It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


More Concessions? Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by suicydking
I don't think you need to have a specific political affiliation to make empty arguments or ad-hominem attacks.

Agreed. My post was merely intended to point out that it's not just "right-wing nuts" who talk about kool aid. Both sides have done it and pointing fingers at one while ignoring those on your side of the fence who've done so is hypocritical at best.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by Jenna

Most people would rather be right than helpful. Many people who debate politics are looking for personal empowerment by looking smart rather than trying to solve anything.

This creates a dichotomy and people wind up having a battle of ideologies. No one is listening to anyone but themselves.

I welcome the opportunity for someone to prove me wrong. It's the only way I can grow and learn.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by jimmyx

obama still has 130,000 troops in iraq, adding 30,000 more in afghanistan,

yeah, right...he's a real pacifist

Troops in Iraq pretty much kept on base, javing been withdrawn from cities.

Obama's "promise " to ADD troops in Afghanistan?

Were you listening last Sunday?

“Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy I'm not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there—beyond what we already have,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press”. “I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way—you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration.”



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

We are watching something so bizarre, I cannot begin to put my mind around all of it.

So why has the MSM been so silent on the obvious, well

WHO runs the MSM?

Without the internet right now we wouldn't know squat, why do you think they want to control it?

The American MSM are content to ignore the facts and implications.

But, the foreign press has no qualms about reporting what they see:

President Obama received exactly nothing for selling out America's friends in Eastern Europe. Russia continues to oppose sanctions on the mullahs in Iran, to sell advanced weapons to them.

Nothing is also what the administration received from North Korea for agreeing to North Korea's demand to scuttle the six party talks on North Korea's nuclear program in favor of the direct talks the Norks have long sought.

The hostile tone the Obama administration has taken toward Israel has not made the Palestinians or the Saudis more willing to recognize the right of Israel to exist. Peace in that region remains as chimerical as ever.

Regimes in Moscow, Pyongyang and Tehran simply pocket his concessions and carry on as before. The picture emerging from the White House is a disturbing one, of timidity, clumsiness and short-term calculation. Some say he is the weakest president since Jimmy Carter.

Somewhere, other than the U.S., people are watching and listening.

Who's gonna act first?


posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:47 PM
This scares me a little. The only reason we haven't been attacked (nuked) before is that we could turn any country that does so into a glowing parking lot.
We also have the dubious title of international babysitter and all bullies know that if they hurt a country we like... see above glowing parking lot statement.

I think before we even think about disarming we need to take the dangerous toys away from the bad boys... Iran... South Korea... (somewhat) China...
The fact that we can (and if forced, would) blow anyone away that launched a nuke has kept crazy idiots from pressing the big red button.

It would be a huge mistake to disarm. Someone would keep a nuke or three and we would wake up one shiny morning to... oh, wait. We wouldn't wake up at all.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:15 AM
reply to post by sisgood
It's just like the "gun in the closet." No one wants to have to use it, but you need it "just in case."

Or the "beware of dog" and "this property protected by ... " signs that let potential troublemakers know that you will protect yourself.

Being an ally, or a member of NATO was sort of like the "I support the State Troopers" stickers people put on their cars. Everyone knows you've got someone who will back you up.

That's not true for the U.S. anymore and our allies know it.

Even worse, the vest/car/truck/rocket/airplane-bombing maniacs know it, too.


posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by jdub297

I don't know why you think it was our job to police the world in the first place.

As horrible and crappy as it is, there is a reason why we have the UN...

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:37 AM

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by jd140
"• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons."

I don't mind reducing the amount of weapons we have. But this I do have a problem with.

We have a no first use policy regarding nuclear weapons. That means they set nice and cozy unless someone uses theirs. To narrow that means that we would have a no use at all policy.

Thats dangerous.

Fear of a nuclear retaliation is what keeps those who do have the nuke from using them. They realize we won't use it at all and it would leave us in a very dangerous spot.

obama still has 130,000 troops in iraq, adding 30,000 more in afghanistan,

yeah, right...he's a real pacifist

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jimmyx]

I forgot about this thread so I apologize for the long delay in responding to your reply.

That being said, I never said anything about the use of troops. My post was in regards to our policy of the use of nukes, which is completely seperate from our use of troops.

If you have a response that is on topic with my post and the thread then by all means I would like to see what you have to say.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:22 AM
reply to post by Mak Manto

I don't know why you think it was our job to police the world in the first place.

"In the first place," I've never siad that.

But when you promise a friend you'll back them up, then bail on them when the bully next door starts grumbling, you lose credibility, at the very least.

We certainly DO NOT "police the world" by any stretch of the imagination.
(Except yours. Neither does the U.N., by the way, but that's off-topic.)


posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by jd140
jd, your summary of nuclear deterrence strategy is prrecise, direct, and complete. That's why jimmyx can only reply with meaningless numbers:

Originally posted by jimmyx
obama still has 130,000 troops in iraq, adding 30,000 more in afghanistan,

yeah, right...he's a real pacifist

Of course, jimmy fails to recognize that Obama didn't send those "130,000 troops" in, Bush did. Obama has them confined on base, withdrawn from cities, while resurgent insurgents are blowing up the cities in their absence.

And, he apparently doesn't know that Obama has to date REFUSED to add "30,000 more" troops in Afghanistan. Despite his campaign promises and March declaration of "strategy." And despite his Generals' pleas for help.

Obama has in fact DELAYED any decison at all until "at least 5 more strategy sessions" with POLITICAL (as opposed to MILITARY) advisors!

Sadly, the only thing he got right was the sarcasm: "he's a real pacifist."

Deny Ignorance!


new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in