Stop the nuclear arms buildup - an issue all Dems can agree on?

[arendt]

Whenever I see a list of all the outrages of the
Bush Crime Family, Iraq and the tax cuts are at
the top.

Now, we are told that the Iraq War is "old news",
or "too leftie"; so its not an issue we can all
agree on.

The tax cut issue has produced an argument over
whether or not to roll back the middle class part
of the great Bush Looting. Again, not a clear
issue.

For me, the worst thing that this administration
has done is to do its best to get the nuclear
genie back out of the bottle. Here is a list
of things it has done or refused to do that
contribute to making the world much less safe.

1. Restarting US production of weapons-grade Uranium/
Plutonium.
2. Restarting research on advanced nuclear weapons.
3. Changing policy to allow first-use of nukes. (unheard of)
4. Tearing up the 1972 ABM treaty. (unheard of)
5. Funding and deploying the ludicrous Star Wars system.
6. De-funding the de-commissioning of old Soviet nukes.

7. Refusing to stop use of Depleted Uranium munitions,
whose dust our soldiers have been breathing in Iraq.
8. Promoting the construction of new nuclear power plants.

The first six items are matters of foreign/defense policy,
and they are way beyond any previous administration's
no-go line.

The last two items merely expose US citizens (and the
countries we bomb) to unnecessary doses of radiation.

------------

What are Kerry and Edwards position on Nuclear Strategy?

Is this an issue which can unite Democrats and hurt Bush?

Given what a lying jerk Bush is perceived as now, isn't
it time to ask, ala Barry Goldwater, if this is a guy
who should have his hand on the nuclear football? The
closest he gets to football is a TV and a pretzel, and
he almost killed himself.

arendt

[DaBigJagov]

1. We need to.....

....get rid of our WMDs before we can preach to other countries about theirs.

[arendt]

3. I get you're against nukes, but is it a uniting issue? n/t

[DrWeird]

2. Depends.

In general I'm completely against nuclear proliferation and am outraged with US programs that tear up treaties and provide gobs of cash for new weapons research for things like "bunker busting" or "surgical" nuclear weapons.

The only dirty bomb ever built was built recently by the United States for "simulations of terrorist activities."

That said, I understand why countries would want to develop nuclear capabilities as a deterrent if they were being threatened by rogue nations who want to "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity."

[arendt]

4. Again, I agree w you, but the quesion is, is it a unitifying issue? n/t

[arendt]

5. How can they defend restarting OFFENSIVE nuke programs?

Our military is bigger than the rest of the world's
put together (until the rest of the world start's
rearming out of fear of us).

The only people who might conceivably attack us are
terrorists - what good are OFFENSIVE nukes versus
terrorists???

They are spending a fortune, polluting the environment,
destabilizing the world, etc.

How can this issue not unite Dems and make Bush look
like a total warmonger?

arendt

[Moderator]

6. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

...

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator