Obama's anti-nuclear speech: Valid point or just plain scare-mongering or?

TMH

"Barack Obama came to power last year riding on the crest of a wave built of optimism and hope. Since then much has been made of his underwhelming performance to date. His approval ratings are down and the Republicans look set to gain ground during the mid-term elections.

But this is natural. No one could possibly live up to the messiah-like status that Mr Obama had been elevated to. Until recently however there seemed to be one thing that was still safe to say: "At least he's not Bush!".

After all he had said he was committed to closing Guantanamo and bringing American troops back from their illegal occupation of Iraq.

But Guantanamo remains open and we have now passed the deadline set by the President for its closure. Cheap PR stunts aimed at improving the prison's public image haven't fooled many. And it looks like it could be a long time before we see the US Army leaving Iraq - Obama's August 2011 deadline seems hopelessly optimistic.

It appears Barack has learned little from the foreign policy mistakes made by his infamous predecessor - that is if he ever wanted to learn from them in the first place.

Yesterday Obama spread the news that Al Qaeda were on the hunt for nuclear weapons. This called to mind the 2003 NY Times reports that 'proved' Saddam was bringing in materials to construct an atomic bomb, when in fact the materials cited were drainage pipes.

Obama - speaking at a gathering of more than forty world leaders in Washington - spoke of the "ramifications" of "a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg". No sources for his claims about "a terrorist organisation obtaining a nuclear weapon" were given.

The only reason such a statement is being put forward is on the back of the fact that Pakistan has nuclear arms and the Taliban are known to move between the Afghan-Pakistani border. The Taliban are a guerrilla army, they don't even have access to basic military equipment like tanks or any form of air power. Never mind nuclear launch capabilities!

The President is continuing George W's Machiavellian policy of spreading unwarranted fear in order to quell any criticism of his presidential pursuits. What happened to change? To a new, more transparent government?

As an example, yesterday's propaganda mentioned above prompted the Independent to mention in their article today that "No more than 55lb of the radioactive element - the size of a grapefruit" was required to manufacture a bomb "that could kill tens of thousands".

These simplified factoids should not be promoted by the press as they are lacking in context - such as how difficult it is to actually produce even tiny amounts of a weapons grade nuclear element. And you can be sure that the American media are going to town on it a lot more extensively than that.

It appears that power has already tainted the morals of a leader who seemed destined for greatness. And he may well still be headed to that promised land - for his motives still appear to remain noble - but wild 'reds-under-the-bed' style speculation and fear-mongering must end now before he sets himself up to be discredited by history.

And be advised to keep your eyes open - with Iran and North Korea creeping back into the news lately, this new anti-nuclear push could have more than a few deviant advocates lurking behind it."

Agree or disagree?

Sykk

He's dead right, though I don't think the Iranians give a sh*t what the Americans think or what kind of Sanctions they're going to impose. Nor do the North Koreans.

Biggins

I agree with Obama. Its only a matter of time (but would genuinely loved to be proved wrong).
They mentioned on the BBC ten news last night that at least one nuke material goes astray at least once a year on average.
Thats a horrible thought.

By the way, they don't need launch facilities, an imported dirty bomb would be enough to cause panic.
Both in lives and in economic markets.

hooradiation

That was an awful article.

TMH

hooradiation wrote: »

That was an awful article.

Care to elaborate?

TheZohanS

TMH wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

It reads as if it was written by a bunch of retarded monkeys on acid.

TMH

TheZohan wrote: »

It reads as if it was written by a bunch of retarded monkeys on acid.

Thanks, genius stuff.

wes

If Pakistan's Nuclear weapons are in danger, why did he no bring up India's Nuclear arsenal, which would be similarly in danger from the Naxalites, who control huge chunks of India. The 2 situations are not a million miles from one another. Seems to me that Obama is being rather picky imho.

Also, there is still no evidence of a active Iranian Nuclear Weapons program. Now to be fair they are not cooperating fully with the IAEA, and they need to get there act together in that regard.

Mark200

I disagree on many points, and agree that it is an awful article.

First of all on two points that aren't really the point of the article, but still factually misleading.

TMH wrote: »

After all he had said he was committed to closing Guantanamo and bringing American troops back from their illegal occupation of Iraq.

But Guantanamo remains open and we have now passed the deadline set by the President for its closure. Cheap PR stunts aimed at improving the prison's public image haven't fooled many. And it looks like it could be a long time before we see the US Army leaving Iraq - Obama's August 2011 deadline seems hopelessly optimistic.

First of all on Guantanamo - obviously it is not closed yet, but that is because the US are waiting for the Senate to approve a bill that would allocate funding to an Illinois prison, so that they can move many of the prisoners there. I believe a bill for funding was voted down in the Senate last year - which is the reason for the delay. However this one is expected to pass.

He is also facing unanticipated problems with releasing many of the prisoners - as although they are innocent, they can't be released back to their own country because they fear for their life. Many people in the US (mostly the right) oppose allowing the former Gitmo detainees to come to the mainland and live there. So the Government are having to find countries to take these innocent prisoners - eg Ireland recently took two.


On the idiotic comment about the August 2011 deadlines being hopelessly optimistic - if my memory serves me correctly, one of the army generals recently said that they are ahead of schedule with the withdrawal.

Now to the main body of the article..

TMH wrote: »

Yesterday Obama spread the news that Al Qaeda were on the hunt for nuclear weapons. This called to mind the 2003 NY Times reports that 'proved' Saddam was bringing in materials to construct an atomic bomb, when in fact the materials cited were drainage pipes

I have to say I find it quite shocking that the author of this article has thought it appropriate to compare a statement that is intended to encourage the reduction of nuclear weapons, to a statement that was intended to encourage international support to bomb and invade another country.

TMH wrote: »

The only reason such a statement is being put forward is on the back of the fact that Pakistan has nuclear arms and the Taliban are known to move between the Afghan-Pakistani border.

I'd love to know how the author of this article knew that that is the only reason such a statement was put forward

Overall, OP (I'm guessing you're the author), you have seized on one innocent comment intended to encourage the reduction in nuclear arms, and made it into a big deal for no reason. The claim that terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda are looking for nuclear or biological weapons is not one that was first made at this Nuclear conference. It has been made for years - I definitely recalling George Bush making the claim (not as part of the reason for invading Iraq), and I'm confident other countries have too. You have seized on this one comment, and attempted to apply the mottos of that Obama ran on, such as "change" and "transparency", to it - even though they are clearly not applicable.

TMH wrote: »

The President is continuing George W's Machiavellian policy of spreading unwarranted fear in order to quell any criticism of his presidential pursuits. What happened to change? To a new, more transparent government?

Dartz

It's somebody elses problem.... Nuke or not, you can bet your arse it won't be detonated here. So why should I give a ****?

biko

TMH I've removed the link in the post to your blog.
It's ok to have links in sigs to blogs but not trying to get more Internet audience by repeating what you already wrote once.
If your blog is good it'll get attention anyway.

TMH

Mark200 wrote: »

Overall, OP (I'm guessing you're the author), you have seized on one innocent comment intended to encourage the reduction in nuclear arms, and made it into a big deal for no reason. The claim that terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda are looking for nuclear or biological weapons is not one that was first made at this Nuclear conference. It has been made for years - I definitely recalling George Bush making the claim (not as part of the reason for invading Iraq), and I'm confident other countries have too. You have seized on this one comment, and attempted to apply the mottos of that Obama ran on, such as "change" and "transparency", to it - even though they are clearly not applicable.

Thanks for the comment.

I never suggested that this was the first time such claims were made. But they are now being made by the most powerful man in the world, in reference to two cities that have already been the focus of al Qaeda-related attacks. This is obviously going to spread fear unnecessarily. I'm of the opionion that the threat from terror is far less than generally perceived, but the media tend to latch on to isolated events that reverberate throughout the press until the next isolated event comes along. And Obama is fueling that fire.

I'm also not the only person to mention Guantanamo. The simple fact is he pledged to have it closed within a year of taking up office and he hasn't. Fair enough. But then there were misinformative PR video releases showing inmates being 'treated well' which, it emerged, were selectively chosen from the area where the least-threatening detainees were housed. And that's why I think it's a relevant point with regard to transparency.

With regard to Iraq, I may have to hold my hands up on that one. But the comments stems from my opinion that, if they do leave by August 2011, it's like they just walked in, destroyed it, and left having set up another US-friendly 'democracy'. Which is wrong.

I've always been very pro-Obama, but I can't say I trust him 100%, as great as it would be to have such a leader.

I appreciate your opinion, as difficult as it is to hear my work being called 'awful' twice in the space of an hour!

At least you were willing to back it up.

TMH

biko wrote: »

TMH I've removed the link in the post to your blog.
It's ok to have links in sigs to blogs but not trying to get more Internet audience by repeating what you already wrote once.
If your blog is good it'll get attention anyway.

Ok, no problem.
Didn't think it would be an issue, seeing as I posted the full article, not a "click here for the rest" type thing.

Mark200

TMH wrote: »

With regard to Iraq, I may have to hold my hands up on that one. But the comments stems from my opinion that, if they do leave by August 2011, it's like they just walked in, destroyed it, and left having set up another US-friendly 'democracy'. Which is wrong.

They're leaving several thousand US troops behind in a non-combat role to train Iraqi forces. It's worth noting that the UK ending their combat role in Iraq several months ago.

TMH wrote: »

I appreciate your opinion, as difficult as it is to hear my work being called 'awful' twice in the space of an hour!

For what it's worth, the writing itself wasn't awful - but the opinion, and the factually incorrect/misleading statements were