Russian spies infiltrate gov't, and Obama "hopes relations won't be damaged?"

[Patriot123]

Is Obama OUT OF HIS MIND? Yeah, that's a legit question. I just don't get it. Typically, war and politics are like chess. You don't try to let the other side get a check-mate. We wouldn't have let Hitler march his troops through our capitol. Instead, we fought the Nazi's off -- an act of self-defense and, of course, self-righteousness -- something that any other nation would have done. We wouldn't have cowered in fear during the Cold War, and let the Russians and Communism beat us -- that wouldn't be self-righteous, and that wouldn't be in our best interest. We wouldn't have just given up Vietnam, either, for the same reasons. We wouldn't have let the British take us over again in the War of 1812. We have always, throughout our history, done what was in our best interest. Every successful nation or person on Earth has. And those that haven't have fallen like little pawns. Poland and Russia in WWII. The League of Nations at the start of WWII. President Jimmy Carter. Israel, as much as I support neither side of the conflict, would have fallen if it had ever given in to public pressure. Think about how blatantly Japan ignored all of the pre-WWII treaties, and then bombed us at Pearl Harbor.

And so, my question stands: Is Obama INSANE? He claims to be a student of history. Where the hell is his brain? Up his ***? He's LETTING the Russians get a hand over us! He has signed arms reduction treaties with them. He brought Putin to a freaking burger shop like they're best pals. He's giving Russia an upper hand over us, and he's going to RUIN US. Obama, the proclaimed "president who will bring Change" has just shrugged off the fact that ELEVEN RUSSIAN SPIES have been arrested giving away our nations top secrets! Russian agents are infiltrating our government, taking our secrets when we're trying to make "peace" with them. Not only is this INSANITY, but this is a complete contradictory scenario when compared to the U-2 Spy Plane Incident! What did Russian Premiere Khrushchev do? He chose to let the Paris Summit collapse -- he didn't kiss up to Eisenhower and say "oh, I hope our relations won't be hampered by this!" So what does Obama have to say for himself? That he hopes our relations with Russia won't be hampered by it! Moscow is LAUGHING AT US. Putin even said, himself, that he's glad relations won't be damaged, when he knows the Russian government purposely put spies over here! The Russians aren't offering any sort of compensation. They aren't apologizing like their country depends on it. What kind of IDIOT is in our Oval Office, America? Who? Who did you elect? Who? A man with no experience, just like President Harding back in the 20's, for those who actually read history? I don't get it. I just don't. Why is this man still in office?

I just don't get it -- Russia has made it clear that it desires to rebuild the Soviet Union. For all we know, those spies could have been gathering information for the best way to attack us. And Obama just sits there, "hoping that our relations won't be damaged?" He's OUT OF HIS MIND. He thinks he can make the world all happy and safe by being super-duper friendly with all the nations of the world. He's like a three year old kid. If he's not a one-termer, I fear for this country. I really do.

[Andrew-Austin]

Out of his mind? You seem to be assuming he (or whoever could be said to actually hold power/influence at least in this policy matter) is intending to act in the best interests of the "national collective". A pretty naive assumption. Sorry if I am the first one to break this news to you, but the large majority of the time governments don't act in the best interests of the little people they are supposed to be representing. A conspiratorial backroom deal or special interest agenda is more likely to account for this.

Now I don't know exactly what the Arms Reduction Treaty (whatever its called I haven't read it) entails, but if it is only a pledge to lower the amount of nuclear bombs a country holds then it is completely harmless.
If there are only about 194 other different nations in the world, then logically there seems no reason why "we" would ever need more than that amount (putting aside for a second that to use even one would be completely insane let alone that many). Lowering the amount of nuclear bombs from 20,000 or whatever to 200 does not mean shit. You could look at it as mere political gesturing, rhetoric that might be employed for whatever strategic reasons. Furthermore nations sign these things all the time and don't adhere to them.


We wouldn't have let Hitler march his troops through our capitol. Instead, we fought the Nazi's off -- an act of self-defense and, of course, self-righteousness -- something that any other nation would have done. We wouldn't have cowered in fear during the Cold War, and let the Russians and Communism beat us -- that wouldn't be self-righteous, and that wouldn't be in our best interest. We wouldn't have just given up Vietnam, either, for the same reasons. We wouldn't have let the British take us over again in the War of 1812. We have always, throughout our history, done what was in our best interest.

