E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAt what’s sure to be a contentious confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican critics of President Barack Obama’s secretary of defense nominee former Sen. Chuck Hagel will explain why they think he’s been soft on using force against Iran. And they’ll voice worry about how firm a supporter of Israel he’ll be at the Pentagon, giving his criticism of what he called the “Jewish lobby.”
But there’s another front in the Hagel battle: his endorsement of Global Zero, the movement calling for abolition of nuclear weapons. This is what makes Thursday’s hearing a chance for Republicans to raise questions about Obama’s nuclear weapons policy and the overall debate over the reduction and modernization of the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
With endorsements from former president Jimmy Carter, ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and other international leaders, the Global Zero movement has proposed a plan to reduce and ultimately eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2030.
Of course, Hagel’s Global Zero support doesn’t make him a maverick in the Obama administration. If confirmed, he’ll be working for a president who in 2009 called for “a world without nuclear weapons,” although Obama acknowledged, “This goal will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime.”
Recommended: Obama to embrace Senate deal
The ranking Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, said in an interview on C-Span Sunday that Hagel’s endorsement of Global Zero “concerns me a lot.” Inhofe also charged that Obama “wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal, he refuses to modernize it.”
Most nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal were produced 30 to 40 years ago, and no new ones have been produced since the end of the 1990's. So the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an agency within the Department of Energy, is charge of replacing some aging components and assessing the warheads for reliability.
Charles Dharapak / AP
President Barack Obama announces in the East Room of the White House, Monday, Jan. 7, 2013, that he is nominating former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, as the new Defense Secretary.
The Oklahoma Republican said the nuclear threats from North Korea and the potential for Iran to deploy a nuclear-armed ballistic missile make the reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent especially important.
(Inhofe announced he’ll oppose Hagel, but implied that he expects the former Nebraska senator will win confirmation.)
Hagel served on the Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission which issued a report last May calling for an 80 percent reduction in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
In contrast with Inhofe, the report said, “We surely do not need thousands of modern nuclear weapons to play this [deterrent] role vis-à-vis a country with a handful of primitive nuclear devices.”
It also said that a drastically smaller U.S. arsenal could be negotiated bilaterally with Russia “or implemented unilaterally.”
And it said that dramatic cuts in the size of the arsenal would allow downsizing of the “the costly modernization of the nuclear complex currently underway,” including plutonium facilities at Los Alamos, N.M. and the uranium processing facility called Y-12 in Oak Ridge, Tenn. Those plants help extend the service life of the warheads that go on missiles in U.S. submarines.
Sen. Bob Corker, R- Tenn., brought up Hagel’s Global Zero role at last week’s confirmation hearing for Obama’s secretary of state nominee, Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass.
“For those of us who care deeply about our nuclear arsenal, and modernization… some of the things that were authored in this (May 2012 Global Zero) report candidly are just concerning,” said Corker.
He told Kerry that normally there's a tension between the Defense Department which “presses for weaponry” and the State Department which “presses for nuclear arms agreements and reductions. And so in the event this person (Hagel) is confirmed, that balance is not going to be there.”
Recommended: Senate passes $50.5 billion in Sandy funds
Corker voted for New START treaty with Russia in 2010, one of 13 Republican senators to vote to ratify the pact. Twenty-six Republicans, including Inhofe, voted against ratifying the treaty. The treaty will cut the number of deployed strategic warheads from more than 1,700 last year to 1,550 by 2018.
Corker and other Republicans supported the treaty because of assurances from Obama that more money would be spent on modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal and using means other than nuclear tests to ensure that U.S. warheads would still work if they were ever used in a war.
But Corker said last summer he’d been “highly disappointed in the follow-through on modernization” of the arsenal. And according to a report this month from the Congressional Research Service, Republicans have been battling with the Obama administration over the building of a chemistry and metallurgy research facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, which the administration wants to delay for at least five years, but which Republicans want built in 2013.
Nuclear weapons manufacturing and maintenance is important to Corker’s home state, as was noted in a 2011 speech by Thomas D’Agostino, who was then the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) who told a crowd in Chattanooga, Tenn., “At NNSA, we are committed to doing our part to support the economic vitality of the Tennessee Valley. With roughly 8,000 people working at Y-12 on a given day, Y-12 is one of Tennessee's largest employers.”
He added that the Y-12 facility “has a tremendous impact on local businesses. Local procurements originating from Y-12 totaled $310.1 million for Tennessee businesses in 2010, including more than $254 million for small businesses.”
Thus, any move toward scrapping the U.S. nuclear arsenal or toward downsizing the nuclear modernization process – as recommended by the Global Zero report Hagel signed on to --would hurt Tennessee’s economy.
Trying to soothe Corker’s concerns about Hagel last week, Kerry said the abolition of nuclear weapons is “not something that could happen in today's world.” Kerry said. “It's a goal. It's an aspiration. And we should always be aspirational….it's worth aspiring to, but we'll be lucky if we get there in however many centuries the way we’re going.”
Kerry said “there's talk of going down to a lower number” than the 1,550 warheads in the New START treaty. “I think, personally, it's possible to get there if you have commensurate levels of inspections, verification, guarantees about the capacity of your nuclear stockpile program, etc.”
He said to Corker, “Now, Senator, I know you're deeply invested in that component of it, the nuclear stockpile proposal.” Kerry said the United States must maintain a reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, “because that's the only way you maintain an effective level of deterrence.”
Although Corker isn’t on the Armed Services Committee, Inhofe and other Republicans on the Armed Services panel are sure to press Hagel on whether he intends to follow through on the arsenal cut recommendation Global Zero made last May.
Leave a Comment:
Who wouldn't want to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world? I would. That doesn't mean I (or Hagel) are advocating unilateral disarmament. The GOP just has to do their huffing and puffing at brick walls. Personally I'm fine with a Secretary of Defense who thinks diplomacy is worth the effort and who is more concerned with the best interests of the US than with Netanyahu's.
Go ahead and lecture and pontificate GOP. You will feel better though you will look just as stupid as you did when questioning (lecturing, asking rhetorical questions, using up your time and saying you want a response in writing) Hillary Clinton. Then just vote for the person the elected POTUS wants as his adviser. Hagel is not going to give away the nuclear codes.
Talking to some of our opponents is like talking to a brick wall. North Korea has not changed in 50 years. They huff and puff and spend their money on nuclear and nuclear delivery methods while their people starve. You cannot expect to sit across a table with a country (Iran included) that says one thing, does another, and blames everyone else for not getting it. The same is true in Pakistan, which is now showing strains from all the duplicity. The US killed Bin Laaden in Pakistan under their noses, they target other Taliban and Al-Quaeda in Pakistan and the Pakis are screaming. Yet, without USAID, they'd still be Afghanistan. We cannot support every country anymore. Sometimes, having and using a heavy handed approach avoids much more bloodshed - look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman's decision saved 750,000 Americanlive.
He wants to reduce nuclear weapons in the world.
Is loyal to THIS country and not a lapdog traitor to Izrael.
Does not want ANOTHER war for imperialists and zionists.
Gad! What will they think of next!
So, did Obama serve Netanyahu's interests instead of America's interests when he supported Israel during his first term? Was Obama more concerned with the best interests of Netanyahu rather than the interests of the United States during his entire first term?
No, you couldn't possibly mean Obama, so did you have any particular group of Americans in mind?
;)
And was it out of concern for America's interests when Hagel attacked gay rights (when he rejected the appointment of an ambassador based on the fact that he was gay)?
Was it in America's best interest when Hagel advocated drastically cutting defense spending, when America's enemies like N. Korea and Iran are close to acquiring nuclear weapons and the missiles to carry them?
Was it in America's best interest when Hagel opposed sanctions on Iran, when Obama, Clinton, most Democrats and Republicans, and EVEN most of EUROPE support these sanctions?
Isn't it in America's best interest to stop Iran and N. Korea from getting nuclear warheads and ICBM's that could reach the U.S.?
It is a fine and noble idea to want a nuclear weapon free world. But will his belief put us at risk when we still have certain countries that have no plans to be a part of this idea? That is the real question. Me, for one, expect the Secretary of Defense to have an open mind that sees what is really going on in the world and act appropriately. Not like, for example, the way Benghazi was treated. That was a total disconnect with the reality of their situation and Americans paid for the State Department's mistake with their lives. The thought, "it won't happen to us" needs to be put aside, as it has and continues to "happen to us." We need to be intelligent and do what we can to minimize or stop these attacks, not "hope for the best." It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Don't be rediculous. That would be like being called anti-police just becasue you want to eliminate crime. Cookie-cutter politicians are what got us into the current situation in Washington. Hagel is a breath of fresh air.
This is either pure politics or the Republican Senators are suffering senile dementia. They act as though a Secretary of Defense is going to go off on his own and set US foreign policy. Even Rumsfeld couldn't pull that one off so why are they so concerned by this man. Historically unless a nominee to a cabinet post had a serious deficit, which was usually aired long before the actual confirmation vote, the Senate doesn't interfere with the President's choice of cabinet secretaries. These people need to get passed stupid. If there is another Republican administration in this Country's future, does anyone believe the Democratic Party will forget how this President has been treated?
Doc - As usual, this is a case of Republicans marching in lock step with the desires of Israel. Supporters of Israel do not want Chuck Hagel as Sec. of Defense, so the bought and paid for Republicans, as well as some Democrats will put up any smokescreen they can think of, in order to opppose the confirmation.
They pretend it is about American interests, but it is all about Israel.
This is for all the people aout there who are OK, with destroying our Nuke ability. Strength is the only deterent. Look at the threat Iran, North Korea, Al Quaida. Oh that.s right the Administration says the Al Quida is no longer a threat. Do you think Japan would have attack us if we were strong. NFW.
Liberals take the needle out of your arm and wake up.
Anita...God Bless your little pea-picking heart Darlin'...but diplomacy is the venue of the Department of State, the Defense Department is...well for a lack of a better description...concerned with defense. So picking a Secretary of Defense should be centered on the the ability to advise the President on matters of defense and then implement the President's orders as to defending the country. The next Secretary of Defense is going to have to be extremely talented as the sequestration is going to reduce available funds significantly at the very time the United States is facing very serious issues in the Middle East, Persia, Asia and the Pacific rim, Eastern Europe and potentially South America.
Chuck Hagel is too stupid and inept and poorly motivated to take on the enormous task facing the future Secretary of Defense and that's exactly why the senate will make some noise but will eventually consent to his nomination.
Anita,
If you cared about people's lives, you'd be in favor of Nuclear Weapons.
Take a look at the deaths due to war per year over the past hundred years. Do you see that massive drop off right after WWII? It's because Nuclear Weapons keep superpowers talking and not fighting, because when people fight with Nuclear Weapons, everyone loses.
@Ol Doc - We already have a President going off on his own, ignoring the Consitiution when it will buy him votes. So Hagel doing the same is not so far fetched, his President is already leading the way.
@Scubasteve58001
That is absolutely true, but you're making the dangerous assumption that those with their finger on the trigger will always think rationally. What if Islamic radicals in Pakistan (for example) gained control of nuclear weapons?
That said, wishing for a world without nuclear weapons, like wishing for a world without hunger or violence, is admirable - but probably unrealistic for the foreseeable future.
Sage
To respond to your liberal mentality in a manner that you can understand. Being anti crime does not put actions in place that make your police force unable to properly handle crime. So for a fair comparison, to be anti crime you reduce your police force's ability todeter crime by taking away their cars. If the cops are less visible then you have less crime.
Scuba Steve has it right. It doesn't take a genius to see that without the threat of nuclear weapons, the world would probably be working on WW IV or V right now. The "wars" the world has experienced post WWII pale in comparison to what they could have escalated to without the deterrent of nuclear weapons.
McGee has it kind of right as well - it only works when sane people have their fingers on the trigger - which is why we fight against nuclear proliferation.
But hey - go ahead and disarm and destroy them all, every last one of them and somehow make it magically impossible to produce them at all. I hope you really feel all peaceful and kumbaya about it, but I'm taking over-under bets on how long it takes before a world wide conventional war kills hundreds upon hundreds of millions.
Five years. Smart money is on the under.
That doesn't mean I (or Hagel) are advocating unilateral disarmament.
Since when did the GOP care about what people actually mean?
How exactly is the President ignoring the Constitution? And how would you compare his "unconstitutional" actions with the last "unitary executive" President?
Actually, we were rather strong at the start of WWII. Yes, we didn't have a military-focused manufacturing system at that time as we weren't actively involved in the war, but the American Navy and military forces remained one of the largest in the world, even at that time.
Japan attacked us even though we were strong, specifically -because- we were strong. There were other factors as well, including that we were trying to cut off needed supplies that the Japanese can't produce domestically on the islands (see: oil), which caused them to feel backed into a corner where they had to act (eg: attack us) to try and survive.
Pearl Harbor was their attempt to clear the majority of the US Naval forces from the Pacific theater so that they could operate freely to gain the resources they needed. Because they knew we had such a strong presence that they couldn't otherwise.
Just pointing out that you probably shouldn't be claiming ignorance in others when you haven't apparently picked up a history book yourself.
That being said, as much as I would love to see a world without any nuclear weapons, I don't see it as a possibility. Then again, I also don't see them being much of a deterrent toward those we find wishing us harm these days. MAD works simply because of the core tenet that "if you kill us, we'll kill you at the same time". If you fire a nuke at Washington, our nukes are already on the way to Moscow. When you're fighting largely nomadic people (I say nomadic because they are able to freely move about so we don't know where they are), it's really hard to say "@!$%#, they nuked us, fire a nuke at X" since you don't know that X is actually where they are.
MAD doesn't have the same effect when it's not actually Mutually -Assured- Destruction.
@ Ol_Doc, oh, how about letting those Illegal kids get a pass through executive order. How about the current 23 items he has listed for restricting gun rights. Making appointments when the Senate was in session. Not upholding DOMA. How about those?
The frightening thing about trying to eliminate nuclear weapons is that it makes the world safe for conventional war again. Huge land wars like WWI and WWII are once more in prospect if the nuclear deterrent is eliminated. For better than half a century, the threat of nuclear weapons has kept the peace. No large power wars have been fought. That is now at risk if nuclear weapons are eliminated.
But eliminating nuclear weapons is a false hope. The genie is out of the bottle. Nations will possess whatever weapons allow them to deter aggression against them. That's why Iran is so desperate to get nuclear weapons. It is the only thing that can prevent western warmongers from attacking them. Nuclear weapons are the only reason the Zionists are still able to occupy Palestine. North Korea still exists as a nation because of nuclear weapons. We haven't had to fight a war with China because of nuclear weapons. Etc.
willowbrook
Then are you prepared...right now on this site...to denounce Ronald Reagan for granting amnesty to illegal aliens? Will you also denounce the Republican Party for attempting to garner a deal with the Democrats over immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship?
If you will not denounce Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the Senate Republicans right now...you are a hypocrite!
Willow, please point out to me where the Constitution details throwing immigrant children out of the country? I'd like the specific line as a reference.
I'd also like you to reference the specific line of the Constitution where it details that you can have a 10-round magazine for ammunition. Or where it specifies that you're allowed to have a military-grade assault weapon. If you'd like to use the usual argument of "arms means any weapon", then I suspect you support nuclear armaments for citizens too? Or that people should be permitted to purchase stinger missiles? Or Abrams main battle tanks? I could also counter that, at the time in which the Constitution was written, the primary arm of the time was a musket, so it was the intent of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution to permit you to own a musket. Please turn in all your non-musket weapons.
