The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Arnox on April 06, 2010, 06:13:28 PM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040603242.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040603242.html)
Do you approve of this? I REALLY do not but that's just me.
Discuss.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us_nuclear (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us_nuclear)
lol
-
More stupid. It reads like the 'gun control' debate on a large scale. The danger isn't the US, Britain, China, etc. having thousands of nukes; the danger is Al Queda or some other similar group getting one. They'd be certain to use it; and on civilians. I hardly think us reducing our stockpile or saying out loud when/how we would/wouldnt use nukes is going to have any effect on said group and their intentions.
End result - validating their opinion that the US is weak and should be destroyed.
I'm just glad I don't live near a heavily populated area, or an important one.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us_nuclear (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us_nuclear)
lol
That too. Anyone who believes real reductions will take place anywhere but here is a fool; straight up.
-
The danger isn't the US
I'm sure there are TONS of Obama supporters that would disagree with you on this.
-
what difference does it make? the u.s. has enough nukes to destroy the world six times over already.
-
More stupid. It reads like the 'gun control' debate on a large scale. The danger isn't the US, Britain, China, etc. having thousands of nukes; the danger is Al Queda or some other similar group getting one. They'd be certain to use it; and on civilians. I hardly think us reducing our stockpile or saying out loud when/how we would/wouldnt use nukes is going to have any effect on said group and their intentions.
End result - validating their opinion that the US is weak and should be destroyed.
I'm just glad I don't live near a heavily populated area, or an important one.
This. The cat's already been let out of the bag (nuclear weapons) and there's nothing we can do about it. And trying to get rid of our defense while hopefully pretending the WMD's will suddenly stop existing is NOT the answer at all. No wonder other countries are laughing at us. I'd laugh too. I just hope that they know that we don't support our presidents retarded decisions. Wait a second, why did we vote him into office then...
-
This. The cat's already been let out of the bag (nuclear weapons) and there's nothing we can do about it. And trying to get rid of our defense while hopefully pretending the WMD's will suddenly stop existing is NOT the answer at all. No wonder other countries are laughing at us. I'd laugh too. I just hope that they know that we don't support our presidents retarded decisions. Wait a second, why did we vote him into office then...
hopeandchange. Nobody can do propaganda like the Democrats.
Plus
I just hope that they know that we don't support our presidents retarded decisions.
There were plenty who felt this way about W.
-
hopeandchange. Nobody can do propaganda like the Democrats
Yes but what are we supposed to take into consideration when we are voting? The party who has the better propaganda or what the candidates actually plan on doing once they get into office?
Propaganda. That's a horrible excuse for us to have voted him in.
-
Semi-serious answer on contributing factors for why Obama was elected in no particular order.
- People plain fed up with Bush and voted Democrat to register this displeasure
- Shallow young people who vote Democrat because they're easily influenced by what's popular and celebrities say he's totally cool, brah
- Large turn out of black voters and if I need to explain the extra incentive for this...
- "Well, I wanted to back Hillary, but I didn't want my friends thinking I'm a racist, so...
- McCain ran a terrible campaign
- If John McCain got elected and something happened, we'd have President Palin
- Enough people actually like his political ideas and wanted them enacted.
- McCain was seen by many as not conservative enough and a bit of the Republican base sat it out or voted third party
Mix them all together and you wind up having somebody with almost zero practical experience elected to the highest office of the land.
-
Once the world has made a weapon you can't stop them from using them. First the arrow and so on. Then next thing that we need to do is create a defense for them that will prevent us from you know being killed in a nuclear holocaust. I think that the THAAD has some potential.
No one will take apart a nuke in there right mind when they are the fastest way to be recognized as a nation
-
... The party who has the better propaganda or what the candidates actually plan on doing once they get into office?
When you find a candidate who actually plans on doing something other than enjoying their new salary once they get into office... lemme know!
-
When you find a candidate who actually plans on doing something other than enjoying their new salary once they get into office... lemme know!
If it's any help, once I'm President the first thing I'm going to do is run this country into the ground.
-
Ah! The Obama plan.
-
Ah! The Obama plan.
But be honest, Biz, do you really think McCain would have been so much better? I mean, health care agenda aside, would McCain really have been so much better than Obama? McCain certainly wasn't gonna disentangle us from the mid-East. The economy was in the crapper and (IMHO) whoever inherited it was screwed 19 ways from Sunday. So what exactly do you think McCain would have done different? Not bail out the banks/Wall St? Hell, the banks/Wall St. and the Republicans are so far up each others ass that there was no way there wouldn't have been additional money thrown at them. So, what? What would McCain have done different that would have made all of our lives so much better today?
-
S'truth. McCain's "economy" plan actually involved about the same bailouts that Obama ended up putting into play, and he certainly didn't have any plans for de-escalating Iraq or Afghanistan.
I don't think McCain would have been any different at all.
-
Vesp, they're all complicit. McCain would have piloted the plane into a different farm field, but we'd have crashed either way.
-
Yes, cos it's not just the president anymore. Our entire government is corrupt and incompetent.
-
Vesp, they're all complicit. McCain would have piloted the plane into a different farm field, but we'd have crashed either way.
This I agree with. I just get worked up when people specifically point to Obama and blame him. Too many people (and I don't mean you) point the finger and just refuse to acknowledge that the Republicans would have done essentially the same thing. Hell, the Republicans did do the same thing...the first bailout package happened before the last election.
FULL DISCLOSURE: Lately I have become over-sensitive with regard to political rhetoric and finger pointing (from both sides). I'm sick of the nastiness. I want the landscape to change such that vigorous, healthy debate happens and is encouraged, rather than shouting down the opposing side and calling them names.
-
I want the landscape to change such that vigorous, healthy debate happens and is encouraged, rather than shouting down the opposing side and calling them names.
That can't happen while the entire system is completely controlled by the two parties. They made it this way because they want it this way.
No real debate, and no real change can happen until there are more viable options than just Democrat and Republican.
-
That can't happen while the entire system is completely controlled by the two parties. They made it this way because they want it this way.
No real debate, and no real change can happen until there are more viable options than just Democrat and Republican.
And the proposed Tea Party doesn't count. They're just the disgruntled Palin backers.
-
That can't happen while the entire system is completely controlled by the two parties. They made it this way because they want it this way.
No real debate, and no real change can happen until there are more viable options than just Democrat and Republican.
The thing is; a more ideal option would be -ironically- a paradox; as the party would be so dedicated to curbing Federal Government that
they would have to vote themselves out of a job.
-
For free.
-
what difference does it make? the u.s. has enough nukes to destroy the world six times over already.
Yes. And this massive, expensive arsenal gives us zero advantage against terrorism, which has been assessed as our greatest threat.
The MAD mentality is difficult to shake loose of, I know. But we can reduce the arsenal substantially and still be in a position to wipe out any nation. And, in turn, be wiped out, because that's how MAD works.
But there's nothing in Obama's policy about reduction of arsenal, other than by attrition. What the Repubs are jumping all over him for is the crux of the new policy: it limits the tactical use of nukes.
The policy states that we can only nuke countries who have nukes, and countries who are developing nukes. So, for instance, we can't nuke Mexico, Sweden, South Africa, Mongolia, Venezuela, or Austria no matter how bad they piss us off, but we can still nuke Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. We can also nuke Iran and any other state that is not in compliance with the NPT.
That is what got everyone's panties in a twist:
"The U.S. has had a long-standing policy, embraced by administrations of both parties, of retaining all options to respond to an attack," Republican Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl said in a joint statement. "The NPR released today confuses this long-standing policy."
Total partisan bullcrap. Preserve the right to obliterate a non-nuclear country's civilian population?
And they call themselves Christians.
-
doesn't the whole "don't nuke countries who don't have nukes" thing kind of go without saying anyway? we wouldn't have any reason to use them on any other country.
-
This. The cat's already been let out of the bag (nuclear weapons) and there's nothing we can do about it. And trying to get rid of our defense while hopefully pretending the WMD's will suddenly stop existing is NOT the answer at all. No wonder other countries are laughing at us. I'd laugh too. I just hope that they know that we don't support our presidents retarded decisions. Wait a second, why did we vote him into office then...
You know, if you already believe that Obama is a secret muslim manchurian candidate, then you'll read all kinds of insane crap into his every word, like Rush does.
You clearly didn't read the article you linked, so I doubt you'll read this one, but here it is anyway: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040601369.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040601369.html)
Hans M. Kristensen, a nuclear expert at the Federation of American Scientists, noted that the new policy highlights the eventual goal of a world without nuclear weapons. However, he said, "the document is surprisingly cautious in terms of the measures that will move us there, because it essentially retains current U.S. nuclear policy."
Yup, that Obama sure is selling 'merka down the river.
-
doesn't the whole "don't nuke countries who don't have nukes" thing kind of go without saying anyway? we wouldn't have any reason to use them on any other country.
I suppose a scenario can be imagined in which it makes sense for us to nuke a nukeless country. And if that scenario ever plays out in reality, I doubt we'd hesitate deploying, policy or no policy.
-
Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of you. The monied interests always get their graft, regardless if it's a demublican or republocrat.
-
Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of you.
Except for when we're using bittorrent -- then it's communism.
-
Or Linux. Apparently that's communism too.
-
At its best.
-
I'm starting my own political party. P.O.P.P.
The Pissed Off People's Party.
Who wants in?
-
I'm pissed off AT people.
There is no party for me.
-
Our meetings revolve mostly around us screaming at each other and drinking until we pass out.
-
I'm in.
-
Actually there are other political parties other than the main two but they get utter crap for media coverage.
-
Hence my use of the term "viable". As in, "has a reasonable chance of winning a major election".
-
The scenario of using nukes against a non-nuclear nation is in retaliation for using chemical or biological attacks. This nearly happened in the first Gulf War.
I can tell you that having to M.O.P.P. up at any given time and wait for the gas to roll in is no fun at all. And biological? Forget about it. There's no warning, no way to prep for it; everyone just dies. Kinda like a nuke strike. Personally; I would indeed retain that option. It seems to be the biggest reason Saddam didn't use chemicals on us back then. That counts as deterrent to me.
-
The scenario of using nukes against a non-nuclear nation is in retaliation for using chemical or biological attacks. This nearly happened in the first Gulf War.
I can tell you that having to M.O.P.P. up at any given time and wait for the gas to roll in is no fun at all. And biological? Forget about it. There's no warning, no way to prep for it; everyone just dies. Kinda like a nuke strike. Personally; I would indeed retain that option. It seems to be the biggest reason Saddam didn't use chemicals on us back then. That counts as deterrent to me.
And would still be a deterrent now, even with the new policy. We thought Iraq was making nukes, so it would be nukeable. The thing about this policy is that we set it -- so we can change the rules whenever we want.
Obama's just trying to follow up on some of his lofty promises, for which he got elected and won the Peace Prize. But reality is a tough summabich, and he does not want to be remembered as the President who opened the gates to the barbarians.
-
So... let's not nuke countries that don't have nukes, because you're not supposed to bully the poor kids.
But, it's okay to nuke countries with nukes so that they can nuke us back and we can start a nuclear winter! Yay! \o/
God I hate politics.
-
... he does not want to be remembered as the President who opened the gates to the barbarians.
Too late. The Europeans landed a long time ago.
-
And would still be a deterrent now, even with the new policy. We thought Iraq was making nukes, so it would be nukeable.
Wrong conflict; we were liberating Kuwait. Nothing to do with believing they had nukes. We knew they didn't; the threat was bio/chemical. Now, however, the policy states we definitely would NOT nuke them (if the same conflict played out now) even if they attacked us with bio/chem; as they were not expected abide by the non-proliferation treaty as a nuclear nation. They weren't a nuclear nation, nor were we taking any action (at that time) in response to any nuclear ambitions.
-
So... let's not nuke countries that don't have nukes, because you're not supposed to bully the poor kids.
But, it's okay to nuke countries with nukes so that they can nuke us back and we can start a nuclear winter! Yay! \o/
God I hate politics.
Look, we can nuke Iran, which would get rid of one problem, and the ensuing mini-nuclear winter would neatly offset global warming. Everybody happy.
-
At any rate, I believe it is a mistake to announce anything other than the very barest minimum when talking to the world about your own defenses and capabilities.
-
At any rate, I believe it is a mistake to announce anything other than the very barest minimum when talking to the world about your own defenses and capabilities.
Since that makes perfect sense, our leaders will now do the opposite and blab to the world that we have more than we actually do.
-
Wrong conflict; we were liberating Kuwait. Nothing to do with believing they had nukes. We knew they didn't; the threat was bio/chemical. Now, however, the policy states we definitely would NOT nuke them (if the same conflict played out now) even if they attacked us with bio/chem; as they were not expected abide by the non-proliferation treaty as a nuclear nation. They weren't a nuclear nation, nor were we taking any action (at that time) in response to any nuclear ambitions.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/ (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/)
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/timetable.htm (http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/timetable.htm)
-
At any rate, I believe it is a mistake to announce anything other than the very barest minimum when talking to the world about your own defenses and capabilities.
Yes, I agree. But overall, I think Obama has been pretty hawky for a Peace Prize winner.
-
Yep makes one really buy into all those NWO conspiracy theories.
-
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/ (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/)
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/timetable.htm (http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/timetable.htm)
Not sure what you're getting at. We were there to liberate Kuwait; not stop a nuclear program. We knew they didnt have nukes; and only suspected that they probably would love to acquire them. Our biggest concern was their bio/chem program and their missile capabilities; fearing they would use bio or chemical warheads.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd04.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd04.pdf)
So; yeh, it had nothing to do with him wanting/having/trying to get nukes. We assumed he did (want them); but that's kind of an obvious assumption, not a plan for a first strike. The first Gulf War was liberation of Kuwait. It wasn't until after that any inspections or resolutions were made.
-
wow, this is a hot discussion
anyways, I would like to point out that just because biological weapons aren't nukes, they're still WMDs, and they have the potential to be just as destructive. so retaliation with nukes against bioweapons would be just as ethical as retaliation with nukes against nukes
-
I would like to congratulate Arnox on starting a thread worth reading. Thanks.
/me watches for a blind squirrel with a nut.