Obama's Foreign Policy Worse Than Domestic

[Kathianne]

which is saying a lot. Kruthammer nails it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502763.html


Debacle in Moscow
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 16, 2009

About the only thing more comical than Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was the reaction of those who deemed the award "premature," as if the brilliance of Obama's foreign policy is so self-evident and its success so assured that if only the Norway Five had waited a few years, his Nobel worthiness would have been universally acknowledged.

To believe this, you have to be a dreamy adolescent (preferably Scandinavian and a member of the Socialist International) or an indiscriminate imbiber of White House talking points. After all, this was precisely the spin on the president's various apology tours through Europe and the Middle East: National self-denigration -- excuse me, outreach and understanding -- is not meant to yield immediate results; it simply plants the seeds of good feeling from which foreign policy successes shall come.

Chauncey Gardiner could not have said it better. Well, at nine months, let's review....

[Gaffer]

A good read and as always he's so right.

[Kathianne]

A good read and as always he's so right.

I'm tell you, this guy is worse than I thought possible.

[Gaffer]

I'm tell you, this guy is worse than I thought possible.

As you know I have been saying for over a year how bad he would be. There's more to come. And I don't call him the dark lord because he's black.

[Kathianne]

As you know I have been saying for over a year how bad he would be. There's more to come. And I don't call him the dark lord because he's black.

I really thought he'd be controlled more. He's awful!

[Gaffer]

I really thought he'd be controlled more. He's awful!

A repub congress or senate might have curtailed him. As it is he has complete control and power with communists surrounding him at all levels. He is a dangerous man.

[Kathianne]

A repub congress or senate might have curtailed him. As it is he has complete control and power with communists surrounding him at all levels. He is a dangerous man.

So too are many of those surrounding and supporting him. I think most are useful tools, but for the wrong project.

[MtnBiker]

Obama gets a peace prize from a bunch of Norwegians for declaring wanton nuclear weapon free world, while giving up leverage on Russia and turning his back on the Poles and Checks with no real sanctions coming from Russia on Iran. Iran being a country rushing to develop nuclear weapons and threaten Isreal. Great.

[trobinett]

Obama gets a peace prize from a bunch of Norwegians for declaring wanton nuclear weapon free world, while giving up leverage on Russia and turning his back on the Poles and Checks with no real sanctions coming from Russia on Iran. Iran being a country rushing to develop nuclear weapons and threaten Isreal. Great.

It will ALL be a good read while were hunkered down in our fall out shelters.

I don't want to be right, I just want to be SAFE..........:poke::slap::salute::dance:

[Kathianne]

It will ALL be a good read while were hunkered down in our fall out shelters.

I don't want to be right, I just want to be SAFE..........:poke::slap::salute::dance:

It won't be happening anytime soon, the die is cast:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2009/10/17/the-maoist-explains-herself-egg-face-at-the-white-house/


The Maoist explains herself: egg, face at the White House
Posted By Roger Kimball On October 17, 2009 @ 6:42 am In Uncategorized | 15 Comments

Damage control time!

–She didn’t mean it.
–She was only quoting a Republican operative.
–Fox News is mean to Democrats.
–Glenn Beck is an extremist.
–The President is trying to clean up a big mess left by George Bush.
–Can’t we just change the subject?

When Glenn Beck aired a video of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn praising Chairman Mao — one of her “two favorite political philosophers” — in front of an audience of high school students, the conservative blogosphere lit up like a non-denominational sustainably harvested Kwanza tree. I wrote about it here [1]. Andrew McCarthy added some historical background here [2]. Peter Wehner had this to say [3]. Et, I need hardly say, cetera.

There’s one part of the left-wing reaction to the obloquy heaped upon Anita Dunn that should not be allowed to go unchallenged. It might go like this: “George Bush quoted Mao [or Stalin, or Hitler, or some other bad guy]: does that make him a Maoist [or Stalinist, a Nazi, or whatever]?”

As Fausta Wertz points out [4], Anita Dunn offered a variant of this exculpatory strategy when she claimed, in reaction to the tsunami of criticism her remarks occasioned, that she was only quoting Lee Atwater [5].

Let’s say that Mr. Atwater had quoted the bit from Mao that Anita Dunn quoted — you fight your war and I’ll fight mine, etc., etc. So what? Lee Atwater did not identify Mao as one of his two favorite political philosophers. He did not stand before a room full of high school students and praise the revolutionary tactics of the greatest mass murderer in history.

Bottom line: it is one thing to quote a tyrant. It is another to endorse his view of the world.

...

That’s neither here nor there. What the left-wing excuse factory wants is for the American people to overlook the radicalism of the people populating Obama’s inner circle, of which Anita Dunn is a prominent member. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me once again remind readers of what Obama promised in his campaign. I don’t mean the long string of broken promises about helping the middle class, pulling out troops from Iraq, prosecuting the war in Afghanistan with vigor, etc. Those were just campaign promises, i.e., vote-getting expedients that events have led Obama to renege on.

No, I mean the one big promise that he has every intention of fulfilling: the promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” That is what Obama and his lieutenants are about. They are egalitarians — not, perhaps, quite so radical as Chairman Mao, but (as the case of Anita Dunn shows) they have plenty of admiration for Mao’s goals. Obama himself has criticized the U.S. Constitution [6] for being merely a “charter of negative liberties” that fails to promote “redistributive change.”

This is the point: last November, the American people thought they were electing a “post-partisan,” “post-racial” President who would work to restore unity and self-confidence to the country. They woke up on November 5, however, to find that they had elected someone who was deeply ambivalent about America, who distrusted its founding principles of limited government, individual liberty, and local responsibility. Like his radical friends — Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Anita Dunn — Barack Obama wishes to transform the United States according to a model whose basic shape was supplied by the utopian schemes of the 1960s. That’s why Anita Dunn said that Mao was one of the thinkers she most often turned to for wisdom about big-think political problems. It’s not that she admires his penchant for industrial strength homicide: rather, she admires his success at fomenting an egalitarian revolution. It’s not what we bargained for when we elected Barack Obama. But that’s what we’ve got. The question is how much worse will things have to get before the penny drops, before the scales fall from the collective eyes of the electorate? When will voters begin that long countermarch through the institutions in order to take back the country? If not now, when?

[Pericles]

which is saying a lot. Kruthammer nails it...


Krauthammer? I really don't get the guy. He is clearly bright; too bright to be the lumpen unilateralist that he is. And he clearly has an acute case of Obama Derangement Syndrome...

Obama deserves the Nobel Prize for Peace for the exact reason given by the committee: on account of his call for general nuclear disarmament. For a sitting President of the United States to stake out this position is unprecendented; it is a clear demonstration, if there ever was one, of his leadership qualities.

The further in time we get from Hiroshima, the more likely people are to forget the truly terrifying power of these weapons. And we must not forget: the bombs dropped on Japan, were the weakest ever built. Even one of the current generation of bombs going off, in anger or by accident, would result in a humanitarian and ecological catastrophe the likes of which we've never seen.

We have to ingrain the general world populace a deep taboo against the idea of ever possibly using these weapons; as it becomes, over time, easier and easier for other countries to access the technology, it is vital that there be a strong presumption against the building of these weapons. This is not some naive expectation: countries have, since WWI, almost entirely forsworn the use of chemical weapons, for example. It is not unrealistic to think that similar attitudes can be brought around in the case of nuclear weapons.

But not if the weapons keep proliferating. The more countries that possess them, the more vital it will be to the rest to get them. And the more of these weapons there are around, the more likely they will come to be seen as just another conventional weapon, and the closer the day will come when they are actually used.

This nightmare must be avoided. And it begins with the powers already possessing these weapons, making deep cuts in their stockpiles, so that they have the moral authority to push aggressively for nonproliferation.

For all Krauthammer's waxing about our "unipolar moment," he is really just a neo-isolationist; "if we can't make the world go away, then we must dominate it" - but this way of thinking is hopelessly naive, and worse it diminishes our actual level of power, as it gives others an excuse to openly defy international will in the name of defying us. It also gives people who would be our allies, an excuse not to make the national sacrifices necessary to cooperate with us.

Calling for general nuclear disarmament is not, in reality, about getting to zero weapons. It is about significantly reducing their numbers, and bolstering a nonproliferation regime that will not work if we are the only ones trying to enforce it. Ordinary Americans are fairly clueless about such strategic considerations, but Krauthammer has no excuse.

Obama is no fool, however much the Cons like to talk themselves into that idea. Anybody who thinks about it, knows we don't need more than 100 ICBMs. If we actually used those weapons, the whole world would look like Europe after WWII. The purpose of having them, is to keep the peace. Obama knows this - but he also knows that having hundreds and hundreds of them, is pointless. So, if we can get others to make drastic cuts in tandem with us, and starkly de-legitimize any new country's pursuit of such weapons, we will increase our relative military strength...

Or, maybe you think it's a good idea to have another missile-race, this time with China? I'm sure Krauthammer is looking forward to it.

If a call for general nuclear disarmament, by someone who has the authority and responsibility for doing something about it, is not a cause worthy of the Nobel Prize, then sister I don't know what is.

[jimnyc]

Obama deserves the Nobel Prize for Peace for the exact reason given by the committee: on account of his call for general nuclear disarmament. For a sitting President of the United States to stake out this position is unprecendented; it is a clear demonstration, if there ever was one, of his leadership qualities.

Still reading the rest of your post, but you're wrong already. Read other threads on this subject... I know the one posted here were quite a few times Reagan called for the very same thing.

[SassyLady]

Obama deserves the Nobel Prize for Peace for the exact reason given by the committee: on account of his call for general nuclear disarmament. For a sitting President of the United States to stake out this position is unprecendented; it is a clear demonstration, if there ever was one, of his leadership qualities.

