• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Compromises National Defense

Read the intro and vote accordingly

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
Perhaps, but it is rather idiotic to spend money on that when the most likely use of a nuclear weapon against the US will be by smuggling in through the ports or across the border.

It's cheaper just to work with the Russians to eliminate the nukes in the first place and we get relatively cheap MOX out of it.

Bush deserves to be criticized for decades for his failure to do just that.


:lol: since we want to talk about past presidents. You forgot Clinton


Perhaps if we were the Swiss yes. However, the ability to suppress a 2nd strike capacity from a potential target is indeed offensive. The tool that eliminates MAD is offensive in nature. A shield that is designed to destroy an enemy's shield has moved from the defensive use into the offensive.



This is dumb. What you don't understand about BMDO could surpass any battery shield system..... :lol:
 
A defensive measure in the backyard of a great power. Hardly the best idea to serve stability and national security. Unless you are willing to go to war and crush Russia and think it is easily worth then it is a silly idea. Otherwise it is not in your national interest and is a silly liberal ideological game.

How would you like it is Russia, or China or the EU, installed such a thing in central America?



Didn't they do somehing like that before? ;)
 
We certainly have less of a stake in the affairs of Europe, Israel, and the Middle East than Europe, Israel, and the Middle East do. :roll:

Again, these are not poor countries who are completely dependent on us. They could build this thing if they wanted to. It's ridiculous to conclude that WE need this boondoggle for OUR national interests, when even the countries at risk aren't willing to pay for it.

Spoken like a true isolationist ostrich. :notlook:

I suppose it wasn't in our national interests to protect West Germany during the Cold War either, right? Or France during WWII. They were all the way over in Europe, after all...since geographical distance and wealth are apparently the only two factors that should determine our involvement. :roll:
 
Didn't they do somehing like that before? ;)

Your right there. Although it is often forgotten that at the exact same time as the Cuban thing the US was trying to install its missiles in Turkey. Man it would have saved a lot of worry if neither had even bothered.
 
Last edited:
Your right there. Although it is often forgotten that at the exact same time as the Cuban thing the US was trying to install its missiles in Turkey. Man it would have saved a lot of worry if neither had even bothered.



True, but such is not reality.....
 
Spoken like a true isolationist ostrich. :notlook:

I suppose it wasn't in our national interests to protect West Germany during the Cold War either, right? Or France during WWII. They were all the way over in Europe, after all...since geographical distance and wealth are apparently the only two factors that should determine our involvement. :roll:

The difference is that West Germany lacked the ability to protect itself during the Cold War, and France lacked the ability to protect itself during WWII. Europe and Israel today have the ability to build this ridiculous boondoggle themselves, if they want to.

And calling me an isolationist is patently ridiculous, as I am more of a globalist than 90% of the people on this forum...including you.
 
:lol: since we want to talk about past presidents. You forgot Clinton

You speak far too often of things you know little to nothing about.

Care to look up how the CTR was enacted? Guess who signed that larger bill? It wasn't HW or his offspring.

Furthermore, did Clinton ever try to de-fund the CTR? Bush certainly tried to.

Again, you speak far too often of things you know little to nothing about.

This is dumb. What you don't understand about BMDO could surpass any battery shield system..... :lol:

Why is it dumb? Do you not understand the concept of 2nd strike capabilities in the greater scheme of MAD? Without 2nd strike, there is no deterrence. Without deterrence one can freely use nuclear weapons. As stated before and as you ignored again, a shield designed to destroy an enemy shield is offensive.

Saying something is dumb and then completely failing to address why it is dumb is a poor method of argumentation.

In the future, please predicate your arguments with a disclaimer of "I say so." It will help new users in understanding how you argue.
 
I suppose it wasn't in our national interests to protect West Germany during the Cold War either, right? Or France during WWII.
Pubby. This is 2009. Circumstance and national interests always change and evolve. Who could have imagined in 1964 that most Warsaw Pact nations would someday be NATO members?
 
Pubby. This is 2009. Circumstance and national interests always change and evolve. Who could have imagined in 1964 that most Warsaw Pact nations would someday be NATO members?

Vague, irrelevant generalities. :shrug:

None of this refutes the point being made-that America's interests don't stop at our shores.
 
The difference is that West Germany lacked the ability to protect itself during the Cold War, and France lacked the ability to protect itself during WWII. Europe and Israel today have the ability to build this ridiculous boondoggle themselves, if they want to.

Our European "allies" had the capability to stand up to Hitler early on and prevent much of what happened, but, being the visionless European cowards they are, they chose the Carter-Clinton-Obama route of surrender and appeasement until it was too late.

If we wait to find out whether or not our European "allies" have finally learned from history for once, which they never do (see Spain's reaction to al Qaida attacks, the entire continent's grovel and cower strategy for appeasing Iran, etc.), it will be too late and Russia will be strong-arming their way into unacceptable dominance over Europe, and Israel will be forced into an unnecessary confrontation with Iran.

Weakness begets aggression.

Mark my words, surrendering missile defense will be the way Democrats create the next international crisis.

And calling me an isolationist is patently ridiculous, as I am more of a globalist than 90% of the people on this forum...including you.

Don't make isolationist arguments if you don't want to be correctly identified as having taken an isolationist position. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom