|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 5, 2010 22:13:33 GMT -5
Obama is nuts. This is the concept that kept us safe for 40 years. We need the threat there for deterence. To take it off the table and then also broadcast it to our enemies is naive, weak, and stupid. This man is out of his depth. ---
WASHINGTON -- President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons, even in self defense.
The strategy eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Apr 5, 2010 23:00:19 GMT -5
so you consider the bush doctrine to be a better idea? it got us into two wars with no apparent end and increased our deficit by an enormous amount.
i think that while the new strategy has a few flaws, reducing the unnecessarily gigantic amount of weapons ordered that go unused each year will decrease our national deficit. therefore, this was a necessary evil.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 5, 2010 23:08:28 GMT -5
so you consider the bush doctrine to be a better idea? it got us into two wars with no apparent end and increased our deficit by an enormous amount. i think that while the new strategy has a few flaws, reducing the unnecessarily gigantic amount of weapons ordered that go unused each year will decrease our national deficit. therefore, this was a necessary evil. Yes I do. You know I'm a strong proponent of the Bush doctrine. Maybe you would have preferred Bush being weak like Clinton and only sending in a few cruise missiles like he did after 1993 WTC bombing and at Iraq in 1998 for his perceived WMD. I, on the other hand, want a more concrete response and one in which sends a message. Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave. And you're not responding to the actual point. This isn't about nuclear reduction, it's about how we would use our nukes and the perceived threat that they carry
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Apr 5, 2010 23:42:58 GMT -5
is obama acting a little naively? time will tell on that. however, if you think that he's going to allow america to be attacked and not defend it, you really are delusional. if that's the case, his political career is over! there's no way he would allow that to happen. in the meanwhile, he has to clean up the mess bush left him.
i don't understand what you would have wanted clinton to do. the world trade center bombing killed seven people. and weren't the blind sheik and ramzi yousef arrested, tried and currently in jail? what more do you want?
as for what clinton would have done to iraq in 1998, saddam didn't attack america and no wmd's were found. he was a bad man, but there are a lot of bad guys that we didn't and currently don't go after. what bothers me is that there are people who genuinely need our help out there (for example, the people in darfur) and we're wasting time, money, supplies and lives on iraq and afghanistan.
and you know how much i despise the bush doctrine. it's overly idealized without considering the consequences. especially blowback, which has gotten us in enough trouble since we stopped our isolationist policies in the mid-20th century. so i warn you: remember that with every "message" you send, there's a cost. war is expensive. and for heaven's sake, beware of blowback.
...and i'll ignore the reagan comment. he wasn't a god, like what you'd like us all to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 5, 2010 23:56:58 GMT -5
is obama acting a little naively? time will tell on that. however, if you think that he's going to allow america to be attacked and not defend it, you really are delusional. if that's the case, his political career is over! there's no way he would allow that to happen. in the meanwhile, he has to clean up the mess bush left him. i don't understand what you would have wanted clinton to do. the world trade center bombing killed seven people. and weren't the blind sheik and ramzi yousef arrested, tried and currently in jail? what more do you want? as for what clinton would have done to iraq in 1998, saddam didn't attack america and no wmd's were found. he was a bad man, but there are a lot of bad guys that we didn't and currently don't go after. what bothers me is that there are people who genuinely need our help out there (for example, the people in darfur) and we're wasting time, money, supplies and lives on iraq and afghanistan. and you know how much i despise the bush doctrine. it's overly idealized without considering the consequences. especially blowback, which has gotten us in enough trouble since we stopped our isolationist policies in the mid-20th century. so i warn you: remember that with every "message" you send, there's a cost. war is expensive. and for heaven's sake, beware of blowback. ...and i'll ignore the reagan comment. he wasn't a god, like what you'd like us all to believe. I would have liked Clinton to have actually attacked Al-Qaeda, limiting their functionality. But instead, AQ continued to roam free and attacked our embassy in Africa in 1998. Did he act then? No. Then in 2000 the USS Cole was bombed. Any action after this one? No, not really either. If Clinton actually acted more aggressively in 1993 and killed Bin Laden at the ample opportunities he had (not wanting to risk collateral damage each time), 9/11 would most likely not have occurred. Bush has handled Al-Qaeda superbly. As for Darfur - that's a really complex situation and perhaps even unsolvable from a US standpoint. We can't even reform Iraq properly within 7+ years, how in the world can we solve the issue of Darfur? How about you off a solution the next time you advocate some sort of action cos I would love to hear how it would be done. And I'm taking a Sociology of Terrorism class, and blowback really isn't the issue. These terrorists would exist irregardless. These are just excuses that terrorists use to make them seem more legit and justifiable. Why people continue to buy into it amazes me. And the last time I checked Obama didn't care about the deficit. Just look at it continuing to grow under him! Ridiculous. The US is still a center right country. 