Click For Obama is asking all Obama supporters to help us raise funds by clicking on our website sponsors. Just click, visit the site, and click out. We can raise $100,000 dollars for the month of November 09.Times are tough and money is tight, but if you Click For Obama we can generate funds without having to pay one penny. Click here then click around the sites links. Tell your friends and make this link viral.Thank you,
Click For Obama Team
The weapon design and arms control communities agree that it is not the capability to design a nuclear device that determines the pace of a country’s acquisition of a first weapon, but, rather, the availability of nuclear weapons materials that can be turned to weapons purposes. For a nation-state, the material for weapons can come from uranium enrichment plants (highly enriched uranium), or reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants (plutonium), or both.
Regardless of its isotopic composition, the minimum amount of plutonium required to make a pure fission nuclear explosive, with a yield equivalent to one to 25 kilotons of chemical high explosives, is quite small, on the order of 1 to 3 kilograms (kg), with the exact amount depending on the level of design expertise and the desired nuclear explosive yield. The minimum amount of highly enriched uranium required is a few times larger—5 to 10kg.
While far from ideal for military applications, the isotopic composition of the plutonium typically produced in civil power reactors does not pose a serious obstacle to fabricating efficient and powerful weapons, as well as crude terrorist devices.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf
The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inextricably linked to nuclear power by a shared need for enriched uranium, and through the generation of plutonium as a by-product of spent nuclear fuel. The two industries have been linked since the very beginning and a nuclear weapons free world requires a non-nuclear energy policy. http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/information/info-sheets/briefings.html#nuclearpower
HOPE AND HYPE VS. REALITY IN NUCLEAR REACTOR COST
THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS:http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf
Though the topline numbers in the Obama administration’s national security budget for 2010 may not make headlines, there’s a lot of newsworthy moving and shaking happening beneath the surface. The budget gives the Defense Department $533.7 billion, $20.4 billion more than last year but only a two percent jump when adjusted for inflation. However, President Obama has said several programs are on the chopping block, warning just days ago he would cut “Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.” The White House also claims the budget has absorbed some programs funded for the last five years in the wartime supplementals, such as security support for foreign governments and some medical programs. Another $75.5 billion supplemental was also released today, bringing Fiscal Year 2009’s war spending tab to more than $142 billion when combined with the $66 billion supplemental passed last fall. Another $130 billion war funding boost is penciled in for 2010, but the administration says supplementals will eventually be phased out altogether.
The Energy Department’s budget flatlines at $26.3 billion, though nuclear weapons spending is not broken out. Green energy initiatives get a big increase, according to the White House. Nuclear nonproliferation and cleanup programs also get more money, as do programs to extend the life of existing warheads. The Reliable Replacement Warhead—a Bush administration program to rebuild nuclear warheads—is singled out for elimination.
Homeland Security also stays relatively flat at $42.7 billion—only $500 million more than 2009—but the budget brags about more than $100 million in new spending on Transportation Department and Transportation Security Administration programs. The real winner is the State Department, which gets $51.7 million—a 40 percent increase from 2009. Foreign aid is “on a path” to double in size, and global health, USAID and the Foreign Service will all grow. The budget also funds the launch of a new “multi-year counterterrorism and law enforcement assistance program.”
for more information contact Laura Peterson
Enter your Email:
One of Barak Obama's first bills he signed on was with Sam Nunn. It focused on Non-Proliferation.
We have a crisis right now. Gates has announced he is going to rearm the Nuclear Heads on the US Missles so that they are up to date. In my opinion this was done for two reasons: to give the arms industry more money to waste, and secondly to rekindle the arms race. This is the exact opposite to what must be done. There are many armed missles in the former USSR that need to me destroyed, as well as in the US and in Europe. They are all out of date, and they are worthless except to threaten. They can be sold to terrorists, to unstable governments, etc.
Along with all the other many problems which we have to focus on, this one cannot be forgotten.
U.S. study urges Obama to press Israel over nuclear program
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
The Middle East is in danger of accumulating large stocks of nuclear material over the next decade that could be used to produce over 1,700 nuclear bombs, a U.S. research center has projected in a newly released report. The Institute for Science and International Security, headed by David Albright, one the world's top experts on nuclear weapons and the prevention of nuclear proliferation, recently released its report urging president-elect Barack Obama to take a number of measures to avoid such an outcome, including convincing Israel to halt production of its nuclear weapons........
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037539.html
Set aside for the moment the fact that more terrorists are being trained by fundamental and radical extremists than now ever before and that there is more support for terrorists among the growing population of fundamentalists and radicals than ever before.
Set aside for the moment the fact that Iran, who was labeled as an Axis of Evil, has greater influence in Iraq and the Middle East now than at any time prior to the War in Iraq.
Set aside for the moment the fact that U.S. foreign aide has been misappropriated and misused by those who received it for purposes of terrorism. The late Mujahideen Commander Nek Mohammed was bribed with U.S. foreign aide money that he requested to repay his loans from al Qaeda. It has been alleged that the attack on an Indian Embassy and perhaps the more recent attacks within India were financed by the Pakistani ISI with U.S. foreign aide.
Set aside for the moment the fact that the threat is greater now than ever that terrorist will acquire multiple nuclear weapons in Pakistan as opposed to just a dirty bomb.
How do the Republican Party and Senator John McCain justify heinous and reprehensible acts by fellow Republicans, which threatened National Security and may have influenced the actions of the White House in an international incident? Notwithstanding the issue of their age and gender, which is made all the more evident by testaments to that individuals frequenting an infamous child bordello in Thailand, how do the Republican Party and Senator John McCain justify a fellow Republican accepting enslaved Thai Prostitutes from the son of a now disgraced communist leader? Did their knowledge of his actions limit the response of his Republican family member during an international crisis? Did their knowledge of his actions limit the response of his Republican family member during a National Security threat? For those who have faith, each persons God's ultimate assesment of our lives occcurs on the day of reckoning. Your god may have had the first of many last laughs on the person who accepted the enslaved Thai Prostitutes, although one must sympathize with his former wife. That person became infected with an incurable sexually transmitted disease.
Indiscretions such as these are generally supposed to be considered a potential threat to National Security when considering others for security clearance, but this has not always been the case. The Department of Defense (DOD), including the military and other federal agencies has overlooked illegal and immoral indiscretions in the past. DOD helped an underage Philippine female immigrate to the United States to marry a former Marine Aviator, who was once employed by the contractor at USAF Plant No. 4 and once in the reserve. When she revealed at a Christmas Party that she was an underage bride, his security clearance was not revoked. DOD, including the USAF, and the Senate Armed Services Committee overlooked the access by employees of the contractor at USAF Plant No. 4 of child pornography on the World Wide Web. They destroyed evidence on individual computers, but they were so ignorant in their obstruction of justice that they forgot to destroy evidence on mainframes and servers. Their security clearances were not revoked. DOD, including the USAF, and the Senate Armed Services Committee ignored visits by defense contractor and some military personnel to child bordellos in South Korea and Thailand among other nations. Some employees openly bragged about their visits to the parlors, which were staffed with underage child prostitutes. Their security clearances were not revoked.
I would not feel safer with Senator John McCain in the White House at any level. He has already demonstrated for me his failure to lead at any level. He has already demonstrated his failure to lead morally. He has already demonstrated his failure to lead in matters of National Security. He has already demonstrated his ability to lead use into the most serious economic crisis of the last 100 years.
The Center for U.S. Global Engagement and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs held a panel discussion during the Democratic National Convention entitled, "Foreign Policy and National Security in an Obama Administration." The panel discussion was originally aired by C-SPAN on 08/28/08.
The panel discussion emphasized the importance of laying foundations for relationships with the people of other nations and supporting development with a focus on needs identified from within those nations. There was also discussion of redirecting support from a militaristic approach to one of development.
While I have confidence in Senator Obama's judgment and I'm impressed with Dr. Susan Rice, some members of the panel expressed views towards Iran that I found unacceptable.
For example, why is Iran is so frequently portrayed as more of a threat to the world than any other country with nuclear weapons?
Why didn't the panel call for aggressive diplomacy and tough sanctions against Israel, India, and Pakistan for their already-existing nuclear arsenals, especially since these three countries--no less than Iran--are also in violation of UN Security Council resolutions regarding their nuclear programs?
What gives the United States the right to decide which countries are "allowed" to have nuclear weapons and which countries are not? There should be no country with nuclear weapons --including the U.S.
The following quote from Senator Obama on "investing in our common humanity" is key in improving international relations, increasing global security, and restoring our devastated domestic economy:
I will strengthen our common security by investing in our common humanity. Our global engagement cannot be defined by what we are against; it must be guided by a clear sense of what we stand for. We have a significant stake in ensuring that those who live in fear and want today can live in dignity and opportunity tomorrow. -- Senator Barack Obama
Below is an overview, from Roll Call, of the discussion on National Security Issues in an Obama Administration by the Panel of Foreign Policy Advisers:
A panel of foreign policy advisers close to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) shed light on how an Obama presidency might deal with national security issues.
The group, which included former Cabinet officials, Members of the Congress and representatives from various countries, such as Britain and Afghanistan, spoke at a roundtable discussion Thursday in Denver. The panelists touched on a variety of issues, including the threats of terrorism, climate change and nuclear proliferation.
It has already been established that the 4/16/08 "debate" between the Democratic Presidential Candidates, the media mess of ABC, was long on "gotcha" politics and short on substance.
More frightening than the absence of journalistic integrity by the moderators were the Bush/McCain-sounding statements of Senator Clinton on the topic of Iran.
George Stephanopoulos asked the candidates if U.S. policy should be to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States. Senator Clinton's response sounded as if she's proposing the same policy toward Iran that was employed by the Bush administration to attack Iraq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs
Her remarks on the "Umbrella of Deterrence" are strikingly similar to her vote to authorize war in Iraq due to concerns about "weapons of mass destruction."
Senator Clinton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw70_uJ7y_s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3jppzkF0QM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFmTAPmrbo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWb2wBnTOlU
Continued:
"Announced in Bush's "axis of evil" speech, his 2002 State of the Union address, the Bush Doctrine held that the main danger to the United States came from the nexus of hostile regimes, terrorist groups, and nuclear weapons. One solution was preventive war. The Iraq invasion was the first attempt to carry out this radical strategy, but it was intended to be just the start of a series of regime changes in the Middle East, with Syria and Iran to follow."
from 'The Greatest Threat to Us All' By Joseph Cirincione, New York Review of Books, March 8, 2008.
This article changed my view of the world. I urge everyone to read this article at
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21054
Obama is starting this dialogue now, starting with the last frame of his 3 a.m. ad running in Texas. Chris Dodd as Obama's surrogate did the same on Face the Nation today. His leadership with Lugar, Hagel, and Nunn on this is critical to understanding where he he will lead us on foreign policy and diplomatic, budget, and military priorities.
$9TRILLION in cumulative Federal debt of which $5.5TRILLION spent on nuclear weapons + $1TRILLION on Iraq: you do the math.
Frank: What is Wesley Clark's nuclear position?
Newsweek reports on Islamic militants operating freely in Pakistan, calling it the most dangerous nation in the world.
Only a hundred years ago, the thought that humanity could completely self-destruct was unthinkable. That God could get tired of us all and wipe us out again, that was self-evident, but that we ourselves could be responsible must have seemed as absurd as the sun suddenly vanishing or the sky falling down. I grew up in the atomic era and have gotten used to its constant threat. It's like the story about the boy who cried wolf one time too many. Listening to the news you could easily get the idea that anyone could get their hands on the ultimate doomsday weapon without much trouble and kill us all, but so far no one has and personally I can't say I'm losing much sleep over the possibility. But the very idea has left us all with a very strange reality. Suddenly survival depends on more than just our capacity to breed and ward off other threatening animals. It is far beyond Darwin's concept of natural selection. Now our own desire to live plays as much a part in our own survival as the world around us.
So how could it happen? How could the land of Hopes and Dreams, the country that more than any other was dedicated to the betterment of mankind, use the ultimate doomsday weapon? Not to mention using it on a civilian population and then lying about the motive for its use. I have a feeling many Americans cringe with discomfort just reading this question and the implications of it. The contradiction is too hard to bear. There are strong indications that Harry Truman and his colleges struggled hard with their conscience until the day they died and I have no doubt they all had the best of intentions. But as the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", and at the end of the day, it is your actions that leave the mark on history.
