Obama vs Clinton on nuclear weapons

[76hexum]

Nuclear Nu-god of chaos, Clear, get it. Nu also equal 50. Nun=50 is the death card 13.

[WingThaiJ]

I wish cultists and dumb people couldn't vote so we all don't get screwed by those who are so easily swayed by smooth talk. We need the Obama Admin out for the sake of everyone! Poor are kept poor via hand-outs, therefore, they are reliant and under control and obedient voters; the middle class foots most of the bills and the rich are punished for working so hard to achieve when they could better determine who to give to on their own; hand-ups instead of hand-outs.The Obama Cult is disastrous

[peacekingz]

one world government is the only way to get rid of these weapons! Period!

[nelson3300]

Destroying cities has never won a war, therefore nukes are not useful... only to terrorists.

/watch?v=_bB9_hsETP4

[voodoochild137]

*cough* Hiroshima and Nagasaki *cough*

[LaughJar]

the world should have NO nuclear weapons. just one in the states hidden away in case someone else lied about having none :D

[fixrifex]

i will recommend you dig into history you might just discover very dirty truths about the American government, but if you insist on being ignorant then so be it, I am sick at the myriad of unsubstanciated comments flooding into youtube with regards to american foreign policy.

[Sarcose]

The enemy has been the government almost all along. That's almost an absolute inevitability. We can't circumvent the government trying to destroy its people no matter where we are, because when people gather in large groups to determine the fate of thousand-times-larger groups the myriad extreme opinions are outweighed by entirely moderate decisions - those moderate decisions being that of complete apathy toward morality.

[Sarcose]

The government officials don't even realize they're doing it when they're doing it. They think they are being wholehearted, good-natured citizens. But everyone's a pragmatist, and so every once in a while they are willing to let a moral decision be put on the backburner for a profitable one, not realizing that enough people are doing it often enough that the overwhelming majority of decisions being made have nothing to do with morality anymore.

[Sarcose]

Governments have been suppressing people all throughout history. It is not the purpose of a government to be absolutely static, because that is detrimental to evolution. People are still family-herd focused, and always will be.

[fixrifex]

naive Americans who think their real enemies are outside the US, Iran has traded with the US for a very long time, of course your government will not tell you why they are really after Iran. If they did no one will support them.

[WoundedEgo]

How refreshing to find people who agree with me on something!

Another point... Russia built up nukes in the hopes of getting to the point where they might WIN in a nuclear showdown. Iran just wants to destroy Israel and the US, EVEN IF THEY ARE ANNIHILATED AS A RESULT! In fact, their annihilation gets them the 72 virgins, so it is actually DESIRABLE. Such freaks have to be destroyed BEFORE they can acheive their objective - or are even able to do so. And that means NOW.

[truthenforcer]

Well, don't count on the cowardly commie-lib's in America or anywhere else in the west. They are paralized with fear of the islamo-facists and believe being nice will win browny points.

In any war there will always be the defeatists who want to blame themselves, sell out their nation, side with the enemy and advocate surrender. That's normal.

Cowards want peace at any cost, and surrender is the quickest path to peace. That's why Kucini-bitch and Mike Groveler have been REJECTED by voters.

[Kuipah]

I can hyphenate-words to make the seem more meaning-ful and edu-cated.

[truthenforcer]

Don't bother; stick to hugging trees and saving animals.

The grownups are in charge since Kucini-bitch, Paul and Mike the Groveler have all been REJECTED by voters. SNIF SNIF...

[KaylinJH]

I see your media has got you right were they wont you, you poor misguided fool. Going into Iran is asking for trouble..

[WoundedEgo]

"The only thing worse than going in is not going in." Kinda like Bob Marley - he didn't want to lose a toe... the cancer wound up killing him.

[rockroth]

Yeah yeah, Iran wants to desttroyed israel, wants to destroyed usa,and they want to join the 72 virgins, and all that crap, The thing is, iran hasnt done anything wrong in the last 20 years, and what about USA-ISRAEL and all that barbarian coalition?

very bad.

[WoundedEgo]

Iran, through its proxy, Hezbollah, and other terrorist networks, has been busily committing atrocities as far away as Argentina.

But even if they weren't responsible for those, their pursuit of WMD and stated purpose for these is enough to warrant their destruction.

[truthenforcer]

Nuclear free world is absurd and silly.

It'll NEVER happen.

If Nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes...lol

[cabobscansen]

good point!!

[WoundedEgo]

For the US or Israel to have nuclear weapons is an intrinsic good. For Iran to have them is an unthinkable evil. The weapons are fantastic in the right hands, and horrific in the wrong hands - as is all power.

Obama, by weakening our lead, will actually encourage proliferation.

[truthenforcer]

Totally correct. Lib's want to defend and uplift the enemy while tearing down their nation. ABSURD!

[KaylinJH]

If its good why did Israel feel the need to hide it from the world and lie to UN weapon inspectors?

[The1dle]

Susan Rice....any relations with Condie?

[PersonalJesus348]

no one wins when nukes are involved.

[saintee1000]

Exactly, the danger of a world without nukes is another WWII in which massive armies fight to the death in an attempt for world domination.

[PersonalJesus348]

umm...How did you get my message and contort it as a statement for nukes?

[saintee1000]

Because nobody can win when nukes are involved THUS leaders are highly unlikely to launch a serious conflict against a nation with a nuclear arsenal.

[PersonalJesus348]

that's not what I meant. And it will never mean.

I'm saying no one wins when nukes involved. Either side. Both Sides. Equally! but naturally equality is a dirty word for war mongers. So its easy to see why you missed the point.

What you described is escalation. One side has it. So naturally the other side has to have it. What ever it is. This particular case is nukes. And the real solution is to not have them at all. Stopping the escalation.

[saintee1000]

No I wasn't talking about escalation. Nukes offer protection to smaller nations e.g. Britain, France and Israel that they couldnt amass through a land army. These countries would be at much greater risk with no nukes. For The US it is easier as you guys have a huge millitary.

[PersonalJesus348]

We need them gone. They cause too much damage. Chernybol is an good example of that. And bombing Hiroshima was a tragedy. They need to be gone before we wipe ourselves off the earth.

[saintee1000]

WWI and WWII both occured before Nuclear weapons and were it not for the USA would have completely destroyed the European economy. With no Nuclear detterent the Chinese have a MASSIVE advantage against any opponent in terms of manpower. They are undesirable but nessecary.

[PersonalJesus348]

If America backed down they wouldn't be necessary.

[saintee1000]

backed down from what? Other countries WILL try and challenge US supremecy be it Russia, China or maybe even a united Europe. If the US disarms do you really trust Russia, India, Pakistan, China or even Israel to disarm?

[PersonalJesus348]

what choice do we have. At least we have reason to tell them to. Its silly to now say to disarm. We have 40,000 nukes. It makes me nervous. I want the US to back down. And make everyone else do the same.

Trust me there are other ways. The only reason now its a big deal for Iran to disarm is because they don't have any nukes. The US wants oil bad. And it needs to back down.

[saintee1000]

I agree with you on a reduction thats fine (I never did understand why thousands of nukes were nessecary) but i dont think it is safe for any country to drop below having 100 or so.

[PersonalJesus348]

well we'll agree to disagree. I still think none is good. Even though its unrealistic of me. But a million mile walk starts with a step.

[interldell123]

yes, Hugo Chaves for president

[iscorpio]

go Hillary!

[thrummer1953]

Our survival depends on our nuclear deterrent.

[apollodionysus7]

Thanks for this video; good to keep in mind in choosing the democratic nominee...

[gravelin08]

agolosha: Dropping the bomb once was bad enough but twice in 3 days?! Since then civilians in many other countries have died for the Pentagon/wealthy: Iranians, Iraqis, Vietnamese, Guatamalans, El Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, Panamanians. There is a very long list if you care to find out what has happened in the past and is still happening in other countries like Columbia, for instance.

[gravelin08]

The U.S. was going to take Iraq despite the fact that former Marine, and Weapons inspector ,Scott Ritter proved there were no weapons of mass destruction, something the US knew. It was all planned from Bush Sr., Clinton onward. The Pentagon/Department of Defense wanted to dominate that region and control the oil in Iraq and Iran. You might want to read more since you use the Internet. US is ONLY nation to have dropped atomic bombs on civilian cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

[yellowlabrador]

The problem is that nations want nuclear weapons as defence against other nuclear nations. All countries have to give them up. I don't suppose it will ever happen but we can dream

[historywillabsolve]

it can be done, but not as long as the US breaks treaties and keeps building new bombs and plans to weaponize space. we have to take the lead in reducing proliferation or else the odds will catch up with us.

[Globox822]

LOL so true.

[oldhacks]

/watch?v=gdnQlzHAiT0

Mike Gravel is by far the obvious choice.

watch his latest debate. It makes a total joke out of Clinton and Obama. If you want real solutions then start supporting Gravel now so we can get the signatures and donations to get him into the general debates where he will DESTROY clinton and Obama. 10,000,000 dollars is all it will take to free this nation from our corporate congress for now and forever.

[crazycatfguy]

I heard he was considering running independent. That might not be a bad idea because no one seems happy about the thought of choosing between Hillary or McCain.

[oldhacks]

NOBODY supports Clinton/McCain. NOBODY. We have to send Mike money though to fight the corporate candidates. This is the year that America reclaims its independence. Conservatives and Liberals both have many reasons to support Gravel.

[crazycatfguy]

I like Gravel I really do but as you well know I am not happy with the fair tax or the NI.

[Orchem]

I would still choose Gravel over these two puppets

[crazycatfguy]

I can't stand those puppets but Ron Paul is the only person at this point that has a chance to beat those puppets. I have heard from a Gravel supporter that he will go 3rd party if he has to so I would certainly vote for him over Mccain/Clinton even though I have a problem with a couple of Gravel stances.

[oldhacks]

Ron Paul is running a scam to make money. He's not a real candidate. He'll be dropping out soon too.

[crazycatfguy]

What blog did you read that in? You really should try to find credible sources for information.

[oldhacks]

so you prefer a corrupt tax code that forces the lower and middle class to pay 70 percent while the rich pay 30 percent and thats so deeply encoded that there's not a human alive that can understand it? what sense is that? and you prefer to remain powerless in your country? You dont want to live in freedom? You prefer to live under an elected dictatorship? You really need to start reevaluating your thoughts on these proposals.

[crazycatfguy]

I prefer no taxes. To live in total freedom. Ron Paul is the only way to have both. You need to face reality.

[oldhacks]

I'm afraid you're confusing the word "freedom" with "anarchy". the definition of Freedom is peoples participation with power. So if you really want "freedom" then you support the national initiative. If you want anarchy move to Afghanistan.

[gravelin08]

Yes, Mr. Gravel said he would immediately cut the nuclear arsenal in half to show the world that he is serious about reducing nuclear weapons in the world. He also said one Trident submarine can hold the world hostage. How many billions of dollars do we need to defend the country? People have been hoodwinked.

[oldhacks]

He also said that in his first day in office he'll BOMB Guantanamo bay and all the rest of our torture shacks to show the world we've changed.

[yellowlabrador]

No more nuclear weapons, a dream come true.