Ok let's see. Training a group of people so that the Federal government can utilize them in times of 'disaster'. Nonspecific disaster.

 

So in other words, a civilian group that can be trained and used by the president and the federal bureaucracy whenever they deem fit. Read up on Vlad Lenin, Fidel Castro, and Augusto Pinochet, so you can see what I'm complaining about.

 

Cuba's CDR is exactly that, a group of civilians that can be used by government in times of crisis. The CDR is not trained to kill. This plan sets the framework for true fascism, it is the infrastructure for government watch groups and the slowly filtering away of our freedoms.

 

The fact that you lawyers and liberals are not in the least bit troubled by this is very frightening. Obama will set up the infrastructure for a dictatorship and people are willing to accept it with open arms. Very scary.

I more or less or agree with you. It was allegedly uncovered after FDR's death that he intended to keep the soldiers that would otherwise be returning from the war on active "national service" duties. That is fascism (well, FDR was a fascist himself).

 

However, from the looks of it, this Obama plan is completely voluntary and there would be tax incentives among other things. On that principal, it isn't so frightening. However, I do question anyone's judgment who supports this government/civilian hybrid entity.

 

Frankly I think a military draft is infinitely more likely under an Obama/Biden administration. Honestly. I can't wait to hear the foaming at the mouth Obama supporters respond to this.

 

That's exactly right. In its current form, sure it seems harmless. But this is one of those situations where it needs to be scrutinized more closely. It starts to provide the format for the creation of something worse. I don;t think Obama will do anything worse with it, but it can in the future happen, using what Obama created. Throughout history, every dictatorship has had some form of a civilian defense group that started out to preserve national security and 'help' keep the populace safe, and it eventually evolved into the Stasi or similar.

You've got to be kidding guys. After reading those passages several times, I can't see what you guys are getting at. Nothing in there echoes fascist government whatsoever. It's completely harmless. Let's focus on more important issues, please.

 

PS- If somehow I am wrong and Obama creates a secret army to terrorize the US, then please feel free to come out here and accept my apology in person.

You've got to be kidding guys. After reading those passages several times, I can't see what you guys are getting at. Nothing in there echoes fascist government whatsoever. It's completely harmless. Let's focus on more important issues, please.

 

PS- If somehow I am wrong and Obama creates a secret army to terrorize the US, then please feel free to come out here and accept my apology in person.

 

Wow, this country really is going down the crapper. This is far more important than everything. You open this door and we're going to wish for the days that we stressed about a credit crunch.

This video is misleading. Obama was talking about the need to stop relying on our military to police Iraq, and that we need a civilian force of Iraqis to help.

 

Just another pathetic attempt by an Obama hater to distort the truth. Nice try :thumbup

 

Did you think it was a coincidence that the clip was cut down to only 20 seconds? Jeez, some people are gullible.

 

I'll be honest, both parties are guilty of trying to stretch the truth, but for crying out loud...this is preposterous.

You've got to be kidding guys. After reading those passages several times, I can't see what you guys are getting at. Nothing in there echoes fascist government whatsoever. It's completely harmless. Let's focus on more important issues, please.

 

PS- If somehow I am wrong and Obama creates a secret army to terrorize the US, then please feel free to come out here and accept my apology in person.

 

Wow, this country really is going down the crapper. This is far more important than everything. You open this door and we're going to wish for the days that we stressed about a credit crunch.

We wont be able to, as we will all be in prison or flat out disappeared. While I dont know if this plan of Obama's will come to pass, I do predict that freedom of the press and freedom of speech in regards to Obama will be severely limited. Call it a hunch.

This video is misleading. Obama was talking about the need to stop relying on our military to police Iraq, and that we need a civilian force of Iraqis to help.

 

Just another pathetic attempt by an Obama hater to distort the truth. Nice try :thumbup

 

Did you think it was a coincidence that the clip was cut down to only 20 seconds? Jeez, some people are gullible.

 

I'll be honest, both parties are guilty of trying to stretch the truth, but for crying out loud...this is preposterous.

Changes nothing. I didn't even watch the video.

 

If you actually follow the issues closely you would know that Obama has been advocating what Cangelosi is describing for much of his presidential campaign. McCain supports it as well. I believe the two of them even attended some event for the concept only a couple of weeks ago.

 

In other words, this is hardly a fabrication.

 

You beat me to it. Puma, read your own candidates website and you'll be surprised. Now if you agree with this policy thats another issue, but there is absolutely no distorting of the truth by any one on this post. In fact, he is NOT talking about Iraq at all, it seems you're distorting the truth here to advance your candidate's agenda. I suggest you visit www.BarackObama.com so you can educate yourself on this issue.

You've got to be kidding guys. After reading those passages several times, I can't see what you guys are getting at. Nothing in there echoes fascist government whatsoever. It's completely harmless. Let's focus on more important issues, please.

 

PS- If somehow I am wrong and Obama creates a secret army to terrorize the US, then please feel free to come out here and accept my apology in person.

Like contraception? There's an important issue for you.

No, how about the Supreme Court? Considering the age of several of the justices, this should be talked about more in the media than it has so far. At least there was a debate question about it on Friday.

You've got to be kidding guys. After reading those passages several times, I can't see what you guys are getting at. Nothing in there echoes fascist government whatsoever. It's completely harmless. Let's focus on more important issues, please.

 

PS- If somehow I am wrong and Obama creates a secret army to terrorize the US, then please feel free to come out here and accept my apology in person.

Like contraception? There's an important issue for you.

No, how about the Supreme Court? Considering the age of several of the justices, this should be talked about more in the media than it has so far. At least there was a debate question about it on Friday.

 

For once, I actually agree with you. There is a huge possibility the next president will have to appoint one or more justices.

You've got to be kidding guys. After reading those passages several times, I can't see what you guys are getting at. Nothing in there echoes fascist government whatsoever. It's completely harmless. Let's focus on more important issues, please.

 

PS- If somehow I am wrong and Obama creates a secret army to terrorize the US, then please feel free to come out here and accept my apology in person.

Like contraception? There's an important issue for you.

No, how about the Supreme Court? Considering the age of several of the justices, this should be talked about more in the media than it has so far. At least there was a debate question about it on Friday.

I was referring to your tendency here to bring up insignificant issues such as gay marriage, abortion, contraception, evolution, etc which are somewhat unimportant in the overall scope.

 

Obviously these things should be talked about but to put it frankly, I would place much more emphasis on how a candidate votes on a $700B bailout bill over whether or not one believes in evolution.

 

A lot of these minor issues should be addressed at the state level anyway which makes some of these instances even more absurd.

 

I would actually say that all these nonmonetary 'social' issues, should be voted on at the state level. Gay marriage, abortion, contraception, intelligent design and so forth.

Ok let's see. Training a group of people so that the Federal government can utilize them in times of 'disaster'. Nonspecific disaster.

 

So in other words, a civilian group that can be trained and used by the president and the federal bureaucracy whenever they deem fit. Read up on Vlad Lenin, Fidel Castro, and Augusto Pinochet, so you can see what I'm complaining about.

 

Cuba's CDR is exactly that, a group of civilians that can be used by government in times of crisis. The CDR is not trained to kill. This plan sets the framework for true fascism, it is the infrastructure for government watch groups and the slowly filtering away of our freedoms.

 

The fact that you lawyers and liberals are not in the least bit troubled by this is very frightening. Obama will set up the infrastructure for a dictatorship and people are willing to accept it with open arms. Very scary.

 

So basically you have no reason to believe that anything Obama has said or posted in and of itself contitutes the phrase "very scary speech." What you mean to say is "plausibly, hypothetically, if Obama goes in a direction for which I have no evidence that he would other than conjecture, this would be a very scary speech."

 

Yeah, talk about alarmist.

 

The problem with these criticisms of Obama, and this is like the third one in a few days, is that they are based almost entirely on taking something he said to a hypothetical extreme.

 

You're smarter than this and you can do better than comparing Obama to facists.

What are you talking about?

 

For those who care about civil liberties this is an incredibly scary proposal for the aforementioned reasons. And he did supply reasons. Obama is attempting to implement programs that further integrate the civilian into the state apparatus. That is incredibly frightening, whether the programs are involuntary or not.

 

Even if we knew further administrations or Obama himself would not evolve this into an unconsitutional forced participation, its existence at all is certainly a bit fascist in nature.

 

How about instead of attacking how civil libertarians perceive the proposal why don't you defend the practice itself?

 

There have been almost 10 different characterizations of this. It's been compaired to the CDR, which legacy said it was exactly like...so clearly hyperbole is being used.

 

Let me follow your characterization that he is intergrating the civilian into the state apparatus.

 

We already have programs that are federal in nature but are civil service programs. Americorp, Peacecorp, etc. This explanation, by an admittedly anti-Obama person, seems much more accurate, and the criticism much more rational.

 

In Barack Obama?s July 2, 2008 speech calling America to national service, Obama proposed ?a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded? as our military. This has prompted some in the blogosphere to raise the specter of a huge new domestic paramilitary organization. Others suggest that he may have been talking about our ?current non-military security agencies - FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, DHS, etc.?

 

I think that both interpretations are probably wrong. If you listen to the whole speech ?- or even the couple minutes before his security force proposal ? I think that it?s reasonably clear that Obama is talking about expanding a range of domestic and international agencies such as AmeriCorps, the Foreign Service, and the Peace Corps ? and adding some new ones.

 

...

Speech itself:

Just as we must value and encourage military service across our society, we must honor and expand other opportunities to serve. Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but it also depends on the teacher in East LA, or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia. . . .

 

Today, AmeriCorps ? our nation?s network of local, state and national service programs ? has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife Michelle once left her job at a law firm at city hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. These programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America?s greatest resource ? our citizens.

 

That?s why as President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem ? they are the answer.

 

So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We?ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we?re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

 

 

...

 

Undoubtedly, much of what Obama is talking about is also proposed on his website, for example: He will establish a Classroom Corps to help teachers and students, with a priority placed on underserved schools; a Health Corps to improve public health outreach; a Clean Energy Corps to conduct weatherization and renewable energy projects; a Veterans Corps to assist veterans at hospitals, nursing homes and homeless shelters; and a Homeland Security Corps to help communities plan, prepare for and respond to emergencies.

 

 

So I think it?s incorrect to think that Obama is proposing some new paramilitary organization or is just referring to the FBI or the CIA.

 

 

http://volokh.com/posts/1216451854.shtml

 

 

If your criticism is similar to Volhks, ie that it is expands the size of the federal government, I can understand that. That's a back forth that has been had 1000s of times, and this is just another way to make the same point. But comparing Obama to Castro and Pinochet is beyond rationality.

If Obama had just changed the word "security" to "service" as in "civilian national service force" it would have been less bothersome. I'm not a libertarian per se but I get why some people would be alarmed by those few sentences. I'm not overly worried about though. Now, if he asks us to turn in our guns, well, thats another story.

Take any power you want to give to the government, then imagine the worst possible person holding that power. If that is a recipe for tyranny, then you don't give government that authority.

Maybe this is what he was referring to:

 

 

 

Welcome To Camp Obama

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 03, 2008 4:20 PM PT

 

Election '08: Voters coast-to-coast are receiving e-mails from the Obama campaign encouraging them to sign up to learn pre-election agitation tactics at "Camp Obama." Red kerchiefs, anyone?

 

Read More: Election 2008

 

 

When readers first alerted us to the camps, we thought it might be another hoax that migrated into inboxes. But it's for real.

 

The unsolicited pitch goes like this: "Camp Obama attendees will receive real world organizing experience that will have a direct impact on this election. Graduates of Camp Obama will go on to become Deputy Field Organizers who will lead this campaign to victory in crucial battleground states around the country."

 

The letter continues, "By participating in Camp Obama you'll get the kind of experience that Barack got as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, where he learned that real change happens from the bottom up."

 

While the letter neglects to identify the source of that "experience," a slide on a camp blog linked to the Obama Web site offers a clue. Underneath a "Welcome to Camp Obama" banner, a trainer at Obama headquarters in Chicago is seen speaking next to a wipe board with the words "Saul Alinsky" scrawled across it.

 

Alinsky is the late Chicago socialist and street agitator who is considered the father of community organizing.

