Oh hell yes, am I ever a fan of nuclear disarmament!

Kinda wish he had used a different word then "eliminate" near the end there.

Words must mean something.

Perhaps something that was not synonymous in meaning with words like "annihilate" or "murder" might have been a better choice? The last thing we need is for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to feel like he actually needs nuclear weapons to protect his country from the same force presently invading two of his neighbours...

Coming from a guy wielding around 15.000 nuclear bombs, somewhat hypocritical.

No strike that, EXTREMELY hypocritical.

"Coming from a guy wielding around 15.000 nuclear bombs, somewhat hypocritical.
No strike that, EXTREMELY hypocritical."

Actually, no. You should have seen the whole speech, he started by announcing new missile proliferation talks with russia, reducing the weapon stockpiles, USA ratification of the nuclear weapon testing band and a serious effort to move to a world without nuclear weapons. (including a remark which was something like: i'm not naive, this takes years, and probably won't happen in my lifetime)

obama makes little czech girls vaginas tingle. words must mean something

*military

Adding video to channels (Military) - requested by calvados.

>> ^paul4dirt:
"Coming from a guy wielding around 15.000 nuclear bombs, somewhat hypocritical.
No strike that, EXTREMELY hypocritical."
Actually, no. You should have seen the whole speech, he started by announcing new missile proliferation talks with russia, reducing the weapon stockpiles, USA ratification of the nuclear weapon testing band and a serious effort to move to a world without nuclear weapons. (including a remark which was something like: i'm not naive, this takes years, and probably won't happen in my lifetime)


"On 11 October 1986, Gorbachev and Reagan met in Reykjavík, Iceland to discuss reducing intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe. To the immense surprise of both men's advisers, the two agreed in principle to removing INF systems from Europe and to equal global limits of 100 INF missile warheads. They also essentially agreed in principle to eliminate all nuclear weapons in 10 years (by 1996)"

Same shit, different day.

Also, why doesn't he object to Israel already having quite a few of them? And why does he support one of the biggest violator of UN resolutions in the world?

If that's not being a hypocrite, I have no idea what the word means.

North Korea broke the rules (imposed upon it by the western world).

Iran has a choice to make (do as you're told, or else).

Obama: same establishment tool, different packaging.

If only keitholbermann was here to defend his master's decision. I guess NetRunner will have to do.

Iran and N. Korea aren't direct threats to us. Do they have 700+ bases in 130 countries around the world? No. We do. I'm tried of this self-righteous, egomaniacal sense of entitlement as if we are the chosen nation to lead the rest of the world. Why can't sovereign nations be just that without us telling them how sovereign they can or cannot be?

Screw this guy, and screw his atrociously egotistical foreign interventionist policies. He's not my president.

You're right. Let's not make an issue out of North Korea testing what is the same platform for an ICBM. These are friendly people who are just trying to make their way in this crazy world and the fact that they throw missiles over our allies borders or can reach them or us with a nuke is no big deal. Who are we to say anything?! After all we have nukes that can reach anywhere on Earth, everyone should, right? We don't run the world!

There is no question that North Korea would be responsible and put forth the resources that we do to secure their nuclear arsenal in case of accidental launch. They have a good leader who only is concerned for the welfare of his people. Of course they wouldn't sell this technology to terrorists or nation states that would do us or our allies harm. They have no history of that right?

And because Obama hasn't immediately legalized pot, of course he can't be trusted. Ergo, everything he says is now a lie. I mean, so far he has done exactly what he promised, which was to end the Federal raids on medical marijuana clinics, but that huge step in this short amount of time just isn't enough. He should be smoking a bong on the White House lawn with a fucking tambourine in his hand.

Obama is a fucking hypocrite. He might as well have built the god damn bombs we have and even though he is humble before the world and asking for cooperation internationally (in a way that we haven't seen for at least 8 years) so that we might remove the threat of these weapons from all nations .. he should be judged not by his own actions .. but by Reagan .. and everyone else before him .. and until he gets his lying ass down into the silos and disables every nuke himself this is all just bullshit propaganda.

Thanks for opening my eyes.

^I'm sorry, did Iran or N. Korea attack us? Sorry, I missed it in the news. When did that happen again?

How stupid is that?
There is no danger when someone points a gun at you.
I mean .. I missed it in the news where someone pulled a trigger.

^No, you're the most intelligent person on the site, burdy, we all know that. How did that Siftquisition of UsesProzac work out for you agian? Oh right. Sensitive subject.

If Iran and N. Korea were "pointing" their nukes at us, I'm sure we wouldn't know, because they DON'T work like a gun where you simply point and shoot. So to further embolden your ingenious analogy, a gun in your face is a direct threat whereas a nuke pointed at your face is ridiculously preposterous.

He calls Poland and the Czech Republic courageous for holding missile silos for the USA. How is that different to Khrushchev calling Castro courageous for holding missiles for them?

Russia have already declared that they see this as a direct threat, and why wouldn't they?

If Obama continues with Bush policies and objectives, then Obama is just as bad as Bush.

>> ^blankfist:
^No, you're the most intelligent person on the site, burdy, we all know that. How did that Siftquisition of UsesProzac work out for you agian? Oh right. Sensitive subject.
If Iran and N. Korea were "pointing" their nukes at us, I'm sure we wouldn't know, because they DON'T work like a gun where you simply point and shoot. So to further embolden your ingenious analogy, a gun in your face is a direct threat whereas a nuke pointed at your face is ridiculously preposterous.


Personal attacks on me make your arguments have more weight. I'm still learning. Thank you again. You brought up UsesProzac .. I'm so sad about that because my siftquisition of her resulted in her not being here at all and making no posts at all and I haven't heard a single fucking thing since and that's how that worked out but yes I am all broken up about it. Of course .. comparing some internet drama versus global nuclear war is always a sign of intelligence.

Your insight into how Iran and North Korea have placed rigorous controls over their weapons gives me a lot to think about. The former Soviet Union once had such great controls but their superpower status fell and fissionable material was being lost by the pallet. North Korea however is in much stronger shape and their government has obviously made the commitment to containing this danger instead of spreading it.

Right?

edit .. Oh wait .. I missed that you might be serious when you said we can't know when nukes can target us .. that's funny. You weren't serious were you? We knew they were "testing" this piece of shit before they even launched it.

^God, you're so fat and ugly! And your breath smells like cheap wine and assholes!

Yes, we knew they were testing this rocket beforehand because our amazing technology can go into their computer inner workings and detect any dubious activity such as firing off a rocket. Genius. Nailed it.

So, what was your point? That the Soviets sold off their nuclear material, so that is reason for us to be so fearful of Iran and N. Korea that we must preemptively stop them from doing the same thing? I don't get your logic here. Please explain, sir.

What he's trying to say is that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and plans to use them. They have rockets that can reach the east coast of the United States in 60 minutes.

Oh wait, forgot to replace old lie with new lie.

Please decide which thing you need explained further (or refuse to understand) because I'm bored arguiing in circles.

Iran and N. Korea aren't direct threats to us.

How did that Siftquisition of UsesProzac work out for you agian? Oh right. Sensitive subject

God, you're so fat and ugly!

Honestly .. if you want to just keep sounding off like the attention desperate asshole we all know you to be there's no point in having any kind of adult dialog with you.

^Your face looks like Stephen Hawking's sac after being scrunched against his sweaty legs all day. Sorry, the personal attacks are just too fun with you.

I don't know what you're arguing for or against, to be honest. You brought something up about the Soviets and I was trying to get clarification is all.

That's great. When you figure out what the question is let me know.

I know you're not a thick guy. I was asking for clarification on this:

"Your insight into how Iran and North Korea have placed rigorous controls over their weapons gives me a lot to think about. The former Soviet Union once had such great controls but their superpower status fell and fissionable material was being lost by the pallet. North Korea however is in much stronger shape and their government has obviously made the commitment to containing this danger instead of spreading it."

When did I ever elude to Iran and N. Korea having rigorous control over their weapons or not. Strawman? I'm not sure what you are driving at here.

No I'm not thick, but I'm not going to be spoken to like a fucking imbecile either. Don't mention strawman bullshit after bringing up UsesProzac and other nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Here's your clarification Kieth,

You say they are no threat to us. Well, that must mean they have strict, rigorous controls. And ways to provide continuity of those controls in the event of a change in leadership. Any "nuclear nation" that doesn't have it's shit in order is a threat to the entire world. OBVIOUSLY North Korea isn't fit to even feed it's people or keep the fucking lights on let alone manage a nuclear stockpile. That is a threat to everyone.

You made ridiculous statements about them not "pointing" their nukes at us. Also, that we wouldn't know if we were threatened by nukes from them. Where do you get these opinions from? They have detonated a nuclear weapon. They can reach Japan easily. Japan is our ally and we are sworn to defend them. Explain to me what you don't get here. If those missiles were launched over Florida would it be different to you?

