Political Discussions
US Allies Want a Strong America, Not a Talkative One
Posted by anticsrocks • 9/26/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: foreign policy, iran, nuclear, nuke, obama, weak
It would seem that those of us on the right here in America are not the only ones who take a dim view of El Presidente's Foreign Policy.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy: "We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.
“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.
“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.
The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.
“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.
Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive."
If you add in the abandonment of the European Missile Shield, the fact that Iran, according to the AP has a NETWORK of nuclear facilities and all our great leader wants to do is sit down and talk...
Time to invest in a personal nuclear shelter of the kind that were popular during the cold war.
www.floppingaces.net/2009/09/26/french-president-tells-obama-we-live-in-the...
User Comments
-
BOO HOO. These "socialist nanny states" need to sack up and pitch in for a change
-
Pitch in for what? Afternoon Tea? All Obama wants to do is talk.
-
seems like we are fighting a... um... overseas contingency?
But, in general, Europe needs to be responsible for it's own defense. -
That may well be, but there are certain countries that cannot stand up to the likes of a superpower such as Russia. And Putin is showing all the signs of heading back into another cold war, or at least wanting to.
I really don't think Obama will have the stones to put teeth into any policy directed towards Iran. And if it isn't a matter of a lack of conviction, then he really is so arrogant that he thinks he can talk them into de-nuclearizing...de-nuking...standing down? Oh bother! Whatever the proper term is. -
It seems that NATO is supposed to provide for the common defense of Europe... even if we are somehow involved in that
-
That may be, but you know as well as I do what role America plays on the world stage. Well maybe I ought to amend that to "what role America is supposed to play on the world stage."
I keep thinking back to that interview with Bin Laden where he said that when Clinton pulled us out of Somalia that our military was a "paper tiger." That is what prompted him to think about attacking America in a huge fashion. We are going to reap nothing good from this President's foreign policy of "talking." -
Bin Laden is an educated oil-brat. He knew full well of what we were and were not capable of before that.
He also knew, from his experience with the MAK during the Mujahadeen, that jingoism can bring down an empire
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Mujahideen_in_Afghanistan -
He is a smart man, I will give you that. As are most genocidal maniacs. But his saying it and knowing what we are capable of are two different things. Bin Laden acts as recruiter in chief for Al Qaeda, so pointing out that Clinton did the cut and run was tantamount to saying that America had no stomach for true conflict, at least in the eyes of his audience. I guess what I am saying is that Clinton's actions then and Obama's actions now are emboldening the Bin Ladens and Al Qaedas of the world.
-
how do you know that WE weren't the true intended audience. Osama saw first-hand what destroyed the evil empire of the USSR. Military ambition. If he wanted to destroy America, why not goad them into the same trap?
-
Bin Laden must love that we went into Iraq. It shows our limitations, costs trillions and limits us from further actions elsewhere. -
Xmarks, that has been my biggest problem with Iraq. It revealed our very real limitations. We still can exercise formidable power, but our ability to put and keep boots on the ground has been seriously questioned, at least as far as any conflict goes that has so little support for it that it is accompanied by tax cuts.
-
-
I am unable to find this quote anywhere but in the conservative blogosphere. It appears only in tendentious pieces that do not give the context of the conversation, so I am unable to figure out what Sarkozy's criticism actually was. Hence, I am unable to respond to the specific content of the OP.
Maybe that is beside the point, however, as this is one more talking point on the right. Only I'm not sure what concrete policies it's advocating. I just know what it's opposing: Obama. And like all the other criticism I've seen, it's doing so with flag-waving.
Is this part of right-wing drum-thumping for war? What exactly would be "a strong America" in this context? Should we either shoot or be quiet? I just don't get it.
If anyone has been paying attention to the actual content of the news, instead of sifting through it looking for a few harsh words from the president of another country who the right generally has little use for, they might have noticed a rather active foreign policy posture on the question of Iran. First there was the dropping of the missile shield program in the Czech Republic and Poland. And during this General Assembly week, we see Russia beginning to accept the notion of sanctions against Iran. And then we get the US pushing Iran hard on this new secret enrichment site, very hard.
We find ourselves in the middle of an interesting and high-stakes foreign policy story, and the pace at which it is unfolding is being driven to a large extent by the forceful actions of the Obama administration after a lot of quiet, behind-the-scenes work. And we suddenly get what from the right? Maybe this Telegraph blog post referred to in the piece the OP cites? blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100010499/barack-obama-president-pa... That piece is called "Barack Obama: President Pantywaist restores the satellite states to their former owner." Besides giving in to hyperbole on an epic scale, it totally misses the point of the diplomatic chess game Obama has been playing.-
I notice too that the OP says, "all our great leader wants to do is sit down and talk." This is a patent falsehood. It repeats a trope developed last year during the primary and general election campaigns. The Clinton campaign used it for a bit, but the real advocates were the Bush administration and the McCain campaign.
