Obamas Nuclear War
So, the Feds have agreed to unlock another i-phone have they? Well, this is exactly what Apple feared wasn’t it? We will get into this at a later date but today, we wanted to look at Obama’s Nuclear War.
As usual, Mainstream media hasn’t failed to ‘keep the fear alive’. It’s about time they were entered to the TV Soap awards for best all round drama we think.
Today we are going to pick the bones of this BBC report:
Before I get into this article, I saw this heading and do you know what popped into my mind? This:
I met an old cowboy
I saw the look in his eyes
Somethin’ tells me he’s been here before
‘Cause experience makes you wise
I was only a small child
When the thought first came to me
That I’m a son of a gun and the gun of a son
That brought back the devil in me
Sometimes I feel like I’m beatin’ a dead horse
An I don’t know why you’d be bringin’ me down
I’d like to think that our love’s worth a tad more
It may sound funny but you’d think by now
I’d be smilin’
I guess some things never change
That is an excerpt from a Guns ‘n’ Roses track, called Dead Horse. How appropriate. How long has Obama been saying Nuclear war is ‘imminent’? Change the record fella, it’s getting old. We have no idea why this is news. It is the sort of fear-mongering that has been going on for years. 2001:
“We see the same intolerance of dissent, the same mad global ambitions, the same brutal determination to control every life and all of life. We have seen the true nature of these terrorists in the nature of their attacks,” he said.
The president thanked the gathered nations for their “practical” efforts to combat terrorism and, in remarks apparently aimed at the rest of the world, said the campaign requires “more than sympathy or words” from every nation.
“The defeat of terror requires an international coalition of unprecedented scope and cooperation. It demands the sincere, sustained actions of many nations against a network of terror cells and bases and funding,” he said.
Mr Bush also called on Afghans unhappy with their Taliban rulers to “help us locate the terrorists” hidden in the Central Asian nation, saying: “The sooner we find them, the better the people’s lives will be.”
Let’s have a look at what the current President has said:
‘The world has taken “concrete” steps to prevent nuclear terrorism, he told the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington.’
Apart from lifting the sanctions on Iran, what ‘concrete steps’ have been taken, and by whom? well, that is not exactly clear. Obviously, this is the first problem with the ‘Kings’ Speech. Apparently there are calls for The US and Russia to work together:
Russia and the United States Need to Work Together to Ensure that ISIS Never Acquires Nuclear or Radiological Weapons
‘At a recent Joint Conference of the International Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe and the Nuclear Threat Initiative “Preventing the Crisis of Nuclear Arms Control and Catastrophic Terrorism”, which took place on the 1st of December, 2015 former Senator Sam Nunn, Co-Chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative made a speech where he put forward some pressing international issues. Highlighting the crucial role of a sound and open dialogue between Russia and the US, Senator Nunn urged international community to work on nuclear arms control and risk reduction process which in time will prevent nuclear and radiological weapons falling into wrong hands. Senator Nunn called for building trust, mutual respect and strong mechanisms of cooperation between Russia and NATO as a basis for peaceful and dynamic relations. This is especially vital due to the rising threat coming from ISIS and islamic terrorist groups scattered around the world’
This is certainly one plan. what did O’Bozo say about this suggestion?:
‘Mr Obama expressed concern that Russia has been building up its military at the expense of nuclear arms reductions.
Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to attend the summit, and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan cancelled his trip after the deadly bombing in Lahore. Both countries are nuclear-armed.’
Of course. How can Russia work with The US, when it is the US condemning Russia for ensuring it is in the position to assist in the prevention of nuclear war, without actually having any nuclear weapons? Let’s not forget that it was the US that protested publicly against Russia taking a stand against ISIS in the first place. And of course, if the US Prez is SO concerned, why hasn’t he done anything about his own plentiful supplies of nuclear weaponry? ‘Do as I say, not as I do’.
‘Mr Obama cited progress in making large parts of the world free of nuclear materials. South America had already achieved this, and Central Europe and South East Asia were expected to do so later this year.
“Together, we have removed the world’s most deadly materials from nuclear facilities around the world,” he said.’
Uh-huh. Did you know that Latin America banned nuclear weapons in 1967? It was part of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, so no Obozo, you can’t claim that one, unless you were actually there and instigated the treaty 39 years ago?
Central Europe: In 1995 a ‘thing’ happened. It was called ‘Nuclear Weapon Free Zone’.
‘in the process of NATO accession Central European states failed to explicitly reject the possibility of the deployment of US nuclear weapons on their territory (although Washington already made a promise to Moscow to prevent this situation) and they refrained from supporting the Central European Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone proposal at 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.’
‘Despite their failure to stand up for a Central European NWFZ, the states of the region proved to be successful in their non-nuclear pro-activism on the different international disarmament fora.
1960. Debatable that America had anything to do with that either. In fact, apart from Central Europe feeling beholden by the requirements of NATO, it does seem like Central Europe handled this one quite well on their own. Good for them. That must be a devastating blow to the ‘World Police’.
And now we get into something a little more interesting:
‘India is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), and is not one of the five nuclear weapons powers the treaty recognizes. India’s nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998 led to criticism and even sanctions.Since then however, sanctions have largely been lifted and the United States had quietly accepted India’s possession of nuclear weapons so long as India does not carry out further nuclear tests, though officially, the United States has not recognized India as a nuclear weapons state. This has also led to many claims of double standards on the part of the United States for making exceptions for India—including getting the Nuclear Suppliers Group to agree to a waiver on export restrictions of nuclear materials for India—that have been granted to no other countries. This demonstrates the strategic importance of India for the West and the general global perception of its trustworthiness and stability.’
So, we see, once again, that the US lifted sanctions on India, thus allowing them to start over. Are you seeing a pattern?
‘Then in 2012, North Korea suddenly announced it would suspend nuclear activities and place a moratorium on missile tests in exchange for US food aid,. But this came to nothing when Pyongyang tried to launch a rocket in April that year.
The UN further tightened sanctions after the 2013 test.
The 2016 test brought another round of universal international condemnation, including from China, the North’s main ally.’
Even here, when America were given the opportunity to control North Korea, they refused. Can you honestly tell me that providing food for Korea wasn’t worth halting their nuclear program?
‘IS has already used chemical weapons in Syria. “There is no doubt that if these mad men ever got their hands on a nuclear bomb or nuclear material, they would certainly use it to kill as many people as possible,” he said.
“The single most effective defence against nuclear terrorism is fully securing this material so it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands in the first place.”
Of course, there is no need for your humble reporter to go over the strong ties between IS and America. If anyone is going to give ISIS a nuclear weapon, it will be America.
Just out of curiosity, Why didn’t Putin go to this meeting?
‘Obama, in an opinion piece in The Washington Post, said, “Our massive Cold War nuclear arsenal is poorly suited to today’s threats. The United States and Russia – which together hold more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons – should negotiate to reduce our stockpiles further.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday Russia was skipping the summit because of a “shortage of mutual cooperation” in working out the agenda.
While noting that Moscow had continued joint work on nuclear security, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Russia was going to “miss out on an opportunity” and that its no-show illustrated the “degree to which Russia is isolated.” Russia has chafed over U.S.-led sanctions over the Ukraine conflict.’
Hm. The original report that the BBC posted several hours ago, didn’t mention this. A good point has been raised. How exactly have America reduced their own supply of nuclear weapons?
‘But the bigger risk to the modernization plan may be its expense — upward of a trillion dollars if future presidents go the next step and order new bombers, submarines and land-based missiles, and upgrades to eight factories and laboratories.
“Insiders don’t believe it will ever happen,” said Mr. Coyle, the former White House official. “It’s hard to imagine that many administrations following through.”
Meanwhile, other veterans of the Obama administration ask what happened.
“I think there’s a universal sense of frustration,” said Ellen O. Tauscher, a former under-secretary of state for arms control. She said many who joined the administration with high expectations for arms reductions now feel disillusioned.’
Is it any wonder that Russia boycotted the summit? whilst America are calling for other countries to reduce their nuclear weapons supply, America itself are upgrading theirs. I bet you can see the bigger picture now, can’t you?
What do you think? Would removing our troops out of the conflict zones pave the way for a nuclear war? Do you think we will actually engage in a war of this magnitude? Do you think America have any grounds for dictating to other countries leaders, regarding their supplies of nuclear weaponry? Do we really need nuclear weapons?
Drop us a line at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Or leave us a message in the comments below.