Obama Says: "Whether We Like it Or Not, We Remain a Dominant Military Superpower"

Here is video of President Obama today at a news conference closing his "Nuclear Security Summit," where he made the odd statement that "whether we like it or not, we (United States) remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, we get pulled into it."

Whether we like it or not?

Does that mean President Obama does not like America being a "dominant military superpower?" Perhaps that is what is behind his drive to reduce America's Nuclear Arsenal, and why he does not want to move forward with development of new weapons systems in the future.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Barack Obama
• U.S. Military
• Superpower

[vladtheimppaler]

Obama sucks god he is such a fag

[pat442389]

@Phantomseeker293 oh ok then if thats what your talking about then i was saying something completely different. i thought you were saying we should privatize the US military, Air Force, Navy and whatever else included to a huge private company like halliburton or something (which has been proposed by the right). private militias are in the end what will keep this country from falling apart if a powerful faction every tries to take over our gov.

[5961238]

I dont know weather i should like this video or dislike this video :/

[Phantomseeker293]

@pat442389

Oh! Well I apologize for my lack of clarity then! I would also agree with you that the strategy of privatizing a nationalized military is questionable at best! :)

If I was arguing that, I would definitely be thanking you for countering my position! In just about all cases, it appears that the healthiest form of national defense is either one or the other--I haven't been able to plot out an idea that would work for an infusion of both nationalized and private defenses. :)

[Phantomseeker293]

@pat442389

What are you talking about?

Private militias more centralized than national militias--e.g., one entity holding all military power for an entire republic?!? The only way it could be MORE centralized than a nationalized military is for a single private militia or militia-alliance to gain international renown and operate as the only (And thus, at that point, nationalized) military for those nations.

With all due respect, you need to study principles of governance and organization.

[pat442389]

@Phantomseeker293 dude so privatizing the military would centralize power worse then your stupid prussian schools and your fabian society. even terrible politicians know that

[Phantomseeker293]

@pat442389

Don't be an ignoramus. Stable militias are never self-sustaining--they are always extensions of a larger organization or alliance.

Then again, I can't blame you for not understanding the intricacies of civilization and organizational principles. After all, the public schools are styled after the Prussian schools and were founded by the Fabian society, which wants nothing more than for the world's population to hand over their militias to a centralized government.

[pat442389]

@Phantomseeker293 hahaha the military should be privatized? are you a fuckin retard? yeah cause what could go wrong with that.... its not like the would benefit from fighting wars or anything right???? oh wait they would!!! so these companies would drum up little things, saber rattle and gain media interests that would do their best to sway public opinion into getting into wars like vietnam, iraq and bigger. had the army been private during the missle crises we'd be living in a wasteland now

[Phantomseeker293]

Whatever his stance, this same comment could have been made by any government official over the past 100 years.

"Whether we like it or not" is a simple phrase to appease the members of all sides of the military debate (personally, I believe the US military should be privatized, but that brings up other controversies).

And besides--does it really matter how Obama feels? It's not like he has any power anyways.

[S201676]

@thordoggie

How do you figure that the US ended slavery the fastest of any country?

The first anti-slavery law passed by the US government was in 1787 when slavery was prohibited in the territories north of the Ohio River. Slavery finally ended in the US in 1865: 78 years later.

In the UK, the first anti-slavery law was passed in 1807, ending the slave trade. Complete abolition came with the passage of the "Slavery Abolition Act of 1833": 26 years later.

Looking up info isn't hard, I promise.