.....................................

If a call for general nuclear disarmament, by someone who has the authority and responsibility for doing something about it, is not a cause worthy of the Nobel Prize, then sister I don't know what is.

If this is your criteria, then do you agree that Reagan deserved the Nobel Peace Prize?


From President Reagan 2nd Inagural Speech - 1985

"Today, we utter no prayer more fervently than the ancient prayer for peace on Earth. Yet history has shown that peace will not come, nor will our freedom be preserved, by good will alone. There are those in the world who scorn our vision of human dignity and freedom. One nation, the Soviet Union, has conducted the greatest military buildup in the history of man, building arsenals of awesome offensive weapons.
We have made progress in restoring our defense capability. But much remains to be done. There must be no wavering by us, nor any doubts by others, that America will meet her responsibilities to remain free, secure, and at peace.
There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.
Now, for decades, we and the Soviets have lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction; if either resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, the other could retaliate and destroy the one who had started it. Is there either logic or morality in believing that if one side threatens to kill tens of millions of our people, our only recourse is to threaten killing tens of millions of theirs?
I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn't kill people, it would destroy weapons. It wouldn't militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete. We will meet with the Soviets, hoping that we can agree on a way to rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction."

[Pericles]

If this is your criteria, then do you agree that Reagan deserved the Nobel Peace Prize?


From President Reagan 2nd Inagural Speech - 1985

"Today, we utter no prayer more fervently than the ancient prayer for peace on Earth. Yet history has shown that peace will not come, nor will our freedom be preserved, by good will alone. There are those in the world who scorn our vision of human dignity and freedom. One nation, the Soviet Union, has conducted the greatest military buildup in the history of man, building arsenals of awesome offensive weapons.
We have made progress in restoring our defense capability. But much remains to be done. There must be no wavering by us, nor any doubts by others, that America will meet her responsibilities to remain free, secure, and at peace.
There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.
Now, for decades, we and the Soviets have lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction; if either resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, the other could retaliate and destroy the one who had started it. Is there either logic or morality in believing that if one side threatens to kill tens of millions of our people, our only recourse is to threaten killing tens of millions of theirs?
I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn't kill people, it would destroy weapons. It wouldn't militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete. We will meet with the Soviets, hoping that we can agree on a way to rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction."

Reagan was severely taken to task by the Right wing (including, I'll bet, Krauthammer) for having such aspirations of a nuclear-free world. But Reagan's title to the Peace Prize would be scotched by his proposed missile defense - which has the effect (as all missile-defense schemes do) of promoting the proliferation of the bomb, since the country that has missile "defense," and yet still has missiles of its own, signals nothing other than its intentions to have first-strike capability. Any government that has a formal nuclear first-strike capacity, is in no way a government promoting peace.

[SassyLady]

Reagan was severely taken to task by the Right wing (including, I'll bet, Krauthammer) for having such aspirations of a nuclear-free world. But Reagan's title to the Peace Prize would be scotched by his proposed missile defense - which has the effect (as all missile-defense schemes do) of promoting the proliferation of the bomb, since the country that has missile "defense," and yet still has missiles of its own, signals nothing other than its intentions to have first-strike capability. Any government that has a formal nuclear first-strike capacity, is in no way a government promoting peace.

So are you saying that his authorization to develop a "missle defense shield" was in fact just a front for developing more missles?

Another question for you P - do you think if all the police officers in your city decided to lay down their guns that there would be no more violence there?

Why do people believe that if America no longer has nuclear weapons that the rest of the world will eliminate theirs?

[Pericles]

So are you saying that his authorization to develop a "missle defense shield" was in fact just a front for developing more missles?

His ideological successors have promoted the development of "low-yield" nuclear bombs - i.e., nuclear weapons that are explicitly for conventional-warfare deployment.

The whole purpose of any missle defense "shield," is to render the sword more effective, rather than turning that sword into a plowshare.


Another question for you P - do you think if all the police officers in your city decided to lay down their guns that there would be no more violence there?

You should know that analogies are of limited usefulness in a debate... Anyway, I of course do not believe that. But guns, again, are conventional weapons, not weapons of mass destruction. And in that distinction lies all the difference.

Besides, we're adults here, and so is Obama. He knows well enough that the weapons are here to stay; but for the sake of maximizing the hopes of peace in the future, they must be come to be thought of as having purely deterrent-value. And we need only a fraction of the weapons we have now, for this purpose. Again, drastic reductions in nuclear weapons stockpiles, gives us, through multi-lateral institutions like the U.N., powerful moral leverage in the cause of non-proliferation.


Why do people believe that if America no longer has nuclear weapons that the rest of the world will eliminate theirs?

Again, the practical result will not be a nuclear-free world; but we have to have an aggressive target, if we're going to make substantive progress in arms reductions. I'm not (nor is Obama) calling for unilateral disarmament. I said the reductions would have to take place in tandem with those of other powers.

