Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
When Obama talks change; he's really talking about his mind
Topic Started: Nov 17 2008, 03:07 PM (425 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Looks like Obama is changing his tune on missile defense... it must have been one helleva security briefing Pres. Bush gave Obama last week... Or he's been replaced with a look-alike.

Quote:
 
Sunday, Nov. 16, 2008
Why Obama Will Continue Star Wars
By Mark Thompson / Washington

Missile-defense skeptics yearning for a fresh look at the wisdom of pumping $10 billion annually into missile defense aren't going to get it from Barack Obama when he moves into the Oval Office. The Russians — along with the two men most likely to end up running the Pentagon for the President-elect — have already made sure of that. It's a bracing reminder of just how difficult it is to counter momentum once a big-league defense program achieves what aerodynamicists call "escape velocity" — that synergy of speed and gravity that lets a vehicle soar smoothly into the skies.

President George W. Bush promised to build a "Star Wars" missile shield, and he has kept that promise — even if there is no guarantee if the shield works or that it increases security. There has indeed been much Democratic derision focused on what has mostly been seen as a Republican program, one that has been lavished with $100 billion since Ronald Reagan called for such a shield at the height of the Cold War in 1983.

But even in a Democratic-run Pentagon the push for missile defense is going to continue. If Obama keeps Defense Secretary Robert Gates on, as some advisers are arguing he should, that would come as no surprise. "Russia has nothing to fear from a defensive missile shield," Gates said Thursday as he argued for extending the system to Europe. The current plan is to place 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a missile-tracking radar in the Czech Republic by 2014. It's strongly opposed by Russia, which views it as an unwelcome military threat in a region where it has always been pre-eminent. The other leading contender for the Pentagon post is Richard Danzig, a Clinton Navy secretary, who recently told reporters that the Obama team has "a strong view that national missile defense is a rewarding area and should be invested in."

In fact, during the campaign, Obama said "I actually believe that we need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons." While expressing concern that such a program might not work, he also has said that it makes sense to "explore the possibility of deploying missile defense systems in Europe," in light of Tehran's efforts, his aides have recently suggested he won't move ahead with the European deployment if the system's not "workable." (On Friday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned Washington against deploying the shield in Europe. "Deployment of a missile defense system would bring nothing to security," he said at a press conference with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. "It would complicate things, and would make them move backward.")

The outgoing general who heads the Pentagon's missile defense efforts declared Wednesday that the system is "absolutely" workable. Lieutenant General Henry Obering, who is leaving his post after four years of running the program, said U.S. interests would be "severely hurt" if Obama abandons the Bush Administration's plans to expand the missile shield to Europe. "What we have discovered is that a lot of the folks that have not been in [the Bush] Administration seem to be dated, in terms of the program," Obering said. "They are kind of calibrated back in the 2000 time frame and we have come a hell of a long way since 2000."

Beyond the endorsements of the military and possible defense secretaries, recent post-election statements from Moscow criticizing the European expansion of the missile shield make it highly likely it will happen, U.S. officials say. Obama can't be seen, early in his tenure, as bending to Russia's wishes, they say.

While all that suggests the system will move full speed ahead, there was a recent ground-breaking that makes it pretty much official. Three weeks ago, the Pentagon began work on a new missile defense "Headquarters Command Center" at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, about 10 miles south of the Pentagon. The $38.5 million building will be home to 300 Missile Defense Agency workers. Its planned brick veneer will match the fort's Georgian Colonial Revival style. Once finished in late 2010, the brand new missile-defense headquarters will blend in with Fort Belvoir's pre-World War II buildings. It will seem like it has always been there.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859393,00.html


For the record, here's what he said before the conventions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX9M54_8rRk
Edited by Dwayne, Nov 17 2008, 03:25 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
article that started this thread
 
In fact, during the campaign, Obama said "I actually believe that we need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons." While expressing concern that such a program might not work, he also has said that it makes sense to "explore the possibility of deploying missile defense systems in Europe,"


I'm confused. When did Obama change his mind? :headscratch:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Nov 17 2008, 03:07 PM
Looks like Obama is changing his tune on missile defense... it must have been one helleva security briefing Pres. Bush gave Obama last week... Or he's been replaced with a look-alike.
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind, would you prefer a President who rigidly sticks to everything said before the election regardless of anything learned after the election?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 04:37 PM
Dwayne
Nov 17 2008, 03:07 PM
Looks like Obama is changing his tune on missile defense... it must have been one helleva security briefing Pres. Bush gave Obama last week... Or he's been replaced with a look-alike.
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind, would you prefer a President who rigidly sticks to everything said before the election regardless of anything learned after the election?
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind

would you prefer a president who lied about his stand point on various issues in order to make himself more electable?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^

Yeah, what he said.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Nov 17 2008, 04:44 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 04:37 PM
Dwayne
Nov 17 2008, 03:07 PM
Looks like Obama is changing his tune on missile defense... it must have been one helleva security briefing Pres. Bush gave Obama last week... Or he's been replaced with a look-alike.
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind, would you prefer a President who rigidly sticks to everything said before the election regardless of anything learned after the election?
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind

would you prefer a president who lied about his stand point on various issues in order to make himself more electable?
Interesting. So if a President learns something he didn't know before and changes his stance accordingly, that somehow means he lied? Please explain.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Nov 17 2008, 04:56 PM
^^^

Yeah, what he said.
Did you really agree with that or are you just avoiding my question?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 05:32 PM
Dandandat
Nov 17 2008, 04:44 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 04:37 PM
Dwayne
Nov 17 2008, 03:07 PM
Looks like Obama is changing his tune on missile defense... it must have been one helleva security briefing Pres. Bush gave Obama last week... Or he's been replaced with a look-alike.
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind, would you prefer a President who rigidly sticks to everything said before the election regardless of anything learned after the election?
Without even getting into whether he changed his mind

would you prefer a president who lied about his stand point on various issues in order to make himself more electable?
Interesting. So ifa President learns something he didn't know before and changes his stance accordingly, that somehow means he lied? Please explain.
No a President who learns something he didn't know before than changes his stance accordingly has not lied when he changes his stance.

Nor did I say that.


However a president who lied about his stance during a presidential election, in order to become more electable, who than amends his perversely (lied bout) stance once he is elected, has lied.
Edited by Dandandat, Nov 17 2008, 05:43 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ImpulseEngine
Nov 17 2008, 05:32 PM
Interesting. So if a President learns something he didn't know before and changes his stance accordingly, that somehow means he lied? Please explain.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

My oh my - how quickly things are "changing".

I just don't see "Obama lied and we got a missile defense program" catching on.

I find it extremely unlikely that Obama knows anything relevant to this topic now that he did not know prior to November 4th. Now that he's elected he can allow common sense to take over.

Who's keeping the list of broken campaign promises, or would that just be petty? Something akin to, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."

According to the talking heads in the media, the next item on any such list will be closing Gitmo.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
Firstly, from your article:

Quote:
 
In fact, during the campaign, Obama said "I actually believe that we need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons." While expressing concern that such a program might not work, he also has said that it makes sense to "explore the possibility of deploying missile defense systems in Europe,"


Then, in the video clip.

- He says he will cut spending on unproven missile defence systems. That's not totally at odds with the above (although admittedly his words leave him room for manouvere)
- He also says he will not weaponise space (presumably referring to 'Star Wars'). I can't see anything in that article that suggests he will, it seems to me to be referring to ground-based defence systems.

Additionally of course, all this assumes that Robert Gates speaks for Obama in the first place. Has he been confirmed as Secretary of State for Defence yet???

I don't really see any evidence of what you guys across the pond term as 'flip-flopping' here.
Edited by STC, Nov 17 2008, 06:08 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
STC
Nov 17 2008, 06:06 PM
Firstly, from your article:

Quote:
 
In fact, during the campaign, Obama said "I actually believe that we need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons." While expressing concern that such a program might not work, he also has said that it makes sense to "explore the possibility of deploying missile defense systems in Europe,"


Then, in the video clip.

- He says he will cut spending on unproven missile defence systems. That's not totally at odds with the above (although admittedly his words leave him room for manouvere)
- He also says he will not weaponise space (presumably referring to 'Star Wars'). I can't see anything in that article that suggests he will, it seems to me to be referring to ground-based defence systems.

Additionally of course, all this assumes that Robert Gates speaks for Obama in the first place. Has he been confirmed as Secretary of State for Defence yet???

I don't really see any evidence of what you guys across the pond term as 'flip-flopping' here.
Oh my goodness!

So Obama has a different missile system that does work?

Speaking of wasting money on ideas that don't work .... what about green energy? Embryonic stem cell research? Welfare? Public education? All good ideas that aren't very cost-effective.

If Obama were to shut down every government program that is ineffective then Washington DC would become a very lonely place.

Evidence? We don't need evidence. The Bush Presidency rules are still in effect until 1/20/09! :P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
^^^

I don't really think you've responded to my points RTW. :)
Edited by STC, Nov 17 2008, 06:19 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Sorry, I didn't realize you made any points. I thought you were just pointing out the wiggle room in Obama's statement.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
^^^

I count 3 specific points that I made.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
STC
Nov 17 2008, 07:35 PM
^^^

I count 3 specific points that I made.
I quoted the same passage and asked the same question and was ignored by everyone.

Welcome to the club.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus