Cialis Professional
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: BURN! (aka President Obama questions Sarah Palin's nuclear acumen)

  1. Default BURN! (aka President Obama questions Sarah Palin's nuclear acumen)

    "What I would say to them is, is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin."

  2. #2


    Seriously, doesn't Palin realize that the nuclear agreement is really just a
    continuation of what Reagan started?

    This is what Reagan said in 1982:

    “I believe we’ve come to the point that we must go at the matter of realistically reducing… if not totally eliminating, nuclear weapons—the threat to the world.”
    Last edited by moxie; April 8th, 2010 at 11:28 PM.

  3. Default

    Moxie, you're asking Palin to use her brain. A dangerous proposition.

  4. Default

    I think Sarah is right about this. Reagan also walked away from a nuclear arms deal because it was bad for the country. I don't think we should be making any deals. The bad guys are not going to give up their nuclear weapons so we shouldn't either. It is a necessary evil, and we should have and reserve the right to use them.

  5. #5


    ^^^No. It is not that simple.
    Ronald Reagan, once said that nuclear weapons were "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization." Indeed, while he irked his detractors for years over a seemingly endless arms buildup, Reagan was, by his own telling, firmly committed to the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    "[F]or the eight years I was president," he wrote in his memoirs, "I never let my dream of a nuclear-free world fade from my mind."

    Reagan nearly came to an accord with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to destroy all nuclear weapons within 10 years. Before then, he spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai, China, relaying the following vision:

    We live in a troubled world, and the United States and China, as two great nations, share a special responsibility to help reduce the risks of war. We both agree that there can be only one sane policy to preserve our precious civilization in this modern age: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.
    There are many other sources to confirm this.
    I guess if Reagan ran today, he would be considered a Socialist. He ran up the debt, raised taxes more than once, and dreamed of a nuclear-free world. Go figure...
    Limiting nuclear weapons would make the world more safe. Just imagine, no rouge countries or terrorists would be able to get their hands on "loose nukes" or other dangerous technologies.

    This just goes to show, no matter what Obama and Congress do, it will be portrayed as BAD by some.
    This is just one more piece of evidence.

  6. #6


    I'll bet if Obama had announced an INCREASE in nukes, the reaction would have been
    that he was making the world less safe.

    Really, it's clear that he should just do what he wants.
    The reaction will be the same in all situations anyway.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
kamagra oral jelly online
buy kamagra