September 17, 2009

Gonna Lay Down My Missile Shield

Hatched by Dafydd

In Nukes for Kooks, we noted the mounting cooperation between Putin's Russia and Oogo Chavez's Venezuela, particularly on giving Venezuela nuclear technology... for peaceful purposes, naturally:

Venezuelan fascist dictator Oogo Chavez has just announced a joint venture with the Soviet Union Russia to develop "peaceful" nuclear power. At last, his poor, energy-starved country can stop shivering and provide power for its citizenry.

I suggested the tack that President Barack H. Obama would surely take to deal with this threat to American security:

I'm quite certain that the Obamacle, furthering his standard policy of friendly negotiations with all of our bitterest enemies (while snubbing and working against the interests of our closest allies), will immediately announce a diplomatic initiative to Oogo... run by the WMD Czar, Gary Samore, and a newly appointed Venezuela Czar, Jalapeño Spice, rather than by the Secretary of State (whoever he is).

The negotiating team (Samantha Power, Van Jones, Sen. Al Franken, and Keith Olbermann) will insist that Venezuela and Russia issue ironclad assurances, written in bold black ink on creamy white paper, that they never, ever, ever will help Oogo Chavez obtain nuclear weapons.

Oogo will be brought to the White House thirty-eight times over the next two years, where he will be feted and wined and dined. Then Obama will bow at the waist, kiss Oogo's Bolivarian hand, and call him "your highness."

In the end, the One will get his agreement, signed at the Western White House (Al Capone's old headquarters in Chicago). He -- Obama, not Capone -- will hold the piece of paper up for CNN to video, and his teleprompter will announce that Obama has achieved "peace in our time." We will then launch a massive foreign-aid money drop into Venezuela, to ensure they have enough aluminum tubing and nuclear-blast analysis software for the venture to succeed.

Well he hasn't yet gotten around to thinking of a response -- to Oogo; and it's puzzling, since our president is known world-wide for the roadrunner-like alacrity with which he responds to crises (such as backloading the recession stimulus plan so that nearly all the spending occurs two, three years out -- rather than, you know, during the recession itself). But at least he believes in firm but fair negotiations with Russia, the other half of the deadly equation; kind of like "tough love":

The Obama administration will scrap the controversial missile defense shield program in Eastern Europe, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN Thursday....

The Bush administration had cited the perceived nuclear threat from Iran as one of the key reasons it wanted to install the missile shield in eastern Europe.

The U.S. reversal is likely to please Russia, which had fiercely opposed the plans.

Our president displays the magnanimity that characterizes the American heart: He did not even demand some equivalent concession from Russia (such as abandoning the Venezuela nuclear deal), as some haggling Republican would have; Obama simply gave generously, as one friend to another, without insisting upon any quid pro quo.

But it's wonderful policy for America as well, dismantling our ability to defend ourselves from missile attack. To explain the deep, thoughtful reasoning behind the abrupt switch in policy to what Vladimir Putin has demanded, in increasingly bellicose tones, B.O. sent out America's top nuclear-policy expert, the man with more experience in the subject than any homo sapiens sapiens since Henry "Hammerin' Hank" Kissinger: Vice President Joe Biden:

Vice President Joe Biden earlier refused to confirm to CNN that the George W. Bush-era plan was being shelved.

But he did explain the logic of doing so, saying Iran -- a key concern for the United States -- was not a threat.

"I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat," he told CNN's Chris Lawrence in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip.

"The whole purpose of this exercise we are undertaking is to diminish the prospect of the Iranians destabilizing that region in the world. I am less concerned -- much less concerned -- about the Iranian potential. They have no potential at this moment, they have no capacity to launch a missile at the United States of America," he said.

Now crabby, hysterical, Nazi-regalia sporting critics of the One We Have All Been Waiting For might raise the point that the purpose of ballistic missile defense in Eastern Europe is not necessarily to protect us from an Iranian ICBM launched against the continental United States, but rather to protect our European allies from Iranian threats from the intermediate-range ballistic missiles that they already have, ready and waiting for the nuclear warheads that they are so desperately trying to obtain (by hook or by Russian crook).

Those who are simply trying to kill the policy point out (in an enraged and emotional tone of voice) that the flight path from Iran to every country in Western Europe passes very near the Czech Republic or Poland -- or directly over them.

The missile shield was also intended (say those crybaby critics, who are all wee-weed up) to deter Russia itself from trying to reconquer the lands it lost when the Soviet Union collapsed, obliterating (perhaps temporarily) Communism's motherland. There are some loons who still insist, despite all evidence, that Russia herself has access to ICBMs that could be launched towards CONUS.

Such an argument is of course racist, so we need not bother responding.

But in fact, as anyone understands who has been paying attention, Russia has pointed all those missiles away from us and at other, more pressing threats to the Russian republic. I'm thinking Georgia, or maybe Tibet. Therefore, Putin poses even less of a threat to us than Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly refuted the cockamamie right-wing notion that he wants nuclear power for any but peaceful purposes -- just like Oogo.

The decision to unilaterally tear up our agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic shows the Obamacle's mastery of diplomacy, pleasing enemy and ally alike:

Czech Prime minister Jan Fischer said in a statement that U.S. President Barack Obama told him in a Wednesday phone call that the United States was shelving its plans. Fischer did not say what reason Obama gave him for reconsidering.

