Thread: Barack Hussein Obama wins

Olya, to respond to your question, there is a big difference between antimissile missiles and surface-to-surface missiles (ICBMs). The antimissile defense has been described and the reasons for it given. The US government has explicitly stated that the missiles are not aimed at or intended to attack Russian cities. The Russian government, conversely, has stated that it will specifically target European cities with its missiles. So who has more to fear - you in Moscow or somebody in Berlin or Poland?

I hope Presidents Obama and Medvedyev will defuse the situation when they meet. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7731864.stm

Originally Posted by chaika

The US government has explicitly stated that the missiles are not aimed at or intended to attack Russian cities. The Russian government, conversely, has stated that it will specifically target European cities with its missiles. So who has more to fear - you in Moscow or somebody in Berlin or Poland?

What can I say? The Russian government is more honest, that's all. ))))
I'm absolutely sure, that American missiles ARE aimed at Russia, if American president(s) belligerent statements are anything to judge by.

PS. BTW, Russia bombing Poland? Ridiculous. Even if Russians were as bloodthirsty as you think... what's the point? There's nothing to gain, and too much to lose. And who needs radioctive zone near their borders anyway?

Originally Posted by chaika

The US government has explicitly stated that the missiles are not aimed at or intended to attack Russian cities.

Why does everyone keep repeating that like a prayer?

I just want to point out the following:
ABM cannot be aimed against anything except a ballistic missile that is travelling within its fire range, so it's obvious that the facility itself poses no direct threat to Russia. But, it weakens Russia's attacking potential and thus it poses a threat to its national security. It's the job of the military staff to point this out and this should be also obvious to any reasonable man. The relative peace with no global conflicts that has been lasting since WW2 is a result of the MAD principle (Mutually Assured Destruction). The old ABM treaty itself stated that neither side would deploy any ABM systems just so the MAD principle could persist.
Okay. Now the US states that it has new threats (Iran, North Korea, etc) so it has constructed the ABM facility. This facility already shatters the principle of MAD. More facilities will weaken it even more. That is what Russia is trying to say. If US would have the advantage in a hypotetical nuclear exchange then Russia has to have means of neutralising this advantage. This is why the 'Iskander' missiles are being deployed now near Kaliningrad.
The US government can say all they want but Russia will always try to maintain the parity in attack and defence systems to ensure that the MAD principle works. (Besides, if the US in reality aims the ABM facility against Russia, I doubt that the US government would go out and openly say so. Wouldn't it be logical to conceal this fact?).

And another thing. The ABM facility, of course, cannot pose a direct threat to Russia as I already said, but it allows spying on the Russia airspace, and say what you will, they WILL spy. So why Russia has to like that?

Originally Posted by chaika

The US government has explicitly stated that the missiles are not aimed at or intended to attack Russian cities.

I think we have that mentioned over and over. The US government has also explicitly stated that Iraq was in possession of the WMD [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...s_destruction]. And "great controversy emerged when no stockpiles of WMDs were found."

Put yourself in Russia's shoes for a moment. What would you think of the other explicit US government statements?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by chaika

The old ABM treaty itself stated that neither side would deploy any ABM systems just so the MAD principle could persist.
Okay. Now the US states that it has new threats (Iran, North Korea, etc) so it has constructed the ABM facility. This facility already shatters the principle of MAD.

The principle of MAD is designed to work with rational people.
N Korea & Iran are not exactly rational so new strategy is adopted.

Also I have to tell you.
After spending considerable time in Russia, I have found that Russian newspapers and TV News and statements from Putin and Medvedev (and even TV History shows) concerning America and Western countries are often aggressively negative and simply fictitious. I can only surmise, that they are designed to manipulate and steer the populace to some destination, for some reason.

Originally Posted by Оля

А вы знали, что Обама был в России?

http://www.rian.ru/us_news/20081108/154664479.html

Did you know that Obama is also a Marxist/Communist?

Originally Posted by DDT

The principle of MAD is designed to work with rational people. N Korea & Iran are not exactly rational so new strategy is adopted. After spending considerable time in Russia, I have found that Russian newspapers and TV News and statements from Putin and Medvedev (and even TV History shows) concerning America and Western countries are often aggressively negative and simply fictitious. I can only surmise, that they are designed to manipulate and steer the populace to some destination, for some reason.

I can see your point. So far, though, due to the "new strategy" we've got Russia alarmed to a very noticeable extent. And, if you had spent some time in Russia, you might have noticed that the government is corrupted all over, and they are quite reluctant to spend money (which would otherwise end up in their pockets) on anything nation-related. So, when all of a sudden you see Russian government spending money on a brand-new missile installation, they are damn serious. You can't just write that off as purely political rhetoric designed to justify whatever they want to justify.

Originally Posted by DDT

Did you know that Obama is also a Marxist/Communist?

That's news to me. Any specific reference? (Well, the very fact that he's a democrat wouldn't be sufficient to justify that claim.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by DDT

Did you know that Obama is also a Marxist/Communist?

That's news to me. Any specific reference? (Well, the very fact that he's a democrat wouldn't be sufficient to justify that claim.

Obama's Hidden Marxist Past


1. Obama's mother, Stanley Dunham, appears to have been a communist. In this otherwise unremarkable Chicago Tribune article about Obama's mother, it is revealed that Ms. Dunham grew up attending a radical Seattle church known as "the little Red church on the hill" and that her friends referred to her as a "fellow traveler," which is code for communist sympathizer. The same article also notes that the chairman of the school board and several of Ms. Dunham's high school teachers were communists.

2. Obama's father, Barack H. Obama, also appears to have been a Marxist. In fact, the elder Obama penned a scholarly article entitled "Problems Facing Our Socialism" in which he argued in favor of government planning/restribution of resources and lauded an article entitled "Appeals for Confiscation in Economic Development."

3. Then there is the issue of Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, who was an open member of the Communist Party USA. In his autobiography "Dreams From My Father," Obama describes Mr. Davis as "a poet" who was full of "hard-earned knowledge."

4. Next there is Obama's time as a "community organizer" -- a "profession" invented by the Marxist, Saul Alinsky. The Wikipedia entry on Alinsky notes that in his seminal work, "Rules For Radicals," Alinsky explained that "community organizing" was actually the first step towards Marxist revolution:

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system . . . .

And make no mistake, Obama was a devotee of the Alinsky method, as was recently confirmed by Alinsky's son. Obama also contributed a chapter to a book entitled, "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois." You can view it here. And Obama also taught workshops on the Alinsky method.

5. Let's not forget Obama's adult mentor for 20 years, Reverend Wright. As Reverend Wright himself has explained, the black liberation theology preached in Obama's church was largely derived from the liberation theology movement in El Salvador and Nicaragua, which was Marxist and aligned with the Sandinista movement.

6. Finally, there are William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, in whose home Obama's political career was launched. Ayers and Dohrn, of course, founded the radical group The Weathermen, whose founding document called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism."

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not claiming Obama is a full-blown communist, but if the American people truly understood his background, he wouldn't stand a chance. Too bad the media's in the tank for Obama.

http://neoconlatina.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... -past.html





A few of Obama's associates listed indicating his true nature.

William Ayers - American Terrorist
Raila Odinga - Cousin, Radical Islamist
Raul Reyes - Columbian Terrorist
Antonio Rezko - Muslim Slum Lord
Professor Khalidi - Muslim Terrorist Supporter
Reverend Wright - Racist Muslim Supporter/Preacher, Anti-American
Reverend James Meeks - Racist
Reverend Louis Farrakhan - Racist Nation of Islam / Faux Preacher
Reverend. Jesse Jackson - Racist - Anti-Semetic
Nadhmi Auchi - Muslim Billionaire
Sohaib Abassi - Muslim Millionaire
Frank Davis – Obama's mentor and self professing Communist Party member directly associated with Moscow

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephill ... e-in.thtml

Any one fact viewed in isolation seems insignificant. The particular point you highlight is simply one additional piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that Obama's mother was a communist. As I also noted, the school itself was known as "the little Red church on the hill" and the chairman of the school board was a communist. And if you click on the underlying Chicago Tribune article, you will discover still additional facts, including that Obama's mother was taught the Communist Manifesto in this same school. Considered collectively, the evidence indicates that Obama's mother -- whom Obama adored -- was a communist sympathizer.

And if you put this together with the other Marxist influences in Obama's life -- Alinsky, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, his father (whom he did not know well, but who nonetheless had a profound influence, e.g., "Dreams From My Father) -- it paints a fairly compelling picture of a man who is at the very least sympathetic to radical leftist thinking. The fact that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate does nothing to dissuade me of that, either.

Originally Posted by DDT

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not claiming Obama is a full-blown communist, but if the American people truly understood his background, he wouldn't stand a chance. Too bad the media's in the tank for Obama.

Well, that might be true. But, you see, I don't really care as long as there aren't attempts to re-distribute the wealth by any means other than the taxes.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm much closer to republicans than to democrats. And, yes, I think the artificial distribution would result in economic slowdown and its consequences. However, I don't find it particularly wrong to use the two-parties system to balance the wealth once in a while. At least, just to reduce the tensions. Otherwise, as the history demonstrates, the real communists can get to the power. And we all know how that looks like.

If Obama is a communist, he must visit Lenin's Mausoleum.

Я внесла в яндекс "Обама прагматик" и набрела на статью: http://states2008.russ.ru/v_fokuse_dnya ... bamanomiki . Читать я её ленюсь, мне достаточно выдержки в яндексе: "Обама хочет оставить в прошлом эпоху так называемых культурных войн и говорит о том, что Америке нужен президент-прагматик, а не президент-идеолог."

Originally Posted by яндекс

Обама хочет оставить в прошлом эпоху так называемых культурных войн и говорит о том, что Америке нужен президент-прагматик, а не президент-идеолог.

Дай Бог, чтобы он наконец-то перестал красиво говорить ("президент-идеолог"), а начал красиво действовать ("президент-прагматик"). А то, как говорят, уже две недели, как начальник, а результатов не видно. Ни одной практической рекомендации. Только призывы к "more perfect" единству. Сколько времени нужно, чтобы подобрать новый ковёр в Овальном кабинете? А разговоры о том, что нам нужно "better education" и "better future" можно услышать от кого угодно, от любой бабушки на улице. Только, что бабушки не умеют выкладывать свои речи на YouTube.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by яндекс

Обама хочет оставить в прошлом эпоху так называемых культурных войн и говорит о том, что Америке нужен президент-прагматик, а не президент-идеолог.

Дай Бог, чтобы он наконец-то перестал красиво говорить ("президент-идеолог"), а начал красиво действовать ("президент-прагматик"). ...

Ты шутишь, что ли? Он ещё не президент. Станет им 21 января.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by яндекс

Обама хочет оставить в прошлом эпоху так называемых культурных войн и говорит о том, что Америке нужен президент-прагматик, а не президент-идеолог.

Дай Бог, чтобы он наконец-то перестал красиво говорить ("президент-идеолог"), а начал красиво действовать ("президент-прагматик"). ...

Ты шутишь что ли? Он ещё не президент. Станет им 21 января.

Формально - да. Но, согласись, хорошо бы всё-таки услышать рекомендации. Ведь он не совсем сторонний человек. Сенаторы, зачастую, знают не намного меньше, чем сам президент. Так как же он, собственно, собирается действовать?

Приведу простой пример. Ну вот, например, МакКейн высказал свой план конкретно - попробовать исключить Россию из большой восьмёрки. Это мне не нравится, но мне это понятно. А что предложил Обама? Что нужно выходить из кризиса сообща? Это и ежу понятно. Но вот как?

Вот, например, идёшь ты на рабочее интервью. Пришла. Тебя спрашивают: "What makes you a perfect candidate for this job?" Ты отвечаешь, как положено: "Because, I'm goal-oriented, quick learner, team player, etc." Иногда этого хватает. Но, зачастую, если ты уже работал в той организации, тебя спросят: "What do you want to improve in our organization, and how? Provide three suggestions." Вот на этот вопрос Обама так и не ответил. Какой вывод мы из этого можем сделать?

Первый вариант. Обама будет делать то, что любой средний демократ: т.е. по-другому распределять налоги.

Второй вариант. Никакого плана нет. Есть только общая концепция, а вопросы будут решаться ситуативно.

Третий вариант. Обама - единственный нормальный человек, наконец-то, благодаря новейшим улучшениям общества, стал президентом. Никакие конкретные указания не нужны. Нужно вдохновить людей на свершения, а они сами начнут проявлять энтузиазм. И всё наладится само собой.

Ты к какому варианту оценки склоняешься?

Originally Posted by chaika

The Russian government, conversely, has stated that it will specifically target European cities with its missiles.

i don't think this is true. What I remember was Lavrov and others saying 'it will be unfortunate if we have to target missiles at Europe', in which he clearly meant the specific sites in Poland and CR, but this was reported in the western press as RUSSIA THREATENS TO TARGET EUROPEAN CITIES FOR NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION! or some such sensationalist nonsense.

I'm happy to stand corrected if you can point me at a direct quote that contradicts my understanding.

As for missile defense, Mccain indicated in one of the early Republican primary debates (the one in Orlando I think) that he thought the system was designed to contain Russia. Maybe he was mistaken, but if the guy who ended up that close to being president can make that assumption them you can hardly blame the Russians for doing the same. Quite frankly it would be completely irresponsible for the Russians to treat the system as anything other than a direct threat even if they mostly believed the White House's protestations.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

...Первый вариант. Обама будет делать то, что любой средний демократ: т.е. по-другому распределять налоги.

Второй вариант. Никакого плана нет. Есть только общая концепция, а вопросы будут решаться ситуативно.

Третий вариант. Обама - единственный нормальный человек, наконец-то, благодаря новейшим улучшениям общества, стал президентом. Никакие конкретные указания не нужны. Нужно вдохновить людей на свершения, а они сами начнут проявлять энтузиазм. И всё наладится само собой.

Ты к какому варианту оценки склоняешься?

Я - простой наблюдатель. Да, Обама мне пока представляется одним из немногих нормальных людей в верхах Вашингтона.

Originally Posted by DDT

The principle of MAD is designed to work with rational people. N Korea & Iran are not exactly rational so new strategy is adopted.

Let's assume that this concern of yours (or your government's) is sound. Still, as I pointed out, this facility weakens Russia's attacking capabilities. And this is what concerns Russia more than Iran or Korea. Oh, we're friends and blah blah blah, but political situation in the world is *VERY* unstable right now. Russia cannot accept any guarantees of the US government about it. This facility *CAN* be used against Russia and from the Russian point of view this is the only thing that matters. Iran and Korea may or may not be rational but the same rhetoric works against the US. What would make us believe that the US government will remain rational.
US is a very warlike country. Sometimes it bombs other countries just to enforce its economical or political interests. If there had not been any precedents in the past (Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc) things might have been different. USA is concerned about its safety so does Russia. We're not allies. Technically, in the minds of our general staff (both American and Russian) we are potential enemies.

Originally Posted by DDT

Also I have to tell you.
After spending considerable time in Russia, I have found that Russian newspapers and TV News and statements from Putin and Medvedev (and even TV History shows) concerning America and Western countries are often aggressively negative and simply fictitious. I can only surmise, that they are designed to manipulate and steer the populace to some destination, for some reason.

This is true. Anti-American sentiments prevail in the Russian media. But it's only natural, after all, considering the current relations between our countries.

The anti-Russian tone right across the western media is pretty hard to miss too, even at the relatively impartial BBC. It might be presented a little less directly than on Russian TV, but the agenda is just as obvious.

Originally Posted by Ramil

This is true. Anti-American sentiments prevail in the Russian media. But it's only natural, after all, considering the current relations between our countries.

I strongly suspect that the self-perception of a typical Russian has recently been elevated due to the so-called "independent" policy of Russia since Putin's government took over. I noticed that the overall motive has been somewhat close to: "So, before, Yeltzin and democrats have been doing exactly what the US wanted. However, the life was much worse than today. Now, when Russia is pursuing its own interests, the life is better. Therefore, it actually pays off to have independent policy. Have a look at what the US is doing - it's only doing what's the best for them. And ignores the others. So, now let's totally screw their opinion! We should ignore them too and we'll prosper."

Please correct me if you think I got that wrong.

If I got that right though, the tone wouldn't really be "natural", but rather very artificial.