MR OBAMA – WITHDRAW THAT MISSILE-SHIELD FROM RUSSIA’S DOORSTEP ( POLAND AND ROMANIA!!!)

YOU CAN COMPARE IT TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF BALLISTIC NUCLEAR MISSILES FROM CUBA (USA’S DOORSTEP) THAT DISARMED THE NUCLEAR MISSILE CRISIS IN THE 1960s.

1989 – “NATO WILL NOT EXPAND FURTHER EAST” … Poland, Romania, Czeck Republic, Croatia… are now all NATO-members.

Nuclear Shield now deployed in Romania was said to be against IRAN – Obama’s Iran-Deal showed – it is not against Iran – it is also threatening Russia’s nuclear power.

Lockheed Martin gets Billions of Dollars every year from the government to keep USA’s nuclear capabilities alive.

putin-usa-keeps-lying-to-russia

“He said Russia has a “significant amount” of SS-19 intercontinental ballistic missiles that had never previously deployed — and were thus not part of disarmament negotiations — and which remain mothballed for emergency use.

He said they would be the perfect weapon for breaking through a potential missile defense shield that has been heavily backed by US President George W. Bush.

“These rockets could easily break through any missile shield for decades to come,” Putin warned.

He said the SS-19 could function for up to 25 more years and gradually replace decommissioned missiles.

“In the meantime, we will begin producing new strategic weapons that will guarantee are strategic nuclear missile deterrence system,” he said. “

Source: http://www.rense.com/general44/premp.htm

One way or another: There seem to be power Addicted asholes known as GeoPolitical Thinkers, GeoPolitical Thinktanks, Warmongers and War-Profiteers – altogether sick  socio and psychopathic people – that calculated “what pays of more – war or peace?”.

That’s why when Nazi-Germany was defeated they IMMEDIATELY NEEDED a new threat and that was the soviet union.

So there is power and interest (profits!!!) to rule with fear.

And that is what those people do – the security agencies are just their puppets.

In case of Putin – he is the puppet-master (still boss  of FSB).

They (Israel-USA) destroyed and destabilized Egypt, Syria, Lybia.

What will be the next target? They need threats so the next threat would be Iran, China and Russia (simultaneously, with EU supposed to fight Russia while USA wants to kill chinese People).

we-have-lost-the-way-greed-has-poisnoed-mans-soul-yes-but-it-turns-out-to-be-very-profitable

A wise man once said:

ghandi-peace ghandi-there-is-no-god-higher-than-truth

But we all know he died from the barrel of a gun.

So did Jesus.

Jesus was also a threat to those in power in Israel at that time. (to the priests it was blasphemy that Jesus called himself “son of god” so they wanted him to be locked away or better: to be dead)

war_what_is_it_good_for

Let us not forget the UK counterpart: BAE “instability is good for business”

and Airbus/EADS in Europe.

See here for Top 100 List of Europes Weapons manufacturer and warmongers.

war_what_is_it_good_for2

if you can not imagine a world without war – If that is the world you want to live in. kill your kids – before someone else does it for you.

bernd-lietaer-tedx-video-the-financial-crisis-of-2008-is-a-structural-crisis

Criticism

While speaking at a seminar in Vienna in 2012, Zhu Chenghu, of China’s National Defense University, opined missile defense to be destabilizing; Zhu was not alone: Joseph Circincione, of the Ploughshares Fund and attending the same seminar, stated that any US military planner in Zhu’s position would have had to say the same thing, in order to project credible military deterrence.[48] Bruno Gruselle, in 2010, noted that French policy makers considered the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the doctrine of Mutual assured destruction to be the cornerstones of strategic stability.[49] Some French analysts, notably Camille Grand,[50] view missile defense as jeopardizing both the doctrine and the Treaty, as well as risking a new arms race,[49] which is reflected in the development of advanced missile defense counter measures and decoys as well as a higher number of and more maneuverable independently targetable reentry vehicles [51] – as well as the intercept systems designed to defeat them.

Additionally experts question the accuracy and reliability of these systems.[52] Beyond the technical difficulties, which have been described as more challenging than hitting one bullet with another all performance data is derived from experiments and scripted tests. Their effectivity in an actual all-out war situation is uncertain.[2] However, non-nuclear ballistic and conventional missiles have been used in recent limited regional conflicts to strategic effect. Several Houthi-fired ballistic missiles in Yemen have been intercepted by Saudi Patriot batteries, and Russian cruise missiles have been notably used in the current Syrian conflict.

Gruselle noted most French security experts doubted the technological feasibility of intercontinental ballistic missile defense. Some thought it foolish to spend huge amounts of money on unproven technologies that lacked operational or political usefulness. Instead, the French defense policy community viewed missile defense merely as an American “economic weapon” used to defeat the Soviet Union and win the Cold War.[53]

The extant missile defenses are currently vulnerable to maneuverable hypersonic vehicles, which can maneuver at speeds high enough to defeat missile defenses. China is among the countries pursuing hypersonic vehicles as warhead delivery systems.[54]

Yousaf Butt, a critic of missile defense, states in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that “just as with nuclear weapons, the U.S. infatuation with missile defense will cause other nations to desire this expensive technology”.[55]

Russia’s top military officer has threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on U.S.-led NATO missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if Washington goes ahead with its controversial plan to build a missile shield.[56] Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov also warned that talks between Moscow and Washington on the topic are “close to a dead end.”[56] U.S. State Department special envoy Ellen Tauscher responded that neither country can afford another arms race.[56]”

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense_systems_by_country