During the elections Barrack Obama stated that Iran, Cuba, Venezuela are tiny countries that pose no serious threat to the United States.
See Video
Brezhnev never took Kennedy’s diplomatic solutions seriously until he blockaded Cuba leaving the U.S. and the Soviets tittering on the brink of war.
SALT I and SALT II were miserable failures. There wasn’t a serious or lasting nuclear treaty with the Soviets until Ronald Reagan began a massive military build up that forced the Soviets to negotiations proving that negotiating form a position of strength is a recipe for success.
Now Barrack Obama has succumbed to the idea Iran will become a nuclear state, “Iran may have some right to nuclear energy” says Obama.
In N. Korea his strategy is more of the same; to go back to the table for more talks which have failed for last six years.
According to Hilleary Clinton’s warning to N. Korea, which makes no mention of preemption, is a warning without teeth. It would appear American military intervention will come only after an attack on S. Korea or Japan.
Time and time again talk has proven cheap when dealing with these rogue regimes whose leaders are nothing more than escaped mental patients from the asylum. History has shown us that negotiation from a position of weakness is a recipe for failure. Yet the Obama administration is hell bent on modeling failed formulas from the past.
Obama has accepted a nuclear Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela who is currently working with Russia to develop nuclear power.
The Obama administration is fine with everyone going nuclear except the U.S. where he refuses to allow any new nuclear power plants and has embarked America on a course of green energy that is less than environmental friendly and guaranteed high costs in both jobs loss and tax payer subsides.
Showing posts with label Foriegn Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foriegn Policy. Show all posts
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Disarming America Part 3
And so it would seem that Barrack Obama has taken the path of Jimmy Carter in repsonse to foriegn policy and Natiaonal Defense.
Jimmy Carter slashed spending on new defense technology including halting missile defense research complaining it wouldn’t work and even if it did the technologies would take years to develop. Ronald Reagan was mocked for his “Star Wars” program but as a direct result of the technology that came from “Star Wars” we now have a working strategic missile defense system.
This type of technology is what allows a patriot missile to shoot down other missiles in mid-air. It allows our cruise missiles to hit targets 100’s of miles away with pinpoint accuracy. Keeping ourselves on the cutting edge of this technology gives us the luxury of fighting at standoff distances minimizing casualties. Let that go, and you’re not looking at fewer conflicts, you're looking at the return of bloodier wars.
Just look at the numbers:
In Vietnam we had 58,209 American soldiers KIA.
In 1968 alone 16,592 American soldiers were killed in action in Vietnam the heaviest year for causalities of the war (BTW my brother was a Marine in Vietnam in 1968), which pales in comparison to causalities and KIAs during WWII. Now compare that to 4,148 American Soldiers killed in Iraq and 587 in Afghanistan as of 9/22/08.
Thank God, once again, Reagan didn’t listen to the critics who said it would never work.
Jimmy Carter if nothing else proved that weakness invites predation. Ronald Reagan didn’t give us theory he proved that negotiating from a position of strength works—just like the surge in Iraq worked. Leading from a position of strength will always be superior to begging from a position of weakness.
Obama just may be a true Manchurian candidate who will try to negotiate with the likes of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the Chinese, the Russians, and Kim Jong-il from a position of weakness and hope they will be sensible people and keep whatever agreements they may agree too. Making nice giving concessions to our enemies in hopes they will return the gesture? Historically this has only met with failure but maybe that is what Obama means when he calls himself the candidate of ‘hope’, he hopes that this time, although the behavior maybe the same, the outcome will be different.
Jimmy Carter slashed spending on new defense technology including halting missile defense research complaining it wouldn’t work and even if it did the technologies would take years to develop. Ronald Reagan was mocked for his “Star Wars” program but as a direct result of the technology that came from “Star Wars” we now have a working strategic missile defense system.
This type of technology is what allows a patriot missile to shoot down other missiles in mid-air. It allows our cruise missiles to hit targets 100’s of miles away with pinpoint accuracy. Keeping ourselves on the cutting edge of this technology gives us the luxury of fighting at standoff distances minimizing casualties. Let that go, and you’re not looking at fewer conflicts, you're looking at the return of bloodier wars.
Just look at the numbers:
In Vietnam we had 58,209 American soldiers KIA.
In 1968 alone 16,592 American soldiers were killed in action in Vietnam the heaviest year for causalities of the war (BTW my brother was a Marine in Vietnam in 1968), which pales in comparison to causalities and KIAs during WWII. Now compare that to 4,148 American Soldiers killed in Iraq and 587 in Afghanistan as of 9/22/08.
Thank God, once again, Reagan didn’t listen to the critics who said it would never work.
Jimmy Carter if nothing else proved that weakness invites predation. Ronald Reagan didn’t give us theory he proved that negotiating from a position of strength works—just like the surge in Iraq worked. Leading from a position of strength will always be superior to begging from a position of weakness.
Obama just may be a true Manchurian candidate who will try to negotiate with the likes of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the Chinese, the Russians, and Kim Jong-il from a position of weakness and hope they will be sensible people and keep whatever agreements they may agree too. Making nice giving concessions to our enemies in hopes they will return the gesture? Historically this has only met with failure but maybe that is what Obama means when he calls himself the candidate of ‘hope’, he hopes that this time, although the behavior maybe the same, the outcome will be different.
Disarming America Part 2
Liberals just don’t get it! We have real enemies who want to kill us and yet they want to cut spending to our intelligence gathering institutions and crush them with regulations making it more difficult to obtain information from captured terrorists. Clinton nearly dismantled the CIA when he was in office and Barrack Obama will likely do the same thing cutting funding and imposing restrictions that will hamper intelligence gathering operations.
Modern liberal presidents, every since Jimmy Carter, have been extremely weak on national defense. Democrats such as Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK were strong on defense but ever since the 60’s, and the anti-war movement came along, all that changed. Around this time the ‘leftists’ in the liberal movement began a campaign of undermining such institutions as the military, law enforcement, and capitalism. These ‘hippies’ basically hijacked the democratic party forever changing it from what it was under such presidents as JFK who didn’t back down from anybody including the soviets.
JFK had this to say about National defense:
When Ronald Reagan took the reigns as Commander and Chief he was handed a military in ruins.
Democrats during the Carter years voted several times to cut spending on defense and for freezes on defense technology and development of new weapons systems. In September of 1979 democrats led by the likes of Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt lead the way voting against a $5 billion package to upgrade vital defense systems. Less than 2 months later The US embassy in Tehran was seized by extremists lead by current president of Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad. And not long after that The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Ted Kennedy, who doesn’t share the same feelings about protecting freedom as his older brother John did, called for a nuclear freeze in 1983. This in spite of the failures to prevent the Soviets from out spending the US by over $140 billion on military expenditures after the SALT I was signed in 1972.
Teddy and his democrat allies, Daschle, Gore, Gephardt, Biden, Dodd, and Dukakis, etc, wanted to shut down the Trident missile program, the B-1 bomber, the stealth bomber, air-lunched cruise missiles, ground-lunched cruise missiles, and a host of other programs that would have given our military superiority over the Soviet Union that we lost under Jimmy Carter.
Forcing US military inferiority at a time when the Soviets were rapidly expanding their military forces, nuclear capabilities, and influence around the world would have been disastrous. Thank God for Ronald Reagan who was there to stop them.
Reagan’s philosophy was ‘peace through strength’ and it worked. Under Reagan’s administration we achieved the first meaningful Nuclear arms treaty with the Soviets because we could back it up.
In the end we forced the Soviets to spend and spend trying to keep up with us and they went bankrupt forcing the collapse of the Soviet Communist Empire just like Ronald Reagan said it would.
Imagine what would have happened if Jimmy Carter had been reelected president or Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis would have won the presidency? We would have never won the cold war.
One can conclude, it is true, it is better to negotiate from a position of strength.
Once Clinton gained office he and his democratic allies went right back to work showing their naiveté on foreign policy and destroying the military.
For instance, the Clinton administration tried to cozy up to the Chinese. In an obvious policy of appeasement, Clinton’s defense secretary in a letter to the Chinese government Wrote:
The kind gesture was returned when less than six months later the People’s Liberation Army launched a simulated nuclear attack against the two largest cities in Taiwan firing two dummy missiles off their coast.
Clinton was dumbfounded and responded by sending US aircraft carriers to the region. The Chinese military took quick notice of the U.S. carriers, and as a result the communist army, Office of the Central Military Command, wrote a report on future nuclear combat with the United States.
When are these liberals going to recognize the fact that we have real threats and take them seriously?
In the 80’s Reagan began to rebuild our military forces after Jimmy Carter nearly decimated it by cutting it by half. President Bill Clinton cut Reagan’s military by nearly 1/3.
In 1996 the Joint Chief’s of staff requested $60 billion to beef up a rapidly declining force. Bill Clinton slashed that request down to $38.9 billion. In 1996 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $8.3 billion. In 1998 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $329 million. In June of 2000 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $1 billion just one year away from 9/11. Each time the cuts were defeated by 100% of the senate republicans.
Today we face a similar dilemma. Barrack Obama has promised, once again, to cut defense spending. Only this time the democrats will run the executive branch—the House of Representatives as well as the Senate—there won’t be enough good sense republicans to stop whatever kind of damage they will cause to our National Defense infrastructure.
Modern liberal presidents, every since Jimmy Carter, have been extremely weak on national defense. Democrats such as Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK were strong on defense but ever since the 60’s, and the anti-war movement came along, all that changed. Around this time the ‘leftists’ in the liberal movement began a campaign of undermining such institutions as the military, law enforcement, and capitalism. These ‘hippies’ basically hijacked the democratic party forever changing it from what it was under such presidents as JFK who didn’t back down from anybody including the soviets.
JFK had this to say about National defense:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
When Ronald Reagan took the reigns as Commander and Chief he was handed a military in ruins.
Democrats during the Carter years voted several times to cut spending on defense and for freezes on defense technology and development of new weapons systems. In September of 1979 democrats led by the likes of Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt lead the way voting against a $5 billion package to upgrade vital defense systems. Less than 2 months later The US embassy in Tehran was seized by extremists lead by current president of Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad. And not long after that The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Ted Kennedy, who doesn’t share the same feelings about protecting freedom as his older brother John did, called for a nuclear freeze in 1983. This in spite of the failures to prevent the Soviets from out spending the US by over $140 billion on military expenditures after the SALT I was signed in 1972.
Teddy and his democrat allies, Daschle, Gore, Gephardt, Biden, Dodd, and Dukakis, etc, wanted to shut down the Trident missile program, the B-1 bomber, the stealth bomber, air-lunched cruise missiles, ground-lunched cruise missiles, and a host of other programs that would have given our military superiority over the Soviet Union that we lost under Jimmy Carter.
Forcing US military inferiority at a time when the Soviets were rapidly expanding their military forces, nuclear capabilities, and influence around the world would have been disastrous. Thank God for Ronald Reagan who was there to stop them.
Reagan’s philosophy was ‘peace through strength’ and it worked. Under Reagan’s administration we achieved the first meaningful Nuclear arms treaty with the Soviets because we could back it up.
In the end we forced the Soviets to spend and spend trying to keep up with us and they went bankrupt forcing the collapse of the Soviet Communist Empire just like Ronald Reagan said it would.
Imagine what would have happened if Jimmy Carter had been reelected president or Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis would have won the presidency? We would have never won the cold war.
One can conclude, it is true, it is better to negotiate from a position of strength.
Once Clinton gained office he and his democratic allies went right back to work showing their naiveté on foreign policy and destroying the military.
For instance, the Clinton administration tried to cozy up to the Chinese. In an obvious policy of appeasement, Clinton’s defense secretary in a letter to the Chinese government Wrote:
“Advancing the military relationship between our two nation’s remains an objective which we agree serves the long-term interests of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific Region."
The kind gesture was returned when less than six months later the People’s Liberation Army launched a simulated nuclear attack against the two largest cities in Taiwan firing two dummy missiles off their coast.
Clinton was dumbfounded and responded by sending US aircraft carriers to the region. The Chinese military took quick notice of the U.S. carriers, and as a result the communist army, Office of the Central Military Command, wrote a report on future nuclear combat with the United States.
When are these liberals going to recognize the fact that we have real threats and take them seriously?
In the 80’s Reagan began to rebuild our military forces after Jimmy Carter nearly decimated it by cutting it by half. President Bill Clinton cut Reagan’s military by nearly 1/3.
In 1996 the Joint Chief’s of staff requested $60 billion to beef up a rapidly declining force. Bill Clinton slashed that request down to $38.9 billion. In 1996 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $8.3 billion. In 1998 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $329 million. In June of 2000 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $1 billion just one year away from 9/11. Each time the cuts were defeated by 100% of the senate republicans.
Today we face a similar dilemma. Barrack Obama has promised, once again, to cut defense spending. Only this time the democrats will run the executive branch—the House of Representatives as well as the Senate—there won’t be enough good sense republicans to stop whatever kind of damage they will cause to our National Defense infrastructure.
Obama Disarming of America
The Obama administration faces many challenges from threats around the world. For instance, besides the threat of terrorism, we are seeing a resurgence of Russian political and military influence in Latin America. The Russians have sent political and military envoys to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. The Russian Navy has recently participated in war games with Venezuela and during the same time frame the Russian Navy put into port in Panama. Also worrisome, during the visit to Venezuela Russian officials signed an agreement with Hugo Chavez to help him develop nuclear capabilities.
The reasons for this hostile posturing are two fold, 1. To show the world that after over a decade of absence, the post-Soviets are back on the world scene. 2. A return of soviet aggressive posturing is an apparent campaign to pressure the United States to disengage in talks of admitting former Soviet satellites the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This is not because they pose any significant military threat to Russia necessarily; it is their response to fear over encroaching western influences in the region.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the Cold War where The US and the Soviet Union competed over military superiority.
At a time when China and N. Korea have been busy building and testing space weaponry Barrack Obama promises to cut spending to missile defense technologies. However, both Chinese officials and American military strategist agree weaponization of space is inevitable. Soldiers on sea, air, and land already heavily rely on space for GPS-navigation, communications, and satellite imagery. The next step in a natural progression of technology is weapon systems in space. These new technologies will give whoever possesses them a huge advantage in strategic capability.
First and foremost, the president’s job as Commander and Chief of the United Sates military is the security of the country. This takes priority over everything else he does.
First of all we are at war with Muslim fascism and extremism. We face threats from terrorist groups and terrorist states. Many of whom seek nuclear capability to destroy us and Israel.
Tensions have been high over the Russian invasion of Georgia and the invasion has folks making threats on both sides.
Moscow warns it will sell missiles to Iran if the US follows through with plans to place a missile defense sheild in Europe, this includes threatening nuclear war, warning that Poland and the Czech Republic would become designated targets if NATO goes ahead with the missile shield. But failure to do so leaves our European allies virtually defenseless—the Russians, like most predators, like their prey defenseless.
China has been selling weapons, cruise and ballistic missile technology and equipment to Iran for a long time. Both Russia and China are huge importers of Iranian oil.
And to add insult to injury, the Russians and Chinese have been holding joint military exercises.
See Video:
The present threats and challenges are great. The lingering question is, will the Obama administration react like Carter or Reagan?
The reasons for this hostile posturing are two fold, 1. To show the world that after over a decade of absence, the post-Soviets are back on the world scene. 2. A return of soviet aggressive posturing is an apparent campaign to pressure the United States to disengage in talks of admitting former Soviet satellites the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This is not because they pose any significant military threat to Russia necessarily; it is their response to fear over encroaching western influences in the region.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the Cold War where The US and the Soviet Union competed over military superiority.
At a time when China and N. Korea have been busy building and testing space weaponry Barrack Obama promises to cut spending to missile defense technologies. However, both Chinese officials and American military strategist agree weaponization of space is inevitable. Soldiers on sea, air, and land already heavily rely on space for GPS-navigation, communications, and satellite imagery. The next step in a natural progression of technology is weapon systems in space. These new technologies will give whoever possesses them a huge advantage in strategic capability.
First and foremost, the president’s job as Commander and Chief of the United Sates military is the security of the country. This takes priority over everything else he does.
First of all we are at war with Muslim fascism and extremism. We face threats from terrorist groups and terrorist states. Many of whom seek nuclear capability to destroy us and Israel.
Tensions have been high over the Russian invasion of Georgia and the invasion has folks making threats on both sides.
Moscow warns it will sell missiles to Iran if the US follows through with plans to place a missile defense sheild in Europe, this includes threatening nuclear war, warning that Poland and the Czech Republic would become designated targets if NATO goes ahead with the missile shield. But failure to do so leaves our European allies virtually defenseless—the Russians, like most predators, like their prey defenseless.
China has been selling weapons, cruise and ballistic missile technology and equipment to Iran for a long time. Both Russia and China are huge importers of Iranian oil.
And to add insult to injury, the Russians and Chinese have been holding joint military exercises.
See Video:
The present threats and challenges are great. The lingering question is, will the Obama administration react like Carter or Reagan?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Obama’s Apology Tour
DOROTHY RABINOWITZ describes in her opinion article in the WSJ, "Obama Blames America" every sentiment I have felt about Obama's apperent guilt over America's greatness, namely betrayal. As an American and veteran I am deeply saddned by the lefts guilt and shame of America when all I have ever felt is pride. The values that made America great; economic and political freedom, and miltary might--it was our constituion, the power of the free markets, and the deterrent that the capability to defeat any enamy who would otherwise do us harm that made us the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful nation on earth. Now, every one of those tenants are under full-blown assault by Obama and the left.
RABINOWITZ writes:
In one speech Obama apologized for American arrogance. Speaking in France he says, “In America there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading roll in the world. Instead of celebrating Europe’s dynamic Union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges there have been times when America showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
In other words we should be celebrating anti-Americanism, socialism, high taxes, weak militaries, and those who’ve surrendered there sovereignty and along with it many of their freedoms to the European Union? Who was it that came to their rescue in WW1 and WW2, and maintains military capabilities to defend Europe from Soviet and Iranian aggression? Yes, we should apologize and seek to be more like them...Lambs.
Contiuing on his rampage of destruction Obama...:
We know for a fact that those interrogation techniques led to stopping a major attack on LA. LA residents should rejoice for these new neo-ethical wish worshipping policies of the Obama administration because if they had been in effect many lives would have been lost (not might have been lost)in a 9/11 style attack on LA…You can sleep secure in your beds at night now folks. Obama will hug our enemies into submission. How well did that work for Jimmy Carter?
Here is where she hits the nail on the head and exposes the fallacy behind the Obama administration's soft policy:
Anyway, this shouldn’t surprise anyone, since Obama’s early days his political conscious was molded in the same vein as his Kenyan father’s anticolonial resentment when he [Barrack Obama] identified himself with Franz Fannon the revolutionary anticolonialist. Obama's life from cradle to the Presidency has been uninterrupted American resentment from Uncle Frank Davis to Jeremiah Wright.
RABINOWITZ writes:
“The president of the United States has completed another outing abroad in his now standard form: as the un-Bush. At one stop after another -- the latest in Latin America, where Hugo Chávez expressed wishes to be his friend -- Barack Obama fulfilled his campaign vows to show the nations of the world that a new American leadership stood ready to atone for the transgressions of the old.”
In one speech Obama apologized for American arrogance. Speaking in France he says, “In America there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading roll in the world. Instead of celebrating Europe’s dynamic Union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges there have been times when America showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
In other words we should be celebrating anti-Americanism, socialism, high taxes, weak militaries, and those who’ve surrendered there sovereignty and along with it many of their freedoms to the European Union? Who was it that came to their rescue in WW1 and WW2, and maintains military capabilities to defend Europe from Soviet and Iranian aggression? Yes, we should apologize and seek to be more like them...Lambs.
That no such estimation of the United States managed to infiltrate the content or tone of the president's remarks during his European tour -- nary a hint -- we know, and it is not surprising. He had gone to Europe not as the voice of his nation, but as a missionary with a message of atonement for its errors. Which were, as he perceived them -- arrogance, dismissiveness, Guantanamo, deficiencies in its attitudes toward the Muslim world, and the presidency of Harry Truman and his decision to drop the atomic bomb, which ended World War II.
No sitting American president had ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that matter at home, or been so ostentatiously modest about the character and accomplishment of the nation he led. He was mediator, an agent of change, a judge, apportioning blame -- and he was above the battle.
None of this display during Mr. Obama's recent travels could have come as a surprise to legions of his supporters, nor would many of them be daunted by their new president's preoccupation with our moral failures. Five decades of teaching in colleges and universities across the land, portraying the U.S. as a power mainly responsible for injustice and evil, whose military might was ever a danger to the world -- a nation built on the fruits of greed, rapacity and racism -- have had their effect. The products of this education find nothing strange in a president quick to focus on the theme of American moral failure. He may not share many of their views, but there is, nonetheless, much that they find familiar about him.
Contiuing on his rampage of destruction Obama...:
Now, on the heels of those travels, comes his release of the guidelines known as "torture memos" -- a decision designed to emphasize, again, the superior ethical and moral leadership the world can expect from this administration as compared with that of presidencies past. This exercise in comparisons is one of which Mr. Obama may well never tire.
The memos' publication had its consequences, most of them intentional. First, declaring his intention to have a forward-looking administration, the president had, to his credit, announced that there would be no trials of CIA personnel involved in the interrogations of terrorists.
We know for a fact that those interrogation techniques led to stopping a major attack on LA. LA residents should rejoice for these new neo-ethical wish worshipping policies of the Obama administration because if they had been in effect many lives would have been lost (not might have been lost)in a 9/11 style attack on LA…You can sleep secure in your beds at night now folks. Obama will hug our enemies into submission. How well did that work for Jimmy Carter?
Here is where she hits the nail on the head and exposes the fallacy behind the Obama administration's soft policy:
…Any number of people listening to Mr. Emanuel -- those acquainted with terror's recent history, at any rate -- would have recalled, instantly, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, and the rest of the unending chain of terror assaults mounted against Americans long before anyone had ever heard of enhanced interrogation techniques.
Anyway, this shouldn’t surprise anyone, since Obama’s early days his political conscious was molded in the same vein as his Kenyan father’s anticolonial resentment when he [Barrack Obama] identified himself with Franz Fannon the revolutionary anticolonialist. Obama's life from cradle to the Presidency has been uninterrupted American resentment from Uncle Frank Davis to Jeremiah Wright.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Iran’s Supreme Leader Dismisses Obama Overtures
Oh, what a surprise.
Will Iran, whose leaders deny that the holocaust ever happened, have sworn themselves to the destruction of Israel, ever be appeased by the Great Satan Infidel as they chant in anti-western rallies?
Barrack Obama had mis-judged them from the beginning when he said Iran wasn’t a threat on the camping trail. Again he miscalculated when he went on Arab television to apologize for American polices and promising the murderous Palestinians $9 hundred million in US tax payer money to rebuild Gaza rebuffing our ally Israel.
He will continue to be wrong in the Middle East because of his foreign policies of appeasement and toleration just as Jimmy Carter got the Russians wrong during the SALT treaty and the Iranians wrong during the Iranian hostage crises. Ronald Reagan got it right, "Negotiate from a position of strength." That is assuming of course that anyone can negotiate with fanatical mentally challenged religious ideologues. But you certainly don’t negotiate from a position of tolerance, appeasement, and weakness either.
According to this NYT article:
Never mind the fact that Iran has supported violence and terror over the globe from North Africa, Lebanon, Israel, the Balkans, Asia, to Iraq that have killed Americans soldiers and civilians and many allies.
Iran's mentality towrds the US is that of brainwashed minions who worship a God-like cult leader.Besides recognizing Obama's weaknesses in foriegn polcy they aslo got something else right, the empty rhetoric of cahnge.
More change we can believe in.
Will Iran, whose leaders deny that the holocaust ever happened, have sworn themselves to the destruction of Israel, ever be appeased by the Great Satan Infidel as they chant in anti-western rallies?
Barrack Obama had mis-judged them from the beginning when he said Iran wasn’t a threat on the camping trail. Again he miscalculated when he went on Arab television to apologize for American polices and promising the murderous Palestinians $9 hundred million in US tax payer money to rebuild Gaza rebuffing our ally Israel.
He will continue to be wrong in the Middle East because of his foreign policies of appeasement and toleration just as Jimmy Carter got the Russians wrong during the SALT treaty and the Iranians wrong during the Iranian hostage crises. Ronald Reagan got it right, "Negotiate from a position of strength." That is assuming of course that anyone can negotiate with fanatical mentally challenged religious ideologues. But you certainly don’t negotiate from a position of tolerance, appeasement, and weakness either.
According to this NYT article:
Khamenei said there will be no change between the two countries unless the American president puts an end to U.S. hostility toward Iran and brings ''real changes'' in foreign policy.
Never mind the fact that Iran has supported violence and terror over the globe from North Africa, Lebanon, Israel, the Balkans, Asia, to Iraq that have killed Americans soldiers and civilians and many allies.
Iran's mentality towrds the US is that of brainwashed minions who worship a God-like cult leader.Besides recognizing Obama's weaknesses in foriegn polcy they aslo got something else right, the empty rhetoric of cahnge.
''They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change,'' Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.
In his video message, Obama said the United States wants to engage Iran, but he also warned that a right place for Iran in the international community ''cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.''
Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year and accuse the country of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons in the same message.
Khamenei said there has been no change even in Obama's language compared to that of his predecessor.
''He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change?
Make it clear for us what has changed.''
More change we can believe in.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Vladimir Putin Warns Obama of the Dangers of Socialism
I have wanted to post this for a while but I have had other things to get out there. If there is a national shame this is it; Obama is warned about the dangers of socialism by, of all people, Vladimir Putin.
Although, we can’t expect the former communist and head of the KGB Vladimir Putin to get everything right when it come to how capitalism works he certainly comes to the table with a wealth of knowledge on the failures of socialism. At the very least his warnings should be taken seriously.
And how quickly the national memory forgets the disastrous polices of the FDR’s administration and Keynesian economics—here we go again. Obama has picked up the torch of LBJ’s great society which picked up where FDR left off, which states government always knows best.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.
“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”
Although, we can’t expect the former communist and head of the KGB Vladimir Putin to get everything right when it come to how capitalism works he certainly comes to the table with a wealth of knowledge on the failures of socialism. At the very least his warnings should be taken seriously.
And how quickly the national memory forgets the disastrous polices of the FDR’s administration and Keynesian economics—here we go again. Obama has picked up the torch of LBJ’s great society which picked up where FDR left off, which states government always knows best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