Regarding DOMA, the Oath of Office of the President of the United States is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The 14th Amendment, Section 1 states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis mine.)
So, when the President swears that he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and then does exactly that by deciding not to place a focus on the pursuit of an unconstitutional law which violates the 14th Amendment, where exactly are you claiming that he is ignoring the Constitution? It seems to me that he is abiding by, adhering to, preserving and protecting the Constitution.
Not really sure where you're going with the "making appointments when the Senate is in session", but I can't find anything in the Constitution that specifies the President's calendar, or if you mean appointment as in putting someone in a position, perhaps you meant that which is detailed in Article II, Section 2, which permits the president to make appointments to positions, including being able to make said appointments during a Congressional recess.
Actually John, in my opinion the world can no longer afford large prolonged high intensity conflicts like WWII. The only kind of war we can afford is a quick nuclear exchange with weapons already on the shelves. As natural resources become more and more scarce...limited nuclear exchanges are more and more likely.
An ironic side effect of there not being any large prolonged high-intensity conflicts anymore since the development of nuclear arms? Over-population.
As horrible as it is to say, large world wars at least kept the population in check.
How about Ronald Reagan granting them amnesty?
Which items are unconstitutional for a president to implement by presidential order?
That is a common practice by both parties for decades. Was GW Bush and unconstitutional president? he certainly made recess appointments.
I'm going to do a little cutting and pasting here but I think you'll get the point. You have to start with the premise that the President believes DOMA is unconstitutional:
"First, the Constitution never empowers the President to enforce unconstitutional statutes. He no more has the power to enforce such statutes than he has power to enforce the statutes of Georgia or Germany. Second, the President’s duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution requires the President to disregard unconstitutional statutes. When the President enforces a statute he regards as unconstitutional, he violates the Constitution no less than if he were to imprison citizens without hope of trial. Third, the Faithful Execution Clause requires the President to choose the Constitution over unconstitutional laws, in the same way that courts must choose the former over the latter. Consistent with these understandings, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson argued that executives could not enforce unconstitutional laws. Indeed, President Jefferson halted Sedition Act prosecutions on grounds that the Act was unconstitutional. According to Jefferson, his duty to defend the Constitution barred him from executing measures that violated it."
Jon-P: You Are Awesome!
You, too, Ol_Doc!
To add my two cents worth, I think we have as much to worry about in regards to cyber terrorism and chemical warfare as we do about nukes being in the wrong hands/government. I do believe both are the wave of the not so distant future.
You people are nuts. Are you seriously claiming 15,000 nuclear warheads aren't enough deterent for countries that have the capability to produce 3 or 4. Are you seriously claiming us spending over 1.5 trillion per year on the military which is more than the next 15 countries combined isn't enough? Or a navy that has a total tonnage that exceeds that of the next 17 largest navies combined?
Jon-P
Right on! I would just add a couple of things. First, as regards DOMA. What people often forget is that Federal Courts have already found it to be unconstitutional, so how/why do they expect the Federal govt to enforce a law that the Federal courts have already found to be unconstitutional? Secondly, as regards the 2nd Amendment, the SCOTUS has the constitutional power to interpret the Constitution and they have decided in the Heller case that the gov't does have the legal authority to restrict/regulate guns AND by no means does the 2nd Amendment give people the right to have just any kind of weapon they want. Gun advocates always seem to forget that part of the Heller decision...I wonder why?
Larry-367607
These folks have absolutely no sense of proportion. They are afraid the Iranians might build a couple of kiloton weapons but fail to take into consideration we probably have at least one Ohio Class Attack Submarine off the Iranian coast capable of raining 96 nuclear warheads down on the Iranians within minutes. Iranian politicians want to remain in power...not be turned to glass.
The Conservatives will use any excuse to defame Hagel. Again, unless Hagel is incompetent, the Conservatives' opinion on his views can only be irrelevant. This is an "advise and consent" role, not a "I don't like that he's not a right-wing Republican" role.
Conservatives can pick a candidate with their extreme views as soon as they convince the American public to vote for their presidential candidate. In the meantime, this is Mr. Obama's team and he should be able to pick any competent person who meets the requirements of the position. As a Vietnam veteran, VA backer, member of the Senate (foreign affairs and intelligence subcommittees) as well as a former CEO (several times), Mr. Hagel has the background to do the job.
In his second term, Ronald Reagan also called for the abolition of nuclear weapons. In today's climate, Reagan would be called a socialist.
Dale: We are socialist. The Biggest socialist Group in America is the us Military. When ever we pool our Tax dollars and do something like the Armed forces, Police, Fire, Schools, Road ways....... these are all socialist programs. That is just a fact. I think Democracy is a little of the best of all. Socialism is not a bad thing. We know that free market place is no such thing, it is rigged so the rich make all the money. The farmer that takes all the risk, and does all the work and spends all the money on land, Tractors and Stock, Make the least money. While the stock brokers and middle men make the massive profits trading what the farmers worked so hard to produce. How is that fair?
Additionally the Republican god Reagan supported a ban on assault rifles and granted amnesty to illegals.
chuck-2111043 Well said.
By his second term, Reagan's Alzheimer's had begun to kick in. He could no longer be trusted to think clearly.
Reagan was nothing but a GOP puppet during both of his terms. He was the President that Norquist demanded again in 2012. Enough digits to sign every GOP bill placed on his desk. This B-rated actor came into his best starring role as President of The United States. That's why he remains the darling of the Republican Party. He was an affable oaf content with his jelly beans and the adoration of "Mommy".
Hagel has no designs on disarming American nukes any more than the President is trying to take away your guns. We have enough nukes now to destroy the planet 25 times. How many more do we need? The Republican concerns are not for OUR safety. Their concerns are for the lucrative defense contractors that shovel buckets of money in bribes to them. We could cut our military expenses in half and still remain the strongest power in the world by a factor of at least 10.
Mr. Hagel wants to get rid of the means of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD), and think twice about nuking or invading another sovereign country halfway around the world? What's wrong with that man? This just proves that insanity isn't a prerequisite for employment in Washington, DC.
chuck: You nailed capitalism. Cheers. Floating yachts on everyone else's sweat. Trading paper will make you very wealthy indeed. Teaching our children, feeding the population, or healing the sick or building a functional, useful infrastructure? Not so much.
Funny, Hagel seems more concerned about disarming the U.S. than preventing America's enemies from getting nukes!
There's something strange about Obama's nominee, who is on record saying very strange things about gays and Jews, and voting against sanctions on Iran.
What does Obama have in common with Hagel?
Hagel hates gays.
He hates Jews.
He voted against a bill in the senate supporting Roe vs Wade
He's on the record as supporting cutting U.S. nuclear deterrent to zero.
AND is against sanctions on Iran, which Obama has said that he supports.
.
.
It makes you wonder, what do these two men talk about behind closed doors. Could this explain what Obama meant when he told president Medvedev of Russia that he would be more flexible in a second term. I wonder what he meant by that...
I highly doubt that Hagel hates Jews. I believe he is concerned about the role Zionist Jews have played in getting America into the war in Iraq, which will cost America over 3.5 trillion dollars. That alone is a great reason to oppose the unconditional support from America, Israel now enjoys.
He saw how Paul Wolfowitz and his cabal of Zionist traitors commandeered the Pentagon and cherry picked the intelligence to lead us into war. He probably feels bad for the families of the 4500 soldiers killed and the hundreds of thousands injured, knowing therole the Zionists and Israel played.
He knows how AIPAC uses its power in our Congress to pass laws favorable to Israel and unfavorable to America. Example: A law which makes donations to Israel tax deductable to Jewish millionaires and billionaires, while depriving America of the taxes. No other nation enjoys that kind of support.
He knows all the unilateral sanctions against Iran, have been written by Jews in our Congress, such as Eric Cantor. They are Jews in our Congress, working hard for Israel, but being paid with our tax dollars.
I am quite sure Hagel would not have America reduce our arms to 0, while allowing other countries to remain armed, especially rogue nations like Israel.
Preeminent Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld, in
2010 said Israel could find itself one day forced to exterminate the European
continent using all kinds of weapons including its nuclear arsenal if it felt
its demise neared,” and stressed that “Israel also considers Europe a hostile
target.”
“We have hundreds of nuclear warheads and
missiles that can reach different targets in the heart of the European
continent, including beyond the borders of Rome, the Italian capital,” Creveld
said, adding that most of the European capitals would become preferred targets
for the Israeli air force.
He reiterated “Israel’s ability to destroy the
whole world whenever it felt its existence would be doomed to extinction.”
The above is the definition of a crazed people, yet America continues to send these people more and more arms.
Wait, Zionist Jews got America into a war with Iraq???
Is George W Bush Jewish?
Is Cheney Jewish?
Is Rumsfeld Jewish?
Is Colin Powell Jewish?
Is Condoleezza Rice Jewish?
Or for that matter, was George Bush Sr. serving the Jooos when he liberated Kuwait???
hmmm...?
And I'm sure that when you say that Hagel doesn't hate Jews, you mean that he likes and respects them just like you do when you refer to them as a "cabal of Zionist traitors"...
.
I think you might need to see your doctor about that nasty case of Antisemitsm. It might be contagious. It seems to be spreading among Hagel supporters like an STD.
@Duqu#4: Hagel is right to want to keep nuclear weapons from other countries. Many continue to think nukes are the ultimate weapon. They can and will, if used, cause much destruction and aggravation, however they are no longer the ultimate weapons. Course we should continue to upgrade ours, since doing so is a good distraction, and keeps the crazies thinking they really are. Accordingly, hell raising about their proliferation is a good thing. Nuclear radiation could cause a nasty and costly mess for us and our allies.
I heard that before. Its highly possible and I will not be schocked if its true. Do you have a reference I can research?
Duqu - You bet it was supporters of Israel who got the US into the war with Iraq. To start with all the people you named are supporters of Israel. Second, almost the entire Pentagon hierarchy was led by Jewish Zionists, which included the following people:
Chairman Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board - Richard Perle
Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) - Paul Wolfowitz
Under Secretary of Defense - Douglas Feith
National Security Council Advisor - Elliott Abrams
Under Secretary for Arms Control - David Wurmser
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board - Eliot Cohen
National Security Study Group - Edward Luttwak
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board - Kenneth Adelman
Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) - Lawrence (Larry) Franklin ( the AIPAC spy)
National Security Council Advisor - Robert Satloff
Paul Wolfowitz is the acknowleged architect of the Iraq war. The Zionist media, especially Fox News, pushed the war like crazy. You had Zionist writers, such as Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Judy Miller and the like pumping out propaganda agaist Iraq, which all proved to be false.
Zionist warmongers like Ken Adelman and the Zionist Washington Post pushed the war in
an editorial titled, “Cakewalk in Iraq.” Jewish supremacists Richard Perle and
Paul Wolfowitz told you that Iraq would “Welcome us as liberators.” Iraq became
the longest war in American history. Here is a report from USA Today: “Pentagon
officials estimated for the first time Wednesday that up to 360,000 Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans may have suffered traumatic brain injuries.” Now that’s
not counting tens of thousands who have suffered maiming, amputations, or death
in this war based on lies.
That article was part of the sales job. I almost forgot that the Mossad also provided much of the false intel.
If you want more evidence, just ask. I have tons more waiting for your request.
Like I said, you really need to see your doctor about that nasty case of Antisemitsm. It might be contagious. It seems to be spreading among Hagel supporters like an STD.
Duqu - Daring to question the actions of the state of Israel does not make one anti-semitic. Playing the anti-semitic card suggests you've got nothing else.
To Theo, Ralph wasn't questioning the actions of the state of Israel, he was accusing Americans of being "Zionist traitors" for some reason. He didn't mention any specific actions by the state of Israel or any policies. He just kept accusing "Jewish Zionists" of being traitors for some reason.
He is questioning the loyalty of American citizens, and he is making absurd accusations about American citizens, not about any policies of the government of Israel. And he seems to be focused only on Jews or people he thinks are "Zionists". So in my opinion his accusations are based on racism. Now, if he had been making strange accusations against blacks I would also say that he is racist. If his accusations were about gays, then I would call him a homophobe. But he seems to be focused only on Jews and "Zionists", so I think the term Antisemite is accurate in his case. Or Jew-hater, if you prefer...
While I'm not so sure about those claims regarding us getting involved in Iraq being triggered by Jewish Zionists, I will say that I've been somewhat concerned over the years regarding Israel and their view regarding foreign policy. They seem to have a mentality of "bomb first, diplomacy...someday, maybe, possibly...after we bomb them".
I had a long conversation with one of my acquaintances in Israel some months back that, in particular, caused me concern. She was of the very strong opinion that all Arabs were out to destroy Israel. Not Al Qaeda, not Hamas, not Iran. -All- Arabs. Ranging from the RPG-toting jihadist to that farmer over there trying to grow some olives. Her level of paranoia was to a disturbing level, and it was made clear to me in no uncertain terms that it's a view largely shared by her friends and acquaintances as well, so it's not even just one nutjob. She also made it quite clear that she wouldn't shed a single tear or feel the slightest shred of remorse if Israel were to carpet bomb the Middle East with nuclear arms.
While there were those disturbing revelations in our conversation, it was also quite interesting to learn about their way of life in Israel, in which it's apparently not unusual to see women in bikinis at the beach with assault rifles slung over their shoulders (apparently, if you're "on duty", even when "off duty", you're expected to be armed, or at least one member of you squad is to be...or something like that). Or armed soldiers walking patrols down the street, or on the bus, etc. I suspect that the constantly heightened state of security due to the possibility of attack anywhere, anytime causes the paranoia previously stated, but it's still difficult to get one's mind wrapped around while living in a considerably more secure country like the US.
Iranian Ralph - Your overtly anti-semitic jewish hating comments are straight out of the ahmadinejad talking points.
I thought they sent your master ahmadinejad into space in a capsule recently. You should follow him - or in your spare time contemplate how much you hate free and democratic Israel while the rest of population in your favorite theocratic dictatorships of Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria , are dying every day. And YOU with your fervent propaganda contribute to it. SHAME on you.
What Obama meant about flexibility is pretty clear. He would be able to back away from the stupid and irresponsible Bush idea to put anti-missile batteries in Poland to protect them from non-existent Iranian missiles. Even if the mullahs get their hands on a nuke and build a rocket that flies past the launch platform, do you really think they're going to throw it at Poland? What the hell did the Poles do to them? This is another corporate welfare program, sending billions of our dollars to Raytheon and their Military Industrial complex comrades. The problem is that so many people in this country are perfectly willing to spend us into oblivion for military purposes, but not willing to pay for educating our kids or providing health care for our citizens.
I've wondered for years why minute groups of Israeli-American and Cuban-American citizens can have such an enormously disproportionate influence on US Foreign Policy. I do, of course, have my suspicions. By the way, I'm not anti-anybody.
Duqu - Here is where I point out some of Israel's direct involvement with making a case for the war in Iraq. It comes from the lips of a former Israeli general , Shlomo Brom.
JERUSALEM (AP)
— Israeli intelligence overplayed the threat posed by Iraq and reinforced the
U.S. and British assessment that Saddam Hussein had large amounts of weapons of
mass destruction, a retired Israeli general said Thursday.
The Israeli assessment may have been colored by politics, including a desire to see
the Iraqi leader toppled, said Shlomo Brom, who was a senior Israeli military
intelligence officer and is now a researcher with Israel's top strategic think
tank.