That is a pretty spurious, seemingly propaganda inspired version of history. I gotta say I'm laughing in disagreement, especially at the last sentence.

Just for starters (it would take quite a long post to address everything you seem to be mistaken about) you seem to think foreign communism (read: not communist/socialist ideas that emerge within our political system but in foreign systems) was actually a threat. Outside of the Soviet Union's possession of nuclear weapons, which could be and was rendered strategically irrelevant by our ownership of such weapons, foreign communism was no threat at all. Communism is insanely false and thus economically crippling (obvious enough in hindsight at least). That in the past people and government agencies (like the CIA) thought so strongfully and fearfully otherwise can only be chalked up to their own ignorance.

Second, the US did give up in Vietnam, in that it fled rather rapidly long before any mission accomplished banner could justifiably be unfurled. And it was a stupid idea that was not in the "interests of the US" to begin with.

[Carson]

There is a Fark thread on this topic.

Fark Headline;

US officials say they were tipped off to the Russian "sleeper" agents after learning that hot women had been spotted at parties appearing actually interested in talking to scientists and engineers about their jobs

Link to comments ( Pictures of what Russian spy's might look like.):

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=5457972

[Patriot123]

Out of his mind? You seem to be assuming he (or whoever could be said to actually hold power/influence at least in this policy matter) is intending to act in the best interests of the "national collective". A pretty naive assumption. Sorry if I am the first one to break this news to you, but the large majority of the time governments don't act in the best interests of the little people they are supposed to be representing. A conspiratorial backroom deal or special interest agenda is more likely to account for this.

Now I don't know exactly what the Arms Reduction Treaty (whatever its called I haven't read it) entails, but if it is only a pledge to lower the amount of nuclear bombs a country holds then it is completely harmless.
If there are only about 194 other different nations in the world, then logically there seems no reason why "we" would ever need more than that amount (putting aside for a second that to use even one would be completely insane let alone that many). Lowering the amount of nuclear bombs from 20,000 or whatever to 200 does not mean shit. You could look at it as mere political gesturing, rhetoric that might be employed for whatever strategic reasons.



That is a pretty spurious, seemingly propaganda inspired version of history. I gotta say I'm laughing in disagreement, especially at the last sentence.

Just for starters (it would take quite a long post to address everything you seem to be mistaken about) you seem to think foreign communism (read: not communist/socialist ideas that emerge within our political system but in foreign systems) was actually a threat. Outside of the Soviet Union's possession of nuclear weapons, which could be and was rendered strategically irrelevant by our ownership of such weapons, foreign communism displayed no threat whatsoever. Communism is insanely false and thus economically crippling (obvious enough in hindsight at least). That in the past people and government agencies (like the CIA) thought so strongfully and fearfully otherwise can only be chalked up to their own ignorance.

Second, the US did give up in Vietnam, in that it fled rather rapidly long before any mission accomplished banner could justifiably be unfurled. And it was a stupid idea that was not in the "interests of the US" to begin with.

Okay, so generally speaking, at least. A sane leader isn't going to let Kim Jung Il fly troops to Washington Dulles International Airport, let them march to the White House and then proceed to have the White House staff give them all little welcome cards. Get my point? That's pretty close to what Obama's doing, here. Sure, leaders and governments don't always act in the best interest of its people. That's not what I'm saying, though. What I am saying is that they act in their own best interest -- the best interest of the territory and power of the nation they control. By Obama letting the Russians get an upper hand over the country, well... let's just say it isn't exactly "normal." In chess, that would spell "check."

Next, it does mean something. If you agree to lower the amount of nuclear weapons, who's to say that the other country isn't going to just lie and keep (if not raise) their supply, while you're lowering yours? That would put you at a huge disadvantage, wouldn't it? Hasn't history taught us anything about "peace treaties?"

Communism was a threat. Maybe not to the extent that Senator McCarthy made it out to be, but it was still a threat.

And it was in the best interest of Nixon. It was one of his campaign promises. (Yeah, okay. I goofed on that one. My point still stands.)