-
First of all, you don't really think the MSM would cover Sarkozy's comments when they are negative towards Obama, do you?
And secondly, Obama's willingness to talk is not in question, it is his willingness to back up any talking that he might do with (if it were to become necessary), action. It is not a patent falsehood, unless you are calling me a liar? Are you? Never-the-less, I will go waaay out on a limb and say that if, God forbid it comes down to it, Obama does not have the stones to take action in any form to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. He knows what they will do with them, but he is soft on foreign policy and our allies know this. THAT is what the OP is about.
And lastly, you refer to "forceful actions of the Obama administration." Care to either elaborate or offer some proof? Or more likely, this is just conjecture on your part. -
personally, I think this is a non-issue. the European countries can afford their own missles
-
@Agit8r:
I can't comment on whether or not it is a non-issue, since I have no idea what the issue was. I clicked back through a loop of tendentious articles to a newspaper link that was dead, and Google searches for the content of key sentences only led to other right-wing blogs or comments by right-wing readers in actual newspapers. I don't have a date for the remarks either.
Without the context to Sarkozy's remarks, I just have another French president doing what they do well, striking a reasonably independent diplomatic posture. Whether or not that posture leads to actual results is another matter. The Yugoslavian Wars did not give me confidence, but a few things have changed since then.
@Antics:
You mean my choice of news is either the conservative blogosphere or MSM? I'm doomed.
I have already enumerated the actions on the part of the Obama administration that I consider relevant. You can pull details from any decent newspaper from the past couple weeks.
On a side note, I am unable to read what your new red avatar says. Maybe others can't either. Dunno. -
Sarkozy needs to stop eating cheese and being a surrender monkey
-
I don't have a problem with any criticism from Sarkozy. I do have a problem with quotes I can't verify and get the context of.
DIgging a little further, I noticed Sarkozy using related language when talking about differences at the last G20 regarding economic stimulus and regulation, with Obama pushing more for the former and Sarkozy the latter: "nous, on ne se contente pas d'en parler, on la fait." (www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2009/04/01/a-londres-barack-obama-minimise-...). He seems to like using this rhetorical tool.
-
-
I've tried starting threads on foreign policy issues here before. The only ones that draw interest are those started by others who raise the specter of war or an opportunity to take meaningless shots at Obama. Foreign policy is about much more than that.
-
Yes, though I really don't see how Obama will turn out well in this regard. It's been fun watching atheists make Obama the messiah though. And they didn't even need miracles!
-
-
Speaking of decontextualized quotes, Sakozy said not to long ago “We want to give negotiation every chance. If that works, then great. If that leads nowhere, then that won't be without consequences.”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez both praised Sarokozy's slam though.-
NIce.
-
-
Polybore used to be quite a fan of Sakozy. Polybore wrote about France and Sarkozy filling the diplomatic void left by a discredited US and UK some time ago.
www.polybore.co.uk/2008/07/france-demonstrates-her-influence-on.html
W Bush was terrible at diplomacy which does not equate to being strong.
This is significant becasue Sarkozy no doubt enjoyed the fact French diplomacy was catching the news in the absense of US diplomacy. The US engaging in diplomacy, as it is now, is likely to irk Sarkozy.
Things have changed now and the US has something of a clean sheet following the election of a new president. As polybore now thinks that Sarkozy is something of aa arse his comments are most likely due to Obama taking the limelight other than anything more sustantial.
Having said that had Sarkozy accused Obama of dithering over Afghanistan, then polybore would have agreed with him.
If you think polybore is being unfair on Sarkozy have a think about a recent visit he made to a French factory. Now Sarkozy is a short man so for the photo shoot he had his aids select the shortest factory workers so he would look tall.-
If I hadn't already called him a cheese-eating-surrender-monkey, I would now compare him to Napolean. But, having done so I would seem a tad inconsistant
-
Rumor has it that Napoleon was taller.
-
both are into tall women.
I wonder who is taller, him or Putin? -
I wonder if you could get away with starting a Wikipedia page on the height of world leaders or if it would get deleted for insignificance.
-
just think if McCain had won the whole deal would be a lot murkier
-
In terms of shortness or creepiness?
-
well, I was thinking height-wise...
-
-
At a recent conference with a politcal diplomat, Obama was asked "we see you are trying to establish a new health care plan, but no-one understands what you are trying to accomplish" "what we want to know is why Americans are raising up signs as you as Hitler?" Obama side stepped the question and went on to talk.-
Well, it would have been very awkward for him to answer that one. I see this country divided more now than under Bush 43.
