Interesting Obama Video

[MKSheppard]

Youtube link to 52 second video

Supposedly, this was put up by a hillary supporter; and I sent it over to a friend to listen to it to confirm what he does say.

Summary:

Only candidate who opposed war from beginning, and I will end it.
Gut missile defense
Will not weaponize space
slow development of FCS
institute independent defense review board
Set a goal with a world without nuclear weapons
No new nuclear weapons
Global ban on production of fissile material
And negotiations with Russia to take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert
Cut our nuclear arsenal

The only thing on that list which is even remotely reasonable is the slowing of development of Future Crap Spreader. Everything else is pretty much insane.

[MKSheppard]

I love his global ban on fissile material.

Good work Obama, you've fucked the US Navy's nuclear power program, which works great compared to say, the French one; because our naval reactors run off of weapons grade highly enriched uranium, allowing a 30 year core life with no refuellings, as opposed to having to cut open our ships and subs every 2 years like the French have to do, in order to recore them, since they run off low grade enriched uranium.

[Jadeite]

"Unproven missile defense", what the hell? Christ, I still hope the guy wins, but those stances he's taking lost most of my respect for him in regards to military and foreign policy.

[Guardsman Bass]

I attribute it mostly to the fact that he has piss-poor experience in the military and foreign policy areas. He'll probably be forced to moderate a bunch of these policies if he actually gets into office.

On the other hand, he's not entirely anti-military; he says he wants to expand the Army by 65,000 and Marines by 27,000 on his campaign website.

[MKSheppard]

I attribute it mostly to the fact that he has piss-poor experience in the military and foreign policy areas. He'll probably be forced to moderate a bunch of these policies if he actually gets into office.

I'm sorry, but I've heard all this before; one of the things that stands out to me is:

institute independent defense review board



"Oh, Hi there. Yes, I want to kill the B-70; lets gin up a whole series of studies from our systems analysis office showing that ICBMs are cheaper, and ignore the total system costs."

In short, study a system into the ground to kill it; and then recommend in the end that it didn't meet your specifications/requirements.

[That NOS Guy]

This puts a very serious damper on my plan to vote for him.

[Pu-239]

This puts a very serious damper on my plan to vote for him.

Same here. Will still vote for him since domestic policies are more important to me, and well, gotta hope he picks competent advisers when he actually gets into office, but this does put a serious damper on my enthusiasm, and I do fear it could be damaging (then again, I thought that too about the plagiarism thing which was promptly forgotten about).

[Tiriol]

How is "no new nuclear weapons" bad? Or cutting USA's nuclear arsenal? Unless of course you feel threatened by Iraqi insurgents and their dastardly ways so much that covering all of Middle-East in nuclear fire is a good idea.

And I notice that the list includes opposition to war in Iraq and the decision to bring an end to it; how on earth is THAT a bad thing?

[MKSheppard]

How is "no new nuclear weapons" bad?

Considering that our last new nuclear device was manufactured in the 1980s....no new nukes is bad. Unless you'd rather rely on increasinly unreliable weapons (oh yeah, we can't take a 20 year old device and test shot proof it anymore, thanks to Clinton and the Comprehensive Test Ban. Damn him.) That will have to be violated massively.

Or cutting USA's nuclear arsenal? Unless of course you feel threatened by Iraqi insurgents and their dastardly ways so much that covering all of Middle-East in nuclear fire is a good idea.

We need to build back up our stockpile of gravity bombs, now that ICBMs are useless.

And I notice that the list includes opposition to war in Iraq and the decision to bring an end to it; how on earth is THAT a bad thing?

Obamessiah is strange. He voted against ending the war.

Link
NAY - S.Amdt. 4442: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.

And he also voted against us buying 60 x F-22As; but then again, so did McCain.

Link
S.Amdt. 4261: To authorize multiyear procurement of F-22A... to S. 2766 [109th]: John Warner National Defense... (Vote On Amendment)

Nay AZ McCain, John [R]
Nay IL Obama, Barack [D]

[Invictus ChiKen]

Fuck yeah, now I wanna vote for him even more! Come on we got enough Nuke's to blow up the planet and then some. How many do we need?

[K. A. Pital]

Obama: the Russian candidate!

Gut missile defense

Very good! Less headache for us!

Will not weaponize space

Very good! Once again less headache!

slow development of FCS

Well... that piece of crap should've biten the dust no matter who becomes president, so +1 again.

institute independent defense review board

Very good! Death to high-cost weapons and more US demilitarization!

Set a goal with a world without nuclear weapons
No new nuclear weapons

Very good!

Global ban on production of fissile material

Hehe... good luck enforcing that. If he can

And negotiations with Russia to take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert

Very good! Actually that could be positive for the U.S. too, wouldn't it?

Cut our nuclear arsenal

Very, very, very good!

This is an official endorsement

[FedRebel]

Gut missile defense

So you don't care about the safety of your constituents?

If you will not protect America from nuclear devastation, will you atleast increase our deterrent?

slow development of FCS

Just put the poor bastard out of it's misery, FCS is flawed and should be scrapped.

How about PCS (Pentomic Combat System) instead?

institute independent defense review board

Just what we need, more bureaucrats gumming up the works

I can see it now....

The year is 2155 and the B-52 is STILL in service

Set a goal with a world without nuclear weapons

Impossible, they exist and forever will.

Working to eliminate them is a death wish at best, treason at worst

No new nuclear weapons

I don't want to even think about what your refrigerator looks like, nukes have expiration dates too.

Global ban on production of fissile material

How will you enforce it?

And negotiations with Russia to take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert

They won't launch unless we attack them and we won't attack them, so this is unnecessary.

Cut our nuclear arsenal

IT HAS ALREADY BEEN CUT!

Remember the SALT talks?

We don't need the reduce it any further, in fact we can't afford to lose anymore.

How is "no new nuclear weapons" bad?

Because nukes have an expiration date, sooner or later we'll have to get more in order to maintain our arsenal

Or cutting USA's nuclear arsenal?

We need more, because we can have more. Also the numerical advantage prevents total preemption and gives us more options

Unless of course you feel threatened by Iraqi insurgents and their dastardly ways so much that covering all of Middle-East in nuclear fire is a good idea.

I'm sure the plans for that are lying around the Pentagon somewhere, but it'd be an absolute worst case last resort option. And we kind of need the oil.

And I notice that the list includes opposition to war in Iraq and the decision to bring an end to it; how on earth is THAT a bad thing?

Ending a war is good, but HOW the war is ended determines how good it really is. Problem is that if we leave Iraq, it may be interpreted by certain groups in the wrong context.

[Sea Skimmer]

And negotiations with Russia to take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert

Very good! Actually that could be positive for the U.S. too, wouldn't it?

Umm, no. An ICBM which is not kept a very high level of readiness is useless. Now of course, if everyone agrees to scrap the ICBMs outright, that is a good step, but it would also strongly favor American supremacy in aviation technology.

[Elfdart]

Gut missile defense

So you don't care about the safety of your constituents?

If you will not protect America from nuclear devastation, will you atleast increase our deterrent?

Nice false dichotomy, fucktard.

institute independent defense review board

Just what we need, more bureaucrats gumming up the works

I can see it now....

The year is 2155 and the B-52 is STILL in service

Yeah, it's much better to leave all money decisions to people who stand to get golden parachutes from the arms makers. Conflict of interest is a GOOD thing.

Set a goal with a world without nuclear weapons

Impossible, they exist and forever will.

By that logic, the goverment should never set the goal to eliminate disease or crime on the grounds that there will always be disease and crime. I guess you never bathe (you'll always get dirty) or clip your nails (they'll always grow back).

Working to eliminate them is a death wish at best, treason at worst

Is it salty?

Cut our nuclear arsenal

IT HAS ALREADY BEEN CUT!

Then cutting it more shouldn't be a hardship.

Remember the SALT talks?

We don't need the reduce it any further, in fact we can't afford to lose anymore.

Why? Because you say so?

How is "no new nuclear weapons" bad?

Because nukes have an expiration date, sooner or later we'll have to get more in order to maintain our arsenal

Or we could stop electing semen-crusted war whores to public office and learn to live like a civilized country.

We need more, because we can have more. Also the numerical advantage prevents total preemption and gives us more options

Last time I checked, the US Government was running trillions of dollars of debt. So while we could build more, to do so would be as moronic as a student who is already neck deep in student loans taking out another loan and blowing it at the local titty bar. Sure he can do it...

