Posted on 09/17/2009 10:41:31 PM PDT by arkadyka
(Former Indy Mind blog)
“Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Except when dealing with the Russians. My veins pump with Russian blood and today was an inferior foreign policy strategist bending under the might of the Russian hammer. There are two very distinct approaches to today's move and both have to be considered.
If you think scrapping Bush's missile shield was anything other than a gift to the Russians, think again. This is a country whose population and leadership crave power and control, always have and always will. With their economy reeling and their influence marginalized they will do anything in their power to exert influence over the inferior European countries. Just like they plowed into Georgia for the sake of expansion, they will do the same in every other region under the pretext of unification. Of course after they have wrongly implanted their brethren in every corner of Europe, this pretext becomes hard to swallow. We must never forget that the Russian people in large part crave authoritarian leadership for no other reason then to feel important. With half of the Russian youth thinking Stalin did more good than bad one almost feels OK with our burgeoning Truther population. That being said, should America take it upon itself to curb the resurgence of the Iron Curtain?
(Excerpt) Read more at rightcondition.com ...
Anything this man does is suspect. Period.
Right move ? Yes, for a Communist
Something tells me, this isn't a decision Reagan would have made. Nuff said.
Huh?
Right move only if you want to leave Europe and Israel unprotected....and 0bama wants to do just that.
President Bush would never have done this.
After cruising some lefty websites, I get the feeling this was done on the Day the Soviets invaded for a REASON.
To send a VERY clear mesage that being “Bush’s little Helper” (KOS quote), has a penalty, and that the US cares more about Russian relations, than it does about them.
PEACE IN OUR TIME!!
By selling out our allies.
Can ANYONE tell me how this benefits the United States?
BOTH Lech Walesa, and Vaclev Havel have spoken out against this. These people freed MILLIONS from Soviet slavery, and cans ee what is happening.
Havel compared it to Roosevelt’s sellout of Eastern Europe to 50 years of Communist slavery.
And Obama DOES see himself as FDR...
From article: “America should always act in a way consistent with preserving it’s safety.”
And I suppose that not having forward-deployed missile shields do not help provide an early response to an attack on our troops and the US mainland? Is that not the definition of national security. BHO is utilizing the Carter approach: Apologize for our “past sins”, Disarm our military, to the point where our forces get EMBARRASSED at the hands of a puny nation like they did in 1979 Iran. Anyone see the problem here
Agreed. Obama is in WAY over his head. He MUST be either stupid or evil.
Let me get this...........we DON’T deploy land base missiles that can intercept incoming missiles in minutes...instead we send a cruiser that takes days to get there to intercept them.....When AFTER they hit their target....unbelievable...
The shadow
Do not over react, I am simply saying that having defensive positions is awfully expensive. If we continue defending Europe they will continue to rely on - we can’t protect everyone!
That is, right now there is no reason to be offensive...
President Bush is not a benchmark one should adhere to.
This does not affect Israel directly, but one again - why should we protecting Europe with our money and resources?
Poland and the Czech Republic must be disappointed with the loss of income from abandoned construction projects. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.