Brom stopped short of accusing Israeli intelligence officials of intentionally
misleading Britain and the United States.
Brom said "Israel has no reason to regret the outcome of the war in Iraq," he wrote, noting
Saddam was an implacable enemy.
His assertions could, however, undermine the reputation of the Israeli intelligence
service, one of the most respected in the world.
The Israeli military declined comment, while other experts said Brom was
exaggerating.
In an article in Strategic Assessment, a publication of the Jaffee Center for
Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, Brom said weapons of mass destruction
probably would not be found in significant quantities in Iraq.
He said Israeli intelligence overplayed the
potential danger before the war
How many Nukes do we need to destroy the world. I understand we have enough to do the job 100 time over. Little over kill. The Rep's keep telling us we are broke. Well if we are broke then when the Generals told Congress we don't need anymore tanks. But Congress knows better and we are still building tanks. But we need to cut Medicade and Medicare and SS. We can cut defense by 50% and the only think that would be hurt some job loss. We need to shift these jobs to where they do the most good. Making things we do not need is waist pure and simple. We should be using that money on rebuilding this Country's roads and bridges, Sewage, and water systems, New schools and things like that. What about a new smart electrical grid. Bob Corker is only worried about loosing some jobs in TN. Many of the defense Cuts would hurt southern states. Well to bad, they have been screwing over the Northern states for years. Look at how many southern Senators voted against the Auto Pail out. Look at how many southerners voted against Sandy relief. They Stick it the north every chance they get. Cut that defense just like everything else. The South can make do just like we have had to in the North.
Military contractors are fearful that a new war won't be started leaving them no reason to produce more weapons.
We lacked the ability to "destroy the world" when we possessed 20,000 nuclear weapons. Now that we only have 1500, we can't even get a good start on destroying a single country. Look at a map, nations are very large, millions of square kilometers. Nuclear blast radius of even a large nuke is limited, roughly 10 kilometers, or roughly 300 square kilometers destroyed per nuke. Do the math.
JohnCarter-428979, You're kidding, right? No adult born since the 50's could possibly make such a ridiculous statement. You couldn't actually expect anyone to believe such nonsense. Go back to school starting with 5th grade. Read about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were tiny baby bombs compared to what we have today. Nuclear blast radius has very little to do with the mass destruction caused by a nuclear bomb. Can you say deadly r-a-d-i-a-t-i-o-n?
Can you say "get a grip". Your exaggerated fears don't alter reality. In the 1950s my father watched nuclear tests, walked up to the blast zone afterwards with other soldiers. Somehow, that "r-a-d-i-a-t-i-o-n" failed to kill him, or his fellow soldiers. Most of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who weren't directly killed by the blasts, survived the war. There are many survivors of those two cities still alive today. 40 people died of radiation exposure at Chernobyl, the largest number of casualties of any nuclear accident. Terrible for them, of course, but not so much for the hundreds of thousands who were exposed but survived.
After I left the military, where I worked with nuclear weapons, I worked in the civilian nuclear industry. I understand the real effects of nuclear weapons and nuclear radiation. Clearly, you don't.
Say Chernobyl--ground so polluted and toxic unfit for human habitation for centuries, and that was an accident. Cancers abound for former residents and their children, because those folks that witnessed the blasts and have survived maybe due to the brief exposure--in the same vein many participants have died, spurious argument.
"In the Land of the Blind the One-Eyed Man is King".
It would be great if Nuclear Weapons did not exist but you are foolish to think that now that the Genie is out of the bottle you can put him back. What concerns me about Hagel is he is like a parrot. He will adopt any policy in which he thinks he can promote himself. No wonder obama picked him. He is a "Yes-Man" extraordinaire
Absolutely incorrect! You dont know what you are talking about. Obviously
Navyvet: You don't know what your talking about. You Republicans always have to have fear. Reagan worked with the Russians to reduce Nukes. This is what the UN should be doing. We can keep lowering the # until we get to Zero. I can be done. But TN would loose there Federal Jobs and Bob Corker is more worried about that. We can make jobs that are not only Defense jobs. It can be done. Like Gun Control. Nuke Control is needed too. The would will be a better place when we stop thinking war is the only answer. To many people make big money off war. But its always the middle class and poor peoples son's that go to there deaths. They are made to believe that giving there life for your country is honorable. What BS, giving your life so the rich can get richer is more like it. That is why we fight wars. That and to get OIL from country's. Funny how for the most part we only go into Country's that are rich in oil. We got to have that OIL.
Navy vet has it absolutely correct.
If indeed one wanted to the world to be free from the threat of war and weapons of mass destruction, why stop with nuclear weapons. Ban all "weapons". Then ban hate, violence, greed, thirst for power (a la Obama). While we're at it let's just make ourselves into the image of God. We'll see how that goes.
This world will never be Utopia as imagined by myopic, kumbayah-singing, weak kneed, naive, ignorant liberals.
Dangstraightup: Weak kneed Liberals. You Hero Little Bush started 2 wars. He let the one we should have fought, to go into the one we shouldn't have fought. The Liberals have to clean up the mess you Reps make. And Little Bush made a hell of a big mess, and forgot about getting the one person he should have gotten. OBL. Bush and his Cronies wouldn't go to Vietnam, but they didn't mind sending our kids to war to make there friends money.
But at least Bush respected the Constitution and America. Bush was at least an American...Obama is not and never will be an American. He hates the very fiber of what America stands for regardless of where he was really born just like every other Muslim. Here's a message from real American patriots Obama...you will never defeat America. We see clearly that you are trying to weaken us at every level but it won't work. Keep pushing your communist liberal agenda while the ignorant masses that put you where you are continue to sleepwalk like the weak sheep minded fools they are. America cannot be defeated.
"But at least Bush respected the constitution"
I stopped reading and started laughing hysterically here. I really hope that was a parody so rich that I missed it.
Jamie - You can't be serious.
Mr Hagel was absolutely in the right when he said he works for America and not for the Jewish lobby. For Republicans that is in direct contrast to thier pandering and profiteering ways. Too bad
The country is ready to move past those interests.
He wants to reduce nuclear weapons in the world.
Is loyal to THIS country and not a lapdog traitor to Izrael.
Does not want ANOTHER war for imperialists and zionists.
Gad! What will they think of next!
Your muslim brethren have our soldiers on their soil fighting for them, not one US soldier in Israel. We are not fighting in afghanistan for Israel, stop your islamic propaganda garbage from dearborn.
farideh, I believe you are wrong. We went into Afghanistan in order to remove the Taliban oppposition to the TAPI gas pipeline, which is to transport Israeli owned gas from Turkmenistan - Afghanistan - Pakistan and on to India. Israel stands to make trillions of dollars selling the gas to India.
Iran could supply the gas for a lot cheaper, but alas, Iran is under sanctions, so they are unable to sell their gas to India. Here is a link where you can rtead all about it.
www.rense.com/general15/game.htm
Iran can sell gas to India at a third the price of Turkmenistan. This is the ENTIRE
issue. In Turkmenistan Israel holds the lease rights to sell this gas and US
companies are building the pipeline called TAPI. This has gotten Iran upset and
that is what the whole reason for petroleum sanctions. We have US military
holding the Taliban at bay in the North all the while prince and his private
paramilitary mercenary forces are executing pipeline security privately in the
South to lend some sort of propriety to this whole sham of a war. Americans
should demand presidential head on a platter for this fraud. Deni-ability is
everything.
Funny how Israel is slated to profit from our wars, isn't it? The removal of Saddam in Iraq was supposed to bring about a 42" oil pipeline from Kirkuk through Jordan to the Israeli Port of Haifa, where Israel could then control the flow of oil to all of Europe. Wow.
Do you consider my post, which is all based on truth to be anti semitic?
