LOGIN  .  SIGNUP   .  SUPPORT 
HOME / MESSAGE BOARDS / GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

General Discussions

Signup   Message Boards Home   Newest Posts   My Favorite Boards   My Threads
Page 1 of 1
Signup or Login to Post
Nuclear Security Summit... FAIL.
 
ZS  posted on Apr 13, 2010 4:04:30 AM - Report post

Current rank: 2 Stars. Next Rank at 1000 Posts.
Send a message to ZS
ELITE
Obama felt like doing something, and this what he came up with..

Both Israel and Iran declined, being the major notions for this summit. As well as the major threat (According to Obama.) of having a terrorist organization in possession of a Nuclear weapon, while the Paks almost had there asses handed to them by a couple hundreds of activists not a long while ago...

Also repeatedly saying that America well do whatever it takes to stop Iran from having Nuclear power -maybe a nuke strike-, which what Iran will eventually have given time. So the way things are going, i am going to sit back and relax before the ****-storm hits.

 
Telapicus_old  posted on Apr 13, 2010 4:14:34 AM - Report post


Send a message to Telapicus_old
INACTIVE
well its a good thing we can sit back down here and go wtf mate.

[Edited by Telapicus, 4/13/2010 4:14:48 AM]

 
Dhampy  posted on Apr 13, 2010 12:09:07 PM - Report post

Current rank: 2.5 Stars. Next Rank at 2000 Posts.
Send a message to Dhampy
ELITE
I'm bored with Dems and the media comparing Obama to Reagan.

Reagan pursued strategic arms reduction as part of a systematic increase in conventional forces. He chartered a "1000 Ship Navy", modernized the military, ordered countless new weapons systems, instituted strategic and tactical studies which prepared the military for the "next war" instead of the "last war".

(there is an old aphorism that says that the military is always fighting the last war--ie: just when militaries learned the lessons of WWI, WWII happened; just when people learned the lessons of Korea, Vietnam happened)

Reagan sought to change that. And did. When we freed Kuwait, we didn't fight it based on the lessons of Vietnam, but the new doctrine developed for the NEXT war. And it was an astounding success.

Reagan essentially did the opposite of what Eisenhower did--Ike vastly increased the nuclear arsenal while reducing the conventional military.

What Obama wants to do isn't part of any kind of program.

He wants to disarm the US, and then hope that the rest of the world follows.

It's a lovely sentiment. But it shows the astounding inexperience and naivety which he possesses.

 
SuperSkyline89  posted on Apr 13, 2010 12:23:35 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3 Stars. Next Rank at 4000 Posts.
Send a message to SuperSkyline89
AUTHOR
I can't think of anything worse to the world's security than America disarming itself. It'll put America and all her allies at great risk.

It's nice to think that our enemies will back off but the simple fact is they won't, no matter what any of us do. The world will never be a peaceful place, to think so is ignorant and naive.

 
armedman  posted on Apr 13, 2010 12:49:59 PM - Report post

Current rank: 1.5 Stars. Next Rank at 500 Posts.
Send a message to armedman
ELITE
CHANGE...Yeahhhh!! I'll bring change I'll run this SOB into the ground...*inserts sarcasm here>>>*yay! obama!!!
 
RageaholicRick  posted on Apr 13, 2010 4:33:47 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3.5 Stars. Next Rank at 8000 Posts.
Send a message to RageaholicRick
ELITE
If we got rid of our nuclear weapons then there would be nothing stopping other nuclear countries to start using them on us.That is the only reason there hasn't been a nuclear fallout.All other countries are afraid to nuke us because we can either wipe them out,or we will just destroy each other and no one wins.
Page 1 of 1
  Post Reply
 
All times are (GMT -06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Current time is 4:15:47 PM