Barack Obama = World Peace

[GabonX]

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

And there we have it. No other candidate for President has a plan for world peace. Obama will lay down American arms and seeing this, so will the world lay down it's arms.

Thats the thought behind this...

[BaldAdonis]

Haven't learned anything in 8 years?

[GabonX]

The past 8 years could lead one to multiple conclusions. September 11 2001 could cause one to think that disarmament would be unwise while the aftermath of the first portion of the Iraq War has left people with a poor impression of military capability...

Perhaps we need to look back more than 8 years if we wish to have a relevant perspective.

[got tonkaed]

I dont know if thats the reading i got from the clip particularly. Certainly he suggests things which would hurt the military, but i do not believe you can make the national security argument necessarily from points 1/2. Not militarizing space, especially in a time period where we have extended teh military budget well beyond expectations, might simply be decent budgetary policy. Deciding not to add more nuclear arms when we have a few still lying around as is, also may not be a terrible idea.

The us military i think still has a few resources lying around that could be used as a deterrent, not least among them a clear ability to go and fight people for little other reason than we think we should.

Tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, suggest it might not be a bad idea to rethink some of these things, and even if you dont like the degree of change suggested by obama, id think a candidate that didnt step in that direction (admittedly not that far in all likelyhood) would not be helping their cause either.

[GabonX]

"I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off of hair trigger alerts and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals." - Obama

The world would be a great place if the United States could disarm along with other countries and enforce a ban of fissile material in the way that Obama is speaking of here. Is everyone in the world trustworthy enough to pursue ideas like this?

Is Russia trustworthy enough to pursue negotiations with alone?

Is it possible to enforce a global ban on fissile materials without resorting to war?

How does a country defeat another country which has and is willing to use nuclear weapons without itself using such weapons?

[greenoaks]

How does a country defeat another country which has and is willing to use nuclear weapons without itself using such weapons?

McDonalds

apparently no country with McDonalds has gone to war with another country with McDonalds.

[The1exile]

How does a country defeat another country which has and is willing to use nuclear weapons without itself using such weapons?

McDonalds

apparently no country with McDonalds has gone to war with another country with McDonalds.

You know, that is pretty close to being the genius of clarity so rarely seen today.

[greenoaks]

economic ties stop two countries from fighting.

the more china invests in the US and the rest of the world the harder it becomes for them to attack the US without destroying their own wealth in the process.

the movie braveheart pitched a similar theme, except in those times the scottish lords found it difficult to wholeheartedly support anyone who opposed the english king due to their extensive land holdings in england that would be lost. their is a scene near the end where this is explained to robert the bruce by his father regarding the withdrawal of the military support (cavalry) by the scottish lords at a critical stage in the final battle, which led to mel's capture and his subsequent execution.

similar tactics will work with russia, india & iran.

[DaGip]

Our technology has improved to the point to where Nuclear Weapons shouldn't even be thought of as an option anymore. I agree with him on that point. And weaponizing space would only turn the world against us, of course the governing elitists will tell you there is a comet or asteroid going to hit the earth, so we must weaponize space. Let's face it, we have entered into Big Brother's Playhouse. A New World Order where the citizens must give up rights to ensure their security, and those who do not want to give up their rights will be labeled as criminals or terrorists.

I just listened to an ex-Phoenix police officer on the radio telling me how the Phoenix police force would frame people all the time. The good cops get put on patrol, while all the criminal cops run the whole show. You can really see how power has corrupted people over time. Your rights don't matter anymore, just their power and their grasp upon it.

In the Other Forum (None of the Above), I started a thread on who are you going to vote for. I included a video from a practicing Jewish Cabalist who compared our political choices to symbols. It was kind of neat to watch and listen to. He also made the point that the name Barack Obama means The Blessed Leader in Hebrew...does that mean Obama is the Messiah? Hmmm?

http://conquerclub.freeforums.org/who-a ... -t324.html

[AlbroShlo]

I think the base problem is the enforcement of the idea. Would it be a good idea to eliminate Nuclear Weapons? Of course it would! The problem is that no one trusts the other to stick to it. We are never on the same page as everyone else. Would it be a good idea to get rid of, imo, a useless part of our global culture, Pro Sports which is at it's base entertainment and give the money to the kids that die every 3 seconds from hunger? Of course it would! Will we do it? Not bloody likely! Does a pro sports athlete want to give up his obscene amount of money to save the life of a bunch of kids he will never see? The problem is not coming up with a plan for world peace, the problem is overcoming the faults in every one of us.

[bryguy]

lets think look back more than 8 years.....


oh yep, wanna know what im seeing?

World Wars

edit: also (this is to the person who started this thread), if u have not watched the news for a while (3 months or more) Obama is in a church that hates whites, so i wonder what would happen to the whites in the world if he became president.....

[AlbroShlo]

lets think look back more than 8 years.....


oh yep, wanna know what im seeing?

World Wars

edit: also (this is to the person who started this thread), if u have not watched the news for a while (3 months or more) Obama is in a church that hates whites, so i wonder what would happen to the whites in the world if he became president.....

Any 'church' that hates any group of people based on their skin color is not based in christianity.

Also I think Chris Rock of all people had an excellent idea regarding a black president he said "his vice president would have to be Mexican so if he was assassinated it would open the border". Comedy yes but there is a lot of truth to it lol. I am curious to see if he will last the full term if elected...

[DaGip]

lets think look back more than 8 years.....


oh yep, wanna know what im seeing?

World Wars

edit: also (this is to the person who started this thread), if u have not watched the news for a while (3 months or more) Obama is in a church that hates whites, so i wonder what would happen to the whites in the world if he became president.....

Any 'church' that hates any group of people based on their skin color is not based in christianity.

Also I think Chris Rock of all people had an excellent idea regarding a black president he said "his vice president would have to be Mexican so if he was assassinated it would open the border". Comedy yes but there is a lot of truth to it lol. I am curious to see if he will last the full term if elected...

Obama's church doesn't hate whites. Rev. Wright is bit outspoken on his own personal experiences with racism, he comes from a generation where racism was considered the norm of life, Rev. Wright and his church oppose that concept. He was a Marine too, he's not a bad guy.

[AlbroShlo]

Platoon was a very powerful movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxlrenOqzpM&NR=1

sadly the reality of the situation is much worse than anything we could dream up and put in a movie. I don't know if Obama can achieve world peace or even change anything but something has to be done. If an alien race came to this planet I would lie and tell them I wasn't from here.

[bryguy]

Platoon was a very powerful movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxlrenOqzpM&NR=1

sadly the reality of the situation is much worse than anything we could dream up and put in a movie. I don't know if Obama can achieve world peace or even change anything but something has to be done. If an alien race came to this planet I would lie and tell them I wasn't from here.

oh yea, here what u should say

1) Tell them your from some country u hate
2) Then tell them that country declares war on them
3) The shoot them all

lets think look back more than 8 years.....


oh yep, wanna know what im seeing?

World Wars

edit: also (this is to the person who started this thread), if u have not watched the news for a while (3 months or more) Obama is in a church that hates whites, so i wonder what would happen to the whites in the world if he became president.....

Any 'church' that hates any group of people based on their skin color is not based in christianity.

Also I think Chris Rock of all people had an excellent idea regarding a black president he said "his vice president would have to be Mexican so if he was assassinated it would open the border". Comedy yes but there is a lot of truth to it lol. I am curious to see if he will last the full term if elected...

Obama's church doesn't hate whites. Rev. Wright is bit outspoken on his own personal experiences with racism, he comes from a generation where racism was considered the norm of life, Rev. Wright and his church oppose that concept. He was a Marine too, he's not a bad guy.

It was in the news that Rev. Wright preached that whites should die, and considering Obama went to that church for what, 8 years?

[got tonkaed]

"I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off of hair trigger alerts and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals." - Obama

The world would be a great place if the United States could disarm along with other countries and enforce a ban of fissile material in the way that Obama is speaking of here. Is everyone in the world trustworthy enough to pursue ideas like this?

Is Russia trustworthy enough to pursue negotiations with alone?

Is it possible to enforce a global ban on fissile materials without resorting to war?

How does a country defeat another country which has and is willing to use nuclear weapons without itself using such weapons?

Skipping some of the garbage after your post

I dont really think any of these things would happen in full, as even if hes promising these things, there are likely to be a lot of mediating forces. TBH it doesnt really seem like something that should decide a candidates viability one way or the other.
But to answer your questions.

Probably not and nor would the international framework we have in place support such measures. People dont like being told they cant do something, just look at everyone who cringes at any notion that people should consume less.

Probably not, but i doubt that if the negotiations took place they would really take place with just the two. Russia might also be interested in getting all of those missiles no longer pointed at them as well.

In the short term likely, long term likely not. The threat of economic sanctions, though they are often used ineffectively would be all that you had.