A spokeswoman at the Polish Ministry of Defense also said the program had been suspended.

"This is catastrophic for Poland," said the spokeswoman, who declined to be named in line with ministry policy....

Poland and the Czech Republic had based much of their future security policy on getting the missile defenses from the United States. The countries share deep concerns of a future military threat from the east -- namely, Russia -- and may now look for other defense assurances from their NATO allies.

Our lifelong, beloved national friend Russia has yet to respond, but we must assume this will cement the alliance between two countries joined by a common goal: the complete transformation of humanity to more closely match the spiritual qualities, ideology, and bipartisan outreach of, well, the One Himself:

By contrast, Russia may view the move as a diplomatic victory after complaining about the program consistently for years.

There was no comment Thursday morning from Russian officials. But the issue has been a sore point in relations between Washington and Moscow, with Russia believing the shield would ultimately erode its own strategic nuclear deterrent.

Any fair-minded supporter of world peace, security, and United Nations hegemony must agree; it's patently obvious that a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic threatens the nuclear deterrent of Russia.

After all, if we had the capability to intercept Russian missiles and prevent them from obliterating American cities, think how that would throw a monkey wrench into their ability to deploy Mutual Assured Destruction -- their only gambit to frighten us out of launching an unprovoked first strike against them. Such a savage and senseless American first strike would kill hundreds of millions of innocent civilians for no reason whatsoever -- beyond the sick love of genocide that riddles American history. And it's very likely, if a Republican ever manages to steal another presidential election, as in 2004, 2000, and 1980.

Thank the One I have seen the light. I shall spread the Good News -- that we finally have a president, the first since Jimmy Carter, who honestly believes in real negotiations (without preconditions) as the only arrow in the quiver of American foreign policy!

Truly we live in the New Millennium of hope and change.

Cross-toasted by Hot Air's rogues' gallery...

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 17, 2009, at the time of 2:16 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gonna Lay Down My Missile Shield:

» Gonna Lay Down My Missile Shield from The Greenroom
In Nukes for Kooks, we noted the mounting cooperation between Putin’s Russia and Oogo Chavez’s Venezuela, particularly on giving Venezuela nuclear technology… for peaceful purposes, naturally: Venezuelan fascist dictator Oogo Chavez h... [Read More]

Tracked on September 17, 2009 1:50 PM

» Gonna Lay Down My Missile Shield from The Greenroom
In Nukes for Kooks, we noted the mounting cooperation between Putin’s Russia and Oogo Chavez’s Venezuela, particularly on giving Venezuela nuclear technology… for peaceful purposes, naturally: Venezuelan fascist dictator Oogo Chavez h... [Read More]

Tracked on September 17, 2009 1:50 PM


The following hissed in response by: scrapiron

President O'Dumbo selling America's defense one system at a time and getting nothing back in return, that we know of. How's his foreign bank accounts expanding?

The above hissed in response by: scrapiron [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 17, 2009 7:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

Excuse me, but if you can defend yourself from nuclear missle attack, and you choose not to, isan'that...immoral?

The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 18, 2009 11:49 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


I hinted at the answer to that question; the answer is No, it's not immoral -- from the liberal perspective.

We needn't accept the other person's mindset; but it's vital we understand it, if we want to be able to predict his future behavior. One of the central axioms of contemporary (post-Vietnam) left-liberalism, and of its smaller but angrier ally, the New Left, is that America is far more likely to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, or (enemy du jour) than any of them is to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on us.

Given that premise, they see MAD not as a way for us to restrain the military ambitions of the evil empire and its spawn... but for the altruistic socialists arrayed against the United States to restrain our military ambitions against them, the peace-loving Marxists of the world.

For MAD to work to restrain America's natural tendency towards genocide, at least under Republican administrations, we must actually be at risk of utter annihilation of our population, via the nuclear counterattack that would surely follow our anticipated unprovoked attack against them.

Thus, any technological innovation that makes it more likely we, as a nation, would survive such an exchange -- especially including BMD -- makes it more likely that the next rabid Republican to live in la Casa Blanca would launch the birds and let the nuclear chips fall where they may.

Therefore, allowing America to have ballistic missile defense is immoral, by force of logical conclusion.

(And indeed, the conclusion is valid, given the wacko premise that American Republicans are just dying to obliterate much of the world with nuclear MIRVs.)

So we will not change any liberal minds by the argument you hint at above; we must first attack the root premise. And for that, we need a Republican presidential candidate who is an extraordinary communicator. Not a glib and slick con man, as Barack H. Obama is; not a latter-day Daniel Webster, impossible to attain; but at least a sincere, honest, intelligent, intellectual, witty, good-humored, likeable, courageous, charismatic, and resolute communicator.

I'm not asking the impossible; I myself have personally known several such people. I don't believe Ronald Reagan was uniquely great; he was -- I know this sounds like a contradiction, but I think you know what I mean -- he was an ordinary extraordinary guy.

(And also an extraordinary ordinary guy, but that's a different point.)

Bush had many of those qualities, but he fell short because (a) he was dreadful at communicating his policies and decisions, and (b) he was too accomodating to the Left, particularly in his second term (I think he lost confidence in himself). But he could have been a great president, if he'd only overcome those two awful flaws.

So a bullseye and a near miss within a span of just twenty years: That indicates such extraordinary men are more ordinary than we recognize.


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 18, 2009 2:19 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved