EDITORIAL: America’s Chamberlain

obama+chamberlain

EDITORIAL

America’s Chamberlain

Just as LR publisher and founder Kim Zigfeld predicted would occur two weeks ago in her Pajamas Media column, U.S. President Barack Obama has shamefully stabbed America’s allies in Poland and Czech Republic in the back by withdrawing America’s proposal to install a ballistic missile defense system in their countries.  Advantage, Russia. Not by any cleverness on the part of the Russians, mind you, but simply because of the American president’s lack of backbone, and brain.

Vladimir Putin is cheering Obama, calling him “brave.”   It is truly psychotic for a man from whose mouth so much vitriolic anti-American rhetoric has issued would think he could deliver compliments and be taken seriously.  It is truly undeniable proof of the depths to which the Obama administration has so quickly sunk that it is being praised as serving the interests of Russia by a proud KGB spy who has wiped out the last traces of American values in Russia.

But what Putin isn’t doing is offering any concecessions of any kind in return regarding Iran.  Instead, Putin is merely giving reassurances that Russia won’t now station offensive ballistic missiles near Eastern Europe, something Russia never indended to do before President Bush established the shield initiative several years ago.  And then he’s demanding even more concessions!

This cowardly, misguided and treacherous act by Barack Obama will live in infamy just like the similar misdeeds of British rogue Neville Chamberlain which led to World War II.  Russian hawks, just like Hitler, will see Obama’s action in only one way:  As weakness.  Like dogs fed from the table, they will only want more and more concessions from the U.S., and will believe they can get them without making concessions in return. Russia is being rewarded for its horrific aggression against Georgia and its crazed anti-American rhetoric, not punished.  The Obama administration has not taken one single tangible policy step to protect Georgia or to push back Russian attacks on American values and security interests.

Obama is breaking Ronald Reagan’s sage advice, which was itself based on a Russian adage:  “Trust but verify.”  Obama has confirmed he is what he appears to be, a weak-minded neophyte totally unable to realize the threats his nation faces and the obligations it has to worldwide democracy.

Which will be the first former Soviet state butchered and enslaved by Putin because of Obama’s weakness? Which one will become to Putin was Czechoslovaki was to Hitler? Will it be Georgia? Ukraine? Kazakhstan?  Will there be a military invasion? An assasination? Or will the local government sponaneously “decide” it wants to be enslaved by Russia once again?

No matter, the fault will be Obama’s, just as the fault for Hitler’s invasion of Poland lay with Chamberlain.

103 responses to “EDITORIAL: America’s Chamberlain

  1. Georgia has already been invaded, but the assassination of Mikheil Saakashvili is a definite possibility.
    Obama would do well to remember Putin’s own response to the massacre at Beslan, “Weak people are beaten.”

    • Putinania, you lie. Putin never said that. Can you prove you are right with a link?

      • Yes Putin did say it:

        “Perhaps the turning point for Putin was on the night of September 4, 2004 when he appeared on television after the siege by Chechen militants of Beslan school that left 331 children and adults dead.

        With Russia shattered and humiliated, Putin looked back with nostalgia to the Soviet Union which he described as a “great state… unfortunately not compatible with the modern world.”

        And he bluntly acknowledged that the new Russia had “showed weakness” in dealing with the challenges of the modern world and it was now time to show more toughness.

        “The weak get beaten,” Putin said.

        Only the original Russian — “A slabykh – byut” — can convey the terseness of the earthy street talk that is Putin’s trademark and harks back to his tough upbringing in a communal apartment in Leningrad.”

        http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/the-weak-get-beat-putin-marks-10-years-in-power-20090807-ebo6.html

        “MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) — Russian President Vladimir Putin has called the hostage massacre in Beslan an attack on the entire country and made a surprising admission of weakness in the face of terrorism.

        Speaking to his nation in a televised address Saturday, the Kremlin leader said the Soviet Union’s collapse had left the country unable to react to attacks and warned: “Weak people are beaten.””

        http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/04/russia.putin/index.html

        Care to apologise “at”??

        • Yes. There was this phrase by Putin. To my defenses, even knowing Putin’s speech, I did not recognize the quote used so much out of the context. Clearly, Putin did not say this to justify any beating on weak. Putin’s quote meant that, unless we grow stronger, we will be beaten. This, however, shows that half-truth is a lie as well.

          Sorry Putinania, you are not a straightforward liar. You are a propagandist.

          • at, you are both a liar and a propagandist.

            Not to mention a sore looser and bad sport.

            But then again that sums up Russia.

            • Where did I lie?

              I am just expressing a few opinions on the subject I think I am familiar with.

              Why am I a loser? Why am I sore? What makes me bad sport? I’ve admitted my mistake. I don’t think I lied on this blog. I think, Putinania’s comment shows comments out of the context can be misunderstood and used as a propaganda tool.

              Most importantly what makes me a propagandist and what is my propaganda statement?

              • Considering you lied about Putinina being a liar, and you are an apologist/propagandist for the neofascist Russian state.

                What was the propaganda in what Putinina said?

                He/She was simply quoting a statement by Putin and saying Obama should try to understand “Weak people get beaten”

                In relation to an agressive political expansionist policy currently being undertaken by Putin-Medvedev, where they expect to be able to dictate the domestic and foreign policy of states formerly (and in some cases currently) oppressed/invaded/ethnicly cleansed by Russia, this comment is particularly relevant.

                Thge traditional Russian responce to concessions is to become more agressive, just like Hitler.

                • Andrew, an honestly — and immediately — admitted mistake is not a lie. An apologist is not the same as a propagandist. Yes, it is my conviction that, under the current regime, the Russians are better off than under any previous administration. Hence, the support for Putin and the reluctance to change. But I do not practice any propaganda: “propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist” . I argue my points honestly.

                  My problem with Putinania is what he tries to achieve using the quote that, outside the context, has changed its meaning beyond recognition. Putin was using it in response to a situation where the Russians were attached, and the enemy exploited the weakness of Russia. Putin meant this is bound to repeat unless Russia becomes strong. He was not advocating violence against the weak, which Putinania comment inferred, and definitely, it is no proof that “The traditional Russian response to concessions is to become more aggressive”.

                  Besides, the Russian do not see this as a concession. The Russians understood clearly well they could not do anything to prevent the program if the US was to go ahead with it, and there was a planned response. Now, there will be no missiles in Poland and no response from Russia. This is called de-escalation.

                  In my personal view, the program was no threat to Russia and the Russian response was overblown. At the same time, it serves no US or Polish/Czech interests. Obama’s solution is a face-saving option for everyone.

                  • Putnina was saying that Obama needs to listen to what Putin said after Beslan, because Obama is being weak, and “weak people get beaten”.

                    The missile systems basing in Poland, and the reciprocal deal modernising Polands defence forces, including ultra modern defensive SAM’s such as the Patriot, and modern fighters for the Polish Air Force, not to mention access to nadvanced (ie non warsaw pact period) ATGM’s, Tanks, and Artillery systems, would greatly benefit Poland in a political situation where Russia expects Poland, Georgia, the Baltic republics, Ukraine etc to bow to its will as part of Moscows self proclaimed “sphere of priviledged interests”

                    I hope you understand the reason why Russia is mistrusted and in most cases hated by these former imperial possessions of the Tsarist and Communist Russian empires.

                    • I have no problem with East Europeans mistrusting Russia. Russia can hardly do anything immediately to change this attitude. Even a of 1000 apologies about Katyn won’t do this. Hopefully, the change in attitudes will come with generational change etc.

                      The proclaim goal of the ABM defense system was to balance the threat from Iran, wasn’t it. If you don’t believe there is such a threat (I don’t), the system does not serve the American interests. Also, to say that the system benefits Poland and the Czech Republic is to doubt the effectiveness of the NATO. Isn’t the NATO membership a sufficient guarantee that the Russian interests are balanced (I am convinced it is).

                    • Actually “at”, attitudes towards Russia are much more negative in the younger generations in Poland, Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic republics, as these youth have received a real historical education, and have a far better understandings of the evils comitted in their countries by Russian occupiers.

                      The big problem for easten Europeans regards NATO is that Germany is also mistrusted, particularly in the case that Germany, and to a lesser extent France, are not prepared to allow NATO to do defence planning for the new members, and a strong alliance with the US is therefore required.

                      In reality, the only effective members of NATO by willingness to contribute to the defence of new members are the USA, UK, Canada and Norway.
                      The rest of the old members are content to hide behind the Anglo-Saxon-Scandanavian shield, and are content to throw the new members under the bus.

                      This is the funniest thing about Russia and Russians feeling threatened by NATO, because in order for NATO to attack Russia, all members would have to agree, and that would never happen.

                      NATO is primarily a defensive alliance.

                    • Well, there were evils committed by the Polish occupiers against the Ukrainians, the Ukrainian occupiers against the Polish, the Polish occupiers against the Russians. Every country in Europe has been in both roles multiple times. Luckily, the old wounds heal. This shall pass too. If NATO is useless and the shield was against Russia, why did Poland join NATO and why the US has never considered an honest and straightforward assistance program for Poland against Russia. Also, did American presidents lie when they said the shield was not about Russia?

          • It’s a very (in)famous quote – one of his most well-known (next to “waste them in the toilets”, “it sank” and “hang him by his balls”), don’t pretend you don’t know it. For example,

            ‘The weak get beat’: Putin marks 10 years in power
            http://www.france24.com/en/20090806-weak-get-beat-putin-marks-10-years-power

            Yes, so well-known it’s being used to define Putin.

            One would only wonder what “weakness” they showed in carpet-bombing Grozny (so it become the entire planet’s most ruined city, according to the UN), killing tens of thousands of people and “disappearing” thousands more even as roughly only 1 million people lived there, in running torture camps and using more land mines per square kilometer than anyone else in the world outside the Korean DMZ, and of course using flamethrowers, artillery (tank cannons) and so on during their “hostage rescue operation” in Beslan.

            • The Russians loved “waste them in the toilets” and “hang him by his balls”. “It sank” — not so much. I also said “To my defenses, even knowing Putin’s speech, I did not recognize the quote used so much out of the context. Clearly, Putin did not say this to justify any beating on weak. Putin’s quote meant that, unless we grow stronger, we will be beaten. This, however, shows that half-truth is a lie as well.”

              Yet I think both you and Putinania try to change its meaning, which was “we were weak, so they beat us”, not “the week should be beaten”

              • @The Russians loved “waste them in the toilets” and “hang him by his balls”. “It sank” — not so much.

                What about “the weak get beaten”, cool or not?

                • In the context, we “will get beaten if we don’t get stronger” — true. In no case it implied or should be interpreted as “we will beat on whomever is weaker”.

                  • And how do you understand “being weak” in this context? What was this “weakness”?

                    I thought he showed how “strong” leader he was and how “strong” Russia was in Chechnya in the 5 years before this day? And was elected and kept popular precisely on this “strenght” factor?

                    Btw, 3 years later:

                    Mr Putin rubbed salt into the wounds of Beslan’s mothers when, in a recent press conference, he reeled off a list of his successes and said there had been “no serious failures” during his eight years in power.
                    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putins-legacy-is-a-massacre-say-the-mothers-of-beslan-787280.html

                    Guess there were no weaknesses after all. And this was just some more collateral damage, and an another success.

                    • (4 years)

                    • – being weak is not to be able to stand up to terrorists effectively, to let what happened in Beslan happen;

                      – on Chechnya, yes, so what?

                      – …on “rubbed salt” — not the best thing to say, clearly.

                      – on “Guess there were no weaknesses after all” — appreciate the sarcasm, but clearly there were both weaknesses and mistakes, last time I checked Russia was not at the top of any world rankings…nor it was at the bottom of any world rankings.

                    • No, its just “near the bottom” on pretty much all of them that matter. Life expectancy, corruption, you name it.

                    • GDP — not nearly the at bottom. In any case, Andrew, I would rather live in Moscow than in Mumbai, Sao Paolo, Kinshasa or Chistau. I would rather live in Rome and Paris than in Moscow. This is really what matters to me.

  2. LR, I believe your assessment of Obama is skewed. Obama does not lack backbone, chutzpah or what ever you want to call it. He lacks patriotism and loyalty to the oath of office. His idea of America is to have Lady Liberty groveling in the dirt like some raped woman. It is not cowardace which drives his actions but a desire to convert this democracy into some authoritarian’s personal playground. Does anyone really believe Pres. BO is appalled by the actions of Putin et al. No, BO is nothing more than a wolf (my apologies to all Canis Lupis out there) pathetically trying to squeeze into sheeps clothing. Read Saul Alinksy and realize BO grew up being feed this. He does not like the United States which gave him the opportunities he has, he wants this country to be a mirror image of what Venezula and Russia are.

    I know you know Russia, but do not kid yourself that what is in the United States is any different. The support for the likes of Nemstov, Koslowsky (sp?) and the others will come from the rank and file American patriots who do see what is happening and are appalled by it. So keep your blog rolling, don’t give up.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:

    There we go again, being too soft on our enemies by half! We really must learn to toughen up a bit!