I have a strong feeling that if it had been Prime Minister Churchill of Great Britain who ordered the use of the atomic bomb, or Stalin for that matter, it would have been much less traumatic. Mankind has come up with horrifying ways of killing each other in the past and the atomic bomb was just a little more efficient than the previous ones. No one would have expected either Britain or Russia to do any less damage to their enemy than they could. But the thing that makes this so painful is that America was suppose to be better than them. America was the land everyone wanted to live in, if not necessarily geographically. In America everyone was free and happy. The American Dream was as much alive in the rest of the world as it was in America itself, perhaps in some ways even more so. Naturally everyone had their own interpretation of exactly what that dream meant but the very possibility that there was a better place somewhere, gave people hope. And with a Europe in ruins, China a shambles and Russia heading towards hell with remarkable speed, hope was hard to come by. This was a time when the world needed America more than ever.
Answering the question 'how could it happen?' is not easy. There are plenty of versions and there is probably some truth in all of them. I am not going to claim that my version of events is the ultimate truth. In fact it will be an extreme simplification. A complete analysis would require far more than I can supply and probably more than most people could bear to read. But this is an account of the things that I feel are important to answer the question.
It all started when Roosevelt died on April 12th 1945. Harry Truman was urgently summoned from a card game to the White house where he was informed that he now was the President of the United State of America. I can only imagine what he must have felt; pride and excitement, undoubtedly. It is after all the ultimate power rush; everyone listens to your every word and abides by your every wish. Power is defined by your ability to change things and there are few people with as much power as the President of the United States. But every coin has two sides and as the first flood of adrenaline subsides, reality sets in. Even with ultimate power there are a great number of things you can't control. I imagine that has never felt more real than in the West Wing. And suddenly Captain Harry had enemies right and left and most of them he couldn't even fight.
Truman soon found himself flying blind in a snowstorm. He knew there was a lot he didn't know that he should know. Obviously that is true for anyone on the first day on the job, but usually there is time to learn. Truman didn't have time. From the first moment he swore the oath he was responsible for America at war. I don't even want to try to imagine what that must have felt like, the very idea gives me nightmares, but there he was and he did the only thing he could do, employ people who knew the things he didn't know. Then he had to trust them. One of the people he recruited early on was James Byrnes. He was made secretary of State in July but worked closely with Truman months before that. There are a lot of speculations about Byrnes personality and private agenda, most of it far from flattering, but I will try to avoid too much speculation here. What interests me is what advise he gave Truman and why. There are sources which indicate that he suggested a harder line towards Russia than any of the other advisers. There are also indications that he was the one who pushed for the use of the atomic bomb when most of the others were against it. The question is why. An easy answer would be to say that the guy was nuts and hungry for power. Personally I think he was one of the few people around Truman at the time who fully understood Stalin.
Stalin once said that the winner gets to write history and that is certainly true with this war. America has downplayed and even attempted to eliminate certain historical facts in relation to their war with Japan, to fit their self-image. But that is nothing compared to the cover-up Russia put in motion to hide its ruthless power struggle in Europe. With Germany in ruins, France grasping for air and Great Britain utterly disoriented, Stalin must have felt the time had finally come for the Soviet Union to take its rightful place in the world. Let's not forget, Stalin believed as strongly in his communistic ideology as Roosevelt believed in his New Deal. But more than anything else, Stalin finally had a perfect opportunity to assert power over nations that had tried to dominate Russia for hundreds of years. It's not as if Hitler was the first nutcase who thought it was a cool idea to invade Russia. There probably isn't a single country in Europe that hasn't fought at least one war with Russia over the centuries. The French and British were definitely glad to get rid of Hitler but neither of them was too happy about a strong Russia as a next door neighbor. And I believe this was Byrne's main agenda during the summer of 1945, not to give Stalin even an inch more than necessary.
If ending the war with Japan had been the only thing on the political agenda at the time, there were far better and cheaper ways to do it. The official American story, that Japan refused to surrender, is only partially true. According to some records, the Japanese leaders were trying desperately to end the war after Germany surrendered, but they needed to keep their pride and assurances for their precious Emperor, something Truman initially seemed unwilling to give them. After the bombs had been dropped, however, he apparently changed his mind and only then did Japan surrender.
Another motive that many Americans cling on to is the military necessity. Too many American soldiers would have died if the atomic bombs had not been used. As I said before this is far from a realistic assumption. First of all, an invasion was only necessary from a political point of view, in relation to Russia. There were plenty of diplomatic attempts, mostly originating from Japan, as Stalin's army began to march in their direction. All America had to do was pay attention. Secondly, the US. military was doing just fine without this monstrosity and I think it's about time they were exonerated from this madness. There are far better ways of bombing a city back to the Stone Age without the use of experimental weapons of radiation, especially considering the limited testing this weapon had gone through. I find it hard to believe that the US. military was that desperate. After all they had more or less already won the war; it was just a matter of cleaning up. Would more soldiers have died? Certainly, but that is the realities of war and not something that should have made that much of a difference to a military commander, specially not this close to the end.
In my opinion this only leaves one remaining possibility; that the atomic bombs were dropped on two Japanese cities to scare off Russia. And as much as I hate it, I have to confess, I think it was the right thing to do. It is of course a cruel paradox and brings new meaning to the saying, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't". I certainly don't envy Truman the decision, and I do believe he struggled with it until he died. It is always easy to second-guess in hindsight, but when you're stuck in the eye of the storm it's sometimes impossible to get proper perspective. I have no doubt the people in charge did what they thought was best. Unfortunately that doesn't make the problem go away.
The phrase "impressing Russia" is of course an extreme simplification. What Byrnes probably realized early on was that with all the psychological momentum Roosevelt had on Stalin, Truman had none. Roosevelt had the confidence of his people, which they had expressed in four democratic elections. This alone must have made Stalin green with envy, since he basically had to bribe, threaten and kill to get anyone to support him. Roosevelt also had the respect of the world's leaders, something Stalin could only dream of. Truman, on the other hand, was essentially a nobody. This left Europe and the world very vulnerable.
It may seem harsh considering the vast amount of destruction Germany and its allies bestowed upon the world, but defeating the Nazis was a kid’s game compared to fighting the Red Army. The German leadership consisted of a madman with no military skills whatsoever, whose only real strength was propaganda and illusions. Stalin, however, was not only smart and cold; he also had access to a sophisticated ideology, a strong historical foundation and some of the world’s most impressive military commanders. In the autumn of 1945 there was only one thing that stood a chance of preventing total Russian dominance in Europe and effectively the world; the United Stated of America.
Byrnes has been quoted at the time as saying, "What we must do now is not make the world safe for democracy, but make the world safe for America". These are the words of a hardened man, disillusioned by the cruelties of mankind. It is also the essence of the painful discrepancy between the American self-image and reality. I genuinely believe neither Truman himself nor the American people wanted to give up on democracy for the world, but the signal the use of the atomic bomb sent to the world, and to Stalin, was that America was willing to sacrifice their golden ideals whenever it suited them. If they had to they would fight a war with the same ruthlessness and cruelty the rest of mankind had perfected over the centuries.
Unfortunately Truman had bigger concerns than what the world might think fifty years later. I'm sure he was aware of the many warnings from the scholarly elite in America about the long term political consequences of using the weapon. Plenty of petitions stating these realities must have crossed his desk during this time. "The Franck Report" for instance, suggested that, "It will be very difficult to persuade the world that a nation which was capable of secretly preparing and suddenly releasing a weapon, as indiscriminate as the rock bomb and a thousand times more destructive, is to be trusted in its proclaimed desire of having such weapons abolished by international agreement." (Report of the Committee on Political and Social problems, Manhattan Project, 11th of June 1945). The lead scientist on the Manhattan project also wrote a petition to the President saying, "Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale" (by Leo Szilard, Chief Physicist, dated 17th of July 1945). None of these writers expresses any particular concerns for the welfare of the Japanese, or argued that their country should give up the fight. Their only concern was how humanity would perceive America after it had introduced such a demonic weapon to the world.
These scholars however, probably only had a vague idea of just how threatening the situation was. If Stalin had not been dealt with he would have gained a tremendous momentum. Exactly what he would have done with it is hard to say but considering the pain and suffering he was clearly capable of bestowing upon his own people, I see no reason to believe he would have been any less harsh on the rest of us. So technically America did the right thing, but that doesn't alter the consequences.
In hindsight we know that Russia soon developed its own Atomic weapons (in 1949 to be exact) which balanced out any advantage America may have had. And when Stalin died from presumably natural causes in 1953, it ended an era of extreme violence, even by Russian standards, and essentially concluded whatever momentum his cruelty gave Russia. Truman and his staff had of course no way of predicting either. Nor could they have known what the long term radiation damage would do not only to the Japanese but to the Americans who happened to live near the test sites. I have no doubt that even without these facts it was a tough decision, but also one that made sense under the circumstances. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that the predictions made by the scholarly elite came true and that the price America eventually may wind up paying could be too much to bear.
http://www.counterpunch.org/giordano10112007.html
[EXCERPTS]
On a recent trip to the island of his Oxford alma mater, Bill Clinton didn't say what color the would-be First Laddie would choose for the White House drapes.......
Given various opportunities to break from previous Clinton administration failures in Latin America, Senator Hillary Clinton had made it clear that, if president, she'll continue down the same harmful path. When last July, rival Democratic Senator Barack Obama said he would be willing to meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez in his first year in office without preconditions, candidate Clinton labeled such vision as "irresponsible and frankly naïve." When Obama went to Miami's Little Havana to call for easing the US embargo on Cuba, the Clinton campaign replied that it would not even "talk about" changes in US Cuba policy.........
Candidate Clinton has also spoken aloud on the campaign trail that if elected, prior to her inauguration, she would send "emissaries" across the world to announce to foreigners that, "America is back" (a phrase lifted from Obama's stump speech). But a new Clinton White House is not likely to impress the world in the ways that a black American president, son of an African immigrant, with a "post-boomer" way of speaking and an outside-the-box approach to foreign policy clearly would. "It would be, I think in many ways, a far more powerful thing in the world, to have the first black president of the United States," the South African former archbishop Desmond Tutu told ABC News last month. "You don't know what it would do to people of color in other parts of the world." ............
In August, Senator Clinton (again, responding to a refreshing foreign policy statement by Obama in which he ruled out first use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan in the hunt for bin Laden) refused to take the nuclear option off the table, and lectured Obama at an AFL-CIO debate condescendingly that, "You can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because they could have consequences," she reflected the very kind of American arrogance that gives most of the world no reason at all to trust or want to work with the United States. ...........
Al Giordano, the founder of Narco News, has lived in and reported from Latin America for the past decade. His opinions expressed in this column do not reflect those of Narco News nor of The Fund for Authentic Journalism, which supports his work. Al encourages commentary, critique, additional analysis and news tips for his continued coverage of the US presidential campaign to be sent to his email address: narconews@gmail.com.
TO SEE ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.counterpunch.org/giordano10112007.html
Senator Obama said:
"Here's what I'll say as president: 'America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,'" Obama said.
"The best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons - it's to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials away from terrorists," the Illinois senator said. Aides said the process Obama envisions would take many years, not just a a single presidency.
The Republican National Committee criticized the proposal as unsafe and an example of Obama "playing to the fringe elements of his party." But the concept has the backing of at least two former Republican secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz.
I say:
The long term data suggests quite strongly that terrorism is historically a minor part of the U.S's, as a nation state, economic and democratic prosperity. Hate mongers are thrown on the pile of hate they sowed and largely forgotten in a very short period of time. Yet to assume that nuclear technology is a commodity that we can control is naive.
The domestic issues facing our nation have been to a large extent ignored by two sitting Presidents. Tax cuts are not the answer. Health Care, School Credits or whatever one wants to call them – , Roads, and library & education issues – all dwarf the current state of our foreign affairs I would regretfully submit.
I say this in all due respect Senator Obama.
Proposals reported in the New York Times ...
Iran seeks to win the war of the minds by instigating the U.S. into another war that could further erode its credibility and serve Iran's propoganda purposes. ...
