Is Obama Misunderestimating Nuclear Weapons’ Contribution to Peace?
by Thomas Del BeccaroPresident Obama, in words and in deeds, is once again pushing forward with his agenda to rid the World of Nuclear weapons. Obama believes (1) that the U.S. has a “moral responsibility” to lead because we are the only nation that has used a nuclear weapon and (2) that if we do so, our example will make the world a safer place. The question is whether Obama is simply that naïve or is he just posturing?
A broad view of Obama’s policies should well leave many, including terrorists and provocative nations, to consider whether Obama is simply weak on defense. Indeed, Obama’s latest comments on nuclear weapons came just hours after the US Pakistani embassy, i.e. US territory, came under attack – not to mention the Christmas day bomber, the Ft. Hood Shooter, Iran’s continuing snubs, North Korean missile launches and more. As I wrote earlier this year, in my article, Obama’s World Peace Offensive Yields Few Peace Dividends, one has to question what tangible benefits Obama’s policies have provided to the cause of peace let alone our security.
This latest Obama peace offensive, the reduction in the amount and the use of nuclear weapons, quite possibly could be his ultimate demonstration of being weak on defense. That is so because the record demonstrates that nuclear weapons have been the ultimate guarantor of peace.
Consider that, in the 150 years before their use, Europe endured no less than 10 significant, border incursion wars including: World II, World War I, the Serbian-Ottoman War, the three Carlist Wars, the Franco-German War, the Austro-Prussia War, the German-Danish War, Garibaldi’s Expedition against Sicily, the Franco-Austrian War and the Crimean War – not to mention four civil wars or wars for independence. Since the advent of the nuclear bomb deployment, the number of wars, on the European Continent, has been reduced to just one civil war and Turkey’s fight with Cyprus.
I submit to you it was not merely coincidental. The reason is simple, as George Washington surmised long ago, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” Or, perhaps, you prefer Thomas Jefferson who told none other than James Monroe that “Whatever enables us to go to war, secures our peace.” Amidst the Nuclear Freeze Movement, Reagan updated that sentiment by advocating for “peace through strength.” With respect to Europe, amidst the strength of the nuclear umbrella, peaceful democratic nations emerged – and no one can seriously argue the same would have occurred without that umbrella.
Now it is true that Reagan spoke about a world without nuclear weapons. His deeds, however, including deployment of Pershing Missiles, left no doubt that nuclear weapons had a central place in deterring the Soviets and winning the Cold War. It is also true that George Shultz and Henry Kissinger have written of a world without nuclear weapons. According to them:
“[The US should undertake] intensive work with leaders of the countries in possession of nuclear weapons to turn the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a joint enterprise. Such a joint enterprise, by involving changes in the disposition of the states possessing nuclear weapons, would lend additional weight to efforts already under way to avoid the emergence of a nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran.”
Their hope, expressed in 2007, that actions by the rational free world could deter the provocative nations of the world from obtaining nuclear weapons, quite frankly, is bad defense policy because it is not realistic. It is simply historical fact that, in every age, provocative nations, or barbarians or now terrorists, whether state sponsored or acting alone, have sought a greater advantage over the civilized. Such is the competition, however sadly, among states – and that competition only takes one outlier, or just one nation, or terrorist to defeat the good intentions of others.
In this age of nuclear weapons, the single bad actor could hold the rest of world hostage – literally if not figuratively. As Iran has proven, they can do almost without our knowledge. All of which points out the difficulty of defense policy. Any successful defense must plan not only for the obvious – but for the one terrible exception. The provocateur need only be exceptional. That is why a combined policy of nuclear weapons and shields (which Obama also has undercut) are simply necessary in this nuclear age. Unfortunately for us, Obama obviously is misunderstimating their success in keeping the world at peace.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
197 Comments
Peace comes from possessing the strength which causes those who would otherwise do you harm to consider whether the harm they would suffer in retaliation is too great to endure.
The schoolyard bully is a perfect microcosm of aggressive human behavior – the aggressor acts against a target percieved as too weak to mount a credible defense, let alone an offensive reply. The aggressor doesn't attack the strongest kid in the yard, he looks for the weakest.
This example mirrors the same behavior in adults, political entities, and nation states. Only the rationalizatios used to justify it change.
It is no surprise that your enemy will leave you alone if he knows you carry a big stick, or a polaris missle. Obama is attempting to dismantle this country a piece at a time. I dont give it much weight, knowing this treaty needs to be ratified in order to have teeth. Obama is doing a couple of things here, one, he is trying to rally his base, and two, he is slapping Israel in the face, which in turn rallies his anti semitic base. This TURD in the white house used every ounce of political capital he had ramming health care through. I encourage all to read rules for radicals by saul alinski, if you are going to beat your enemy, you must know your enemy. This treaty is an example of The TURD using whats is available, of ends and means.
Ya'll do know the good guys wear white Stetsons don't you?
An Asshat would be a better fit.
"Obama believes (1) that the U.S. has a “moral responsibility” to lead because we are the only nation that has used a nuclear weapon and (2) that if we do so, our example will make the world a safer place."
Reagan believed the same thing.
Is this the best you losers can come up with? You're pathetic.
guns are bad..nukes are bad…criminals wont want nukes if i dont, criminals wont want guns if i dont,…typical liberal moronity!
Is that George Bush? No. It's Barry, the arrogant unilateral cowboy dictator himself! I guess all those left-wing dumdums NOW loves them some cowboys, eh?
Of course, their 'love' is the Brokeback kind.
Like the kid in school who takes the moral high ground and tells the bully he forgives him for stamping his face into the sidewalk – but he only receives the bully's derision in return, and the attacks intensify – precisely because the bully has been reassured that he will suffer no consequence for his actions.
You progressives have made projection such a deeply rooted part of your thinking that you can;t even see when you're projecting your own pacifism upon those who would cheerfully kill you if given the smallest opportunity.
Reagan believed in peace through strength, not peace through submission. Go back to school.
One day all will know that Obama did all these things to harm America. The land he and his wife hate, help him wreck it, that seems to be his motto and the trend he is setting. How can any Democrat say this guy is good for America? I would rather have George Bush right now than Barry Soeterro.
They create the chaos then act like their the good guys when in fact Obama is the destroyer of this nation. That's ok Democrats one day you'll know I'm right. Maybe when you and all your neighbors are out of work and some Government agent shows up at your door to do a Government inspection of your house, to if your using the right light bulbs. Maybe then you'll get it, maybe then the lights will go on.
The reduction of nuclear arms don't have me as worried as the message it sends to those who would harm us. The arsenal still in place is capable of defending the homeland, (i mean really, how many times do we need to blow-up the planet?). My problem with Dems/Progressives is that they are historically weak on defense and are basically chicken-shits when it comes down to confronting the EvilDoers of the world. Bush was exactly right in going after Saddam in the event that he did have WMD. i've always believesd that Saddam would have no compunction in suppling terrorists with nukes, bios or chemical weaponry. Who amongst us doesn't think that AhmadineNutJob won't supply the radicals? Carter was weak, Clinton just wanted to chase skirts and had no stomach for a fight, (he did launch one Tomahawk from the USS Wisconsin in hopes of rattleing Barry's compatriot, Osama bin Laden but, alas, he missed), and now history will further prove that Barry is nothing if not a weakling when it comes to the defense of this nation.
Folks, we've got bigger problems than reducing our nuke capabilities….this Country will be crushed under the weight of our own debt. The next battle cry will come from the We the People!!!
Take the anti-semitism and move to iran, where it's welcomed. Oh, and yes, Iran IS building nuclear weapons – you don't operate hundreds of centrifuges that refine weapons grade fissile material for years so you can put radium dials on wristwatches.
Curious that you use the name of an actor who's career started in the toilet, and was subsequently flushed…..;)
"Reagan believed the same thing."
and anon-sequitur becomes the frontrunner in today's "Half right, half wrong" contest…
Obama believes we have a moral responsibility? I take it you have not read rules for radicals by alinski. Let me give you this jist of it, paint a moral argument on the issue/ use the morals of your enemy to achieve your ends, rules for radicals= there are no rules, and morals are relative
the first rule of FIGHTCLUB is you dont talk about fightclub
Second rule of FIGHTCLUB is you dont talk about fightclub
Once you understand the TURD you so highly esteem, everything else gets the volume turned down.
Well-stated, MystWlkr, particularly the middle paragraph. I've never had to kick the same person's ass twice.
Bottom line: This "Poser-n-Chief" is going to get us all killed.
Not Over.
I know this is off topic, But……
Wait, he's wearing a cowboy hat. Doesn't that make him a "redneck" and a "racist"? That's what the MSM says.
Just like here, when states/DC ease their 2nd ammendment restrictions… crime goes down. And when places such as Australia/Britain/etc… take away citizen's guns, crime goes up!
Same thing with Nuclear Weapons… take them away and crime will go up!
Anyone on the planet thought that Barry is a coward. Now he has proven it.
So much said with so little words,………..good job there CM
Not to diminish from the article, but there is breaking news this morning. Bloody Bart Stupak just announced he will not seek re-election. I am astounded. Actually at a loss for words. Until I come up with the right ones; dirty, double-dealing, low life, sorry son-of-a-bitch will have to suffice. He needs burned in effigy from every town square in America.
Can you say "Cabinet Level Position'?
"That is so because the record demonstrates that nuclear weapons have been the ultimate guarantor of peace."
I have trouble with this statement, and the author's evidence for it. Just because Europe has settled down for a period since WWII (wait, I seem to remember some 'skirmishes' in Chechnya, and some of the other former Soviet republics), doesn't make it absolute proof that nuclear weapons guarantee peace. Since WWII, there have been a few 'minor' wars, most notably Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (both USSR and USA), and of course, Iraq. It seems to me that since the USA and Russia have had nuclear weapons, both countries have been involved in MORE wars.
I'm not advocating against nuclear weapons, I'm just debating the author's flawed argument relating said weapons to peace.
President Obama
Washington DC
September 29, 2009
Dear Mr. President;
Let us talk about The Bomb. Two words, only one meaning. Certain death of civilization. The end of the world as we know it. No sane human being wants to start World War Three, and end the world in three hours. We must stress that word sane. The ability to categorize ones own value, and the value of the future existence of the world, again as we know it, against some temporarily desired outcome of a strategic goal; this is how we determine “sanity” in the world of the Bomb.
My father, and tens of thousands of other men, trained on how to deploy the only artillery piece made to fire a nuclear tipped shell – so called a tactical nuclear weapon – the purpose of this particular artillery piece was to ensure that should an invasion of the US ensue after an initial attack we; or who ever was left, would be able to shell the advancing enemy with a nuclear tipped artillery shell. The men who learned how to maintain and fire this weapon were our last line of defense in this scenario. A perfectly sane solution to an insane reality; nuke your own country to keep the enemy from advancing on your position. The stone cold fact is this is not the 1950’s any more; we don’t need “Atom Annie,” as she was so lovingly called, by the men who served her. Hell, we don’t even need to be alive; it is now well documented that, the then Soviet Union and the United States have semi-automatic systems – such that even if the other sides command structure is wiped out in a surprise attack we, or they, will be able to retaliate. Think of it as a dead man switch for Nuclear War.
As time wore on the nuclear club has grown France, Great Britain, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, even South Africa had the bomb for a short period of time. Now North Korea has the bomb; but it is having trouble with it’s missile guidance systems – would you want to be in Japan these days? Iran, too, is on the cusp of deploying a bomb. Remember that in order to keep the peace in a nuclear world all countries must fear not just the enemy, but the weapon itself. It is difficult for me to see how a country on the brink of starvation and technically still at war with one of its neighbors satisfies the most basic need of mutually assured destruction; equally, I can’t see how Iran, that is the Middle East equivalent of Walmart for terrorists, has anything, but death and destruction on it’s mind.
I bet your thinking missile defense will protect us or Israel. I welcome the forethought, but it is misguided. If it works for ducks it would work for Nuclear Weapons. If you said decoy you get the gold star. When the day comes that Iran decides to attack Israel, as the nutcase who runs that country says “to wipe Israel off the map,” an extremely easy task with very few nuclear weapons, it won’t just send one, it will send hundreds of decoy missiles to confuse and overwhelm their defensive systems; and on that day Israel will cease to exist, and then Iran will cease to exist; plus a few extra mainly muslim cities just for good measure. Remember, once someone attacks a country the size of Israel with a nuclear weapon it has no hope of reconstituting itself. Given that circumstance where is the downside in telling the Islamo Fascist exactly how one feels about the situation. As they say, nothing says screw you like a mushroom cloud. Again a perfectly sane reaction to an insane circumstance. Think of how you would feel if someone killed your family member? How about a million family members?
There is no surviving a nuclear war. Our only hope is making certain that the other side, or sides as it were, are sane enough to recognize this fact, and we and they act accordingly. The upside is that wider wars are not possible in a nuclear age; the downside is proxy wars are (Korea, Afghanistan Part 1 and Part 2, Angola, Central America, Vietnam, Iraq v. Iran, etc.) Unfortunately, if we attempt to disarm on our own, or one of our prior allies, or even our enemies decides to; what will stop new enemies from getting the bomb? What will stop a future President, Premier, or Dictator from launching a unilateral nuclear attack? Certain nationwide death. If someone launches a nuclear attack they will not only lose what they have now; but their future. Do not upset this apple cart Mr. President; you are but a temporary steward of this Country; at some point you may put this country into someones hands that you do not trust – much the same way I don’t trust you – but I do trust that you love your children. And that’s all I, and the enemy, needs to know in this matter. But, it is tough for me to see the love that the Iranian or North Korean leadership has for it’s children. Without that fear of loss I cannot see how if push came to shove they would behave in a sane manner with nuclear weapons. Do you?
Respectfully,
It won't do anon any good to go back to school , all he did when he was there was learn how to fist f#$% his self and any willing classmates.
He's proved time and time again with his idiotic posts that whatever schooling he ever had didn't take.
God you are a stupid troll.
The reason obama is doing this is so it will be easier for his muslim brothers and cousins to set off a nuke in this nation.
The threat of using nukes has kept this country safe since we dropped two on Japan and the muslim must take that security away because he is a MUSLIM and he is hell bent on destroying this country one way or another.
Anon you are a moron.
As far as the article goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. I'd love to write the caption:
"Black Bart in his cowboy outfit, loping the mule"………….
Obama is just pure evil.
Probably so. Always raising the bar, these.
No. We will survive him, America is stronger then this fellow, far, far stronger. Have faith brother we are not done yet.
Is Obambi giving away our tactical advantage in preparation for giving away our sovereignty?
First Hillary signs the UN's small arms accord (treaty?) and now the O signs away our nuclear superiority.
Had Copenhagen been capable of reaching any sort of agreement O was set to sign on to bleeding our economic power off to the third world. Having failed in that manner he pushed for our country's economic suicide via "healthcare reform". If that does not achieve the desired result, there is always cap and trade.
Pax Romana ended due to the empire becoming over-extended. Our country has never attempted to become an empire.
Does Pax Americana end by our self-immolation?
“From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both: but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”
~~ Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) ; from The Prince (1532), Chapter 8
BO has a moral responsibility to look out for our best interests in the treaty. He failed to do that. His position on the treaty showed his weakness as a leader of our land. Reagan believed Peace through strength & you know that. Is our world safer when Iran & many other countries are looking to develop these types of weapons. He gave the Russians all the concessions he wanted. Where was the counterbalance for America to back out of the treaty? NOTHING. He locked us in to the position of weakness. If you don't understand that you are uninformed as well as pathetic. Your whole arguement is from a position of weakness. Go smoke your hippie lettuce somewhere else. This is a site for the informed.
I learned a long time ago that for some people, it takes more than "quit that" to make them stop. Bow to your god.
if obama was a football coach, he would fax his playbook to his opposing teams as a show of goodwill.
Death Of The Internet: Unprecedented Censorship Bill Passes in UK
“Wash-up” process used to rush through draconian legislation as a pitiful handful of MPs attend debate
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, April 8th, 2010
A draconian Internet censorship bill that has been long looming on the horizon finally passed the house of commons in the UK yesterday, legislating for government powers to restrict and filter any website that is deemed to be undesirable for public consumption.
The “Digital Economy Bill” was rushed through parliament in a late night session last night after a third reading.
In the wake of the announcement of a general election on May 6, the government has taken advantage of what is known as the “wash-up process”, allowing the legislative process to be speeded up between an election being called and Parliament being dissolved.
Only a pitiful handful of MPs (pictured below) were present to debate the bill, which was fully supported by the “opposition” Conservative party, and passed by 189 votes to 47 keeping the majority of its original clauses intact.
The bill will now go back to the House of Lords, where it originated, for a final formal approval.
The government removed a proposal in clause 18 of the bill, which openly stated that it could block any website, however it was replaced with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill which essentially legislates for the same powers.
The new clause allows the unelected secretary of state for business, currently Lord Mandelson, to order the blocking of “a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright”.
Opposing MPs argued that the clause was too broad and open ended, arguing that the phrase “likely to be used” could be used to block websites without them ever having been used for “activity that infringes copyright”. Other MPs argued that under the bill, whistleblower websites, such as Wikileaks, could be targeted.
The legislation will also allow the Home Secretary to place “a technical obligation on internet service providers” to block whichever sites it wishes.
Under clause 11 of the proposed legislation “technical obligation” is defined as follows:
A “technical obligation”, in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against particular subscribers to its service.
A “technical measure” is a measure that — (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.
In other words, the government will have the power to force ISPs to downgrade and even block your internet access to certain websites or altogether if it wishes.
The legislation is part of an amplified effort by the government to seize more power over the internet and those who use it.
For months now unelected “Secretary of State” Lord Mandelson has overseen government efforts to challenge the independence of the of UK’s internet infrastructure.
The Digital Economy Bill will also see users’ broadband access cut off indefinitely, in addition to a fine of up to £50,000 without evidence or trial, if they download copyrighted music and films. The plan has been identified as “potentially illegal” by experts.
The legislation would impose a duty on ISPs to effectively spy on all their customers by keeping records of the websites they have visited and the material they have downloaded. ISPs who refuse to cooperate could be fined £250,000.
As Journalist and copyright law expert Cory Doctrow has noted, the bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes, without Parliamentary oversight or debate.
This could include the authority to appoint private militias, who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files in addition to the blocking of websites.
Mandelson and his successors will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any digital transgression he deems Britons to be guilty of.
Despite being named the Digital Economy Bill, the legislation contains nothing that will actually stimulate the economy and is largely based on shifting control over the internet into government hands, allowing unaccountable bureaucrats to arbitrarily hide information from the public should they wish to do so.
Mandelson began the onslaught on the free internet in the UK after spending a luxury two week holiday at Nat Rothschild’s Corfu mansion with multi-millionaire record company executive David Geffen.
Over 20,000 members of the public have written to their MPs in the last week to lobby against the bill being rushed through, however, their concerns have fallen on deaf ears and the government has been allowed to deal a devastating blow to the last real vestige of free speech in this country.
The Wider Agenda Of Internet Control
Just read that on Drudge. To bad he didn't have the balls to tell obama & pelosi NO on the obamacare vote. maybe he'll write a book and tell all. I have a few words to describe him that I can give you.
I believe this move will push him out of favor with this admin.
He is leaving a seat that could be won because he will actually have to fight for it. The upper peninsula is slightly more conservative than the rest of the state, but only slightly.
His leaving gives the Repubs a slim chance and the dem leadership can't be happy with that.
Judas Stupak just figuratively hung himself for his 30 pieces. I'm so glad to see him go. Now maybe we can get a strong conservative in there to take his place. That is, if the people in that district have had their eyes opened yet to the truth about these Dems.
No matter if nukes helped keep the peace. Whatever dear leader wants dear leader shall have.
Anon, I'm beginning to think you are merely an alias for Robert Gibbs. You have the same exact level of intelligence, the same ability to mock and ridicule other's in all of your post, never actually putting forth any meaningful or factual information. Come clean Anon, are you really Gibbs?
Cowboy, these "retiring" leftists definitely aren't doing it for the benefit of their dictatorship.
Someone needs to keep an eye on these snakes' bank accounts. Oh wait, once they leave office they're back to being private citizens and can shelter their ill-gotten gains.
How convenient.
I hope you're incorrect, that we can be saved somehow from this modern day Chamberlain's policies.
The libs love to talk peace, but to do so as appeasers to our enemies, instead of from a position of strength, can only bring trouble.
Western movie villains always wears a black hat.
Need I say more?
That was Chapter 17 and from what I remember of the Prince, Machiavelli is talking about how ones own people should view you with this statement, not how the rest of the world views you.
I'm not saying Obama is doing either of these things, just that this quote does not work in the context of disarmament unless you are planning to use nukes on your own people.
Ah, another member of the National Socialist Party spews.
Israel has defined its borders. It is the neighbors of Israel that defy the UN by refusing to acknowledge even the existence of Israel that have no defined borders.
The communities being built by Israel are fully compatible with international law. Only those who do not know or choose to ignore international, like the Arab states that ethnically cleansed Jews from their lands, and National Socialist apologists, lie and say otherwise.
This is an example of Israeli "ethnic cleansing": http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x...
Well, it was over Easter, so I suppose a resurrection is not that peculiar, even if it was a Muslim. The more serious issue is the racists who eagerly repeat lies from proven liars about ethnic cleansing.
I close my eyes and all I see is a warm sunrise on this country, where Americans wake to ready for work and send their children off to school, and service members do their duty, without hesitation. That is our future, and it is our present no matter what President Obama does. Obama may be the smart version of Carter, but the basis of his philosophy is still false.
Obama is a traitor and has only one goal in mind – the complete destruction of the US as it was originally established. He is a marxist POS and must be stopped before we are all serfs, serving the state for the "greater good". His idea of a great country is Venezuela.
What a disgrace to the American Cowboy….let alone the Presidency. Take the hat off and put the Turban back on…it is much more fitting! Sorry…but I have to go eat some breakfast and see if I can get my "RAZ Barry O's" with the candy coated alphabets that spell LIAR…and the little marshmallow ears! IMPEACH this idiot!
Obama's ego knows no bounds. Stupider than stupid. Read Charles Krauthammer article today.
Oh, and yes, Iran IS building nuclear weapons…..
You have no proof of this.
– you don't operate hundreds of centrifuges that refine weapons grade fissile material for years so you can put radium dials on wristwatches.
No, but you do have them to enrich fuel for energy and medical purposes.
You have one thing wrong…Obama loves no one, not even his children. Those suffering from Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder love and care about absolteuly no one but themselves. They are pathological liars, chameleons. Empty souls, no one at home.
Israel has defined its borders.
Oh, I would love to see this.
….continued that war and was making additional preparations in 1967 when it was joined by Jordan, and was joined by Syria in launching a surprise attack in 1973.
It was Israel that made a surprise attack in 1967 after having provoked its neighbors by encroaching in to the DMZ.
Never underestimate the ability of Progressives to maintain their stranglehold on being weak on defense. Way to go idiots.
Obama loves his children, but not his country. In the same way you and I love our Country like we love our children, we love our children instinctively, we were taught our patriotism and love of country by our family and friends, and school (so long as you went to school prior to 1992?) In 7 months we will stop him, of this I have no doubt.
The legislation will also allow the Home Secretary to place “a technical obligation on internet service providers” to block whichever sites it wishesThe legislation, introduced by Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in April, gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president, according to a Mother Jones report.
What is there to see?
The Jerusalem Law and the Golan Heights Law were passed. Gaza has been evacuated. The security wall is being built. The communities in Judea and Samaria were defined in the last negotiations the Palestinian Authority walked away from.
Israel launched a pre-emptive attack, which was only a surprise because the Egyptians thought they could continue provoking Israel with military feints until Israel was economically and militarily exhausted from repeatedly going on alert.
Egypt did this while illegally closing the Straits of Tiran and the Sueze Canal to Israeli shipping, all with the backdrop of the terrorist campaign they waged from the Gaza Strip.
It should also be noted that it was the Egyptians who ordered the UN Peacekeeping forces to leave the Sinai and Gaza three weeks before the war began.
So yet again, you lie, badly and repeatedly, in pursuit of your racist and genocidal National Socialist agenda.
Nuclear arms reduction should be the goal of any responsible administration, and this treaty is a responsible reduction that benefits both sides. The primary targets for nuclear weapons are the bad guy's nuclear weapons… the fewer they possess, the less we require to ensure a credible nuclear deterrent.
This treaty is good policy and should be ratified by the senate.
Peace through strength
Well said.
Please Allow me to rephrase that.
Bottom line: This "Poser-n-Chief" is going to get TRYING to get us all killed.
Not Over.
It's a general principal. Because it applies to one set of circumstances does not mean that it applies only to those circumstances.
Humorous cartoon comparing President Obama and Ahmadinejad athttp://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/category/obama/
They ADMITTED they are, you dolt!
And the centrigfuges being operated create material far more refined than required for medical isotopes or nuclear fuel rods.
But they do refine it enough to make weapons grade fissiles.
Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.
and he would lie to his team about having done so, or tell them it was for their own good.
You get the gold star. You can bet the FBI will be watching. They love to watch, and tape, they love tape, hell now they use hard drives and those come real cheap these days Mr. Stupac.
anon – I love watching you slay these neocons.
They ADMITTED they are, you dolt!
Oh, I must have missed this. Where is that?
And the centrigfuges being operated create material far more refined than required for medical isotopes or nuclear fuel rods.
That is incorrect. The type of centrifuges are consistent with low-grade fuel enrichment.
I am confused by the violence with which they defend their "pacifism". I remember a smarty pants line we used as high school students, "I am a pacifist. Everyone should be pacifists. If you disagree, I'll punch you."
I love my nuclear weapons.
I paid for them and I want my fucking moneys worth.
Anon screw off.
What is there to see?
Oh, I was giving you an opportunity to actually support your claim as I often do. Maybe you can't.
Gaza has been evacuated.
Israel has blockaded Gaza, so they haven't upheld their end of the bargain. And it wasn't until Israel invaded Gaza and kidnapped their politicians that the rocket attacks really resumed.
Israel launched a pre-emptive attack,
Also called an unprovoked attack.
Could not have said it better Myst.
You may personally think that but that is not implied at all by Machiavelli.
If you read the chapter "Concerning Cruelty and Clemency: and Whether it is Better to Be Loved than Feared", he is clearly talking about his own people as he uses "subjects" and "citizens" quite frequently in this short chapter. He also refers to consequences for "crimes" which would not be relevant in international matters.
Whether or not this is true on the world stage is irrelevant, my point is to use this quote about this current matter is out of context.
Obama may be the smart version of Carter,
Nope. He is the urbane version. Have you ever listened to him talk? Not as smart as the fawning Old Media supplicants claim.
His actions indicate that considers the world his people. And your literal application is as correct as Chili Serrano's figurative one, Let loose and dance, man.
…and make his team ply without pads.
This cowboy hat is oxymoronic. He doesn't have the spine to cowboy. Some cowboys smoke, I guess that is where he is simpatico.
Sure glad we got that straightened out,………….
Now will you please pass this great insight to the powers that be so we can all sleep at ease.
You have never supported your claims. All you have done is cross-post to other National Socialists who repeat the same lies that you do.
Israel has not blockaded Gaza, that is a lie. Israel simply does not allow the shipment of military equipment through its land to a hostile territory. No nation is required to do that.
Further, Gaza has a border with Egypt. It is functionally impossible for Israel to blockade Gaza unilaterally.
You keep repeating this lie but it still is not true.
I laid out the provocations committed by the Egyptians. Pre-emptive strikes are not unprovoked. By their very definition they are in response to an external cause.
You lie in direct opposition to both evidence and the English language.
I can't say what I want to say. So I'll say this. If were Obama I'd take some time and learn how to hang dry wall from the White House maintenance department, so The One does not have to suffer the further indignity of learning it from Jimmy Carter.
You do realize Machiavelli was talking about how to be a dictator of a conquered people, right?
You also realize that Machiavelli was being, well, machiavellian, by writing that as he was a staunch "republican" (more of a plutocratic oligarchist really, but close enough for government work), who was personally opposed to dictatorial monarchs, and only wrote the book so as to get a government sinecure, right?
Indeed, but if I would going to quote the Prince on this current matter I would use the following:
"For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought to guard himself, as is shown later on. Because there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together. And therefore a prince who does not understand the art of war, over and above the other misfortunes already mentioned, cannot be respected by his soldiers, nor can he rely on them. He ought never, therefore, to have out of his thoughts this subject of war, and in peace he should addict himself more to its exercise than in war…"
Chapter 14
That is not what Obama has agreed to the Mickey,……………but than you knew that,………so
let me pose this scenario for there Mickey,…………we have as world community reduced all our nuclear weapons.
Which country should eliminate the very last one,…????????
Wasn't there a movie about a couple of cowboys just recently,………..Broke,……….something,..?????
Agreed. The goal as a leader of a Constitutional Republic should not be to rule as Machiavelli's little guide said one should (at least for the people's sake). The book is about how to not only wield absolute power but to stay in absolute power.
Credibility of retaliation is keystone to detterence. Consider:
-Why do Britain and France continute to maintain nuclear forces? Because they are less than certain US would risk nuclear war to retaliate if they are hit.
-Why did Reagan station tactical nukes in Europe (and why did the left have an absolute cow about it?). Because there was doubt US would risk all out nuclear war by responding with strategic nukes if Soviets invaded Europe.
- The greatest brake on proliferation during the Cold War was the confidence that the superpowers would retaliate on the behalf of allies if they were nuked.
Obama has pulled the trigger on the starting gun for a huge regional arms race.
Cowboy – The mental picture I had, prior to a dictionary, was not good for Obama. Actually I felt worse for the mule.
Man you lefties are stupid. Your mooslim buddies started something they couldnt finish in 67. Get a grip.
Agreed right back.
Mind you, it is certainly a good book for its goal, it is just not a goal any government servant of the U.S. should ever have.
Peace is a wonderfull thing! There are two kinds:
1. Peace through strength (Your enemies fear you so tend to leave you in peace)
2. Peace through surrender (Your enemies have concurred you and you live in peace at their sufferance)
As far as the piece of paper that THE CHOSEN ONE is touting PLS it's just a piece of paper, could be used as a white flag!
Reagan also believed the adage "trust but verify" was essential to any disarmament agreement. I "trust" this one contains such a provision.
Here is Kid Zero "Talking Crap" which is by NO surprise….appropriate!
http://sroblog.com/2010/04/08/andrew-klavan-barac...
Now we live in a world where Islamic terrorists don't care if they die, or leaders of nations don't care how many people they have to sacrifice to bring about the 12th Mahdi. That is a scary type of person to have a nuclear weapon.
That's right, nuclear weapons contribute to peace. So let's make sure that Iran and North Korea get them. Then the world would be a more peaceful place.
The world is more peaceful with America having Nukes…………………………Not rogue nations like Iran. Does anyone feel safer now that Bam Bam has signed a "treaty" with Russia? Why is he doing this? Were we at war with Russia? What's the point then? How does Russia get to continue building launchers? Obama is the DESTROYER and if anyone believes the world will follow his lead or that Russia won't "opt" out at anytime is dellusional! http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAG...
I saw that last night!…..it's craptacular!
Israel has not blockaded Gaza
Typical lying Zionist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932010_bl...
Yes, they did provoke their neighbors just as they do to this date.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/dutch-peace...
Yes, they did provoke their neighbors just as they do to this date.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/dutch-peace...
Hate to break it to everyone here but this comes on advice from the National Intelligence Estimate for the last decade or more. Logic being that if we cut back on our nuclear stockpile then other countries might have less of a desire to build their own weapons. Furthermore, even with drastic cuts we have enough of a nuclear stockpile to burn the planet to ash a hundred times over. This is beyond a silly debate. What is everyone here worried about? Losing an inch? LOL.
Mindreader. Obama is far too "elegant" to play dress up.
poor little half-black abandoned kenyan kid………….his drunk father didn't want the bastard and we don't want the floopy eared bastard either……..little guttersnipe
You must be logged in to post a comment.