-
What is a political diplomat. Is a coversation with one person a conference? Did this ever happen at all?
HAving said that Polybore has been wondering why a handful of idiots have been holding up those contemptable signs.
They show contempt for the office of President of the USA and a total disregard for the millions of people who were murdered by or died fighting the Nazis.
It seems this was all started by a chap called Lyndon LaRouche who anoungst other things seems to think that Queen Elizabeth II is in charge of the global illegal drugs trade. Which is probably the only thing that Lyndon LaRouche and polybore might agree on.
Well have you seen her bling? -
What is a political diplomat? Is a coversation with one person a conference? Did this ever happen at all?
Having said that Polybore has been wondering why a handful of idiots have been holding up those contemptable signs.
They show contempt for the office of President of the USA and a total disregard for the millions of people who were murdered by or died fighting the Nazis.
It seems this was all started by a chap called Lyndon LaRouche who anoungst other things seems to think that Queen Elizabeth II is in charge of the global illegal drugs trade. Which is probably the only thing that Lyndon LaRouche and polybore might agree on.
Well have you seen her bling? -
So no source, not context, no names of countries. No idea if this happened. Just throw it out there, as in "I heard . . ." Feed the rumor mill.
-
And why do they compare him to Hitler?
-
"So no source, not context, no names of countries. No idea if this happened. Just throw it out there, as in "I heard . . ." Feed the rumor mill."
For those of us who actually watch the news, it was covered. But you are right, the source gives no names, mentions no country, he just throws it out there feeding the rumor mill. Very perceptive, mark.
www.alan.com/2009/09/27/coulter-liberals-responsible-for-comparing-obama-to...
Well, I will let you judge as to the believability of this source since it is being told by El Presidente and his truthfulness track record is pretty poor.
"And why do they compare him to Hitler?"
Because he is a proponent of socialism. Hitler was a proponent of socialism, so that is where the comparison lies. During Bush 43's Presidency, the left did the same thing to him. You will always have idiots out there that will do anything for attention. Like give a speech and offer anecdotes about comments made, but offer no names or mention no country. -
Fail. Just because Nazism is an abbreviation for National Socialism, you cannot say that Hitler was a proponent of socialism. No way. Nohow. Unless you are rewriting the past in your image of the present, which seems to happen all too often these days.
-
Hitler was not a socialist? What was he, then?
Dr. John J. Ray, PhD would disagree. He has this to say about Hitler:
"A modern Leftist
Let us look at what the Left and Right in politics consist of at present. Consider this description by Edward Feser of someone who would have been a pretty good Presidential candidate for the modern-day U.S. Democratic party:
He had been something of a bohemian in his youth, and always regarded young people and their idealism as the key to progress and the overcoming of outmoded prejudices. And he was widely admired by the young people of his country, many of whom belonged to organizations devoted to practicing and propagating his teachings. He had a lifelong passion for music, art, and architecture, and was even something of a painter. He rejected what he regarded as petty bourgeois moral hang-ups, and he and his girlfriend "lived together" for years. He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and collaborators, and took the view that a man's personal morals were none of his business; some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have been homosexual or bisexual. He was ahead of his time where a number of contemporary progressive causes are concerned: he disliked smoking, regarding it as a serious danger to public health, and took steps to combat it; he was a vegetarian and animal lover; he enacted tough gun control laws; and he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill.
He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to take large-scale economic decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former communists found his program highly congenial. He deplored the selfish individualism he took to be endemic to modern Western society, and wanted to replace it with an ethic of self-sacrifice: "As Christ proclaimed 'love one another'," he said, "so our call -- 'people's community,' 'public need before private greed,' 'communally-minded social consciousness' -- rings out.! This call will echo throughout the world!"
The reference to Christ notwithstanding, he was not personally a Christian, regarding the Catholicism he was baptized into as an irrational superstition. In fact he admired Islam more than Christianity, and he and his policies were highly respected by many of the Muslims of his day. He and his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state. They also considered the possibility that Christianity might eventually have to be abandoned altogether in favor of a return to paganism, a worldview many of them saw as more humane and truer to the heritage of their people. For he and his associates believed strongly that a people's ethnic and racial heritage was what mattered most. Some endorsed a kind of cultural relativism according to which what is true or false and right or wrong in some sense depends on one's ethnic worldview, and especially on what best promotes the well-being of one's ethnic group
There is surely no doubt that the man Feser describes sounds very much like a mainstream Leftist by current standards. But who is the man concerned? It is a historically accurate description of Adolf Hitler. Hitler was not only a socialist in his own day but he would even be a mainstream socialist in MOST ways today. Feser does not mention Hitler's antisemitism above, of course, but that too seems once again to have become mainstream among the Western-world Left in the early years of the 21st century. See here for more on that."
