Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on February 04, 2009, 06:44:41 PM
-
Content from the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and video from Telegraph TV.
By Jon Swaine
Last Updated: 1:05AM GMT 05 Feb 2009
Barack Obama has been hit by a series of set-back in his presidency Photo:
AP Mr Obama will move to open fresh arms reduction talks with Moscow and seek an agreement to cut the number of warheads to 1,000 each, according to The Times.
The two countries must have cut their stockpiles from about 10,000 to 5,000 by December under the 1991 US-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start).
Mr Obama promised to make the reduction of nuclear weapon numbers a priority of his presidency.
An unnamed administration official is reported to have told the newspaper: "We are going to re-engage Russia in a more traditional, legally binding arms reduction process.
"We are prepared to engage in a broader dialogue with the Russians over issues of concern to them. Nobody would be surprised if the number reduced to the 1,000 mark for the post-Start treaty."
A review of the Bush administration's plan for a missile defence shield in eastern Europe could be central to any deal between the countries.
Last week, Moscow shelved plans to install its own missiles near Poland after the White House signalled it would at least delay the system, which was due to be installed in the Czech Republic and Poland.
It is believed a decision to abandon the missile shield altogether could remove a key impediment to Russia's participation in new nuclear reduction talks.
___________________-
CONGRATULATIONS YOU MORONS WHO VOTED FOR THIS TRAITOR.
-
Great news. Most the world will be thrilled to see the only nation to ever drop the atomic, the nation that is always in perpetual war, the nation that has killed many, the nation that has and talked of more invasions of nations as they have WMD - to stop the nuke building themselves. The US has long expected to build a nuke arsenal while getting pissed when anyone else gets them.
"Defence" is a non issue - be real, USA is untouchable on large scale, this is a great move. Cessation of large scale murder is always good - no matter who is doing it.
Waiting to be flamed to death for this post now ;D
-
"MAD" worked very well and resulted in far fewer deaths than if it did not exist.
-
"MAD" worked very well and resulted in far fewer deaths than if it did not exist.
I'm betting it's safe to say that even with only 20% of our nukes, we could still take out the entire world.
-
I'm betting it's safe to say that even with only 20% of our nukes, we could still take out the entire world.
When China, Iran, India, France, Pakistan, et al all agree to go along with this /i would look at it. But to initiate this garbage with Russia alone seems not only reckless and insane, but sending a terrible message to our enemies.
This jerk really needs to read Sun Tzu.
He seems to have not realized he is the Commander in Chief yet.
-
I don't understand why anyone cares about this issue.
If we have enough nukes to kill every living thing on the earth, isn't that enough?
I mean, extra is just a waste of money, right?
If Obama said we should spend billions on extra "spare" anything, we'd call him a wasteful fool. Yet Bush spends that much on something spare that we'll never need, and it's patriotic?
-
You guys just don't get it - the guy with the biggest arsenal wins. How will those conservative church goers feel when they know the US has less weapons of mass destruction than our enemies - it brings a tear to my eye ... sorry ... i can't go on :'(
-
Great news. Most the world will be thrilled to see the only nation to ever drop the atomic, the nation that is always in perpetual war, the nation that has killed many, the nation that has and talked of more invasions of nations as they have WMD - to stop the nuke building themselves. The US has long expected to build a nuke arsenal while getting pissed when anyone else gets them.
"Defence" is a non issue - be real, USA is untouchable on large scale, this is a great move. Cessation of large scale murder is always good - no matter who is doing it.
Waiting to be flamed to death for this post now ;D
You seem to have a massive grudge with the USA and every single action it takes.
-
Great news. Most the world will be thrilled to see the only nation to ever drop the atomic, the nation that is always in perpetual war, the nation that has killed many, the nation that has and talked of more invasions of nations as they have WMD - to stop the nuke building themselves. The US has long expected to build a nuke arsenal while getting pissed when anyone else gets them.
"Defence" is a non issue - be real, USA is untouchable on large scale, this is a great move. Cessation of large scale murder is always good - no matter who is doing it.
Waiting to be flamed to death for this post now ;D
i like living in a free country, this country will be weak with your beliefs and the rest of you far left idots.
that's the only reason i picked mc caine because he would't let that happen. what is wrong with you people
there is so many radicials who want us killed.
-
i like living in a free country, this country will be weak with your beliefs and the rest of you far left idots.
If we have enough nukes to blow up the world/MAD at only 20% of today's stores...
why waste the $ to have 5 times that, just sitting in silos?
We'd never need them - experts agree on that.
it's just about funneling $ to the defense firms dude.
-
whoever is for cutting 80% of weapons is weak and probaly would run before they fought for freedom.
why do you think we are the strongest country in the world. tell obama we just can't sit down and sip tea
with these nuts
-
whoever is for cutting 80% of weapons is weak and probaly would run before they fought for freedom.
I don't understand that. You're not addressing my point.
If 20% is enough to adequately defend the USA, why would you waste the $ and go for 100%?
-
I don't understand that. You're not addressing my point.
If 20% is enough to adequately defend the USA, why would you waste the $ and go for 100%?
240 their not talking about building new weapons their talking about destroying 80% of
what we have, so lets say Russia has a 1000 warheads and we have 4000 warheads so
by destroying 80% that would leave us with 800, correct me if i'm wrong
-
240 their not talking about building new weapons their talking about destroying 80% of
what we have, so lets say Russia has a 1000 warheads and we have 4000 warheads so
by destroying 80% that would leave us with 800, correct me if i'm wrong
Right. And I'm saying that if 800 warheads is still way more than what's required to destory the planet - why spend the $ on more.
I'm not advocating going below MAD levels. I'm saying if you have 3000 nukes that would never be needed in a conflict, why waste the $?
-
240 is spot on here.
-
When China, Iran, India, France, Pakistan, et al all agree to go along with this /i would look at it. But to initiate this garbage with Russia alone seems not only reckless and insane, but sending a terrible message to our enemies.
This jerk really needs to read Sun Tzu.
He seems to have not realized he is the Commander in Chief yet.
What is with the hard-on you have these days for Sun Tzu?
-
I want nu-clear weapons for every hard working American in this great country of yours.
-
240 is spot on here.
Are you nuts? so you want other countries to have more warheads than us, go back to your little safe world.
if you far left wacko's had your way we would't be free, you probly believe in globle warming to? well it's 25 degrees
here in south florida.
-
What is with the hard-on you have these days for Sun Tzu?
I re-read the book the Art of War recently and know that what Obama is doing is not only projecting weakness, but is leading us to even worse disaster than GWB.
-
I'm betting it's safe to say that even with only 20% of our nukes, we could still take out the entire world.
Good point.
And I'm sure it will save the military lots of money to put into other projects - more elite tactical forces eg.
But as far as where the military would get the most bang for the buck, I really have little clue, I will admit.
But I fail to see how nuclear weapon capacity beyond a certain point would have any meaning.
-
Let's wait and see what our military thinks about this.
-
Its about getting ur birds out of the silo's before the other guy can hit u. If u have 20 nukes and the other guy has 20 and then u cut to 8 apiece...but he launches first...then u might not get to hit back. Further wrapped in this will be cuts for new and better weapons systems.
-
Stay strong USA, and don't listen to a bunch of cry babies
-
Good point.
And I'm sure it will save the military lots of money to put into other projects - more elite tactical forces eg.
But as far as where the military would get the most bang for the buck, I really have little clue, I will admit.
But I fail to see how nuclear weapon capacity beyond a certain point would have any meaning.
Correct. I just don't get when I hear:
so you want other countries to have more warheads than us
It doesn't matter who has 'more', as long as we have enough to eradicate them if need be.
-
Let's wait and see what our military thinks about this.
I agree.
I somehow think that once USA have "enough" nuclear power to destroy the world, wouldn't anti-nuclear tech be where it's at?
Like robot shields and shit?
-
I re-read the book the Art of War recently and know that what Obama is doing is not only projecting weakness, but is leading us to even worse disaster than GWB.
I don't get where you're going with things.
One minute you support cutting spending and oppose the bailout.
The next minute you don't want to cut spending in the military?
Didn't it occur to you somehow that if the budget is going to be fixed long term, spending has to be drastically cut EVERYWHERE?
-
I don't get where you're going with things.
One minute you support cutting spending and oppose the bailout.
The next minute you don't want to cut spending in the military?
Didn't it occur to you somehow that if the budget is going to be fixed long term, spending has to be drastically cut EVERYWHERE?
The government is supposed to have one main function - provide for the common defense of the nation.
Everything else is nonsense.
I am for cutting wasteful entitlement payoffs to special interest groups that are not provided for in the constitution.
The military is a constitutionally provided for use of taxpayer money.
Planned parenthood, Condoms, NEA, are not.
-
The government is supposed to have one main function - provide for the common defense of the nation.
Everything else is nonsense.
I am for cutting wasteful entitlement payoffs to special interest groups that are not provided for in the constitution.
The military is a constitutionally provided for use of taxpayer money.
Planned parenthood, Condoms, NEA, are not.
If you believe that, I think you need to re-read the Constitution, bro.
It clearly states, even in the pre-amble "We the People...promote the general Welfare... this Constitution"
BTW, this is not my opinion, I'm just getting it straight outta the Constitution.
You know that I would like to see the constitution frequently changed, something I think you blasted me for. 8)
-
If you believe that, I think you need to re-read the Constitution, bro.
It clearly states, even in the pre-amble "We the People...promote the general Welfare... this Constitution"
BTW, this is not my opinion, I'm just getting it straight outta the Constitution.