That said, we have so many bombs, it would cost us nothing (indeed, it would save us a little in the maintenance of the weapons) to make the first move, unilaterally scrapping 25-75 ICBMs and their warheads, say; I think that would give us the moral high ground to call for others to reciprocate. But there are likely multiple different scenarios in which we could pursue collective arms reductions.

The point is, that no nuclear power has made a serious proposal for general disarmament, ever; for Obama to have done so, is taking a step that massively promotes world peace, and makes him more than worthy of the Peace Prize.

[bullypulpit]

Reagan was severely taken to task by the Right wing (including, I'll bet, Krauthammer) for having such aspirations of a nuclear-free world. But Reagan's title to the Peace Prize would be scotched by his proposed missile defense - which has the effect (as all missile-defense schemes do) of promoting the proliferation of the bomb, since the country that has missile "defense," and yet still has missiles of its own, signals nothing other than its intentions to have first-strike capability. Any government that has a formal nuclear first-strike capacity, is in no way a government promoting peace.

Despite right wing-nut reverence for the dear, departed Gipper, he couldn't be elected dog-catcher in today's GOP. He simply wasn't crazy enough. And yes, I know I didn't say "conservative". Today's crop of self-proclaimed conservatives are no more conservative than I am a Zoroastrian.

Modern conservatism is not rooted in anything more than an aggressive sense of self-righteousness, mean-spiritedness and ignorance...whether naive or willful. They've completely abandoned even the pretense of an intellectual basis for their views. That's why the last of the intellectual giants of American conservatism, William F. Buckley Jr., turned his back on the movement as it had degenerated into a mob of slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Neaderthals

[Gaffer]

Sounds like two people here want to bring back the cold war days. Do you miss the days of MAD? Do you realize that nuclear missiles in the hands of fanatics means we WILL be attacked, they don't care if we retaliate.

A missile defense shield is just that. It's not a missile offense shield. It's to prevent an enemy from striking our country or any other country. In fact a good defense system will help curtail the development of more nuclear weapons.

N. korea has nukes, iran wants to develop nukes. pakistan has nukes. lybia wants nukes. syria wants nukes. All the terrorists organizations want nukes. All are trying to develop missile systems to deliver the nukes. And you don't want us to be able to stop those missiles? Why?

I can understand why our enemies don't want us to have missile defense. Why do the lefties here want our enemies to be able to hit us?

Another question. How much knowledge do you have about nuclear weapons and what they can do? The immediate effect and the long term effect?

What I see here is a couple of academicians with no common sense or logic.

[Kathianne]

It's early Sunday afternoon and I came across this:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zd7nPTnoXLs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zd7nPTnoXLs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This seems a good place to put it. ;)

[sgtdmski]

Krauthammer? I really don't get the guy. He is clearly bright; too bright to be the lumpen unilateralist that he is. And he clearly has an acute case of Obama Derangement Syndrome...

Obama deserves the Nobel Prize for Peace for the exact reason given by the committee: on account of his call for general nuclear disarmament. For a sitting President of the United States to stake out this position is unprecendented; it is a clear demonstration, if there ever was one, of his leadership qualities.

The further in time we get from Hiroshima, the more likely people are to forget the truly terrifying power of these weapons. And we must not forget: the bombs dropped on Japan, were the weakest ever built. Even one of the current generation of bombs going off, in anger or by accident, would result in a humanitarian and ecological catastrophe the likes of which we've never seen.

We have to ingrain the general world populace a deep taboo against the idea of ever possibly using these weapons; as it becomes, over time, easier and easier for other countries to access the technology, it is vital that there be a strong presumption against the building of these weapons. This is not some naive expectation: countries have, since WWI, almost entirely forsworn the use of chemical weapons, for example. It is not unrealistic to think that similar attitudes can be brought around in the case of nuclear weapons.

But not if the weapons keep proliferating. The more countries that possess them, the more vital it will be to the rest to get them. And the more of these weapons there are around, the more likely they will come to be seen as just another conventional weapon, and the closer the day will come when they are actually used.

This nightmare must be avoided. And it begins with the powers already possessing these weapons, making deep cuts in their stockpiles, so that they have the moral authority to push aggressively for nonproliferation.

For all Krauthammer's waxing about our "unipolar moment," he is really just a neo-isolationist; "if we can't make the world go away, then we must dominate it" - but this way of thinking is hopelessly naive, and worse it diminishes our actual level of power, as it gives others an excuse to openly defy international will in the name of defying us. It also gives people who would be our allies, an excuse not to make the national sacrifices necessary to cooperate with us.

Calling for general nuclear disarmament is not, in reality, about getting to zero weapons. It is about significantly reducing their numbers, and bolstering a nonproliferation regime that will not work if we are the only ones trying to enforce it. Ordinary Americans are fairly clueless about such strategic considerations, but Krauthammer has no excuse.

