It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by suicydking
I don't think you need to have a specific political affiliation to make empty arguments or ad-hominem attacks.
obama still has 130,000 troops in iraq, adding 30,000 more in afghanistan,
yeah, right...he's a real pacifist
“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.”
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?
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.
www.telegraph.co.uk...
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.
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 don't know why you think it was our job to police the world in the first place.
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