| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:04 pm Post subject: Michelle Bachmann RE: Obama's Nuclear Retaliation Policy |
 |
|
Article here.
| Quote: |
| "So if in fact there is a nation who is compliant with all the rules ahead of time...if they fire against the United States, a biological weapon, a chemical weapon, or maybe a cyber attack, then we aren't going to be firing back with nuclear weapons," said Bachmann. "Doesn't that make us all feel safe?" |
Frankly yes, it does make me feel safe knowing that our nation won't start a nuclear exchange over a cyber attack.
What's with this woman? She's called for the media to investigate members of Congress for having "un-American views." She's tried her best to stir up fear about the census (though she seems to have shut up about this after it was pointed out to her that Minnesota is at risk of losing a seat in the House of Representatives if enough people don't return their census data, and the one most likely to be lost is hers), which is a fairly anti-Constitutional position to take. She seems to think an appropriate response to a cyber attack is nuclear retaliation.
This is rubbish I'd expect to hear from an insane right-wing blogger, not an elected representative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is exactly the reason I'm more interested in American politics rather than British politics. You guys are so fun! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pr1ncejeffie
Joined: 07 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I hope she loses that seat. I just want to see what she says AFTER she loses that seat.... she will blame every un-American democrat for torpedoing her. I hope there are some wicked people that would go around her district and tell them not to sign the census form because your genius Rep. Bachmann told you not to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The policy states that any country not in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty can be nuked (excluding our buddy, I'm sure). Given that the only country at risk of being nuked is therefore excluded (by lies) I do not think Hope and Change really showed that he has nuts.
Hey, neat story. Obama's campaign finance director is now the head of AIPAC. True story. Look it up.
If Israel wants genocide in Iran the ignorant goyim will give it to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama said:
| Quote: |
| "The United States is declaring that we will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations," the President pledged. |
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35440.html
Oh, good. Thanks Barry.
Last edited by mises on Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The policy states that any country not in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty can be nuked (excluding our buddy, I'm sure). Given that the only country at risk of being nuked is therefore excluded (by lies) I do not think Hope and Change really showed that he has nuts. |
It would be nuts, as you say, to threaten a fellow democracy with nuclear annihilation. But the policy as Obama worded it protects states that are party to, and in compliance with, the NPT. That's not exactly coddling Israel, which is not a party to the NPT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It would be nuts, as you say, to threaten a fellow democracy with nuclear annihilation. |
It is nuts to threaten anybody with nuclear annihilation. And there is a risk, not insignificant, that there will be a nuclear strike in the near future. It won't be Iran pushing Israel into the sea:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece
| Quote: |
| That's not exactly coddling Israel, which is not a party to the NPT. |
Israel is the only party seriously and openly discussing the use of nuclear weapons in an unprovoked aggressive attack.
Anyways, Bachmann is completely nuts. She's like Palin but more sure of herself and war mongering. The American policy should be to use nuclear weapons only as a response to a nuclear attack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/flanking-the-right-on-nuclear-policy/38563/
| Quote: |
| Ponder the highlights of the Nuclear Posture Review, and you can't help but wonder: is there all that much that Republicans can complain about? Obama embraces the concept of missile defense as a deterrent against aggression in Europe (albeit as a way of reducing the reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent); his budget spends billions to modernize the nuclear stockpile; he did not significantly change America's so-called "declaratory policy" about when it will use nukes, and he resisted pressure from his left to make any bold unilateral concessions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bachmann's eyes creep me out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