  3. Editor,

    Unfortunately this time I say you’re completely wrong. The decision to cut out the ground-based missile defense is smart and hurts Russia. While most spectators have focused on how the theatrical missile defense capability (providing 10 missile interceptors built for pork) is withdrawn I must remember what is being installed instead.

    First, US Navy ships start patrolling closer to Russia. In addition to their anti-ballistic missiles (ABM’s) they carry powerful armament more than enough to sweep off the Russian naval forces in the Black Sea and Baltic. Second, their anti-air missile armament (SM-2 and SM-6 missiles) have enough range to cover the Baltic States, much of the Poland and Romania. While they can’t handle air defense completely by themselves, together with small NATO fighter deployment they’re more than enough to face the antiquated Russian Air Forces.

    Second, the ground based missile defenses are going to be redesigned, not to be cut out. Instead of fixed, easy to destroy sites of large GMD’s, the US forces will use modified naval missiles which are more numerous, easier to install and above all, survivable via being transportable.

    Overall, instead of NATO being given the ability to stop the odd Iranian missile the NATO is being given ability to stop the masses of Russian tactical missiles. The difference is enormous and for NATO defenses, crucial.

    Overall, the Obama’s decision to cut out one bad system in favor of better ones seems like a good decision.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:

    You may think so, but the problem is that Obama doesn’t agree with you. If he did, he would have made a speech which said: “I’m cutting missile defense, but here’s what I’m doing to get even tougher with the Russians.” He didn’t do that, and Putin is now spitting in his eye. What ever YOU understand, Putin understands weakness.

    Even the butt-kissing NYT admits that Obama’s foreign policy tactics have failed to deliver any benefits to the US:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/politics/20prexy.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=global-home&adxnnlx=1253433913-nCTagL4JZ1DlvVIsbiejUQ

    • La Russophobe,

      In this case, Obama does not need to speak as Gates did it instead:

      To put it simply:

      – Bush BMD program: 10 GMD interceptors which are not yet working put into vulnerable positions in Poland

      -Obama (Gates) BMD program: 100 – 1000 proven SM-3 interceptors, to be replaced in turn by more efficient versions (larger booster).
      Obama’s version will also install land-based interceptors by 2015.

      The difference for anti-Russian NATO mission is that the Obama’s version will install proven warfighting capabilities very close to Russia instead of Bush version-s pork interceptors.

      What I do disagree with is that Obama’s adminstration has given opportunity for Russia to proclaim this as a “victory”. Far too much leeway has been given for Russian “honour”. And this is what I’m completely agreeing with you.

      BTW, most of the time I think the blog you’re running is right on mark.

  4. The anti missile program was unproven and would not have been in place till 2017 at the earliest.

    It has been replaced with a system that works today.

    The homo-erotic poser Putin, of course will spin this as a “win”. But if you read the New York Times article by Gates

    “… the decision to drop the initial plan was a “pragmatic” one, scolding those who he said provided a “devoted following” to missile defence plans that were “unworkable, prohibitively expensive and could never be practically deployed”.

    “I have found since taking this post that when it comes to missile defence, some hold a view bordering on theology that regards any change of plans or any cancellation of a program as abandonment or even breaking faith,”

    Presumably Obama acted on the advice of this Republican appointed Defence Secretary, so it is probably unfair to call Obama an apeaser of Russia.

    The opinions of the Russian goverment are no longer taken too seriously anymore as they are no longer seen as a threat to the US.

    So the homo-poser Putin and Dima Midget can prance around spinning it as a “win”, but in reality the US doesn’t factor them as a consideration as they are so weak.

  5. Obama’s desire to make friends with the most anti-democratic and socialist regimes (e.g. Honduras’ failed coup, Russia, Iran and others) is predictable and completely in sync with his desire to apologize to every dictatorship and betray every ally. He is Jimmy Carter on stupidity steroids and we have to wait until Americans wise up as they did when they clued into Ronald Reagan.

    Unfortunately, it proves that democracy is at best a temporary solution to human societal ills and eventually a robot army will be needed to rule humanity.

    MACHINES ARE SUPERIOR.

    • I agree.

      Obama is not only too soft. He is also too squishy.

      [img]http://www.geocities.com/terminatorcentral/t2pics/t2intro.jpg[/img]

  6. Medvedev called him, check this out, “comrade”.

    Russia’s Medvedev hails ‘comrade’ Obama
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gEo4B1heuBvO6KK7EiBHKigO1UrA

    Dmitry Medvedev hails Barack Obama as ‘comrade’
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/5096817/Dmitry-Medvedev-hails-Barack-Obama-as-comrade.html

    • poluchi fashist granatu

      One day, we will all be comrades.

      With the exception of the rabid Russophobes, of course. Fascists are never comrades.

      • @Fascists are never comrades.

        Really? They called each other camerata (Italy), kamerade (Germany) and so on.

        • Btw: comrade Fashist, could you answer my question regarding the suicide bombers in Russia?

          To remind you (using direct quotes from your ravings):

          Mr. Fashist, before you kill yourself with a granatu in order to stop polluting Gaia: Do you actually “consider things from their perspective” often? How do you feel about their opinion about Mother Russia, and why do you think “they hate you so much that they’re willing to blow themselves up with you”? Just curious.

          • Well, they want to live in the Caucasus Emirate under the Shariah law and believe that they will go to heaven if they die for this cause. I thought this was obvious. I personally respect their opinion, but disagree with them and favor oppossing them by, in part, resisting them militarily. Poverty alleviation would also be an effective means for that, but clearly its a more difficult means to utilize.

            • Only if you have a neo-fascist government like the one currently favoured by ethnic Russians.

              Real democracies don’t seem to have the same problems (they do of course have different problems but thats life).

              Look at the squandering of all that oil/gas money by Putin and co.

              As for “Russians are better off than ever before” maybe in St.Petersburg and Moscow, but my wifes uncle (who works for the finance ministry of the RF) tells me that things are far worse in the monocities than even the worst stories let on.

              Russia has a truly corrupt government, with dictatorial tendencies, by the time you wake up it will be too late.

              • Oh, come on Andrew, mixing up everything again: Islam, Nazism, oil and comparison to the USSR. Re:

                Real democracies in Europe and America don’t seem to have the same problems — old democracies have dealt with the issue of indigenous cultures/ populations in the past centuries through real genocide, and do not have provinces that are culturally/religiously different from the rest of these countries. In countries where there are such regions, there are similar problems (Indonesia, India, China).

                Look at the squandering of all that oil/gas money by Putin and co. — who would guarantee someone else would do better. Look at the US financial mismanagement, which brought about the financial crisis or Georgia that became the poorest state in the region from the richest USSR republic.

                As for “Russians are better off than ever before” maybe in St.Petersburg and Moscow, but my wifes uncle (who works for the finance ministry of the RF) tells me that things are far worse in the monocities than even the worst stories let on. True, but there were monocities in Britai in the 1970 — democracy is no guarantee for prosperity (e.g. India — a horrible place)

                Russia has a truly corrupt government, with dictatorial tendencies, by the time you wake up it will be too late. There is nothing new about this, and still it is better than all the former governments for now.

                • @or Georgia that became the poorest state in the region from the richest USSR republic.

                  I don’t think it used to be “the richest”, but anyway the economy there is MUCH better than in Russia’s neighbouring Ingushetia, Dagestan and (obviously here) Chechnya – unemployment rate in Ingushetia is what, some 70-80% of the total population? And also better than in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, who are financed directly from Russia – no economies of their own, besides smuggling and occasional looting (Abkhazia would have tourism but they failed even there). And this despite losing roughly 1/3 of the territory in wars, the refugee crisis, and the decade of tolerated corruption under Shevardnadze.

          • poluchi fashist granatu

            They are justified in doing so in their own minds, which is ALL that matters.

            Just as Russia is justified in repressing their dreams of national liberation, expansionism and Islamic state (the two are intertwined).

            I have the same opinion on Israel / Palestine.

      • Is that after the Russians carry out the Marxist doctrine of extermination of “reactionary races”?

        Communists = Nazis

        • Do you really believe the Russian Communism/Marxim is not dead?? Also you are not seriously saying extermination of certain races is Russia’s state policy?? I appreciate all the problems in the Caucasus, but to mix Communism, Nazism and your conviction about the Russian’s natural inferiority appears to deprive you of the ability to see things clearly, Andrew.

          • I was just replying to PFG’s communist BS.

            Russians are not naturally inferior, however the political systems they have chosen to support over the last 200 years or so have made them sheeple.

            • Well, I don’t think the political system in Russia was better 300 years ago, and I don’t think the Russians are more sheeple than any other nation. As I mentioned in other posts, however, there are good reasons why the Russians support the current administration. Much to the chagrin of your Georgian relatives, however, any political change in Russia (democratic or not) is likely to change the Russians’ stance with respect to Georgia/ Abhazia. I am not sure what the solution should be on this issue the most reasonable thing appears to be (i) Georgia lets the republics go and recognizes their independence; (ii) the EU, US and Turkey do the same and try to engage the new nations, as well as Russia, in rebuilding the independent republics into prosperous democratic societies. This is a complete Utopia, however.

              • In the case of Abkhazia, the problem is that with Russian assistance, the separatist Apsu (who made up only 17% of the population whan the war started) ethnicly cleansed the majority of the population from the province. You should note that 49 to 50% of the population of the province were ethnic Georgians, the remainder being Russians, Armenians, Greeks, and Azeris.

                There can be no recognition of an independant Abkhazia under these circumstances and as long as the separatist government refuses to conform to numerous UN resolutions regarding the right of return of Georgian and pro Georgian refugees (many ethnic Apsu and ethnic Russians fought for the Georgian government against Ardzinba and his cronies).

                Contrary to what many Russians and separatists state, the Georgians are indiginous to both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, a good example are the 5th century and later Churches in Abkhazia that bear Georgian inscriptions, and the many Georgian historical monuments in both regions.

                Funnily enough, Russian historians of the mid to late 19th century describe the Ossetians as 18th century immigrants to Georgia.

                A better solution is and internationally monitored Federal Georgian state, with fairly complete autonomy for the two regions, Abkhazian & South Ossetian federal vice presidential positions, and veto’s on federal law.
                Funnily enough this is what has been proposed by the Georgian president already.

                • Yes, and Kosovo was Serbian once, and Istanbul used to be Constantinople and the Mount Ararat was Armenia. As you know, 49 to 50% of the population of the province ARE NO LONGER ethnic Georgians, the remainder being Russians, Armenians, Greeks and Azeri. Demographic realities change. If our generation does not accept it there either will be another war or the next generation will accept it, or there will be another war etc. Denial and lingering in the past is not only Russian problem. How many Georgians, Russians, Greeks etc. will be willing to move back to the Abhazian-administered Abhazia, even if there is a federation/confederation? Unless there is a government-sponsored mass relocation of people that usually leads to a war (e.g. the partition of India), I bet very few. To move on and to built its own democratic record and good relationships with the neighbors, including Russia (that is not going to vanish at least in our lifetime) is clearly the best choice for Georgia. The problem is your wife, you, your friends will continue quoting demographic statistics from the 1980s, while the other side will find other sets of statistics from other eras or differently counted to counter your viewpoint. Only the countries that could accept the loss of former grandeur/territory are successful. Russia is on its way to this, by the way, but in Russia this will be a process extended over a couple of generations. If Georgia could do this faster, it would be better for Georgia.

                  • Russia has not accepted the loss of its former imperial possesions, just look at its dictatorial attitude to Ukraine, Georgia, the central Asian republics and its demand for a “sphere of priviledged interest”.

                    Not to mention what you are doing in the north Caucasus.

                    Russia and Russians still have an imperial mindset, it is one of the most disgusting things about your rapidly failing state, that you cannot seem to wake up to the fact that you need to let you imperial dreams go.

                    Your desire to cement “facts on the ground” brought about by (Russian sponsored) ethnic cleansing is pretty disgusting at best.

                    Of course I don’t expect anything different from a Russian, it is fairly normal, though still disgusting, behaviour and attitude which is typical of your culture.

                    Your assinine statement about “democratisation” in Abkhazia and South Ossetia really is laughable, as if Russia would ever countenance true democracy in those regions. After all, they will not allow democracy at home, and they hate Ukraine and Georgia for their attempt to build properly functioning democracies on their own sovereign territories.

                    With regards to “things changing” well sorry bucko, but the UN (and 99% of the worlds nations) disagree with you on this one, Russia is in the wrong, and so are the separatists. To countenance ethnic cleansing on the scale comitted by the separatists is criminal in itself, and those responsible should be brought to trial on war crimes charges. And we are talking about 20 years ago, not 1000.

                    Without allowing refugees to return home, there can be no legitimacy for either province becoming independant.

                    In addition Russia wants Abkhazia for a “reserve base” for the Black Sea fleet just in case it really does lose the right to base the fleet at Sebastapol, Russia has no interest in true Apsu (Real Abkhaz, like Mingrelians, Adjarians, Imeretians etc are a sub grouping of Georgians, while Apsu are a north Caucasian tribe orginally and closely related to the Adyghe).

                    Of course the problem for Russia is that it supports most of the ethnic cleansing comitted in the last few decades, by the Serbs, by the Apsu & Ossetians (in the latter case against both the Ingush and the Georgians), by the Russian minority in Moldovia, by the Sudanes government, by the Burmese, the Sri Lankans, and by just about every tin-pot dictator from A to Z.

                    If you really want to understand the history of Abkhazia and the war there, try reading “Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia, and the Russian Shadow” by Svetlana Chervonnaya (Senior researcher Moscow Institute of Ethnography), it may just open your eyes to the nature of the criminal regime you are supporting.

                    • Andrew, how many young Russians you know who would like to die for a war to re-unite Russia with Kyrgisztan? Tajikistan? Kazakhstan? Did the Georgia war result in the annexation of Georgia?? I agree, my generation of the Russians will remain imperialist in their hearts — but will hardly sacrifice anything to restore the “Empire”, but the next generation will care less, and the one after it even more less. Russia will have to move on, and the process is in place already. Time will heal this wound.

                      “My desire to cement” — frankly, personally, I cannot care less. Never been to Abhazia, have no intention to go. If I do, I don’t care if its Georgian, Russian or independent as long as the food and the weather are nice. I have just expressed what made sense to me. If Georgia wants to nurse the Palestine/Kashmir/Cyprus syndrome, let Georgia do this. But do you really want these lands back? With the hostile population? Do you want the refugees to move again to places where they probably be hated? You are on the ground, you know better. In any case, your reaction shows how emotional this issue is. It will be less so in 10-20 years from now.

                      Finally, don’t get this as an offense, but I am a little irritated by your wrong spelling of “independant” (should be “independent”). My English is far from perfect, and I will accept any corrections from you, if any).

                      Also, there are a number of Arab outfits that do construction in Tbilisi — they pay Western salaries — ever tried to land a job there?

                    • My concern with recognising Abkhazia & South Ossetia is that it would set the precedent of legitimizing ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

                      Once you set such a precedent it is very hard to go back.

                      The Georgians were the single largest ethnic group in Abkhazia, as well as being the indigenous population, and are the indigenous population of South Ossetia.

                      As you would see in other areas of Georgia, such as Tbilisi, Ossetians and Georgians usually get on very well indeed, there has always been a high rate of intermarriage between the ethnic groups, and there are more Ossetians living in Georgia proper than there are in South Ossetia (around 40,000 in Tbilisi alone), many of whom had sons fighting in the Georgian army last year (including my neighbors).

                      In Abkhazia, well the separatists would be in the minority given any enactment of the UN resolutions on right of return. As long as Russia did not stoke the tensions and allowed genuine peacekeeping and nation building to be done by the international community I see no long term problems that cannot be resolved.

                      BTW, the Russian invasion of Georgia resulted in the effective annexation of two regions of Georgia. If you check your history books, this is following the same pattern as the conquest of the south Caucasus in the early 19th century.

                      Georgia was annexed piece by piece.

                      With regards to Arab construction outfits, I do some part time work for them, but my main enjoyment working where I do is to help teach Georgians to do things properly for themselves.

                      I am also uncomfortable earning a huge salary when the locals are not.

                      Orthodox Christian guilt I guess.

                      Thanks for the spelling correction, even native speakers make mistakes.

                      One correction for you “the one after it even more less” should really be “the one after it even less”. More less is not correct, even though we understand what you mean.

  7. Some important points here:

    1. The missile defence system is flawed and unworkable. The Americans know this, and so – interestingly – do the Russians. For the a start, there is already an effective proven missile defence against Iran. This is called Israel. If Iran ever did acquire the capabilities we can safely assume Israel would be very proactive in dealing with the situation.

    2. If we take the view that Bush was lying about the purpose of missile defence (which, please correct me if I’m wrong, I believe LR is implying) – i.e. not to defend against Iranian missiles but to defend against Russian ones – then this is puzzling. When (or hopefully if) the day comes that Russia or its shill agent states start firing weapons at western countries, they will stick to the motto of “if you aim for the King don’t miss”. I.e. they will pull out all the stops and fire everything they’ve got to ensure the enemy is defeated without response. This will make it impossible for any missile defence system to take care of. Anyway, even if it did, the EMT caused by the explosions in space would be deadly.

    3. Why then are the Russians bothered about missile defence? Surely something that is useless, contentious and expensive for the enemy is great? They are bothered because they can use it as a tool to make discord in NATO and EU countries, kind of like divide and rule tactics. Add to this Russia’s feeling of entitlement to mess around with the former colonies.

    I would disagree with the thrust of LR’s column by saying I think what Obama has done in this one instance, considering all the above points, isn’t such a bad thing. However, it is what he does next that is important. However, I don’t think the signs auger well.

    • @i.e. not to defend against Iranian missiles but to defend against Russian ones – then this is puzzling.

      It never had this capability.

      Unless the Russian missiles are so badly mantained there are actually only few of them remaining :)

      The Poles wanted Patriot missiles and an American military base.

      They’ll now probably re-direct their alliances away from the USA and towards the EU powers. The era of love of America there is over, they’re now pretty bitter – as very vocally expressed by Walesa:

      Former Polish President and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Lech Wałesa, has spoken out about media reports that the US has scrapped plans to install a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

      “Americans have always cared only about their interests, and all other [countries] have been used for their purposes. This is another example,” Mr Wałęsa told TVN24. “[Poles] need to review our view of America, we must first of all take care of our business,” he added.

      “I could tell from what I saw, what kind of policies President Obama cultivates,” the former president added. “I simply don’t like this policy, not because this shield was required [in Poland], but [because of] the way we were treated,” he concluded.

      http://www.wbj.pl/article-46765-lech-walesa-talks-about-missile-shield.html

      • Oh, and also the way how “comrade” Obama completely ignored Poland – so now Poland ignored him, literally:

        In Warsaw, his Polish counterpart Donald Tusk initially declined to answer the phone from the White House – as he guessed the purpose, from the unusual timing, and wanted to prepare a response.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6210120/Barack-Obama-changes-American-missile-plans-in-Europe-causing-fear-among-allies.html

        For the record, another phone call in 2008:

        President Bush’s White House declined to weigh in on the Friday phone call between the Polish leader and Mr. Obama, who will take office Jan. 20.

        Mr. Obama has spoken with at least 15 world leaders including Mr. Kaczynski and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk.

        Mr. Kaczynski issued a statement in the Polish-language section of his Web site saying the U.S. president-elect “emphasized the importance of the strategic partnership of Poland and the United States and expressed hope in the continuation of political and military cooperation between our countries. He also said that the missile-defense project would continue.”

        (…)

        Mr. Tusk, the Polish prime minister, posted a letter of congratulations to Mr. Obama on his Web site, saying he was “convinced that this is a good choice for America, for Poland and for the future of our entire world.”

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/09/obama-polish-president-at-odds-on-call/

        Maybe Obama will just install the bases without the interceptor missiles and the radar. But if not, then seriously, this is the end of this alliance (there will be just normal NATO ties):

        Eastern Europe grumbles about downgrade in US ties

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eastern_europe_missile_defense

        Some of America’s staunchest allies are the East Europeans — and on Thursday, they expressed dismay at what many see as a slight after decades of their support for the U.S.

        Among them were some famous names, including Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Polish ex-president. “I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing toward this part of Europe,” he said ruefully, adding: “The way we are being approached needs to change.”

        For most of the past decade, cozy relations with Washington were practically a given across the “new Europe.” George W. Bush famously courted the region after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and leaned on it for troops to fight alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        (…)

        Obama has been reaching out to Russia, which had expressed outrage at the notion of missiles being pointed in its direction from a region that was firmly in the Soviet orbit just 20 years ago.

        (…)

        Former Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose government signed treaties with the Bush administration to build the radar system — and took a lot of heat from Czechs who feared it would make their country a terrorist target — went on Czech radio to vent his frustrations.

        “The Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before,” he said. “It’s bad news for the Czech Republic.”

        Obama’s decision also drew flak in Washington. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called it “shortsighted and harmful to our long-term security interests.”

        “We must not turn our backs on two loyal allies in the war on terror,” he said.

        Although Obama said the United States will continue to work cooperatively with “our close friends and allies,” the future implications of the move appeared mixed.

        Poland’s prime minister held out hope his country might play a role in the revamped U.S. defense.

        “There is a chance for strengthening Europe’s security with special attention given to Poland,” Donald Tusk told reporters, adding: “I would not describe what is going on today as a defeat for Poland.”

        But a prominent Czech legislator suggested the rebuff would have consequences should Washington ask for troops — or anything else.

        “If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it,” said Jan Vidim, a lawmaker with the conservative Civic Democratic Party, which had supported the missile defense plan.

  8. As the last post by Robert showed very clearly –

    Obama lied.

    And I think Barb is right –

    Obama is simply a socialist/communist.

  9. Alright, those who know the technology may be correct in their assessment of the Missile Sheild. But it is the delivery and manner in which Obama decided to scrap it. And LRs response to Jon K nails it. Obama, a Chicago thug himself, knows exactly how ‘tough guys’ think. He knows that the only thing the likes of Putin and Chavez and Ahmedinajad(sp?) know and understand is toughness. They are barbarians who only understand and ‘respect’ a good left hook anything less is considered weakness and will be used as such.

  10. To Elmer
    Obama is not really socialist/communist. But he may be understands that USA are not more superpower. It would be better for all the world if USA went home. It would be good for all of us, but firstly for USA themselves!

  11. poluchi fashist granatu

    What’s wrong with Communism?

    It is a classless utopia without economic scarcities. Only megalothymiacs (“fascists”) who seek to dominate others could be against it.

    • Try getting an education retard.

      144,000,000 people murdered by Communist governments (Mostly Russia and China) in the 20th century?

      As for “It is a classless utopia without economic scarcities”

      I guess you are too young to remember the queue’s for basic items like bread and toilet paper.

      Time to change your daiper PFG, you are getting a bit smelly child.

    • Surely! You jest! ‘a classless utopia…..’!!!
      For your sanity, I do hope that you are being funny, to make a point? What is your point?

    • I am against communism because it is what you said, “classles UTOPIA” – just a romantic idea without chance to live, so why should we try to install it when it is impossible even for you, as a supporter? That is a waste of time, do not you think?

      “Communism” in USSR and Eastern Bloc had little if anything in common with Marx’s theory. But this parody buried so many people that it is opposed virtually everywhere and for many people today, Soviet international socialism is the same as communism. So, not many people want what you would like, Stalin’s version of “communism” – international socialism – because people under it died faster than in war, and nobody would like utopia of real communism, simply because it is utopia..

      You call those against utopia fascists. Who are those who pursue utopia? Romantics? Dreamers? Idiots?

  12. poluchi fashist granatu

    Rather it is you who are not educated, Andrew.

    1. There has never been a Communist state on earth. In fact, “Communist state” is an oxymoron.

    2. The 144mn figure is a product of ideologue imaginations.

    • As stated above, Cambodia did have a true Communist system, complete with abolition of money, etc. China under Mao and Russia under Stalin came close, but both had money. Call it “socialist” instead, the substance is the same — the goal was that eventually that nobody would own property. That is indeed a utopia — people are made to have something that is theirs.

      144 million is an underestimate. During the artificially created famine of 1956-1960 (also known as the Great Leap Forward) at least 50 million Chinese persons, mostly peasants, died from starvation — the highest number of victims of any famine in any country in recorded history. Read some books, will you (I assume the books criticizing China are not banned in Russia).

      The total number of victims in China alone is over 100 million by the most conservative estimates. For the USSR, according to Solzhenitsyn, it’s about 60 million. Even if his number is too high, it’s in tens of millions

    • @1. There has never been a Communist state on earth. In fact, “Communist state” is an oxymoron.

      Now you’re talking about anarchism (no state) and not communism.

      • poluchi fashist granatu

        The state is supposed to wither away after the dictatorship of the proletariat. That’s Marxism 101.

        • So, how do you define the regime of Pol Pot?

          • poluchi fashist granatu

            Millenarian death cult?

            It certainly wasn’t Communism, or socialism.

            • Really? Seems they followed Marx & Engels pretty much to the letter.

              Especially the stuff about exterminating “reactionary peoples and movements”.

              You don’t really understand the system you support PFG.

            • Cambodian history as rewritten by the Vietnamese:

            • Well then, after attempts in the Soviet Union, China, East Germany, Poland, Yougoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Albania, Cuba, South Yemen, Mongolia, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, North-Korea, Somalia, Angola, Ethiopia to establish communism it’s time to conclude that the whole idea is a failure. If you try 19 times and you fail 19 times while causing a lot of harm and upheaval in your attempts, it’s time to admit that communism is nothing more than an utopin impossibility.

        • For all your textbook talk, it does nothing to take away the reality of the failed ‘communist’ states. From your argument, one would have to assume that since the ideological argument can not be pinpointed, then everyone is supposed to just sit by and watch their liberties and freedoms get taken away. If something is going to make you sick, just because no one can agree on exactly what to call it (a germ, virus or whatever) are you going to expose yourself to it anyway at the risk of getting sick and dying?

  13. Fortunately Obama is a jerk. He is so obvious in his efforts to make way for tyrants that I think he is permanently damaging the left. Even Stalin held elections. Yes he got 99% of the vote, but he did acknowledge the right to vote. Obama is too dumb to make such a consession. I think the media is going down with him.

    • Good point, Ron. Obama has indeed abolished the right to vote. There will be no presidential election in either USA or Russia! Not until 2012, that is. Obama and Medvedev are clearly worse than Stalin.

  14. Well, it looks like the Russians are getting ready to take advantage of Obama’s “innocence”

    Russia Says Its Missile Plans In Europe Not Shelved

    http://www.rferl.org/content/Russia_Says_Its_Missile_Plans_In_Europe_Not_Shelved/1827444.html

    and

    “But the Kremlin’s arguments against American missile defense were never really about common sense or security. Moscow knew ten interceptor missiles in Poland never posed Russia a threat. Still, the Kremlin had vowed to aim nuclear missiles at Europe, although they walked that threat back in the wake of Obama’s announcement. Russia’s leaders perceive instability around the world as a plus for Moscow, and they’re almost certain to latch on to something else.

    Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the man who really rules Russia, indicated as much on Friday when he said dropping the missile shield plans “inspires hope,” but groused, “I do anticipate that this correct and brave decision will be followed by others.”

    Defending the Bush Administration’s missile defense plans reminds me of a story I heard about a Russian doctor telling a cancer patient it was better to keep smoking because quitting would be a shock to his system. The decision to shelve Bush’s plans is the latest proof that reason again reigns in Washington. It will be needed to deal with whatever Moscow throws at the West next.”

    http://www.rferl.org/content/Spinning_Missile_Defense_In_Moscow/1827137.html

  15. Wait, Andrew, there’s more.

    Russia backs Iran over sanctions.

    That is, Russia’s foreign policy is simply to confront anyone and everyone in its role as an “isolated victim” of the entire world.

    Soooo – what are the chances of roosha finally coming to its senses and not backing Iran’s nuclear missile program, in return for Obama the communist throwing the Czech Republic and Poland under the bus?

    http://www.rferl.org/content/Russia_Backs_Iran_Over_Sanctions/1820551.html

    • @Russia backs Iran over sanctions.

      Also continues to sell them the new SAM systems.

      Btw, Israel just told Putin to STFU (and stop saying the IDF “won’t” bomb Iran now – because they’re actually going to do this).

  16. lol, Obama was spot on to drop this missle defense shield. The system does not even work and Iran does not even have the capability to reach that far anyway. In this economic crisis we need the cash to prop up our own economy not those of the czech republic or poland.

    The sale of s-300 missiles to Iran from Russia making air attacks on Iran more difficult stopped this crazy unwarrented exercise. Thats the concession the US got.

  17. LOL Russians are sleeping and dreaming about death and destruction of Georgia. Well, keep on dreaming…..

    • > LOL Russians are sleeping and dreaming about death and destruction of Georgia. Well, keep on dreaming…..

      Absolutely. When a Russian stalinist wakes up and hears his baby cry, his first thought is: “I want to murder somebody. Somebody whom I hate. And the people whom I hate are Georgians! Why?”

      “First of all, this a religious hatred. Georgians are fellow Eastern Orhtodox Christians like Russians, and Orhtodox Christians hate each other like Prostestans hate Protestants! Russians hate Georgians as much as they hate Serbs and Montenegrins!”

      “Second, it’s history! Russia and Georgia have lived in peace and friendship for 2 centuries, and Russia defended Georgia against Turkey and Iran!”

      “Third, as a Stalinsit, I want to kill Georgians for giving birth to my beloved Stalin!”

      “Ooh, how I hate Georgians! I know that nobody in Russia gives a damn about small countries like Georgia, but I am going to hate Georgia as soon as I find out where on the map it is! That’s all that worries me in life: to kill fellow Orthodox Christians!”

    • Are you an orphan?

      • LES // September 22, 2009 at 3:59 am >> Are you an orphan?
        LES // September 22, 2009 at 4:02 am
        > Were you an orphan?

        LES, are you looking for your long lost offsprings? Then look into the snake terrarium at your local Zoo.

        • Sorry Phobophobe, you have to evolve somewhat before you reach the level of vertibrate reptile.

          We should be looking for you among the parasites.

  18. The mainstream media says that the reason the Russians don’t like our missile shield plan is that it gives America some kind of nuclear first strike advantage which they regard as unacceptable. Also we need Russian cooperation with regard to Iran and the missile shield is not regarded as certain to work . Seen as unwise to harm our relations with Russia so much over what is of uncertain use. Also the Russians want to know why we don’t put the missiles in Kazakhstan or Turkey or somewhere around there. Islamic countries I suppose. If anyone can shed some light here I would much appreciate it! Thanks!

  19. You compare
    Obama to Neville Chamberlain
    and you call Obama a backstabber?

    Poland and the Czech Republic are insignificant
    next to U.S. – Russian relations.

    If I were Obama I would have done the
    same thing.

    It’s their problem– not America’s problem.

    Taking “Kim Zigfeld’s” negative pessimistic
    attack journalism into account, I’d say
    a schoolboy could have made the
    “prediction” that Kim is probably
    congradulating herself for.

    Since internet rumour has it that
    LA RUSSOPHOBE originates from the
    United States and “someone” has
    insulted its President, just who
    would the real backstabber be?

    Think about that while
    you enjoy the freedom that
    results from someone else’s
    labor and suffering.

    • > You compare
      Obama to Neville Chamberlain

      That’s innocent compared to other Republicans, who now call Obama “a Hitler” for his health plan.

  20. Looks like Obama has driven the first nail in LR’s coffin. The artificially created Cold War between USA/West and Russia is over. The more pressing issues – like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine/Israel, Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, etc – and numerous other hostilities related to the Middle East and the Muslim world will dominate the US foreign policy concerns.

    Only hard-core russophobes – i..e, those whose paranoia is in a clinical stage – will read this blog.

    Scared, LR? I bet you are but you won’t admit this.

  21. As I recall, numerous russophobes have told me that since I criticise Bush’s administration’s foreign and domestic policies, I should stop leaving in USA.