Obama is no fool, however much the Cons like to talk themselves into that idea. Anybody who thinks about it, knows we don't need more than 100 ICBMs. If we actually used those weapons, the whole world would look like Europe after WWII. The purpose of having them, is to keep the peace. Obama knows this - but he also knows that having hundreds and hundreds of them, is pointless. So, if we can get others to make drastic cuts in tandem with us, and starkly de-legitimize any new country's pursuit of such weapons, we will increase our relative military strength...

Or, maybe you think it's a good idea to have another missile-race, this time with China? I'm sure Krauthammer is looking forward to it.

If a call for general nuclear disarmament, by someone who has the authority and responsibility for doing something about it, is not a cause worthy of the Nobel Prize, then sister I don't know what is.

If wanting nuclear disarmament and being the person with the authority to do something about it, your definitions, tell me why doe President Ronald Reagan not have two of the awards.

First, he should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the idea of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and his call upon scientist to use science to make nuclear weapons obsolete. He wanted nuclear disarmament and used his authority to call the the technology of the country to make it a reality. Therefore he should have been awarded the prize.

Second, along with Gorbachev he eliminated an entire class of nuclear armament with the 1987 INF treaty. This treaty alone eliminated 4% of the worlds nuclear arms. Bam, that should have been the second.

President Ronald Reagan did more for world peace, and for the elimination of the threat of nuclear war than any other President. Yet the Nobel Prize was never awarded to him.

Obama talks, Reagan did!! This just continues to prove that any argument that goes to prove that Obama deserved the prize is nothing more than grasping at straws.

Thank you for proving it.

dmk

[sgtdmski]

His ideological successors have promoted the development of "low-yield" nuclear bombs - i.e., nuclear weapons that are explicitly for conventional-warfare deployment.

The whole purpose of any missle defense "shield," is to render the sword more effective, rather than turning that sword into a plowshare.

Anytime a shield is made a better weapon is soon developed. That is the facts of life, one that cannot be changed. Regardless of what his ideolgical successors may or may have not done should have no bearing under the standards you provided. Remember they were nuclear disarmament, something SDI would have accomplished by making the missiles irrelevant and having the authority and responsibility to do it, something President Reagan definitely had.



You should know that analogies are of limited usefulness in a debate... Anyway, I of course do not believe that. But guns, again, are conventional weapons, not weapons of mass destruction. And in that distinction lies all the difference.

Besides, we're adults here, and so is Obama. He knows well enough that the weapons are here to stay; but for the sake of maximizing the hopes of peace in the future, they must be come to be thought of as having purely deterrent-value. And we need only a fraction of the weapons we have now, for this purpose. Again, drastic reductions in nuclear weapons stockpiles, gives us, through multi-lateral institutions like the U.N., powerful moral leverage in the cause of non-proliferation.

THE UN. Give us a break, the UN is nothing more than a dog with a lot of bark and no bite. If not for the US the UN would be meaningless and powerless. Everytime the UN has acted and actually accomplished something it has been with the military power of the US.



Again, the practical result will not be a nuclear-free world; but we have to have an aggressive target, if we're going to make substantive progress in arms reductions. I'm not (nor is Obama) calling for unilateral disarmament. I said the reductions would have to take place in tandem with those of other powers.

That said, we have so many bombs, it would cost us nothing (indeed, it would save us a little in the maintenance of the weapons) to make the first move, unilaterally scrapping 25-75 ICBMs and their warheads, say; I think that would give us the moral high ground to call for others to reciprocate. But there are likely multiple different scenarios in which we could pursue collective arms reductions.

The point is, that no nuclear power has made a serious proposal for general disarmament, ever; for Obama to have done so, is taking a step that massively promotes world peace, and makes him more than worthy of the Peace Prize.

Practicality, that was never mentioned in your standards. But again we go back to the 1987 INF treaty, two superpowers eliminated a class nuclear weapons. Obama talks, while Reagan did. Jimmy Carter wanted nuclear disarmament he signed SALT II but could not get the Senate to ratify the treaty, instead under his watch he say the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan.

President Reagan showed that through strength comes peace. Not only do you have to appear strong, but you have to show that when called upon you will not be afraid to use your power to enforce your belief. President Reagan wanted the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan and not only did he talk about it, but again he did something about it, by supplying the Afghanistan resistance with Stinger Missiles........Which of course turned the tide of the battle in the country and led to the withdraw of the occupying Soviet Union forces. Once again, proving the point that there is more than just talk. Damn, did I just make an argument for a third Nobel prize for President Reagan, historic.

Unfortunately the Nobel Peace Prize committee has no standards, but only politics, that is why President Reagan was never awarded a single prize and that is why it will always be the case.

