My last blog about the presidential elections started to get a lot of comments about the fact that Barack Obama thinks that we should get rid of our weapons of mass destruction. Why shouldn't we? You do realize that if we do get rid of them we can spend money on something more worhtwhile?
I know that some people are going to argue that America getting rid of it's weapons is probably the dumbest thing that we could ever do. But I have to argue that spending billions of dollars looking for Osama bin Laden.....no wait, we're defending Iraq from Sadam Hussein......no wait, we're looking for weapons of mass destruction IN Iraq....no wait, no we're FIGHTING Iraq is the dumbest thing America has done so far.
If we have no WMD I know that America can be a sitting duck. But the reasons that these countries do come after us is because 1. We're in business that we don't need to be involved in and 2. We're bullying countries and they get sick of it. I think by getting rid of these weapons we can show other countries that we are a country that can be trusted. Besides...most of the wars that go on nowadays aren't fought on the battlefield but in the corporate world. Those major companies that own everything we use and decide whether gas will be exspensive this month and maybe go down the next.
Those are my thoughts. VOTE OBAMA '08
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
First of all, I agree that ridding the world of nuclear weapons and other WMDs would be a great cause. However, I think Barack wants to stop production of WMDs and not get rid of them all. We don't have a Superman to throw them into the sun, so where would they go? If we stop production of WMDs, we can be a role model to others in the world and have a foreign policy based on diplomacy, instead of on fear, bombing and mass destruction.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
A far better way to save money would be to stop throwing it into the failing welfare system. Also, one out of every five dollars the government spends goes to ONE program - Social Security. While I know it's not possible or advisable to get rid of it, SS needs some serious reform. I'm totally outraged that the money in the SS trust fund that's taken out of my paycheck isn't going to pay for my retirement, but for the retirement of all the current baby boomers as they age. The fund is predicted to be dry by the year 2040. I'll be 50 years old then, and I'll be hankering for my money.
Anyway, the point of this blog is non-proliferation. I'd say I support it. Reagan was actually noted for negotiating arms treaties with the USSR. We need more of that. I will say we "need" nukes as a "nuclear deterrent" (nations like North Korea would never nuke us because they know they'd be nuked back). But I agree, we don't need any extra. I've heard there are already enough nuclear missiles in the world to destroy the planet seven times over. Why are so many even necessary? That's just a total lack of common sense from our government (and all the other nations with an excess of nuclear bombs, like Russia.)
Social security is probably one of the worst implemented government programs ever. I do not see why the government has to pay for people who can't understand their own finances and spend their money, leaving nothing for retirement. We as taxpayers should not be supporting the irresponsibility of this country's citizens, but now it would be impossible to completely get rid of it, however, I don't think we should give money as a reward for poor planning.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
I'm not totally sure about this, but I think Social Security was originally set up to help people save for their OWN retirements. I don't like the idea of the government telling me how to save my money, but at least it comes back to me (well, it's supposed to).
You're still right though, we shouldn't be held accountable for someone else's failure to manage their finances. That's why people shouldn't expect the government (funded by my money) to bail them out of the housing crisis; they were the ones who signed up for sub prime loans, and were supposed to be aware that their mortgage rate would eventually increase.
Exactly! Government should not reward poor decision making. Whether it be mortgages or anything. What do you think the outcome will be if the social security fund runs out by 2040? More spending money that we don't have, because I have definitely had enough of that around here.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Excuse my French, but we're screwed come around 2040. My plan is to save my own money so that I don't need the government's SS. Hopefully my family will take care of me too, if necessary.
The worst part of all of this is that when the government runs out of money for funding SS, or any other program, it usually creates more of it out of thin air. And that's inflation.
I hope you are happy to know Obama will probably become president. I am about 99% sure. I had a premonition and they normally come true. Getting rid of weapons not a good idea at all. The reason is other countries will see us defenseless and an easy target. like nharris1032 stated they would be hard to get rid of. I honestly think nuclear weapons should NOT have been created in the first place because there is no reason for them.
But if we are unarmed then we will be an easy target. I'm not looking forward to the next 4 years because it could be coming to an end...
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
Wow, that is amazing that your premonitions come true. But it isn't really a stab in the dark, saying that 20% of Americans are fed up with Bush and John McCain is an older version of Bush (but going for a later Presidency?).
Nuclear weapons should not have been created in the first place. They are a bad idea. Bombs in the first place are a bad idea because human life should not be sacrificed, but why kill others if you will have nowhere to go. I will not understand the evils inside the minds of leaders around the world.
Furthermore, Barack is not disarming America, he is just halting all production, this will not make us an easier target because we already have enough to blow up the entire planet, but with an intelligent leader, we will use diplomacy and other intelligent paths to avoid this conflict in the future.
It is not coming to an end, it is a beginning of a better future.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
The reality is that we in America have the most capable military in the world, we can defend ourselves without the need to point nukes at others. I think the US should give the weapons (or at least a majority of them) to the United Nations. They can then reuse the nuclear material to make fuel for peacful reactors all over the world. On top of that, if they kept some of those weapons ready, they would be the ultimate instrument of deterence against large scale war, both conventional and nuclear. No one can rightly call the U.N. illegitamate when it repesents the majority of humanity, yes even without the U.S.. With the U.S. and our weapons, the U.N. could actually be the legitimate world authority we always ridicule it for not being.