Obama continues the legacy of Reagan and Kennedy

[cpwill]

The current president is more and more Reaganesque all of the time, don't you think?

if he ever makes the argument that we need to slash tax rates in order to produce economic growth, then I'll be willing to put him up there as acting Reaganesque, or Kennedyesque.


as for the new START: no. Kennedy and Reagan both got something when they negotiated. we tend to just give away things and hope to get stuff in return.

 

[The Prof]

while obama continues to moon and dream in his pretty, poetic cotton candy world, his NUKE SUMMIT---LOL!---concluded its proceedings this afternoon with...

LOL!

you tell me

what a plethora of empty posturing that silly symposium appears

in a cold, hungry, angry, violent and dangerous world of REALITY

with IRAN in it

with KOREA

the CHINESE today, once more, as always, put the KIBOSH on sanctions

that's REALITY, president laureate

nuclear concessions from mexico (LOL!) and canada, unaccompanied by ACTION AGAINST IRAN, makes a poetic president appear pie eyed

his "non binding communique" resembles copenhagen, climate, another complete collapse of accord

he might as well go back to IOWA to sell health care, he's that disconnected from reality

he LOOKS ridiculous

in DANGEROUS end times likes these

the most incompetent leadership modern america has ever suffered

Summit agrees to secure nuclear materials in four years - Yahoo! News

 

[Deuce]

if he ever makes the argument that we need to slash tax rates in order to produce economic growth, then I'll be willing to put him up there as acting Reaganesque, or Kennedyesque.


as for the new START: no. Kennedy and Reagan both got something when they negotiated. we tend to just give away things and hope to get stuff in return.

What? Russia is drawing down nuclear readiness too, aren't they?

 

[Jetboogieman]

What? Russia is drawing down nuclear readiness too, aren't they?

Of course not!!! Russia has sure tricked you guys good. Cause they can destroy the world 7 times over while you can only destroy it 5 times over, clearly giving them the tactical advantage.

 

[Geo Patric]

in DANGEROUS end times likes these

BINGO...

a millenarianist....apocalypse is upon us.... JEEEZIZ is coming... Obama as antichrist.

nope, reason has no place in your world view.

geo.

 

[Deuce]

Of course not!!! Russia has sure tricked you guys good. Cause they can destroy the world 7 times over while you can only destroy it 5 times over, clearly giving them the tactical advantage.

Crafty bastards. No wonder they won the cold war.

What, you thought WE won? Hah! They wanted you to think that.

 

[The Prof]

nothing accomplished, not even symbolically, a complete waste of time

Russia reserves opt-out of arms treaty with US - Yahoo! News

 

[The Prof]

meanwhile, passage thru upper house is thoroughly unrealistic

Obama no closer on nuclear test ban ratification | Washington Examiner

welcome, woodrow wilson

 

[lizzie]

nothing accomplished, not even symbolically, a complete waste of time

Russia reserves opt-out of arms treaty with US - Yahoo! News

I wonder if this has anything to do with the reports that they are selling a missile defense system to Iran? The Russians are not stupid, and they definitely have a good edge on us in the nationalism department.

 

[USA_1]

if he ever makes the argument that we need to slash tax rates in order to produce economic growth, then I'll be willing to put him up there as acting Reaganesque, or Kennedyesque.


as for the new START: no. Kennedy and Reagan both got something when they negotiated. we tend to just give away things and hope to get stuff in return.

Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy collapsed costing taxpayers almost a trillion dollars.
Reagan cut taxes for the rich and his presidency ended with the Savings and loan collapse that cost Taxpayers 180 billion dollars.

Cutting taxes for the corporate rich will not create demand and increase employment. All it will do is increase dividends.

 

[Coronado]

Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy collapsed costing taxpayers almost a trillion dollars.
Reagan cut taxes for the rich and his presidency ended with the Savings and loan collapse that cost Taxpayers 180 billion dollars.

:doh

Yeah, cuz correlation is basically the same thing as causation! :roll:

I would ask you to prove this ridiculousness of yours, but I know it would be a first for you to back anything up with proof.

 

[Deuce]

:doh

Yeah, cuz correlation is basically the same thing as causation! :roll:

I would ask you to prove this ridiculousness of yours, but I know it would be a first for you to back anything up with proof.

Well there's an indirect link between top-bracket tax cuts and income disparity between the lower class and top bracket. Income disparity spiked once, just before the great depression. It spiked again just before our latest recession.

It's pretty weak but it's an interesting discussion at least.

 

[Goobieman]

Who said anything about responding with conventional weapons? Never said if they attack us with bio or chemical that we would not respond in kind. It is not obsurd at all. One nuke going off could trigger WWIII. Bio and chemical wouldn't.

To argue that the US would respond to a bio-chem attack, not with nukes, but with bio-chem weapons is inane beyong belief.

And we could change our minds in a heartbeat.

This has been addressed.

 

[Goobieman]

So saying that in the future, if new biological attacks emerge that could literally cripple the united states, we reserve the right to use reconsider our stance on nuclear force weakens our country?

Yes. As noted, it illustrates -- rather than simply implies -- a clear lack of certainty, decisiveness and clarity in our policy.

The message is mixed, and by mixing it in this way, it effectively has no real meaning.

Seems to me that it's just another one of those things that's just wrong because it's Obama leading the charge.

That's just you. Such a policy would be equally stupid and equally dangerous, regardless of who created it.
Thing is, until now, no one has been that stupid. That The Obama has crafted this policy denotes a clear mal-understanding of the issue.

 

[Goobieman]

It also goes on to talk about non-members of the treaty or non-compliant members, basically saying "THIS WILL NOT PROTECT YOU."

Ah -- the 'well, we might" clause.
This is being dealt with elsewhere in this thread.

No, but nuclear attack without heavy civilian casualties is pretty much impossible.

Even if that -is- true - so...?

24 is not an accurate depiction of reality

Good thing 24 doesnt have anythin to do with at I said.
If you do not understand the vulnerabilities of the US infrastructure, then you cannot have this conversation.

Even so, mass-murder of civilians is not an appropriate response to "nation-wide chaos."

This is more straw.
Such an attack is an act of war.
A wartime response to same is not mass murder.

Also, your grasp of the term "straw man" is sketchy

Not in the slightest. You're putting up inapplicable arguments that are easy to knock down just for the same of knocking them down. They have ll been demonstrated to be straw.

Another edit: We have our own chemical weapon capabilities we could respond with, although with the advances in conventional bombs these days there's not much purpose to them.

There is no chance we would ever respond to a bio-chem attack with bio-chem weapons, ESPECIALLLY if we have ruled out a nuclear response.

Yet Another Edit: Furthering that, if we are able to locate someone behind an attack, we are able to assassinate them via a GPS-guided bomb.

You don't recall that this is a discussion about an act of war - a WMD attack at that - committed by another state?
Apparently not, for if you did, you'd see this is entirely inapplicable.

 

[USA_1]

To argue that the US would respond to a bio-chem attack, not with nukes, but with bio-chem weapons is inane beyong belief.


This has been addressed.

Don't you know that using a nuke could start WWIII and lead to the end of the world. Using nukes in response to any attack other than nuclear is inane beyond belief.

 

[Goobieman]

Launch a precisely-targeted conventional attack against key military command centres and launch sites, if known.

With....? Are you sure that said response will eliminate the threat in the necessary manner?
No offense, but lessons you've gleaned from the wars you've seen over the last 20 years are not applicable here.

Also, your wording belies the fact that the US would be acting preemptively, not 'in response' to anything except a threat

No, the question assumed that there was already an attack by China, one designed to cripple our domestic inftrastructure, with a military follow-up on the way. The initial attack is an act of war, and as such, any military response is, well, a response, not pre-emptive..

In any event, China is a nuclear state, and so the revisions in our nuclear response do not apply.

 

[Goobieman]

What? Russia is drawing down nuclear readiness too, aren't they?

Yes, and that's great.
But, as noted earlier, this isnt the part of the policy that's been taken exception to.

 

[Goobieman]

Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy collapsed costing taxpayers almost a trillion dollars.
Reagan cut taxes for the rich and his presidency ended with the Savings and loan collapse that cost Taxpayers 180 billion dollars.

:shock:
Three words:
Causation v correlation.

 

[Goobieman]

Don't you know that using a nuke could start WWIII and lead to the end of the world.

Aside form the fact that this does nothing to actually respond to my post...

Yes it could. It probably would not, but yes, it could.
What's your point?

Using nukes in response to any attack other than nuclear is inane beyond belief.

Not that you are any sort of competent judge...

Deterrence requires a credible threat.
Taking away the credible threat eliminates deterrence and increases the chance of attack.

 

[USA_1]

Not that you are any sort of competent judge...

.

And you are?:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

[Goobieman]

And you are?:rofl:rofl:rofl

When comparing and contrasting our responses, any reasonable person will judge, relatively and absolutely, that I am, indeed.

Your responses denote a deep ignorance of the issue at hand, and a desire to not really discuss said issue, but defend The Obama.

 

[cpwill]

What? Russia is drawing down nuclear readiness too, aren't they?

if you go from having 1000 nuclear platforms that would actually work and 2,500 platforms that wouldn't into an agreement wherein you state you will only maintain 1,500 platforms.....

..... then all you've given up is the wages that you pay the guards at 1,000 non-working platforms.


we got bupkis and in return we are limited in our ability to defend ourselves and our allies from rogue nuclear attack via a defensive network and vague general concessions of agreement that everyone should look into the possibility of forming an exploratory committee to consider the question of whether or not a coordinated group should look at the possibility of maybe enacting ineffective sanctions against Iran. Don't get me wrong, the current nuclear summit is a net win for us, and I give Obama credit for it; but the START treaty is a joke, and the Russians are laughing all the way to the bank.