posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:30 PM
Dude, I don't live in some fantasy world. I know we can't rid the world of nukes, but if we did...is all I'm saying.
I listened to Obama's short speech here and didn't have an issue, but I figured since the Reagan edited in, "shut up" I figured that was enough
to know where the OP was heading with this. If you didn't pop up here raving about the 27min speech, I quite honestly would not have listened to it.
I happen to agree with both speeches. But Reagan wasn't the President that his 1964 self would have approved of, at least not fiscally.
...It does make me think that Obama will also not be able to be who he says or wants to be as President.
A seperate thread should address this issue but I don't start threads. We "all" should want Obama to be able to keep his Blackberry. I only
think of this because I am curious on why Reagan of '64 wasn't Reagan of '80's....are these Presidents allowed to know what is going on or are
they fed the information that "handlers" want them to know? (not that Bush cared) but Obama seems to have the intellectual curiosity to keep in
touch with what is really going on.
Anyway, the desire to eliminate nukes, can only strengthen our national defense and any talk about it being some liberal peace "appeasement" is
erronous. I don't hear him "Obama" saying that we would make the first gesture. We could get rid of every land based ICBM and have enough on Subs
to take care of any issue.....preventing an arms race with China would be a good move, because we would never be able to keep up missle for missle
with them....we don't want to end up like the Soviet Union. Nobody else should be allowed to develop the bomb either. Sorry, the club is
closed....We don't need Syria or Iran to hold us hostage everytime there is some political crisis. I would think that North Korea will be the
Country we use as an example when the time comes....probably when we decide to show Iran we mean business.