"The pipeline would be a dream," Yosef Paritzky, Israel's minister
of infrastructures, said as reported by Salon.com. "We'd have an
additional source of supply, and could even export some of the crude through
Haifa. But we'd need a treaty with Iraq . . . to build the pipeline."
Once Chalabi assumed a position of influence in the new Iraqi government,
Israel would get its treaty, the neoconservatives were assured. The pipeline
was by no means the only reason for going to war, but it could well have been
one reason.
"the movement calling for abolition of nuclear weapons."
Ronald Reagan called for that decades ago.
Reagan had Alzheimer's. Nuclear weapons are the reason we haven't been involved in a major land war since WWII. Now you nutballs want to make the world safe for conventional warfare again. Millions dying in the mud of the trenches is something I'd rather not see happen again. Watching our army being overrun by a billion Chinese is not something I want to see. But that sort of horror becomes thinkable again with nuclear weapons removed from the picture.
I believe logistics to get the billion Chinese over here would be quite a problem.
I guess nukes are fine if you want to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians with little effort. It would be kind of like a quick holocaust.
They would stage in Mexico. They already own Mexico's Pacific ports and many of its distribution and manufacturing facilities. It would be relatively easy for China to take control of Mexico quietly and without firing a shot. Once they start moving millions of Chinese troops into Mexico, the US might start to be alarmed. But it would be too late then.
Its pretty clear at this point isnt it?
Any and everything that involves this President is automatically an "issue" for Republicans.
If President Obama said the sky is blue John Mccain would demand a hearing over it.
They are a single minded self serving immature gang of good ole boys who cant stand the fact that they are no longer in position to pillage this country with thier war first questions later radical agendas.
Deterrence works if any potential adversary realizes that if they employ a single nuclear weapon against either the US directly, or one of our allies (that should include Israel), that they will not just be hit with one weapon in response, but rather their entire nation will be obliterated. We need enough of an arsenal to guarantee this level of destruction to any potentially nuclear armed foe (read Iran and North Korea, as well as Russia and China). To keep any lower level of weapons actually makes first use by an enemy much more probable.
That is exactly why we have them. Great post!
John: the real problem with your post is simple Numbers. How man targets do you think we have. truth is only about 50 at most. How many Nukes do we have? Something like 3500. We have enough nukes to destroy the world 1000 times over. We could easily get buy with 1500, and save Trillions. That is the simple math. Not the Fussy math like Little Bush used.
You are the one who can't do the math, chuck. The Earth has 510,100,000 square kilometers. A big nuke can destroy roughly 300 square kilometers. That means we'd need 1,700,333 nukes to destroy the world ONLY ONCE. We actually have only 1/1000th that many. So instead of your claim that we can destroy the world 1000 times over, the truth is we can only destroy 1/1000th of the world once.
The problem with this is, that the other countries will cheat. If we didn't have nuks, North Korea could wipe us out with manpower alone.
Wrong, try again.
North Korea has around 25 Million People in it. The United States has 300 million. Your argument is wrong and dumb. Lets assume you even meant China, which has over 1.4 Billion people, you still need to transport all those people overseas. Conventional weapons have made numbers of boots on the ground less relevant, unless you plan to occupy a place.
North Korea has 5,000,000 combat troops. The US has roughly 300,000 combat troops. They are a militarized state, we aren't. During WWII, we drafted and trained up a 2 million man army, but that took years. Years we wouldn't have if we were to go to war with North Korea again. We know what happened the last time we fought in Korea. The human wave attacks drove us back the length of the country. If the Inchon landings had failed, we would have lost ignominiously.
You have a proven patriot/warrior saying we have too many swords, we need to pound some of them into ploughshares.
On the other hand you have all these chicken hawks who want more unwanted swords ( Can you say 'Pork', Mr.Corker? ).
And the warrior is weak? I'll take the warrior's word.
The argument is not that we need more, it is that we need new parts to the ones that we have.
EL Feo (or should I say El Moron)...Hagel was in Vietnam and was wounded. I was in Vietnam and I was wounded. By your reasoning I'm a perfect candidate for Secretary of Defense?
EL. Well said. the Generals said we don't need any more tanks also. But Congress knows better so we keep making tanks that we don't need.
Sorry about you being wounded in Vietnam (If you will accept that from a moron).
But were you also a well respected Senator?
Neither was Chuck Hagel...so what's your point (Thanks, by the way).
El Feo -
The point is that Hagel may be a Senator, but he has not earned the respect of service members nor most Americans - and it's because of his attitude about the defense of this nation.
Obama wants him because he'll back unilateral disarmament - a losing situation for this nation to go toward.
Tell me, if we were to disarm, does the knowledge go away? Wouldn't it be seen as a sign of weakness by North Korea and Iran?
Uh John, Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, so why mention Iran?
As a peaceful nation, which has not started a war with another country in almost 200 years and who signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, which binds them to inspections by the IAEA, Iran does not deserve to have it's economy intentionally destroyed, because Israel wants it done. Iran has lived up to it's agreement, by allowing the inspection of all it's enrichment facility. Iran only enriches to 3.5% for nuclear energy fuel and 20% for medical isotopes, both permitted.
'1992:'Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his
colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear
weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front
headed by the US"'.
Gee, its been 21 years and still no nuclear weapon, proving Netanyahu is a paranpoid war monger. Notice he said the US would have to lead the way to do his bidding. There was no threat from Iran then and there is no threatfrom Iran now.
Maybe Iran doesnt have nukes, but the DPRK does. That is fact. They admit it, we know it, we've detected the tests. And they have only recently said that the program is intended to be used against the US, a total reversal of what they were saying when they were launching satellites into the ocean a few months ago. North Korea is a threat, albeit an amusing one. It's rather like watching a small child threatening a cage fighter. But there are pressure points, weaknesses, things that can be exploited. One good shot can easily bring down the biggest, toughest guy in the pack.
The reason we need to keep our nukes at present levels, or slightly less is even ok (that 1550 is not a bad idea at all), is that the world isnt all friends and flowers and tea-time. Some countries are ruled by outright lunatics and several of those lunatics have the bomb. I doubt, at this point, that the DPRK would be stupid enough to try firing one missile across the world in hopes of flattening LA. They may be lead by a nutball, but I think he realizes that the US could easily turn everything he rules into one overlapped mushroom cloud. If Iran does have the bomb, I think they'd realize this as well. Disarming to a degree is ok, but I can't fathom a man that says that just because we eventually disarm entirely, the whole world will just say "OH! Of course! Here's our arsenal to throw into the incinerator."
Israel is one thing. Our own national defense is another. Jewish lobby or no. Netanyahu or no. America needs its defenses because despite all the ridicule piled on the US, we are still the great power of the earth. China may eclipse us in a decade if they don't all die from experiencing the entire industrial revolution condensed into a few months, but for now, we're the big guy. We have a treasure trove of resources yet to be tapped. We hold the cards. To think that the rest of the world isn't looking for a chink in the armor is irresponsible at best.
Ralph. I agree with you mostly. Well almost completely. But I do think when you have a bunch of religious nuts running the country and a President going around saying he would blow Jew's off the face of the earth, well that is enough for me. Those Mullah's over there is like the Tea party here. They don't need to have Nukes. Now the Iranians as a people are peaceful, I do believe that. But they do not run there country.
Chuck - If what you said was accurate, I would agree. However, the fact is that Ahmadinejad never really said that Iran would wipe Israel off the map. That was a mistranslation, most likely on purpose, to be used as propaganda. To quote his exact words in Farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e
qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv
shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most
people, but one word might ring a
bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like
the English
word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not
refer to
Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This
is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the
map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the
specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying
Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly
did he want "wiped from the map"?
The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never
used. The Persian word for
map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in
his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire
speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are
led o believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the
map", despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or
even "Israel."