I'm sure the plans for that are lying around the Pentagon somewhere, but it'd be an absolute worst case last resort option. And we kind of need the oil.

If oil is what you want, it would flow more freely and at cheaper prices if war whores in this country hadn't spent the last 60 years fucking over the inhabitants of countries that have a lot of oil.

And I notice that the list includes opposition to war in Iraq and the decision to bring an end to it; how on earth is THAT a bad thing?

Ending a war is good, but HOW the war is ended determines how good it really is. Problem is that if we leave Iraq, it may be interpreted by certain groups in the wrong context.

Well that's their problem, now isn't it? If some mullah wants to think Allah used his skeleton powers to drive out the Americans, fine. Vanity is not a good reason to slaughter Iraqis or to get US and Allied troops killed while bankrupting the country.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

With the US economy quite possibly taking a hit this year, I seriously doubt there's going to be quite a lot of money for a lot of projects any time soon, to be put it frankly. And there's already the huge deficit for the last few years. Something has got to give. Though among the things to be cut, I dare say he shouldn't cut back on missile defence at the least. (which I doubt he would really. Much of this appears to be for populist sake.)

How much money would these cuts free up?

[FSTargetDrone]

Of all the things that would make me consider not voting for Obama, I have to say, this list is pretty low on my reasons to not support him. He still gets my vote. He's going to have to do something really egregious to make me change my mind. No way in hell am I voting for McCain.

[Uraniun235]

"Global ban on fissile material"? Oh boy someone's been drinking from Carter's moonshine!

The rest doesn't particularly concern me - and even if it did the domestic issues are still far more pressing for me.

[Covenant]

You gotta remember that he's also in support of nuclear power--I have to imagine that this stance is a somewhat horribly worded one talking about enrichment. Banning fissile material would tank his own nuclear power support, which doesn't make any sense.

It does seem like a sloppy video though--I've got no idea where it came from. The camerawork is all shakey and it doesn't look polished. It's possible this was something that ran in Iowa. Ahh, here we go, found a quote:

NYT Article from 2007

If elected, Mr. Obama plans to say, he will lead a global effort to secure nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years. He also will pledge to end production of fissile material for weapons, agree not to build new weapons and remove any remaining nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert.

Yes, the ban on fissile material is only for weaponized levels of enrichment, and includes whacking Iranian and North Korean programs. Honestly, what's with people's immense hardon for nuclear weapons? Do we honestly think that the American nuclear deterrant is that strong of an incentive nowadays? Obviously, under the Obama plan we won't be able to disarm ourselves until the other major powers have all disarmed and the weaponmaking potential of less-than-major nations excised entirely, so it'd be some time. Hell, even Bush has reduced the amount of nukes much faster than required by law. There are simply not too many circumstances where a nuclear strike is going to be a politically acceptable move, given the kind of environmental impact it has.

[Tiriol]

Set a goal with a world without nuclear weapons

Impossible, they exist and forever will.

Working to eliminate them is a death wish at best, treason at worst.

It must be a bizarre and depressing world where you live if removing nuclear weapons or working towards it is considered a treason there.

How is "no new nuclear weapons" bad?

Because nukes have an expiration date, sooner or later we'll have to get more in order to maintain our arsenal

I can understand replacing outdated and old weapons; but if you say "we need more nuclear weapons", it implies something else than replacing old ones. It happens to imply INCREASING the number of them.

Or cutting USA's nuclear arsenal?

We need more, because we can have more. Also the numerical advantage prevents total preemption and gives us more options

Good Heaven, that there is some badly abused logic. I would say... circular logic, even.

WHAT options? Turning even more enemy countries into glowing plains of glass? Sir, I applaud these new range of options you have unlocked through the increase of your nuclear arsenal. Verily, only the sky is limit.

Unless of course you feel threatened by Iraqi insurgents and their dastardly ways so much that covering all of Middle-East in nuclear fire is a good idea.

I'm sure the plans for that are lying around the Pentagon somewhere, but it'd be an absolute worst case last resort option. And we kind of need the oil.

There is some wicked morality right there.

And I notice that the list includes opposition to war in Iraq and the decision to bring an end to it; how on earth is THAT a bad thing?

Ending a war is good, but HOW the war is ended determines how good it really is. Problem is that if we leave Iraq, it may be interpreted by certain groups in the wrong context.

Problem is that if you do not leave Iraq, it may be interpreted by certain groups in the wrong context. After all, while the people of Iraq may not have much experience with democracy, they do have experience of being occupied by whatever power is currently dominant since time immemorial and also being ruled by a dictator and thugs.

[FedRebel]

Nice false dichotomy, fucktard.

Why thank you

...I don't believe we've been properly introduced, I didn't realize it was straight to a 'first insult basis'

Yeah, it's much better to leave all money decisions to people who stand to get golden parachutes from the arms makers. Conflict of interest is a GOOD thing.

Adding more people to the mix just slows everything down, and as MKSheppard pointed out we'd probably end up with another B-70 v. ICBM situation

Set a goal with a world without nuclear weapons

Impossible, they exist and forever will.

By that logic, the goverment should never set the goal to eliminate disease or crime on the grounds that there will always be disease and crime. I guess you never bathe (you'll always get dirty) or clip your nails (they'll always grow back). [/quote]

Disease will always exist, because bactria and virus' constantly mutate and adapt. But we can lessen the suffering they cause and limit their spread with the proper medical research.

Crime will always exist, proper investment in law enforcement keeps it a manageable levels and reduces the risk of innocents being harmed

Your last comment is another flattering insult I see, hygiene is important for one's health and survival

Working to eliminate them is a death wish at best, treason at worst

Is it salty?

You see yourself as the better man...yet you make a masturbation insult, maturity is really your strong point.

Here's the thing, Nukes are a Pandora's box

Right now few nations have them, but everyone wants them

North Korea wants nukes and would love to see Japan burn

Iran wants nukes and would love to see Israel burn

Both want to see America burn

Al Queda wants nukes too, can you guess who they'd use them against?


If the world were to play prohibition with nukes they'd be the hottest thing on the black market, and those who WANT to use them will get them and USE them

Who'd stop them?

Cut our nuclear arsenal

IT HAS ALREADY BEEN CUT!

Then cutting it more shouldn't be a hardship.[/quote]

Missiles are what we are almost solely reliant on now because of the cut backs

Missiles don't have a 100% guarantee, plus we have an absorption policy which means a good portion will be preempted.

Remember the SALT talks?

We don't need the reduce it any further, in fact we can't afford to lose anymore.

Why? Because you say so?

We need bombers, bombers which were lost because of SALT

Or we could stop electing semen-crusted war whores to public office and learn to live like a civilized country.

Last I checked the US is the worlds only superpower

If a requirement of "civilized" nation is the total forfeiture of strategic arms and defense, that is not a nation I'd want to be in when the shit does hit the fan

If oil is what you want, it would flow more freely and at cheaper prices if war whores in this country hadn't spent the last 60 years fucking over the inhabitants of countries that have a lot of oil.

You can thank the democrats for that. Just compare the Eisenhower administration to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations

[
Well that's their problem, now isn't it? If some mullah wants to think Allah used his skeleton powers to drive out the Americans, fine. Vanity is not a good reason to slaughter Iraqis or to get US and Allied troops killed while bankrupting the country.

The "wrong context" is more like....

"The American infidels have weak stomachs, spill enough blood and they'll cower like frightened dogs"

And there will be another terrorist attack, they know how we would respond and would just attrit us again, ad nausea

Plus other who dislike America would get the message that America is weak and lacks the stomach for war, and we get increased tension all over the world

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You see yourself as the better man...yet you make a masturbation insult, maturity is really your strong point.

Here's the thing, Nukes are a Pandora's box

Right now few nations have them, but everyone wants them

North Korea wants nukes and would love to see Japan burn

Iran wants nukes and would love to see Israel burn

Both want to see America burn

Al Queda wants nukes too, can you guess who they'd use them against?


If the world were to play prohibition with nukes they'd be the hottest thing on the black market, and those who WANT to use them will get them and USE them

Who'd stop them?

Are you a fucking moron? N. Korea is more afraid of the US than the US of N. Korea. And incidentally, it was the Iraqi invasion that made them more fearful of a US invasion or getting nuked than before. Kim Jong Il would be rather sipping wine rather than getting nuked, to put it mildly. If you are going to go create false dilemmas, at least use some brain while you are at it.

And if Al Qaeda nukes the US, just who do you plan to nuke? Yemen? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran? How about Saudi Arabia? Plenty of supporters there as well. Might as well raise all hell all over the earth in your vain witch hunt.

[Covenant]

Plus, even a small nuclear strike will create a plume of nasty that will spread around quite a bit, depending on the wind patterns. This doesn't matter too much if we're running a scorched earth policy on an enemy and everyone around them, but if you're planning to hit a target in the middle east with a less-than-pinpoint nuclear strike, you're not just going to piss off some stupid tribesmen up in a hill (who do have rights too) but China, or Russia, or who knows, Turkey? It could be bad. And if you're going to wait until the winds are right or the situation is perfect, your window of opportunity is lower.

Obviously, we need weapons. But non-nuclear weapons are not only easier to deploy and less troublesome to research, but also offer just as wide a range of application. If you DO have a specific target to strike, nearly always a conventional bomb will be sufficent. If it's some big buried tunnel network, nukes are not even effective at crushing them, except with horrific brute-force mechanics, at which point you're creating the above situation where China gets angry at the US creating a massive plume of radioactive bullshit over their country.

The only real need for nukes is as a deterrant against another Nuclear Power or Major Nation (presuming China suddenly lost all of it's nukes to an act of Q, a nuclear ICBM is still a useful deterrant against Chinese invasion of San Francisco I suppose) but I honestly don't see the need for huge ICBMs or constantly-patrolling SAC flights when we have nuclear submarines. I presume our nuclear subs are still functional and allowed by treaty, yes?

[K. A. Pital]

If the world were to play prohibition with nukes they'd be the hottest thing on the black market, and those who WANT to use them will get them and USE them

What a fucking moron you are. The world already plays "prohibition" with nukes, that meaning nukes don't fall out of the range of major nuclear powers. And so far I only see NK working towards a nuclear program of their own, to get into the nuclear club. (the intelligence dossier last year shat on the hopes of idiots who think Iran is "making DA BUMB!!!")

I don't see ANY nation trading nukes in the black market. I guess it has something to do with common sense when handling nuclear materials, you know.

So that's fucking ridiculous.

[Uraniun235]

You gotta remember that he's also in support of nuclear power--I have to imagine that this stance is a somewhat horribly worded one talking about enrichment. Banning fissile material would tank his own nuclear power support, which doesn't make any sense.

...

Yes, the ban on fissile material is only for weaponized levels of enrichment, and includes whacking Iranian and North Korean programs.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because I remember the Japanese rattling some sabers a few years back and basically saying they could easily crack out a few hundred warheads in short order if they wanted to, thanks to their extensive use of nuclear power.

Maybe they were bullshitting, but frankly it seems to me that any nation with an advanced nuclear power infrastructure isn't that far from being able to construct nuclear weapons.

The only real need for nukes is as a deterrant against another Nuclear Power or Major Nation (presuming China suddenly lost all of it's nukes to an act of Q, a nuclear ICBM is still a useful deterrant against Chinese invasion of San Francisco I suppose)

That's what the Navy's for.

Why thank you

...I don't believe we've been properly introduced, I didn't realize it was straight to a 'first insult basis'

Hey buddy, fuck you, you're the one tossing political attack-ad sound-bite arguments around. "Gut missile defense" = "don't care about the safety of your constituents" I mean you didn't even have the god damned decency to consider in your post the possibility of misinformation or ignorance or incompetence - nope, you jumped straight to "holy shit he's cool with us being killed".

You fired the first shot. Fuck you.

Also:

You can thank the democrats for that. Just compare the Eisenhower administration to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations

Yeah, sorry, fucking up in the Middle East has pretty well been a bipartisan agenda.


Also:

"The American infidels have weak stomachs, spill enough blood and they'll cower like frightened dogs"

yeah cause they're totally just attacking us because they hate our freedom and our apple pie

am i rite

[VT-16]

Wow, so much hubbub over a missile/nuke defense that couldn't prevent your safety 7 years ago?