33 Minutes
Cutting defense initiatives INCLUDING missile defense is a STUPID idea. I can’t wait for this movie to come out. I’ll probably buy it when it does. It’s a documentary on missile defense.
THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF, and Obama wants to stop (and severely cut back) our ability to defend our country. Please watch this.
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to our RSS feed or help keep this site running!
November 16th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Not committing to a missle defense shield is not ignorant. You say Obama wants to cut back our ability to defend our country, come on man. You know better than that. Thanks to Reagan we couldn’t have a defense industry if we wanted one because of the weapons stockpile we have. We have so many weapons we practically give them away. I could go dig up the link to the story from last year where Bush sold a ton of weapons to Saudi Arabia, you know that country that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 911 were from. Don’t be a partisan, Obama is not hurting the defense of this country. Many Republicans, especially really conservative ones like Ron Paul are opposed to that missle shield as well. It’s just more saber rattling from an incredibly stupid president in Bush.
November 16th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
“You say Obama wants to cut back our ability to defend our country, come on man. You know better than that.”
I had this on the site, but they have disabled embedding. You might want to watch this again.
Here’s a quote from the video:
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.”
That stockpile is part of what keeps other countries at bay. And since my grandmother worked in the missile defense industry post-Reagan, I would have to disagree that we couldn’t have an industry. The problem with stockpiles is similar to computers - they get outdated. Chemicals, isotopes, etc. do have a shelf life and eventually expire. In order to have a functional defense, we must be innovative and keep systems working properly, otherwise they do us no good. It’s like trying to defend you home from an attacker with a single-shot rifle - it only works well if they aren’t armed with heavier firepower.
I know we sold weapons to the Saudis. But whether or not it’s ‘partisan’, a lack of a working and effective defense/deterrent is not a good plan to keep anybody safe. And saying that we aren’t going to try to keep up our defenses is kind of like saying that ‘we plan to not be ready if something happens, but we sure hope that nothing bad happens!’
That’s not a very good defense strategy.
Let’s put it like this: if you knew that someone was planning to harm your family, would you want to spend the money on a Colt .45 or on a pellet gun?
My bet’s on the .45 :D
November 17th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Here’s a quote from the video:
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.”
Good idea. No point in throwing money at something that is unproven. Also, it’s a good idea not to weaponize space, it will only make our enemies more hostile toward us.
That stockpile is part of what keeps other countries at bay.
Did a great job on 9-11
And since my grandmother worked in the missile defense industry post-Reagan, I would have to disagree that we couldn’t have an industry.
Yes some people may still work on weapon lines, but no there is no defense like their was during World War 2. We don’t’ need such an industry because we have a ton of weapons.
The problem with stockpiles is similar to computers - they get outdated. Chemicals, isotopes, etc. do have a shelf life and eventually expire. In order to have a functional defense, we must be innovative and keep systems working properly, otherwise they do us no good.
Actually you are wrong. There are plenty of studies out that say we have the most high tech military in the world. You know who was second? Israel. You know where they get all their military supplies (weapons, planes, etc)? The United States.
It’s like trying to defend you home from an attacker with a single-shot rifle - it only works well if they aren’t armed with heavier firepower.
I haven’t seen any countries try to fight us with heavier weapons since World War 2. That’s because no one has any. And don’t’ try to use the old “but the terrorists could have a nuke”, because we have more nukes than any other country in the world.
I know we sold weapons to the Saudis.
Good, so you know that we have so many weapons we have to sell them off, even to our enemies.
But whether or not it’s ‘partisan’, a lack of a working and effective defense/deterrent is not a good plan to keep anybody safe.
I agree, but lucky for us we have a perfect fine defense with a ton of powerful weapons, the most powerful in the world.
And saying that we aren’t going to try to keep up our defenses is kind of like saying that ‘we plan to not be ready if something happens, but we sure hope that nothing bad happens!’
I never saw Obama say he wasn’t going to keep up our defenses. You quoted him saying he won’t give money to unproven programs and throw weapons in space. Tradationally militaries become stronger under democrats. Look at Clinton and the military for instance.
Let’s put it like this: if you knew that someone was planning to harm your family, would you want to spend the money on a Colt .45 or on a pellet gun?
My bet’s on the .45 :D
I wouldn’t’ have to worry about it because if I was America I’d have 5000 nuke weapons, high tech tanks, black hawk helecopters, etc and the person who was harming me would probably have a rifle.
America’s army is fine under Obama.