Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Semantics. 2006 they did their first explosion. Their nuke program had been running unencumbered while we gave them wheat and heavy crude per the 1994 "accord". We never required the over-sight we should have. The fact is regardless of anything Bush did NK had the nuke weapons program and would have had workable nuke around the same time.
    Posted by brat13


    First, come on.  If the distinction between producing plutonium and producing a functioning nuclear weapon with it is "semantics", then Oppenheimer was an idiot for taking so long.  We could have just dumped nuclear fuel on Hiroshima.

    No, it's very tough to build a workable nuclear weapon, and frankly the reason so many countries have nukes is the work of traitors and spies.  It's marvelously difficult to do.


    Second, I think we are almost in agreement:

    Now I can't lay all the blame for the nuclearizing of NK at Bush's feet.  But unrestrained belligerence by the "tough" neo-cons destroyed any hope of stopping them short of force. 

    Do you think preconditions helped Bush try to negotiate with them?  "We want to negotiate with you about your weapons program, but in order for us to negotiate, you have to concede at the outset everything we want to negotiate for." 

    Of course, I never had any confidence that Obama was going to bring them to the table.  But I'd rather have him try, or do nothing, than have McCain and Palin start saying ridiculous uber-belligerent things like Cheney.  Posted by WhatIsItNow


    I say almost because I won't concede that there is NO possibility that Bush could have done something about it via talks or otherwise.

    I think his policies at the very least made it virtually impossible to stop them - we were tied up in Iraq/Afghanistan and didn't have a credible military threat beyond bombing and shelling.  (absent a draft).  Plus, he called them all sorts of mean names.

    But yes, Kim Jong IL is a crazy bastar*, and he almost certianly would have pursued the weapons anyway.  Who knows whether he sped up or not due to Bush...I think I only put it forth as a tangential possibility at best


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PS911fan. Show PS911fan's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    "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." But wait. We've been told on here by many on the Left that Iran and N. Korea aren't a threat. That those who say they are a threat are just scared and fear-mongering. Well, if they aren't a threat then why the exception by Obama? Why the need to carve out an exception if they aren't a threat? There should be no need for ANY exception. I guess Obama is scared and fear-mongering eh?
    Posted by hawkeye01


    Mac shoud provide those exact words and quote........if its a real quote, i think I( know why, but i doubt Mac Has anything in context as a massive liar most of the time.

    Here's some support with real substance for the OBama effort...(stuff mac never provides) :more to follow as it comes up......



    http://www.military.com/news/article/dod-claims-broad-support-for-nuke-review.html?col=1186032310810

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/kerry-lugar-signal-bipartisan-u-s-support-for-arms-treaty.html



    and btw: reducing arms by 1/3 helps save money for the lying whiners who complain about the deficit. reductiing down to 1500 warheads is about as dangerous and shooting a raging bull a bb gun.....and babblers like Mac knolw our
    defense with that many war heads will still be able to help destroy this world more times than ever. There are NO winners in nuke war.....wish gop and conservatives would see that most people want nukes so they can hang then pretty well guarantee there will be no preemptive or other attacks.....thats why we are trying with Iran........but the GOP/concervatives know the only way a nuke will be used or developed with speed is by the real government of the mullahs or the military who they are transferring much power too)
    Mac and the wingnuts really like to bleat about is the puppet, yell monkey, and side show "President" who probably enjoys playsing the wild dictator type. I know the leadship here is aware of that simple fact) but the wingnuts make sure to whip up all their rage and hatefor Obama on the idea that he plans to negotiate with Akminigan (sp?) and I am weary of the constant lies on America being weakened.....we spend so bloody much on defense that we could probably losse another 100 Billion (total cost $648B)..some president (maybe obama 2nd term) will help reduce that without weaking protection because even dummies like Mac know this inside but will falsely pass around talking points that distore or lie to misimformed people or angry teapartiers.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PS911fan. Show PS911fan's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    Taking Isreal out first would better appease his Muslim Extremists friends. Kumbaya baby.
    Posted by ItsATravesty


