Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
SECOND...NO RETALIATION FOR A WMD ATTACK AGAINST THE USA
For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
JUSTIFICATION:
Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with "a series of graded options," a combination of old and new conventional weapons. "I'm going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure," he said in the interview in the Oval Office.
What gain for the safety of the people of the USA, HIS PRIMARY REASON FOR BEING ALIVE, can be gotten from this policy?
By demonstrating in detail by policy what nice guys in the neighborhood we are, what gain from other nations and culture can be reasonably expected when all of history has DEMONSTRATED OBJECTIVELY that at the best of times the best behavior of nations is NEUTRALLY AMORAL.
Let us say his purpose is TRULY to LEAD TO A WORLD WITHOUT NUKES ... what proof historically can he offer, what behavior of nations today can he offer that DEMOSTRATES that this will not lead as it always has to large cataclysmic wars of mutlinational, multicontinental nature killing millions by way of lack of deterrence?
Let us say he is serious about his EXCEPTIONS for states such as Iran and North Korea .. what in his actions so far would lead ANYONE to believe he is serious in his will to USE such weapons against, ultimately, the people in those states?
What MISTAKES IN ACTION will be caused by this policy, mistakes by OTHERS about the nature of the USA which might lead to PRECISELY what Mr. Obama clearly wants to avoid at all costs. CAUSED BY THIS POLICY.
CAUSED BY THIS POLICY.
Obama is UNFIT for foreign leadership.
Obama is UNQUESTIONABLY a believer in social democracy a la EU at the least, and an outright socialist at worst.
He cannot brook serious criticism as his PERSONAL reaction to Mr.'s Limbaugh and Beck this week DEMONSTRATES.
Barack Obama represents the worst example of the American people being sold on utter baloney in personality cult in history.
Had Mr. Obama truly been a serious leader, Mr. Obama could have chosen a policy which states that we NEED (arbitrarily) 1268 (pick a number) nukes to have a credible deterrent against foreseeable enemies today. He could have said we will develop slowly a replacement strategy for that number of weapons (since some of them are 25-30 years old), which is an UNBELIEVABLE reduction from where we were in the 1970's (20-40,000 weapons EACH for the USA and USSR).
Mr.Obama could have said that a WMD attack on the USA would result in a cataclysmic change in the fate of the world and its cultures. And simply said NO MORE, and had the SAME POLICY he detailed.
But Mr. Obama's concern for his image as peacemaker, as opposed to the realities required by the ACHIEVEMENT COMPELLED by earning such a title are clearly at odds with those things which must be done in the achievement.
Grant made peace. Sherman made peace. Ike made peace. Nimitz, Halsey, MacArthur, FDR, Lincoln made peace.
Mother Teresa did NOT. She was able to do what she did under the umbrella of time gifted to her by such men.
One overarching truth about the nature of human beings has never entered this man Obama's world, and threatens us all.
SI VI PACEM.....
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?x-id=384c76ff-4d70-4a89-ba40-79c7e7dab3c9)
15 comments:
even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack
OMG!
Epa,
You asked: By demonstrating in detail by policy what nice guys in the neighborhood we are, what gain from other nations and culture can be reasonably expected when all of history has DEMONSTRATED OBJECTIVELY that at the best of times the best behavior of nations is NEUTRALLY AMORAL.
I say: Obama believes this is a realistic, or realipolitick, policy. He believes that by not including nations such as Iran policies, he is nudging them to come to the table and negotiate and join the other nations of the world in nuclear treaties. Obama believes he can nudge nations towards nuclear responsibility by saying, we promise we won't nuke you, if you will promise not to nuke us.
You said: Grant made peace. Sherman made peace. Ike made peace. Nimitz, Halsey, MacArthur, FDR, Lincoln made peace.
Mother Teresa did NOT. She was able to do what she did under the umbrella of time gifted to her by such men.
One overarching truth about the nature of human beings has never entered this man Obama's world, and threatens us all.
SI VI PACEM.....
I say: This is what happens when we elect a man who never had a father.
Note that our last two Democratic Presidents did not have a father. That's the Democratic Party's vision for the United States; a nation of emotional eunuchs.
I don't think he believes any such thing, or that he's interested in "nuclear responsibility" or any such platitutes. What he's interested in is making this country, which he despises, more vulnerable to those he considers his natural friends and allies.
Pasto, was that your chandelier I saw swinging around the ceiling on the national news earthquake reporting last night?
Heh. No.
By the way, I wrote that I have chandeliers in my home, which is true. But, it makes it sound as if I have a more formal home than I do.
The truth is, my home is arty and eclectic to the extreme. My wife and I both have a fetish for chandeliers, so we add them to our eclectic home. They look good, but we hardly have a "formal dining room".
You know what I mean?
"Obama believes he can nudge nations towards nuclear responsibility by saying, we promise we won't nuke you, if you will promise not to nuke us."
I promise that there is a free lunch, and my wife is indistinguishable from Doutzen Kroes except she's smarter. Actually she looks like Eva Green!
Free food? Where do I show up? Oh, boy.
Epaminondas,
Lets see to it, that Obama is a one term president.
Seriously, I mean seriously.
It is entirely possible he's on crack or something.
I'm not saying he is, but look at the totality of everything about him including the book he supposedly wrote.
I know it's an outrageous statement, but it's in the back of a lot of our minds.
cjk, delusional belief in fantasies born of ideology will, I bet MIMIC in every way, DRUGS.
The only things he seems to be cynical about on this planet is EVERYONE TO HIS RIGHT DOMESTICALLY, and the American system of free enterprise and critical freedom of speech
Just why should we take it for granted we'll survive unscathed until the next Presidential election? Even if conservatives take back Congress this fall, that'll only slow down this jackass. He won't be stopped.
If he's slowed down we can expect his support base to swing into action. Remember the sixties and the rioting then? As they say, "Everything old is new again."
BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again)
"delusional belief in fantasies born of ideology will, I bet MIMIC in every way, DRUGS."
Agreed and I also agree with your further comments, but he could actually be on dope.
They had the cellphone picture of coke a while back and the cell phone was in the White House per GPS data if I remember correctly. Who knows, but I would tend to at least hope he ain't.
Then again maybe an overdose would be good.
Subvet,
He can be stopped, but he can't be stopped if we have that attitude.
Damien, read my comment again. I warned we'll not escape unscathed. Thats entirely different from advocating capitulation.
Or do you seriously believe it will be a cakewalk after conservatives take back Congress?
Blithely assuming that will happen is stupid. Period.
Subvet,
I didn't think you where arguing for capitulation, it just sounded like you were saying it was hopeless, and if the republicans took back the house and the senate, they would do noting to stop Obama from getting what he wants.
Post a Comment