Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (521560)	10/18/2009 4:44:13 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580603

Given nuclear proliferation and other dangers of the modern world, if the human species does not come together as one species living on the planet earth our children are doomed. Which is why your politics are so dangerous. We've heard this before. But nuclear proliferation is an inherently liberal result. Since you seem to lack even the most basic understanding of history, please consider the following. Note that MAD was a liberal initiative, promulgated by McNamara. Carter later modified it with the "Countervailing Strategy", the idea that we wouldn't necessarily take out all the Soviet cities, it being adequate to take out only the leadership. MAD by another name. Under MAD, we got a nuclear Pakistan which resulted directly in India developing nuclear weapons, as well as the wholesale distribution of nuclear weapons capability to the highest bidders, including both Libya and Iran. Ronald Reagan recognized, well before his election, that the policy of MAD was insane. In one of the most important speeches of the century, Reagan asked the simple question: "Would it not be better to save lives than to avenge them?" Something that never occurred to the Left. Reagan set about ending proliferation through STRENGTH, not weakness. So, Reagan ended, for a time, the threat of proliferation as we knew it. Suddenly, the Left didn't give a shit about it anymore. Bush 41 took it a step further, by acting, behind the scenes, to eliminate the threat from proliferation of weapons from the busted-up USSR. Then came Clinton. Clinton did what? Entered into the INSANE Agreed Framework with DPRK, which resulted in giving nuclear weapons to an insane person for whom MAD means nothing. A policy of nuclear appeasement that led to further distribution of nuclear technologies, for sale to the highest bidder. Other than Reagan, GWB is the only president to actually make a difference in reducing the threat of nuclear weapons. The common thread is they both used American power -- not weakness -- to do so. GWB eliminated Libya's nuclear programs -- a direct result of the Iraq War. His withdrawal from the ABM Treaty was executed with sheer genius. And while he failed to get rid of CBTB, he did keep it from being ratified. Already, Obama has put us on a course to re-endanger the United States. He has said he will get CBTB ratified, which would be an insane act. His weakness on any anti-missile defense is worse than insane, it is an abrogation of his most basic responsibility to inhibit foreign governments from proliferating. Most importantly, Obama is taking the course of further "Agreed Framework"-styled appeasement which quite obviously means a nuclear Iran. Already, we see Qaddaffi acting out again, and it is only a matter of time, if Obama has his way, until he is back in the business of seeking nuclear weapons. AQ Khan has now been released from his house arrest by Pakistan, and for all we know is back in business. In short, liberal policies have consistently resulted in increased proliferation while conservative policies have consistently resulted in a reduction. You can argue with the facts all day long, but the simple truth is you people do not understand enough about these issues to be entrusted with them. The damage Obama has done over the last nine months ought to proof enough for anyone.