    See, here's another uninformed response.......they wont do it because Isreal has nuikes.......Tney are nuking up to get "protection"  where thy know making the nuclear "boys club" gives them some safety in the world 

    please quit on this Iran will blow away Iran.....its nasty hyperbole to stir up the stupid
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : First, come on.  If the distinction between producing plutonium and producing a functioning nuclear weapon with it is "semantics", then Oppenheimer was an idiot for taking so long.  We could have just dumped nuclear fuel on Hiroshima. No, it's very tough to build a workable nuclear weapon, and frankly the reason so many countries have nukes is the work of traitors and spies.  It's marvelously difficult to do. Second, I think we are almost in agreement: I say almost because I won't concede that there is NO possibility that Bush could have done something about it via talks or otherwise. I think his policies at the very least made it virtually impossible to stop them - we were tied up in Iraq/Afghanistan and didn't have a credible military threat beyond bombing and shelling.  (absent a draft).  Plus, he called them all sorts of mean names. But yes, Kim Jong IL is a crazy bastar*, and he almost certianly would have pursued the weapons anyway.  Who knows whether he sped up or not due to Bush...I think I only put it forth as a tangential possibility at best
    Posted by WhatIsItNow

    Key words... 'for taking so long"  You don't wake up one day and decide "today I will build and test a nuke bomb". The NK program was going on while Clinton was making it easy for them to put $$ into buying the missing knowledge and pieces. We fed their people and heated their homes and they bought nuke parts from Pakistan. We didn't verify that they had stopped and it turned out they never did.

    We could NEVER bomb NK! You think the Chinese would sit idly by while US planes fly within 50 miles of their border? Or when our missiles are falling within 50 miles of their border? NO WAY. It is why we have two Koreas today. You think Lil' Kim put his new plants that close to the Chinese border by chance?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PS911fan. Show PS911fan's posts

    Iran's real leader and its not they guy the wingnuts like to quote and sacare with

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100645236
    (also comes with an audio story of the story)

    Real info on the Iran Plan for nukes with history

    http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/03sahimi.html


    Mac Deford: Netanyahu and the (Trumped-Up) Iranian Nuclear Threat

    by Thomas McAdams Deford

    Thursday, April 08, 2010


    It makes sense, for at least a month or so, to have a time out, as the administration seems to be doing, to try to repair the personal damage as a result of the public spat between Israel and the US. The underlying problems between us should not of course be papered over despite protestations of our "strong, binding, and permanent ties with Israel" - or whatever boilerplate the administration is currently employing.

    But let the emotions be drained - the "insult" the Israeli press has termed Obama's treatment of Netanyahu in Washington last month, clear compensation for the insult Netanyahu dished out to Biden a week earlier. And let the focus return to substance, the key component of which for now must remain the continued building in East Jerusalem, and beyond, that makes the two-state solution - that the Israelis claim they want and that the Palestinians and their Arab friends claim they want - less and less likely.

    The decades-long drive by Israel to "create facts on the grounds" has worked all too well. And one of the facts they seem to be on the verge of creating is the death of a viable Palestinian state.

    So, it's appropriate, for both US strategic interests as well as long-term Israeli interests, that Obama focus on East Jerusalem and make, as it were, his stand there.

    And it's inevitable that the Netanyahu government - more interested in keeping its ultra-Orthodox, extreme right-wing parties happy and thus his coalition intact than pursuing a serious deal with the Palestinians - would try to change the subject.

    Flynt Leverett, a former CIA senior analyst and subsequently senior director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council, and his wife, with similar government experience in the area, who have offered in the past convincing in-depth analyses as to why Iran's nuclear ambitions are less threatening to US interests than Israel would have us believe, wrote a prescient piece right after Netanyahu's US visit, providing insights into Israel's current motivations.

    New York's Senator Chuck Schumer is pushing for the Obama administration to impose unilateral sanctions against Iran, which demonstrably won't work, and which Schumer and other Congressional mouthpieces for Netanyahu, hope will then open the way to direct military action against Iran.

    As the Leveretts point out, "From an Israeli perspective, keeping America focused on Iran as an urgent threat is useful in distracting Washington from working too seriously on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking."

