But analysts said that Russia's real problem was that even these lower missile and launcher ceilings were too high for the country to keep pace with the United States.
Soviet-era missiles such as the Saber SS-22 are rapidly approaching their expiry date and technical specifications mean the weapon has no purpose if its nuclear warheads are taken out of commission.
"START is not the problem here," said the respected military commentator Alexander Golts. "The problem is that Russia has to retire more delivery vehicles because of 'old age' than it has the funds to produce."
The United States had 2,019 more warheads deployed on its launchers and bombers than Russia under START data reported by the US State Department in July 2009.
Independent estimates from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists said that in late 2009 the United States in fact had 2,200 "operational" nuclear warheads and 2,500 more warheads in reserve that could be activated if necessary.
Russia on the other hand was believed to have had a total of 2,600 operational long-range warheads covered by START.
But the required phase-out of old missiles is not the only thing working in Russia's favour. New counting rules will also allow it to attribute just one warhead per bomber even if it carries more -- a point insisted on by Moscow during the treaty negotiations.
National Defence magazine editor Igor Korotchenko told the RIA Novosti news agency that Russia was now likely to keep just 390 missiles and bombers as it looks to save money ahead of a new round of strategic reductions in 2020.
And Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov saw nothing but the treaty's advantages as he defended it parliament Friday.
"We will not have to make any cuts to our strategic offensive weapons," Serdyukov told sceptical lawmakers from the Communist opposition. "But the Americans -- they will indeed have to make some cuts."
"Serdyukov is right," said Moscow's Centre for Disarmament Director Anatoly Dyakov. "Russia has already met its launcher obligations. It only has 560 of those.
"We have more warheads. But if you take the old SS-20s out of commission -- they each have 10 warheads and have been in service 10 years past their expiry -- then you really do not need to take any additional measures," said Dyakov.
The feared SS-20 was eliminated under a landmark 1987 disarmament agreement but the Centre for Defence Information said that Russia now had 120 modified SS-N-20 missiles deployed on its submarines.
The maths also works in Russia's favour because START focuses exclusively on "strategic" nuclear weapons that are designed to destroy large populations or damage the enemy's ability to wage war.
These missiles are for the most part fired over great distances and have been the US weapon of choice during the Cold War.
The United States thus has a strategic superiority over Russia -- which in turn enjoys an advantage in "tactical" weapons used in smaller campaigns around its periphery.
A White House spokesman told Sunday's New York Times that Washington was now "seeking to initiate negotiations" with Moscow on tactical weapons and Russian lawmakers agreed that those talks would probably happen next.
"I am afraid that this is something Russia will not be able to avoid," the upper house of parliament's foreign affairs committee chairman Mikhail Margelov told Moscow Echo radio.
But he added: "We should definitely support START."
Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
-
More failures that the obamazombies like Mal, Benny, and the 95%'ers cheer on
________________________ ________________________ ________________
Nuclear treaty 'goes easy on Russia'
Dec 26 08:20 AM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=CNG.cdc63f449543115516a6ee1f2c569704.171&show_article=1
The new Russia-US nuclear arms pact may have been hailed as historic but analysts said that all Moscow really has to do is phase out Soviet-era missiles and warheads that are already out of date.
The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was ratified by the US Senate on Wednesday after a passionate months-long debate and given initial approval by Russia's State Duma lower house of parliament two days later.
It will face two more hearings in Russia and almost certainly come into force within the next few months.
The first nuclear pact in two decades has been feted as vital to global security because it reduces old warhead ceilings by an impressive 30 percent and sets a streamlined new inspection procedure designed to eliminate cheating.
The new START limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed long-range missiles -- including those fired from submarines -- and heavy bombers.
The two sides may also have up to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers and bombers.
But analysts said that Russia's real problem was that even these lower missile and launcher ceilings were too high for the country to keep pace with the United States.
Soviet-era missiles such as the Saber SS-22 are rapidly approaching their expiry date and technical specifications mean the weapon has no purpose if its nuclear warheads are taken out of commission.
"START is not the problem here," said the respected military commentator Alexander Golts. "The problem is that Russia has to retire more delivery vehicles because of 'old age' than it has the funds to produce."
The United States had 2,019 more warheads deployed on its launchers and bombers than Russia under START data reported by the US State Department in July 2009.
Independent estimates from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists said that in late 2009 the United States in fact had 2,200 "operational" nuclear warheads and 2,500 more warheads in reserve that could be activated if necessary.
Russia on the other hand was believed to have had a total of 2,600 operational long-range warheads covered by START.
But the required phase-out of old missiles is not the only thing working in Russia's favour. New counting rules will also allow it to attribute just one warhead per bomber even if it carries more -- a point insisted on by Moscow during the treaty negotiations.
National Defence magazine editor Igor Korotchenko told the RIA Novosti news agency that Russia was now likely to keep just 390 missiles and bombers as it looks to save money ahead of a new round of strategic reductions in 2020.
And Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov saw nothing but the treaty's advantages as he defended it parliament Friday.
"We will not have to make any cuts to our strategic offensive weapons," Serdyukov told sceptical lawmakers from the Communist opposition. "But the Americans -- they will indeed have to make some cuts."
"Serdyukov is right," said Moscow's Centre for Disarmament Director Anatoly Dyakov. "Russia has already met its launcher obligations. It only has 560 of those.
"We have more warheads. But if you take the old SS-20s out of commission -- they each have 10 warheads and have been in service 10 years past their expiry -- then you really do not need to take any additional measures," said Dyakov.
The feared SS-20 was eliminated under a landmark 1987 disarmament agreement but the Centre for Defence Information said that Russia now had 120 modified SS-N-20 missiles deployed on its submarines.
The maths also works in Russia's favour because START focuses exclusively on "strategic" nuclear weapons that are designed to destroy large populations or damage the enemy's ability to wage war.
These missiles are for the most part fired over great distances and have been the US weapon of choice during the Cold War.
The United States thus has a strategic superiority over Russia -- which in turn enjoys an advantage in "tactical" weapons used in smaller campaigns around its periphery.
A White House spokesman told Sunday's New York Times that Washington was now "seeking to initiate negotiations" with Moscow on tactical weapons and Russian lawmakers agreed that those talks would probably happen next.
"I am afraid that this is something Russia will not be able to avoid," the upper house of parliament's foreign affairs committee chairman Mikhail Margelov told Moscow Echo radio.
But he added: "We should definitely support START."
Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
hahahahahahahaahahahahah ahaaa...BREITBART.COM??????????????????????? Very reliable source of info 339.. ::)
-
How would Reagan have voted on START?
ooooooooooooooh burn ;)
-
More failures that the obamazombies like Mal, Benny, and the 95%'ers cheer on
________________________ ________________________ ________________
Nuclear treaty 'goes easy on Russia'
Dec 26 08:20 AM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=CNG.cdc63f449543115516a6ee1f2c569704.171&show_article=1
The new Russia-US nuclear arms pact may have been hailed as historic but analysts said that all Moscow really has to do is phase out Soviet-era missiles and warheads that are already out of date.
The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was ratified by the US Senate on Wednesday after a passionate months-long debate and given initial approval by Russia's State Duma lower house of parliament two days later.
It will face two more hearings in Russia and almost certainly come into force within the next few months.
The first nuclear pact in two decades has been feted as vital to global security because it reduces old warhead ceilings by an impressive 30 percent and sets a streamlined new inspection procedure designed to eliminate cheating.
The new START limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed long-range missiles -- including those fired from submarines -- and heavy bombers.
The two sides may also have up to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers and bombers.
But analysts said that Russia's real problem was that even these lower missile and launcher ceilings were too high for the country to keep pace with the United States.
Soviet-era missiles such as the Saber SS-22 are rapidly approaching their expiry date and technical specifications mean the weapon has no purpose if its nuclear warheads are taken out of commission.
"START is not the problem here," said the respected military commentator Alexander Golts. "The problem is that Russia has to retire more delivery vehicles because of 'old age' than it has the funds to produce."
The United States had 2,019 more warheads deployed on its launchers and bombers than Russia under START data reported by the US State Department in July 2009.
Independent estimates from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists said that in late 2009 the United States in fact had 2,200 "operational" nuclear warheads and 2,500 more warheads in reserve that could be activated if necessary.
Russia on the other hand was believed to have had a total of 2,600 operational long-range warheads covered by START.
But the required phase-out of old missiles is not the only thing working in Russia's favour. New counting rules will also allow it to attribute just one warhead per bomber even if it carries more -- a point insisted on by Moscow during the treaty negotiations.
National Defence magazine editor Igor Korotchenko told the RIA Novosti news agency that Russia was now likely to keep just 390 missiles and bombers as it looks to save money ahead of a new round of strategic reductions in 2020.
And Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov saw nothing but the treaty's advantages as he defended it parliament Friday.