Talk is cheap.

dmk

[red states rule]

Obama gets a peace prize from a bunch of Norwegians for declaring wanton nuclear weapon free world, while giving up leverage on Russia and turning his back on the Poles and Checks with no real sanctions coming from Russia on Iran. Iran being a country rushing to develop nuclear weapons and threaten Isreal. Great.

http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2009/10/16/payn090928_03_t756.jpg?362c89b9f4298c1f7d888d4fceb 46698f5dfcc26

[Pericles]

Remember they were nuclear disarmament, something SDI would have accomplished by making the missiles irrelevant...
Anytime a shield is made a better weapon is soon developed. That is the facts of life, one that cannot be changed...

Probably you've failed to realize that you've contradicted yourself here. If missile defense can be outsmarted, then when we attempt to build such a system, it just encourages our enemies to redouble their efforts to preserve their response capability. This goes for all scenarios where missile defense systems are attempted. They increase insecurity and distrust, and fan the flames of the arms race. Missile defense directly undermines world peace.


THE UN. Give us a break, the UN is nothing more than a dog with a lot of bark and no bite. If not for the US the UN would be meaningless and powerless. Everytime the UN has acted and actually accomplished something it has been with the military power of the US.

"The U.N. is worthless!" This is simply an article of faith with all you Cons. If you don't believe in the organization, stop bitching about it, and insist that the U.S. withdraw from it. Come on, come out with it: you want to evict the U.N. from U.S. soil, and quit the organization.


But again we go back to the 1987 INF treaty, two superpowers eliminated a class nuclear weapons. Obama talks, while Reagan did. Jimmy Carter wanted nuclear disarmament he signed SALT II but could not get the Senate to ratify the treaty, instead under his watch he say the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan.

Negotiations to curb nuclear weapons stockpiles had been going on since the early 1970's. That some reductions occurred under the Reagan administration is unsurprising, especially when we were dealing with a declining Soviet Union under Gorbachev.


President Reagan showed that through strength comes peace. Not only do you have to appear strong, but you have to show that when called upon you will not be afraid to use your power to enforce your belief.

I'm not unsympathetic to the "peace through strength" approach to foreign policy. But, I shouldn't have to point out, it is a policy which can be used by aggressor nations as an excuse for weapons build-up, and even for pre-emptive war. "Peace through strength" can keep things stable; but it can also trigger war. The fact is, that when it comes to the Cold War, we were lucky. Lucky that all that sabre-rattling didn't set off a nuclear war by mistake. It has been documented, that near-disasters occurred, multiple times. When Reagan makes a big deal, in his first term, of an arms build-up, and when all the while he was open about his antipathy of the Soviets, we are lucky that a disastrous mistake did not happen. He does not deserve the peace prize for being lucky.

[Gaffer]

So Pericles, Are you old enough to remember the cold war? It started in the 40's just after WW2. It warmed up in the 50's with Korea. I hit a high in the 60's with Cuba. It warmed up again with Vietnam. Then there were all the banana republic wars. Throughout the entire time there were constant feints to test the defensive responses of both sides.

Are you aware of how nuclear missiles work? Are you aware of why we and the soviets had/have so many? Are you familiar with the strategy involved in making a strike?

I'm interested in knowing what you know before I go into any long explanations.

[Pericles]

So Pericles, Are you old enough to remember the cold war? It started in the 40's just after WW2. It warmed up in the 50's with Korea. I hit a high in the 60's with Cuba. It warmed up again with Vietnam. Then there were all the banana republic wars. Throughout the entire time there were constant feints to test the defensive responses of both sides.

Are you aware of how nuclear missiles work? Are you aware of why we and the soviets had/have so many? Are you familiar with the strategy involved in making a strike?

I'm interested in knowing what you know before I go into any long explanations.

Yeah, I'm old enough to remember.

I'm not sure of the point you want to dispute. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have had the weapons. There was even a certain perverse logic to having such a large stockpile, when the Soviets were amassing one. I understand that the weapons don't act as a deterrent, if the other side believes that a first strike can knock out your response capability.

What I am saying, however, is that the SDI program, looked at from the point of view of the Russian military, does not look defensive - indeed, it looks like the exact opposite. It looks like a deliberate bid to escape the deterring logic of mutually assured destruction. To suggest that missile defense systems, either then or now, promote peace, I think is fairly ludicrous.

[Insein]

So SDI being a way to avoid mutual assured destruction and thus giving a side an advantage, namely our side, is offensive instead of defensive? So instead of assuring we die with Russia, we defend ourselves to preserve our life and make a Russian attack futile on their part is not proactive? If given the opportunity, would Russia not create a similar system if they havent been trying to already?

Makes no sense the line of thinking you are going on, pericles.

[Pericles]

So SDI being a way to avoid mutual assured destruction and thus giving a side an advantage, namely our side, is offensive instead of defensive?

Of course. Look at it from the standpoint of your enemy. "Hey, he's trying to insure himself against the possibility of a successful retaliatory strike by us, if he attacks us. Why would he be doing this, unless he intends to attack us? We have two choices: either attack ourselves, before he gets such a system in place; or work overtime on ways of outwitting his defense." If we're lucky, our enemy chooses the latter. And it makes more sense for him to do this, than to develop his own missile defense; because in war, as in debate, it is typically easier to attack than to defend. Technology rolls on: a state-of-the-art missile defense system this decade, can be readily outwitted by next decade's military innovations.