 

Another slide of a camp trainer identified as Mike Kruglik is equally telling. Kruglik happens to be the Alinsky disciple who first taught Obama hardball organizing tactics on the South Side. He was Obama's boss in the '80s. Kruglik now works for the Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation, which trains and deploys radicals across the country.

 

Kruglik once declared Obama "the undisputed master of agitation," according to David Freddoso, author of the best-seller "The Case Against Barack Obama."

 

Obama learned well from the master agitator. Alinsky taught future radicals that bad things are often done for the right reasons, love without power is sentimental mush, power must be taken, and all change comes about as a result of threat and pressure.

 

Obama calls his Alinskyite experience "the best education I ever had."

 

Now he's passing it on to his groupies. He recently told supporters in Nevada, a state that will be hotly contested, to sharpen their elbows in the final lap of the race. Confront Republicans, he said, and "get in their faces."

 

"Be absolutely ruthless," adds Camp Obama director Jocelyn Woodards, who leads the intensive two-day training course for campers in Chicago.

 

In the Alinsky model, organizing is code for agitating. For revolution. He had no patience for liberals who merely talked of change.

 

"Liberals protest," he wrote in "Rules for Radicals," while "radicals rebel." Liberals become "indignant," while "radicals become fighting mad and go into action."

 

"Liberals give and take oral arguments," Alinsky added. "Radicals give and take the hard, dirty, bitter way of life."

 

Alinsky's paragon of radicalism was Satan, to whom he dedicated the first edition of "Rules": "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom ? Lucifer."

 

Dirty street fighting is at the heart of Obama's organizing. While he stands above the fray, his minions at ACORN are threatening, intimidating, confronting and even committing voter fraud. This is Alinsky's end-justifies-means morality in action. Whatever it takes to win the revolution.

 

Obama needs more agitators, so he's set up these camps to train them.

 

ACORN has the minority communities covered, while the camps are churning out mostly coed organizers. The Chicago program has already trained some 2,000 agitators to go back to their college campuses and reproduce more Obama clones.

 

No campaign has been successful at mobilizing students to vote en masse. But Obama hired the founder of MTV's Rock the Vote to organize students and train them to use Alinsky tactics on campuses in battleground states.

 

They have been training these students since the primaries. They in turn are registering fellow students in droves to vote, while creating massive phone banks to help get out the vote on Election Day. Meanwhile, ACORN is registering thousands of minorities to vote in key states.

 

Such potential new voters don't show up in the national polls of "likely voters," which show a relatively tight race, because they've never voted and don't show on past rolls.

 

If they turn out at the polls on Nov. 4, it could translate into a landslide for Obama.

 

If he can garner better than 50% of the popular vote, he can claim a mandate for his radical agenda.

 

What's more, all these first-time minority and student voters wouldn't vote for just Obama. They'd also more than likely vote down-ballot for other Democrats, padding their majorities in Congress.

 

If Democrats score supermajorities, filibuster-proofing the Senate, Obama could get most of his agenda rammed through in the first 100 days, surely in the first two years, before Americans could get a chance to check Democrat power in the midterm election of 2010.

 

How much damage could they do? Well, look at how much damage the Clintonistas did. We're now seeing the financial fruits of their social experiment to apply affirmative action to the lending business. Obama plans to conduct a far more radical social experiment.

 

Few during this long campaign have wanted to talk about Obama's days as a community organizer or his ties to radicals, because they didn't want to raise the S word. Well, guess what? The avoidance has given him license to apply his organizing skills on a mass scale.

 

It made the difference in the primaries when he beat the Clinton machine, and it may now make the difference in the general election.

 

Not calling attention to Alinsky and the other socialists behind the Obama movement has even allowed creation of camps to indoctrinate American youth.

 

If John McCain hopes to win, he'll have to act as ruthlessly as Obama's campers.

 

He can start by exposing for voters the socialist underpinnings of community organizing.

My issue is not a size of the federal government issue. I have a problem with any form of federal secruity that isnt the military. Which is why I have a problem with the CIA and other alphabet agencies. Slowly, the civlian executive is taking control of everything sector by sector.

 

Is Obama proposing a CDR? No. But the mechanism which he is proposing, can be expanded little by little to the point where in 20,20, maybe even 100 years all the small expansions can lead to a fascist system. In the U.S. we won;t have our rights taken away completely overnight, but you take a little here and a little there for the 'good' of the country, until one day we realize we have nothing left.

I still say a Barack Obama as president backed by a democrat controlled congress is one of the most frightening possibilities in American history.

Well, I don't remember a lot of people complaining (like I did) about the Patriot Act when it was signed.

 

Meanwhile, all of these conservative pundits are becoming very desperate, including Sarah Palin. They are playing the 'OMG, Obama hearts terrorists!' card, which people aren't buying, and didn't when they first tried it months ago.

 

People are far more concerned with the real issues this time, and I don't see the fear card working once again. It failed in the 2006 midterms as well.

Well, I don't remember a lot of people complaining (like I did) about the Patriot Act when it was signed.

 

Meanwhile, all of these conservative pundits are becoming very desperate, including Sarah Palin. They are playing the 'OMG, Obama hearts terrorists!' card, which people aren't buying, and didn't when they first tried it months ago.

 

People are far more concerned with the real issues this time, and I don't see the fear card working once again. It failed in the 2006 midterms as well.

 

This national security thing is not the 'fear card' Furthermore, when Patriot was first signed everyone in Congress was for it, including *gasp* most members of your Party. However, I was always against it, much in the same way I'm against many of the provisions of FISA.

 

Which is a great segueway into the Nat. security force argument. Without FISA, we can't have the Patriot Act. So what's the next step to further reduce our civil liberties. FISA was a stepping stone to Patriot. This NSF is a stepping stone as well. But to what and when.

My issue is not a size of the federal government issue. I have a problem with any form of federal secruity that isnt the military. Which is why I have a problem with the CIA and other alphabet agencies. Slowly, the civlian executive is taking control of everything sector by sector.

 

Is Obama proposing a CDR? No. But the mechanism which he is proposing, can be expanded little by little to the point where in 20,20, maybe even 100 years all the small expansions can lead to a fascist system. In the U.S. we won;t have our rights taken away completely overnight, but you take a little here and a little there for the 'good' of the country, until one day we realize we have nothing left.

 

Obama mentioned nothing about a security force in the police sense of it. He said national security, which need not equal police. But don't you think you're being extreme? Youre accusing Obama of giving a scary speech. So if he had advocated more funding for the FBI, you would be including him in the same sentence as the CDR and Castro?

Ok let's see. Training a group of people so that the Federal government can utilize them in times of 'disaster'. Nonspecific disaster.

 

So in other words, a civilian group that can be trained and used by the president and the federal bureaucracy whenever they deem fit. Read up on Vlad Lenin, Fidel Castro, and Augusto Pinochet, so you can see what I'm complaining about.

 

Cuba's CDR is exactly that, a group of civilians that can be used by government in times of crisis. The CDR is not trained to kill. This plan sets the framework for true fascism, it is the infrastructure for government watch groups and the slowly filtering away of our freedoms.

 

The fact that you lawyers and liberals are not in the least bit troubled by this is very frightening. Obama will set up the infrastructure for a dictatorship and people are willing to accept it with open arms. Very scary.

 

Idk what you are refering to when you talk about the CDRs, but they are ANYTHING BUT a force of civilians used for times of crisis. The CDRs are permanent block/neighborhood organizations that keep tabs on everyone and everything so that the government can know what everyone is doing, whether it is blowing some sh*t up, or farting too loudly. Furthermore, every Cuban is supposed to be a member of the CDR, just by the mere existence of being, so it's not like it's a voluntary thing. Anyways, I cannot tell how much this "civilian corps" is anything like "los CDR."

 

And I could use those $4000 bucks right now towards my college education.

Well, I don't remember a lot of people complaining (like I did) about the Patriot Act when it was signed.

 

Meanwhile, all of these conservative pundits are becoming very desperate, including Sarah Palin. They are playing the 'OMG, Obama hearts terrorists!' card, which people aren't buying, and didn't when they first tried it months ago.

 

People are far more concerned with the real issues this time, and I don't see the fear card working once again. It failed in the 2006 midterms as well.

 

I was just gonna say that we do not need CDRs when we have Patriot Act in place.

Ok let's see. Training a group of people so that the Federal government can utilize them in times of 'disaster'. Nonspecific disaster.

 

So in other words, a civilian group that can be trained and used by the president and the federal bureaucracy whenever they deem fit. Read up on Vlad Lenin, Fidel Castro, and Augusto Pinochet, so you can see what I'm complaining about.

 

Cuba's CDR is exactly that, a group of civilians that can be used by government in times of crisis. The CDR is not trained to kill. This plan sets the framework for true fascism, it is the infrastructure for government watch groups and the slowly filtering away of our freedoms.

 

The fact that you lawyers and liberals are not in the least bit troubled by this is very frightening. Obama will set up the infrastructure for a dictatorship and people are willing to accept it with open arms. Very scary.

I more or less or agree with you. It was allegedly uncovered after FDR's death that he intended to keep the soldiers that would otherwise be returning from the war on active "national service" duties. That is fascism (well, FDR was a fascist himself).

 

Link or it didn't happen. And it has to be from a PRIMARY source. You DO know what that is, right?

Ok let's see. Training a group of people so that the Federal government can utilize them in times of 'disaster'. Nonspecific disaster.

 

So in other words, a civilian group that can be trained and used by the president and the federal bureaucracy whenever they deem fit. Read up on Vlad Lenin, Fidel Castro, and Augusto Pinochet, so you can see what I'm complaining about.

 

Cuba's CDR is exactly that, a group of civilians that can be used by government in times of crisis. The CDR is not trained to kill. This plan sets the framework for true fascism, it is the infrastructure for government watch groups and the slowly filtering away of our freedoms.

 

The fact that you lawyers and liberals are not in the least bit troubled by this is very frightening. Obama will set up the infrastructure for a dictatorship and people are willing to accept it with open arms. Very scary.

I more or less or agree with you. It was allegedly uncovered after FDR's death that he intended to keep the soldiers that would otherwise be returning from the war on active "national service" duties. That is fascism (well, FDR was a fascist himself).

 

Link or it didn't happen. And it has to be from a PRIMARY source. You DO know what that is, right?

 

Things happened before the internet existed. This isn't a college research paper. If you think he's wrong, why not supply a link that states the contrary? Most things on the internet are secondary sources anyway. The definition of a primary source is ambiguous anyway especially if its some sort of article. Unless he submits a FOIA request to get you the info you want, primary sources aren't that easy to come by.

I was more afraid of this statement more then anything.

 

 

I agree in cutting the missile defense shield funding based on our current economic situation, but slowing down the progress of improving military technologies ??? many of the things we take for granted and use everyday are based off products of military technologies (GPS for example). Not to mention our military is behind the curve too much as it is. Other countries are not only trying to advance there own military, but always trying to counter our technologies. They are just now retiring the F-117 Stealth Fighter, but it should have been replaced years ago by the F-22. Other countries had found how to detect the F-117 radar signature and during the Clinton lead Bombing and intervention in Bosnia, one was shot down. Unless systems consistently improve our military superiority will be lost. If you have to fight a war, you don't want a fair fight, or just enough forces to get the job done (gulf war 2) you want to have such superiority that there hardly is a "fight" or best yet, to have the enemy come to the peace table under your terms. I disagreed with about 80% of what Obama said about defense funding, but he wants to fund this "National Security Force" whatever the hell that might be :confused

 

While I'm for a reduction in Nuclear weapons, a Nuclear free world after 1945 is unattainable. IF the U.S. and Russia, dismantle all there nukes, Israel sure as hell is still going to keep theres, Iran will allways want one, I doubt China will give there's up, and even if they do, North Korea is sure to keep theres, even if they say they won't. Just because the U.S. plays "nice" dosent mean that Iran and North Korea are just going to say "o look, the U.S is playing nice , so should we" because they blab on and on about how they need nukes to protect themselves from America but it's not really about that, they have been saying the same thing since Ayatollah took over. The real reason is they want power, more and more power, and whats the most powerful thing they can have ? a nuclear weapon.

 

I'm on the fence about our continued war in Iraqi so I reserve judgment on that.

Well, we certainly don't need 11,000 nukes.