2008 was a vote against Bush and not a progression towards liberalism. Should Obama keep this up, there will be a conservative in the White House in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Apr 6, 2010 1:42:36 GMT -5
I would have liked Clinton to have actually attacked Al-Qaeda, limiting their functionality. But instead, AQ continued to roam free and attacked our embassy in Africa in 1998. Did he act then? No. Then in 2000 the USS Cole was bombed. Any action after this one? No, not really either. If Clinton actually acted more aggressively in 1993 and killed Bin Laden at the ample opportunities he had (not wanting to risk collateral damage each time), 9/11 would most likely not have occurred. Bush has handled Al-Qaeda superbly. As for Darfur - that's a really complex situation and perhaps even unsolvable from a US standpoint. We can't even reform Iraq properly within 7+ years, how in the world can we solve the issue of Darfur? How about you off a solution the next time you advocate some sort of action cos I would love to hear how it would be done. And I'm taking a Sociology of Terrorism class, and blowback really isn't the issue. These terrorists would exist irregardless. These are just excuses that terrorists use to make them seem more legit and justifiable. Why people continue to buy into it amazes me. And the last time I checked Obama didn't care about the deficit. Just look at it continuing to grow under him! Ridiculous. The US is still a center right country. 2008 was a vote against Bush and not a progression towards liberalism. Should Obama keep this up, there will be a conservative in the White House in 2012. from what i understand, al-qaeda wasn't a big threat to america until around 2000. you saying that he should have done more is ridiculous. he acted accordingly for the time. he couldn't possibly have known that they were going to attack us on our own soil. who is he, mrs. cleo? nostradamus? was fdr a bad president because he didn't stop japan from bombing pearl harbor? it's just a ridiculous premise. bush didn't handle al-qaeda well at all. they regrew rapidly after the initial attacks, and recruited more as a response to the wars in iraq & afghanistan, torture in abu ghraib & guantanamo and the anti-muslim fervor the republicans helped create. by the end of his presidency, al-qaeda had more numbers than ever. you're absolutely right about darfur. we can't reform iraq properly. that was exactly my point. that's why the bush doctrine doesn't work. you can't just go in, gung-ho, without looking at all possible outcomes. (thanks for saying president bush did fuck all there, by the way.) i'm using darfur as an example of people in the world who legitimately need our help. you want us to do good in the world? great! then let's help people who actually need it, not just bomb countries that aren't threats to us, thrusting us into enormous deficits and making us china's bitch. blowback is the issue. that's why we're in this whole middle eastern mess in the first place. that's what happens when we gave weapons to saddam to fight iran and the taliban to fight the u.s.s.r. look what happened. that's blowback, and it bit us in the ass. you can take all the classes in the world related to it, but that's not going to change those facts. the u.s. is not a center right country. if it was the case, then the senate, house and president would still be led by republicans. we're a country of every idea, from randism to chomskyism, which is what makes it so great. this "center-right" crap is as ridiculous as saying that our founding fathers were pious christians. you've been calling for obama's head on a plate even before he was elected. the day he was sworn in, you said you wanted him to fail. you showed your colors there, due to the fact that if the president fails, the country fails. if you were so worried about deficits, you would have said something about it during bush's presidency. you know, the one where he took a surplus and put us into the worst deficit in the nation's history. i've been on the fence with him, personally. he's finally growing the balls to stand up to the bullies that you glorify so much (glenn beck, bill o'reilly, bill kristol, karl rove, etc.). he won the election. it's supposed to suck if you disagree with him. if you want to change it, vote. you didn't in '08, if i remember correctly, so tough.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 7, 2010 9:33:06 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 17:38:45 GMT -5
what the fuck you are taking obama at his word
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Apr 8, 2010 10:51:46 GMT -5
guess you can't respond, cheeks?
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Apr 8, 2010 19:31:22 GMT -5
I would have liked Clinton to have actually attacked Al-Qaeda, limiting their functionality. But instead, AQ continued to roam free and attacked our embassy in Africa in 1998. Did he act then? No. Then in 2000 the USS Cole was bombed. Any action after this one? No, not really either. If Clinton actually acted more aggressively in 1993 and killed Bin Laden at the ample opportunities he had (not wanting to risk collateral damage each time), 9/11 would most likely not have occurred. ah yes, if clinton this, if clinton that... why are you pissing on clinton? it was reagan who paid and trained osama and the taliban in first place. so why don't you just shut it or start with your god reagan...
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Apr 8, 2010 19:37:52 GMT -5
. Maybe you would have preferred Bush being weak like Clinton and only sending in a few cruise missiles like he did after 1993 WTC bombing and at Iraq in 1998 for his perceived WMD. I, on the other hand, want a more concrete response and one in which sends a message. dude get it right. It was in 1998 that Clinton sent missles after bin Laden and every Republican accused him of trying to create a "war" as a diversion from the Monica Lewinsky affair. And if you would do some research Clinton was trying to get support for an invasion of Iraq in 1998/99 too. He sent Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright around the country to do town hall type meetings to try and drum up support at home and in the UN. No one was interested in invading back then, including most Repuclicans. I for one actually agree with you that explicity saying we wouldn't use nukes if attacked by someone, no matter what their status as a world power, is a major mistake. But when you get basic facts wrong and quote the latest Georgetown professor you have as the smartest guy on the planet it makes you look like an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Apr 8, 2010 23:12:41 GMT -5
Reagan, as great as he was, didn't have the power to see the future.... yet you blame clinton for 9/11. pretty hypocritical. all or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 8, 2010 23:53:20 GMT -5
Reagan, as great as he was, didn't have the power to see the future.... yet you blame clinton for 9/11. pretty hypocritical. all or nothing. I blame Clinton for being distracted by Monica. I'm not saying 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he never got involved with Monica, but I'm saying there would have been a good chance of it not happening. I don't care what he says in self defense in his bias memoir, being involved in a scandal, trying to keep the nation on your side, and ask your family for your forgiveness all take up time, energy, and commitment. While the Monica Lewisnky scandal was happening, you surely cannot say he was also 100% focused on Al-Qaeda. Maybe instead of getting a blow job, he instead decided to blow AQ to pieces 9/11 wouldn't have happened. And I am fully certain if he did kill OBL in one of several attempts in the mid-90s, 9/11 would def. not have happened. And no, it's not Republican's fault he didn't. He himself, and no one else, wanted to risk collateral damage - which is normally a fair assessment to make, but at this time frame he understood the dangers of AQ. 9/11 may have happened under Bush's watch, but the planning happened under Clinton. Clinton could have prevented it, Bush could not have. Now can we please get back on topic and discuss Obama's continuing weakening of America with his outrageous foreign policy?
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Apr 9, 2010 2:09:11 GMT -5
you're right that he was distracted. 100% right about that. however, brushing monica aside for a second, the planning stages were so early that he couldn't have possibly known where, when and how al qaeda was going to attack america. there was a briefing in 2001 that said that osama bin laden was "determined to attack america", and while president bush may not have known when, the brief said that the attack would most likely be in new york and follow the example of the '93 wtc bombing. of course, this brief was in august '01, but even with just a month before the attacks, security could have been heightened dramatically, much like they were after the attacks.
fine, back to the issue at hand.
firstly, reagan would not be "rolling in his grave," considering the fact that he aimed to decrease american nuclear weapons by ONE THIRD! (he actually said "at least a third" in a speech he gave in china in 1984. i'll find video if you want the hard evidence.) meanwhile, the american-russian treaty just signed by president obama decreased american nuclear arsenal by... come on, you know what i'm going to say... ONE THIRD!
