the premise is that Obama is anti-colonialist and wants to disarm America of nuclear weapons and let other countries keep their nuclear arms--like Iran for example
But Dinesh WORKED in the Reagan White House--so i got some ideas from Reagan
Also---is Dinesh saying that anti colonialism is un-American?? does he know American history, especially around 1776?? and Dinesh is Indian from India, a country that gained independence from Britain in 1947--so I'm not sure why being anti colonialist as he claims Obama is----is a bad thing.
Reagan Speech with thoughts on nuclear weapons, war, economy and spending, etc
bold is my comments
President Reagan Commencement Address Eureka College Illinois May 9 1982
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/50982a.htm
Reagan here makes some points that today's GOP needs to hear as well
Reagan says
""The Soviet Union must make the difficult choices brought on by its military budgets and economic shortcomings.""
Reagan says
But in the midst of social and economic problems, the Soviet dictatorship has forged the largest armed force in the world. It has done so by preempting the human needs of its people, and, in the end, this course will undermine the foundations of the Soviet system. Harry Truman was right when he said of the Soviets that, ``When you try to conquer other people or extend yourself over vast areas you cannot win in the long run.''
This is a great quote for our current gun laws debate with the NRA and everyone who wants a gun for self defense (and American foreign policy, especially August--September 2013 Syria debate)
""Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.""
(My version is ""war is diplomacy by force"" Amy Goodman said ""war ends in diplomacy, so start there instead"")
Reagan makes some great points here
""talk to your enemies, arms reduction, economic stability""
Reagan says
""I believe such a policy consists of five points: military balance, economic security, regional stability, arms reductions, and dialog. Now, these are the means by which we can seek peace with the Soviet Union in the years ahead.''"
The fourth point is arms reduction. REAGAN AND OBAMA ARE NOT ANTI COLONIALIST WHILE LOOKING FOR NUCLEAR ARMS REDUCTIONS OF OURSELVES OUR ALLIES AND OUR ENEMIES---THEY ARE SEEKING AN END TO THE ARMS RACE AND PEACE
Reagan says
""I wish more than anything there were a simple policy that would eliminate that nuclear danger. But there are only difficult policy choices through which we can achieve a stable nuclear balance at the lowest possible level.
I do not doubt that the Soviet people, and, yes, the Soviet leaders have an overriding interest in preventing the use of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union within the memory of its leaders has known the devastation of total conventional war and knows that nuclear war would be even more calamitous. And yet, so far, the Soviet Union has used arms control negotiations primarily as an instrument to restrict U.S. defense programs and, in conjunction with their own arms buildup, a means to enhance Soviet power and prestige.
Unfortunately, for some time suspicions have grown that the Soviet Union has not been living up to its obligations under existing arms control treaties. There is conclusive evidence the Soviet Union has provided toxins to the Laotians and Vietnamese for use against defenseless villagers in Southeast Asia. And the Soviets themselves are employing chemical weapons on the freedom-fighters in Afghanistan.
We must establish firm criteria for arms control in the 1980's if we're to secure genuine and lasting restraint on Soviet military programs throughout arms control. We must seek agreements which are verifiable, equitable, and militarily significant. Agreements that provide only the appearance of arms control breed dangerous illusions.
Last November, I committed the United States to seek significant reductions on nuclear and conventional forces. In Geneva, we have since proposed limits on U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range missiles, including the complete elimination of the most threatening systems on both sides. In Vienna, we're negotiating, together with our allies, for reductions of conventional forces in Europe. In the 40-nation Committee on Disarmament, the United Nations [United States] seeks a total ban on all chemical weapons.
Since the first days of my administration, we're been working on our approach to the crucial issue of strategic arms and the control and negotiations for control of those arms with the Soviet Union. The study and analysis required has been complex and difficult. It had to be undertaken deliberately, thoroughly, and correctly. We've laid a solid basis for these negotiations. We're consulting with congressional leaders and with our allies, and we are now ready to proceed.
The main threat to peace posed by nuclear weapons today is the growing instability of the nuclear balance. This is due to the increasingly destructive potential of the massive Soviet buildup in its ballistic missile force.
Therefore, our goal is to enhance deterrence and achieve stability through significant reductions in the most destabilizing nuclear systems, ballistic missiles, and especially the giant intercontinental ballistic missiles, while maintaining a nuclear capability sufficient to deter conflict, to underwrite our national security, and to meet our commitment to allies and friends.
For the immediate future, I'm asking my START -- and START really means -- we've given up on SALT -- START means ``Strategic Arms Reduction Talks,'' and that negotiating team to propose to their Soviet counterparts a practical, phased reduction plan. The focus of our efforts will be to reduce significantly the most destabilizing systems, the ballistic missiles, the number of warheads they carry, and their overall destructive potential.
At the first phase, or the end of the first phase of START, I expect ballistic missile warheads, the most serious threat we face, to be reduced to equal levels, equal ceilings, at least a third below the current levels. To enhance stability, I would ask that no more than half of those warheads be land-based. I hope that these warhead reductions, as well as significant reductions in missiles themselves, could be achieved as rapidly as possible.
In a second phase, we'll seek to achieve an equal ceiling on other elements of our strategic nuclear forces, including limits on the ballistic missile throw-weight at less than current American levels. In both phases, we shall insist on verification procedures to ensure compliance with the agreement.
This, I might say, will be the twentieth time that we have sought such negotiations with the Soviet Union since World War II. The monumental task of reducing and reshaping our strategic forces to enhance stability will take many years of concentrated effort. But I believe that it will be possible to reduce the risks of war by removing the instabilities that now exist and by dismantling the nuclear menace.""""
REAGAN AND OBAMA WANT STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTIONS AND ECONOMIC STABILITY--REAGAN INCREASED THE DEBT AND SO DID OBAMA--BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS BUT NEITHER WANT THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA
No comments:
Post a Comment