Why do you support North Korea having nukes that can reach the US? Why do you want Japan and our other allies to be threatened with missile attack? Why do you hate America? Why do you create sock puppet accounts for attention?

>> ^burdturgler:
And because Obama hasn't immediately legalized pot, of course he can't be trusted. Ergo, everything he says is now a lie. I mean, so far he has done exactly what he promised, which was to end the Federal raids on medical marijuana clinics, but that huge step in this short amount of time just isn't enough.


It's hardly a huge step, and they've already busted one clinic in S.F. that we know of.

And I don't see how North Korea or Iran are a threat to anybody if we would just leave them the fuck alone and, yes, start working with them instead of antagonizing them at every turn.

Are they angels? No. Are our current policies making them weaker or stronger? Stronger, obviously.

The only reason America keeps fucking with them is because they refuse to roll over on their backs and play dead, because we have to maintain corporate control over every square inch of the world, apparently.

Guantanamo is still open, isn't it?

Most of Bush's signing statements regarding eavesdropping are still in place, aren't they?

As a candidate and a senator, Mr. Obama was a strong backer of whistleblower protections. But as president, he issued a signing statement reserving the right to keep whistleblowers from talking to Congress in cases where their communications would be unlawful or “otherwise confidential.” The White House says previous presidents have used similar language, but critics say Mr. Obama’s phrase — “otherwise confidential” — gives him broad authority.
(New York Times)

Yeah, that's sure good for the country: muzzle the whisleblowers some more.

I'm so sad to see the posts you make lately rougy.
Gitmo is still open? Fuck. It's unreal how impatient you are.
Can't just open the gates and hand everyone a blank check for 1st class airfare anywhere you want to go.
He closed the fucking thing. Give it time. Didn't get here overnight.

>> ^burdturgler:
I'm so sad to see the posts you make lately rougy.
Gitmo is still open? Fuck. It's unreal how impatient you are.
Can't just open the gates and hand everyone a blank check for 1st class airfare anywhere you want to go.
He closed the fucking thing. Give it time. Didn't get here overnight.


It is not closed, and even that is irrelevant if we merely move the prisoners to another camp and continue to hold them without charge.

I'm sorry to have to be this way, too, but the Obama I'm seeing is not the one I was promised during the election.

I might be wrong, but that's the way it's looking. He's going to be more of the same.

It's closed. No other person will be brought there. They are working to get everyone out. It will take time. We aren't getting much help. France just offered to take one person. Thanks, France.

You are getting exactly what you were promised, just the wheels turn a lot slower than you or I would like. But that's how it is. Shit is complicated. The wheels are moving in the right direction and that is the promise we were given. Not instant results.

I think boiling water needs to simmer down. Sorry if again the UsesProsac thing bothers you, but come on, calm down. It's all in good fun, no? You are not ugly, your breath doesn't smell like assholes, and your face does not look like Stephen Hawking's testicles. I don't even know what you look like, and even if I did that would be a ridiculous comparison, no?

And, I said N. Korea and Iran aren't a direct threat to us. I didn't say they are "no threat". Still, they're a sovereign country, and what right would we have to tell them they cannot protect themselves? I get it if they were doing something that would ruin our earth's atmosphere or destroy all life on the planet earth, but it's a bit arrogant to be a nation with superior nuclear power and tell a less powerful nation whether they can or cannot be trusted with nukes.

Kim Jong Il (Or as I like to call him, 'em dongs ill!) may be maniacal and willing to use nuclear force against the world, but so could Gordon Brown or Jalal Talabani or even our precious Obama. My point is who are we to tell N. Korea or Iran what they can and cannot do to protect themselves if it's not merely fear-based preemption?

That's like hobbling someone on the Sift because you suspect they may be capable of discarding their own videos. Lunacy.

Yeah! Authority sucks! F U Obama! Hey guys, screw this guy. Let's go put on some black eye shadow and write poems about how our souls are stinging from the eternal dread of the maddening slumber of the great oppressive overseer.

Guys?

^Sure thing, captain prepositional phrase! Let's do it! YEEEEHAAAA!

This discussion is stupid. (not you, burdturgle)

It's like watching Alex Jones and Arianna Huffington argue about who's side the black helicopters are on.

^Which side are the black helicopters on?

^ FEMA and the CFR

^Holy shit!