For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons.Yea - read that first part again. Elections have consequences; congratulations America. The Professor has nuanced your defense against the beast at the door.
...
But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is launched by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.
Sure, a proper biological weapon will kill tens of millions if done right and a chemical attack done right easily reaches six figures - but goodness, we wouldn't want to glass the valley they were produced in, would we? Let more product get out there first. We can destroy vial by vial with Predator strikes while the EU Task Force blockades the coast of the host nation.
Ummm; sure.
Imagine you are one of the leaders of ONE of the organizations out there that wants to kill millions of Americans. What do you hear?
The summit meeting that opens next week in Washington will bring together nearly four dozen world leaders, the largest such gathering by an American president since the founding of the United Nations 65 years ago. Mr. Obama said he hopes to use the session to lay down tangible commitments by individual countries toward his goal of securing the world’s nuclear material so it does not fall into the hands of terrorists or dangerous states.This is seriously defending the American people? The morning after the attack, how do you prepare to say,
“Our expectation is not that there’s just some vague, gauzy statement about us not wanting to see loose nuclear materials,” he said. “We anticipate a communiqué that spells out very clearly, here’s how we’re going to achieve locking down all the nuclear materials over the next four years.”
"My fellow Americans, we understand that at least three million of our countrymen died in the nuclear attack in New York City, with at least that number injured and sick.
This morning we can also confirm reports of an outbreak of hemoragic fever in Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, and Seattle. So far there have only been around two hundred dead, but with an estimated 45,000 infected and the spread still not contained - we need everyone to remain home or where ever they can find shelter as directed by local authorities.
I would like to express our gratitude to the Virginia Highway Patrol who, through their exceptional professionalism, discovered the Washington DC bomb during a routine stop to help the broken down RV that was carrying it on I-95. The driver of the RV thought dead after the shootout with the others taking the nuclear device, survived surgery and with the investigation into the defused nuclear bomb's components and the identification of those with the bomb, we have identified the location of those responsible in the lawless reaches of Backassistan.
The Prime Minister of Backassistan assures me that his forces will arrest those responsible by the end of the week, and the President of neighboring Insanistan promised me that their border is closed. Between our friends in Backassistan and Insanistan - those responsible will be brought to justice.
I have informed my Attorney General to prepare a new extradition treaty with those nations, so once the alleged perpetrators of this crime are arrested, they can be turned over as soon as possible to the proper authorities here under the auspices of applicable UN Agreements. As such, China as Chair of the Security Council has confirmed that it will rearrange the schedule of the Security Council to work on a resolution condemning this act as soon as possible, and the European Parliament will look at steps they can take once they return from Summer recess. My good friend the Russian President this morning sent me series of links to YouTube where Russian citizens have voiced their support for our victims.
Finally, I ask my fellow Americans not to take out their anger on those Americans; by heritage, naturalized, on undocumented - who trace their culture to Backassistan. We cannot let our Diversity suffer due to the isolated actions of a few criminals. We cannot injure out international reputation by lashing out externally either. If we respond with force to the murder of millions of our fellow citizens, then the people of different world views who attacked us will win.
Instead of asking what we should do now - we should ask what we did not do before that may have encouraged this attack. Did we supply enough foreign aid? Did we have enough cultural exchanges that respected their culture? Why didn't we help the citizens and government of Backassistan address the root causes?Hat tip LBG.
This is a time for introspection and reflection - not action."
58 comments:
Alas, that is probably exactly what he would say.
Obama has undone in a stroke the very system that has kept America safe for more than six decades. The "ambiguity" that the NYT speaks of is not ambiguous at all behind closed doors.
Provide for the common defense? This one-worlder communist empty suit occupying the White House could not have done more damage than if he had been a paid Soviet agent during the Cold War. He is the only "President" capable of making Jimmy Carter look like Curtis LeMay.
His goal, and the goal of his cronies, is to make America into a nation of government-dependent weaklings. Take heed, voters. You will have a chance in 2010 and 2012. If you aren't paying attention, your birthright will be taken from you and you will be complicit in the theft.
From "not taking anything off the table" to inviting death to the table will be a great U.S. policy while it lasts. It will certainly never result in its stated purpose of "making nuclear weapons obsolete", but it may well result in no lawyer ever again trusted to be our CinC.
He hasn't undone a thing. It hasn't been the practice of the US to use Nuclear weapons since WWII. He's trying to reduce the desire of third parties to attain nuclear capabilities. "Oops, I lied" is always an option, it's worked well in the past.
URR -- always with the nonsense...sigh...
"Oops, I lied" is always an option, it's worked well in the past.
Really? When has the U.S. ever lied about using the nuclear option after an act of war?
Try never.
So, there is nothing new here? We should just move along? Everyone in the article is mistaken?
Oh, I guess everyone is paranoid then.
Ahem.
nice, Jay - try an argument, no ad hominems.
The political ad I could make from that statement would make the 'Bear in the Woods' political ad seem tame in comparison.
Quite seriously, whatever the declaratory policy, any US president would need to very seriously consider an atomic retaliation in response to a chemical or biological mass casualty attack of that size on US territory. As a purely positive matter, he would have to seriously worry about the Joint Chiefs replacing him against his will on the spot if he declined. He would have to worry about one of more States bolting from the federation in self-defense, and seeking their own atomic weapons for protection. But even before all that, he would have to worry about the general collapse of the international security system: the nuclear umbrella would be meaningless to, say, Denmark if it meant nothing to New York.
It's a shift in strategy. It's not binding, it's not law, the US is not restricted in any way. It's not defending America any more or less than America was defended before. I don't think "everyone is paranoid," but lots of people are. Would you rather have Mr. Obama tell the world that the only way the US will respect you is if you have a nuclear weapon? What behavior do you suppose that encourages? We simply can't stop the spread of technology forever.
Vigilis, I wasn't suggesting that the President lie about using a weapon (they're kinda obvious), merely that he always has the purview to use one and say "oops, I lied when I said I wouldn't."
I find this action, this National Defense Posture, to be criminally naive, and I fully expect it to lead to situations that will likely get out of hand, and result in millions of dead Americans. Elections do, indeed, have consequences. The added crime is that millions of Americans will have died to further an idiotic social-welfare experiment by deluded leftists and their sycophant enablers.
While profoundly unwise, this policy is something that cannot survive implementation once the first megadeath event occurs on US territory. If the powers that be do not know never to give an order which will not be obeyed, they will learn quickly enough to save their positions and perks.
If not, well...I know not what course others make take, but I'm going to drop the subject.
Harry Truman is said to have remarked the only thing new is the history you haven't read.
I recommend everyone read a lot of it. Fascinating.....human behavior is so predictable in the macro scale and so unique in the micro....fascinating.
This is the kind of crap I get to wake up to? I went to bed secure in the knowledge that if someone was stupid enough to attack this nation with WMD that it would be a hollow victory for in the next day, several new suns would rise over that nation, i.e., nuke 'em till they glow. Now the Wun has unilaterally decided to neuter this nation and leave it wide open to attack, and worse than that, making the nation appear to be weak to those nations that look for these signs like a shark smells blood.
Well, I am sure that all you know one thing - deterrence is all good and well, but doesnt work against people who are insane. Therefore, US nuclear retaliation against Backassisstan would be welcome by the people who commited that act. More martyrs for the cause! More volunteers for "active martyrdom"! And, to add insult to injury, I bet their leadership is somewhere else by the time nukes go off in the NY, laughing off as US bomb empty training camps. Plus, might I add, what if US- based group commits such act? I can imagine "animal wrongs" group gone wild brewing bio-weapons to infect "evil consumptionist society" with. Will you drop a bomb on their lab in suburbs of one of US cities?
Plus, there is worse case scenario - attack which leaves no evidence against any group and/or state. Do you attack "usual suspects" en masse? Will you attack the myriad of groups proudly claiming they are behind this on the internet?
Finally there is question of literal and proverbial fallout. Winds from Backassisstan carry it into its neighbor, Windia, a de-facto nuclear regional power previously quite on friendly terms with US. Dozens of thousands perish, anti-US backlash leads to ultra-nationalist takeover and creating regional US-hostile alliance with Tchina, another regional power which is rapidly becoming major rival to the US influence worldwide.
Brits were once sure they can deter major war by building up formidable bomber forces to ruin
opposing countries cities. In fact, they succeeded in bringing ruin to Hitlers Reich, but deterrence itself failed miserably to say least.
I am almost 100% sure that when someone attacks US, it won't be waving-a-flag national army/navy/AF with "retaliate against this capital" sign. And as 9/11 showed there is ample possibility for the non-state actors to inflict damage on the scale bordering WMD even without them. If the twin towers were full of people at the time of attack, life loss would be on a scale of tactical nuke, after all.
Ponder this all before cry "the sky is falling!"
No offense, Ewok, but you're dead wrong. The ONLY thing keeping nutjobs like the NORKS and Amadinnerjacket from lobbing a nuke at us is the sure fact they won't have a nation and quite possibly will be constituent atoms after the retaliatory strike. Leaders of rogue nations like Iran might talk all that crap about martyrs, but they also thrive on the power they have. A nation that's a nuclear wasteland isn't much to rule over, even if they survive the attack.
This entire so-called strategy literally invites attack on this nation.
I dont question value of deterrence against nations, even if rogue ones might be harder to deter, just there are non-state actors increasingly having the means to inflict WMD-scale casualties, and those are quite difficult to deter. Plus, having a plan B would be good, from various defensive means (BMD, border checks, CONUS air defence strengthening) to the civil defence. And if there is one thing worse than lack of retaliation, it is retaliation in the wrong direction. Have you considered a false flag operations?
I have only one thing to say and that is that Americans have to get rid of this dangerous smoke and mirrors bozo ASAP.
P=2012
Ewok,
There are those who know just who those non-state actors are and where they are. Deterrence of non-state actors consists, in large measure, of assuring those nations who know/support/harbor/train those rogue non-state actors that THEY will be held responsible for the actions of those they host. While that may offend Katie Couric's sense of fairness, in the adult world it has tremendous value. Which this buffoon just repudiated.
?
I PITY THE FOOL!!!!!!!!!
PAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I remember when I was a child, I thought that the world would be better off w/ nukes. I also thought that if we backed off then others would too. Then I grew up. I realized there were bad people out there that want what we have and would like to do us harm. I understood deterence. This is a major failure and the results of living in the dream world w/ unicorns and rainbows.
Jay,
Always with the far-left apologist crap. If the COINC (community organizer in chief) announced that he was reducing the military to a border police and coastal patrolling force, and using the money for "economic justice" programs, there would be emphatic affirmative nods from your cronies, and feverish attempts to rationalize why being defenseless and showing one's throat to the wolf is sound National Security Strategy.
CNFO,
You are mistaken. A public statement such as this is a MAJOR shift. And if he is doing this to try and REDUCE the desire of "third parties" to acquire nuclear weapons, he is showing once again he is startlingly ignorant and naive as to how the world works and what motivates nations and non-state entities.
In the past your analysis would have been quite correct, Mr. Hasik. Under the latest scenario, however, what happens is probably more along the lines of what CDR Salamander has said, "Kill millions and ... we'll ... call a meeting at the UN saying."
Once a coordinated attack (several U.S. cities at once) devestates large populaces with non-nuclear WMDs, Obama will declare martial law and call in U.N. troops to pacify our seething country. Our sovereignty will be in check and U.S. leadership of the FREE world a
fond memory to some and a fading nightmare of tyrants.
When the suckers among us realize what has happened is not the birth of some utopian socialism, but demise of the benchmark to which all socialist regimes have been forced to compare themselves, it may well be too late.
