AppId is over the quota
How many nuclear weapons does the United States really need, ask many anti-war activists? Well, perhaps enough to make a large number of nuclear weaponized nations think twice about getting together to take us out using their nukes, one might suppose. Regardless of your beliefs or game theory choices in deciding your opinion or position on this issue - it's an important issue. Okay so, let's talk shall we, as there have been some recent political developments lately.
There was an interesting piece on the CBS News on March 27, 2012 titled; "Obama: I'm not "hiding the ball" on Russia," which addressed another comment he made off the record, not on the microphone, but within ear shot to a couple of reporters anyway, as he stated that he would have more flexibility to deal with nuclear arms reductions after his re-election. Of course, this assumes he will get re-elected, and this voters asks why on Earth would the American People be so foolish to do that again?
If you missed the comment President Obama stated; "This is my last election, after my election I will have more flexibility."
In this second follow up segment on international TV he stated that "missile defense" plans are standing in the way of reducing our nuclear weapons arsenal, and that we'd need to look at that, albeit, after his so-called re-election victory. Meanwhile this same week a great American company Raytheon announced its latest new Patriot Missile system missile defense battery for sale now to American allies in the Middle East. As you know NATO and the US will be building anti-missile systems to protect against Iran, but Russia knows they might be used to shoot down missile from Russia into European nations - of course.
My question is; would it be considered treasonous for a US President to make a deal to reduce our nuclear arsenal and strike capabilities, and also delay the protection of our NATO allies? And do we really want to give that sort of power away or allow a US President to have more flexibility to make Americans less safe? I'd say no, but you might have an alternate view here you see?
Meanwhile, Gingrich and Romney GOP Presidential candidates were also alarmed that Obama would be "making a deal with the devil" behind closed doors or off-mike which was written about in Government Executive news on March 26, 2012 in a piece titled; "Romney, Gingrich blast Obama for missile defense comments," by Sarah Huisenga and Sarah B. Boxer reprinted from the National Journal. The article stated;
"That is an alarming and troubling development," said Romney, calling the president's comment "revealing" for what he called Obama's unwillingness to provide more details about missile defense," and " Gingrich called the exchange with Medvedev an "extraordinary moment caught on tape where the president basically said to a Russian leader, "Please wait until after the election so I can sell out."
Perhaps, you can see the problem here, and you have chosen to opine on one side of this debate or the other. Treasonous is not a term to be used lightly, still, I ask if it belongs or if that label is the correct one. Indeed, I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.
Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative of eBook on 2012 US Politics. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar