Posted on 04/06/2010 4:03:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
President Obama is known for bowing to foreign dictators, emperors and Kings but it is such a chore to do it individually. Flying around the world to bow to each killer, oppressor, and tyrant is so time consuming. If only he had a way to do it to every American enemy at once it would save our bower in chief sooooo much time. Well, it appears he’s found a way.
In a bow to every foreign enemy at once President Barack “linguine spine” Obama has proudly announced that the U.S. won’t use its own nuclear weapons even if we are attacked by some other entity’s nukes!
So, come on down enemies of the U.S. The traitor in chief has just announced it’s open season on the good ol’ USA.
That’s right, enemies of the US, let those nukes fly because this may be the only chance you’ll get to have such a self-hating, self-flagellating, traitorous president sitting in the White House before he’s voted out to be replaced by a real American again.
Michelle’s “Kenyan Homecountry” honey is letting the guard down so hurry, hurry, hurry and let that nuclear winter fall. Do it now before it’s too late to take advantage of this limited time offer.
I worry that the moment Iran has nuclear weapons that they will be turned on our troops in Afghanistan.
I say BS.
Obama would not order a nuclear strike even after being hit with a nuclear strike.
He's an anti-American pacifist to the core. Today is the first installment in the naive world without (American) nukes, "to set an example."
Obama would not order a nuclear strike even after being hit with a nuclear strike.
Well, you may speculate that, but that's not the stated policy. I was just commenting on the stated policy as we've read in the news.
What you're commenting on is speculation and then that goes into a completely different arena for discussion, as we can bring out all sorts of wild and crazy ideas since they don't have to be "linked" with any solid news... :-)
There's another way to view it, too... what has prompted the discussion in the first place (and as you put it that Obama wouldn't strike back even if we were hit by a nuclear strike) -- is that the stated policy is being changed.
And the way I see it, you could have said the same thing, before any policy was changed, and said that he wasn't going to respond to a nuclear strike. In fact, you could say that even if he didn't change the policy, he wasn't going to respond to a nuclear strike. In other words, you don't have "any connection" to anything substantial (to this effect) other than your opinion of the matter.
And if that's all we're talking about -- just your opinion and my opinion (and forget about any stated policy, because that doesn't make any difference in your view) -- then we can finish up the conversation real quick -- you saying he won't respond to a nuclear strike against us and me saying he will respond to a nuclear strike against us.
And with that, we just finished the conversation..., because if we're "talking" mere opinion, then we're both "talking through out hats" so to speak... LOL ...
I worry that the moment Iran has nuclear weapons that they will be turned on our troops in Afghanistan.
I think Israel is in the target hairs, not the U.S. ...
BUT, let's say for the sake of discussion here, that it's the U.S. who is the target. Well, if Iran is a nuclear power and they strike us with nuclear weapons, according to the stated policy, Iran would be struck with nuclear weapons. That's the way I read it.
I emailed my brother and asked him to sign the protest against the govt. taking the internet over. He is retired Sgt. Major, U.S. army and was in VietNam and the first Iraq war. This is what he sent back:
“YEAH, I’LL SIGN IT, BUT IF YOU HAVEN’T FIGURED IT OUT YET, THEY DON’T GIVE A SH@@ IF 90% OF US DON’T LIKE IT, THEY ARE GOING TO SHOVE IT ALL DOWN YOUR THROAT REGARDLESS!!!
I’M MORE UPSET ABOUT THEIR ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY ABOUT NO FIRST USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ETC. ETC. EVEN IF A COUNTRY ATTACKS US WITH BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL WEAPONS!!!
OBAMA IS A D@@N IDIOT AND THE RUSSIANS AND CHINESE ARE LAUGHING THEIR A@@S OFF AT US.
SO FAR, OBAMA HAS GIVEN THEM EVERYTHING THEY HAVE EVER DESIRED WITH NOTHING IN RETURN! :(
THE ONLY REASON SADDAM HUSSEIN DID NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON ME IN THE GULF WAR WAS BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD HE WOULD MOST PROBABLY GET HIT BACK WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM US IF HE DID!...THAT’S A FACT!
THAT’S THE ONLY REASON HE NEVER USED THEM ON US. HE HAD USED THEM WITHOUT HESITATION ON THE KURDS AND IRANIANS, BUT NOT US!!...WHY?....YOU FIGURE IT OUT!
ALSO, HIS STUPID POLICY OF HUMILIATING THE AFGHAN PRESIDENT SO PUBLICLY HAS CAUSED HIM TO SAY HE MIGHT JOIN THE TALIBAN!!!!....W.T.F. IS THAT??....GIVE ME A BREAK!”
The reason we’ve reserved the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons when attacked with chemical or biological is that we signed away those two classes of weapons many moons ago. The only weapons of mass destruction we have left are nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama must realize that most of the public and media are ignorant of those facts.
Yes, but would FTTC actually turn the keys? Remember that the FTTC has the ultimate authority of the use of our arsenal.
I seriously doubt that FTTC would pull the trigger on a fellow Muslim country. Now those radical Lutheran Swedes on the other hand....
You stated that any nation that nuked us would be toast because Obama would hit them back. That is speculation. Obama has a demonstrated aversion to policy, tradition, and the American way.
Now that I have seen this turd in action for a year, I do not believe for a minute he would strike back for a nuclear attack with nukes, or even strike back at all. I think he would try "diplomacy".
You stated your opinion, and I did in response.
The reason we’ve reserved the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons when attacked with chemical or biological is that we signed away those two classes of weapons many moons ago.
Well, I knew that we didn't have them but I can't remember who the idiot was that signed them away... do you?
The only weapons of mass destruction we have left are nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama must realize that most of the public and media are ignorant of those facts.
Well, nothing stays hidden these days. If someone is enacting a policy change on the basis that some fact will remain "hidden" is simply foolish.
Look at this post... you just said it. Now..., how many are reading this post and seeing that information. And you think that there are other policy-makers who don't know this fact and would remain silent? No, they wouldn't.
That information is "known" for one thing (and I've known it, too, but as I said, I can't remember the idiot who did away with them). So, if you're saying that Obama is hoping to "keep it quiet" and hope no one notices... that does get a chuckle out of me... :-)
Right on! Good Rant nOOb.
You stated that any nation that nuked us would be toast because Obama would hit them back. That is speculation.
No, that would be policy. It's long-standing policy, too.
What you're saying in that Obama wouldn't do that -- now "that" is speculation. There's a difference in saying "This is the policy of the United States" (which can be shown) -- and saying -- "Obama won't follow long-standing nuclear policy." (which is speculation).
On top of that, I can pretty well guarantee you that both Democrats and Republicans would be going "nuclear" over it (if you're forgive the pun) and everyone would be demanding it. There's no President who is going to stand against long-standing policy and against both parties and the American public, all at the same time.
Nope, no one would put up with that one. If you wanted a "sure scenario" to get rid of Obama -- that would be the scenario -- guaranteed... :-)
You are missing the point.
Obama is CIC and is not bound to follow any policy but his own.
The assertion that he WILL follow policy is your opinion.
My opinion is Obama is willing to do just that.
He's a hard head and will not bow to pressure, but he will bow to other world leaders.
Obama is CIC and is not bound to follow any policy but his own.
Well, we got a statement on that one (i.e., "his policy change") and I included it up above in Post #15 ...
So, we've got that part "covered" with his own statements as to what the policy changes are.
The assertion that he WILL follow policy is your opinion.
Well, I'll have to say that I do "live in a world" -- where when the Commander in Chief just states a change in the nuclear policy, that he will do what he just stated ... doncha know...
And since he's only mentioned those limited things for a "change" -- that means that if he was going to change any other aspect of the policy (like "no response at all under any condition") -- he would have included that in his statement for "policy change"...
What you would apparently have me believe is that Obama is going to "make a policy change" and not abide by the policy that he just fixed ... LOL ...
That's just pure speculation....
My opinion is Obama is willing to do just that.
Well..., if you want your chance to get rid of Obama -- that's it... if he does it, Obama is gone ... :-)
Obama’s concept of promising not to use nuclear weapons against countries who have complied with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack. Now, in a liberal mindset, that is a concept of ‘fairness’.
In the real world, it is insanity.
SNIP
In one single step, Barack Obama has virtually unraveled the concept of mutual assured destruction. It was, and always will be, an imperfect barrier to nuclear war. But now, Mr. Obama has removed that imperfect device in exchange for…nothing. Or virtually nothing.
http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=10668
Obama’s concept of promising not to use nuclear weapons against countries who have complied with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack. Now, in a liberal mindset, that is a concept of ‘fairness’.
Well..., you'll notice that there's a big hole in that promise, big enough to drive a nuclear sub through ... LOL ...
It's that if it degrades our nuclear capability... in fact, I think you can drive the whole nuclear submarine fleet through that hole.... :-)
But, aside from that big gaping hole in that promise (which I'm sure that countries are smart enough to notice) -- you can bet that any one kind of attack against the U.S. is going to generate a counter-attack back at that country -- without a doubt. In fact, if you look back at the wars we've had (and an attack against us, by another country would be a war, to be sure, without any doubt) -- it's been Democrats that always get the wars going... doncha know. So, I don't think you have to worry about a Democrat "getting a war going" -- they've always been good at that... :-)
So, again, this is not a promise to not counter-strike at all, and what the U.S. has, in its arsenal in order to do that is very, very formidable. Just keep in mind that no nuclear weapons were used in Iraq when they had what they call "shock and awe"... and it was massive. It's not something that any country is going to forget or go without paying a very heavy price. And also, again, remember, any nation that attacks the U.S. has declared war on it. And that means if there was ever a time that Democrats "go to war" -- it would be when we are attacked by another country (they always have done it in the past, doncha know...).
So, the price is going to be paid (by that country) -- it's just that it's not going to be a nuclear bomb, that's all -- unless (with two provisos here) it degrades the nuclear capability, in whiich case "all bets are off" (i.e., get ready for the nuclear subs...). And the other is, if the country attacks with nuclear weapons itself. Then they can expect the like-counter attack.
In one single step, Barack Obama has virtually unraveled the concept of mutual assured destruction. It was, and always will be, an imperfect barrier to nuclear war. But now, Mr. Obama has removed that imperfect device in exchange for…nothing. Or virtually nothing.
I haven't seen that the MAD Doctrine has been taken off the table. There's nothing indicating that. And since Obama is "changing policy" -- and he hasn't changed "that", that means it's still in effect.
You can expect that if any country attempts to nuke us, they're going to get it back. That's always been the case and Obama has said nothing that changes that policy.
What I meant was only the President has the launch codes - and yes he did say it if you read his statements correctly -— without the pc media acceptable spin. and BTW - he has just hired an Iranian regime operative to a very senior advisorary position dealing with Iran and the bomb - confidential FR source.
Keep doing what you do brother.
Good to see ya.
tl;dr
What I meant was only the President has the launch codes - and yes he did say it if you read his statements correctly -— without the pc media acceptable spin.
I'm not sure what you're talking about that you read. I read it and I don't see the problem... perhaps you can quote the section for me here... that would help.
and BTW - he has just hired an Iranian regime operative to a very senior advisorary position dealing with Iran and the bomb - confidential FR source.
Well, if it will help then that might be good. I guess we'll see the results. I know that President George Bush wasn't able to achieve any success there and he sure didn't bomb them like a lot of FReepers here said he was. So, I guess in that light, Obama can't do worse, he could only do better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.