Obama: Eliminate All Nukes In The World

Democratic Candidate Calls For New Foreign Policy, Touts Opposition To Iraq War

(AP)  Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for ridding the world of nuclear weapons, arguing U.S. policy is still focused on the defunct Soviet Union instead of combatting the nuclear threat from rogue nations and terrorists.

In a speech that also highlighted his early opposition to the Iraq war, Obama said he doesn't want the United States to disarm unilaterally, but instead to work with other nations to phase out nuclear weapons and control nuclear materiel.

"America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons," Obama said.

"The best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons - it's to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materiels away from terrorists," the Illinois senator said. Aides said the process Obama envisions would take many years, not just a single presidency.

Republicans criticized Obama's stance as dangerous to national security.

"In a world with terrorists trying to acquire nuclear technology and with Iran and Syria threatening their neighbors, it is difficult to comprehend that a major presidential candidate wants to eliminate our nuclear arsenal," said Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz. "This is yet another example of Senator Obama playing to the fringe elements of his party and failing to understand the threat America faces."

Obama delivered the foreign policy address on the fifth anniversary of his speech at an anti-war rally where he announced his opposition to invading Iraq. He predicted then that the United States would get bogged down in an unending war that would inflame world anger.

Speaking at DePaul University, Obama pointed out that the campus was filled with students for whom the Iraq war has been a constant for four years.

Obama was a state legislator in Illinois when Congress voted in October 2002 to give President Bush the authority to use military force to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. In his speech, Obama criticized Bush, the media and Congress, arguing they failed the nation in the rush to war.

"Let's be clear: Without that vote, there would be no war," Obama said in his speech.

Obama took a swipe at his Democratic rivals who were in the Senate and voted for the war - Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden - but never mentioned them by name.

"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the administration, the media and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002," Obama said. "And we need to ask those who voted for the war: How can you give the president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?"

Obama cites his early opposition to war as evidence that he has the judgment to be president despite arriving in Washington less than three years ago.

Voters "should ask themselves: Who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right and who got it wrong?" Obama said.

Obama plans to focus on that question all week to counter concerns that other candidates, particularly Clinton, have far more experience in a dangerous era for the United States. In a dig at this rivals, Obama said Congress had failed American citizens on Iraq, despite a law passed after Vietnam that was meant to serve as a check on the president's ability to take the country to war.

"No law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone," he said.

He promised an aggressive new approach to international affairs. As president, Obama said, he would personally conduct negotiations with other nations, including hostile countries.

He promised an annual "state of the world" speech to assess the country's foreign policy concerns.

He proposed giving the director of national intelligence a fixed term of office, so that he could not be replaced by the president for political reasons.

[realpatriot1]

bizzzz,

Rush commented on an anti-war vet who filed a false claim for disability and used him as an example to denigrate all vets opposed to the war. Rush is a weasil of a man and I would personally welcome the opportunity to tell him to his face.

As far as the Democratic party being the American communist party, you wouldn''t know a communist if they came up and bit you in the ***.

It was liberalism that saved America from communism in the 1930s after pure capitalism destroyed the economy. A mixed economy has kept us prosperous ever since.

[bizzzz-2009]

The Democractic party has officially transformed into the American Communist party. Their leaders are Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Barrack Obama as well as people in the media like Alan Combs.
The hatchet job they did on Rush Limbaugh was a complete fabrication using two separate sentences fused together.Rush was commenting on phoney soldiers claiming they went to Iraq or Afganistan when they didn''''t Harry Reid is a 100% pure communist and the American media have become a communist propaganda machine that prints so many lies so many times, it is assumed the truth. This is straight out of the Marxist textbook.

[bizzzz-2009]

I meant the twin tower bombings in 93

[bizzzz-2009]

This war is not going to end because we want it to end. This war is going to end when the enemy stops attacking us. I don%u2019t know if any of the candidates could stop this war if they wanted to, unless we all agreed to bow at the hand of radical Islam or unless we keep killing them to point they surrender. Unfortunately, I see this being a very long war, not because of the Republicans or Democrats, but because of the terrorists.
You honestly feel Democrats would fight the war on terror better? What facts can you state that would convince me?
Because if I recall correctly, Clinton ignored the first Twin Tower bombing in 03, he ignored the two embassey bombings in Africa, he ignored the Cole bombing in Yemen. He degraded and defunded the intelligence agencies for years, to the point that they were left impotent.
If the Democrats had their way, every terrorist in Gitmo would have a lawyer, paid for by the American taxpayer.

[tibu987]

And what is wrong with having peaceful ideas? It is an approach that has never been tried by the U.S. government.
Those of you who are not veterans or knowledgable of the eras of World War II, the Korean war, Vietnam, the horror of the two atomic bomb dropped on Japan (and yes, it did end the war and undoubtedly saved many lives). Still, it was a terrrible tragedy.
The U.S. will always have a strong, well armed, and ready military. War is always an option.
"Talk softly and carry a big stick."
As they say, give peace a chance.

[samael2014]

Is there some kind of crazy right-wing data (as in something tangible and not ignorant) out there corroborating some kind of some kind of disturbing and dangerous delusion that nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent to terrorists, or even those who wish to stockpile these themselves? While I certainly believe it is sociopaths like Bush and a corruption of democratic and Christian values that can and do kill people and country, not nuclear weapons; clearly pending due process to bring WAR CRIMINALs who are very capable of anything to justice, nuclear weapons must be considered at least as dangerous as the sociopathic freaks that have access to stockpiles of them.

[dante805]

I''m sure glad this guy wasn''t around during WWII. Can you imagine how amny Soldiers would have died if his kind of thinking prevailed in the 1940''s. Wow this guy is stunningly stupid on foreign policy. He even makes Dan Qualye look like Einstein. Can you imagine this guy in the WHite House making any real life decisions; scary thought. I see the guy raised lots more money; what are these idiots thinking, giving money to a loser. He hasn''t moved 2% in any poll and won''t criticize his opponents. Maybe DUMBO ears should get some new advisors.

[navyretired2]

Wow. How naive can he be? He actually believes this is possible? He''s been drinkin'' the sugar-free, non-fattening kool-aid.

Ron Paul 2008 people. Put away the partisan goggles that will prevent you from even considering what somebody stands for just because of the party they''re in, because he''s a republican, but he CERTAINLY doesn''t promote what our current administration has shown.

He''s for America and her Constitution. Call me naive as well if you''d like, but I still think the Constitution is worth defending and using as a blueprint for a first-class nation.

Mainstream media has blocked out Ron Paul in general, because he''s not in bed with them and their money, but if enough people see what he''s about and support him, he can be elected. He''s our only chance at reversing the problems created by our country in the past 6+ years. MSM won''t be able to shut him out of the media if he''s got a major, strong following.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Definitely worth a few minutes of your time.

[red1530]

The reason that the Soviet Union collapsed was because we outspent them in building conventional weapons like tanks and aircraft. The corruption in the government also helped.

[jackhighland]

This child wants to be President? And has a chance?!?

The Democrats know they can''t- and will not- pull out of Iraq. All the anti-war lies are just Blame Bush Talk to get political support.

Its irresponsible- and working! Who knew so many people would believe their lies? All it cost was the unity of the nation.

And they will pay for it.

[adian1-2009]

For Obama to insist in critizicing the affirmative votes of Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodds to attack Irak based on how Obama would have voted had he been in the Senate four years ago, is nothing but demagogy. He had ample opportunity to voice his position during the Democratic Convention. He did not, even though Kerry had voted in favor of the attack. Now Obama says that he opted to keep silent not to affect the proceedings. Later on and before he became a pre-candidate, he said that he did not know how he would have voted since he was not privy to the intelligence information available to the senators. Now he is fixing that with non-convincing explanations. The truth is that Bush had convinced everybody of the existence of WMD''s in Iraq. A few days ago Obama could not committ himself to get our troops out of Iraq in any fixed term. Now he tries to explain that affirmation and says that in 16 months he will get the "combat" troops out. Come on Obama! Stop the demagoguery! Honestly, where are you regarding this "war". Are you not going to do your best to stop funding this so called war? What do you think is what we voted for last year?

[goldesprit]

"No, what really doomed the Soviet Union was corruption by the ruling party. The Nuke program was nowhere near as destructive to the Soviet economy as the corruption surrounding it.

It is the same corruption that has doomed the future of the US. We were the last ones standing true, but the seeds of corruption planted and fertilized during the cold war are now a strangling vine, choking every aspect of US economics. In your lifetime you will witness the collapse."

possted by brianbwb

Its a chicken egg arguement, introduced by the word "really".
I agree that the administration is corrupt, and many companies and institutions. The cold war was inevetable, so we need to try and recover rather than throwing in the towel.
After a degree of collapse, perhaps we can start again, and we may be able to change, even with this much stupidity and greed.
Optimistic? Yes.

