Why the country cannot risk four more years of this guy

[Polk]

Please, support your claim that Obama has engaged in unilateral disarmament.

 

[copsnrobbers]

Lets not forget, all the Dems do is a secret until they've done it.

 

[Valerie]

"The greatest threat the US faces is a nuclear Iran ... [But] who is it who always stands up for the world’s worst actors? It’s always Russia, typically with China along side,” Romney said. “Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage.”


Russia Is Mitt Romney's 'Number One Foe' - Global - The Atlantic Wire

What’s at Stake

In a 1939 radio broadcast Winston Churchill famously called Russia “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” The line is quoted often. But most leave out the rest of Churchill’s statement, where he offered a key to understanding Russia, and “that key is Russian national interest.” What is Russia’s national interest today? At the risk of oversimplification, we can say that Vladimir Putin, who is seeking a third term as Russian president in 2012, aims above all else to preserve his power, stoking Russian nationalist passions to maintain popular support, and using wealth garnered from energy and arms sales to stave off economic calamity. With the Kremlin’s leverage over the energy supplies of Central and Western Europe, its stockpile of nuclear weapons, its recent history of aggressive military action, and the power it wields in multilateral institutions like the United Nations, Russia is a destabilizing force on the world stage. It needs to be tempered.


Obama’s Failure

President Obama famously sought to “reset” U.S. relations with Russia. The ambiguity of that term cannot mask that the Obama administration has failed to move Russia toward a more beneficial working relationship with the United States and our allies. President Obama began his reset policy by withdrawing, without reciprocal concessions, from President Bush’s plan to place a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move Russia strongly desired. He continued the same “we give, Russia gets” policy by signing the New START treaty in 2010. While the agreement compels the U.S. to reduce our nuclear launcher and warhead limits, the levels it sets for Russia are above what the Russians possessed at the time the agreement was reached. In other words, New START gave Russia room to expand its arsenal while requiring the United States to reduce our own. In any event, even if we put aside the demerits of the treaty, it was a squandered opportunity to extract concessions from the Russians that would have advanced our interests. Thus, President Obama failed to press for meaningful reductions not only in Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, but also in its extensive tactical nuclear force. And he failed to elicit Russian help in dealing with North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Russia

Someone needs to give Mitt Romney a math lesson. At the time New START was being drafted, the United States had around 1,200 deployed missiles and bombers and about 6,000 deployed warheads. Russia had 800 and 4,000, respectively. New START limits both nations to 700 and 1,550, respectively. I don't know where Mitt Romney learned math, but both of those numbers are lower than the amount Russia had deployed at the time.

No doubt Mitt Romney is much better at math than Obama ever was.


Maybe you're confused with the meaning of Mitt's statement...




MITT ROMNEY: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S COMMENTS TO MEDVEDEV ARE VERY TROUBLING - YouTube


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L2djPbbRak]MITT ROMNEY: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S COMMENTS TO MEDVEDEV ARE VERY TROUBLING - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Valerie]

Avoiding a bad nuclear deal with Iran
March 7, 2012


...


The U.S. goal is to halt Iran's nuclear activities, and that has not yet been accomplished -- Iran is spinning more centrifuges, and manufacturing more and higher-grade uranium than ever before.


If the upcoming round of talks, like previous iterations, fails to yield progress, the U.S. will be left with little recourse other than additional pressure, while Israel will have additional incentive to carry out a strike. But another alternative exists, which President Obama has yet to rule out -- that the U.S. will draw back our own redlines and accept a nuclear weapons-capable, if not nuclear -- armed, Iran. This would be a dangerous miscalculation.

While the official U.S. and U.N. Security Council stance has long been that Iran must halt uranium enrichment as part of any serious talks, Washington has demonstrated tactical flexibility in an effort to allow Iran to "save face" and get negotiations started.


...


Recently, however, there have been signs of a U.S. shift. In his speech on Sunday, the President assiduously referred only to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, not a nuclear weapons capability.


Likewise, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has asserted that the U.S. redline is that Iran not develop a nuclear weapon.


This leaves open the possibility of Washington acquiescing to a "latent" nuclear weapons capability, whereby Iran retains weapons-applicable components of its nuclear program, such its enrichment work, as long as it refrains from actually building a bomb.


Many analysts have urged President Obama to consider one of the various proposals that would allow Iran to continue enriching uranium, though perhaps under somewhat stronger supervision.


