Why President Obama's Nuclear Weapons Policy Is Dangerous

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Bill Hedges of Mo, the worldwide want of weapons of mass destruction is hot because the scene seems to be "rule by force".
The public and certainly most or many politicians were convinced of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as you quote.. your point seems quite obscure though. What fight with reality concerns you? That's in reference to what.. you're less intelligible than your normal.. smile and accept improvements coming in the Ron Paul movement, you'll likely really feel better.
Long before disarming ourselves, we should take the lead in showing that first use of force is criminal between States [as clearly as it is between individuals]. A job title doesn't give anyone the right to kill, and especially when innocent people get hit by weapons used.. more than the soldiers of various 'sides' do.
It's time for a better world fella.. technology renders it a bit urgent..
Ron Paul for President 2012~

John of NY 12:42AM April 29, 2012

JOHN, don't fight reality...
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Bill Hedges of MO 8:32PM April 28, 2012

Like Teddy Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Create an atmosphere of non threat, trade and cooperation. Discourage people from wanting more and better arms by showing they won't be attacked.
Keep that big stick at hand. It's insane to weaken yourself if you intend peace with all your neighbors.
Keep strong and don't bother anyone, and no one will bother you. It's a jungle out there ;) A jungle of smart 'nation-states'.
Peace through Strength.
Ron Paul 2012~

John of NY 5:03PM April 28, 2012

Why not just get it over with and nuke Canada? Surely it would send a message to the rest of the world that, if we're prepared to do that to our closest neighbor and ally, what would stop us from doing the same to them? Oh, that's right - "W" isn't President anymore and we actually have a reasonably intelligent leader now. Oh well. How about Iceland? What's the use of having those nukes if you're not going to use them - idiot!? All of these other other countries are able to hold everyone hostage by possessing a small handful of them, and here's a moron saying that over a thousand is dangerous and a blemish on Obama for wanting to reduce the threat. No doubt which side of the fence this moron resides on is there?

Thomas Crickenberger of CA 3:58PM April 28, 2012

WhyAredumblicansSoDumb of CO _ buma FOR Afghanistan war...
Democrats were talking war in Iraq long before Bush. UN and other countries joined us:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

Bill Hedges of MO 1:53AM April 28, 2012

Hale. Bush and the dumblicans got us into two meaningless wars that nearly bankrupted us. Besides getting a lot of people killed for nothing. And you are worried about Obama? Where have you been. Under a rock.

WhyAredumblicansSoDumb of CO 1:13AM April 28, 2012

It's not Obama we should be afraid of, nor the nukes, but the kooks in the Republican Party!

qwerty of WA 7:33PM April 27, 2012

A little background on why Obama's Russia policy is like this:
http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/339396_re-insight-the-dems-and-dirty-tricks-internal-use-only-pls.html

Ira 5:32PM April 27, 2012

I hardly think one can caategorize India and Pakistan as "nuclear powers." Yes, they have some level of nuclear capability, but does it approach anyway near 1550? Perhaps, one could argue that their "power" is relative to others in their region, but I feel safe knowing we can still scorch their earth should they choose to do something stupid while the same cannot be said for them.

T Ganski of FL 3:58PM April 27, 2012