You know that I would like to see the constitution frequently changed, something I think you blasted me for. 8)
General welfare was never meant to include the socialism, feudulism, and collectivism that the founders fled from in Europe
-
General welfare was never meant to include the socialism, feudulism, and collectivism that the founders fled from in Europe
Says who?
Btw, you really need to check out the Constitution sometime.
It was written in 1776 - some 60 years before socialism even was starting to become a theory in the mind of Karl Marx.
So I kind of doubt that the founding fathers fled something that didn't even exist.
-
I think more of you should listen to Bill O'rielly and his book has been on the N.Y Times top
seller list for 16 weeks. (FOX NEWS)
CNBC has the two biggest non funny assholes on the air, Keith Olberman and that dike looking
one Maddow or something like that and there still talking about the same thing every night
as they did 6 months ago. I'd like to slap both of them.
Bottom line you can't call obama a leader he's a follower, in his 2 weeks of office he's proved that.
Just watch the news or listen to anyone with intelligence who knows his plan will not work and never will.
Screw the Democrates they been in the closet to long and now they want to spend money
on projects that won't help the economy, so i don't want to hear your bullshit maybe you
should watch TV and learn what's going on. Sorry most of you who voted for him don't.
Remember the Savage Nation will get you.
-
General welfare was never meant to include the socialism, feudulism, and collectivism that the founders fled from in Europe
Collectivism and Socialism were invented in the mid-19th century.
Feodalism is a totally different type of political theory.
Karl Marx and Bakunin were highly critical of feodalist societies.
-
Collectivism and Socialism were invented in the mid-19th century.
Feodalism is a totally different type of political theory.
Karl Marx and Bakunin were highly critical of feodalist societies.
But their flawed ideas resulted in the same garbage.
-
But their flawed ideas resulted in the same garbage.
Do you think it is written in the Constitution that the Government should have only one main function or is that a conclusion you landed at yourself, sport?
-
Do you think it is written in the Constitution that the Government should have only one main function or is that a conclusion you landed at yourself, sport?
no, read a history book fool. The government was never set up to be a cradle to grave entitlement welfare outfit.
-
Do you think it is written in the Constitution that the Government should have only one main function or is that a conclusion you landed at yourself, sport?
such a severe owning going on right now of this 3315844564564 idiot. He's a typical war hawk repub who thinks that everything a democrat does is wrong and everything a repub does is correct.
-
such a severe owning going on right now of this 3315844564564 idiot. He's a typical war hawk repub who thinks that everything a democrat does is wrong and everything a repub does is correct.
Keep rooting for Pelosi.
-
I'll keep my head in the sand
fixed
-
such a severe owning going on right now of this 3315844564564 idiot. He's a typical war hawk repub who thinks that everything a democrat does is wrong and everything a repub does is correct.
I am a libertarian fool. GWB was a disaster.
However, the liberals and Pelosi, and Obama are way worse!
-
no, read a history book fool. The government was never set up to be a cradle to grave entitlement welfare outfit.
Where did I write it was supposed "to be a cradle to grave entitlement welfare outfit"?
It was you who claimed that the government had one main function.
The government is supposed to have one main function - provide for the common defense of the nation.
Everything else is nonsense.
I am for cutting wasteful entitlement payoffs to special interest groups that are not provided for in the constitution.
The military is a constitutionally provided for use of taxpayer money.
Planned parenthood, Condoms, NEA, are not.
I never wrote anything about a cradle.
I just quoted the Constitution, where even in the pre-amble Welfare is mentioned.
We the People...promote the general Welfare... this Constitution
So now I am asking you, how did you get the idea that the Constitution would claim that the Government should have only one main function?
-when it's even pointed out in the pre-amble that there are other functions as well? ???
Honest question sport - have you read the US constitution?
-
Where did I write it was supposed "to be a cradle to grave entitlement welfare outfit"?
It was you who claimed that the government had one main function.
I never wrote anything about a cradle.
I just quoted the Constitution, where even in the pre-amble Welfare is mentioned.
We the People...promote the general Welfare... this Constitution
So now I am asking you, how did you get the idea that the Constitution would claim that the Government should have only one main function?
-when it's even pointed out in the pre-amble that there are other functions as well? ???
Honest question sport - have you read the US constitution?
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The obvious overwhelming function of government is to provide for defense, foreign and domestic, and not trample on our rights, not establish a welfare system that provides everything.
-
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The obvious overwhelming function of government is to provide for defense, foreign and domestic, and not trample on our rights, not establish a welfare system that provides everything.
So because it's not listed first it shouldn't be a priority and only those things first stated are????? Or did you only read this part
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
-
It flows better......but not any less important. Uncle Sam does waaaaay to much.
-
Thats all good but just take a listen to Glen Beck he tells it like it is. So before you say something
just watch his show once, that's all i ask. He's for the common man and dosen't play sides like
most of the media.