nonniey Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just another article pointing out how weak our President is. "President Obama, I support the Americans' outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing." -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24 WASHINGTON -- When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom......" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/02/obamas_french_lesson_98547.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just another article pointing out how weak our President is."President Obama, I support the Americans' outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing." -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24 WASHINGTON -- When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom......" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/02/obamas_french_lesson_98547.html Oh brother. This article is by Charles Krauthammer -- did anyone of us really expect a balanced piece from him? There is nothing weak about trying to engage the Iranians. The Right just wants us to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," and anything short of that is "defeatist," according to them. Why would the right-wing suddenly care about the French, the people they have derided for the past decade? Also, it's rubbish when Krauthammer said, "In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic . . . " This is total nonsense. The few missiles in either country would have done nothing to prevent a "Russian invasion." It wouldn't have done a damn thing. Also, the U.S. is still going to implement a defensive missile system, but it will be naval based, which means that more missiles then the land based system may ultimately be deployed. There is nothing wrong with pursuing further nuclear disarmament. Also, it is amazing how Iran has suddenly become the "most serious security issue in the world." Is it really? I am sorry, Mr. Krauthammer, but if anyone has an "adolescent mindlessness," it is the people such as yourself whose only answer seems to be violence. It is not adolescent to suggest that "No one nation can ... dominate another nation," and it shows Krauthammer's small mind that he considers it to be so. I guess, to him, the "adult way" is to dominate other nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Oh brother. This article is by Charles Krauthammer -- did anyone of us really expect a balanced piece from him? There is nothing weak about trying to engage the Iranians. The Right just wants us to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," and anything short of that is "defeatist," according to them. Why would the right-wing suddenly care about the French, the people they have derided for the past decade?Also, it's rubbish when Krauthammer said, "In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic . . . " This is total nonsense. The few missiles in either country would have done nothing to prevent a "Russian invasion." It wouldn't have done a damn thing. Also, the U.S. is still going to implement a defensive missile system, but it will be naval based, which means that more missiles then the land based system may ultimately be deployed. There is nothing wrong with pursuing further nuclear disarmament at all. Also, it is amazing how Iran has suddenly become the "most serious security issue in the world." Is it really? I am sorry, Mr. Krauthammer, but if anyone has an "adolescent mindlessness," it is the people such as yourself whose only answer seems to be violence. It is not adolescent to suggest that "No one nation can ... dominate another nation," and it shows Krauthammer's small mind that he considers it to be so. I guess, to him, the "adult way" is to dominate other nations. Putting the realclearpolitics link makes it seem so real though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Thought about posting this story myself. This part, is what I see as par for the course from this President. "The administration told the French," reports The Wall Street Journal, "that it didn't want to 'spoil the image of success' for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N." The image, of success. The image, of success. The image, of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Gotta admit though.. When France says your weak.. That is a setup for a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 So we care about what the French say now? What about freedom fries? The pouring of French wine down the sewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Iran is a genuine problem and a direct and indirect threat. They are one of the chief financeers of terrorism, have a big ole army, and a history of violence. I do believe they are interested in hurting us and our allies through economic warfare and through terrorist secondaries. We have options, but Iraq reduced and continues to reduce the number of cards in our hands. The question is what do you really want/expect/desire the U.S. to do? Unless, we decide we want to put our military on a third front the options are pull out of somewhere (very hard to do) or go diplomatic/economic. We've spent too much time with our eyes off the ball with a player who has come to truly believe that they have nothing to fear from us and that we are unable to do anything to them. They believe they've got Russia and China in a position where they have to align against any efforts we or Western Europe attempt and more that Western Europe isn't truly interested in making a concerted effort against them. The question is then how real a threat are they and what can we afford to do or not do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINS@THEGOALLINE Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 So we care about what the French say now? For that matter, Charles Krauthammer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Image-vs.-substance in the Middle East seems to be a perpetual tragic theme in Presidential politics. It certainly undercut our previous two Presidents, and it may give the albatross treatment to our current President too. Of course, if we were currently mopping up after only one simultaneous land war in Asia, we'd have a strong military option to drop on the negotiating table. Regardless of whether or not you think Obama would use it in whole or in part, it would be available and therefore part of the game. Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 N/T. Of course, I need ten characters to post this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 So what, exactly, is the "French Plan?" They aren't going to do anything which will stop the Iranians from developing a nuke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The question is then how real a threat are they and what can we afford to do or not do? 1. Very real. 2. Whatever it takes, or, we can't do, nothing. I have believed for years, that the only way to keep the current regime in Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, is by force. Force, to stop whatever current progress they have made, as much as possible, by turning every known facility having to do with their program to rubble. While simultaneously crippling their economy, by removing their ability to sell their oil. If the President is going the extra mile, first, to try to avoid confrontation, so he can say, "We tried everything", then fine. Just as long as he acts decisively, and harshly, the second he learns that peaceful means will not work. Problem is, I doubt he will. And in the meantime, Iran has bought more time to finish their goal of going nuclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Iran and its nukes may be the biggest overblown threat of our time. That regime is weakened from what happened this summer, and the only thing that will give it any cred in the eyes of its people again is the international community doing something stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Well, Ax a lot of Presidents have pushed this can down the road... probably starting with Carter. I don't know if this has to be military solution. I do know that it will be a hard sell with two other wars on the table to the American people. How do you sell the idea that this pre-emptive war is a good idea and that the Irananians are enough of a direct immediate threat that it warrants the expansion of our deficit, a huge upsurge in taxes to pay for it, stretching our forces even thinner, and putting more of our men and women at risk. One of the potentially biggest gaffes of the last Administration was constantly crying "wolf" Now, who'll want to believe a President. The Republicans will accuse Obama of wagging the dog and the Democrats haven't shown enough gumption or will to unite over much of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Iran and its nukes may be the biggest overblown threat of our time.That regime is weakened from what happened this summer, and the only thing that will give it any cred in the eyes of its people again is the international community doing something stupid. Precisely. Their regime is already in trouble with many of its people. Military action will immediately legitimize their attempts to build a "defensive" nuclear weapon. Here is my question: Do we really think the Iranian government is suicidal to the point of hobbling together a nuke and tossing it at Israel? That is basically the implication that I have heard, which seems unrealistic. The Iranian government wants to keep a grasp on its power, not lose it through some ill-fated attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Precisely. Their regime is already in trouble with many of its people. Military action will immediately legitimize their attempts to build a "defensive" nuclear weapon.Here is my question: Do we really think the Iranian government is suicidal to the point of hobbling together a nuke and tossing it at Israel? That is basically the implication that I have heard, which seems unrealistic. The Iranian government wants to keep a grasp on its power, not lose it through some ill-fated attack. Yup. Even as religiously fanatic as they are, they dig power even more. I don't think Iran is stupid enough to suffer again what it suffered in the 1980s, when it essentially lost an entire generation due to the Iraq-Iran war Will they continue to be a thorn in our side and Israel's side? Oh yea, and I think there are other ways to deal with those elements that they send to bug us I just don't see any virtue in attacking Iran to go after a nuke program that may or may not be anywhere near its full capability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Here is my question: Do we really think the Iranian government is suicidal to the point of hobbling together a nuke and tossing it at Israel? That is basically the implication that I have heard, which seems unrealistic. The Iranian government wants to keep a grasp on its power, not lose it through some ill-fated attack. Given the outcome in Iraq, wouldn't they have to be suicidal to continue with even the appearance developing nuclear weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Fanatics rarely follow logical approaches, though. If it's true that Ahmanutcase believes he is going to usher in the return of the Prophet, I don't see what would stop him. I agree with Ax to a point. I do believe the only way they will stop building a weapon is by force and I also believe that once they have said weapon, they will give it to a terrorist group who will use it rather then use it on their own and invite reprisal. They will rely on their old tried and true methods of denial, knowing full well that the west will not act unless there's a very definitive smoking gun in plain view bearing the name of the person who fired it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 How do you sell the idea that this pre-emptive war is a good idea and that the Irananians are enough of a direct immediate threat that it warrants the expansion of our deficit, a huge upsurge in taxes to pay for it, stretching our forces even thinner, and putting more of our men and women at risk. You don't. You ram it up their ass just like they do with bailouts, and stimulus packages, and tax increases. The only time most politicians give a hoot in hell what the people think, is when they happen to agree with the politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I thought I'd see a new thread with links to this story being discussed this morning, or late last night, even: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091001/ts_nm/us_nuclear_iran or maybe it's in a thread and i didn't look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanos Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Charles Krauthammer is a GOP hack. Love all of these military planners on the right who've never spent a day in uniform yet paint all these doomsday scenarios involving military force. Yet never fully realizing that we are in a two front 'war" as it is with essentially a depleted force. Fully realizing that the blowback with taking out that plant would essentially drag us into Isreal's proxy war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Given the outcome in Iraq, wouldn't they have to be suicidal to continue with even the appearance developing nuclear weapons? If anything, the outcome in Iraq probably has emboldened them. We invaded and took over two of Iran's regional neighbors that didn't have nuclear weapons, and zero that do have nuclear weapons. One of those invasions (guess which!) should have been held in reserve for a country that posed a legitimate nuclear threat. Now we have no invasion forces in reserve, even as the physically biggest bully in the region is shown -- by actual evidence, not trumped-up BS -- to be rapidly pursuing nuclear technology. We have no reserve capability for an all-out assault, and nobody wants to just lob a handful of cruise missiles from a few hundred miles away and then pretend it's taken care of. Gee, if only someone had warned that this might be an outcome of Iraq. :doh: Iran raised an eyebrow at our bizarre preoccupation with Iraq in 2002-03, and a slow grin has been spreading across their face ever since. I seriously doubt that they're worried about any outcome that would resemble Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 You don't. You ram it up their ass just like they do with bailouts, and stimulus packages, and tax increases.The only time most politicians give a hoot in hell what the people think, is when they happen to agree with the politicians. Lets assume, for argument's sake, that you are right and we need to launch a military strike against Iran. Where do we get the troops to fight in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Or, do you think we should "pull a Clinton" and go with a few pinpoint airstrikes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Krauthammer writes for people who don't have a memory (or a brain). Several Months ago, he was writing about how Iran was refusing to conceed anything in talks, the Russians were in Abkhazia, and the Palestinians were sending rockets into Israel-all because Obama is weak. Nevermind that all of these things took place during the Bush Presidency, with Krauthammer first among the cheerleaders. Now Iran has agreed to let weapons inspectors in. Now there are no rockets being fired into Israel. Now the confrontation over Abkhazia has cooled off. So Krauthammer wants to ***** about something else and his mindless readers don't seem to remember what he wrote a mere 4 Months ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/19/AR2009021902579.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 You don't. You ram it up their ass just like they do with bailouts, and stimulus packages, and tax increases. Uh, the American people voted Democrats into a supermajority in the Senate, a massive majority in the House, and Obama stomped McCain in the electoral college. Democrats would be remiss to not employ the policies that they successfully ran on. I suggest Republicans like yourself lube up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.