So instead of assuring we die with Russia, we defend ourselves to preserve our life and make a Russian attack futile on their part is not proactive? If given the opportunity, would Russia not create a similar system if they havent been trying to already?

MAD is a relatively stable military strategy: it relies on the basic self-interest of your opponent. He does not want to die. But it is effective as a strategy, only if the prospect of sure destruction is mutual. Missile defense is a direct bid for the country possessing it to escape the logic of MAD. This results in introducing new, dangerous instability to the face-off. In this new, unstable situation, conflict becomes more likely, not less. This is really just diplomacy 101; why can't you Cons grasp it?

[sgtdmski]

Probably you've failed to realize that you've contradicted yourself here. If missile defense can be outsmarted, then when we attempt to build such a system, it just encourages our enemies to redouble their efforts to preserve their response capability. This goes for all scenarios where missile defense systems are attempted. They increase insecurity and distrust, and fan the flames of the arms race. Missile defense directly undermines world peace.

Okay, then by wanting to rid the world of nuclear weapons only means that new weapons will be developed to replace those that were lost, so once again, Obama's rhetoric means nothing. Since we cannot defend against them and if we had created the missile defense to neutralize them which would have caused the creation of new weapons and disqualifies Reagan, the elimination of said weapons would again cause the creation of new weapons to get around the ban, oh damn I just used your own argument to disqualify Obama.




"The U.N. is worthless!" This is simply an article of faith with all you Cons. If you don't believe in the organization, stop bitching about it, and insist that the U.S. withdraw from it. Come on, come out with it: you want to evict the U.N. from U.S. soil, and quit the organization.

I just want the UN to be held accountable. When they had the audacity to lecture the US about our treatment of prisoners, or gays, or securing our right to bear arms, and do not do the same to the Palestinians, Jordanians, or the Lebanese they show who is truly running the organization. The UN was established to bring nations together, however, as long as they continue to allow and respect totalitarian regimes this will never be possible. Hell just watch the news today, all this fuss and muss about the Afghanistan election and fraud, yet they were silent on the Iranian election. Some organization.


Negotiations to curb nuclear weapons stockpiles had been going on since the early 1970's. That some reductions occurred under the Reagan administration is unsurprising, especially when we were dealing with a declining Soviet Union under Gorbachev.

So the fact that he did eliminate the weapons has nothing to do with it. Ergo talking about eliminating them is meaningless as well. Damn another of your own arguments to debunk the awarding of the prize to Obama.




I'm not unsympathetic to the "peace through strength" approach to foreign policy. But, I shouldn't have to point out, it is a policy which can be used by aggressor nations as an excuse for weapons build-up, and even for pre-emptive war. "Peace through strength" can keep things stable; but it can also trigger war. The fact is, that when it comes to the Cold War, we were lucky. Lucky that all that sabre-rattling didn't set off a nuclear war by mistake. It has been documented, that near-disasters occurred, multiple times. When Reagan makes a big deal, in his first term, of an arms build-up, and when all the while he was open about his antipathy of the Soviets, we are lucky that a disastrous mistake did not happen. He does not deserve the peace prize for being lucky.

But we didn't start a war did we. Under previous administrations when we talked the Soviets rattled their swords and we came back to the tables and wound up with a worse deal. However, when we talked and then showed we were willing to back up our words with actions, the Soviets came back to the tables and real deals were accomplished that were beneficial to our country.

Yes, Reagan was lucky, but he actually acted, and not just talked. So if bing lucky is not validation for an award, neither is being hopeful. Another of your own arguments proving that even you do not believe that Obama deserves the award.

Face it, Obama talks Reagan actually accomplished. Face it you cannot stand that simple fact. Reagan talked the talk and walked the walk, so far all Obama has done is talk, and talk, and talk, and talk.

dmk

[namvet]

ill comment on his foreign policy as soon as i see one

[Kathianne]

Case in point:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024745.php


IRAN DOUBLE-CROSSES OBAMA
Print October 19, 2009 Posted by John at 6:24 PM

This morning, I noted that Iran's government is telling the Iranian people that the Obama administration has consented to Iranian enrichment of uranium, thereby dismaying our European allies. I linked to, but did not discuss in detail, a Time article that appeared today. The Time article was based on interviews with Obama administration officials and was intended to put a positive spin on the administration's effort to engage with Iran. Now, news from Vienna, where representatives of Iran, the U.S. and other nations are meeting, allows us to put the whole story together.

The Time article is the best place to start. It breathlessly describes President Obama's personal involvement in negotiations with Iran, and the genesis of what the administration considered to be a brilliant plan:


President Barack Obama has a personal stake in the outcome of Monday's meeting in Vienna between Western and Iranian nuclear experts on the future of Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium. That's because, Administration sources tell TIME, Obama personally weighed in three times during secret, multiparty negotiations with the Iranians over the last four months....

The backroom talks began in June, when Iranian officials told the International Atomic Energy Agency their country was running out of fuel for an aging research reactor built for the Shah in 1967 by American technicians. ...


"We very quickly saw an opening here," says a senior Administration official involved in the multiparty negotiations that ensued, speaking on condition of anonymity. The U.S. realized it could arrange for the manufacture of the specialized plates from an unorthodox source: the stash of low-enriched uranium Iran has produced in violation of U.N. Security Council demands at its massive Natanz uranium-enrichment plant over the past several years. The U.S., Israel and others had estimated that the Iranian stockpile was enough -- if Iran kicked out inspectors and repurposed its enrichment facilities to enrich uranium to weapons grade -- to produce material for a single atom bomb. So, the idea that Iran might agree to send most of it abroad to be turned into harmless plates for the research reactor seemed an opportune way to defuse tensions.

In early July, Obama traveled to Moscow, where his top nonproliferation aide, Gary Samore, floated a proposal to the Russians: If Iran would agree to export a supply of LEU to Moscow, the Russians could enrich it to the level needed to power the research reactor, and then the French, who had been brought into the discussions, could turn it into the specialized plates that are used to produce the isotopes. The plates, which Iran does not have the capacity to turn into weapons-grade uranium, would then be sent back to Tehran. "The Russians immediately said, 'Great idea,' " says the senior Administration official. ...


The Americans wanted to make sure the Iranians weren't going to pull a fast one and persuade the Russians to get the material for the research-reactor fuel from a source other than Iran's own stockpile. When President Obama met with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in New York City at the U.N. General Assembly in late September, he pressed the Russian to "confirm at the level of the President that this whole deal hinged on it being Iran providing the fuel," says the senior Administration official. The official says Medvedev agreed.

Obama then had a further phone conversation with ElBaradei late in September to confirm the details of the deal, which was finally announced at the Oct. 1 Geneva talks between Iran and the key Western powers, Russia and China. At those talks, U.S. negotiator, William Burns, had a one-on-one conversation with his Iranian counterpart to confirm the amount of uranium involved in the deal, and they agreed to the Oct. 19 meeting to determine details of the transfer.

That was the background of today's meeting. Administration officials were careful to tell Time that they "were not particularly optimistic" and that the deal could "break down over details." Still, they thought it had potential to be a win-win:

Both sides have reasons to seek progress: if the deal were to go forward, the U.S. would have succeeded in securing most of Iran's existing stockpile against weaponization. Iran, for its part, could see the deal as legitimizing their enrichment of uranium in violation of U.N. demands.

So what happened today? Iran repudiated the deal. Now, Iran wants a foreign country, France or someone else, to ship it the nuclear material it needs for civilian purposes, but it wants to keep its own enriched uranium at home:

...

[SassyLady]

What I see here is a couple of academicians with no common sense or logic.


Agreed.:beer:

[Jeff]

As you know I have been saying for over a year how bad he would be. There's more to come. And I don't call him the dark lord because he's black.

Ya can always call it as it is, call him the MONKEY IN CHARGE :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Obama at the UN


http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/156342.jpg

[Insein]

Of course. Look at it from the standpoint of your enemy. "Hey, he's trying to insure himself against the possibility of a successful retaliatory strike by us, if he attacks us. Why would he be doing this, unless he intends to attack us? We have two choices: either attack ourselves, before he gets such a system in place; or work overtime on ways of outwitting his defense." If we're lucky, our enemy chooses the latter. And it makes more sense for him to do this, than to develop his own missile defense; because in war, as in debate, it is typically easier to attack than to defend. Technology rolls on: a state-of-the-art missile defense system this decade, can be readily outwitted by next decade's military innovations.

The point of a war is to win. If you have the upper hand, you dictate to your opponent the terms. If we have an upper hand, we dictate to them that they must stand down. You don't win a war through appeasment or "Mutually Assured Destruction." That relies on the fact that your enemy is sensible. If you are dealing with Mad men (Il, Ahmadenijad) then you don't have the luxury of knowing that they will die with us. They want us to die even if it means killing their own.




MAD is a relatively stable military strategy: it relies on the basic self-interest of your opponent. He does not want to die. But it is effective as a strategy, only if the prospect of sure destruction is mutual. Missile defense is a direct bid for the country possessing it to escape the logic of MAD. This results in introducing new, dangerous instability to the face-off. In this new, unstable situation, conflict becomes more likely, not less. This is really just diplomacy 101; why can't you Cons grasp it?

What part of it can't you grasp? You fight a war to win. Whether thats ideals, land, resources, whatever, you fight to win. If you gain an advantage, you dictate to the other side what they can and can't do. Thats the point of war. You don't pussy foot around and hope the other side will not kill you in some misguided belief that they don't want to die. You don't win a war by dieing for your country. You win by making the other guy die for his.