The Proof: The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime
occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
It is splitting hairs but it was a huge
misquote by Israel.
Here are a few more Israeli quotes, showing Israel considered Iran an enemy back in 1992, long before Ahmadinejad.
1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have
nuclear warheads by 1999. "Iran is the greatest threat and greatest
problem in the Middle East," Peres warned, "because it seeks the
nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious
militancy."
1992: Joseph Alpher, a former official of Israel's Mossad spy agency, says "Iran
has to be identified as Enemy No. 1." Iran's nascent nuclear program, he
told The New York Times, "really gives Israel the jitters."
As I posted before - Iran has not started a war with another country in almost 200 years. Israel has been attacking it's neighbors since prior to it's formal inception.
Ralph - Your misinformation and the fact that you post a farsi mis-statement and mis-translate it (hoping people here are stupid enough not to understand it) is astounding. The statement in farsi was EXACTLY what chuck said and you can't change it with lies and propaganda for your murderous, filthy, corrupt, pedophile theocratic dictators.
Ronald Reagan was the first Republcian President to propose having zero nuclear weapons are we now saying that Ronny is not worth being our hero for a policy he thought was worthy of pursuit?
You need to understand that the issue isnt really the issue its the hatred for the President that is what drives these Right Wing flapjacks. Whatever position President Obama takes no matter what the issue they will be directly opposed. If he says theSky is blue. They say Hes a socialist! They are driven by hate and fear.
As so many point out in regards to gun control: Different Era, different situations. Reagan wanted an end to the threat that two nations controlled the fate of humanity. Either the USSR or the US could have sterilized Earth a thousand times over. Reagan's goal was to end that threat, back when a total disarmament would mean that the old systems and alliances would come into play. Back then there were more nukes, but not as spread out. At the time of his statements the various political webworks of the planet would have pretty well ensured a zeroing of weapons. It never got that far of course, and it's probably good that it didnt. Now we have rogue nations (DPRK, possibly Iran, Israel, and others) that are quite unpredictable in their policies. When it was just us and the other big boys playing with fireworks, it was fine to say "Okay guys, this is dangerous. Let's put this stuff away and forget it's there, or let's just toss it in the dumpster." But we had set a precedant. Nukes now exist, in the hands of the big guys and the little. Going for a zero point when the DPRK still exists is foolhardy at best. It seems highly unlikely they would ever follow along. While they may not be able, now or in the future, to vaporize humanity as a whole, they could probably take a good swing at the west coast in a few more years. Nukes: They're not just for Superpowers anymore. So to answer your question, yes, Reagan should still be a hero. He brought down the wall and ended (or at least mitigated to the point of being moot) the threat of global sterilization. He did indeed help save the world.
Kennedy is the person that saved the wold and he did it without firing a shot. He did it when Russia had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba. He is the real hero.
During Reagans time, the Soviet Union was already crumbling under the weight of trying to compete militarily with the USA. Reagan was at the right place at the right time. He never had to make the decisions Kennedy faced.
I can't believe you actually posted one sentense without a jew hating comment in it.
and how did Kennedy do that?
He told the Russians it would be War if they put missiles in Cuba.
most likely nuclear war
If we had LESS, we would have to maintain LESS.
Senator Porker, I mean Corker, mentioned that he is committed to preserving the ECONOMIC vitality of the Tennessee Valley.
It sounds like he wants to bring home the bacon.
The START treaty is a good start (Sorry), but we can do more.
and if we had none, we'd have to maintain none...Geez you're dumb.
and if nobody had none, there would be none to maintain....
Excuse me for being so dumb, are you saying that limitting nukes is a BAD idea?
If your answer is yes, I am out of my league and I apologize for wasting your valuable time.
carazy people think the genie will go back in the bottle.
Wouldn't trust anything obummer & skerry have to say. obummer, chief of liars, would say anything with skerry following suit like the little pet he is. now hagel joins the coterie of obummer liars.
amandak1ng - I bet you are still looking for those WMD in Iraq that Bush and Cheney promised we would find. The war that will cost trillions and hundreds of thousands of soldiers injuries.
What lie has Obama told you that could possibly match Bush and Cheney's whoppers.
Ralph -
How about that we would be able to keep the health insurance we have and that it would cost less if Obamacare was passed?
Those two are bigger 'whoppers' than anything Bush ever told - especially since by calling Bush a liar on WMDs you are calling Clinton and a number of democrat Senators one as well.
Tammy - We know the war in Iraq will cost over 3.5 trillion dollars.
Wouldn't you rather spend our money on health care than dumping it into a war in another country, which was never a threat to anyone?
You have no way of knowing if Obama's health care plan will cost you one more dime, than you already spend. You also forget his health care plan would take care of millions of people who right now have no health care. All of your information probably comes from Fox News, the same network that pushed the war the hardest.
Would you rather Obama cook up another war based on lies? Hey, you can claim Iran is making nuclear weapons, even though all our intelligence agencies say they don't have a nuclear weapons program. Maybe Netanyahu and Lindsey Graham claiming they have one, will be enough evidence to convince you to spend our treasure on another war.
Oh wait, we don't have any treasure. We already spent it in Afghanistan and Iraq, with money borrowed from China, by the Conservative president and your hero, George Bush.
If the thought of a world without nuclear weapons is appealing to you, just think about WWI and WWII. Since the advent of atomic weapons we have not had a world war. We've had proxy wars and lost tens of thousands, but not tens of millions as before. If we get rid of these weapons we can just go ahead and have a good old conventional war and burn, bomb and shoot the hell out of each other. Excellent!
Anyone who thinks the U.S and the USSR during the Cold War were not deterred from making it a hot war because of the unacceptable consequences, is nuts. The genie is out of the bottle. Any sort of Global Zero option would require extremely intrusive inspections. That sort of cooperation would not be there. For a deterent to be effective it has to be credible. Our nuclear forces have to be kept modern and on line.
Truer words were never spoken. If there were no nucs, we wold still have even more terrible wars and millions would be killed. They are a deterrent and nothing more. The only thing I fear is Iran, because they could care less with some of their idiotic religious beliefs.
You two are Crazy. Its like the NRA saying more guns make us safer. Its just not true. We could drop our Nukes to 1500 or 1000. And we could still destroy the world many times over. If the truth was really known, we could do with 100 war heads. but that would put Tn out of business. They might have to get real jobs. Talk about Welfare. When you make things we don't need, that is the same as welfare.
You are right Chuck. We are just finishing 2 wars of choice, which never needed to be fought and they cost us plenty, in terms of treasure and lives, as well as lives destroyed. America is in debt up to our ears because of those 2 mistakes.
Out defense budget is greater than all other nations combine and Chuck Hagel will do something to help rectify the situation, while still keeping America strong.
The neocons and Zionists are eager to take on Iran, using trumped up charges about nuclear weapons as a reason. It has been the plan, ever since they were complicit in 9/11. For that reason, they want America to spend enough and be strong enough militarily to do the job they have planned. Wars cost big money and a reduced defense budget would make the prospect of their war with Iran much harder to justify.
We need and we MUST to take on Iranian regime of mullahs. They are one of the world's most corrupt, despicable and fanatical dictatorships who kill their people on religious, race and gender basis. Pray that you are a muslim only in Iran, not a gay, or an American. Your theocratic masters just sent an American to prison yesterday for being a christian.... the charge? "undermining the national security" !!! hog wash. Stay in Iran Ralph and don't try to pretend you are an American.
Ralph is always a breath of fresh air, or so it seems. Fk is like carbon monoxide poisoning to reasoning. Who are you "pretending" to be, a "neutral observer". What bs.
So now Regan had "Alzheimer's" so any ideas for peace he had are now immediately "suspect" even though "repukagans", today's "republicans" have "idolized" him over the years.