So I ask you again, if Hitler was not a socialist, what was he? To come back and say that he was a dictator won't do it, either.
Fail right back atcha. -
Hitler was for a planned economy and a strong welfare state. This is one way to define "socialism," but hardly the classical one.
-
Germany's socialists where the Nazis opponents and because of this they were sent to the concentration camps and were amoungst the first victims of the holocaust.
Dr. John J. Ray jonjayray.blogspot.com/ does not, suffice to say, come to that conclusion from a position that even remotely resembles objectivity. -
Indeed, Polybore. Anyone quoting that "source" is not interested in anything even remotely resembling the truth of history and is, in fact, desecrating it.
And Antics, you need to review fair use doctrine and quit copying other people's text. Quoting shorter chunks and adding a link for further reference will suffice. Otherwise you put BC in a position where it is earning revenue from plagiarized text. -
AntiL: That is a half truth at best. The hitler image is used because it is a scary person who basically took over the country and then started the death machines. The hitler image appeals to a base level of fear. Not so much a fear of socialism but a fear of camps, ethnic cleansing and war.
-
@mark...I didn't realize you worked for BC. Otherwise why would you care? If I do something wrong, I am sure you will report me, you always have in the past, or a BC moderator will inform me if I violate any rules.
Why do you feel the need to be referee or den mother or whatever you term you want to use? If you aren't commenting on something I post, just leave me alone.
@xmarks...I was just trying to answer your question. Bush was not a socialist either, and the left did the same to him. But I think in Obama's case, there is much more reason for the comparison. I will give you the fear factor on that one, though. -
anticsrocks Using your Hitler comparison yard stick ie Obama then Tony Blair must also be Nazi, The UK must be a Nazi state and also most of Europe. Even Polybore's cat must be Nazi (which would explain the goose stepping).
Have you ever heard the story about the boy who cried "Wolf"? -
poly, what exactly is my Hitler comparison that you are mocking? I don't recall making any posters of El Presidente with a tiny black mustache. But really, what is my comparison? Did you even read the paper by the author I cited? Or is this just another chance to mock Americans?
Have you ever heard the story about the boy who thought he was better than everyone else? I believe his name was Narcissus. His vanity brought him very bad fortune. And I believe that people who ONLY refer to themselves in the third person must be at the height of vanity. -
"But I think in Obama's case, there is much more reason for the comparison"
How do you think polybore was able to supply the link to the authors blog ie Dr. John J. Ray, PhD. Polybore read it and, to put it into context, the rest of the authors blog.
According to him the average IQ of a black man is the equivalent of a white 11 year old also he thinks support for political parties is genetic.
Polybore would not approve of any comparison of Bush with Hitler nor do they approve of comparisons between Obama and Hitler. Apart from the fact in both instances it is patently untrue the constant use of the Hitler tag will eventually over time reduce Hitler's infamy.
At some point in the future someone is going to make the Hitler comparison and be right but the comparison will have been so over used people are going to overlook the warning. Rather like the boy who cried "Wolf".
Polybore does not quite agree with your Narcissus jibe. Pompous, patronising and boring would be a more accurate assessment. -
We seem to have a continuing contest in the U.S. right now where if one side does something wrong, it makes it ok for the other side to do something wrong. This type of logic will only lead all of us to be at our worst.
I did not care for the Bush/Hitler theme either. -
"Polybore does not quite agree with your Narcissus jibe. Pompous, patronising and boring would be a more accurate assessment."
Don't be so hard on yourself.
@xmarks...I don't say that because it was done to Bush it is okay for it to be done to Obama. I was only pointing out the why's as I see them. -
@antics:
Holding up a PhD to impress another PhD is not gonna work. And at least make it a history PhD, preferably one in modern European history. Even then, I haven't found that pointing to my own degrees amounted to an argument.
Have you looked at the guy's bio? ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-am-i-by-john-ray-quick-summary-i.html He's even an apologist for Pinochet, though, of course, he hates Hitler, but for his supposed leftism. Impossible for any historian to take this guy seriously, which is why you won't find peer-reviewed history books or articles written by him.
Anyway, read up on some European history written and documented by actual historians, and when you do, try to take it on its own terms, without stuffing it all into your own contemporary categories of perception. For starters, turn to a college textbook and then follow the reading suggestions from there. Or if you want to dig straight into Hitler, you could do worse then to examine Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship. Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation. -
@mark...I'm sorry. Did you say something?
-
-
wp
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