    Well, now that **my** kind of government is in charge in USA and you, russophobes, are spewing hatred towards President Obmama, maybe it’s time for you to pick up and go to another country that shares your world views? Say, to some place that Bush loved the most, like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

  22. God, how I love this moment when you, russophobes, have become enemies of the American President and of the American people like myself who have elected him.

    And this is just a start. Soon Russia and USA will have better realtions than they had even in the early 1990s. I will enjoy watching you squirm and throw hysterics that the American and Russian governments are friends.

    • Were you an orphan?

    • But your not American, you are Russian as you keep on pointing out.

      And your loyalty is not to the USA, it is to Russia.

      Therefore either you are a traitor to your country, or a collaborator with those who supply the weapons that kill US soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan, and kill your fellow Jews during terrorist acts against Israel.

      As for “the American and Russian governments are friends”

      Not likely any time soon, given the Russian “thumbing the nose” at Obama.

      Thanks to idiots like you, he is likely to be a one term President.

    • @And this is just a start. Soon Russia and USA will have better realtions than they had even in the early 1990s. I will enjoy watching you squirm and throw hysterics that the American and Russian governments are friends.

      …and in some years now, you will tell people “how the west humiliated Russia” with their good relations, just like the Russian/”Russophobe” idiots like you “squirm and throw hysterics” now about the early 1990s (all while pretending Putin was not a Yeltsin’s henchman all along and then a hand-picked successor) – when the Russians humiliated themselves and we only did nothing to stop them, which is a great shame anyway (and we feel the consequences of this policy now). Is this also in your scenario?

  23. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0922/p06s01-woeu.html

    Why Europe welcomes US missile defense shield decision

    German analysts say this gives the US and Europe more leeway in negotiations with Russia, and give Poland a ‘healthier’ foreign policy.

    The Christian Science Monitor
    September 21, 2009

    European officials are strongly applauding the American decision.

    German and French diplomats see the White House move as changing a US policy imposed unilaterally on Europe – and allowing greater running room with Moscow on issues from Iran to North Korea, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, and with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

    Alexander Rahr of the German Council of Foreign Relations says the original US missile shield plan was ill-conceived.

    The US now supports smaller, tested defense systems, unambiguously deployed to intercept short and mid-range Iranian rockets.

    “The strategy of the Bush team was confrontation with Russia,” says Gert Weisskirchen, foreign policy spokesman of Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD). “On the shield, we had a different view from the beginning. Most of the political elite here agrees with Obama. We never saw the necessity for the new missiles being developed. We agree on the Iran threat, but not with this instrument.”

    “It is a good decision,” offers a German diplomat. “No, it’s a great decision.”

    Why Europe is relieved

    European officials were skeptical of the missile shield for several reasons: They argued it was technically dubious, did not protect Europe but was mainly planned to stop ICBMs launched against America, that its costs were high, that it was imposed on Europe without proper consultation, and that it gave Moscow an issue to (fairly or unfairly) gripe over.

    “The shield does not realistically protect the states it is designed to protect,” says Eberhard Sandschneider of the German Council on Foreign Relations here. “It isn’t solving anything, and there are downsides.”

    Yet a survey in the Warsaw daily Rzeczpospolita over the weekend indicated that about half of the Poles agree with Obama’s decision to abandon the missile shield, while 31 percent disagreed.

    In Paris, Le Monde editorialized in a similar vein over the weekend: “We must hail the decision by Barack Obama to abandon the anti-missile shield project that was to be deployed in Europe. This costly project whose very efficiency was at doubt was deeply divisive among the European and fed a heavy “Star Wars” climate in Russia. Here, as elsewhere, the American president has chosen détente and negotiation.”
    ————–

    Enjoy!

  24. LR proudly wrote:
    >>Just as LR publisher and founder Kim Zigfeld predicted would occur two weeks ago…

    Doglov wrote:
    > I’d say a schoolboy could have made the “prediction” that Kim is probably congratulating herself for.

    Bzzz. Wrong! Kim is fully justified in feeling proud of herself. Let me remind you that her “prediction” was made on August 29, two days after we all read the following news from Poland about Obama planning to drop this Missile Shield:

    http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20090827_3856.php
    U.S. to Abandon European Missile Shield Proposal, Report Says
    Thursday, Aug. 27, 2009

    The Obama administration intends to abandon its predecessor’s proposal to field missile interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic, the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza reported today, citing Washington lobbyists and an unnamed U.S. congressional source
    ——————————–

    Thus, LR publisher and founder Kim Zigfeld made her “prediction” only 2 days after reading about it in the media. That means that she can read and even understand an article in less than 2 days! For a woman of her mental status, this is true heroism and should serve as a shining example to other handicapped people. Well done, LR!

    • BTW Phobodunce, LR (and many of the posters here) have been predicting the Obama would leave his allies in the lurch over missile defence since before he was elected.

      You are obviously an emotional cripple, and aomewhat autistic (although high funtioning to be sure).

      It is nice to see mentally inferior people such as yourself trying to take part in adult conversations, but you really should get some therapy for your paranoid delusions about “military industrial complex” conspiracies.

      BTW, you still have not answered the question, do you approve of Russia selling state of the art weapons and nuclear technology to Islamist and despotic middle east regimes that directly threaten to eliminate Israel, and to terrorist groups that attack US and allied servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan?

  25. And once again for Phobophobe

    http://www.rferl.org/content/Russia_Says_Its_Missile_Plans_In_Europe_Not_Shelved/1827444.html

    Seems that the heads of the Russian military are under the impression that the deployment of missiles to Kaliningrad (that really should be Koenigsburg, but more genocide by Russia in 1945-48, oh well….), offensive missiles mind you, not defensive ones with no attack capability as the US was intending to deploy.

    And as for accomodation and cooperation with the US & Europe over Iran, don’t be stupid P, Russia through its monster Lavrov has already stated it will veto any further UN action, particularly sanctions, against Iran.

    Check Robert & Elmers posts for details

  26. Honestly, I am slightly sick of the comparisons of X Political enemy to Chamberlain, if only because it gives Chamberlain a short shrift.

    Was he a hopelessly optimistic appeaser who only acted FAR after the crucial time had passed? Absolutely.

    Did he show callous towards the fate of Czechoslovakia’s borders and the Allied interests in the Rhineland? Capitol Y Yes.

    But he actually began to realize his errors, and he was the one who started the rearmament of the British Empire in the leadup to the war, and he explicitly expressed remorse for his mistakes.

    Have we seen Obama do those? Nope.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s