Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47
  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default More evidence Obama is no leader

    Here's a great plan. With Iran and North Korea in the process of developing a nuclear arsenal, Pres. Obama wants to radically reduce ours.

    One term. That's it.

    Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal. Pentagon told to map out radical cuts as president prepares to chair UN talks

    President Obama's decision to order a review comes as he takes the rare step of chairing a watershed session of the UN security council. Photograph: Reuters

    Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.

    'A multilateral process in which weapons states agree to radical disarmament': Julian Borger Link to this audio
    Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

    Those options include:

    • Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

    • Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

    • Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

    The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: "Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."

    The move comes as Obama prepares to take the rare step of chairing a watershed session of the UN security council on Thursday. It is aimed at winning consensus on a new grand bargain: exchanging more radical disarmament by nuclear powers in return for wider global efforts to prevent further proliferation.

    That bargain is at the heart of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is up for review next year amid signs it is unravelling in the face of Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions.

    In an article for the Guardian today, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, argues that failure to win a consensus would be disastrous. "This is one of the most critical issues we face," the foreign secretary writes. "Get it right, and we will increase global security, pave the way for a world without nuclear weapons, and improve access to affordable, safe and dependable energy – vital to tackle climate change. Get it wrong, and we face the spread of nuclear weapons and the chilling prospect of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists."

    According to a final draft of the resolution due to be passed on Thursday, however, the UN security council will not wholeheartedly embrace the US and Britain's call for eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. Largely on French insistence, the council will endorse the vaguer aim of seeking "to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons".

    Gordon Brown is due to use this week's UN general assembly meeting to renew a diplomatic offensive on Iran for its failure to comply with security council demands that it suspend enrichment of uranium. The issue has been given greater urgency by an International Atomic Energy Agency document leaked last week which showed inspectors for the agency believed Iran already had "sufficient information" to build a warhead, and had tested an important component of a nuclear device.

    Germany is also expected to toughen its position on Iran ahead of a showdown between major powers and the Iranian government on 1 October. But it is not yet clear what position will be taken by Russia, which has hitherto opposed the imposition of further sanctions on Iran.

    Moscow's stance will be closely watched for signs of greater co-operation in return for Obama's decision last week to abandon a missile defence scheme in eastern Europe, a longstanding source of irritation to Russia.

    "I hope the Russians realise they have to do something serious. I don't think a deal has been done, but there is a great deal of expectation," said a British official.

    Russia has approximately 2,780 deployed strategic warheads, compared with around 2,100 in the US. The abandonment of the US missile defence already appears to have spurred arms control talks currently underway between Washington and Moscow: the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, said today that chances were "quite high" that a deal to reduce arsenals to 1,500 warheads each would be signed by the end of the year.

    The US nuclear posture review is aimed at clearing the path for a new round of deep US-Russian cuts to follow almost immediately after that treaty is ratified, to set lower limits not just on deployed missiles but also on the thousands of warheads both have in their stockpiles.

    The Obama strategy is to create disarmament momentum in the run-up to the non-proliferation treaty review conference next May, in the hope that states without nuclear weapons will not side with Iran, as they did at the last review in 2005, but endorse stronger legal barriers to nuclear proliferation, and forego nuclear weapons programmes themselves.

    "The review has up to now been in the hands of mid-level bureaucrats with a lot of knowledge, but it's knowledge drawn from the cold war. What they are prepared to do is tweak the existing doctrine," said Rebecca Johnson, the head of the Acronym Institute, a pro-disarmament pressure group. "Obama has sent them it back saying: 'Give me more options for what we can do in line with my goals. I'm not saying it's easy, but all you're giving me is business as usual.'"
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.


  2. #2
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    One term. That's it.
    We can only hope for that change!
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    If they push through the ill-advised government funded health care expansion they will be dropping like Acorns in the fall.

    We are a free people and we value our freedom. With luck the socialist movement will die a horrific death. There is no place for socialism in this country.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb View Post
    We can only hope for that change!

    He's not even as smart as that previous Democrat one hit wonder (Why are you thinking of Jimmy Earl Carter?) who just admitted that maybe Hugo Chavez wasn't such a good guy after all.
    All through his campaign and his continued campaigning,he has said that there was nothing wrong with Iran and North Korea having nuclear facilities,that all they wanted was to develop nuclear energy for a cleaner environment.(Hey,about some new nuclear plants for us Americans if it's so clean,"Barry"?)
    Now,he is admitting that they might not be up to anything good with their efforts AFTER he fooled enough of the people to get elected.
    What he is trying to do with our economy is bad enough.What he has turned a blind eye to until it might be too late to do anything about like his predecessor was trying against Congress' and new media's will is going to be worse.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Ohh, Americans are waking up and realizing the error in their ways. His approval rating went from 68% down to 51%. His disapproval rating is the real tell tale, it went from 12% to 41%.

    Unfortunately, the Republicans had Mccain who wasn't much better. I'm changing my voter registration to democrat. That way I can vote for the worst democrat in hopes they make the ballot.

  6. #6
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,121

    Default

    We spend as much on defense as the next 14 nations combined. How much is enough?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    That would be another instance where we would have to pretty much disagree completely.

    This is a decision that falls into being a great leader for me.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    We spend as much on defense as the next 14 nations combined. How much is enough?
    Enough to put the 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan that the military leaders say they need to win.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    We spend as much on defense as the next 14 nations combined. How much is enough?
    Agreed, we need to get our troops out of all of these foreign entities and let them build their own defense systems. According to these folks World Military Expenditures we spend more than the rest of the world combined. However, our friends at Wikipedia have different numbers.

    Of course, we are also the highest taxed nation and spend as much on social programs as the next 18 nations combined. How much is enough?
    Last edited by ScareCrow57; 09-23-2009 at 11:15 PM.

  10. #10
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Enough to put the 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan that the military leaders say they need to win.
    The topic of this thread is nuclear deployment.

    I agree we should be putting more emphasis on conventional and unconventional forces for tactical deployment.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The topic of this thread is nuclear deployment.

    I agree we should be putting more emphasis on conventional and unconventional forces for tactical deployment.
    Personally, I think NATO should get the heck out of Afghanistan and leave them to it. They will have the form of governance that they deserve and our young people will have their lives and a future that hundreds have lost in that pestilential fanatical hole.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Personally, I think NATO should get the heck out of Afghanistan and leave them to it. They will have the form of governance that they deserve and our young people will have their lives and a future that hundreds have lost in that pestilential fanatical hole.
    I agree with that. How many times has the U.S. tired to push its will on another Sovereign nation only to see it crumble when we leave. Korea, Viet Nam, come too mind. What do you think will happen when we live Iraq? They will revert to the same old way of doing things only this time without Saddam and his two boys. Why do you think we still have troops stationed in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia?

    We don't need to have troops stationed around the world. We can deploy them and have them their at a moments notice. Our military is far more mobile (the M in MASH stands for Mobile )

    Hasn't every Nation that every tried to take over the world failed?

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Scarecrow, you may know many things but you apparently don't know diddlysquat about military operations.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    Scarecrow, you may know many things but you apparently don't know diddlysquat about military operations.
    Actually, I spent 2 1/2 years in Germany. The entire time I was there I wondered what the F are we doing here? We have long range missiles and ships with missiles. I say let Germany build their own military to defend themselves. The fact that we provide their military for them puts our businesses at a disadvantage and gives theirs an advantage. By so doing we pay more taxes and they pay less.

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    1,294

    Default

    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

  16. #16
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Personally, I think NATO should get the heck out of Afghanistan and leave them to it. They will have the form of governance that they deserve and our young people will have their lives and a future that hundreds have lost in that pestilential fanatical hole.
    And we'll be stuck having to go in when another terrorist plot executed on American soil is prepared there.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    And we'll be stuck having to go in when another terrorist plot executed on American soil is prepared there.
    Nope, do the same thing as you did before, but this time, bomb the whole damn country back to Neolithic times and let them start over. Maybe they can do a better job of self governance.

  18. #18
    Forum Member EastKyFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    3,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    We spend as much on defense as the next 14 nations combined. How much is enough?
    We're more hated than the next 14 nations combined. We should spend enough to cover that.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
    --General James Mattis, USMC


  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    Scarecrow, you may know many things but you apparently don't know diddlysquat about military operations.
    Or counter-terrorism operations.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    And we'll be stuck having to go in when another terrorist plot executed on American soil is prepared there.
    I knew we agreed on this point. That very plot was discovered this week.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pres. Obama a "Leader"?
    By GeorgeWendtCFI in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 279
    Last Post: 09-20-2009, 12:52 AM
  2. Evidence Rooms
    By ASP2008 in forum Fire Investigation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-31-2008, 06:45 AM
  3. FF Destroys Evidence
    By GeorgeWendtCFI in forum Fire Investigation
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-19-2007, 07:25 PM
  4. Preserving Evidence
    By Temptaker in forum Fire Investigation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-29-2002, 05:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts