When Obama first ran for public office as a
|
Posted on 04/05/2010 5:37:13 PM PDT by lbryce
WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons, even in self defense.
But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.
Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those adopted by his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Those threats, he argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options” -- a combination of old and newly designed conventional weapons.
“I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” Mr. Obama said during the interview in the Oval Office.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Oh Lord Please rid America of this EVIL demon in the white house.
This Ron Paul guy looks and sounds like a “weirdo”.
Yeah! And that doesn't even address his supporters on this board, Free Republic, who are as nuts as he is... LOL ...
you can’t give hugs with nuclear arms
And an even bigger role in the soon coming plan of God Almighty IMHO.
Oh Lord Please rid America of this EVIL demon in the white house.
Amen!
Article II Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Generally when the CinC gives an order, especially one NOT to do something, it's obeyed.
The Joint Chiefs did not even exist at the tine the Constitution was written. It was assumened the President would lead the troops himself, which Washington did during the Whiskey rebellion. I am not a "Constitutional Scholar" but neither is the current occupant of the White House! Why and how can he get away with such outright treason and nobody stands up to him to say, "I'm sorry, sir, you just don't have the authority to do that!"???
Just 'cause it's Treason, and it is, doesn't mean the CinC doesn't have the authority to do it. It's also a violation of the oath of office, you know the one he didn't take properly, twice. "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,".
That's why they insisted on a Natural Born Citizen, and set up the electoral college system, which we've screwed up via the "pledged elector" device.
>And that doesn’t even address his supporters on this board, Free Republic, who are as nuts as he is>
That puts it mildly for everyone of the anti war PaulBots.
What do you expect from a reverse Ace?
I can’t say I am surprised by this!! It’s Obama. We know who he is.
I found this Reagan 2012 video (edited from Reagan’s 1980 convention speech) and it is so appropriate!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEDIdPuUG70
Not everything can be undone. Massive numbers of dead Americans, for example.
Worked so well with Chavez, Fidel, and countless others.
Yea, he's not them... yet anyway.
They didn't. They gave Congress the power to declare war. But they gave the President the title of Commander in Chief. Things moved a lot slower then than now, but still they never thought a President would pledge not to defend the country, let alone against weapons that most of them could not imagine. (Franklin likely could imagine the use of poisons and disease as weapons).
Worked so well with Chavez, Fidel, and countless others.
Well, I think I'm seeing what the real problem here is, with a lot of posters saying this about Obama. I've puzzled about it for a while and it's now becoming clear to me what the real problem is -- in the view of these posters who say that we'll never get Obama out of office and/or we have to have some kind of "hot revolution" in order to get him out by military action.
What I've finally realized the "problem is" -- is -- apparently these posters who take these "other routes" for getting Obama out of office -- don't really believe we have the votes to get him actually "voted out of office"...
That's the problem. I don't see them actually saying so, in such direct terms -- but that's what I see the real problem is here.
These posters see that there are more votes for Obama than there are votes against Obama and they have concluded that there is no way to get him out of office, by voting him out.
So, they come up with things like "Second American Revolution" or "tanks surrounding the White House" or "get a judge to arrest him" or "you-name-it" ... because "everything is on the table" -- with those who don't believe there are enough votes to remove Obama from office.
AND... if that's the real situation, that there are not enough votes to remove him from office, we don't have a problem with Obama -- what we have is a "real big problem" with the American voting public....
When Obama first ran for public office as a
|
They gave Congress the power to declare war.
I don't think that works any more. What war did Congress declare for "Gulf War 1". Well, how about the Korean War, and how about the Vietnam War, and how about our more recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It doesn't seem that Congress declares war any more and yet, we still go to war.
So many, even here, think he is acting alone. I wish he were it would be a lot less scary than what the truth probably is.
For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Thanks for ping. This article fits right in with your theme.
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama is an example of that peculiar American contribution to the long line of political deviancy, the romantic leftist, a combination of undergrad Marxism, New Deal activism, Great Society idealism, and late 60s dementia. In fulfillment of this role, he is going down the list of left-wing daydreams, wish-fulfillment fantasies, and unfinished business, and doing his damndest to see them made reality. No more than that, and certainly no less.
Take a look at his latest series of crimes.
(snip)
As for the newly announced nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia, we know even less about that, apart from it being a “breakthrough.” The single concrete point I’ve been able to gather is that the treaty terms will allow 800 launch systems, a provision that only indirectly involves nuclear weapons as such.
If true, this has the feel of complete disarmament and not the nuclear variety at all. Does this mean 800 missiles? Or missiles, bombers, and submarines, and what have you? It doesn’t sound at all good. We’ll know more when Massa O comes down from the big house to explain it to us.
(snip)
Nuclear disarmament was in large part of product of the KGB, the secret sponsors of every disarmament movement from the 1950s SANE to the to the 1980s Nuclear Freeze. But tainted origins don’t matter. Anything is better than nukes, which must be banished forthwith.
(snip)
There is an argument to be made for maintaining a small but useful number of nuclear weapons, but you won’t hear it from the left. Their contention is that nukes are no good and must be gotten rid of in toto. Forget the fact that they ended World War II decisively and quickly, that they helped win the Cold War (Could the West have kept the USSR contained without them? The simple answer is “no”.), and have played a large part in keeping the peace since. No matter — they’re Bad Things, and must be eradicated, along with DDT, alar, fast foods, and Toyota. So Obama has heroically tackled the job — just as Iran is obtaining its own nuclear arsenal. Great timing.
Obama’s List
American Thinker ^ | April 06, 2010 | J.R. Dunn
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2487409/posts
Uh like never?
Absolute pure insanity!!! I can’t even formulate the words to describe how STUPID I think Obama and whatever “advisors” dreamed this crap up are...
I would LOVE to hear what the Joint Chiefs of Staff are REALLY saying behind closed doors today... I hope they remember that their oaths didn’t include that pesky sentence “obey the President”.
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.
