Once we disarm can we force the world to forget how to make them ?

Full text of President Obama's speech here :

President Obama's Speech In Prague (posted on March 31) - U.S. Embassy in Prague

Very convenient for the NORKS to launch in the 24 hr cycle that the President was making an anti-proliferation speech. His speech turned out to be liberal boilerplate of talking points about negotiations ,international cooperation and US disarming. But the NORK launch was good back drop to the urgency. He couldn't have scripted it better.

BTW . In no way was the NORK launch a fizzle. They had no intention of launching a satellite . I'm sure it reached the exact range their patrons the Iranians wanted it to fly. But to be sure ,I think we should send a deep diving sub to the crash site to retrieve the so called satellite for the fearless leader.

Quote:

---

He told a crowd in Prague: “We cannot succeed in this endeavour alone but we can lead it, we can start it.” The US President promised to seek immediate Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, begin talks with Russia on cutting warheads and call for better controls to prevent terrorists or rogue regimes obtaining fissile .

---

North Korea rocket puts Barack Obama on nuclear alert - Times Online

Got that ? He will stop the NORKs from building and launching nuclear weapons by signing a new treaty with the Russians that will reduce and eliminate the number of our nuclear weapons.

The NORKS claim they want and need fuel oil and help in developing their peaceful nuclear industry. Think about the negotiating possibilities ! I'm surprised that Obama doesn't sit down with them... make nice... maybe a deep bow or submission... and offer them windmills and solar cells as an alternative .

Yep, that was the headline that greeted me this morning. Would someone please get this boob off the world stage? Has anyone on the left raised the idea yet that he’s maybe biting off a little bit more than he can chew? I mean, this guy who thinks Austrian is a language is going to stop the oceans from rising, save America’s and the world economies, give us all free healthcare and equitable wages, run the banks, automakers and insurance companies, single-handedly restore America’s image, bridge the gap between us and the Islamic world, bring peace to the middle east and now eliminate nukes. All with style, flair and a firm hand according to the mind-numbingly infatuated media.

Quote:

---

Declaring it "matters to all people everywhere," President Barack Obama promised on Sunday to lead the world into a nuclear-free future, giving a hawkish edge to a peacenik pursuit even as North Korea upstaged him with the launch of a long-range rocket that theoretically could carry a warhead.

---

He’s starting to sound more like a Miss America contestant than a president. Is he in the running to replace Sandra Bullock in Miss Congeniality 3?

This is just the sort of thinking that led to WW2.

We nearly lost that one because we let our guard down and lost much of our Navy at one stroke.

If we should get hit by nukes like that, it would be over for us.

And it's not just the nuke reduction. While printing money for impossible financial schemes, he favors cutting defence spending drastically. Will headlines tomorrow tell us he's limiting our intelligence apparatus?

We may not survive Obama.

Like I said elsewhere, if you know how to pray, now would be a good time.

Well maybe his apology tour makes him feel that we are safer .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Like I said elsewhere, if you know how to pray, now would be a good time.

---

Yes, don't fret. God will save us from Obama the devil..

Hello:

Yup, nuclear disarmament is a LEFT WING PLOT:

But, strangly enough, in 1986 at the Reykjavik summit, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, both passionate about nuclear disarmament, shocked deterrence experts with an unimaginable proposal – total nuclear disarmament. “It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons,” said Reagan. “We can do that,” replied Gorbachev, “Let's eliminate them. We can eliminate them.”

That gol darn socialist Reagan weakling!!

excon

The deal under discussion at Reykjavik included :
limit continental weapons to 1,600 delivery vehicles and 6,000 warheads on each side


reduce intermediate-range nuclear forces to 100 warheads,

Restricting Soviet missile bases to Asia and US missile bases to the US

Eliminate all nuclear missiles within 10 years


Progress towards a test ban treaty .

It was at best an arms reduction agreement in the works with the elimination of aged weapons and where both sides would've had plenty of arsenal left to defend themselves and continue MAD .

They came to an impasse over missile defense.

Yes Reagan was almost utopian in his hatred of nuclear weapons . But in the end he would not leave the nation defenseless. He was right to walk out of the summit.

And I was wondering if Reagan, in the midst of two wars, the Russians arming Tehran with nukes, the Norks firing off missiles and while on his world apology tour would have said, "we'll go first."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And I was wondering if Reagan, in the midst of two wars, the Russians arming Tehran with nukes, the Norks firing off missiles and while on his world apology tour would have said, "we'll go first."

---

Hello again,

I knew you guys would get there. Reagan, no missiles = GOOD! Obama, no missiles = BAD!

Have I called you silly lately?

excon

Did one of us say no nukes = bad? I must have missed that part, ex.

