Naivete: Obama Says The Future Doesn’t Belong To Those Who Gather Armies

In Russia, Obama made the sort of dreamy-eyed statement people love to quote but is so thoroughly disconnected from reality as to be laughable. Predictably, Time picked the quote up as one of their “quotes of the day.”

The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground.

That’s a nice thought, and it jives with Obama’s earlier naive comments about abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, but history simply doesn’t bear it out. Obama seems to buy in – hook, line and sinker – to the idea that America has enemies because America is too aggressive in defending itself with a big military and stockpiles of weapons.
But the simple reality is America doesn’t have enemies because we’ve got a big military and stockpiles of weapons. We have those things because we have enemies. Now I won’t pretend that our nation has always treated others in the international community fairly and equitably. Our political leaders are not, nor have they ever been, candidates for sainthood. But generally we are a force for good in the world, and for the most part our enemies are our enemies because we stand in the way of their tyranny.
Disarming ourselves won’t bring us closer to this utopian vision of world peace Obama and so many others seem to hold dear. It will simply make us more vulnerable to our enemies.
I’m all for cutting military spending we don’t need, but if that’s what we’re going to do let’s do it in the name of becoming more efficient. Not under the auspices of some baloney about world peace.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array SigFan

    And the world will dissolve into butterflies, rainbows and capering unicorns any day now. Right around the same time monkeys fly outta my …

    The kids are running the kindergarten, and we’re seeing just about what you would expect with that.

  • http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

    The President clearly did not play much Risk as a kid.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    This picture

    Nevill Obama

    is far more appropriate.

  • Dr Lead Based Paint

    This would be Naivete if we assumed that Barack Obama was eligible to be President and that his intention was to safeguard American interests. Sorry.

    This is NOT Naivete! This is pure calculation! Obama is an Indonesian citizen and an Islamist working to destroy the United States of America. When you realize that he is our ENEMY, his Naivete and incompetence morphs into a cunning, sly, despicable strategy.

    C’mon! As soon as you wake up to reality, the sooner we can start taking action to get rid of this tyrant.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

    Obama is an Indonesian citizen and an Islamist working to destroy the United States of America.

    Thus the term, “stem”.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    Si vis pacem, paret bellum.

  • mplsbob

    “The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground.”

    Nice thought. Ask Poland how that worked out for them.

  • http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/ Reaganite Republican

    Sadly for us, it appears that Obama’s poker skills are in the same league with his bowling and girly-style baseball throw.

    Russia recieved much of what it wants before Obama even landed, i.e. council with NATO, so how would anybody expect Barack to gain advantage? Meanwhile, the Kremlin has failed even to comply with the terms of the truce signed with Georgia last year- continuing to do pretty much as it pleases.

    I don’t see any reason to be doing deals with the Russians- they have nothing to offer the United States, IMO.

  • conundrum

    Based on human nature we are centuries (if ever) away from not needing armed forces. It is a nice dream though.

  • Buzz

    Obama’s earlier naive comments about abolishing nuclear weapons altogether

    I can never get over Republicans fascination with destroying things. How many times over should each country be able to destroy the world?

    If we could build a bomb so powerful that would obliterate the Earth, should we build one? Or should we build 100? That would be the only question on the Neo-cons minds.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    I can never get over Republicans fascination with destroying things. How many times over should each country be able to destroy the world?

    And this is the basic disconnect with reality of the leftist. Wanting to have a deterrant is the same as wanting to use it. But just like the saying “An Armed Society is a Civil Society”, armed superpowers are civil superpowers.

    Time and time again, we see weaker countries getting rolled over because they cannot defend themselves…but the Leftist seems to want us in that position as well.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development