"We will not have to make any cuts to our strategic offensive weapons," Serdyukov told sceptical lawmakers from the Communist opposition. "But the Americans -- they will indeed have to make some cuts."
"Serdyukov is right," said Moscow's Centre for Disarmament Director Anatoly Dyakov. "Russia has already met its launcher obligations. It only has 560 of those.
"We have more warheads. But if you take the old SS-20s out of commission -- they each have 10 warheads and have been in service 10 years past their expiry -- then you really do not need to take any additional measures," said Dyakov.
The feared SS-20 was eliminated under a landmark 1987 disarmament agreement but the Centre for Defence Information said that Russia now had 120 modified SS-N-20 missiles deployed on its submarines.
The maths also works in Russia's favour because START focuses exclusively on "strategic" nuclear weapons that are designed to destroy large populations or damage the enemy's ability to wage war.
These missiles are for the most part fired over great distances and have been the US weapon of choice during the Cold War.
The United States thus has a strategic superiority over Russia -- which in turn enjoys an advantage in "tactical" weapons used in smaller campaigns around its periphery.
A White House spokesman told Sunday's New York Times that Washington was now "seeking to initiate negotiations" with Moscow on tactical weapons and Russian lawmakers agreed that those talks would probably happen next.
"I am afraid that this is something Russia will not be able to avoid," the upper house of parliament's foreign affairs committee chairman Mikhail Margelov told Moscow Echo radio.
But he added: "We should definitely support START."
Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
LOL because i dont agree with you on everything.. i cheer on this.. i havent even read this.. and you wonder why no one takes your serious.
-
LOL because i dont agree with you on everything.. i cheer on this.. i havent even read this.. and you wonder why no one takes your serious.
ROFL ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
LOL because i dont agree with you on everything.. i cheer on this.. i havent even read this.. and you wonder why no one takes your serious.
""We will not have to make any cuts to our strategic offensive weapons," Serdyukov told sceptical lawmakers from the Communist opposition. "But the Americans -- they will indeed have to make some cuts."
Wait, Option D, are you saying there's a chance a Russian defense minister would ever posture militarily? Are you saying there's a chance a person from the russian govt might lie or slightly exaggerate?
33 takes them at their word. Just as he took the word of an admitted foreign carjacker and drug dealer (Obama's brother).
if you can't trust a russian govt agent or a drug dealing kenyan carjacker, who can ya trust? :)
-
""We will not have to make any cuts to our strategic offensive weapons," Serdyukov told sceptical lawmakers from the Communist opposition. "But the Americans -- they will indeed have to make some cuts."
Wait, Option D, are you saying there's a chance a Russian defense minister would ever posture militarily? Are you saying there's a chance a person from the russian govt might lie or slightly exaggerate?
33 takes them at their word. Just as he took the word of an admitted foreign carjacker and drug dealer (Obama's brother).
if you can't trust a russian govt agent or a drug dealing kenyan carjacker, who can ya trust? :)
Well he did spend $200 bil dollars a day in india..
-
More lies from Obama. You hacks still supporting the daily lie machine at 1600 PA Ave. should be ashamed of yourselves.
________________________ ____________________
Afghan Security Deteriorates
U.N. Maps Show Risks in Many Districts Have Increased Despite Troop Surge.
www.wsj.com
By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV
Internal United Nations maps show a marked deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan during this year's fighting season, countering the Obama administration's optimistic assessments of military progress since the surge of additional American forces began a year ago.
The Wall Street Journal was able to view two confidential "residual risk accessibility" maps, one compiled by the U.N. at the annual fighting season's start in March 2010 and another at its tail end in October. The maps, used by U.N. personnel to gauge the dangers of travel and running programs, divide the country's districts into four categories: very high risk, high risk, medium risk and low risk.
In the October map, just as in March's, nearly all of southern Afghanistan—the focus of the coalition's military offensives—remained painted the red of "very high risk," with no noted improvements. At the same time, the green belt of "low risk" districts in northern, central and western Afghanistan shriveled.
The U.N.'s October map upgraded to "high risk" 16 previously more secure districts in Badghis, Sar-e-Pul, Balkh, Parwan, Baghlan, Samangan, Faryab, Laghman and Takhar provinces; only two previously "high risk" districts, one in Kunduz and one in Herat province, received a safer rating.
A Pentagon report mandated by Congress drew similar conclusions when it was released last month. It said attacks were up 70% since 2009 and threefold since 2007. As a result of the violence, the Taliban still threaten the Afghan government, according to the report. The White House's National Security Council declined to comment.