[patriotic9]

Eliminate all the nukes?!

First you''''ve got to eliminate the reasons and the need to have them!


I M P O S S I B L E ! ! !

Posted by USAyesterday at 02:10 AM : Oct 03, 2007

It''s just like

Eliminate all the Terrorism?!

First you''''ve got to eliminate the reasons like the Occupation of the Palestinian land by the EUROPEAN INVADERS IN PALESTINE, who were brought into PALESTINE after the WWII to occupy the land of those PALESTINIANS by force who can''t even speak the language spoken by HITLER, like considering HUMAN BEINGS to be GOD-NEGLECTED or GOD-CHOSEN on the basis of the RACE or FAMILY they are born in, to make policies based on the BOOK OF LIES AND CONTRADICTIONS "BIBLE" and to violate HUMAN RIGHTS using the name of RELIGION, GOD, BIBLE, and JESUS, and the need to have that!

[usayesterday]

Eliminate all the nukes?!

First you''ve got to eliminate the reasons and the need to have them!


I M P O S S I B L E ! ! !

[brianbwb-2009]

Osama Bin Laden wants the Republicans to win again, ha...ha...ha...ha...ha
Posted by rationalL7,

And why shouldn''t Bush''s family friend want this? He is getting mega rich(er) by playing the role of Bush''s boogieman.

[brianbwb-2009]

"...and to "keep up" they overspent on their nuke program, which caused their economy to implode." Posted by goldesprit

No, what really doomed the Soviet Union was corruption by the ruling party. The Nuke program was nowhere near as destructive to the Soviet economy as the corruption surrounding it.

It is the same corruption that has doomed the future of the US. We were the last ones standing true, but the seeds of corruption planted and fertilized during the cold war are now a strangling vine, choking every aspect of US economics. In your lifetime you will witness the collapse.

[pornohero]

Obama iz right , America isn''t worth protectng anymore, we''re heading for a nuclear strike against us and The enemy will feel safer bow that our "rocks" won''t be castng very far.
on the lighter side, obam is pretty cute and if i were a chick...hmm.. maybe obama is right

[brianbwb-2009]

"No law can force a Congress to stand up to the president."

But the oath they swore to protect and defend the constitution should force them to hold a criminal president responsible for his crimes.

"But the Congress, the administration, the media and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002,"

Wrong. Since we were debating points based on intentional lies by Bush and his klan, most didn''t understand what the debate was about.

"Republicans criticized Obama''s stance as dangerous to national security."

Anyone opposing the Nazis are deemed "dangerous to national security." In reality, nothing has harmed national security more than the corruption practiced by Bush and his gang.

Health care, economic prosperity for more than just the already rich, and education, which under Bush and Republican presidents before him have been sorely neglected, are also vital aspects of national security, not just the ability to act as a mercenary force protecting the economic interests of a few multinational corporations.

[erichsh]

Condomism, your rambling screed about "Cons" is just as bizarre as it is plain wrong, and arrogant and self-serving to boot. It is also easy and fun to rebut and debunk.

Who are you to define and lump together all "Cons" as greedy, self-centered, guilt-ridden, terrified little repugs? You use the phrase "all cons I know" - yeah, both of them. People with your twisted, paranoid, delusional mindset are so absolutely convinced of the correctness of your self-righteous, all-caring, all-feeling worldview, that anyone who doesn''t wholeheartedly subscribe to every last tenent of that viewpoint is by definition a freak of nature, or worse. So you won''t even look at them let alone speak to them or, worse, listen to them.

The best investment you could ever make in my life is to sell your US home and leave the land of the Zombies forever. Bon voyage!

[point2itall]

"Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack." - Dr. Strangelove

I swear I am becoming more centrist by the day . . . raised of the mindset somewhere in the ideological neighborhood of a Roosevelt or Kennedy democrat, I can''t take it any more!

Theory sounds great doesn''t it! Moreover, it really make reality a b****.

We can sign whatever disarmament agreements we want. Only a fool would actually believe that even if such an agreement were signed that either the US or any of the other real nuclear powers in Asia or Europe would honestly destroy even a fraction of their arsenals, no matter what they said or showed publically.

What the hell bunker did you all just crawl out of!?