part 1A to this speech must also be that he is going to send all the mean people away so the rest of us are farting rainbows and dancing in grassy fields.

man, why not stop with nuclear weapons? lets get rid of the Navy all together. in fact, lets just not have an army at all.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91V3A3O0&show_article=1

7/16/2008 3:44:33 PM

7/16/2008 3:52:33 PM

China just endorsed Obama.

I really hope he keeps talking.

7/16/2008 3:57:18 PM

okay

7/16/2008 3:57:33 PM

nuclear non-proliferation is not a liberal concept.

It's a national security idea that has broad bi-partisan support.

It's something the entire world should strive for.

7/16/2008 4:00:29 PM

nuclear weapons are fearsome horrible things with which the world would be better off without

7/16/2008 4:15:39 PM

ideally I agree with both of you...however, is it rational to think the world will ever be completely rid of nuclear weapons? does it make sense to disarm ourselves, no matter how terrible the weapons are?

the point is Obama has this habit of throwing random, impractical ideas out there for a perfect world that simply cant happen. his goal, of course, is to influence the less-informed and make it seem like McCain is for nuclear weapons. people are going to see through it.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 4:15:43 PM

Quote :

"nuclear weapons are fearsome horrible things with which the world would be better off without"

so are bullets, bad farts, child molesters, hurricanes and fat women. does that mean any of them will ever go away?

getting 'rid' of all the world's nuclear weapons will never happen. is it not better to focus on the stopping the spread of them and keeping them out of crazy-peoples hands?

7/16/2008 4:18:03 PM

if the world (including the US) would submit to continuous, perpetual and strict nuclear regulations and inspections

yes, it would totally make sense to disarm

7/16/2008 4:18:14 PM

Every presidential candidate with half a brain is for disarmament of nuclear weapons.

He's not trying to convince people McCain is pro-nuclear weapons.

He wouldn't completely disarm us unless it was safe to do so (other countries did as well).

You're a moron.

7/16/2008 4:18:55 PM

^^^ i'm pretty sure that's part of the idea...

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 4:19:05 PM

Quote :

"if the world (including the US) would submit to continuous, perpetual and strict nuclear regulations and inspections yes, it would totally make sense to disarm"

what would prevent one country from hiding away some and then holding us hostage with them after ours are all gone? wont happen. lets stop talking about the 'ideal' situation and start talking practical.

7/16/2008 4:20:04 PM

moving towards non-proliferation and eventual disarmament is the "practical solution"

what do you think has been the goal for the last 50 years?

7/16/2008 4:21:44 PM

7/16/2008 4:22:01 PM

Quote :

"Every presidential candidate with half a brain is for disarmament of nuclear weapons. He's not trying to convince people McCain is pro-nuclear weapons. He wouldn't completely disarm us unless it was safe to do so (other countries did as well). You're a moron. "

since every Presidential candidate is against them, what is the point of standing on the soap box and pounding your chest about it, other than to try to convince people that you are MORE against them than the other person?

oh yeah i forgot...BO does NO WRONG to most of this board. you are a lemming.

7/16/2008 4:22:59 PM

who would you say is the US's biggest threat (don't go being a Russia resurgence person on me... that's silly)

it's China

they would, RIGHT NOW, agree to a complete and perpetual removal of all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth

it's been their policy since day ONE

7/16/2008 4:23:38 PM

Quote :

"moving towards non-proliferation and eventual disarmament is the "practical solution" what do you think has been the goal for the last 50 years?"

I would argue that eventual, complete disarmament has NEVER been on the table for serious US policy discussion. we will always have nuclear weapons. the world will never be 'free' from them.

7/16/2008 4:24:38 PM

Quote :

"who would you say is the US's biggest threat (don't go being a Russia resurgence person on me... that's silly) it's China they would, RIGHT NOW, agree to a complete and perpetual removal of all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth it's been their policy since day ONE"

I agree and they probably would if we would ever agree to that...but it would be madness to do so as long as anyone in the world is packing nuclear heat or has the capability to do so. that will never happen.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ..]

7/16/2008 4:26:05 PM

what is your problem?

what's wrong with saying he's going to work towards the removal of nuclear weapons... that's a good thing

he could be talking about restarting weapons testing or something...

7/16/2008 4:26:23 PM

Quote :

"ideally I agree with both of you...however, is it rational to think the world will ever be completely rid of nuclear weapons?"

And in this speech he's saying that it's an ideal situation to work towards-- not one that going to happen when he's in office.

"Obama to rid the world of all nuclear weapons" is more than a little dishonest

7/16/2008 4:26:26 PM

I think the statements show a theme in most of his policies...hopelessly idealistic goals to grab attention with no real meat behind them.

7/16/2008 4:29:25 PM

"all men are created equal"

7/16/2008 4:31:45 PM

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights



LOLZ

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ROFL]

7/16/2008 4:38:20 PM

I dont know if obama is the idiot or he thinks all of us are idiots.

What a stupid thing to say.

Its sounds nice, but its fucking ridiculous. Maybe he can shake that magic wand and stop teen pregnancy, crime, and the WNBA.


Boone, you forget he had it on his website that his plan was to rid the world of nuclear weapons in three years. LOL

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 4:50:25 PM

A noble idea, but the established global powers are highly unlikely to get rid of their nuclear arsenals, the United States included. I'm sure we could work out a reduction, maybe a couple hundred each or so, but I don't think we're politically at a point where we can seriously talk about removing our strategic deterrent.

Still, I think the idea of reigning in loose nuclear materials is a reasonable and worthwhile political effort. It's appropriate given that we're facing an acceleration in nuclear proliferation. I would like to see how he pulls this off though, especially given the insistence by certain states on retaining their nuclear capacities.

7/16/2008 5:00:19 PM

Quote :

"I would like to see how he pulls this off"

Marko posted a picture of his solution and possible running mate.

7/16/2008 5:28:08 PM

so you get credit for proposing completely unrealistic things just because they sound good in a perfect world? i think the bush administration was just striving to go into iraq and "win the war" in a few short months...they should be praised for striving for such an unrealistic goal

7/16/2008 5:30:12 PM

^^

pretty much why i posted it

7/16/2008 5:47:26 PM

Fuck that.

7/16/2008 5:49:28 PM

So what's Obama going to do about that mega asteroid heading for Earth after he has destroyed all the world's nuclear weapons? Hmm. Gotta think these things through.

7/16/2008 6:04:26 PM

if iran has nukes, and we don't, they have the advantage. i don't like that. obama = idiot.

7/16/2008 6:11:31 PM

Good thinking, I'm sure nobody considered that. I will forward the scenario to the Obama camp right away. BigEgo = great thinker.

7/16/2008 6:13:46 PM

This will never happen.

7/16/2008 6:21:15 PM

File this under "hope," though I doubt anything about our nuclear stockpile will "change."

We do need to hear this from those in power. I fundamentally agree that nuclear disarmament should be done.

7/16/2008 6:47:06 PM

i think the dems blew it big time this year...thanks obama for not letting clinton win like she should have

7/16/2008 7:00:25 PM

Quote :

"A noble idea, but the established global powers are highly unlikely to get rid of their nuclear arsenals, the United States included. I'm sure we could work out a reduction, maybe a couple hundred each or so, but I don't think we're politically at a point where we can seriously talk about removing our strategic deterrent. Still, I think the idea of reigning in loose nuclear materials is a reasonable and worthwhile political effort. It's appropriate given that we're facing an acceleration in nuclear proliferation. I would like to see how he pulls this off though, especially given the insistence by certain states on retaining their nuclear capacities. "

Yep.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 7:42 PM. Reason : what a bunch of idiots.]

7/16/2008 7:42:12 PM

Surely his twin puppies Hope and Change will know what to do!

7/16/2008 8:01:32 PM

7/16/2008 8:29:49 PM

Quote :

"part 1A to this speech must also be that he is going to send all the mean people away so the rest of us are farting rainbows and dancing in grassy fields. "

Lets just nuke em all dem america haters; whoorahhh USA #1. If iran doesn't like us than we can send them back to the stone age

Anyone that believes nuking our enemies is on the agenda is an idiot. Idealistically we would have no nukes. To concede though since this is no longer possible; I do understand why it is necessary to maintain an arsenal of our own.

7/16/2008 8:49:21 PM

Quote :

"Lets just nuke em all dem america haters; whoorahhh USA #1. If iran doesn't like us than we can send them back to the stone age Anyone that believes nuking our enemies is on the agenda is an idiot."

why are you quoting me? nothing I said remotely resembles that.

7/16/2008 8:57:32 PM

This is not much different than the "war on terror" though is it? except trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons is less abstract than trying to rid the world of terrorism.

Quote :

"if iran has nukes, and we don't, they have the advantage. i don't like that. obama = idiot. "

Not really... we could probably GIVE iran our nukes, and still devastate them with our conventional weapons if we wanted to (not that I would support this course of action). In terms of our safety, Iran would need rockets capable of getting to us. Right now, at best, they might could hit Israel. Iran having nukes is more symbolic, not really a direct threat to us.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 9:42 PM. Reason : ]

7/16/2008 9:40:07 PM

Quote :

"what would prevent one country from hiding away some and then holding us hostage with them after ours are all gone?"

ssshhhhh, you'll blow our cover

7/16/2008 9:56:49 PM

Quote :

"This is not much different than the "war on terror" though is it? except trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons is less abstract than trying to rid the world of terrorism."

this is actually a very good point, except for one huge difference...one is 'material' and one is an idea/movement.

7/17/2008 7:42:02 AM

Quote :

"Boone, you forget he had it on his website that his plan was to rid the world of nuclear weapons in three years. LOL"

Cite?

He wants to secure nuclear material in his first term, but I've never heard anything about a definite time line for weapons.


^ The former is much more practical than the latter.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 8:09 AM. Reason : ,]

7/17/2008 8:08:41 AM

Quote :

"what would prevent one country from hiding away some and then holding us hostage with them after ours are all gone?"

Because we'd be that country.

Quote :

"If iran doesn't like us than we can send them back to the stone age"

I don't know. Seems like it would be hard to set all of their clocks back an hour. Maybe we could get them to buy into daylights savings time.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 8:22 AM. Reason : -]

7/17/2008 8:17:27 AM

Quote :

"Cite? He wants to secure nuclear material in his first term, but I've never heard anything about a definite time line for weapons."

btt very t since DaBird is on. I'm actually pretty interested in the three year plan to eradicate all nuclear weapons.

7/17/2008 11:32:54 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/obama.speech/index.html

this says Obama seeks to "secure all nuclear weapons materials" in FOUR years, but I don't know about the 3

7/17/2008 11:36:30 AM

The difference between "rid" and "secure" is pretty ginormous.

7/17/2008 11:41:34 AM

Quote :

"this is actually a very good point, except for one huge difference...one is 'material' and one is an idea/movement. "

Yeah, one is designed to scare you in to submission, the other is a measurable goal.

Also, I don't think it is really possible to eliminate all nuclear weapons around the world, but stopping nuclear proliferation in the medium term IS possible, we'd just have to be up to investing in helping out countries get nuclear power plants.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 11:47 AM. Reason : ]

7/17/2008 11:45:40 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R2eY0VrS-cU

7/17/2008 11:49:04 AM