The funniest part of the speech was this “Rules must be binding,” ..... “Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”

With the NORK launch as a backdrop and his later call for the useless UN to enforce their useless sanctions ,we know what strength he puts behind the idea that violators be punished. He intends to do nothing but posture.

Fresh off the heels of Obama's "we'll go first" in eliminating nukes and the Norks shot across the bow, Iranian nuke plot vaporized in the city: NY banks unwittingly aided in material transfers, says DA.

Quote:

---

The Manhattan district attorney's office has smashed a sinister plot to smuggle nuclear weapons materials to Iran through unwitting New York banks, the Daily News has learned.

Officials plan to unseal a 118-count indictment Tuesday accusing a Chinese national of setting up a handful of fake companies to hide that he was selling millions of dollars in potential nuclear materials to Tehran.

"This case will cut off a major source of supply to Iran and it shows how they are going ahead full steam to get a nuclear bomb. Long-range missiles they pretty much have already," a law enforcement source close to the case said.

"We think it is one of the largest suppliers of weapons of mass destruction to Iran."

Experts say Iran, under the leadership of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears close to amassing enough nuclear material to make an atom bomb. A United Nations embargo bans Iran from acquiring the high-tech metals needed to make a long-range nuclear weapon a reality.

The indictment will outline the financial conspiracy behind 58 different transactions, including shipments of various banned materials from China to Iran between 2006 and late 2008.

Among them:

* 33,000 pounds of a specialized aluminum alloy used almost exclusively in long-range missile production.
* 66,000 pounds of tungsten copper plate, which is used in missile guidance systems.
* 53,900 pounds of maraging steel rods, a superhard metal used in uranium enrichment and to make the casings for nuclear bombs.

---

Quote:

---

33,000 pounds of a specialized aluminum alloy used almost exclusively in long-range missile production.

---

But we all know that aluminum tubes can't be used for nukes... right ?

The Mahdi-hatter is going to make a big announcement that Iran has mastered the final stage of nuclear fuel production tomorrow according to the Compost.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

But have no fear. The President will speak directly to him and convince Iran to abandon their nukes once we do so with a concurrent declaration of dhimminitude.

They will instead purchase T Boone's windmills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

But have no fear. The President will speak directly to him and convince Iran to abandon their nukes

---

Hello tom:

I'm fearful, but much LESS so, and that's because our president is going to engage in diplomacy instead of war. You guy's just aren't getting that the era of pre-emptive war was a Bush anomaly. The idea has been totally repudiated by the American electorate, and is further bolstered by the unbelievably high approval ratings Obama has.

The only people clinging to the warmongering of the past is a small cadre of hard right wingers. Seems we've got a bunch of 'em here, though.

excon

There you go again, Ex.

Obama sure didn't get a landslide. He is becoming the most divisive president in memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

He is becoming the most divisive president in memory.

---

Hello again, gal:

I don't know. What you say could be true... Ok, I'll even say it IS true..

But, when you've had 30 years of bad management, by so called leaders who didn't lead, but instead kicked the can down the road, and then you get a real leader who attempts to actually FIX those problems, then yes, the FIX'll be pretty divisive.

But, you got to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

excon

Quote:

---

I'm fearful, but much LESS so, and that's because our president is going to engage in diplomacy instead of war.

---

It is all style over substance.Obama resembles a college professor holding seminars on peace and reconciliation. The NORK missile fired toward Hawaii was a practice run for another Pearl Harbor paid for by the Mullahs in Iran.

They are also the same enemy that paid $$ to hire car bombers in Baghdad
In Iraq, Obama Pushes for Political Solutions - WSJ.com

Kim Jong mentally Ill ;like Stalin uses starvation as a weapon of mass destruction . The Mahdi-hatter preaches worldwide apocalypse and the return of the Mahdi throughout the world stage .But you think engaging in diplomacy with such bad actors will make a difference ?

I would remind you that both Stalin and Hitler were bit players on the world stage at one time .Hitler could not have stood up against France as late as 1936 when he sent the Wehrmacht into the Rhineland on horseback. What did London and Paris do? Calls for disarmament, for balance of power, for trade. Stalin mass-murdered Ukraine ,and the response was famine relief embassies.
FDR was looking for non-aggression treaties with every bad actor on the globe.

How we going to fix those problems, ex? The same way Bush's predecessor did, turn to the useless UN so they can regrettably regret the Norks and the Mahdi Hatter aren't paying any attention to the deplorable things we deplore? We're going to talk into submission?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Kim Jong mentally Ill ;like Stalin uses starvation as a weapon of mass destruction . The Mahdi-hatter preaches worldwide apocalypse and the return of the Mahdi throughout the world stage .But you think engaging in diplomacy with such bad actors will make a difference ?

---

Hello again, tom:

Yes, I do! Because you conveniently left out the STAR bad actor in your stage play...

I call him the dufus in chief. He had the worlds biggest military machine. He invaded and occupied Iraq (right next to Iran) based upon made up allegations. He saw the world as good and evil, and you were either with him or against him... By torturing his detainees, he really pissed off the Muslim world. His born again status, and his use of the word "crusade", not surprisingly, gave the Muslim world the idea that we were at war with them.

With THAT guy gone, I'm optimistic.

excon

Good job equating the actions of Kim jong Il 's forced famine with the President liberating 25 million Iraqi's from another jack booted dictator who was responsible for the butchering of over 2 million people in his time in power.

Now we're getting to the heart of it, Obama is changing the tone, adding new euphemisms for "terror" and making clear we're not at war with Islam (even though Bush said exactly the same thing) to soothe the poor, offended Jihadists after that born again Christian Bush referenced a "crusade" against terrorism.

So let's soften the tone and not give the Muslim world the impression we're at war with Islam. I'm sure that will overcome Palestinian TV, the cleric's sermons, cartoons and "death to America" marches. It's a whole lot less Bush mentioning a "crusade" against terror than Jihadists listening to each other.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/....cff0970b-500wi

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/....955e970b-500wi

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/....f413970c-500wi

Yep, we better soften our rhetoric and engage in diplomacy with these folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yep, we better soften our rhetoric and engage in diplomacy with these folks.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I knew you'd come around.;)

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the President liberating 25 million Iraqi's from another jack booted dictator who was responsible for the butchering of over 2 million people in his time in power.

---

Hello again, tom:

What you really mean is... Yes, the dufus lied to get us into Iraq, but I love him sooo much, I'm going to make up another reason why we invaded Iraq. And, if I tell it enough times, maybe they'll forget about what the dufus really SAID.

Plus, you guys hung the banner too soon, and you're declaring liberation too soon. You, and the dufus never did, and do not now understand the Middle East. Iraq is only held together by the presence of our troops. It is a BROKEN country at war with itself, and we started it.

I don't think the half million people we killed "liberating" the country think we did a good thing, either.

Your rewrite of history is noted, though. The invasion of Iraq will turn out to be the worst foreign policy decision EVER by a sitting president!

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Yes, I do! Because you conveniently left out the STAR bad actor in your stage play...

I call him the dufus in chief. He had the worlds biggest military machine. He invaded and occupied Iraq (right next to Iran) based upon made up allegations. He saw the world as good and evil, and you were either with him or against him... By torturing his detainees, he really pissed off the Muslim world. His born again status, and his use of the word "crusade", not surprisingly, gave the Muslim world the idea that we were at war with them.

With THAT guy gone, I'm optimistic.

excon

---

Just a minute, here! We pissed them off?

After embassy bombings, the Lebanon bombing of our Marines (I lost a friend in that one), the USS Cole bombing, the first trade center bombing, the final attack against the twin towers? Thirty years or so of attacks against us and our interests, and AFTER THAT we offended them??

Whart planet are you from?

In my uninformed, redneck, bigoted opinion (I just thought I'd beat you to it), we are several years into WW3. Islamic fundamental extremists have declared war on the WESTERN world. Our leaders don't have the spine to even admit that fact because it might OFFEND someone.

We will lose this war unless we get some leadership willing to take whatever steps are necessary to win. Denying that there is a war is just putting our head in the sand.

Furthermore, I think the Somalii pirates are raising funds for their war against us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

We will lose this war unless we get some leadership willing to take whatever steps are necessary to win. Denying that there is a war is just putting our head in the sand.

---

And what steps would they be? Nukes?

..."To the shores of Tripoli "(the Marine Corp Hymn) . Reference is to the nation of the United States first war against jihadists pirates (1801-1805) and the Battle of Derne.

Hello again, tom:

So, we've been at war with jihadists for over 200 years and haven't won yet. Hmmm. I wonder if one of your favorite drug war slogans might fit here..

~If we only cracked down on the jihadists, we could win! ~

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Just a minute, here! We pissed them off??

---

Hello gal:

You need to distinguish between the jihadists and the practitioners of Islam, as I did, and as the world does.

But, you really did hit it out of the park without knowing it. You DON'T distinguish between the jihadists and the Muslim world. Bush didn't either, and THEY KNOW IT.

THAT is the problem!

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello gal:

You need to distinguish between the jihadists and the practitioners of Islam, as I did, and as the world does.

But, you really did hit it out of the park without knowing it. You DON'T distinguish between the jihadists and the Muslim world. Bush didn't either, and THEY KNOW IT.