so i ask you, was reagan making us weak, unsafe and vulnerable to attack against our enemies?
if you had looked deeper into the issue, you would have seen that this anti-nuclear treaty only complies with those countries who are non-nuclear. that means this treaty is not valid with iran, north korea, etc. furthermore, a part in this treaty also states that we can use our nuclear arsenal in defense of an attack through biological warfare. i guess it's just easier to willfully ignore what's truly in the bill so you can criticize the president for no reason other than your selfish, partisan desires to see him fail because he's not a republican.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 9, 2010 10:58:10 GMT -5
you're right that he was distracted. 100% right about that. however, brushing monica aside for a second, the planning stages were so early that he couldn't have possibly known where, when and how al qaeda was going to attack america. there was a briefing in 2001 that said that osama bin laden was "determined to attack america", and while president bush may not have known when, the brief said that the attack would most likely be in new york and follow the example of the '93 wtc bombing. of course, this brief was in august '01, but even with just a month before the attacks, security could have been heightened dramatically, much like they were after the attacks. fine, back to the issue at hand. firstly, reagan would not be "rolling in his grave," considering the fact that he aimed to decrease american nuclear weapons by ONE THIRD! (he actually said "at least a third" in a speech he gave in china in 1984. i'll find video if you want the hard evidence.) meanwhile, the american-russian treaty just signed by president obama decreased american nuclear arsenal by... come on, you know what i'm going to say... ONE THIRD! so i ask you, was reagan making us weak, unsafe and vulnerable to attack against our enemies? if you had looked deeper into the issue, you would have seen that this anti-nuclear treaty only complies with those countries who are non-nuclear. that means this treaty is not valid with iran, north korea, etc. furthermore, a part in this treaty also states that we can use our nuclear arsenal in defense of an attack through biological warfare. i guess it's just easier to willfully ignore what's truly in the bill so you can criticize the president for no reason other than your selfish, partisan desires to see him fail because he's not a republican. This "posture" by Obama isn't about nuclear reduction, well at least my complaint isn't about that. It's about the use of nuclear weapons and the threat of them. By taking it off the table, you're giving regimes an excuse to develop chemical and biological weapons and use them on us. We don't need many nukes as a handful will do (so no, Ronnie wasn't weak), but we also need to maintain the deterrent threat that comes along with them. Obama isn't doing that, and for that he is weak.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Apr 9, 2010 12:18:01 GMT -5
he's doing exactly what reagan aimed to do! what, was there not a threat against the usa in the 1980's? guess you forgot the cold war, iran, and iraq.
he's taking the idea off the table, but, as i previously wrote, he is only doing this for the countries that aren't nuclear! so you need not worry with countries that are going or planning to go nuclear. the same goes with biological weapons.
you have a steadfast hard-on for ronald reagan and yet you have an inherent opposition to his policies. that's like saying oasis was the best band ever but i hate their songs. come on, man!
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Apr 10, 2010 10:36:34 GMT -5
This is for both NL4E and NYR
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Apr 10, 2010 16:30:04 GMT -5
well played, sir.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 10, 2010 17:59:25 GMT -5
This is for both NL4E and NYR And here I thought my fellow Republican patriot was going to help me out.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Apr 11, 2010 17:28:09 GMT -5
^ blow it out your ass, l4e.
|
|
|
Post by bwilder on Apr 11, 2010 21:21:29 GMT -5
"Reagan as great as he was..." What the hell are you talking about? Reagan sucked planet-sized balls. Voo-doo economics? Why don't you ask the average, poor person that was around in the 80's how great Reagan was.
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Apr 14, 2010 7:26:01 GMT -5
Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave. And?
|
|
|
Post by bwilder on Apr 14, 2010 15:26:52 GMT -5
Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave. And? Nice one.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Apr 14, 2010 18:24:52 GMT -5
l4e's lucky i haven't made any tasteless jokes about his alzheimer's... yet.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Apr 25, 2010 16:11:04 GMT -5
This is for both NL4E and NYR And here I thought my fellow Republican patriot was going to help me out. I don't have the time or energy to read all of your long assed posts. If you want to make it simple just post a link to either O'Reilley or Hannity's websites.
|
|