What President Barack Obama would do to make us safe
Posted on February 27th, 2008 at 2:24 pm by Phillip McCrackenThere doesn’t seem to be much Barack Obama wouldn’t do as President to disarm this country and make sure the next generation of military weapons are developed by other nations, both friend and foe, rather than here. He seems oblivious to the fact that national defence is the President’s main job, not feel good pap that will harm the economy.
Watch this 52 second video where he explains what he would do.
As for his claim that missile defence systems are “unproven,” maybe this was recorded before we shot down a satellite. But that doesn’t change the fact that Liberals are fast becoming the “No we can’t” party. They seem to have faith in nothing but themselves. Anything with which they disagree can come to pass, so they’ll simply stop it from progressing.
Thank God none of the Liberals around today were around at the time of our nation’s founding or we’d be paying taxes to the Queen.
19 Comments
Leave a comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
You compare shooting a stationary satellite to shooting a missile flying hundreds of miles per hour?
Mission systems do not work unless you know exactly where the target is going, satellites keep the same path around the globe.
If a satellite were stationary it would not maintain orbit, it was going 18,000 miles an hour.
Steve and Stephen, there have been oodles of successful tests in recent years. (since Bush pulled us from the archaic ABM treaty) Google successful missile defense tests and you’ll find all sorts of good stuff.
The satellite was moving at 17,000 mph.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25236
Technology begets technology. Is there a benefit to being able to shoot down satellites, especially if they are the bad guys’ (yes, that’s a moral assumption) satellites? Yes. And greater technology will naturally follow.
I don’t disagree that there is wasteful spending in the defense budget. Likewise, there is wasteful spending in almost every budget I’ve ever seen.
Scrutiny is good, but it really comes down to values. If BHO is saying that military spending needs more scrutiny than the rest of the federal spending, then he is showing us his values. I place a high value on national defense spending by the gov’t because that is something I CANNOT do for myself. I can get an education. I can get a job. I can wait to buy a house until I can afford it. I CANNOT do nat’l defense. That’s the government’s job.
I better stop now. I have work to do.
The thought of Senator Obama winning the democratic nomination, and possibly the Presidenancy is frightening. This man has no clue.
People need to wake up, become informed and stop falling into the spell cast by his ‘charm’.
I am a registered democrat and will not be voting for him in PAs primaries in April. I’ll take my chances with Clinton in the whitehouse before I would Obama.
This video from Obama is the scariest thing I’ve seen in years. The scariest part is that the things he says he will do, are actually things he CAN do if he wins the Presidency. I’m amazed that he is so wrong on every point he mentioned. The man lives in a fantasy world.
THANK YOU to those previous posters for explaining to Steve that the satellite was not “stationary”. HAHAHAHAHA
Russert did a GREAT job of exposing General Zods weaknesses of his Iraq policies.
We’ve had technology on the table to shoot down missiles since the 80’s. We’ve just never had the will to develop it (read: 40 years of Democratic controlled Congress). For Pete’s sake, we put a man on the moon with less computing power than a Commodore 64 back in the late 60’s, don’t you think that 40 years later we could successfully shoot down a missle? Why do you think China made such a big deal about knocking out a sattelite? They know what we can do and wanted to let us know they were in the game too (thanks to B. Clinton and Loral). Remember how all the Democrats cried and complained about the Patriot missle defense system being a waste of money and unproven technology? Then Patriot missiles started shooting down Scuds during the first Gulf War. Same thing here. Democrats will whine about the missile defense system until they save our collective a$$es from an incoming ICBM…to bad they won’t get on board til then…
There have been plenty of candidates I have voted for over the years that I was less than enthusiastic about (see. Bush, G.W.). But my internal struggle of the ‘lesser of 2 evils’ always gets the best of me - and NOT voting is NOT an option.
But this Obama guy. . . this particular candidate is the most frightening US political figure I have ever seen. A few years ago, I never could imagine a guy with his record (or lack thereof) and his far-left fantasyland views even having a shot at the Green party nomination. Fast forward to 2008 and not only does he appear to be the slam dunk Dem nominee, I would just about bet my house on him winning the general election.
I disagree with him on virtually everything he stands for. He’s so far off to the left, he makes Hillary look like a centrist. I can’t believe I have found a viable Presidential candidate that I can support less than Hillary. His zombie-like supporters cry, faint, and probably pee their pants when he grabs the microphone. The media refuses to lay a glove on him - yet the NY Times digs up a ridiculous 10 year old story on McCain.
Obama wants my $$ - so does every other Dem. I guess I can tighten the belt and eat Ramen noodles if I have to. But the fact that his utopian views would harm common sense judgement on national defense - that is absolutely unacceptable. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is one thing. But hindering America’s ability to defend itself is a change I just CAN’T believe in. It’s shameful.
Obama just might end up being the best thing for the Republican Party since Jimmy Carter.
The federal goverment is spending our nation into fiscal oblivion. Get the budget balanced first - then we can talk about increasing the Pentagon’s budget.
Those neo-cons who brought us this lovely Iraq war want more of the same - the U.S. as world protector. Guess what - other countries can start taking the lead role - we don’t have to be the big bad policeman anymore.
The Iraq boondoggle has dropped the dollar to levels never seen, and now I will be paying off this government debt till the day I die, for sure.
I’m ready to let prosperous countries like Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, Australia, etc. start taking on the load of world protector.
It’s nice to have a great defense, but let’s start looking for a world that considers war off the table. Not much hope the Islamofascists will listen, but the more who get on board the better. One day they too may learn the insanity of their ways.
Obama is heading in the right direction.
Hey George….Countries like Germany, France, Britain, and Sweden have made a concious choice to not take the “lead role”, not even to defend themselves. Which is why America remains the “Last Great Hope”.
“Consider a world that leaves war off the table”? And then you procede to admit that there is “not much hope the Islamofascists will listen”. So what do we do when they dont?
Pacifism is immoral. To take a position that we should leave the lives and safety of ourselves, families, and community in the hands of those who are willing to take it immoral.
It is silly psycho-babble like this from Obama supporters that illustrate their lack of seriousness when it comes to world events.
It is becoming more and more clear that many of the Ron Paul KOOKS have moved with their tin-foil hats into the “hope” and “change” Obama camp.
Scrapping a successful missile defense program; now that’s change that can kill you.
OK, ya got me. I was thinking it was geosynchronous so it would be stationary relative to the missile.
Wow, this is an amazingly naive and truly frightening statement by Obama. As a Ph.D. student studying international politics, I have to say that Obama’s understanding (I use the word loosely) of how international relations works is shockingly naive. His suave and soothing rhetoric may be convincing too many on the left and in the center of this country, but he’s not going to be able to persuade leaders of countries like Russia, China, and Iran with a message of naive “hope” like this one.
Furthermore, a world without nuclear weapons is not a good idea at this point. In one sense, ideally such technology would never have been discovered, but now that it is, the safest thing to do is NOT to get rid of all such weapons while the technology remains out there. If we follow Obama’s plan, we could find ourselves in a situation where a rogue state or terrorist group is able to secretly build a nuclear arsenal and threaten the world!
As for George’s statement about a world where war is “off the table,” I would comment that if you try to get it off the table, you merely stack the odds in favor of those who would misuse it. See the Kellogg-Briand pact and Fascism in the 1920s and 1930s if you doubt that point. War is best prevented when those who would use it for evil fear to do so because of the strength of those desiring good.
compare satellite tv systems
Any other related posts? Thanks.