Are you saying you don't think justice is important for peace? Or just that you don't like reggae? Have you never quoted a song to emphasize a point?

I haven't, no, because when I'm dealing with very serious topics, I don't reach into my bag of 80s song lyrics (Gen X here) that would weaken my argument. (How about, I dunno, quoting from, say, a work of philosophy or, say, a famous statesman--Churchill, for example, seems just about Obama's speed.)

Ok, but how does quoting a lyric weaken an argument? I mean, if all you're doing is making fun of Obama's taste, that's fine. But the sentiment linking peace with justice seems pretty salient to me.

...So you're not at all concerned about how easily the Great Kenyan Hope was duped by "peaceful" Communist front groups, took a knee-jerk anti-American position, and failed to understand the benefits of nuclear deterrence. The fact is, quoting from a reggae artist reflects the Kenyan's inability to take complex national security issues seriously - an inability that continues to this day.

I was addressing the main point of the post. But certainly, I would be concerned if the situation at all resembled what you describe, but it's pretty clear that Obama (what is the kick you get out of calling him by his ancestry?) does understand the benefits of nuclear deterrence, as demonstrated by the details of the recent nuclear treaty (which maintains deterrence, contrary to some shabby reporting and analysis) and by his work on the issue in the Senate.

And seriously, is anyone actually going to argue that justice isn't an excellent way of achieving peace? Is it so hard to admit you agree with a reggae singer?

Let us first hear the definition of "justice" that you and obumble favor, Jefff.

In the interest of finding common ground, how about we let you choose the terms? I would bet that a society you would call just would also be more likely to be what you would call peaceful. Fair? (Or whatever your idea of "fair" is.)

"does understand the benefits of nuclear deterrence, as demonstrated by the details of the recent nuclear treaty"

False. Putin & company rolled the Kenyan big-time at the recent "summit". Russia Reserving the right to build weapons-systems that 0bama wants the US NOT to build clearly marks the US as an inferior partner in this agreement. Judging by his past conduct and statements, this does not bother 0bama - after all, a nation that is "bitter", "high-handed", "dismissive", etc. probably cannot be trusted to use its power responsibly. Once again, a reflection of the quasi-Marxist anti-Americanism that he inherited from his pedophile mentor, racist priest, and absentee mother.

"justice isn't an excellent way of achieving peace"

Meaningless. Multiple cultural & strategic interests mean that one party's idea of "justice" will be irreconcilable with another. Consider Iran's position on a "just" solution to the Mideast crisis vs. that of Israel and the United States.

It's an interesting point about differing ideas of justice. Perhaps that's a defining attribute of justice -- that all parties feel they are being treated justly. Or at the very least, you are right that peace is difficult between those with different ideas about what is just, but I think the point remains that if you can get people to agree on a model of justice, peace is a short step away.

Forgive me, I am not familiar with which weapons system you're talking about that Russia can build and we can't. Link?

As far as the rest of your comment goes, I'm sure all of that makes sense to those already versed in the right wing narrative, but it reads like a mix of hyperbole and selective reading to me. Obama has certainly talked about America's greatness more than he has its weakness.

www.colony14.net, April 2010 section

Whereas 0bama as an undergraduate and a presidential candidate has advocated blanket eliminations of nuclear weapons, Putin and others seem to take a different view. Refer to paragraphs preceding section 10196:

"(In December 2009 Russia announced that it will be building new offensive weapons and missiles; China has been increasing its arsenal at a rapid pace. Neither Russia nor China is likely to follow Obama’s lead.)"

"While Obama hopes for the best with his nuclear policy, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov states that although his nation intends to sign a new arms control treaty with Obama, “Russia will have the right to opt out of the treaty if …the U.S. strategic missile defense begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces.” (No treaty signed by a U.S. president becomes effective until approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.) Russia has clearly snookered Obama on the arms reduction treaty. The Associated Press notes that Russia had demanded “an explicit link between strategic arms cuts and development of the U.S. missile defense system. …Moscow eventually agreed to have just a general statement noting a link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons.” As Obama prepares to travel to Prague to sign the agreement with President Dmitry Medvedev, Russia announces that may ultimately ignore it—knowing full well that Obama will not back out just two days before the ceremony. [10210, 10222]"

In short, Russians will continue to build up OFFENSIVE systems (which 0bama has derided & demanded that the US stop doing)while the Kenyan continues to pursue his undergraduate pipe dream. In addition, 0bama was a fool for letting Russia opt out AND choose the circumstances under which it may opt out. Russia is likely to act in bad faith (based on its prior conduct between 1945-present) and will almost certainly use some pretext as a reason for asserting that American actions are affecting the global nuclear ballance.

Once again the Kenyan is exposed as a rube, as are the legions of apologists here and elsewhere with a quasi-totalitarian loathing of any 0bama criticism.

Nine,

How many more OFFENSIVE (why the caps???) weapons do you thing the US needs to be able to deter Russia? We've had 1000s fewer warheads than Russia for decades now and it doesn't seem to have prevented us from deterring them.

As for China, they have what, 250 warheads to our 9500? We're talking about reducing that number by 25-30%. So if China builds 10 times what they currently have, and we cut our arsenal by 30%, we'll still have roughly three times as many warheads.

We are doomed!

"How many more OFFENSIVE (why the caps???) weapons do you thing [sic] the US needs to be able to deter Russia?"

I THING that redundancy is important - multiple warheads need to be directed at a single target. Hardened shelters & large military complexes (such as those on Kamchatka (sp) will require more than one warhead. You're guaranteed that many delivery vehicles and missiles will be lost due to countermeasures, ground fire, SAM's, and mechanical failure. Thus, during a nuclear exchange AT LEAST several hundred warheads will either fail to reach their destinations or fail to destroy their targets.

"We're doomed?" Good one. Almost as funny as observing the Affirmative Action copy-boy who only got in based on his skin - lol.

Both countries are cutting about one third of their systems, leaving the US with roughly 6500 warheads. Redundancy is important, and 6500 H bombs is pretty darn redundant.