Nukes may be a deterrent but they could also be
the end od mankind It would be nice to get rid of them for all our grand kids at
least that my thought
Fortunately, 99% of nukes are in the hands of countries that realize what you say. Russia isn't going to nuke the US or vice versa. Same for the rest of the NATO countries. The only groups left in the world that could care less, lack the capacity for global sterilization. I doubt that if the DPRK were to nuke Seoul, and the US launched retaliation, that China would nuke the US. They've become less and less tolerant of the NKs in the past decades, although they do still sit down to lunch together. The reason China would abstain is because the DPRK has very little real benefit to them. They're just neighbors. DPRK may still buy old, outmoded stuff from China, but to say that represents even a percent of China's income would be an overstatement. I doubt China wants to die now, when they're finally growing up and modernizing and seeing the green fields in the distance (which will soon be dead from the pollution, but that's another matter). They realize that they would, and that it would take the world along for the ride. Russia still has the capacity but no real reason at all. Nobody that survived the cold war with nukes in their hands wants to revisit it. They know where that path leads. Nukes now are a reminder, a deterant, and a possible solution to near earth object collisions (good way to drain all stockpiles is to systematically atomize an asteroid that threatens earth. lol) The only real threat is the little guys that feel that having nukes somehow makes them important. The DPRK for example. If it weren't for the mindset that grinding poverty and deprivation and a leader who pisses on babies (metaphorically) are the norm there, it would have ceased to exist decades ago. Give a place like that, that knows at the highest levels that it is screwed, a nuke and you can bet they'll use it eventually. From their view, they've got very little to lose and a lot to gain by showing their gonads to the world. Asking them to disarm hasn't worked, obviously. I'd like to remain armed against them, since they insist on it. A nuclear deterrant may not prevent them from blowing cities away in the future, but it will prevent them from doing it repeatedly. Hard to launch more missiles if they, the launch facilities, and the commanders in charge of them are just glassy smears on the ground.
For you out there Israel is spelled this way no Izrael. Also after reading many of the comments it sounds like many of the people making anti-semitic comments have read (Mein Kamph). Hagel is a rubber stamp of this president we are saddled with for another four years.
It sounds like you have not. Sure it is a work of Hitler but in the end you cannot deal with that type of enemy without first understanding them. I think some of us have forgotten the old saying that if you know your enemy you need not fear the outcome of 100 battles or keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
Just reading Mein Kampf does not make you a fascist nor anti-Semitic.
PMS. Are you just stupid. Anyone on a president's cabinet, works for the President. We elected this President again. Deal with it. We will elect another Dem. In 2016 and you will have to live with that. Maybe Hillary. Maybe Joe. Maybe a Latino. No matter who, they will be elected in a free election. No matter how you Reps try to rig and steel the election, this election show you that for all the money and Gerrymandering, you couldn't buy the election. Fact is your got your ass handed to you.
PMS -
Not if he gets careless and gets impeached...
A noble goal although 2030 seems a bit idealistic. First we have to remove the nukes from the hands of irresponsible nations by force before the responsible ones can do away with their stockpiles. Then there has to be some kind of global initiative to keep nuclear reactors from being used to enrich uranium to weapons grade.
No surprise here with the GOP 'war lord' party.
These republicans pushing Hagel to be tough on Iran nukes etc . so hard, he may say, "While we are at the subject, how about those nukes Israel has?" .
He may push to strip Israel of off its nukes, before jumping on Iranians. I would.
Hagel is no Jew butt kisser.
Hagel is a true AMERICAN hero, not Israeli zero.
Sounds like someone doesn't like Jews very much
Just because I do not suck up to Israel, Does not mean I do not like Israel.
Israelis & jews have this complex; "We must be liked"
That is fine. Just do something about that attitude if you want to be loved.
I hate this so much. Since when did disagreeing with the actions of a foreign government all of a sudden make you racist against an entire group of people? It is ok to not support the Israeli Government and have no problem with Jewish people. They are two separate things. The Anti-Semitic label is thrown around far too easily.
James - It is easy for you to just say that, but if you read some of the comments, including sicktired and his past comments - it is not about disagreement with Israeli policy (although he agrees with Pakistan and Iran), but the word "jew" is thrown around a lot - THAT is why many think they are anti-semitic, and I agree.
Anyoen want to talk about CAIR - the "muslim" lobby?
Muslims have a lobby?
Hard to tell there is one. Pardon me..I almost forgot. Muslims heavy lobbying and influence on US worked great during Israeli assault on Palestine; Israel stopped killing children & women only after 150 Palestinians dead. Last operation was 1500. That means Muslim influence is working.
Also, US is the only country in UN rejected palestinian Statehood request . Some Muslim lobbying , huh?
James,
farideh appears to be an Iranian Armenian emigrated to Israel because of non-existent freedom of religion in Iran. But why she is so relentlessly trying to defend Israel beats me. I would not expect her to like Iran, but cheerleader for Israel? Justifying the killing of Palestinian children by Israelis? Come on.
sick - I defend israel because you and people like you always bash Israel NOT because of their policies you may not like, but because of your ill perception that they are "jews". I am not an armenian, I am a Ba'hai and my family was persecuted by your muslim religion in Iran and that is why your hatred another religion just reinforces how your bigotry brings on genocide. Also, we did not immigrate to Israel, we were refugees in Israel (for over six months) after escaping your muslim brethren and we saw enough in that country that you never saw - but you readily judge. Can you imagine that we felt safe and welcomed in Israel but not in any of your muslim countries? Should tell you a lot.
farideh -
My condolences for your suffering and I hope you have a bright future fron this time forward.
I have seen so much bigotry and intolerance from those claiming to be 'enlightened liberals' that I wonder how they can live with themselves.
Some of you call people "a certain religion" hater as if it is true because people speak out logically against certain policies they find hypocrtical, harmful, bigoted, and supporting more bloodshed, but you hate Muslims in force, and with perjorative terms all day long. "Camel jockeys", "ragheads", etc., "vermin", "exterminate", it's disgusting, but many of you find that "okay", as long as no one criticises "Israel". Talk about bigots, none worse.
All peoples and religions are equal in a manner of speaking of relevance; chew that one, and practice policies accordingly.
truthin: I asked a cab driver in Havana - while waiting on a friend - if he liked Americans. "You're kidding" he said, what's not to like? You're smart, generous, funny, honest, friendly. It's your government's foreign policy that Cubans don't like.
Deterrence only works with rational actors. I have my doubts that either North Korea or Iran are rational actors. While eliminating nuclear weapons is a laudable goal, it requires a degree of cooperation and a tempering of nationalistic feelings that are impossible to attain in the short term. Reducing numbers is still possible, since the vast majority of warheads are held by just a few nations.
I am not one of those who believes that they will never be used again. The very irrationality of North Korea and Iran lead me to the conjecture that eventually one or both of them will use a nuke (or attempt to) and that they must inevitably be destroyed as a result. Rather than hoping that some form of diplomacy or sanctions will stop either nation, the better policy is to ring them both with the most sophisticated antimissile defenses we have so as to give us the best chance of destroying their missiles in the boost phase. Tough luck if this stops them from "peaceful" use of orbital trajectories; these pariahs must be shown that any missile launch will be engaged and hopefully destroyed. That's the only containment that has a chance of success.
Someone earlier referenced NK's manpower advantage. That's a chimera. Their conventional forces are mired in the 1960s at best, and highly vulnerable to modern weapons and shrewd tactical employment. We don't keep a reinforced division on the DMZ these days to deter an attack from the North, but to prevent a forcible conquest by the South, which has infinitely greater capability. It's not at all like it was six decades ago.
Wouldn't it be curious to note how many anti nuclear arms politicians are also anti gun supporters. The issue is the same on a global scale. Do we want to get rid of all of our nukes (deterrent) and leave Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and China with theirs?
Doesn't make sense does it?