THAT is the problem!

excon

---

Re-read my post. I did say Islamic fundamental extremists. Are you saying that ALL Muslims fit this description? Do you really think that sane Muslims buy into this war? Why would they be offended if they are not in favor of it?

And yes, this war has been going on (off and on) since about the 12th century AD, and if the crusaders had not stopped these people then, and others had not stopped them since then, Islam would rule the world today. England had some serious problems with them at about the turn of the 20th century I think, and then there were the Muslim terrorists in the Philippines that Gen. Pershing (I think it was Pershing) quelled.

Wise up. In a war, you either win or lose. And then the loser may regain strength and you have to fight it all over again.

Quote:

---

I wonder if one of your favorite drug war slogans might fit here..

~If we only cracked down on the jihadists, we could win! ~

---

Or we could just surrender... like that solution I keep hearing about regarding illegal drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

And what steps would they be? Nukes??

---

Well, in the Philippines, the General rounded up all the terrorists he could find. Then he lined them up and let them watch while they smeared hog fat on the bullets they would be shot with. Those shot were buried with hog innards. He left a few alive and turned them loose. END OF PROBLEM.

If you don't have the guts to win a war, don't start. Just surrender early and hope the enemy won't hurt you too much.

That wasn't the first time someone used the Muslim fear of being polluted by swine's flesh against them. It is a powerful psycological weapon that should be employed again.

On Wednesday the Obama adm continued it's weak-knee response to the Mullocracy of Iran and their homicidal delusional President the Mahdi-hatter.The White House said it would "from now on" be present when the "P5+1" group discusses with Iran its nuclear weapons ambitions. The P5+1 group is made up of five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.
P5+1 was created exclusively to deal with Tehran on nuclear diplomacy.
This breaks the US policy of not entering negotiations with Iran without pre-conditions.

So how did Iran respond to this gesture ?

Yesterday ,the Mahdi-Hatter announced that the Iranian program is swiftly reaching critical mass ,or at least an important milestone .He also announced progress on a new generation of centrifuges ,and is spinning 7,000 conventional uranium enrichment centrifuges. As as a general rule of thumb, a cascade of 850 to 1,000 centrifuges operating continuously would be able to produce enough uranium in a year, enough for one nuclear weapon .

He opened the country's first nuclear fuel production plant in Isfahan... a parallel program to Iran's other uranium enrichment activities .Once it is fully operational there will be sufficient plutonium for two nuclear weapons a year from the reactor's spent fuel.When you factor in the plutonium that can be reprocessed from Iran's Bushehr nuke power plant (that the Russians are just now completing) the potential number of weapons per year would make Iran a major nuclear weapons power.

He made it clear that he did not see any change in US policy towards Iran, and therefore was offered nothing in return.

Obama is showing weakness in his response to Iran . I can only hope that under the radar private talks yield better response than his public stance. The clock is ticking . Israel has the “Samson Option” available if nothing is done to stop Iran .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Obama is showing weakness in his response to Iran

---

Hello tom:

Given your warped dufuslike view of diplomacy, you wouldn't know strength if you looked it in the eye. The total of your diplomacy can covered thusly: Bomb, bomb, bomb -- bomb, bomb Iran.

Those days are gone. Get over it.

excon

British columnist Gerald Warner has a new moniker for Obama, President Pantywaist.

Quote:

---

Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l'il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.

"Rules must be binding," declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. "Violations must be punished." (Sounds ominous.) "Words must mean something." (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you - as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)

President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America's missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.

Watch out, France and Co, there is a new surrender monkey on the block and, over the next four years, he will spectacularly sell out the interests of the West with every kind of liberal-delusionist initiative on nuclear disarmament and sitting down to negotiate with any power freak who wants to buy time to get a good ICBM fix on San Francisco, or wherever. If you thought the world was a tad unsafe with Dubya around, just wait until President Pantywaist gets into his stride.

---

Hello again, Steve:

You'll have a lot more credibility if you argue about what Obama DOES - rather than what somebody says about him.

Is it surprising and/or news that the wingers of the world make up names?? Nahh.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

You'll have a lot more credibility if you argue about what Obama DOES - rather than what somebody says about him.

Is it surprising and/or news that the wingers of the world make up names??? Nahh.

excon

---

Ok, but I was merely introducing Warner's argument. And I thought it was funny, heckuva lot funnier than Dufus. :D

As I pointed out before, our side is unwilling to use a very potent, non violent weapon against the jihadists.

That is their belief that any contact with swine will send them to Hell. We should use that against them.

I have also heard that if a Muslim man sees a woman's breasts, he is polluted. Not sure whether this is true, but if so, opens up opportunity for a whole new approach to war!