The director of communications for the U.N. in Afghanistan, Kieran Dwyer, said he couldn't comment on classified maps. But, he said, "in the course of 2010, the security situation in many parts of the country has become unstable where it previously had not been so. There is violence happening in more parts of the country, and this is making the delivery of humanitarian services more difficult for the U.N. and other organizations. But we are continuing to deliver."
U.S.-led coalition forces operate in Afghanistan under a U.N. Security Council mandate, and the U.N. works hand-in-hand with the coalition on building up Afghan government institutions. The Taliban have repeatedly attacked U.N. buildings and personnel, labeling the U.N. an instrument of American imperialism.
A senior coalition official, asked if security in Afghanistan has deteriorated this year, said that coalition forces "have taken the offensive and are making deliberate and steady progress, though progress right now is still fragile and reversible."
He highlighted advances in Kandahar, Helmand and around Kabul, and said that a new program to raise local police forces "will reduce the insurgents' ability to intimidate the population" in areas where regular troop density isn't sufficient to maintain security.
The assessments of the U.N. accessibility maps, based on factors such as insurgent activity, political stability, coalition operations and community acceptance, contrast with President Barack Obama's recent statements that hail the coalition's progress in the war.
"Today we can be proud that there are fewer areas under Taliban control and more Afghans have a chance to build a more hopeful future," Mr. Obama told American troops during a visit to the Bagram Air Field northeast of Kabul earlier this month.
Most of the 30,000 U.S. surge troops deployed this year were sent to the Taliban heartland in the southern Kandahar and Helmand provinces, where they have been able to capture key insurgent strongholds. Though no longer under uncontested Taliban control, most of these areas remain a war zone, with frequent shootings and bombings.
As the coalition focused on the south, the insurgents fanned out during the year to the north and the west. In recent months, the Taliban seized control in areas of dozens of districts in those previously secure parts of the country, taking advantage of the sparse international troop presence there.
Many nongovernment organizations operating in Afghanistan dispute that any progress has been made by the coalition this year. According to preliminary statistics compiled by the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, which provides advice and coordination to NGOs working in the country, the number of insurgent-initiated attacks rose 66% in 2010 from the previous year.
"The country as a whole is dramatically worse off than a year ago, both in terms of the insurgency's geographical spread and its rate of attacks," said Nic Lee, director of the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office. "Vast amounts of the country remain insecure for the unarmed civilians, and more and more areas are becoming inaccessible."
-
Ha ha ha- another one wakes the fuck up.
________________________ ________________________ _________________
Source: Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Before leaving office, Lula slams US policy in Latin America
Dec 27, 2010, 19:58 GMT
Brasilia - Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, days before leaving office, again slammed the United States, complaining that the 'empire's' policies toward Latin America have persisted despite the election of leftwing US President Barack Obama.
'Nothing has changed in the US vision of Latin America, which makes me sad,' Lula told reporters at a breakfast meeting Monday in Brasilia.
Lula's handpicked successor, Dilma Rousseff, was elected on October 31 and takes office Sunday.
'The United States needs to realize the importance of its relations with Latin America, because of the proximity (to the region), because of the number of Latinos in the United States and because it is a peaceful continent,' Lula said.
He denounced that Washington persists in 'an empire's relations with poor countries.'
Read more: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/americas/news/ar...
-
Russian tactical nuclear weapons still an issue after START treaty ratification
washingtonpost.com ^ | December 27, 2010 | Walter Pincus
What to do about Russia's overwhelming advantage in tactical nuclear weapons was among several tough issues for the Obama administration that emerged from the Senate debate on the strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty. ....
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), who tried unsuccessfully to insert the tactical weapons issue into the START treaty preamble, said,"I hope and I urge that the president, the State Department and all the others involved will pursue this issue aggressively and quickly once we have this treaty behind us."
The Russians have some 3,800 tactical weapons, compared with less than 500 in the U.S. stockpile, Risch said.
"We are no longer going to look the other way and ignore this issue," he said. "They have an advantage on us on this issue. Everyone agrees with that." ....
Risch and other Republicans pointed out that as Russian troop levels have diminished, Moscow's military leaders have focused increasingly on tactical nuclear weapons.
"They continue cranking out ... new designs, new technology, new development and new production of these tactical weapons - continuing to add to the disparity," Risch said. "Some Russian military experts have written about use of very low-yield nuclear 'scalpels' to defeat NATO forces."
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who led the treaty debate opposition, chimed in on the tactical issue, saying, "I can't imagine anyone denying the fact that as we reduce our strategic offensive weapons, then the number of tactical nuclear weapons becomes all the more important, especially because of the large difference between the Russians and everyone else in the world."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
-
Ohh yeah! Russia>Blackmerica 2025!
-
Great article. It's not even two years into his term and yet Obama has managed to set this country farther back than any president we've ever had.
He works so fast that Obama...
-
Russian tactical nuclear weapons still an issue after START treaty ratification
washingtonpost.com ^ | December 27, 2010 | Walter Pincus
What to do about Russia's overwhelming advantage in tactical nuclear weapons was among several tough issues for the Obama administration that emerged from the Senate debate on the strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty. ....
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), who tried unsuccessfully to insert the tactical weapons issue into the START treaty preamble, said,"I hope and I urge that the president, the State Department and all the others involved will pursue this issue aggressively and quickly once we have this treaty behind us."
The Russians have some 3,800 tactical weapons, compared with less than 500 in the U.S. stockpile, Risch said.
"We are no longer going to look the other way and ignore this issue," he said. "They have an advantage on us on this issue. Everyone agrees with that." ....
Risch and other Republicans pointed out that as Russian troop levels have diminished, Moscow's military leaders have focused increasingly on tactical nuclear weapons.
"They continue cranking out ... new designs, new technology, new development and new production of these tactical weapons - continuing to add to the disparity," Risch said. "Some Russian military experts have written about use of very low-yield nuclear 'scalpels' to defeat NATO forces."
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who led the treaty debate opposition, chimed in on the tactical issue, saying, "I can't imagine anyone denying the fact that as we reduce our strategic offensive weapons, then the number of tactical nuclear weapons becomes all the more important, especially because of the large difference between the Russians and everyone else in the world."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Everybody gotten tired of America, no body knows Russia!
-
North Korea never shelled South Korean territory or sunk a South Korean ship while Bush was president. The best story 240 could muster is some embellished tale about them launching missiles at California.
No and there has been no 9/11 during Obama so that must mean he is better at keeping the US safe than Bush right?
-
::) ::)
Why do you libs tolerate Obama's failures so much? Seriously?
Im not a liberal so i dont tolerate his failures, but why do you tolerate the republicans failures so much ???
-
Bush bribed them, and they continued their nuke program.
Obama didn't bribe them, and they continue their nuke program.
So all obama has done here, is save us a shitload of $. That's cool.
:D
-
Bump -
Obama getting scolded and schooled by Putin today.
I guess the message via medvedev did not work out too well.
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
This is what happens when you elect someone with very little experience, a big ego, and poor leadership skills.
-
Incompetence combined w arrogance and narcissism is a very bad thing.
-
Obama looks like a pouty kid that didnt get his way, lulz.
Putin just looks annoyed.
-
Obama Warns Romney on Foreign Policy (Usurper whines: "We have one president at a time.")
Politico ^ | Tuesday, June 19, 2012 | Jennifer Epstein and Reid J. Epstein
Posted on June 19, 2012 8:59:25 PM EDT by kristinn
LOS CABOS, Mexico – President Barack Obama warned Mitt Romney and his advisers to not attack him on foreign policy, telling the press here that “we have one president at a time.”
Asked about a Romney adviser’s op-ed in a German newspaper last month critical of Obama’s economic plan, Obama argued that there’s a history of not letting domestic politics intercede in international conversations.
“I would point out that we have one president at a time and one administration at a time, and I think traditionally the notion has been that America’s political differences end at the water’s edge,” Obama said, speaking at the end of his two-day conference with world leaders here.
But Obama took issue with the Romney campaign’s version of discussions.
“I’d also suggest that he may not have been familiar with what our suggestions to the Germans have been. I think sometimes back home there is a desire to superimpose whatever ideological argument are taking place back home on a very complicated situation in Europe,” the president said.
Obama opened the press conference by ticking through progress he’d made with European leaders on addressing the debt crisis there, acknowledging that problems on the continent would reverberate in the American economy in ways that could hurt his political chances.
“I think it’s fair to say that any, all these issues, economic issues will potentially have an impact on this election. But that’s not my biggest concern right now,” Obama said. “My biggest concern is the same one I’ve had over the last three and a half years.”
There remained sticking points, though. Obama admitted that talks with Russia and China had not yet acheieved an international consensus on the future of Syria and President Bashar al-Assad.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
LOL!!!! Obama blames . . . . . . . . ..