[HOLLYWOOD]

Everybody... Look Elsewhere... This is the .GOV disinformation/misinformation propaganda machine playing the masses.

Look elsewhere...

[Andrew-Austin]

Okay, so generally speaking, at least. A sane leader isn't going to let Kim Jung Il fly troops to Washington Dulles International Airport, let them march to the White House and then proceed to have the White House staff give them all little welcome cards. Get my point? That's pretty close to what Obama's doing, here. Sure, leaders and governments don't always act in the best interest of its people. That's not what I'm saying, though. What I am saying is that they act in their own best interest -- the best interest of the territory and power of the nation they control. By Obama letting the Russians get an upper hand over the country, well... let's just say it isn't exactly "normal." In chess, that would spell "check."

Next, it does mean something. If you agree to lower the amount of nuclear weapons, who's to say that the other country isn't going to just lie and keep (if not raise) their supply, while you're lowering yours? That would put you at a huge disadvantage, wouldn't it? Hasn't history taught us anything about "peace treaties?"


Well I don't believe owning 20,000 nukes gives one any more of a strategical or political advantage than owning 200. So long as Obama does not get rid of all the US's nuclear weapons completely, I don't see an issue. If he did this (disarm completely), you are right it would not only be against the interests of the country, it would clearly be against his interests as well and thus be pretty inexplicable.



Communism was a threat. Maybe not to the extent that Senator McCarthy made it out to be, but it was still a threat.

Oh I agree that communism can be a threat to people. To the extent that our own government can be subverted towards communist ideas it can absolutely be a threat. But what I meant was foreign communist nations are only a threat to the people they rule over, the Soviet Union wasn't really a threat assuming all we had to do was keep being a pretty free market oriented country (lol which we failed to do). The threat of communism can only come from our own government (which I think was what McCarthy was primarily concerned with), not a foreign one.

[silus]

Is Obama OUT OF HIS MIND? Yeah, that's a legit question. I just don't get it. Typically, war and politics are like chess. You don't try to let the other side get a check-mate. We wouldn't have let Hitler march his troops through our capitol. Instead, we fought the Nazi's off -- an act of self-defense and, of course, self-righteousness -- something that any other nation would have done. We wouldn't have cowered in fear during the Cold War, and let the Russians and Communism beat us -- that wouldn't be self-righteous, and that wouldn't be in our best interest. We wouldn't have just given up Vietnam, either, for the same reasons. We wouldn't have let the British take us over again in the War of 1812. We have always, throughout our history, done what was in our best interest. Every successful nation or person on Earth has. And those that haven't have fallen like little pawns. Poland and Russia in WWII. The League of Nations at the start of WWII. President Jimmy Carter. Israel, as much as I support neither side of the conflict, would have fallen if it had ever given in to public pressure. Think about how blatantly Japan ignored all of the pre-WWII treaties, and then bombed us at Pearl Harbor.

And so, my question stands: Is Obama INSANE? He claims to be a student of history. Where the hell is his brain? Up his ***? He's LETTING the Russians get a hand over us! He has signed arms reduction treaties with them. He brought Putin to a freaking burger shop like they're best pals. He's giving Russia an upper hand over us, and he's going to RUIN US. Obama, the proclaimed "president who will bring Change" has just shrugged off the fact that ELEVEN RUSSIAN SPIES have been arrested giving away our nations top secrets! Russian agents are infiltrating our government, taking our secrets when we're trying to make "peace" with them. Not only is this INSANITY, but this is a complete contradictory scenario when compared to the U-2 Spy Plane Incident! What did Russian Premiere Khrushchev do? He chose to let the Paris Summit collapse -- he didn't kiss up to Eisenhower and say "oh, I hope our relations won't be hampered by this!" So what does Obama have to say for himself? That he hopes our relations with Russia won't be hampered by it! Moscow is LAUGHING AT US. Putin even said, himself, that he's glad relations won't be damaged, when he knows the Russian government purposely put spies over here! The Russians aren't offering any sort of compensation. They aren't apologizing like their country depends on it. What kind of IDIOT is in our Oval Office, America? Who? Who did you elect? Who? A man with no experience, just like President Harding back in the 20's, for those who actually read history? I don't get it. I just don't. Why is this man still in office?