    One of Iran's great strengths throughout the Middle East, where as Shiite Persians they are outsiders in a Sunni Arab landscape, is the support it gets from the Arab man in the street for its consistent and vocal focus on their Palestinian brethren, a far cry from the lukewarm nod in the direction of Palestinians granted by the Arab governments in Cairo, Amman and Riyadh.



    Iranian influence is additionally strengthened by its active support for Hezbollah and Hamas. A solution to the Palestinian problem would weaken both extremist groups and quickly deflate Iran's pro-Arab posturing.

    But when the Obama administration suggests to Israel that resolving the Palestinian problem will marginalize Iranian influence, they miss the point. The Israeli government is purposely, write the Leveretts, "exaggerating the Iranian threat as a way of fending off pressure to do more on the Palestinian issue."

    And, as if on cue, while the US moves to downplay the personal confrontation between Obama and Netanyahu, the Wall Street Journal, Israel's closest ally in what's left of the mainstream media, pushes the Iranian nuclear issue front and center: "The president's two-week public attempt to humiliate Benjamin Netanyahu has also considerably lessened" the likelihood of an Israeli air strike.

    That, I would have thought, would be considered good news. But no, an Iran with nuclear weapons capability would be a "major diplomatic defeat" for the US, directly damaging our credibility in the eyes of friend and foe alike. The first argument brings back all those nice memories of the WMD rationale for invading Iraq; and the second, of course, was used for years to keep us in South Vietnam (whose collapse occurred 35 years ago this month without much visible effect on US credibility around the world).

    You don't have to read between the lines on this one: forget about pushing a two-state solution; forget about a full peace between the Arab World and Israel. The only thing that matters now is Iran's nuclear desires and the effect they have on Israel.

    If you want to get a different view, a balanced one, skip the hardline, knee-jerk pro-Israeli media in the US and read what Israel's most prominent liberal paper chooses to highlight. Writing in Ha'aretz the day before the WSJ's diatribe, Avner Cohen, one of the leading Israeli experts on nuclear weapons and author of Israel and the Bomb, pointed out that it is "almost impossible for Iran to be a nuclear state in the full sense of the word without withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And even [then], it will take Iran years, many years, to make the transition from a threshold state to a mature nuclear state. Such a transition is not trivial; certainly it is not inevitable."

    And then, in a fine example of the law of unintended consequences, Cohen concludes, "It's ironic that an Iran under attack would probably become more determined and purposeful in its nuclear ambitions. After an attack, Iran would abandon the treaty in protest, declare its right to nuclear arms and almost certainly succeed in implementing it."

    Mouthing Netanyahu's Iranian nuclear threat scenario to help him avoid making peace with the Palestinians and reaching a final accord with the Arab World is not the way to go about protecting Israel.


    Content © 2010
    S


    What Iranian people and other muslims here (read for your own edfication, i cannot use it as legitimate source)

    http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/ayatollah-ali-khamenei/

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!

    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!!:
    In Response to Re: Obama NO nukes when defending America!!! : Key words... 'for taking so long"  You don't wake up one day and decide "today I will build and test a nuke bomb". The NK program was going on while Clinton was making it easy for them to put $$ into buying the missing knowledge and pieces. We fed their people and heated their homes and they bought nuke parts from Pakistan. We didn't verify that they had stopped and it turned out they never did. We could NEVER bomb NK! You think the Chinese would sit idly by while US planes fly within 50 miles of their border? Or when our missiles are falling within 50 miles of their border? NO WAY. It is why we have two Koreas today. You think Lil' Kim put his new plants that close to the Chinese border by chance?
    Posted by brat13


    Of course, that's why we fired MacArthur.  But the point being - I don't know if I can concede that they would have been as belligerent about developing and testing (1) nukes, and (2) longer and longer range missles had Bush not used his super tough-guy talk.

    It is more likely that it had 0 effect.  In which case, it will also have 0 effect if Obama tries to "talk" to them first.  Either way, they're just going to do what they're going to do.

    But at some point Mr. Il will croak.  He doesn't appear to have quite as crazy a successor lined up, so who knows what might be possible 10 years down the road.   The tougher we talk now, the more than will be remembered - particularly if we talk tough and don't do anything serious afterwards.


     

Share