35 Replies to “Chosen Vladimir Putin’s “Comrade Of The Decade””

  1. This story broke a couple of weeks ago and no one wanted to report it? Hilary and her staff have been quietly going around dismantling America’s might.
    Of course if it was Michael Jackson rose again…they just might have paid attention.
    I sure wouldn’t want to live in Israel…I think they are next on the white house list!

  2. Obama is a lot of things but the Dem war hawks are as clandestine as ever. I have nothing much good to say about Dem domestic policy but they have stayed the course in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    I wonder if this was a brokered deal with Russia in return for non interference in Iran – particularly if The US uses Israel as a surrogate to missile attack Iran’s nuke facilities.

  3. I think Israel will attack Iran regardless of what the US does. You don’t get annihilated to make friends. Israel really has no choice.

  6. Obama’s Aegis battleships can be sunk by the Chicom and Norks, as opposed to Bush’s land based systems. The guy is clueless.

  8. “Instead, after a comprehensive review, ”
    WTF???? The only thing this commie has comprehensively reviewed is his own belly button.
    Stalin must be having a great laugh at his newest useful idiot.

  9. Hanging allies out to dry, bowing to mecca.
    *Speedy, I hope Israel waits, if they attack Iran first, it is as Henry Kissinger said, they’ll be on their own.
    Perhaps, this will encourage the Iranians, to speed up their process and stated goal of eliminating Israel.

  10. The Soviets invaded Poland on Sept. 17, 1939, this
    should send an appropriate message to U.S. allies.
    We now have pieces in our time, on this go-round.

  11. “Today we’re all Georgians” John McCain 08′
    This message obviously has fallen on deaf ears.
    I said a few times that BO intends to gain favor with America’s foes at the expense of America’s friends. I believe this “Kumya” policy is but a guise, and Americans have bought into the idea, though false, that America’s foes are not foes at all. This is the justification for new policy directions at the expense of Americas friends.
    The way I see it is as follows: Today liberals and Democrats are not in line with respect to the foreign policy of their political ancestors. Today liberals and Democrats and their beliefs are more in line with traditional conservative and Republican views, and vice versa. I’ll call them “Ron Pau Views(RPV) for short.
    If you accept this premise, then you can extend the logic to thinking that isht happening overseas isn’t our concern, or problem; therefore, it’s a waste of money.
    Finally and most importantly, BO must find money to fund his agenda. These cuts are political! JMO

  13. The question that needs to be asked, though, is what does the USA gain from fighting Europe’s battles.
    The US has spent blood and treasure protecting Europe against…. itself, basically (Germany, Russia)
    What do they get? More or less universal disrespect or downright hatred across most of Europe. Yes, the Poles were good in the last couple of decades. Would that have lasted? I dunno – gratitude seems to last a generation.
    In the upcoming world, Europe will ally with Islamic and North African nations. Competitors to the US will the India and China.
    The US would be wiser, it seems to me, to focus their attention on South America, where demographics and resources are somewhat favourable. Chavez won’t be around forever. A North/South American power block would be able to compete with the other powerful blocks. The US, alone, probably would not. Europe is moving away from the Americans, and towards Africa / Arabia. America does not have much future in that configuration.
    An argument can be made for leaving the Europeans to their own devices.
    Just saying….

  14. http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/09/17/so-president-obama-says-we-have-something-better.php
    excerpt:
    President Obama said it’s ok if we scrap the missile defense system that we have spent billions of dollars developing, testing, and perfecting because we have something better.
    Really? I call bullshit.
    There is nothing better than our current missile defense system. We know it works because we have tested it over and over again. We have spent many years and billions of dollars publicly testing and perfecting our land based missile defense system. We tested it publicly as a show of force so all hostiles knew what our capabilities were. It sent a message that we could shoot down anything they shot at us or our allies.
    And we have just dismantled it in Europe.
    So we have something better? Why haven’t we read anything in the news that we were testing a new mobile missile defense shield? That’s because Obama pulled the entire idea out of his butt at the last minute, which is why we are just hearing about it now.

  15. “”””File that one under “Know your enemy””””
    and the nme is within, his name is OwebamaRahm

  16. Let me get this straight:
    The missile shield was supposed to be a defence against Iran.
    Moscow said they saw it as something aimed at them.
    Oh no, you silly paranoid Russians, it has nothing to do with you, they were told ad nauseum.
    Now that it is apparently being abandoned we are told that Moscow is being appeased and Washington will no longer protect Europe against Russia.
    So, were the Russians right all along and it always was aimed at them?
    I’m confoosed

  17. “n argument can be made for leaving the Europeans to their own devices.”
    It was only partially about Europe: the base would also function as a third tracking link, which made the whole system work or at least enabled it to work more efficiently in protecting North America.
    As for idiot boy’s strategy, apparently the plan is to make russia happy so they’ll be tough with iran. This is the sort of half-assed pretend strategy which he regards as clever. Plus, it’s heavy on the appeasement and grovelling element.

  20. Let’s all be clear that these missiles had little to do with Iran, and much to do with bringing Poland and the Czechs under the Nato umbrella, in protection from the Russians.
    Now, I will say that I am with Obama on this move. I’ve always considered Bush’s move “a missile defense too far”, and still believe that the US could not afford to extend that far at this time, especially with the European incalcitrance to the US.
    Global reach and influence starts with economic strength at home, and always depends on it. The US for the last decade has been reaching out without that requisite strength.

  21. As Canadians we have to be careful when we refer to Europe as using USA defenses,we too have done this for many years. Yet when the great appeaser does this some tells me this is not an act of lets get tuff but more like I like the the Russian idea of democracy!

  23. Nauseating. The collapse in world order – such as it is and it largely has been very peaceful since the Clinton years – that this retreat will ultimately will cost billions perhaps trillions and an inestimable. Number of lives to restore. And equally worrying is the fact that BO may have made the US financially too weak to do it.

  24. Once again the Ukraine and Poland experience treachery, not just from Russia but from the West, the same way Hungary and Czechoslovakia did in the past. Brown is not Thatcher (he hasn’t the balls) and Obama certainly is no Reagan. Perhaps Benedict will be John Paul? It remains to be seen, of course as Stalin asked,”How many brigades does the Pope have?” His descendants were to find out.

  25. This is his worst move so far. It pisses me off because he thinks more of his enemies than the people that have actually fought for him.
    When you undercut your friends to make deals with your enemies…I’m truly worried about what is going to come of this and the inevitable mistakes to follow.

  28. It’s not a good deal if you’re on the receiving end of the bomb! I have however read a lot about this technology–it was deeply flawed. And if the USA’s military has the technology, it doesn’t take long to build the missile. Hope we never have to use it!

  29. Obama’s Aegis battleships can be sunk by the Chicom and Norks, as opposed to Bush’s land based systems. The guy is clueless.
    Posted by: Aaron at September 17, 2009 6:53 PM ”
    huh?
    land based missiles are the 21st century equivalent of the maginot line and all those fixed fortifications of the napoleanic era.
    submarines and truck transport based systems pop out of nowhere, launch and vanish moments after the missile reaches altitude.
    bush is the clueless one.

  33. Obama shows himself to be weak and therefore dangerous. It is foolhardy to make concessions without getting something in return. The lesson for leaders of various thugocracies is remain intractable and wait for Obama to cave. And cave he will. If this guy knew any history, he would understand that appeasing bullies never works.

  34. The enemy is within the gates. His name is obama. I long for a military coup to remove this kenyan imposter.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation