E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Susan Walsh / AP
President Barack Obama speaks at Hankuk University in Seoul, South Korea, March 26. Obama discussed his Prague agenda to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and seek the peace and security of a world without them.
Updated 12:35 a.m. ET: SEOUL – President Barack Obama’s speech at a university that prides itself on diversity and “producing numerous CEO’s and outstanding diplomats” was billed as an update to his comprehensive nuclear energy and nuclear security agenda he set forth in Prague in 2009.
However, even with strong words directed towards North Korea, his commitment to as one White House source put it, “reduce America's nuclear weapons and the role they play in our national security strategy” could prove to be fodder for his Republican rivals back in the states.
The president said he believes the United States has a “moral obligation” to act and lead the world in reducing nuclear stockpiles. He continued, “I say this as president of the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons. I say it as a Commander-in-Chief who knows that our nuclear codes are never far from my side. Most of all, I say it as a father, who wants my two young daughters to grow up in a world where everything they know and love can’t be instantly wiped out.”
He announced that when he meets with Russian President-elect Vladimir Putin in May he plans on discussing taking steps so that both Russia and the United States reduce, “not only our strategic nuclear warheads, but also tactical weapons and warheads in reserve.” The president said such a step would have never been taken before. It is also a step that is sure to be pounced upon by rivals who already see the reductions he is calling for in defense spending as a sign of weakness.
The president also boasted about steps taken in the last few years to “reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy” and derided the Cold War stockpiles as being ill-suited for combating the type of terrorism America faces.
But while pushing a message that the United States has to lead the world on reducing nuclear weapons and materials throughout the world, he took time to speak directly to Pyongyang about the choice the North Korean leaders have if they continue to provoke South Korea and the rest of the world.
Obama: North Korean rocket test would isolate regime
Echoing his comments from a press conference yesterday he said, “your provocations and pursuit of nuclear weapons have not achieved the security you seek; they have undermined it. Instead of the dignity you desire, you're more isolated.”
He continued, “There will be no rewards for provocations. Those days are over. To the leaders of Pyongyang I say, this is the choice before you. This is the decision that you must make. Today we say, Pyongyang, have the courage to pursue peace and give a better life to the people of North Korea.”
President Obama visited the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea and said China should rein in its communist neighbor. NBC's Kristen Welker reports.
The reports that North Korea has moved a long-range rocket to a launch pad this weekend, that could be used to carry a nuclear weapon is just the latest provocation that strained new talks between the US and North Korea.
And once again the president seemed to call for the North Koreans to call for a different way of life:
“This much is true: The currents of history cannot be held back forever. The deep longing for freedom and dignity will not go away. So, too, on this divided peninsula. The day all Koreans yearn for will not come easily or without great sacrifice. But make no mistake, it will come.”
Obama calls Korean DMZ 'Freedom's frontier'
The speech at Hankuk University comes right before President Obama is scheduled to meet with the leaders of Russia and China where the thorny issues of North Korea, Syria and Iran are expected to be discussed. Later in the day he will attend the beginning of the international Nuclear Security Summit. The summit includes 53 countries and four international organizations that have pledged a commitment to securing nuclear materials around the world.
More from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Wife of Staff Sgt. Bales: 'I just don't think he was involved'
- Scientists: Venice sinking five times faster than thought
- Gunman in Afghan army uniform kills 2 NATO troops
- Cash-for-access scandal leaves UK government reeling
- Retired Turkish general faces terrorism trial
- Transgender candidate booted from Miss Universe Canada
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
The biggest threat is our national debt. Why attack with nuclear weapons when you can buy us cheap at Uncle Sam's Estate sale.
The cost of maintaining our nuclear stockpile is negligible compared to the cost of out bankrupt social programs.
VET: Too bad you weren't concerned with the debt when Dubya was in office. Or am I mistaken, were you ranting about Bush's reckless policies during his 8 years??? Cause I'm willing to be that you said not a word. Money pissed away on needless wars, no problem. Money spent to better this nation and help our citizens, wasteful and bordering on Communism. Can't win for losing with your crowd.
That's because debt only matters when it's a black president.
But what about Trayvon Martin!! Can't we talk about him a bit? If Obama had a son, he'd look just like him. This is definitely an side of this Seoul story which needs to be explored!
Fitzbaum: I've grown to expect stupidity on these boards, but even I'm taken aback by that load of unrelated ignorance. Congrats.
Obama / Sharpton 2012 ....
Hillary / Holder 2016 ....
Agreed Vet. O'Vomit has spent more in 3 years then ALL THE PRESIDENTS COMBINED UP TO HIS TERM. That's feat can only be accomplished by a person who is reckless and destructive. He is the only nuke we cannot afford to keep. (Also, Big Ben apparently has a death wish for our country).
Besides, I would not want to live in a country that has fewer weapons than my enemy. Would you ?
Unilateral disarmament ? Suicide because of an ideology ?
duh, its not "unilateral disarmanent"? And i feel perfectly safe with 5000 nukes, i'm sorry you are hiding under your bed in fear.
clue for the clueless: having more weapons than you need doesn't make you safer.
Vermont guy, you are childish and you have no way to back up what you said. And in the end : better safe than sorry !
Palin/Putin 2016
"They can see each other from their houses!"
Obama/Rev Wright 2012
Rev Wright/Jesse Jackson 2016
Clinton/Clinton 2020
Obama/Bill Ayers 2024
Yep.....just keep those thoughts coming as the Liberals continue to dig out of their holes.
Back to the article:
This just confirms Mr. Obama's College Thesis which he will NOT release to the public:
out: lol, what, exactly, do you want me to "back up"? Who do you fear with us having "only" thousands and thousands of nukes? lol.
as I said, i feel perfectly safe with 5000 nukes, i'm sorry you don't. :)
I want you to back up that we have "thousands and thousands" of nukes and compare that to the number the Chinese and Russians have.
And there is no need to talk down to me. Be civil.
Beside the fact that the social programs are not bankrupt there's this to consider:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/12/opinion/oe-schwartz12
Reducing the nuclear stockpile is a great idea for a few reasons.
out: different web sites list different numbers..but most are in the 5000 - 10000 range for both countries, with russia have a bit more. Of course, that depends on whehter you want to include strategic and tactical weapons, or just strategic, multiple warheads, etc.
everyone else has only a couple of hundred each.
again, if we have enough to destroy the whole world several times, what does it matter if russia has a few more? we're talking "reducing" not "eliminating/disarming". Obama isn't saying to get rid of our nuclear capability.
and if I've been obnoxious to you, I apologize. Too many crazies get on these threads, and its hard to sort them out.
I wish they'd destroy all of the nuclear arsenal. It's kept the world on the edge of war that would destroy the entire world. Didn't Einstein say, "I don't know what weapons will be used in WWIII, but the one after will be sticks and rocks?"
out in the woods,
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
So we could cut our nukes by over 50% and still have a hell of a lot more than anyone else on the planet and save money for other uses.
out in the woods
http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report
The sheeple of America are more concerned with Iran maybe obtaining 1, yes ONE nuke, all-the-while America has over 5000, Russia the same. Israel, by Jimmy Carter's account, has 4+..
The problem is the hypocrisy of America in our "DO AS WE SAY, not as we do," policies. The GOP want more war, just so as to protect Israel. They [Israel] led us down a path filled with lies into Iraq. Now the Willard Newton Santorum PAC wants war with Iran, then only to rule America with Judea-Christian Sharia law, as in Santorums case.
Can America afford WW3 with Iran? Not if we want China & Russia to back Iran, then what? China owns most of our debt. We get most of our oil from the middle east, Iran to be specific. We think $4.00+ a gallon of gas is high now, an invasion of Iran would double that over-night. We can continue to postulate around the world threaten nations with use of force if the don't comply to our whims, but one day, some nation is gonna push back. America remains the only nation to use an atomic weapon, not once, but twice, do we dare drop a fully blown nuke next time? It'll take only 1 to start the ball rolling.
America can't defeat an antiquated enemy in Afghanistan, how could we defend against a billion person army China would throw at us. America needs to make a choice in November and beyond. Re-elect President Obama and place the sane party back in power to keep moving this nation forward, and fixing our problems at home or elect the GOP who will start another unfunded war, only to allow OUR homeland to further decay and crumble, then blame the Dems for it.
FYI GOP we are $14 TRILLION in debt, a massive war that will be 10x larger than Iraq & Afghanistan put together won't help. Not to mention we can't put together a military with enough able-bodied Americans now as it is, so we rely on illegals and foreign nationals to serve the United STATES military. I served during the first Gulf war in the early 90's, how many of you GOPers would ever don the uniform? Hardly any.. I like most reasonable Americans refuse to support men who claim to be "conservatives" yet death, chaos and destruction and a total disgust for the female species is their only mantra.
Vote GOP in November and just like that R on that transmission selection in your vehicle, we'll move backwards, and we all know that driving in Reverse is the preferred method on the streets these days. Or select D, which is the un-official driving preferred method and we'll move forward as a nation.
Social programs are not bankrupt, Culheath? Really? Social Security is nearly bankrupt and it's a social program. Medicare is broke and it's a social program. Perhaps you have a different definition of a social program? By the way, those two social programs constitute the largest portion of our annual government spending.
Social Security is NOT near bankrupt. It is solvent for at least 20 more years.
Culheath got his numbers from a political agenda site. They cite no source for the numbers they post and they are totally anti-nuclear. Nothing muddies the waters like posting potentially bogus and biased numbers, aimed towards an agenda.
Culheath #1.15
Don't waste our time with unsourced data. As someone with intimate knowledge of certain aspects of your reference, I can assure you that we're spending nowhere near that much money.
Ozzie #1.1
I can't speak for navyvet but your response is nothing but laughable hyperbole. Frankly, it's rather apropos, considering we're three and half years in and you're still fixated on O's predecessor. As someone who voted for Bush in 2000 (the only time in my life I voted for the Republican candidate for president), I can't begin to tell you how unutterably disappointed I (and millions like me) was with his first term. The only remotely conservative acts he took were, well, I can't think of any off the top of my head, but he sure spent a lot of time wasting money, entering into unnecessary foreign engagements and acting like a fiscal liberal.
Toasty #1.2
Shame on you for injecting race where it isn't warranted or needed.
Gee raddave, 20 WHOLE years? Can you cite your source for this?
I was going to try and write something constructive but why bother you social commies would just as soon part this country out and couldn't give a damn for its wellfare. If all of you like socialism so much then move there. And as far as debt goes you can thank your first socialist president Clinton for providing the start of that as he started the whole thing through his every poor boy neeeds a house even if he can not afford it. Check it out you bunch of ignorant number throwers. This debt has been in motion far before Bush so get off of your crying its Bush's fault and do some real fact finding. That is if you can man up and actually admit it which I doubt since you have selective memory and can only spew what your socialist press writes about. SO before you spout a bunch of B.S. do some real research and since Obama has been in office for almost 4 years and spent money like a drunken sailor then yes it is his fault. Espeacially since his bailouts have been to his largest donors, check it out it is true. That is if you care to find out the truth about your president. ANd this is going to make you happy, I am not coming back to this site because writing this took more time then socialist like yourselves are worth.
The Arms Control Association (ACA), founded in 1971, is a national nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies. Through its public education and media programs and its magazine, Arms Control Today (ACT), ACA provides policy-makers, the press and the interested public with authoritative information, analysis and commentary on arms control proposals, negotiations and agreements, and related national security issues. In addition to the regular press briefings ACA holds on major arms control developments, the Association's staff provides commentary and analysis on a broad spectrum of issues for journalists and scholars both in the United States and abroad.
Foundation Support
The Arms Control Association is currently supported by generous grants from the following foundations:
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Colombe Foundation
Ford Foundation
Heinrich Böll Stiftung
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
New-Land Foundation
Ploughshares Fund
Prospect Hill Foundation
Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
No agenda, not at all...
420 Frees the Mind
So, do you think we should dissolve our friendship with Israel and allow some rogue country attack and maybe destroy them? I would like to understand who I'm dealing with when it comes to these statements that have overtures of hatred toward Israel. Sounds to me like you would prefer a life time dictatorship and one party rule rather than a free nation where the president is elected every four years and power is split between different parties. Got news for you "Big Time" there may be another Civil War before that happens.
Give us your numbers then. I noticed you didn't.
Reduce the number of nuclear weapons!!!
Coming from the POTUS, the only country in the World that has used a nuclear weapon against another country. Then it was used for POLITICAL reason, by another Democrat POTUS, General MacArthur had stated that there was NO Military need for the bombs...
IMO - The problem is not the number of nukes. But which weapons platform they are placed on...
The vast majority are placed on 'One Time Use' platforms. Either they reach the target once they are launched or they are destroyed in flight... Which only re-enforces the idea of use it or lose it...
The SALT treaties have removed the option of OPPS we were wrong, bring them BACK...
During the Vietnam Conflict the US had over 600, B-52 and other long range bombers. Now we have less than 140...
I'm prohibited from doing so. What's your excuse for posting hearsay?
Gotta love the way we're slowly dismantling a vital asset to our national defense while China steams ahead with full scale nuclear weapon production. Is the US even developing new nuclear weapons to replace the aging ones from the Cold War era?
RW-Hunter-brother tell them like the truth is-this freaking progressive radical liberal commie are killing this country-their pro illegal aliens which is one big reason this country is broke,Obama did give stimulus money went to big donors,Obama leading Acorn pushed banks to loan money to people who could not make home payment,3 million dollars of stimulus money went to Pelosi's district to study a dam mouse-don't believe me look it up,obama is a commie muslim and using the Cloward -Pivin plan to bank rupt this country so he can turn it into a marxist commie style one,look it up-any body who votes for Obama this election is dumb as dirt-plain out sheeple drinking Obama's kool aid.On the news the other day people were saying I'm voting for Obama because he gives me stuff like welfare,extended unemployment and Pelosi said extended unemployment benifits helps the economy-WTH-this election vote out everybody and do it every election unless we get a true american loving person not these progressive liberals who thinks the government knows what's best for you,lose your rights and freedoms-when you take guns away from law abiding citizens then the people become subjects of the government-we keep losing freedoms more and more...
The world would be a far more dangerous place without nukes. I don't care how many we have, keep them all. Besides it will probably cost way more to decommission them, than to store them. Everything this disastrous putz does just screams WEAKNESS to our enemies. While he's in Korea, maybe the North Koreans would like him, baby face Kim could use a mentor.
I think we should reduce out nucular weapons by 90 %. 500 is more than enough. Keeping them is very expensive, much more than destroying them, hardtostarboard. Your information is dead wrong. You must have gotten your info from the GOP.
It is impossible to "give numbers" since they are generally kept secret. This is especially true with China. A study by Georgetown University suggests that China may have up to 3,000 warheads. In any event, we know that China is investing heavily in its military. Now is not the time to make ourselves vulnerable.
.
Hah, amazing that the only time liberals talk about "expensive" government spending is when it involves something that actually protects our national soverignty. Sure let's cut that but a trillion dollars for a failed porkulus package? No problem!
Sorry Fils, but it's the only explanation for the behavior of the teabaggers. I'm sorry if you don't like it.
For a up-date on China's military capabilities...
2012 RED CHINA NAVY UPDATE from Jeff Head's Rising Sea Dragon in Asia Site
http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/">The Rising Sea Dragon in Asia Site ^ | 26 January 2012 | Jeff Head
It also contains a section comparing the China to US Military...
Reference - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2838437/posts
Uh huh I see...in other words, your agenda is not up for discussion. Sad technique and ridiculous for a comment board. Sorry I don't buy it. Heresay? hahahaha
WOW really people? How bout this......It only take ONE nuke to destroy the world we live in. That is the real reason we don't need Iran possessing one. Let's also take this into account for those that say the more the better and safer I'll feel. it will only take 100 nukes to literally wipe all humanity off the face of the earth. Why do you need more than that? Any one with any kind of sense would know it doesn't matter HOW many you have but where you send them. Besides IF someone is DUMB enough to set off ONE let alone 20 of them. We would never get the opportunity to set them all off as it won't be necessary. Common sense says reduce the number which would reduce cost of maintaining them BUT I'm sure some conservatives would argue that being safe shouldn't have a price attached to it BUT the real question is, If you don't feel safe, go somewhere you WILL feel safe........
It costs us very little to maintain our strategic nuclear arsenal. It would cost a lot more to dismantle our nuclear weapons. It would cost us even more to build the conventional weapons to replace them, and to resurrect a draftee army to man those weapons.
Nuclear weapons have kept us out of world war for more than 60 years. Their promise of overwhelming destruction of any enemy fool enough to start a war with us has reduced our need to maintain a large standing army. (If we'd quit trying to be Israel's sock puppet, we could reduce the size of our current mercenary army and its civilian contractor auxiliaries even more.)
Only a traitor would want to cut our nuclear forces.
The game changer is the DF-21D, a satellite guided anti-ship missile (ASBM) system, with a reported range of 2,700-km. With it's hyper speed the US vessels will have about 9-minutes from launch to target @ max range...
As recent as late last year, ADM Willard, current CDRPACOM.... declaring his thought that the DF-21D had reached initial operational capability (IOC). A 2,700 km range would force carriers to operate outside not only the first island chain, but at or outside the second chain and thereby effectively nullify any operational employment in the contested area until the ASBM threat is neutralized...
China’s "carrier killer," the DF-21D ASBM that can destroy American ships, had a unique origin: its base technology was pilfered from U.S. military trash during the 1990s, according to recent revelations by a Chinese military analyst.
Further, a key part of the rocket system for that missile was obtained from U.S. engineering firm Martin Marietta, also in the 1990s... see http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/chinese-carrier-killer-based-on-us-technology-57974.html
I'm assuming that those POLITICAL Donations that the DNC & Clinton received from China - payed off...
DunkinH wrote:
This is nothing new. We've been dismantling nukes for decades now. We have more than enough. As far as new technologies, we have those as well, as just one example when Bush sited 'bunker-busting' nukes being developed.
Having enough nukes is the last thing the U.S. has to be concerned about. And China isn't about to go all WWIII on us, even if they are developing more nukes. That would destroy the world economy, and since everything is going so great financially for China at the moment, why would they want to spoil things for themselves?
Fear, fear, fear. Most countries will only go to war if it's the very last resort. Especially with nukes. If there was a third world war, there would be few survivors, and those who did survive may very well wish they hadn't. Even Iran isn't that stupid, contrary to what Israel and some in the US, want you to believe about that.
Rubbish. One nuke? We dropped two on Japan, and both cities are back in operation today. We dropped 928 test shots on Nevada before the test ban treaty, and it is still there. We dropped some really big ones on Bikini, and it is still there. This Earth is bigger than you realize, and humanity is tougher to kill off than you imagine. Nukes are nice, but it would take a very large number of them to destroy a country of any size. It will take several hundred just to eliminate Israel.
Ozzie Boy-2719086 Comment collapsed by the community (rightly so)
DRY UP VET...this President has made any previous spending look like 'small change'...TWICE the all time debt in only FOUR YEARS!!!
September 2007: [Democratic-controlled] Congress raising the debt limit to - $9.815 trillion
July 2008: [Democratic-controlled] Congress raising the debt limit to - $10.615 trillion
October 2008: [Democratic-controlled] Congress raising the debt limit to - $11.315 trillion
December 2009:[Democratic-controlled] Congress raising thedebt limit to - $12.394 trillion
February 2010:[Democratic-controlled] Congress raising the debt limit to - $14.294 trillion
What are we now? ALMOST 16 TRILLION!?!?! Way to spend our tax money
Mr. Big $PENDER OBAMA - Epic Fail
@John,
I see I need to clarify my statement as you are only on one side of the equation. When we dropped the nukes on Japan, we were the only ones to possess the capability so you point is mute. There are countries that are vying to possess one so that they can "launch" them against their enemies which is WHY I said it only takes one nuke to destroy the world we live in(they strike, retaliation results. Soon nukes are flying all over the world. OF COURSE this is a worse case scenario but I hope you get the point). Two I do know how big the world is and I also know about the technology and advancements we have made since the first nuke was dropped. Also are you familiar with the term "nuclear fallout?" Also you forgot the most critical statement I made, "perfectly placed"(actually I said where you send them but this was the idea). As a retired military man I know the importance of proper placement. Do it right and you don't have to worry about doing it again......
The power of a atomic bomb compared to the average hurricane:
reference - http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/hurricanes/facts.html
Mt St Helens eruption:
The equivilent of 2,000+Hiroshima bombs...
While a atomic bomb is powerful, nature makes them look like matches compared to a bond fire...
If our biggest threat is our national debt, and I'll concede the point for the sake of argument, one should ask when did that threat become such a dire concern. That answer is actually quite easy. Ronald Reagan started massive deficit pending to fund his renewed arms race with the USSR, in spite of the fact his CIA told him that the USSR was on the verge of bankruptcy and their nuclear missiles would more likely fall in Russia than anywhere if they were ever fired.
Yes, saint Ronnie spent the USSR into oblivion if you have to believe that, but he also set the US on a vey perilous course in the process.
Me, I actually think that the cowardice of the right wing is a bigger threat to our country. I mean by that, that cowardice of being afraid of anything new, and being afraid of anything that sounds like caring for your fellow humans, rather than simply hating them all, like the Tea Party does.
@AC
A nuke dropped on New York City would cause far more damage and deaths than a hurricane could ever dream of. Plus you get the added fun bonus of all that lingering fallout and radioactivity. In any event, comparing the nuke dropped on Hiroshima to the power of today's modern nukes is a bit off. And if you look at pictures of Hiroshima after the event, you couldn't even compare the nukes back then, with "matches."
The Japanese nuclear reactor killing Earthquake March 11, 2011 had the Energy of a 1,000,000 Kiloton Nuclear Weapon. The earthquake measured 9.0 on the Richter Scale. The two Atomic Bombs that vaporized much of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan "only" totaled about 32 kilotons. The deadly 9.0 earthquake was the energy equivalent of 31,250 combined Hiroshima-Nagasaki Atomic Bombs.
Famous former Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab physicist Marion Fulk announced the startling finding today in San Francisco.
The quake moved portions of northeastern Japan by as much as 2.4 m (7.9 ft) closer to North America. A 400 km (250 mi) stretch of coastline dropped vertically by 0.6 m (2.0 ft).[19]
Dr. Cat,
The vast majority of the damage in Japan was from the resulting fires...
The Concrete building below 'ground Zero' in either Hiroshima or Nagasak were still standing...
AC, and how exactly did the fires start? Oh yeah, from the giant fireball the nuke created. Just another enjoyable little side effect that hurricanes don't tend to have.
In the US arsenal today the average is roughly 300 kilotons. This is only about 24 times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima...
To compare the damage, many things will effect this, elevation of detonation, the kind of terrain, the weather at the time of the explosion, are just a few. But a rule of thumb is the 5+PSI blast area radius. The actual radius of 5 psi for a one megaton bomb is 4.4 miles, which is only 6 times greater than the area of the 5 psi circle at Hiroshima...
In the 1980s Congress Office of Technology Assessment imagined a hypothetical scenario of an attack against Philadelphia with two one-megaton bombs. They assumed that 10% of the population had already evacuated. The results were roughly equivalent to the damage at Hiroshima - one third of the population killed, two thirds of the city destroyed...
Nuclear weapons are perilous weapons - vastly destructive. It would be foolish to take them lightly. But the only way to control them is to understand them clearly, without either fear or awe. It is a mistake to presume without thinking that if a nuclear weapon were used against a city today that the destruction would be far worse than Hiroshima, even "thousands" of times worse...
Reference - http://www.rethinkingnuclearweapons.org/a-bomb-v-h-bomb/
BTY - More people die and more damage occurrs from the store surge than are killed by the Huricane...
were just one big happy planet run by the rich.we dont need an nucs.step 1 lower the standard of living of the developed countries with free trade.this is will also concentrate wealth in the hands of just a few of our overlords.step 2 eliminate any possibility of resistance with gun control and nuclear disarmament.step 3 destroy the current world currency,the dollar,and replace it with a new world currency.step 4 regulate free speak and the internet.make dissenters vanish and even asking about them a crime.step 5 get the masses to love their rich overlords with propaganda/fox news world wide
Before you vote for Obama watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU&feature=related
even if it is only half true, its still the scariest video you will watch about Obama being a pawn for the New world order, A continuation of Bush
"Even if its only half true" then its half full of crap so why lend it any creedence whatsoever. The guys who thought the world was flat were only half true; the world was, in fact, round, they just thought you could sail off the edges. Half true didn't help their cases.
Hey, even if "Twilight" is only half true its still the scariest video you'll watch about sparkly vampires dating teenagers. A continuation of "Love at First Bite"
Compiling the above data;
The energy released by the Mar 2011 earthquake in Japan is equivalent to almost ALL of the existing Nuclear warheads. It moved large land masses, shifted the earths rotational axes, shortened the length of the day, etc. Mount St Helens ejected almost a cubic mile of dirt & ash into the atmosphere, within 5+years the temperature averages returned to NORMAL. But the earth continues to spin & people still exist...
Depending if they are detonated on the ground or in the atmosphere, will determine if there will be radioactive fallout. Due to the melt-downs still being uncontained & clean-up expected to last 30+years, the Japan environmental damage is still continuing. These three core melt-downs could exceed the totals of any previous nuclear incident...
But then you have the irrational fear of nuclear radiation by the uneducated public. This could and IMO, will cause much more damage than the nuclear devices themselves. It is this fear that POTUS Truman, counted on, maybe not a bad thing. It has been instrumental in the control of the spread of nuclear weapons, around the world...
The fire/conventional-bombing in Japan during the 3+months prior to Hiroshima, killed over 500,000 and left 13+million homeless...
The two atomic bombs , killed over 210,000 and left 70,000 destroyed or damaged buildings...
Does the USA need 2,000+nuclear warheads, probably NOT. But if the threat of using them has delayed or stopped the world from entering into another World War. IMO - The investment was & is worth it...
That's funny Mr. Obama, there are many parents in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran,et al that are saying the same thing. "As a father I am worried about the US instantly wiping us out with their drone attacks."
I'm all for reductions in nuclear weapons, but not if we're the only nation doing it !! That amounts to surrender. Remember the first rule of nukes, the last country with them WINS !!
Wouldn't the arsenals of the country be considered antiques by now..?
I wish MSN would not allow people to collapse, it is completely retarded..
I wonder how many of the people here saying that they would feel less secure with fewer nukes are also saying that North Korea has no reason to want to be able to defend itself.
All the moronic governments and so called leaders of the world should do away with all missiles and nuclear weapons. But then i believe in war the old fashion way.
I think it is inevitable that nations will all want to pursue nuclear protection for themselves (and unfortunately, that could potentially be utilized in an offensive way as well depending upon who is in charge at the time). And many nations will attempt to make those nuclear developments away from the eyes of the world at large and the UN....and some will be caught out, and there will be tours of inspections and slaps on the hands....but as everyone here points out, you only need one two bit dictator, one bomb, and the potential for world armegeddon. To keep the two bit dictators in check, to get them to cooperate with the world community, you have to convince them that the world community is bigger than they are....and in a language they understand. Last I checked, the third world, two bit dictators were not big on rationally discussing human rights and mirroring them in their governmental structure.
Rather then simply dismantle the nukes, we should sell them to China and India to pay off the ballooning national debt. Both already have them, so what is adding a few more going to do to the balance of power. Obama is collapsing our economy with massive spending, borrowing, and printing. Obama is gutting our national defense. Obama will give away the European missile defense shield if he wins re-election. Pretty hard to tell who exactly Obama is helping.
AC you are correct, it's all about fear. The best defense is a good offense. No SANE country would mess with us in a nuclear war. The nut jobs in Iran scare me as i doubt they would hesitate a bit if they knew they could pop one off in israel. Or sneak one here as a dirty bomb in a suitcase. Imagine New York radioactive for 30 years.
If i was President i wouldn't dismantle one of our Nukes. Reason being .....perception. Just for national security purposes i would want to be perceived as a "hard ass" to other countries. Now if i deemed we should decommission some of them, i wouldn't broadcast it to the world. That could be done in private as to not show any perceived weekness to the rest of the world. After all it's none of their business.
Social Security would never have had a financial issue had the government not withdrawn funds out for failing social programs like the Welfare Program !
Those who hammer their arms into plows will plow for those who do not.. 3rd president..
Toasty McGrath Comment collapsed by the community
Toasty, Toasty, Toasty no coffee yet. That was the weakest race card rant I have heard in a long time.
I noticed you didn't deign to respond to my point about it, Milo. If it isn't his skin color, why is it that the teabaggers suddenly attack the President the moment he agrees with their policy decisions?
Fitzbaum, this is a terrible derail - and as I'm working through a bcklog, you've followed it up with a rough week. You're suspended for a month for violating #1 and#4 of the Code of Honor.
is this F President for real in these times he wants to cut our nuclear down what an @!$%# get rid of him
yeah, we can only destroy the world 20 times over (or whatever it is). Crazy..we need to be able to destroy the world 30 times over! You're brilliant! :)
The United States has 22,000 nuclear warheads, each one a potential 'whoops' moment where we leave a smoking, radioactive crater somewhere on the planet, most likely on our own soil. China is estimated to have 450. So, why don't we cut it down to 900 and we'll still have twice as many?
Why don't we send Russia and China love letters?
bill: you can write them if you like. It would certainly be more productive than your immature comments here ("libtards'). :)
vermontguy, you know that love letters won't accomplish much. It needs to be either a barbecue or a set of Obama's favorite tunes. That's what the classy man gives way !
nope, that is why obama has been using the military as needed, in places like pakistan, afghanistan, and yemen to name some recent examples. His "love letters" tend to kill terrorists.
Oh right vermontguy. That's why people are still getting blown up in Iraq. Obama got rid of the terrorists there. Too bad he's getting so many of our people killed while he's doing such an exemplary job...
JIMMY PRINCE: He's been selling us down the river the whole time he's been in office, so now, he wants to get rid of our nuclear weapons so we can't defend ourselves from the Muslim world! It baffles me that I still see cars sporting his stickers on them! I'd be ashamed to admit it if I'd voted for the idiot.
OZZIE BOY: At the time you were talking about he was probably sneaking into the country illegally or covering his tracks and making his fake birth certificate, college and law school transcripts, etc. Our country can't survive another 4 years of him; we'll be having to learn to speak Farsi and wearing the burqua or the hajib, at the very least. Put his ugly wife in one and quit calling her a fashion icon! She's ugly and unAmerican, too.
@smart citizen
You don't sound smart at all, more like idiot citizen. The US has so many nukes to destroy the world many times over.
You can't even understand the word "reduce". Even if we got rid 1/3 of nukes we have today, we still have enough to lay waste the entire world again and again and again and again.
You are also an idiot for a birther, his mother is a US citizen, therefore that makes him a US citizen at birth. Clueless idiot.
JIMMY PRINCE: He's been selling us down the river the whole time he's been in office, so now, he wants to get rid of our nuclear weapons so we can't defend ourselves from the Muslim world!
. I am not intimidated by the this so called threat, nor is it necessary for the US to have thousands of nuclear weapons.
Smart Citizen
The other day, I actually saw some idiot with a McCain/Palin bumper sticker. I guess you'd probably understand that, though. By the way, NONE of the things you wrote will come true. Sorry to break it to you.
I am very tired of hearing about America's Moral Responsibility.....in a country that professes separation of church and state....why should we care at all if any other nation considers us moral or not. Besides which morality is a vague and flexible term. It would seem that no matter what course we take as a nation, we would be considered immoral by some cultures. Are we governed by the people of the United States through our elected government officials or are we governed by a world wide popularity contest whereby our safety and security hinges on the approval of other nations?
edited
Something I found online (from the Black Agenda Report website):
"What are the people who tell us President Obama hasn't got a “magic wand” really saying? That we have no right to expect a president to use the power of his office to address mass incarceration, the housing, foreclosure, student and consumer debt crises, or end our murderous colonial wars around the world? That we're immature and unsophisticated to demand or expect much of anything more than his pretty black face in that big white house?"
Barack Obama, Democratic Expectations, and the Magic Wand
by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon
We hear it all the time.... “Give the man a chance!” “He's only been president 38 months! it took Bush eight years to mess things up....” Or “He can't do nothin' cuz Republicans are blockin' everything...,” and most tellingly “He's the president --- he doesn't have a magic wand...”
Evasions and excuses like these are now the staple of black politics. Black America's political class, its learned and wise preachers, pundits and politicians counsel us in this, the age of the First Black President to “get realistic” by dialing back our expectations for economic democracy, by dropping our demands for peace and justice. After all, in the world of mature grown folks, expecting this or any president to crack down on greedy corporations and banksters, to stem the tide of foreclosures and evictions, to rein in health care costs, to refrain from starting predatory foreign wars in Asia and Africa, or to preserve Medicare and Social Security is just plain foolish. Democratic expectations, they say, are the provice of the socially immature, the politically unsophisticated.
The president himself has repeatedly deployed the “magic wand” line, both as defense and offense, as scornful mockery of those who believed his campaign promises to raise the minimum wage, to stand up to oil companies, and to walk a picket line. It ain't his fault. They should know better. One of his spokespeople suggested that those demanding those kind of promises be kept should be drug tested. That is the level of barely concealed contempt the president and the whole of the black political class have for the rest of us.
Besides, our black misleadership class warns us, even when they tell us the same or bigger lies than Republicans tell us, even when they campaign for jobs and peace but wage war and cutbacks in office, even when they're lying through their teeth to us about “clean coal,” “safe nuclear energy,” and the need to close neighborhood schools and replace experienced black teachers with mostly white temps, Democrats are simply better than Republicans. Always have been, always will be. After all, they're not ignorant white supremacists, are they?
Let's get real. Whenever anybody, in or out of office repeats that “magic wand” line, what they mean is that people have no right to demand peace or jobs or justice. They mean that people expecting, demanding or fighting for these things are fools, losers, and if their demands make the president and his party look bad, race traitors when they're black or white racists if they're anything else. How much clearer can it get? Only the immature and politically unsophisticated expect any sort of political involvement to change things…
http://blackagendareport.com/content/barack-obama-democratic-expectations-and-magic-wand
Where is your coverage of the Conversation that Obama had with the Russian outgoing president? You know the one when he thought his Mic was off and leaned over to say what he had to say not realizing the Mic was still on? Where he is telling them that once he gets elected again he can have more flexibility to do there bidding? Nice reporting ER! I Mean burying the TRUTH!
This president is out of his mind by trying to reduce the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons. He must be watching too many cartoons stories on weekends. The security of the United States is beyond and above the political views of this liberal president. Nobody likes nuclear weapons, and nobody wants a nuclear war, but do you really think that desarming this country would entice the rest of the world to follow? I urge the Congress of the United States to stand and protect the security of this Great Nation, and keep an eye on these bunch of liberal minded people who must have forgotten that this Nation must be strong today, tomorrow and always. We are the land of the Free. We must remain Free. And we will remain free when we put somebody else in charge of this Great Nation. Beware of the lambs, preaching peace & prosperity, when their objetive is to destroy this Country even without firing a shot. Wolfs are wolfs no matter what they look like.. I am an American, and I stand by what the Constitution of this Nation says. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Assembly. Freedom to carry arms. The Founding Fathers had a Great Nation in mind, and we Americans should keep it that way. NO MORE 4 YEARS, NO MORE!!!
we have over 5000 nuclear weapons (and can produce more as needed). How many do the conservatives need to feel safe?
you must be watching too many rambo movies.
How many nuclear weapons do you need for "national security" purposes? We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over, and in the even we would have to use one for "national security purposes," there's a good chance a lot of us aren't going to make it anyway.
God, you neo@!$%#servatives are going to get us all killed one day. Wish there was a way we could lock you off from the rest of humanity.
We have more than 22,000 nuclear warheads. He never said we disarm republican.
You will get 4 more years and if your party doesn't smarten up and kick the extremists out and disassociate yourselves with them, you will see another 8 years of democrat control as well.
Come on Vermontguy, don't you know that they need to maintain the paranoia so we don't realize how incompetent they are? Do they think that we're going to use 22000+ bombs in a nuclear conflagration? Don't you know that they need to be kept ignorant so they can be easily handled?
Robert: National security? Is that the same excuse that the likes of GWB and Dickey or the teabaggers used to justify their disasters? 4500+ dead servicemen were not enough, weren't they?
Ranman - whatcha talking about ? Do you know how many weapons the Chinese or the Russians have ? Putin just two months ago announced that he would increase Russia's weaponry to a standard never before achieved. And that, to you, is the right time to disarm.. Yeah - who's gonna get us kiled one day ? Not the conservatives, for sure. Why would you lock us away from humanity ? Ran out of valid arguments ?
OUT: Oh no, Conservatives would never get us killed. Thank god this nation had the steady hand of Dick Cheney and George Bush.
Tell me something I'm dying to know. In your mind, is there such as thing as spending too much money on national defense or having too many nukes??? My guess is you'll say no, in which case, why don't we turn the entire nation into an armed camp, spending 90% of our GDP on munitions.
What does it matter if they're building more nuclear weapons, and we cut some? Do you have some fantasy that each country launch as many nuclear weapons at each other as possible before we all croak? Do you not understand that even if one nuclear weapon is used, that the world will never, EVER, be the same again?
Why would I lock you away from humanity? Because the foreign policy views you spew are what's destroying us. The world doesn't look favorably on us anymore, and you dolts could care less about the environmental aspects of it.
We have over 5,000 nuclear warheads. How many god damn nukes do you NEED?
What is it exactly you people are worried about? Who the hell is it you imagine an attack coming from?
How much do you think we currently spend of our GDP on defense? (and to much is not an answer)
These conservatives remind me of someone that would get a 20 pound sledge hammer and try to kill a fly in the house. After they FINALLY DO kill it, they ,ale the statement " I guess I showed you, didn't I fly". Then he looks around at his house, everything inside is destroyed, walls with big holes ripped through to the outside. Real smart they are.
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html
'Beating Swords Into Swords'
"The INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces)," signed by the United States and the Soviet Union last year, "does not reduce the number of nuclear bombs each nation has in its arsenal by even one" says Parade Magazine. Although the treaty calls for destruction of 2,612 missiles, each side "is allowed first to remove the nuclear warheads from those missiles and transfer them to new weapons systems . . . or to adapt and rework them into artillery projectiles or bombs of varied types." Doing so is comparable to "beating swords back into swords" and means that "no long-term progress will have been made in reversing the arms race," comments Britain's Manchester Guardian Weekly. And leaving fissionable material available for a possible "new generation of weapons" is "precisely the opposite of what we hope to achieve through an arms-reduction treaty." *
Here's a good program for your edification which discusses these issues.
Andrew Bacevich on Changing Our Military Mindset
Apparently a few thousand nukes is not enough to keep the yellow belly Republicans feeling safe.
They are ready to dive under their beds, over a perceived threat from Iraq or Iran, countries that have no conceivable way to attack America. Neither country has or had a viable naval force, air force, long range missiles or anything else, yet Republicans scream for attacks on Iran, just as they did for Iraq. Even if those countries had a way, how in hell would 2000 nukes keep us more safe than 5000?
Barry wants to give half of our nukes to Russia and the other half to his buddies in Iran, and then apologize to them because we didn't have more.
is that the official position of planet x. or just your own stupid idea? :)
I hope planet x hits you in the head.
bill: i hope someday you grow up. But I'm not holding my breath..people who use words like "libtard" and think they are being clever seem destined to remain as 12 year olds...
So that's where they are putting them now.
Bill Hansel-4934149 wrote:
Come on Bill, why so angry? Hoping an entire planet will hit someone in the head? That would really hurt! Anyway, I don't think your mom would be too happy to hear her little boy wishing for things like that.
Per the notes, the President is vowing to drop the number in stockpile. Also, this morning's news noted that the President asked Medvedev for some time regarding the European missile shield- he said that after his election was over he'd have some "flexibility" in dealing with it. That comment makes me nervous- did he mean that he could water it down because he didn't need to get elected again or was he saying that by being re-elected he would make a lot of changes militarily that Russia might like?
Pondering....
We've been apologizing to the world for 3 years..., why not just surrender to it?
This president is out of his frickin mind.Doesn't he know that those weapons are a deterant to war?
The US could reduce its weapons stockpile, but it would be treason to suggest doing so.
We have many nukes, nobody suggested getting rid of all of them. I'm sure that we will still have plenty.
I thought we were already reducing stockpiles. Better not drop below the ability to destroy the planet 5-6 times, minimum.
HELLO ! Did Obama check with Mrs. Albright about how trustworthy a word from the North Koreans is ?
what does that have to do with anything? he's not suggesting this based on anything the north koreans said.
Robert- We have more than enough to destroy the whole world, does that make you feel better?
He isn't suggesting disarming, it's reducing get a clue.
President Obama is pretty moderate, and has done things most liberals and progressives don't like, extend the patriot act and NDAA.
This President over saw the seal team in taking out OBL, and has protected this country just fine.
I was wondering when someone with half a bit of reason would come along...
Every time I hear the comment "we can destroy the world many times over with all our nukes" my head spins. Not because that's something wild to imagine but because I'm so surprised at the stupidity of people who seem to feel like they can speak on matters they aren't even close to being a novice expert in.
A 7.0 earthquake releases more energy than every nuclear weapon even in existence detonated at once could release. We would destroy 10% of the earth, 5% we would get back in 100 years (once the radiation clears). The rest we would get back in 100,000 years and some would literally be vaporized. All in all we might be able to destroy half to all of Rhode Island - part of which we would get back in 100 years.
Now by 'the world' we might be talking about human life. Sure that's "possible" however - no country is going to drop a nuclear weapon in places like the Azores. So they would survive. Assuming a country used them in a pattern made to maximize their effectiveness (ex. using 4x25 kiloton warheads around a city as opposed to 1x10 megaton in the center) the world population would plummet but not be completely wiped out. A complete spread of these weapons (spaced out based on their effective radius) wouldn't cover an area much larger than Alaska at best.
You people over estimate our power to destroy the planet and each other. Life is very resilient and has survived through much worse. You also over estimate the power of a nuclear warhead. You see a few select picture from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and think you know all their is to know. Welcome to 2012, please stop with your 1950's propaganda and fear mongering.
Yep me too! Still waiting. This has been a wonderful thing Mr. Obama, could you please help the rest of us? I know we don't have a lot to give to your election fund, but, we really need some help and no we don't work for the unions either.
Smart politician never alludes a chance for a photo op. Slick willey has nothing on Mr. Obama, I will admit he is very cunning and has most believing in him. RON Paul/ Me for 2012 Listen I know nothing on how to run a country, foreign politics, or social matters for the country. What I do know is common sense and we need a little out of the entire political realm.
At least I'm honest and you can't say that for any of them!
darrell,
I think i would vote for you. ANd don't feel bad...Obama doesn't have experience either.
Hummingbird
Bull
9 deleted, Bill Hansel-4934149 with a not-great start quickly followed up with a personal attack. You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Oh Good! O'Vomit can be the first one to go!
oh good! another immature name for obama. :)
Not after you, Sandy. Not after you...
Sandy- I can't wait for O'Reilly to go either every time he talks, I want to vomit, but I just change the channel!
If you don't like O'Reilly, why do you even watch him. I don't watch stuff I don't like. If you keep turning to a channel or show you don't like, that is not very smart.
Apparently, he still suffers from love deprivation in his early years. He is giving away everything, even things that don't belong to him in the vain hope that it will buy him love. He gave a few Alaskan oil-rich islands to Russia ! That is not normal anymore. He must think in his simple childlike mind that that will make an ally out of Russia and that it will help him to get re-elected. The Russians have another Vodka on that and good laugh!
o.k. go ahead - but not at my expense, please ! Go see a shrink !
one side benefit of these internet discussion boards is inane psuedo psychological nonsense from people like you. thanks for the laugh. :)
Is it Sunday off at FIX? It seems that they all come here...
Since your here justiceforall, I take it, your talking about yourself too! Dumba@#!
We've been doing that anyway ....
Ah conservatives. Only against nuclear weapons when somebody else has them.
SO PFS, would you prefer to give them to our enimies so they can use them against us, or wait a miute you are one of those anti-Americans aren't you and would love to live in one of those countries wouldn,t you.
Illiterate.
Weelllll, ok I give. I do have an idea though, he wants to get rid of a few nukes. We want security and a foreseeable future of no terrorist. So how about we give Iran and Afghanistan 3-4 ea, via air-mail. We have been manufacturing these things for a while, time to test a couple of them out.
Lets go for it Mr. Obama show these guys you aren't scared to use what we have; when deemed neccessary.
RW_Hunter
Actually I'd prefer that nobody had them.
He stated before his election that he wanted to reduce the strength of the US down to the level of the Islamic countries. People need to study this man, what he as said, what his long term goals are.
link please? I'd be curious where he said what you claim he did.
since you've "studied" obama, i'm sure you can produce such a link quickly and easily?
Bill, that is the smartest post you have made yet.
navyvet98
Our Treasury Department is printing paper money to pay out city cleaners and teachers. Even the toilet papers in the White House are being paid by our paper money from the Treasury Department.
There is no money left in this country. We have lots of IOUs.
StandUpForAmerica: we have lots of computers too and internet and free speech and value your lots of responses. Those are not on paper at least. I didnt know you valued paper that much. We should establish a papertreasuring agency and call it Treasury.
Even if we had 1 nuclear weapon, our enemies would want a 100 x's more. Don't kid yourself Obama.
We have over 22,000...that's a lot more than one.
"FAR beneath the surface of the sea, a long, round-nosed submarine hangs steady, unmoved by the great waves that rush over the sea's stormy surface. A hatch in the submarine's deck opens and a rocket more than 30Â feet [9Â m] long and 4 1/2Â feet [1.4Â m] thick darts out and up towards the surface. The rocket starts its journey propelled upward by compressed air, but upon reaching the surface of the sea, its engine ignites and the rocket bursts from the water with a roar."
That description of a submarine-launched ballistic missile, from the book Rockets, Missiles and Spacecraft, by Martin Keen, gives meaning to an ancient prophecy foretelling a time of world distress due to "the roaring of the sea." (Luke 21:25) How great is the threat from ballistic missile submarines?
According to the book Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87, Britain, China, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States have 131 ballistic missile submarines in active service. No city lies beyond their reach, and the warheads usually land within a mile of the target. Some carry sufficient warheads "to obliterate any country within 5,000Â miles [8,000Â km]," according to The Guinness Book of Records. Even worse, some have claimed that the warheads in just one ballistic missile submarine could cause a nuclear winter that would imperil all life on earth! The control of distant submarines is also a problem. It is feared that a rash act in one submarine could unleash a fatal nuclear war.
Angelcrusher I don't think you have read jetterulz post correctly, he didn't say we have only one nuclear weapon.
Both the old Soviet-Union and the USA were getting broke by the cost of the nuclear arsenal in the 70's. Not for naught the nukes ended up in a completely different budget than Defense. Nukes are on the energydepartmentbudget. One of the departments both Republicans Rick Perry and Ron Paul wanted to be decimated. Therefor: Republicans are anti-nuke by proxy.
Also Nixon and Reagan wanted to lower their stock on nukes. Both powerhouses almost went under. Lucky for the USA, the Soviets went under first because of their totally unsustainable kind of economy. Funny how lowering the stock of nukes is being thwarted by the republican voters as democratic...
At first I thought the Korean flag was O'Bama's trademark when he was running for president! Looks just like it at first!
Sure we can.
When you have the most you can afford to cut back.
(just don't say how much)
The U.S. can not only impose economic sanctions upon Iran, but they can ALSO IMPOSE economic sanctions against any country AND any public or private companies who are doing business with Iran, in alliance with our international economic allies. This would be the next logical step in ramping up our escalating "Cold War" against the rogue state of Iran. - RC
True the U.S. can impose economic sanctions on Iran and they have, but evidently Iran could care less.
Apparently you didn't read me correctly, so I shall repeat. I said the U.S. could not only impose economic sanctions upon the rogue state of Iran, but the U.S. (and its allies) could also impose (very weighty) sanctions upon other nations AND (ultimately) any public and private corporations/companies who are doing business with Iran. - RC
RickCarter,
It worked so well against, North Korea, Cuba, Iran (hostages), Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now again with Iran...
Isn't the definition of INSANITY, doing the same thing again and again, and expecting different results???
This Obama guy has gotta go....
because....?
Because jeterrulz and the KKK say so...
Because he is not capable of running the most powerful country in the world.
AND if he is not voted out we will become second, (if we are lucky).
Because our kids deserve a life, because we care about our country.
because he's not beating the drum of war and threatening to nuke the entire planet
"because our kids deserve a life blah blah blah"...well, that's a specific discussion point about obama. lol.
Nowadays skittles look very threatening to some people. That is a lot cheaper than a few nukes.
Apologizing again, and again. Vote him out in November.
You must have x ray vision..Where do you see an apology in that statement... Its a true statement..Nothing else.
justiceforall-2038290
Because jeterrulz and the KKK say so...
vermontguy
"because our kids deserve a life blah blah blah"...well, that's a specific discussion point about obama. lol
Between the two of you I see a certain amount of STUPIDITY. First of all nothing so far has brought race into this until your KKK comment you dumb hick. Secondly if Vermont Guy we know that you don't have children since your blah blah blah you both make me wonder where this country is headed with future outstanding leaders such as your selves in it.
This upcoming global nuclear security summit is going to be SUPER, SUPER IMPORTANT for the US and it's allies. China is N. Korea's primary (if not only) ally and we must work through China to seriously stop our tensions with N. Korea. Iran is the key to middle east peace and we need China and Russia to work together with us to enact productive negotiations, resolution and healthy world relations for Iran.
what?? Get rid of our nukes while other countries are building them. Am I the only one seeing anything wrong with this picture?
again, we have 5000 nukes (maybe more, who knows), how many do you need to feel safe? which country do you fear?
verm, btw. the three super powers we have enough nukes to blow up the entire world 20 times over. And what do you do with the plutonium and other nuclear material once you disassemble the bombs? Douse it with gasoline and light a match on it?
Guess why you're a retired trucker and he's potus
Yes he is the POTUS and I am still at wonder over his election. In 2000 when Bush was selected into office, I was at aww, how this could have taken place. Now I fully understand, Money can buy anything and that includes the presidential office.
It wouldn't surprise me if they all aren't related somehow!
I'll vote for anybody that's up against Obama!
Really Jeterrulz? So if the candidate that was going up against Obama stated that he would make sure that your taxes go up 3 fold and make sure that you had no job and no way to support yourself, you would still vote for them because they were going against Obama?
I would vote for Osama Bin Laden if he were to run for president against Obama.
then i would give him 2 years to produce a "valid" birth certificate.
at least we know Osama want to destroy america, this guy is hugging us while stabbing us in the back with a Bowie knife.
i understand wanting to reduce the nukes, but reducing the military, making the military pay for their own health care now, and now wanting to reduce the nukes just doesnt make me feel secure any more.
and i love how he laments the us of the bomb over japan.
saved millions of US soilders lives and ended WW2, but for some reason he has trouble sleeping at night.
does anyone else feel kicked in the nutz by this president?
@OMG-Really-people: thats why you have a chance this november to chose a radical christian. Neighboring OBL on bombing and doesnt flinch about it. Poor choice, but at least you have it. Free country, speech etcetera, except for women, people with other color, gays, people older than a fetus but younger than a corpse. True. Your Rick is honest about it.
Speak softly and carry a big stick...it's NOT talk big, give away borrowed money and do whatever sounds good to get re-elected.
That was Teddy Roosevelt's policy in the 1900s. You still that far? A century passed. The next war is not going to be fought with guns, my friend. It's being fought with money. And we began to lose it when Dick eliminated the gold standard for the US Dollar in 1971 and then went with Henry to Beijing in 1972. Do you think that the Chinese want to enter a confrontation with the US when they owe 80% of our foreign debt? Do you think that the Russians want to enter a conflict with us when 60% of the foreign aid they receive comes from the US? Don't be that naive. The conflicts in this century will be fought in the international markets, not in the battle front.
And why in hell ( other than a photo op) is Obama using binoculars?
We have satellites for this crap.
The troops must have thought this was all hilarious.
The things we do to get re-elected.
no doubt it was a photo op. so what? every politician does them.
Yes they do.
But in this instance you have a so called "president" who has cobwebs in the oval office because he spends so much time in the air on AF One.
He is a very skilled campaigner, but generally sucks as a president.
He was groomend for the position (which would have been fine had he performed) but he failed.
Viewer: Have you ever been at the border between both Koreas, you genius? What do you think our troops use on the watch posts to control the movements on the other side of the border?
well, I guess whether he "sucks as a president" is up for debate. I don't think he's 'failed' in foreign affairs, for example...which is one of the key duties of a president (and about the one area he has the most influence in). but this is an off topic discussion.
Well, at least he took the lens caps off.
This "genius" has been in several conflicts. And YES I know what they use.
Obama had no reason to do so AND get photographed doing so.
This was strictly photo op.
Hell, they didn't even clean up the bullet proof glass they put up for him.
(you really don't think that is there all the time do you)?
Vermont, this is where he failed the most.
I foreign affairs all he does is apologize for things that need no apology.
He kisses ass.
He is very skilled in that.
A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES does NOT kiss ass.
Please enlighten us how much time the President has spent on AF1 compared to being the White House.
I know for a fact that is not there all the time. The same way that the bullet proof glass was in the Berlin Wall when Reagan gave his speech of tear down the wall.
viewer: yeah, he didn't kill bin laden, he didn't escalate attacks in pakistan, afghanistan, and yemen against al quada and reduce their effectiveness. actual results against actual enemies apparently doesn't matter to you, all you care about is stupid fox talking points about apologies. how pathetic.
Believe what you want.
Obama is a farce.
And so are the ones trying to replace him.
They are all jokes.
The only good part is that there are people who run America who are in higher places.
These are the people you CAN vote into office.
Remember that, and brush up on your American History.
I am not for any party.
I am for America.
Viewer, I challange you to come up with one single quote from the President to the had of another, apologizing for the past actions of this country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5100338/Barack-Obama-arrogant-US-has-been-dismissive-to-allies.html.
Just one of many examples!
@Viewer_Ready: those so called: "people who run America who are in higher places"...
You mean angels? Or a cheap array of gods.
it is better than what the republicans have in mind, for instance, get attacked by one country and attack another country that had nothing to do with anything, could you imagine what would have happened had bush been president when pearl harbor got attacked he would have made air stricks in nebraska, or main. hahaha
He might even have known how to use spell check before it's invention too.
Don't get your panties in a wad or spelling-this is not a dang grammer and spelling test or class...
...which is a good thing in your case. Reading a few of your posts makes it obvious you barely learned to read and write. Let me guess, you're a conservative?
OregonPat,
You do realize that it was proven that Republicans are more intelligent than Democrats, don't you? That would mean that conservatives are more intelligent than liberals.
@alan290
Where is the link for that?
It seems your stats are reverse, or are you telling me that people who usually study bible are generally smarter than people who went to school?
I think we should reduce them by USING EM. NK, IRAN, to name a few.
i agree...lets get rid of that excess of innocent women and children around the world, and if radioactivity cuts off oil from the middle east and eventually lands here in the US, that won't be much of a problem either. Brilliant!
your stupid as a rock.
Ooooooh, oh no. Calling someone stupid, but then using the wrong "your".
verm, I believe Super's comment is our National stance in which we will take at the upcoming international nuclear security summit.