Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Big Black Swan who wrote (49786)	3/8/2012 9:03:33 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 71588

Obama To Give Missile Secrets To Russia With Love? Posted 06:56 PM ET Security: A deputy defense secretary tells Congress that the administration is indeed considering giving Moscow sensitive Aegis ballistic missile defense data. We've gone from "trust but verify" to "appease and surrender." Brad Roberts testified before a House Armed Services subcommittee Tuesday that the Obama administration was actively considering giving Moscow classified missile defense data to allay Russian concerns about the capabilities and intent of our proposed ballistic missile defense system based in Europe to guard against missiles launched from Iran. Roberts testified that the administration believes "cooperation could be well-served by some limited sharing of classified information of a certain kind if the proper rules were in place to do that." The Bush administration also sought cooperation on missile defense, he noted. The only thing President George W. Bush wanted to share with the Russians was a heads-up on our plans to deploy long-range, ground-based interceptors, such as those deployed in California and Alaska, in Poland as well as missile defense radar in the Czech Republic. He certainly wasn't offering them data such as the burnout velocity of Raytheon Co.'s Standard Missile-3 interceptors, the centerpiece of our Aegis ballistic missile defense system. When the Russians protested, President Obama scuttled those plans and substituted a more modest, layered defense capable of defending Europe but not the continental U.S. against Iranian missiles. It was one of many concessions Obama has made to Russia as part of pressing the "reset" button in return for nothing but unfulfilled promises of cooperation on Iran. Typical of the way the president has treated loyal allies such as Britain and Israel, the Poles were notified with a midnight phone call in September 2009, the 70th anniversary of their country's invasion by Soviet and German forces, telling them we were pulling the plug. The Russians say our ballistic missile defense is really targeted against them, which is nonsense. It would take more robust systems and widespread deployment to pose such a threat. They are rearming, having recently deployed their Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile, and want us as weak as possible. At one point, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergey vanov even proposed that Russia be given a "red-button veto" over any use of a European-based missile defense. "In practical terms," he said, "that means our office will sit, for example, in Brussels and agree on a red-button push to start an anti-missile," and that he would decide whether we would shoot down a missile launched against us or our allies news.investors.com credit to prolife

To: Big Black Swan who wrote (49786)	3/8/2012 10:17:11 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Israelis know that Obama does not have their back. They could initiate the invasion any time. They might like to wait until they know if a new President is due to be sworn in. If they were to wait until mid October it might get the worst President in history reelected. OTOH every day they wait gets Iran greater nuclear capabilities.

To: Big Black Swan who wrote (49786)	3/9/2012 1:30:42 PM
From: Peter Dierks	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Obama Vs. Israel: Priority No. 1? Stop Israel By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER Posted 03/08/2012 06:13 PM ET It's Lucy and the football, Iran-style. After ostensibly tough talk about preventing Iran from going nuclear, the Obama administration acquiesced to yet another round of talks with the mullahs. This, 14 months after the last group-of-six negotiations collapsed in Istanbul because of blatant Iranian stalling and unseriousness. Nonetheless, the new negotiations will be both without precondition and preceded by yet more talks to decide such trivialities as venue. These negotiations don't just gain time for a nuclear program about whose military intent the IAEA is issuing alarming warnings. They make it extremely difficult for Israel to do anything about it (while it still can), lest Israel be universally condemned for having aborted a diplomatic solution. If the administration were serious about achievement rather than appearance, it would have warned that this was the last chance for Iran to come clean and would have demanded a short timeline. After all, President Obama insisted on deadlines for the Iraq withdrawal, the Afghan surge and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Why leave these crucial talks open-ended when the nuclear clock is ticking? This re-engagement comes immediately after Obama's campaign-year posturing about Iran's nukes. Sunday in front of AIPAC, he warned that "Iran's leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States." This just two days after he'd said (to the Atlantic) of possible U.S. military action, "I don't bluff." Yet on Tuesday he returns to the very engagement policy that he admits had previously failed. Real Target Won't sanctions make a difference this time, however? Sanctions are indeed hurting Iran economically. But when Obama's own director of national intelligence was asked by the Senate intelligence committee whether sanctions had any effect on the course of Iran's nuclear program, the answer was simple: No. None whatsoever. Obama garnered much AIPAC applause by saying that his is not a containment policy but a prevention policy. But what has he prevented? Keeping a coalition of six together is not success. Holding talks is not success. Imposing sanctions is not success. Success is halting and reversing the program. Yet Iran is tripling its uranium output, moving enrichment facilities deep under a mountain near Qom and impeding IAEA inspections of weaponization facilities. So what is Obama's real objective? "We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel," an administration official told the Washington Post in the most revealing White House admission since "leading from behind." Revealing and shocking. The world's greatest exporter of terror (according to the State Department), the systematic killer of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-declared enemy that invented "Death to America Day" is approaching nuclear capability — and the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent a democratic ally threatened with annihilation from pre-empting the threat? Indeed it is. The new open-ended negotiations with Iran fit well with this strategy of tying Israel down. As does Obama's "I have Israel's back" reassurance, designed to persuade Israel and its supporters to pull back and outsource to Obama what for Israel are life-and-death decisions. All About Re-election Yet 48 hours later, Obama tells a news conference that this phrase is just a historical reference to supporting such allies as Britain and Japan — contradicting the intended impression he'd given AIPAC that he was offering special protection to an ally under threat of physical annihilation. To AIPAC he declares that "no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction" and affirms "Israel's sovereign right to make its own decisions ... to meet its security needs." And then he pursues policies — open-ended negotiations, deceptive promises of tough U.S. backing for Israel, boasts about the efficacy of sanctions, grave warnings about "war talk" — meant, as his own official admitted, to stop Israel from exercising precisely that sovereign right to self-protection. Yet beyond these obvious contradictions and walk-backs lies a transcendent logic: As with the Keystone pipeline delay, as with the debt-ceiling extension, as with the Afghan withdrawal schedule, Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his re-election. For Israel, however, the stakes are somewhat higher: the very existence of a vibrant nation and its 6 million Jews. The asymmetry is stark. A fair-minded observer might judge that Israel's desire to not go gently into the darkness carries higher moral urgency than the political future of one man, even if he is president of the U.S. news.investors.com

To: Big Black Swan who wrote (49786)	3/13/2012 1:54:40 AM
From: greatplains_guy	2 Recommendations Respond to of 71588

When Netanyahu explicitly made the historical comparison to Auschwitz in that speech, I knew it was over. No Israeli PM - least of all Netanyahu - would make that comparison except to underline the most dire circumstances. War is coming soon. Nobody who is sane wants war. However war often averts greater dislocation When the Mullahs are removed Iran might be able to rule herself without threatening her neighbors. Certainly while they remain Iran will always be a security threat.