Updated April 06, 2010
Obama's Scary Nuke Plan.
A REMINDER :
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
The 35th Anniversary of the fall of Saigon
THE AMATEUR WAYS OF THE DEMOCRATE PARTY CONTINUE EVEN IN 2010
Ahmadinejad ridicules Obama's strategy: 'Wait until your sweat dries and get
some experience'...
'He is an amateur'...
President Reagan,where are you?
Only you , Mr President , you can save our lives.
THE DEMOCRATE SOCIALIST PARTY HAS LED US TO THIS BEACH .
such as the COOPER-CHRUCH AMENDMENT VOTED IN 1970 LED TO MILLION OF CAMBODIAN
DEADS LIKE THESE WHALE. & US AMBASSADOR JOHN GUTHER DEAN ESCAPE FROM THE ROOF
TOP OF THE US EMBASSY BY HELICOPTER FROM CAMBODIA .
The King Island whale stranding: Picture: John Nievaart of Naracoopa Holiday
Cottages.
HELEN KEMPTON
By KT McFarland
- FOXNews.com
The real issue with Obama's new nuclear policy is it fails to check the rise of
rogue nuclear states like Iran and North Korea, or to deal with sub-national
terrorist groups -- like Al Qaeda -- who he admits are seeking nuclear weapons.
AP
Today President Obama reversed 60 years of U.S. nuclear policy and pledged we
would not retaliate with nuclear weapons were we -- or our treaty allies ---
attacked with conventional, biological or chemical weapons by nations in
compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He hopes that other
nuclear weapons states will follow suit with a similar pledge and we will be
well on our way to a world without nuclear weapons.
In addition, by carving out those rogue states not in compliance, like North
Korea and Iran, the president will give them sufficient incentive to drop their
nuclear weapons programs.
That's a lot of change resting on nothing more than awful lot of hope.
During the Cold War we kept the peace between the U.S. and the Soviet Union
through a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). As President Reagan
said, we insure that "any adversary who thinks about attacking the United
States or our allies...concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential
gains. Once he understands that, he won't attack. We maintain the peace through
our strength; weakness only invites aggression."
This worked whether the adversary was the Soviet Union, or a lesser state. If a
country picked a fight with us, we kept open the possibility of unleashing a
response that would crush them. We thereby deterred them from launching an
attack against us in the first place. This policy of deterrence may have made
for an uneasy peace -- but it managed to keep that peace for 60 years --
perhaps the longest period of great power peace since the fall of the Roman
Empire.
But President Obama wants us to believe he knows better. He wants to wash his
hands of this old, tired policy of nuclear deterrence as the first step in his
plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons. That may be fine as far as it goes
(although I have my doubts), but it fails to address the nuclear threat the
United States and our allies are most likely to face in the months and years
ahead -- nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states or state sponsored
terrorist groups.
Regardless of all the press briefings and talking points about reducing U.S.
and Russian stockpiles, or reducing the number of targets in the U.S., or
modernizing the nuclear arsenal, the real issue with Obama's new nuclear policy
is it fails to check the rise of rogue nuclear states like Iran and North
Korea, or to deal with sub-national terrorist groups -- like Al Qaeda -- who he
admits are seeking nuclear weapons.
How can Iran take President Obama seriously about the possibility of a
retaliatory nuclear attack when he doesn't even have the backbone to impose
unilateral crippling gasoline sanctions, which even his
Democratically-controlled Congress is pushing for? When President Obama prefers
yet another round of watered down U.N. sanctions, in the hope that this time
they'll come around around to the negotiating table.
Without crippling sanctions President Obama has no leverage over Iran. And
negotiating without leverage isn't negotiating, it's begging. Does President
Obama really believe that his goodwill gestures will convince Iran to change
course, especially now that it is so close to possessing a nuclear arsenal?
Or has President Obama already thrown in the towel, and concluded that a
nuclear Iran is inevitable and the best way to deal with them is through
containment and deterrence......and the reassurance whispered behind closed
doors that, 'they wouldn't dare...' It's okay, if those weapons aren't aimed
at you. But if they are, it's not the odds that worries you, it's the stakes.
President Reagan said, "a nuclear war which can never be won must never be
fought." (I know because I drafted those words). But Reagan never took the
nuclear option off the table. And he said those words while he was building up
America's defenses, modernizing our nuclear arsenal, and launching the Star
Wars system to defend against nuclear weapons. Reagan understood that without
leverage, these are just empty words.
President Obama has said similar things while taking the nuclear option off the
table and cutting back on missile defense. He's given up whatever leverage we
had in the form of goodwill gestures.
We've seen the folly of unilateral concessions before. Jimmy Carter believed
that if we showed unilateral restraint by canceling the B-1 bomber, the Soviet
Union would follow suit and cancel their Backfire bomber. They not only built
the Backfire but several others.
Reagan believed in peace through strength. His policies allowed us to win the
Cold War without firing a shot.
President Obama believes in peace through unilateral concessions. Not only is
it unlikely to work, it might even contribute to ending the peace.
Kathleen Troia "K.T." McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and
host of FoxNews.com's DefCon 3. She is a Distinguished Adviser to the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts
in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense
Weinberger’s November 1984 "Principles of War Speech" which laid out the
Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch "K.T." and Mike Baker every Monday at 10
a.m. on FoxNews.com's "DefCon3" already one of the Web's most watched national
security programs.
CONSEQUENCES OF US FOREIGN POLICIES RUN BY AMATEURE CIVILIAN POLITICIANS AT US
CONGRESS AND WHITE HOUSE
Thursday, April 08, 2010
US Congresswoman Visits Cambodia
US Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-California)
By Sok Khemara, VOA Khmer
Original report from Washington
07 April 2010
Lorreta Sanchez, a Democratic congressional representative from California,
begins a short visit to Cambodia today, where she plans to spend two days in
Siem Reap province to look into child trafficking, officials said.
Sanchez is the vice chairwoman of the House of Representatives’ Homeland
Security Committee. A US Embassy spokesman confirmed her visit but declined to
give more details.
A representative for a human rights organization, who asked not to be named,
said Sanchez is scheduled to visit healthcare centers and an orphanage and to
meet victims of trafficking.
The trip follows a gathering of 250 women from 30 US states last month who
lobbied congressional representatives to do more to fight child trafficking and
high infant and maternal mortality rates.
Cambodia is a favorite destination for child traffickers and pedophiles, and
the government has made a number of arrests of Americans in recent years.
The US estimates a total of 1 million children are trafficked globally each
year into the sex trade, with another 1.2 million trafficked into child labor.
An estimated 24,000 children die each day from preventable diseases like
diarrhea, measles and malaria.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE COOPER-CHURCH AMENDMENT IN 1970'S THAT LED TO THIS DEBACLE.
FOR CAMBODIA Strong Resolution on Cambodia Human Rights Abuses
Feb. 27, 1982 : UN Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva adopted a
resolution condemning Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia as a violation of
Cambodian human rights. The vote was 28 in favor, 8 against, and 5 abstentions.
Oct. 21, 1986 The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution A/RES/41/6, by vote
of 116-21 with 13 abstentions, calling for a withdrawal of Vietnamese forces
from Cambodia.
10 UN RESOLUTIONS,(1979-1988) VOTED BY 116 UN MEMBER COUNTRIES ,CALL VIETNAM TO
CEASE HER OCCUPATION OF CAMBODIA & REMOVE ALL HER TROOPS FROM THE COUNTRY, ARE
NOT RESPECTED AS OF TODAY.
Oct. 21, 1986 The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution A/RES/41/6, by vote
of 116-21 with 13 abstentions, calling for a withdrawal of Vietnamese forces
from Cambodia.
President Reagan's address to the 43d Session of the United Nations General
Assembly in New York, New York,September 26, 1988.
"Mr. Secretary-General, there are new hopes for Cambodia, a nation whose
freedom and independence we seek just as avidly as we sought the freedom and
independence of Afghanistan. We urge the rapid removal of all Vietnamese troops
...."
As of today,Cambodia is still occupied by the Vietnamese troops despite the
call from the US president to Vietnam to cease her occupation of Cambodia since
1988.
Cambodia needs Independence from Vietnam and the Vietnamese invaders.
Vietnam must cease her occupation of Cambodia at once.
Bury
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
