Our allies object to "No First Use" nuclear pledge by lame duck Obama

As  our lame President Barack Obama ducks leadership responsibility over first strike options should there be a threat posed to the U.S. or any of our allies, the fear is that our enemies will view Obama for the weak pantywaist that he is, and be more than happy to take over the role of first striker. 

Our so-called president's term is thankfully coming to an end (unless he declares martial law should Hillary get indicted before she takes office, should she win) and our allies are worried that Obama will publicly pledge that the U.S. would never be first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict (he wants to wait for the blinding flash report that he would get from his protected bunker) Josh Rogin of The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Japan, France, Britain and South Korea have "all privately communicated their concerns" about what would be "a landmark change in America's nuclear posture," Rogin reported.

Shinzo Abe, Japan's Prime Minister, spoke with U.S. Pacific Commander Admiral Harry Harris Jr. telling him that he is worried that an American pledge of "no first use" of nuclear weapons will reduce deterrence of rogue nuclear states such as North Korea and increase the possibility of war.

But Barack Obama claimed to be the "most transparent president" in the history of the office, and when it comes to tipping his hand to the enemies of the U.S. and our allies, he is telling the truth, for a change. Not only does Obama tell our enemies how he plans to respond, he lets them know how long he will allow our troops to stay in the conflict before we pack up and go home.

Another problem this notion of refusing first nuclear response is that our European allies are put in an awkward position. They don't want significant differences between their nuclear policies and ours, particularly because the UK, France and the U.S. are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and if there becomes a bellicose situation, the policy differences could cause serious coordination problems, the most difficult of which would likely be having to find the Obama's hiding place if war breaks out.

Former Obama administration State Department official and smart Jewish guy Joel Rubin explained "While the goal of a 'no first use' policy is correct--to never be the first country to launch a cataclysmic nuclear strike--doing so unilaterally could run the risk of weakening our allies' confidence in our security guarantees. This would not be in our interest."

"Go ahead, you big bully,  take the first punch." That's the 'intelligent' strategy Obama brings to the kiddy table.

No enemy should have total confidence that they can take the first punch with a nuclear strike. That's not only stupid and naive, it's downright insane and suicidal.

Our allies living under our nuclear umbrella are frustrated that they weren't consulted about any possible changes in our nuclear policy, Rogin said. 

Now our allies understand how we wish we, the American people, were consulted when Obama paid Iran a ransom of $400 million to release 4 hostages.

Supposedly, an administration official [liar] told Rogin that the concerns our allies have were being taken into account [and likely ignored] and that an official 'no first use' declaration was falling out of favor as a means to advance Obama's nuclear non-proliferation aspirations.

According to Rogin, Obama is looking to move toward his goal of global disarmament that he expressed in Prague back in 2009 "while maintaining a credible deterrent for the United States, our allies and our partners," National Security Council spokesman (or-however-he-she-it identifies) told the Post. 

So what can we next expect from this amateur administration? Telling our enemies how long we will wait after attacked with nuclear force? How long after we counter-attack will we continue to fight before we pull out our troops and 'end the war'?

Tweet

Kerry Hopes Iran Wants a Nuke-Free World: needs to remove head from nether regions

Secretary of State John "Swiftboat" Kerry met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a "one on one" and talked about nuclear negotiations with Iran prior to the November 24th deadline of this deal.

"Kumbayah mah Lord . . . "

Kerry spoke to reporters in Amman, Jordon: "And he expressed his concerns, of course, and I made it clear to him that the standard that we have applied throughout this negotiation still applies, and that is that there are four pathways to a nuclear weapon and we need to make certain that each pathway--the Fordow facility, the Arak nuclear--the Arak heavy water plutonium reactor facility, the Natanz enrichment facility, and covert capacities--are all closed off so that not--not as a matter of bias or prejudice, but because that's the only way the world can know for certain that a program is indeed a peaceful program. And our responsibility is to make certain that there is a sufficient breakout time in the event that there was some change in policy or something happened."

Kerry added: "So those guarantees are in place and we will keep our friends and allies informed of what we are doing in the days ahead. Our hopes remain still to try to achieve an agreement because it's better for the world."

Kerry, always the naive Communist gigolo, said that he hopes Iran cooperates in negotiations, "not as a matter of coercion but out of mutual respect and out of the interests that we all have for living in a world that is free of nuclear weapons."

Seriously, Kerry actually said that claptrap. 

The only one in the room during that meeting was a nice Jewish guy called "Bibi" by his friends. Netanyahu told the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly this week what he believes about Iran and their "mutual respect" and "interests that we all have," etc. He said that it should be "obvious that Iran is not prepared to dismantle its nuclear weapons program in return" for sanctions relief. And of course, he's correct--anyone who knows anything about Islam, Iran and what they hope to accomplish knows Bibi is correct.

Why don't liberals believe what our enemies tell us? There's a reason that China made fun of Obama on his trip there. There's a reason Iran will tell us anything we want to hear and then go ahead and do what they need to do to destroy "Big Satan" after they get finished with "Little Satan," the USA and Israel respectively.

It's their freaking religious duty to "kill the disbelievers wherever you find them" (Koran 47:4) This isn't a mystery. This isn't new. This is orthodox Islam taken literally from their "scriptures."

At least Netanyahu has the intelligence to see this clearly. "Unfortunately, instead of holding firm and demanding that Iran dismantle its program, the international community is reportedly, and I hope these reports do not prove to be true, but the international community is reportedly willing to leave Iran's nuclear program largely intact. They hope to rely on intelligence and inspectors to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons."

Chamberlain unt der Fuhrer

"As for inspectors, they weren't able to stop North Korea from getting the bomb. And if the ten year run-around that Iran has given the International Atomic Energy Agency is any indication, inspectors won't stop Iran from getting the bomb either," he said. 

We are being led by a pack of naive Neville Chamberlain's in this administration. When a country, in this case Iran, is willing to martyr itself for its religious beliefs, or at the very least, boast that their goal is to destroy us and Israel, why aren't we taking them seriously?




Tweet