Google +LinkedInPinterestYouTubeInstagramTwitterFacebook

What do you think of President Obama’s nuclear arms policy?

 

View more polls

 

amauck

April 8, 2010 - 10:21pm

PART 1

YOUR OWN GLORY BOY REAGAN WANTED DISARMAMENT:

In April 1982, Reagan declared publicly that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." He added "To those who protest against nuclear war, I can only say ‘I’m with you.’"

During 1981, the Reagan administration formulated the "zero option": the negotiated withdrawal of all intermediate range missiles from Europe.

On January 16, 1984, he delivered a conciliatory address, declaring that the United States and the Soviet Union had "common interests and the foremost among them is to avoid war and reduce the level of arms." Indeed, "I support a zero option for all nuclear arms."

FOR SOME TIME, Reagan had wanted a summit at which he could meet Soviet leaders and promote a disarmament agreement. When Reagan had his chance to talk with Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva in Nov 1985, "he couldn’t wait.... He was eager." In a joint statement, they repeated: "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought."

amauck

April 8, 2010 - 10:25pm

PART 2

In 1986, both leaders pushed their recalcitrant colleagues toward a nuclear disarmament agreement. That January, Gorbachev proposed a program to eliminate all nuclear weapons around the world. To the dismay of US national security officials, Reagan welcomed Gorbachev’s proposal. On January 17, Shultz told the state department’s arms control group to get working "on what a world without nuclear weapons would mean to us" and how to obtain it. "I know that many of you and others around here oppose the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons," he said, "but the president of the United States doesn’t agree with you, and he has said so on several very public occasions."

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.

amauck

April 8, 2010 - 10:33pm

PART 3

Let me repeat that last part:

“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.”

Either you must denounce Reagan - or stop whining and sniveling about Obama. AND, quite frankly, like we CONSTANTLY heard from Republiturds when Bush was President, "HE IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AND YOU ARE NOT TO QUESTION HIM. QUESTIONING THE PRESIDENT IS TREASON."

You can't have it both ways. We're tired of your hypocrisy.

(all info shamelessly plagariazed from the Atlantic Council website & from the Boston Review. If you want to see the actual articles - Google "Ronald Reagan Nuclear Disarmament" and look for those two articles - they're at the top)

joelem

April 8, 2010 - 11:22pm

I noticed after I voted that 69% said its bad because Nukes are America's trump Card. What a bunch of hog wash! I have several comments to that. First is that the longer we do not use them the less of a threat they are to others. Take the Middle East. Do you think they would have attacked the USA on 9/11/01 if they honestly thought we would retaliate with nukes? I don't think so. Second point is as a military veteran I remember being taught that the first job of the military is to create peace not war. You people sound like a bunch of kids; My sticks bigger than your stick, nana nana. If there ever was a nuclear war there would be nothing left to claim as victor. Also think of it this way. How can we dictate that other countries not have nukes when we have them. Is there any fair play in that. Lets really look at our morals and I mean seriously look at them.

billcind

April 9, 2010 - 12:53am

Thank God most of us don't listen to the liberal/marxist spin. Obama, just like Jimmy Carter is stripping our military. Now he is taking away our superiority of our nukes. I am surprised he didn't apologize for bombing Japan again. Obama will be America's downfall. Obama's "change" is called "MARXISM."

angilan

April 9, 2010 - 7:42am

Being an Armed forces U.S.Army grunt, I have had experience what 60mm, 81mm, & 4.2mm can do to for-ever destroy what habitat there was in nature can do,. willie-pete (white phosphorous), & more than a few others can do, I wouldn't want to be any-where near these devastating round's can do to permanently damage, or ruin your breakfast, lunch ,& or dinner (let alone a snack), & these are only a small part of the arsenal the Armed Forces have, imagine what nuclear bombs can do? they can really F--- up your daily affair's,even block the sun for year's to come, I live way up North, & it get's very cold, but imagine what a nuclear winter can bring?, that's why I keep constantly packing my duffle bag's w/ extreme cold weather gear, & survival pack's to keep me going f/ quite sometime,.I suggest you do the same f/ your benefit, just in case somebody, or someone get's p-----.

petet920

April 9, 2010 - 7:50am

Having nuclear weapons is an irrevalent issue. First you need a President with a set that is willing to use them. The US is on the road to becomming the next third wsorld country. We are exporting our jobs and businesses and importing poisoned toys and such that are capable of killing our children and crhppling our populace and we want to reduce nuclear weapons.
RIGHT

Seldoobak

April 9, 2010 - 11:52am

In response to those who approve of Commie Obama's nuclear arms policy, I would just like to point out that the Russians have broken every arms treaty they ever engaged in. You kool aid drinkers need a reality check.

amauck

April 9, 2010 - 1:21pm

Calling the Commander in Chief a commie?

I thought that was considered TREASON. It sure was when Bush was President.

SEE THE HYPOCRISY OF THE RIGHT!

amauck

April 9, 2010 - 1:16pm

Even when you point it out to a Republican that RONALD REAGAN - REPUBLICAN HERO EXTRAORDINAIRE - was for total nuclear disarmament and worked closely with the Russians (repeatedly, over many years) to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, they forget it as soon as they hear it.

It's like it's some pathological sickness they have.

They call Obama a commie for wanting to reduce the number of nukes - do they do the same for Reagan?

Come on, Repubs! Be honest FOR ONCE! Let's hear you call Reagan a commie!

Carla Hernandez

April 12, 2010 - 7:52am

Your response is purely emotional/biased...pointless. If obamao was true to his radical ideology he would disband the secret service. But, of course, he won't do that because he knows it would leave him vulnerable to certain attack. So why is he helping those who hate America and Americans by leaving us vulnerable to attack?! Grow up deal with reality...this guy is not serving the oath of the Office and that's why the majority of us see his actions as anti-American!

armstrongej

April 13, 2010 - 8:23pm

Ironically, powerful warfare, like nuclear, was created to create peace. The belief was that if every country had a weapon so destructive, fear would overrule and war would be history, and it seems to be working. However, since the weapon exists, there is no reason to have an abundance of it, because it only takes about 10 to catastrophically destroy Earth, which is fearful enough for no one to use it. Not to mention, we have always set an example for other countries, and this could do the same, which would be good for our character, our Earth, and our peacefulness, along with world peacefulness.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Tell us what you think