Obama Blind to the Nuclear Threat

Obama, what do you think the world is trying to do? That is why it is so important to enforce non-proliferation treaties signed by N. Korea and Iran.

Do you really think your plan is better than what is in place now? I guess you think Iran and N. Korea should have free reign? How about letting them give some nuclear material to Al Qaeda? Hmmm

Democrat Barack Obama called for ridding the world of nuclear weapons Tuesday and offered his early opposition to the Iraq war as evidence of sound judgment that trumps his lack of Washington experience.

Obama argued that U.S. policy is still focused on the defunct Soviet Union instead of combatting the nuclear threat from rogue nations and terrorists. The United States shouldn’t unilaterally disarm, he said, but it must work with other nations to phase out weapons and control atomic material.

“Here’s what I’ll say as president: ‘America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,'” Obama said.

“The best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons — it’s to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials away from terrorists,” the Illinois senator said. Aides said the process Obama envisions would take many years, not just a a single presidency.

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. Actually, buddy, the U.S. has been giving nuclear capabilities to countries for decades. We have India the technology and Israel the bomb. How do you think that makes Pakistan and Iran feel?

    We’re nothing but instigators and it’s just plain stupid to say Korea and Iran can’t have their own bombs to defend themselves. If we can have them, why can’t they?

    Also, North Korea is hardly a threat to anything American. They can’t even get their missiles to fly.

  2. Gee how did I know a misinformed liberal would post a liberal handbook violation arguement…

    First of all, care to back up your first statement with fact, not your speculation.

    Second, the reason N. Korea and Iran cannot freely develope nuclear technology is because they are signatures of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As Signatures they are obligated to abide by it, where as India and Israel were not signatures.
    India was barred for a quarter century from procuring nuclear technology for civilian use because of this.

    The second reason is control mechanisms to ensure nuclear weapons are not created. The purpose of the NPT is to do what Obama claims to be able to do, stop nuclear weapons from being built and deployed.

    You have much too learn before you throw around the liberal arguement. Go learn something about the history of nuclear arms, N. Korea, Iran and then come back.

    As for N. Korea getting missiles to fly, that is the least of the worries, it is the possibility of them providing nuclear capabilities to other rogue nations and terrorists. Read the news and look at what N. Korea is trying to broker in the Middle East.

    And another difference is safety mechanisms to ensure an individual is not the sole launcher of a nuke, those mechanisms are not there in N. Korea or Iran.

    Please come back with something more of if we can have them shouldn’t they be allowed to have them… That arguement is too stale. I bet you are against the right to bear arms as a private citizen… Try applying your logic to that same situation.

    And I am not your buddy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: