Posted on 04/07/2009 4:47:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
The basic bargain is sound: countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them.” -- President Barack Obama, Prague, April 6, 2009
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, the President of the United States wants America to disarm: “Countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament.”
It is hard to imagine a more destructive goal. A nuclear disarmed America would lead to massive and widespread killing, more genocide, and very possibly the nuclear holocaust worldwide nuclear disarmament is meant to prevent.
There is nothing moral, let alone realistic, about this goal.
Here is an analogy. Imagine that the mayor of a large American city announced that it was his goal to have all the citizens of his city disarm -- what could be more beautiful than a city with no weapons? This would, of course, ultimately include the police, but with properly signed agreements, vigorously enforced, and violators of the agreement punished, it would remain an ideal to pursue.
One has to assume that most people would regard this idea as, at the very least, useless. There would be no way to ensure that bad people would disarm; and if the police disarmed, only bad people would have weapons.
The analogy is virtually precise -- but only if you acknowledge that America is the world’s policeman. To idealists of the left, however, the notion of America as the world’s policeman is both arrogant and misguided. A strengthened “world community” -- as embodied by the United Nations – should be the world’s policeman.
To the rest of us, however, the idea of the United Nations as the world’s policeman is absurd and frightening. The United Nations has proven itself a moral wasteland that gives genocidal tyrannies honored positions on human rights commissions. The weaker the U.N. and the stronger America, the greater the chances of preventing or stopping mass atrocities.
On the assumption that the left and the right both seek a world without genocide and tyranny, it is, then, the answer to this question that divides them: Are genocide and tyranny more or less likely if America is the strongest country on earth, i.e., the country with the greatest and most weapons, nuclear and otherwise?
Moreover even if you answer in the negative and think that the world would experience less evil with a nuclear disarmed America, the goal of worldwide nuclear disarmament is foolish because it is unattainable. And unattainable goals are a waste of precious time and resources.
For one thing, it is inconceivable that every nation would agree to it. Why would India give up its nuclear weapons? There aren’t a dozen Hindus who believe that Pakistan would give up every one of its nuclear weapons. And the same presumably holds true for Muslims in Pakistan with regard to India disarming.
And what about Israel? Would that country destroy all its nuclear weapons? Of course not. And it would be foolish to do so. Israel is surrounded by countries that wish not merely to vanquish it, but to destroy it. It regards nuclear weapons as life assurance. And it regards the United Nations (with good reason) as its enemy, not its protector.
As for states like Iran and North Korea, they have already violated agreements regarding nuclear weapons. What would prompt them to do otherwise in a world where America got weaker? United Nations sanctions? And why would Russia and China even agree to them?
Finally, there would be no way to prevent rogue scientists from selling materials and know-how to terrorists.
The result of this left-wing fantasy of worldwide nuclear disarmament would simply be that those who illegally acquired or made but one nuclear weapon would be able to blackmail any nation.
What any president of the United States should aspire to is: 1). to keep America the strongest country in the world militarily (as well as economically, but that is not the question on the table); 2) to destroy those individuals and organizations that seek nuclear weapons so as to kill as many innocent people as possible; and 3) remain the world’s policeman. These aims cannot be achieved if America aims to disarm.
President Obama said “I am not naïve” in his talk. That, unfortunately, is as accurate as his statement before the joint session of Congress that “I do not believe in bigger government.”
I just heard pres__ent dixie chick is at Camp Victory.
I say: "yes, you are".
I also say you're an idiot usurper of the position of the POTUS, you're an illegal immigrant with no standing, you're a closeted muslim/islamist and you are most definitely a socialist.
You are not my president, not now, nor ever.
I wish and pray for your abject failure in all endeavors.
“When they take our guns, it’s over.”
Those who have the idea “they” CAN take our guns are part of the problem!
I think folks are sufficiently stirred up at this point (certainly in the ‘red’ states) that any large-scale gun grab would be met with enthusiastic resistance. It’s no accident all those ‘assault rifles’ and hi-cap handguns have been sold in the last few months.
I think 0bama has way too much to deal with at the moment to even contemplate such a thing. Of course, the situation could change, but I don’t think he’ll be able to do anything unless the economy turns around, and his policies have pretty well guaranteed that won’t happen during his first term.
Instead, buy gold, buy guns, short the stock market, and wait for stagflation or worse.
I have excellent timing. :)
I'll be at Victory in a few days and will miss him.
I'm still annoyed that we were locked down for 45 minutes last summer in the IZ when he came through - and he wasn't prez at the time.
Obama is naive, but he also hates America. It is hard to determine which of those characteristics motivates his desire to remove our defenses.
I don't think he is smart enough to be the architech of what he doing. I think he's just the mouth piece. He is programmed just like TOTUS.
Naive? No. He’s been groomed many many years to take over as president and destroy this country.
The spread of democracy and AGGRESSIVE support of it is the path to a nuclear weapons free world. NOT disarmament.
Obama is not naive, he is a fool and socialist.
Thanks for all the links in this and prior post.
I'll be at Victory in a few days and will miss him.
Good for you. I get up and salute him every time I see him on a TV or hear his voice on the radio - one fingered salute that is. If I'm at home, I use both hands.
If nuclear weapons are eliminated, we will go back to having World-Wide Wars every 1-2 Generations, as was true in the past.
Nuclear Weapons have been instrumental in changing the scope of warfare.
I agree. I wish like all Hell that I might believe Barack Obama was naive, because that would ease my mind. I’d like to hope that he’ll have some “teachable moments” of the kind that would make him a better President. But everything he does and says is consistent, not random, and it is the subject of that consistency that is so deeply troubling.
I think you meant to respond to my post #36 where Obama is promising, back in Feb 2008, that he would slash our defenses if elected.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2223981/posts?page=36#36
Exactly. It's a plan, although it's a plan he can't be open about. This is certainly deeply troubling.
It will take a virtual miracle to get rid of this guy. He is a power drunk mongrel who intends to be “President for Life”. There is only one thing that will rid the United States of him and his wife, - a full out revolution!! CO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.