Agree, URR. Which was also our reason for taking Saddam out of power. He was warned. He called our bluff. He lost the game. The world can condemn our "illegal" action in Iraq all it wants, but this was precisely the reason for doing so. We are getting up to the what? 24 anniversary of Chernobyl. One little city with one powerplant on fire. It is said in 600 years it will be safe to inhabit the place again. http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter5.html
Any leader who fails to protect his own people from this kind of danger is either an idiot or a criminal. I fail to see a third possibility. Unilateral disarmament makes us the 98-lb. weakling walking through the sea of bullies on the way to school.
Elections, consequences, etc.
You Betcha!
Speaking of the Beast at the Door... and doors in general....
Movie time. Don't bring popcorn. Bring tissues. It's short. 17 minutes or so. Double click on it to full screen. Beautifully done. Worth it.
http://www.chernobyl.typepad.com/
To the UN member nations and anyone else who does not take Iran and its fellow travellers seriously, who aid and assist those who would proliferate nuclear weapons... there are consequences to allowing nuclear programs in nations that are unanswerable to their own people and who mask the scientific truth with government lies. The fallout is real and tragic with a half life lasting centuries. Even those children born a generation later are paying with their lives. We cannot say we're ignorant any longer. We have seen the consequences for a quarter century, though the press may turn its head away... for reasons that confound. To those who treat it lightly, who pretend that malignant despots who would unleash this apocalypse on their enemies can be trusted with the health and safety of their own people... or their neighbors... or anyone in the wind's path, I say damn you. Damn you to hell. You fools. You criminals.
I read the other day that of all of the terrorist attacks and attempted attacks since 9/11, over one-third have occured on Obama's watch. The country's enemies have taken his measure. This announcement will only embolden them further. 2012 can't come fast enough.
Hey, I was closer to Chernobyl than any one of you at the moment of the tragedy, so I know first hand the issue. BTW, Brits were a inches away from similar thing in 1957 Windscale incident. But the real problem is there are lot of dark places in the world where no state control extends, heck, half of the sub-saharan Africa could qualify. Furthermore many states are despite honest efforts unable to completely fight off insurgents, organized crime or other rogue elements. Think Colombia, the government there made great effort, and with a degree of success to fight both leftist guerillas and narco-cartels, but still is far from complete control of territory.
Hi, Billy Mays here for Biological and Chemical programs!Tiered of paying all that money for an nuclear infrastructure and only getting a bunch of sanctions and a few bombs?That's right folks for penny's a day you can have a biological program that can wreak just as much havok! Worried about a retaliatory strike?Well worry no more! Let me introduce you to the new NPR! Call now and this treaty will promise you a sky free of MIRVs. All you have to do is join the non-proliferation treaty....CALL NOW! Diplomats are standing by!
Hey, what did you expect? Keeping the world safe for America's enemies. A leftists dream. As someone else here said, elections, consequences, etc.
<span> And if he is doing this to try and REDUCE the desire of "third parties" to acquire nuclear weapons, he is showing once again he is startlingly ignorant and naive as to how the world works and what motivates nations and non-state entities.</span>
*****
Care to enlighten us with more than ad hominem (I kinda like that one, a respectable way of saying name calling)?
I typed my comment this morning. When I thought of it again this afternoon, the thought occurred to me that some posters here might think I was referring to something, well, unconstitutional.
As a christian (though not the Bible-thumping variety), I want to make it clear - hand on my heart - that I MOST DEFINITELY did not have 'taking him out' on my mind. Like what happened to JFK if I'm not plain enough. I want to make this very clear, and it is the absolute truth.
But Americans saddled themselves with this abomination in a democratic way (I have my doubts about his eligibility, but the electoral process and ensuing results were fair imho)... and they will have to get rid of him in the same manner.
A good start would be reconquering at least the House in November.
Can I get a Fabulous Ginsu with that for no extra charge?
You want me to describe realpolitik to you in a comment box? Plenty of other sources. But be thoughtful enough to share them with the Keystone Kops running the Executive and State Department.
By the way, the Chief Executive's skills, motivation, political philosophy, character, and effectiveness are still fair game for criticism. So are his appointees. At least for now, until this or that "fairness doctrine" further impinges our Constitutional rights under the First Amendment.
Only if you sign the NPT in the next 20 months!
That's not true. Just as it is true that you can do everything right and still not win.
We will be attacked and blamed for the worlds problems just as a scapegoat for internal problems across the World.
War's are not usually an outcome of black-white. I do this because you did that, affairs. 9/11 was not because of some blowback from American foreign policy. It was an ideological attack against one idea of how to live one's life.
Congress should do some... oh er right... never mind...
Reid, Pelosi, et al. = Unindicted co-conspirators.
Exactly, which is why the Japanese should have immediately attacked Japan in retaliation for the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attacks, since after all those dastardly Japanese must have known that they were hosting a group that would attack Japan.
Um, cites, please?
I like to beat up on President Barry as much as anyone else, but I prefer to remain in the real world while doing so. :)
Bit of a cognitive dissonance there, ewok. You say you're concerned about the "nuclear madman," but then go on to describe a carefully orchestrated (albeit implausible), complex operation which could only be designed & implemented by a sane, rational player. Your entire scenario is literally a fantasy in that you posit one fictional (i.e. not based on fact) assumption, build on that with another fictional assumption, end up with a tenuous construction which mentions no specific group or country, then draw conclusions from said fantasy.
Domestic terrorism is a possibility, but can you name a specific group which has the money and connections to mount even a bio-attack? Most of those idiots are too chicken-**** to throw fake blood on Hell's Angels.
As for the evidence-less attack, name me a group which wouldn't claim credit for a successful attack. And if it's a nuke, there are methods to determine the origin of the warhead. Yes, we can tell if it's a Nork nuke. (sorry. couldn't resist) By the way, I'm personal friends with the President for Life of Windia, and he said revolution was illegal in his country. And the Tchinians still think the AK-47 is "awesome cool" hi-tech. See, I can posit all sorts of results based on fictional countries, too. And mine are funnier. :)
...And I have no idea where you got the silly idea that the Brits thought they could deter Hitler with a large bomber force, since it didn't bloody exist before the war. For one thing, Bomber Command didn't even have any four-engine bombers until after the war started. For another, the strategic concept wasn't derived from deterrence, but from the conviction that "the bomber will always get through," giving said aircraft an aura of inevitability similar to today's nuclear missiles. Maybe you were thinking of the V-series as a nuclear strategic deterrent after the war? Because, yeah, that didn't work. Whoops, silly me! There hasn't been a nuclear attack on Great Britain since then, so maybe it worked after all.
Ewok, many of us have pondered. Quite deeply. Myself, I can ponder fifty feet down without breaking a sweat. But we don't get our strategic concepts from The Sum of All Fears. Heh.
What repulses me is the very idea of mass murder, conventional or nuclear, done in name of revenge... can you say exterminating whole population of N.Korea - assuming this is source of said bombs as deducted by NEST in the aftermath of attack - will make US look stronger or make it world pariah? Would a penetrator bomb down "Beloved leaders" bunker be better? In WW2 at least German and (to lesser extent) Japanese societies have willingly elected the regimes who led them to aggression and horrible crimes. Yet even then indiscriminate bombing of cities was at best questionable morally. North Koreans, a truly pitiable nation, have to endure famine, terror of secret police and have absollutely no control of their lives. Taking a nation hostage to influence a tyrant is certainly not a good way. Were supposed to be the good guys. And while we dont get inspiration from Tom Clancy, what is the guarantee AQ will not? After all 9/11 style airplane kamikaze attack was prophesized in the "Debt of honor"...
Plus I doubt any aspiring nuclear dictator wuld be swayed to join NPT, anyway so your options will be open still. Why you ask? Because nukes are their ultimate deterrent.And lesson number one from both Iraq wars is that: dont mess with US without having nukes.
Lesson from N.Korea antics is you can get away with anything short of open war without a single shot in your direction, as long you have nukes.
As to Brits pre-1939, Bomber Command was superior to Fighter Command in spending, just they were yet using more obsolete Hampdens and Wellingtons, and even Battles. The belief was indeed that bombers will always go thru, so Hitler would have to be crazy to start war resulting in certain doom for his cities. What they didnt foresee was that Hitler was really crazy...
Even if someone holds America as an enemy, there is enough US military targets across the globe to not attack US cities. I wonder what would be the world reaction if 9/11 jets have crashed into US aircraft carriers instad of twin towers?
You answer your own question, Ewok. And take this from the point of view of someone who finds nuclear war horrific and who is aghast at the legacy that could come from nuclear fallout in a city or region. (See my other posts.)
Having said that, if a country's leader is sane or not, for 65 years the spectre of a nuclear counterattack has served as a deterrent to those who would wipe (fill in the blank) Israel, Pakistan, India, South Korea, USA, Poland... off the map. Those who might consider such a strike if they knew it would go unpunished have held off because of what might happen to them within 5 minutes of a first strike.
Remove that possibility from the table. Then you could have the Ahmadinejads, who are busy weaponizing uranium as we speak, launch a warhead. Or send it through their proxies. A nuke or a biochemical one... either could devastate cities and turn them into perpetual dead zones like Chernobyl. Would you tell them or their proxies outright that the counterattack won't be so horrible they would regret it?
Not every leader is reigned in by the laws of decency. And even a madman is surrounded, supposedly, by sane thinkers who might be able to intervene for their own protection if they think their leader has gone berserk. If they knew his actions would bring ruin on themselves and their families and their country, THEY might be able to stop even the most insane ruler by whatever means necessary. THAT is what deterrence is about.
The same as their reaction when the 9-11 jets crashed into the Pentagon. The same as when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
Complete outrage.
>The "ambiguity" that the NYT speaks of is not ambiguous at all behind closed doors.
I would so love to have been a fly on the wall during that phone call between Richard Armitage and Perez Musharaf on the night of 9/11.
Cancel Poland for most of the time we were the TARGET... simply because we went to the Stalins spoils of war stash in 1945. I grew up aware at least 1 Minuteman is targeted to my city - a cluster of bridges, railroad nexus, major shipyard, full mechanized division and engineers brigade were enough targets to make it really nuke magnet. And there was nothing we wanted more than getting Russians out for all the time.
I think Obama is really pushing for the nuclear-weapon-free world now. And I would feel more secure without Russian nukes around, even if that would mean no US nukes around.
In fact US conventional might is such that N.Korea or Iran could be destroyed without using nukes, their regimes joining Saddam in the gallery of hanging dictators. All it would take would be serious resolve on the side of US public opinion and serious mobilization WW2 style.
Out of other nuclear states, French and UK would be happy to get one more costly position from the budget out. Chinese actually would be happy to see their conventional strength free of nuclear deterrence. India and Pakistan can be trickier but still possible to influence into giving up nukes, especially if China lets go of theirs. There is one state that can be very difficult to make into giving up nukes: Israel, and it has every reason to keep them - horribly outnumbered, encircled strategically and object of intense hatred. I would go as far as to keeping them as a special case outside of any global nuke-free pact.
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES,
Indeed, thats why we went from a budget surplus to massive deficits; and I got my ass shot at in Iraq for a year (why were we there again?); and we are still in Afghanistan because we took our focus off it (was it because Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy?); and we abandonded Americans in need because it was only a bunch of black people in New Orleans; and the economy went to hell because the leader did not believe in any oversight of wall street; Yes, elections have consequences.
You poor thing, Honu. I bet you were even shanghaied into joining the military. If you are so concerned with budget deficits, you don't seem too concerned that they have tripled in the last 14 months.
Yes, government oversight. Like "mark to market" and Barney Frank's fine work with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as Chair of Financial Services. Don't let market forces work. That would be capitalism, something you seem quite opposed to.
Not shanghaied, but also didn't think I would go to war for someone's personal vendetta- (when asked why he was so obsessed with Saddam, GWB said- "he tried to kill my dad"). We would be done with Afghanistan now if we hadnt wasted our time Iraq.
Have no problem with the free market, I would not have bailed out wall street as GWB did.
Good to see you are keeping up with the fox/rush Barney Frank talking points.
honu, so much ignorance so little time...
Not many of us can say as a president "he tried to kill my dad" and be referring to the leader of one country actively planning and trying to execute and assassination attempt on the ex-president of another country.
So that being said, it was more than a personal vendetta. And while you're playing loosey goosey with the facts, we were still at war with Iraq. They were firing on our pilots in the no-fly zone. They were paying people $25k to blow themselves up in Israeli pizza parlors.
Oh... why bother... your kind doesn't care about what really was going on...
honu,
I grew up in MA, and saw Barney Frank for what he was long before there was a Fox News. So save the intellectual superiority stuff. If you understand the subprime mortgage issues like you understand Iraq, you have quite a bit of learning to do.
My kind?- I was there in the middle of it not relaxing in kuwait or qatar or whereever.
Ok then what was the reason? I sat in the BUA every morning and up to the 4 star level none if us knew. We did acknowledge that the civilian authorities sent us there and we had a mission to accomplish, but beyond that the reason for being there? all the way up to the top no one knew. was it saddam is a grave danger, was it saddam has WMD, was it we're here to lure all al-qaeda to Iraq so we can kill them, was it we're here to create a democracy in the middle east as an example to the neighbors, was it we need to fight them there so we dont have to fight them at home, was it etc etc etc.
the administration kept throwing one piece of b.s. after another against the wall to see what would stick. it would stick for a while, then fall, then they would throw another piece of b.s. face it, we (the military) got played, and the country is much worse off because of it.
you must be an educated person to serve in the military, and read this blog, and post on it.........do you really believe that barney frank, for all his faults (which are many) is completely responsible for the economic meltdown as hannity and rush claim? i know those are the talking points....but do you really believe that? i do not
I believe that Barney Frank is quite complicit in the affair. Is he solely responsible? Of course not. He drew attention to himself, however, like the Police Captain in Casablanca, by being among the loudest in trying to place blame. Frank is a socialist whose desire for government meddling knows no bounds. Has been his entire career in politics. And he isn't alone.
There are a great number of very educated people who believe that the mortgage mess happened not because of lack of regulation, but because of too much regulation of the wrong kind. The post-Enron mania for "doing something" produced an entirely inappropriate set of regulatory requirements that made many of the problems worse, and still are.
While there is too much for a comment block, the short version is that much of the "subprime" lending practices were not permitted until the Federal Government bullied lenders into a great many mortgages of questionable value because of threats by the CBC to haul them in front of Congress to explain their "racist" lending policies. In order to begin to get anywhere NEAR what was being demaned of them under the Fair Housing Act, subprime mortgages became the norm.
Below is from the HUD website: (Why isn't there a HSUD?)
<span>"Subprime Lending </span>
<span>Subprime loans play a significant role in today's mortgage lending market, making homeownership possible for many families who have blemished credit histories or who otherwise fail to qualify for prime, conventional loans. A recent HUD analysis, based on HMDA and related data, shows that the number of home purchase subprime applications increased from 327,644 in 1997 to 783,921 in 2000.
While the subprime mortgage market serves a legitimate role, these loans tend to cost more and sometimes have less advantageous terms than prime market loans. Additionally, subprime lenders are largely unregulated by the federal government. Data shows blacks are much more likely than whites to get a subprime loan"</span>
Don't believe it? HUD goes on to say:
<span>"HUD is committed to increasing homeownership opportunities for all Americans. HUD is engaged in a special effort to boost the minority homeownership rate since the rate for black and Hispanic Americans lags behind that of others" </span>
Ewok,
<span>"And I would feel more secure without Russian nukes around, even if that would mean no US nukes around."</span>
Were it our Chief Executive's Constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense of Poland, you might have a point. Exceot that I don't care how safe or unsafe you feel with Russian nukes. We are safer with ours, have been for six decades. We are foolish to give them up for any reason other than a more effective deterrent, which currently does not exist.
Post a Comment