One of these is the so-called Russian proposal, under which Iran would address the IAEA's questions in phases and the West would reciprocally ease sanctions.


Another was the vague offer by Iranian President Ahmadinejad during his September visit to New York to cease Iran's production of highly-enriched uranium.

The allure of such a deal from the U.S. perspective is clear. Washington would cite the deal as a diplomatic triumph that averted war and limited Iran's nuclear capacity.


Likewise, the Iranian regime, having compelled the West to recognize its nuclear status and retained its enrichment program, would tout the pact as a victory.


In reality, allowing Iran to retain its uranium enrichment program would carry serious risks for the U.S. and our allies. The Institute for Science and International Security warns that "without [a halt to enrichment], Iran's enrichment program would continue to grow in capacity and increase Iran's ability to quickly, and perhaps secretly, make highly enriched uranium (HEU) for nuclear weapons in its centrifuge plants."

In other words, the Iranian regime would have its cake and eat it, too. The current sanctions drive would fizzle and existing sanctions would be eased or lifted. A military strike would effectively be taken off the table, including by Israel, which would likely feel constrained from attacking nuclear facilities blessed by the U.S. The Iranian regime, having succeeded in defying not only the U.S. but the entire Security Council, would be strengthened domestically. But the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons would not be removed; instead, Iran could perfect its nuclear expertise, stopping just one turn of the screw away from producing a nuclear weapon, or even building one clandestinely.

As our confrontation with Iran enters a new, more dangerous phase, the U.S. must avoid the temptation of redefining our redlines and objectives in a manner that fails to satisfy our national security requirements. To avert war and diffuse tensions through clever tactics and smart policies is admirable; to do so by abdicating our vital interests is not.

Nukes | Shadow Government

 

[Valerie]

Is This Thing On?
The worst "hot mic" blunders of all time...



Microphones caught Obama telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev after a meeting in Seoul that he would have more "flexibility" to deal with issues such as missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.

Here's a transcript and video of the exchange, per ABC News:

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you...

Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.


Is This Thing On? - By Uri Friedman | Foreign Policy





The dirty little secret about second-term presidents

The dirty little secret about second-term presidents | Daniel W. Drezner

 

[Valerie]

Obama to Russia: More flexibility after elections - World - The Boston Globe

Also Monday, Obama took North Korea’s new leader, Kim Jong Un, to task for its latest military provocations. Meeting with China’s president, Hu Jintao, before the summit, Obama pressed Hu to help stop Pyongyang from proceeding with a satellite launch next month.

The United States views the impending satellite launch as a missile test that would be a breach of North Korea’s international obligations. The White House was stung by the announcement, which came only 17 days after the Obama administration had tentatively agreed to send North Korea desperately needed food aid.

In a speech at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul, Obama said the United States will seek talks with Russia on steps to reduce the two countries’ arsenals of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, as well as the number of warheads they have in reserve.

...


The comments gave the GOP new openings to question his sincerity and long-range plans.

Mitt Romney, the leading Republican contender to face Obama this fall, told a San Diego audience the unguarded comments were “an alarming and troubling development.’’

“This is no time for our president to be pulling his punches with the American people, and not telling us what he’s intending to do with regards to our missile defense system, with regards to our military might and with regards to our commitment to Israel,’’ Romney said.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why the country cannot risk four more years of this guy.

That's what Republicans insisted, in......

....'96!!!!!

.

.

.

.

.

 

[Avatar4321]

Is the OP suggesting that the political landscape WON'T be altered after this election?
And that Obama is confident that he'll be in a better legislative position?

And THIS is what CONZ are upset about?
A confident President?

Well Boo Hoo.
Got an issue?
Here's a tissue!

A confident President? No. Not what we are concerned about at all.

We are concerned that an arrogant man who has already been flippant with the desires of the people and our rights will no longer be accountable to us and will have free reign to abuse his power and obstruct our rights further.

See, as conservatives we like liberty and justice. We don't want the people to be abused. I wish you felt the same way.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Please, support your claim that Obama has engaged in unilateral disarmament.

Obamabots....

SO in return for the US NOT keeping our commitment to defend our ally, Poland, what does Russia give up?

Nothing?

What is the meaning of "unilateral" in Obamabot land?

 

[candycorn]

Obama Hot Mic: Tells Russia He Needs ‘Space’ and Can be Flexible After Eleciton | Video | TheBlaze.com



Who knows what would even be left of the country after 4 more years of this guy, and without his being constrained by concerns for reelection.

If I were running against Mitt Romney, I wouldn't have any concerns either. Huntsman...now that would have been a different animal altogether.

 

[candycorn]

Is the OP suggesting that the political landscape WON'T be altered after this election?
And that Obama is confident that he'll be in a better legislative position?

And THIS is what CONZ are upset about?
A confident President?

Well Boo Hoo.
Got an issue?
Here's a tissue!

A confident President? No. Not what we are concerned about at all.

We are concerned that an arrogant man who has already been flippant with the desires of the people and our rights will no longer be accountable to us and will have free reign to abuse his power and obstruct our rights further.

See, as conservatives we like liberty and justice. We don't want the people to be abused. I wish you felt the same way.

Wow, you should do something about that....

Too late, Mitt's your guy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow, you should do something about that....

Too late, Mitt's your guy.

And a year from now, your president.

I'm just sayin...

 

[Polk]

Someone needs to give Mitt Romney a math lesson. At the time New START was being drafted, the United States had around 1,200 deployed missiles and bombers and about 6,000 deployed warheads. Russia had 800 and 4,000, respectively. New START limits both nations to 700 and 1,550, respectively. I don't know where Mitt Romney learned math, but both of those numbers are lower than the amount Russia had deployed at the time.

No doubt Mitt Romney is much better at math than Obama ever was.


Maybe you're confused with the meaning of Mitt's statement...




MITT ROMNEY: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S COMMENTS TO MEDVEDEV ARE VERY TROUBLING - YouTube


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L2djPbbRak]MITT ROMNEY: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S COMMENTS TO MEDVEDEV ARE VERY TROUBLING - YouTube[/ame]

Romney needs remedial math if he thinks 750 and 1550 are higher than 800 and 4000.

 

[Polk]

Please, support your claim that Obama has engaged in unilateral disarmament.

Obamabots....

SO in return for the US NOT keeping our commitment to defend our ally, Poland, what does Russia give up?

Nothing?

What is the meaning of "unilateral" in Obamabot land?

"Unilateral disarmament" requires disarmament to anyone who speaks English. Deciding to not base missiles in a place is not disarmament.

Moreover, missile placement doesn't have any material relevant to our commitment to defend Poland in event of attack.

 

[Dot Com]

So... having a confident President is bad when he has a veritable clown car full of opponents is troubling how?

 

[copsnrobbers]

as this year PROGRESSES" the liberals will have no rebut. They will see things as they should.
If not, They should move to a Marxist country.

 

[Nic_Driver]

I really do wonder what he intends to do when he is no longer beholden to the people.

Hopefully he'll close Gitmo, among other promises from his first election.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Unilateral disarmament" requires disarmament to anyone who speaks English. Deciding to not base missiles in a place is not disarmament.

Moreover, missile placement doesn't have any material relevant to our commitment to defend Poland in event of attack.

It will to those who die because we didn't deter.

I doubt Obama would actually support Poland, though.

 

[Erand7899]

You mean there's a chance we might not hand over a few trillion dollars to the defense lobby for a missile defense arms race?

You people really don't get it do you?

duh i guess we are all so stoopid.....we all (like our marxist prez) better listen to Medvedev telling us what we should do.....

Moscow rejects Washington's claim the plan is solely to deal with any Iranian threat and has voiced fears it will eventually become powerful enough to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent.

Read more here: Russia issues new warnings over US missile defense - World - TheState.com

gosh now....we wouldn't want that would we.......?

Medvedev is not telling us what to do. He's stating his country's concerns, which happen to perfectly valid. And no, we don't really have an incentive to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. Having that ability is only important if you seriously think Russia is going to launch a first strike, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Since it is extremely unlikely that the United States would launch a first strike against the Russians, there is no reason for the Russians to be concerned that a missile defense would be a problem for them. I imagine that you would agree that the United States can also have valid concerns about missiles from Iran, and the number of interceptors necessary for that defense would have little impact on a Russian nuclear deterrent.

 

[HomeInspect]

THIS HAS BEEN AROUND, BUT SHOULD BE WATCHED EVERY WEEK
Marxism in America - Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. "Jerry" Boykin Video |