Obama's Plan For American Security

I think that if you are going to make accusations, Phoenix, you ought to be able to back them up yourself.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

I think that if you are going to make accusations, Phoenix, you ought to be able to back them up yourself.

Cycloptichorn

No accusations. The clip speaks for itself. It is very evident, if one cares to get beyond the hype and the spin that has surrounded this candidate. Obama is very clear in what he plans to do, if he is elected.

In less than a minute, he has clearly elucidated his plan for the U.S.

I think that it gives one pause!

You need to be able to explain why it should give one pause

Quote:

You need to be able to explain why it should give one pause

Cycloptichorn- Much as you would like to, I will not be put on the defensive. I don't need to explain anything. Accept it or reject the clip as you wish. And that is all I will say about it!

I find it to be curious that asking you to explain why you are troubled by the Obama clip is somehow equated with 'putting you on the defensive.' It's usually not seen that way, to ask someone to provide support for a position which they advance.

Cycloptichorn

It may be unfair to take this clip as a stand-alone piece

There are still about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium - some of it poorly secured - at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries around the world. In the former Soviet Union, there are still about 15,000 to 16,000 nuclear weapons and stockpiles of uranium and plutonium capable of making another 40,000 weapons scattered across 11 time zones. And people have already been caught trying to smuggle nuclear materials to sell them on the black market.

We can do something about this. As President, I will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years - the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a bomb.

We know that Russia is neither our enemy nor close ally right now, and we shouldn't shy away from pushing for more democracy, transparency, and accountability in that country. But we also know that we can and must work with Russia to make sure every one of its nuclear weapons and every cache of nuclear material is secured. And we should fully implement the law I passed with Senator Dick Lugar that would help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.

While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, we should also negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.

As starting points, the world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. If America does not lead, these two nations could trigger regional arms races that could accelerate nuclear proliferation on a global scale and create dangerous nuclear flashpoints. In pursuit of this goal, we must never take the military option off the table. But our first line of offense here must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy. For North Korea, that means ensuring the full implementation of the recent agreement. For Iran, it means getting the UN Security Council, Europe, and the Gulf States to join with us in ratcheting up the economic pressure.

We must also dissuade other countries from joining the nuclear club. Just the other day, it was reported that nearly a dozen countries in and around the Middle East -including Syria and Saudi Arabia - are interested in pursuing nuclear power.

Countries should not be able to build a weapons program under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear power. That's why we should create an international fuel bank to back up commercial fuel supplies so there's an assured supply and no more excuses for nations like Iran to build their own enrichment plants. It's encouraging that the Nuclear Threat Initiative, backed by Warren Buffett, has already offered funding for this fuel bank, if matched two to one. But on an issue of this importance, the United States should not leave the solution to private philanthropies. It should be a central component of our national security, and that's why we should provide million to get this fuel bank started and urge other nations, starting with Russia, to join us.

Finally, if we want the world to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example. President Bush once said, "The United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status - another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation." Six years later, President Bush has not acted on this promise. I will. We cannot and should not accept the threat of accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch. We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads.

"A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," Wall Street Journal
Printer-Friendly Page
Send to a Friend

Updated: 1/17/2008 Posted: 1/4/2007
By George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn.
The Wall Street Journal
January 4, 2007; Page A15

Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.

Here's what I'll say as President: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons.

We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we'll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons. We'll work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material. We'll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we'll set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.

As we do this, we'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules. It's time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse. It's time for America to lead. When I'm President, we'll strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that nations that don't comply will automatically face strong international sanctions.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama will call for eliminating nuclear weapons world-wide at DePaul University. In a speech slated for 11:30 am, Obama will endorse a nuclear plan sketched out by Henry Kissinger, George P. Shultz, William J. Perry and Sam Nunn.

Update: Full-text of speech now available.

Quote:

You need to be able to explain why it should give one pause

Cycloptichorn- Much as you would like to, I will not be put on the defensive. I don't need to explain anything. Accept it or reject the clip as you wish. And that is all I will say about it!

The problem is that you people don't understand what the word 'defense' means. It seems that some are so reflexively against cutting any money from the defense budget that they will shriek and flap their hands about whenever anyone suggests that this is what should happen. It's not a reasonable position to take and certainly not one that the vast majority of Americans agree with.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The problem is that you people don't understand what the word 'defense' means. It seems that some are so reflexively against cutting any money from the defense budget that they will shriek and flap their hands about whenever anyone suggests that this is what should happen. It's not a reasonable position to take and certainly not one that the vast majority of Americans agree with.

That might be true and, if so, you might wish to explain it to every member of Congress because they are a large part of the "you people" you mention.

Obama can, of course, promote any plan he wishes to. I suspect he'll quickly run into road blocks within the Dem party pretty quickly though. As soon as he suggests a cut that terminates a contract with Raytheon he'll lose any further support from Teddy Kennedy for example.

Mind you, I see nothing wrong with trimming military spending. It does mean a loss of jobs though and members of congress are loath to have any of those cuts come from their districts.

Dare I say it? Obama may have to compromise!

Something he has indicated he is willing to do.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Dare I say it? Obama may have to compromise!

Something he has indicated he is willing to do.

Cycloptichorn

That he will!

At this point I fully expect the beginning of his Presidency to play out much like Patrick's governorship here in MA has. He'll get a handful of things done quickly and then stall as soon as he starts pushing items that buck the established system. At that point the back room dealing will start.

Obama's Plan For American Security.....is to ban ALL handguns from it's citizens.

maporsche wrote:

Obama's Plan For American Security.....is to ban ALL handguns from it's citizens.

How many threads are you going to post this lie on?

You are really getting desperate these days.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Obama's Plan For American Security.....is to ban ALL handguns from it's citizens.

How many threads are you going to post this lie on?

You are really getting desperate these days.

Cycloptichorn

I posted where it's not a lie on the first thread.

Here's a little lesson in logic for you.
P1. Obama supports banning ALL semi-automatic weapons.
P2. 99.9999% of handguns are semi-automatic (effectively ALL).
/ Therefore Obama supports banning (effectively) ALL handguns.