ilmor Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 President Obama promised Sunday to lead the world into a nuclear-free future, giving a hawkish edge to a peacenik pursuit even as North Korea upstaged him with the launch of a long-range rocket that theoretically could carry a warhead. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/05...ar-free-future/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
07SGT0547 Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 President Obama promised Sunday to lead the world into a nuclear-free future, giving a hawkish edge to a peacenik pursuit even as North Korea upstaged him with the launch of a long-range rocket that theoretically could carry a warhead. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/05...ar-free-future/ While I don't normally participate in any "political" thread or discussion... I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that too Drive Safe! 07SGT0547 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COBRA SCOTTY Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 i get it president Obama is all about change that we can believe in. Hold up a tick , i think we have a problem here Houston; in the wording ; Believe in ; hummm...... that's a problem for sure. Nothing that he promised during his campaign was the truth and now he has the totaly unrealistic belief of complete nuclear disarmament. i can not believe that he is reading this crap off his teleprompter there must be some mistake or he is just a complete idiot. i will go with complete idiot for 1,000 ; Alex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69dejavue Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 I think you are being unfair to the savior. After all he said there would be consequences for N. Korea. Its not like we possess the ability to take out the missile while still on the launch pad. It is not like we have the ability shoot the missile down. What is really scary is that N. Korea will now make the missile available to other rogue nations, i.e.: Iran, et al and they could start lauching nuclear weapons at Israel. And the US will be at least partially to blame for not stopping this mad man. WWRD? What would Reagan do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 WWRD? What would Reagan do?[/size] Did any of you actually read the article beyond the "Fair and Balanced" headline? What specifically do you disagree with? It's a pretty complementary article other than pointing out the President maybe a bit too aggressive in the ultimate goal but saying the path he's laid out is quite good. I don't personally think you can eliminate, nor should eliminate, nuclear weapons, I mean what will we use when the space aliens attack or the giant asteroid comes at us, but I liked that he gave support to the missile defense shield and requested harsh international consequences for countries like N. Korea. I mean do you guys read or just throw up canned "savior" responses from other threads? BTW: I think we need to look to the last President that had to confront a direct missile related confrontation. WWJFKD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilmor Posted April 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 Did any of you actually read the article beyond the "Fair and Balanced" headline? What specifically do you disagree with? It's a pretty complementary article other than pointing out the President maybe a bit too aggressive in the ultimate goal but saying the path he's laid out is quite good. I don't personally think you can eliminate, nor should eliminate, nuclear weapons, I mean what will we use when the space aliens attack or the giant asteroid comes at us, but I liked that he gave support to the missile defense shield and requested harsh international consequences for countries like N. Korea. I mean do you guys read or just throw up canned "savior" responses from other threads? BTW: I think we need to look to the last President that had to confront a direct missile related confrontation. WWJFKD! Jeff....now, I thought you were a little smarter than that. Every President since ICBM's became a threat have dealt with "direct missle related confrontation". They do fly a little farther than from Cuba to Florida. Edit - by the way, no doubt you support civilian disarmament and gun control as well, see that you believe that if we get rid of our nuclear weapons we'll be safe and everyone else will get rid of theirs. Only the weakest survive, I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69dejavue Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Jeff. The president had options such as taking out the missile while still on the pad or shooting it down immediately after launch. He chose to do neither. Instead he has "threatened" N. Korea. Where have threats ever worked on N. Korea? Or Iran? There are people that only understand force. Biden said this president will be tested in the first six months. He was right. And he failed miserably. You are obviously a pacifist. Do yu remember the term "We will have peace in our time?" Without looking it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Jeff. The president had options such as taking out the missile while still on the pad or shooting it down immediately after launch. He chose to do neither. Instead he has "threatened" N. Korea. Where have threats ever worked on N. Korea? Or Iran? There are people that only understand force. Biden said this president will be tested in the first six months. He was right. And he failed miserably. You are obviously a pacifist. Do yu remember the term "We will have peace in our time?" Without looking it up? I'm a pacifist? Why are you making this personal? I served nine years in the military and a disabled veteran how about you? As for your "shoot first ask questions later" policy that's what Goldwater and Nixon wanted us to do in Cuba. Thankfully JFK took a different course. yes, that was Chamberlain, and no I didn't need to "look it up" if you really are interested in the rise of Hitler a great book is "Why England Slept" by JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Did any of you actually read the article beyond the "Fair and Balanced" headline? What specifically do you disagree with? It's a pretty complementary article other than pointing out the President maybe a bit too aggressive in the ultimate goal but saying the path he's laid out is quite good. I don't personally think you can eliminate, nor should eliminate, nuclear weapons, I mean what will we use when the space aliens attack or the giant asteroid comes at us, but I liked that he gave support to the missile defense shield and requested harsh international consequences for countries like N. Korea. I mean do you guys read or just throw up canned "savior" responses from other threads? BTW: I think we need to look to the last President that had to confront a direct missile related confrontation. WWJFKD! Well, I think I know a bit about this area. We were dealing with the Soviets then. As bad as they were, and that was bad, they were not crazy. Unfortunately, you cant say that about this latest group. MAD worked based on that premis but, wont work here. They have to understand, we will annialate them should they try anything. Unfortunately, The Chineese and the Russians dont seem to care if we end up in a nuclear war. I admire the way JFK handled the Cuban Missile Crisis. And actually, that was a much worse situation but, we could be headed there again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69dejavue Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 I'm a pacifist? Why are you making this personal? I served nine years in the military and a disabled veteran how about you? As for your "shoot first ask questions later" policy that's what Goldwater and Nixon wanted us to do in Cuba. Thankfully JFK took a different course. yes, that was Chamberlain, and no I didn't need to "look it up" if you really are interested in the rise of Hitler a great book is "Why England Slept" by JFK. Jeff, I am not trying to make it personal. A pacifist is not necessarily meant to be derogatory. Rather it is a descriptor. I know others that are pacifists. We just agree to disagree on certain subjects. I do not believe in the UN or its "threats". Iraq had over 400 violations before the second US led invasion. What effect did that have on Iraq before the invasion. Korea is the same. The UN is worthless except for distributing food and they fail miserably at that. All too often they allow the war lords to take the food and distribute as they see fit. They stand by and watch atrocities. They are an organization of peace in a dangerous world. Hence they are ineffective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Jeff, I am not trying to make it personal. A pacifist is not necessarily meant to be derogatory. Rather it is a descriptor. I know others that are pacifists. We just agree to disagree on certain subjects. I do not believe in the UN or its "threats". Iraq had over 400 violations before the second US led invasion. What effect did that have on Iraq before the invasion. Korea is the same. The UN is worthless except for distributing food and they fail miserably at that. All too often they allow the war lords to take the food and distribute as they see fit. They stand by and watch atrocities. They are an organization of peace in a dangerous world. Hence they are ineffective. Ok, I'll accept that, no worries! I agree with you where the UN is concerned. It's BS organization and popularity contest. This week Russia, China, Vietnam, I forget the other, refused to sign on to any condemnation because they don't like us right now for different reasons. Because nations use the UN as an extension of their foreign policy rather than doing what's right for the greater good, including the US, it's a place where people talk a good talk but nothing of substance happens. It's a terribly ineffectual body no matter how you cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COBRA SCOTTY Posted April 7, 2009 Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Ok, I'll accept that, no worries! I agree with you where the UN is concerned. It's BS organization and popularity contest. This week Russia, China, Vietnam, I forget the other, refused to sign on to any condemnation because they don't like us right now for different reasons. Because nations use the UN as an extension of their foreign policy rather than doing what's right for the greater good, including the US, it's a place where people talk a good talk but nothing of substance happens. It's a terribly ineffectual body no matter how you cut it. THE MOST UNFORTUNATE THING ABOUT THE UN IS THAT THE U.S. IS PAYING MOST OF THE BILLS FOR ALL OF IT'S PROGRAMS. WE NEED TO CLOSE THAT BUILDING DOWN AND SEND ALL OF THOSE DIPLOMATIC FREE LOADERS BACK TO THEIR OWN COUNTRIES AND MAKE THEM PULL THEIR OWN WEIGHT. THEN MAYBE JUST MAYBE THEY MIGHT LISTEN TO WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY AT ALL THOSE WORTHLESS MEETINGS. INSTEAD OF THEM TALKING THE TALK AND THEN STICKING A KNIFE IN US WHEN OUR BACKS ARE TURNED. THEN TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE THEY JUST STICK OUT THEIR HANDS AND ASK FOR MORE MONEY FROM THE GOOD OLD USA AND WE KEEP ON GIVING IT TO THEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroDan Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Did any of you actually read the article beyond the "Fair and Balanced" headline? What specifically do you disagree with? It's a pretty complementary article other than pointing out the President maybe a bit too aggressive in the ultimate goal but saying the path he's laid out is quite good. I don't personally think you can eliminate, nor should eliminate, nuclear weapons, I mean what will we use when the space aliens attack or the giant asteroid comes at us, but I liked that he gave support to the missile defense shield and requested harsh international consequences for countries like N. Korea. I mean do you guys read or just throw up canned "savior" responses from other threads? BTW: I think we need to look to the last President that had to confront a direct missile related confrontation. WWJFKD! WWJFKD? Sabre-rattle and get the missles out of Cuba but not stop the Russians from annexing the rest of the Carribean and South America that is a cancer to this day! Obama asked for harsh international consequences, and when they don't come, then what? Talk and beg and bow some more? Weakness NEVER breeds strength, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 WWJFKD? Sabre-rattle and get the missles out of Cuba but not stop the Russians from annexing the rest of the Carribean and South America that is a cancer to this day! Obama asked for harsh international consequences, and when they don't come, then what? Talk and beg and bow some more? Weakness NEVER breeds strength, IMHO. Could you explain what you mean when you say the "Russians from annexing the rest of the Carribean and South America that is a cancer to this day" I'm interested in that you mean and any examples you have. So you think JFK was seen as weak? I have NEVER seen that as an analysis. You might want to read about the fall of Nikita Khrushchev from power shortly after the missile crisis if you want to understand better who was seen as weak. Of course you might think Goldwater's "bomb um!" was the right course but happily we don't need to worry about it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I just read this Poll in Playboy...... 42500 is the Number of Military Troops, National Gaurdsmen and Police Officers who formed the Security Force for President Obama's Inauguration. 31000 is the Number of US Troops serving in Afghanistan. WOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mywickedshelby Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 THE MOST UNFORTUNATE THING ABOUT THE UN IS THAT THE U.S. IS PAYING MOST OF THE BILLS FOR ALL OF IT'S PROGRAMS. WE NEED TO CLOSE THAT BUILDING DOWN AND SEND ALL OF THOSE DIPLOMATIC FREE LOADERS BACK TO THEIR OWN COUNTRIES AND MAKE THEM PULL THEIR OWN WEIGHT. THEN MAYBE JUST MAYBE THEY MIGHT LISTEN TO WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY AT ALL THOSE WORTHLESS MEETINGS. INSTEAD OF THEM TALKING THE TALK AND THEN STICKING A KNIFE IN US WHEN OUR BACKS ARE TURNED. THEN TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE THEY JUST STICK OUT THEIR HANDS AND ASK FOR MORE MONEY FROM THE GOOD OLD USA AND WE KEEP ON GIVING IT TO THEM. I thought my old man was still alive when I was reading this post, ... he used to say the UN should be in Somalia. Then nobody would take part in the farce that it is. But since its on the East side of Manhattan, every banana with 2 cloaks and a row boat are members. What a joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.