Senator Barack Obama has been accused of speaking in ethereal terms, promoting hope and justice, rarely engaging in specifics about his proposed policies. That’s not exactly true.

There is a 52 second video floating around the Internet circuit in which the senator looks directly in the eye of the camera and announces his intentions about global weaponry and war systems, and what the United States would do if he were in the top position. 

Click here: YouTube

This is good. Now we know. Americans should listen closely to those 52 seconds because — in a few words — it tells us much about what to expect if this man ascends to the Oval Office.

Evaluate for yourself:

* He will end the war and immediately start pulling troops out. He’s already told us this. Ending the war is a good thing. We all want to see an end to the war. The questions remain, however: In what manner, how rapidly, will there be chaos, mass murders and destruction in the path, what will happen to the 100,000 civilian workers in Iraq, how will this affect the current government in place, and how will our image play out to the world community if we immediately abandon our commitment toward protecting and stabilizing the Iraqi people?

* He will impose massive cuts in defense spending, eliminate unproven missile systems, slow development of future combat systems and not weaponize space

* He will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, cease developing new weapons, seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and seek deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.

I must say, that sounds great. There could be nothing better than creating a world without war, without hate and without weapons, especially the nuclear variety.

If only the other nations would agree to do the same, and then keep their promises. If the governments of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas – plus the extreme factions of radical Islam everywhere — all agree to disarm and promise not to be aggressive, then we should believe what they say. Eh?

Does the name: Neville Chamberlain come to mind?

First of all, anyone who has read my writings knows I was opposed to the invasion from the start. That’s where my agreement with Obama comes to a halt. Right or wrong, we are there. We can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube. And as Colin Powell told us, “We break it, we have to fix it.”

A rapid departure from Iraq would exacerbate the situation by inciting a collapse of the Iraqi government which is not yet prepared to go it alone. Thousands of citizens would be sent to their deaths at the hands of rebels and al Qaeda, a blood bath between Sunnis and Shiites would ensue, and Iran — an avowed enemy of Israel — would be given an open door to take control. The people of the world — who already have a negative view of the United States — would loathe us even further for turning our backs and failing to keep the commitment we made to the Iraqi people.

“Sorry, Tariq. We changed our mind.”

Scaling down weapons and combat systems is also a great idea, if only everyone else would do the same. From all I have read, it’s doubtful that al Qaeda — nor other radical Islamic groups — will change their minds about bringing down the west. Iran’s leaders have sworn to destroy the state of Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are committed to driving the Jews into the sea, which is consistent with the intentions of Palestinians — and most of the Arab world — since the inception of Israel in 1948. Nothing has changed there. Those commitments are etched in concrete.

Of course, some of these nations and/or extremist organizations might tell us one thing, then do another. If our leaders haven’t learned the lessons of history at this point, then they should not be our leaders.

Most every scholar and politician agrees that the fall of the Soviet Union was primarily a result of an unwavering position of strength on the part of the United States. In the 1980’s, had we scaled down our military, or slowed development of combat systems, or cut defense systems and reduced missiles, we would still be dealing with the Soviets as an “evil empire.”

Mr. Obama suggests that we should weaken?

Today, we are still at war — maybe it’s against radical Islam, maybe Iraqi rebels, maybe al Qaeda, maybe even Iran, but to be sure, foreign enemies are out there who are sworn to destroy the United States, by violence or subterfuge, from within or from outside. They’ve made that crystal clear. Those voices of hate and power cannot be ignored any more than the world should have ignored Mein Kampf. They are well armed and well financed. To propose weakening our defense systems at a time when we are constantly in fear of being under attack as we were on 9/11, is naive at best and utterly incompetent at worst.

I’m like everyone else. The people of this planet would love to see the eradication of nuclear weapons. So…let’s just agree to do it, right? Seeking deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal in the hopes that other countries will do the same can only be proposed by someone who still believes in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Madeline Albright is a liberal Democrat and no fan of George W. Bush. She said it best. In her book, Memo To The President Elect, the former Secretary of State writes, “If we disarm, and others cheat, we would be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail.”

Blackmail would not be the worst of it — should others cheat.

I hope U.S. Congressman Steve King was dead wrong when (should Obama be elected) he told the Daily Reporter, “The radical Islamists, the al-Qaeda … would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11th, because they would declare victory in this war on terror.”

It’s one thing to have varied views regarding government. It’s another to live in La-la Land and self-destruct. Forget about all the other domestic issues. That 52 seconds of video tells us why electing Barack Obama to be our president is tantamount to national suicide.

But…he speaks so good.