I just don't get it -- Russia has made it clear that it desires to rebuild the Soviet Union. For all we know, those spies could have been gathering information for the best way to attack us. And Obama just sits there, "hoping that our relations won't be damaged?" He's OUT OF HIS MIND. He thinks he can make the world all happy and safe by being super-duper friendly with all the nations of the world. He's like a three year old kid. If he's not a one-termer, I fear for this country. I really do.
To be quite honest, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. And to compare this incident with the capture of
Francis Powers and a functional U2 plane in 1960 is just insane.

Newsflash. The spy game is played by every country in the world. Our biggest intel threat might even be Israel. Most of the time when spies are uncovered they are deported. These Russians apparently have no immunity, but how we treat one nations spies may affect how our spies are treated. Your line about how they might have been uncovering the best way to attack us just tells me you should do more listening than talking.

[BlackTerrel]

Ehhhh I think he's doing the right thing. You discover spies then yeah we have to charge them. But at the end of the day they spy on us and we spy on them.

So how would we look if we became so indignant now and they find 10 of our spies next month.

They're far from the only country spying on us. Positive relations with Russia are important to our national security. And they shouldn't be jeopardized for this.

[Aratus]

there are these other group(s) other than KGB that are very good at morphing its own people into
AMERICAN identities that do be tacitly like ALIAS's five~headed hydra organization "SD6" in that they
have an infrastructure and at times a criminal agenda. there are overlaps between gov'ts + crime.

[seeker4sho]

This spy story is ridiculous. Ever hear of Google? The purported information the so-called spy's were seeking is readily available for anyone on Google. I think it is a concocted distraction to divert attention away from some legitimate story-- probably the sinking economy.

[seeker4sho]

Everybody... Look Elsewhere... This is the .GOV disinformation/misinformation propaganda machine playing the masses.

Look elsewhere...

I could not agree more.

[BlackTerrel]

This spy story is ridiculous. Ever hear of Google? The purported information the so-called spy's were seeking is readily available for anyone on Google. I think it is a concocted distraction to divert attention away from some legitimate story-- probably the sinking economy.

This story isn't even the top story on any of the sites and will be forgotten in a week. Not an effective strategy unless they plan on fixing the economy next week.

[cyberrate]

This spy story is ridiculous. Ever hear of Google? The purported information the so-called spy's were seeking is readily available for anyone on Google. I think it is a concocted distraction to divert attention away from some legitimate story-- probably the sinking economy.

The spy story has one purpose and one purpose only. They [people who want to scare American public with this image of aggressive Russia so on one will question "why we have such a huge military spending, if we are friends with Russia?"] just can't let Russia to become "good guys" in the eyes of American taxpayers. So just when Medvedev had some burgers with Obama, and Americans started to think that Russia is not that aggressive after all, they come up with this story just to spoil any good impression that Medvedev has made. From the looks of it the story is very dodgy, and perhaps was prepared in a hurry, since they didn't expect that Medvedev will have such a success in USA and had to come up with something very quickly to keep the status quo.

[heavenlyboy34]

This story isn't even the top story on any of the sites and will be forgotten in a week. Not an effective strategy unless they plan on fixing the economy next week.

I would expect neocon media to try and keep it in sheeple's minds, though. It's a good distraction for the lobotomized. ;)

[seeker4sho]

The spy story has one purpose and one purpose only. They [people who want to scare American public with this image of aggressive Russia so on one will question "why we have such a huge military spending, if we are friends with Russia?"] just can't let Russia to become "good guys" in the eyes of American taxpayers. So just when Medvedev had some burgers with Obama, and Americans started to think that Russia is not that aggressive after all, they come up with this story just to spoil any good impression that Medvedev has made. From the looks of it the story is very dodgy, and perhaps was prepared in a hurry, since they didn't expect that Medvedev will have such a success in USA and had to come up with something very quickly to keep the status quo.

Good point!

[cyberrate]

This story isn't even the top story on any of the sites and will be forgotten in a week. Not an effective strategy unless they plan on fixing the economy next week.

I actually think that this will be used in anti-Russia rhetoric for years to come. The same way as the Litvenenko murder which was never proved to even be a murder, Ukraine "gas war" when Ukraine simply didn't pay for gas, "invasion in Georgia" which was clearly provoked.