Monday, February 20, 2012

As Obama Disarms America, Axis Accelerates Arms Race


That was in 2008.


Today...


Obama Getting Rid of Much of America's Nuclear Deterrent

This as China has tons of nukes, North Korea has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, Russia has many nukes, and Iran will have nukes.

And don't forget that totalitarian, Communist China has been amassing her global destructiveness capabilities for many years, at a pace reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's.



Why is Obama doing this?  Committing America to suicide by weakening her deterrent?

That... and he's chopping the national defence budget overall by nearly a trillion dollars per annum.

Now... Russia is accelerating its spending on her military, aiming for military superiority.



Shit.  Obama must go.  Absolutely.  Sure, insane "progressives" obviously love what Obama's doing, but such is the nature of insanity.


24 comments:

glacierman said...

The Manchurian Order Taker is right on track with the wishes and plans of his Overlords.

Nothing to see here; Move along...

Consilium - Aarluk - Stonecircle said...

You guys really DON'T read the stuff you link to, do you? You just look for a couple of scary words, spin it into paranoid drivel, and move on.

Read it again, children. This article refers to a range of scenarios developed internally by the Pentagon. There has been no decision.

As for Obama's call for disarmament options: uh, he's carrying on the work begun by Ronald Reagan, who called in 1984 for massive disarmament with the goal of establishing a nuclear free world.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Nothing to see here, riiiiight.

Propagandist Consilium is right. Do not look at the evidence and do not think for yourself.

There is nothing wrong with disarming America whilst totalitarian, murderous regimes arm-up at a pace unseen since the Third Reich, Imperial Japan and the Cold War...

(Nice spin, Consilium. Very masterful. Transparent to the keener of us, though).

Canadian Sentinel said...

Ronald Reagan, by the way, didn't slash the military budget. In fact, he ratcheted up spending and the end result was military superiority over all other nations and empires. This is how he beat the Soviets and won the Cold War, though the Cold War did continue, albeit in a non-military way. Unfortunately, thanks to the International "Progressive" Movement, the Axis has again risen and the Free World is in the process of weakening its defensive abilities. This is dangerous.

Don't listen to Consilium. Consilium is part of the International "Progressive" Movement and a threat to human safety and security in the Free World because he wants us to pretend all's well as belligerent regimes the world over amass their weapons of mass destruction as we reduce ours and surrender military superiority to those who wish to take over the world by whatever means they see fit, including mass murder on a global scale.

Canadian Sentinel said...

And don't just consider what is said. Often it sounds benign and reasonable, but when one looks at what Obama has being DOING, one sees that his words are a gross, deceptive, soothing UNDERSTATEMENT.

Look at what Obama does. And compare it to what anti-human-rights, anti-freedom, anti-democracy, murderous regimes do.

Particularly in terms of building national militaries.

And you will be chilled.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Consilium wants you to ignore the big, complex picture and focus on the little pictures in isolation thereto.

Don't fall for his deceptive manipulation.

That is how the propagandists manipulate the masses. They tell us soothing things to relax us so we won't feel motivated by survival instinct to really look at all details, use our logical brains and put the pieces of the puzzle together to see the WHOLE picture.

Nice ploy, Consilium, focusing on, I believe you were thinking about, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Ah, but that's a tiny political thing, and who would've trusted the enemy anyway? ;)

Canadian Sentinel said...

Peace through strength was Reagan's motto.

Trying to appease the enemy by showing inferiority and weakness and vulnerablity is Obama's assigned agenda.

I prefer Reagan's philosophy, because, hey, history proves that evil regimes cannot be appeased by anything other than total surrender, submission, etc... but even then they may STILL choose to murder us if they hate us regardless of what we DO. Refer to the Holocaust in the History books to see what I mean. The Jews surrendered to Hitler and he attempted to eradicate them anyway. The Islamists cleansed their nations of non-Muslims, submission or not.

Canadian Sentinel said...

By the way, Obama is engaging in UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT.

This is treasonous.

He will fail.

Canadian Sentinel said...

That's one thing the communists want for America: Unilateral disarmament.

They want us to believe it's morally good to do so.

Just one of the, ah, what was it, 43 Communist Goals for America, as viewable in the Congressional Record...

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Canadian Sentinel said...

Ah, it's 45 goals. Do visit the link and be shocked at how many are already achieved since 1963 and how many are actually underway as we speak.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

balbulican said...

Wow. Eight responses, not one of which rebuts my points. But that's how you roll, my friend: the less capable you are of refuting a point, the more noise you make.

So to return to my point:

a) Sentinel's claim "Obama Getting Rid of Much of America's Nuclear Deterrent" is a fib. His article refers to a range of Pentagon recommendations which will be considered by the Government as a whole.

b) Reagan called for a world free of nuclear weapons.

(Let's see if that prompts another fifteen sputtering comments without substance) :)

Canadian Sentinel said...

Too busy right now to deal with trolls...

Anyone feel free to deal with Consilium/Balbulican if they wish.

He actually believes that Obama doesn't want to reduce America's nuclear weapons arsenal significantly, while planning to make no further such weapons. As the stockpile ages, some will become inoperable, so to get rid of thousands of these warheads as the remaining ones age and become perhaps inoperable over time, as the enemy makes new ones... this is unacceptable.

∞ ≠ ø said...

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/12/morning-bell-obama-is-no-reagan-on-nuclear-strategy/
Reagan knew that to eliminate the need for large nuclear arsenals, you must first start to eliminate the dependence — both ours and others’ — on massive nuclear attack as the guarantor of security. That is why Reagan’s first priority was to build up U.S. conventional forces and introduce missile defense. That allowed his negotiators to approach arms control agreements from a position of strength.

President Obama has done the exact opposite. He has cut our national defense, including acquisition of the F-22, removed missile defense installations in Eastern Europe, and cut missile defense development programs. His lawyer-like NPR weakens America’s deterrence credibility by broadcasting our intention not to respond in kind if we are hit by weapons of mass destruction. And his New START agreement not only clearly links our missile defense shield with Russian missile reduction, but it also limits our own conventional weapons capabilities as well.


Of course Reagan called for a world free of nuclear weapons, but he never weakened our position. The current leftist tripe is to quote Reagan's nuclear abolitionist phrases and ignore reduction strategy, and that's plain fecking stupidity.

Also, this is not coming from the Pentagon. The orders to reduce are from the president. Directives include:
Reduce the target categories
Reduce requirement for warhead damage expectancy in strike options
Reduce options
Remove requirement plan for prompt launch of nuclear weapons
Remove requirement to plan for damage-limitation strikes
Limit role to deter nuclear attack
Limit or end counter-force and force-on-force war-fighting planning
Limit posture to secure retaliatory capability

Source: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/publications1/Brief2012_DeterrenceSummit.pdf
These policies are not sane. These policies are either those of a lunatic or those of a saboteur.

balbulican said...

" Too busy right now to deal with trolls..."

Translation: "Mommy, mommy, help...someone come rescue me - again..."

:)

∞ ≠ ø said...

Heh, who's cryin' now?
Sentinel's assertion stands.
Your fabricated rebuttal bled out before the shot was even heard.

Somehow I find that fitting.


...and now. Powwww!

Canadian Sentinel said...

For me... what Infin said.

Couldn't have said it better.

Infin kicks Balbulican's ass. Petulant Balbulican helplessly mutters irrelevant poop.

Ok now, gotta work... I owe, I owe, therefore off to work I gooooooo...

balbulican said...

"For me... what Infin said. Ok now, gotta work"

ROTLMAO.

"Mommy, mommy! Help! Somebody rescue me!"

As far as Squiggles goes, Sentinel, I adopted my Patrick Ross strategy some months ago when his trolling started getting a little too sexually creepy - I don't read his comments.

Sorry, son, you'll have to man up and try to think for yourself.

Canadian Sentinel said...

"Son"? Sorry, but I'm not your "son".

Ok, Gramps... so why don't you show respect for commentor Infin and address what he put forth?

Or have you surrendered on the substantial points made?

Canadian Sentinel said...

By the way, Gramps, is this you...?

http://www.youdressweird.com/facebookview.php?id=813

Sure looks a lot like your avatar...

∞ ≠ ø said...

Ha!

As for the "strategy", that can be found here.
http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-video/418724.jpg

....wait for it....

∞ ≠ ø said...

Now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoTA9PfSp1g

balbulican said...

"Ok, Gramps... so why don't you show respect for commentor Infin and address what he put forth? Or have you surrendered on the substantial points made?"

I'm sorry, did you miss my last message? I don't read Squiggles' responses: I found his weird sexual taunting quite offensive (and I was a bit surprised you allowed it). Glacierman and yourself generally argue with civility and in good faith; squiggles doesn't, and doesn't interest me. So I don't read him.

Sorry, son: you need to man up and defend the ideas you put forward without whining or retreating when you're caught in a fib or mistake.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Ain't no fib nor mistake.

People can see that for themselves, if they already have, or should they choose to do their own research into what's going on, and decide not to just go by what Balbulican says.

balbulican said...

Absolutely. Dig for the facts behind the story, and make sure what you're being told - here or on website - is accurate.

I know you believe that sincerely, and that's why I'll continue to help you with the accuracy of your posts. Don't thank me - I'm happy to help.