Im pretty sure the spread of countries with nuclear weapons, means that you dont attack anyone who could have nukes or anyone who has allies who have nukes. Also it is not as if the cupboard is bare as far as the united states and advanced weaponry.

To sum up...i dont think this would happen if obama was elected, but i think your reasons for it needing not to happen arent really that relevant, though they may appear to be so.

[Hologram]

He's not laying down a plan for world peace, he's trying to defuse tensions between the U.S. and Russia while also advocating good budgeting. The nuclear arms bit is great because we really honestly do not need as many nukes as we have, if any at all. I mean, the only time they've ever been used was to bring a potentially bloody end of a war to a premature end (whether it was needed or not is a different point of contention that we're not going to get into here), and we definitely don't need that kind of power now.

And arming space and making missile defense systems are just asking for problems from the nuclear powers that are on less than completely friendly terms with the U.S.. I mean, if you think about it, if we suddenly have a defense system put in place that makes us invulnerable to an attack, don't you think that a belligerent would want to get at least one hit in before the system came online? Because if they didn't, it would put them (i.e. Russia) at a huge disadvantage.

The point is, he's hoping to return the world free of planet killing terrors, and back conventional warfare.

[JMart]

Eureaka! Thats it guys. The perfect solution. We will play nice and then everyone else will follow suit. Cause enough is enough right, come on. I mean COME ON...

A history book should be all that is needed to disprove this theory. War is an unfortuante part of the human existance.

Probably the worst part about his idea is ceasing the developement of new arms and nukes. It would be a very sad day if nukes were used. I think the main reason that hasn't happened since WWII is because of the idea of mutual destruction. This so called plan is really the strategy of slowly dropping our status as a world power.

Sure it might seem like this would be more peaceful in the end, but what about when we really do need to stop evil? Is sending our troops ill equiped going to save lifes. I bet Obama would endorse the removal of our troops body armor. That would bring the war to a swift conclusion if our guys died easier. How about we only give each soldier one magazine so that we can lessen causalties of non-combatants and improve accuracy?

He had a good idea or two in there but not being the most advanced military is not one of them.

[greenoaks]

russia isn't really a problem. they huff and they puff but they won't blow your house down.

china on the other hand could be. they launched a missile recently to blow up a satellite. the US came out against it because it increases the debris orbiting earth that will go straight through you if it hits. a few weeks later the US found one of their own that needed to be blown up. very convenient.

there could be a space arms race building between them.

[GabonX]

China is something worth considering. They, as well as several other, shall we say rogue states, are in the process of devolping newer and deadlier weapons systems. The United States already has a technological lead but the goal of these nations is obviously to reduce, and if possible reverse, the gap.

It would be foolish to consider slowing down the development of new weapon systems without atleast giving consideration to these potential threats.

[spurgistan]

Eureaka! Thats it guys. The perfect solution. We will play nice and then everyone else will follow suit. Cause enough is enough right, come on. I mean COME ON...

A history book should be all that is needed to disprove this theory. War is an unfortuante part of the human existance.

Probably the worst part about his idea is ceasing the developement of new arms and nukes. It would be a very sad day if nukes were used. I think the main reason that hasn't happened since WWII is because of the idea of mutual destruction. This so called plan is really the strategy of slowly dropping our status as a world power.

Sure it might seem like this would be more peaceful in the end, but what about when we really do need to stop evil? Is sending our troops ill equiped going to save lifes. I bet Obama would endorse the removal of our troops body armor. That would bring the war to a swift conclusion if our guys died easier. How about we only give each soldier one magazine so that we can lessen causalties of non-combatants and improve accuracy?

He had a good idea or two in there but not being the most advanced military is not one of them.

How could Obama take away our soldier's body armor? They don't have any. Would he give them protection, only so that he and Jeremiah Wright and his middle name is Hussein can chortle while they leave our soldiers in the exact same state they were before? You act as if the military-industrial complex is designed to protect American lives.

[GabonX]

"I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off of hair trigger alerts and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals." - Obama

The world would be a great place if the United States could disarm along with other countries and enforce a ban of fissile material in the way that Obama is speaking of here. Is everyone in the world trustworthy enough to pursue ideas like this?

Is Russia trustworthy enough to pursue negotiations with alone?

Is it possible to enforce a global ban on fissile materials without resorting to war?

How does a country defeat another country which has and is willing to use nuclear weapons without itself using such weapons?

Skipping some of the garbage after your post

I dont really think any of these things would happen in full, as even if hes promising these things, there are likely to be a lot of mediating forces. TBH it doesnt really seem like something that should decide a candidates viability one way or the other.
But to answer your questions.

Probably not and nor would the international framework we have in place support such measures. People dont like being told they cant do something, just look at everyone who cringes at any notion that people should consume less.

Probably not, but i doubt that if the negotiations took place they would really take place with just the two. Russia might also be interested in getting all of those missiles no longer pointed at them as well.

In the short term likely, long term likely not. The threat of economic sanctions, though they are often used ineffectively would be all that you had.

Im pretty sure the spread of countries with nuclear weapons, means that you dont attack anyone who could have nukes or anyone who has allies who have nukes. Also it is not as if the cupboard is bare as far as the united states and advanced weaponry.

To sum up...i dont think this would happen if obama was elected, but i think your reasons for it needing not to happen arent really that relevant, though they may appear to be so.

While typically the threat of mutualy assured destruction has been a powerful deterent it may not apply to religous fanatics. The question comes down to whether or not we will trust them to love us or will we maintain a position of strength so that should they choose to hate us they will be incapable of doing us harm.

[got tonkaed]

China is something worth considering. They, as well as several other, shall we say rogue states, are in the process of devolping newer and deadlier weapons systems. The United States already has a technological lead but the goal of these nations is obviously to reduce, and if possible reverse, the gap.

It would be foolish to consider slowing down the development of new weapon systems without atleast giving consideration to these potential threats.

I dont disagree with this. China will be and probably already is a pretty serious player and lets face it may have interests that are different than the US. And yes there are very likely going to be nations that are trying to reduce the technology gap.

However, an interesting question that i dont think has an answer in this setting, is to what purpose are we worried about China specifically? I dont think theres an answer to this question that really works.

There is an issue of whether or not the US can really attempt to be a hegemonic power going forward indefinitely. Given the information that seems to be at hand, the answer is no, and efforts to maintain or build up arms essentially to do so, is irresponsible.

[got tonkaed]

the terrorism fanatic argument is actually a bad one for maintaining the stockpiles of weapons that we currently have. If we are attacked by terrorists, we cant use such weapons unless we are planning on grossly affecting large numbers of non-combatants. The very nature of both the fanaticism and the terrorist method in which it is employed makes the necessity or justification of large nuclear weapons as a deterrent rather inconsequential.

[GabonX]

Eureaka! Thats it guys. The perfect solution. We will play nice and then everyone else will follow suit. Cause enough is enough right, come on. I mean COME ON...

A history book should be all that is needed to disprove this theory. War is an unfortuante part of the human existance.

Probably the worst part about his idea is ceasing the developement of new arms and nukes. It would be a very sad day if nukes were used. I think the main reason that hasn't happened since WWII is because of the idea of mutual destruction. This so called plan is really the strategy of slowly dropping our status as a world power.

Sure it might seem like this would be more peaceful in the end, but what about when we really do need to stop evil? Is sending our troops ill equiped going to save lifes. I bet Obama would endorse the removal of our troops body armor. That would bring the war to a swift conclusion if our guys died easier. How about we only give each soldier one magazine so that we can lessen causalties of non-combatants and improve accuracy?

He had a good idea or two in there but not being the most advanced military is not one of them.

How could Obama take away our soldier's body armor? They don't have any. Would he give them protection, only so that he and Jeremiah Wright and his middle name is Hussein can chortle while they leave our soldiers in the exact same state they were before? You act as if the military-industrial complex is designed to protect American lives.

The contraversy over soldiers body armor isn't that they don't have it as most of them do have some form. The issue is that they do not all have the most up to date brand known as Dragon Skin. Dragon Skin is layered, somewhat like chain mail, and can absorb much more damage and allows greater freedom of mobility. Most combat troops use body armor which consists of four plates which break after absorbing a number of shots, is more restrictive of mobility, and does not cover as much of the upper body as Dragon Skin.

With people complaining about how much the war costs it is somewhat ironic that they also complain that the military does not spend more at the same time, which is what updating body armor for thousands of troops would entail. The army banned Dragon Skin as they claimed it did stand up to their rigerous testing but honestly that sounds like BS to me. It's more likely that they do not have the money but it would be to politically damaging to admit that they cannot provide the BEST body armor to the troops.

Here are some videos on the topic...

Dragon Skin
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl= ... a=N&tab=wv

Army rejects Dragon Skin
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... skin&hl=en