"That's kind of like getting out there on the playground with a bunch of kids ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead and punch me in the face, and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to me.'"
More grist for John McWhorter's theory that Sarah Palin is childish.
৯ এপ্রিল, ২০১০
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
২৯৩টি মন্তব্য:
293 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»The last Palin comment thread went 325+. Can we break 400 with this one?
wv: pegan - a pagan vegan
"Obama would be received as the "coolest" president in American history, despite not playing the saxophone. As events in Iowa have demonstrated, he could help galvanize political participation among younger people in a way that Senator Clinton, with all of her pluses, never could."
From the inestimable John McWhorter, making the case for Obama.
C'mon, AlphaSockPuppet, this is what you're paid to do, let's get the ball rolling!
The KISS principle.
She's stupid, and she's keeping is simple.
Obama and his fans all laugh themselves to sleep.
And yet Palin's message gets across effectively.
As I said, KISS.
We just need to figure out now, who the real stupid people are.
Palin's so stupid. A much better analogy would be "Go ahead and punch me in the face, and I'm not going to retaliate as long as you're in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty". Big difference there, sweetheart.
The woman has a contemptible lack of nuance.
"From the inestimable John McWhorter, making the case for Obama."
On the contrary, he's quite estimable.
wv:converdi - A pleasant afternoon at the Met.
"... that Sarah Palin is childish."
Sarah makes a very easy to understand analogy that both adults and children instantly can visualize.
It's not her first (death panel).
That is her beauty as a (non)politician. She can cut through the bullshit and tell it like it really is.
It's pretty evident that Barack Obama doesnt' much like America. He's begging others to attack us - and announcing ahead of time that we will not defend ourselves.
What a dumbass thing to do.
"The woman has a contemptible lack of nuance."
She's so rich with irony.
wv:fulacrac - that too.
"I'm not going to retaliate as long as you're in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
So, Barack Obama would only nuke our friends India, Pakistan and Israel?
What kind of a stupid fucking position is that to announce that the only people you'd nuke are our allies?
As my friend Rahm Emmanuel says: "That's fucking retarded."
Welcome to the Dark Side, Rialby. :)
Well as I said in a previous thread, Obama is now making it safe for our enemies to bring a knife to a gun fight.
"I'm not going to retaliate as long as ..."
And let's get something straight.
Barack Obama would never retaliate. He's too pussy.
Now, Mi' Chelle ... she'd probably retaliate. She got some Klingon blood in her. Hell she'd probably strike first. Ka' Pla biotches!
But Barack is his momma's boy.
(The One Who Fitfully Uses Word Check)
Love her/Hate her...I would think we'd all agree, even the Liberals.
She's NOBODY....the POTUS does not argue with NOBODIES.
By attacking her, Obama makes her SOMEBODY.
I think it’s bad political stratgery, myself….
I believe the phrase is do not argue down…and the goal of the lesser is to “insult up”.
The thing I love about being libertarian is that I can advocate limited government and fiscal restraint, while at the same time telling James Dobson and Maggie Gallagher to fuck off.
wv:holib - Nancy Pelosi
Kids aren't big on analogies.
The first trope they can manage is sarcasm, and that only in their teens.
Joe and Hoosier, very good points.
"(Palin is) NOBODY....the POTUS does not argue with NOBODIES."
That there is some fine liberal gibberish. A sentence that is self-refuting.
What Joe said--politically foolish to pick a fight--like arguing with trolls as it turns out.
The Obama nuke policy was discussed many threads down, so this likes primarily like a Palin post that will generate many hits.
If Sarah Palin really was a nobody:
Reporter: "Mr. President, Sarah Palin today accused you of ..."
Hussein: "Wait, who is Sarah Palin?"
Because nuclear nonproliferation treaties are *just* like kids fighting! I can totally see Palin negotiating with the Russians. She could say "that's bogus", or "that's cool!". I would feel much safer with Palin in charge of our nuclear codes when Putin rears that head of his in our airspace.
I think it's a great analogy, because kids on playgrounds get into scuffles all the time. Placing yourself as the potential victim doesn't work because adults don't (aren't supposed to) resort to violence, but kids do, so Palin's analogy is quite apt.
Kids aren't big on analogies.
The first trope they can manage is sarcasm, and that only in their teens.
Not so. Analogies and more complex, less concrete thinking develop in pre-adolescence, starting around 9 or 10, depending on the individual. You're right about sarcasm not being fully employed until the teens, meaning younger kids rarely will use sarcasm themselves. That doesn't mean they don't understand it much earlier, because they do -- considering how sarcasm passes for humor these days, it's hard to imagine a 4th or 5th grader who doesn't understand sarcasm.
Sorry to be a pedant, I'm in the midst of an adolescent behavior course -- after this one, only one more to go and I'll be done with my teacher certification classes. (Student teaching looms on the horizon.)
"... so this likes primarily like a Palin post that will generate many hits."
This will top 240 owing to the unhinged rantings of three liberals who are paid by the Democrat Party to post anti-feminist screeds on this blog.
You want childish, I give you ... Barack Obama. Or Ahmadinejad. Or Joe Biden. Or any of the other fake macho DIMocrats running their mouths these days.
By attacking her, Obama makes her SOMEBODY.
I think it’s bad political stratgery, myself….
Not when you subscribe to an ideology that doesn't tolerate dissent it isn't. Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and the rest have the exposure they do because the idiot left provides it. Maybe the reason no one pays attention to the frothing Keith Olberman and Mr. Rachel Maddow is because conservative politicians ignore them. Did Bush ever feel the need to respond to one of Olberman's rants? Or Maddow's?
But for Obama, Palin is nothing more than a heretic that must be denounced at any opportunity because his fragile ego can't withstand not having the last word.
What Joe said (not in its entirety)
This is a foolish fight for Mr Obama to pick--he doesnt have to respond for another two plus years.
The man just isnt too smart.
The policy itself was discussed further down--looks like a Palin post designed as Scott says to generate hits.
"Because nuclear nonproliferation treaties are *just* like kids fighting!"
So true.
Barack Obama is that pussy in the schoolyard who refuses to defend himself because he's afraid of getting beat up.
Michelle should really pull Barack Obama aside and explain to him that this is a horrible example he is setting for his two daughters - who will likely be the repeated victims of date rapists if they follow his example of how to defend yourself.
Ham, I'm positive that AlphaLiberal is a DNC surrogate sock puppet. Not sure of the rest of them.
(If even one dime of tax money went to AlphaLiberal's salary, it would be a MAJOR scandal.)
I would feel much safer with Palin in charge of our nuclear codes when Putin rears that head of his in our airspace.
This just in: The Cold War is over! We won. They lost.
This is a foolish fight for Mr Obama to pick--he doesnt have to respond for another two plus years.
Roger, he was asked this idiotic question from Stephanopoulos. What was he supposed to say? "Never heard of her?"
This just in: The Cold War is over! We won. They lost.
Correct! hence, this treaty. You know, loose nukes and all that....
If Sarah Palin really was a nobody:
Reporter: "Mr. President, Sarah Palin today accused you of ..."
Hussein: "Wait, who is Sarah Palin?"
EXACTLY, New Ham....she's a nobody and that's the answer he ought to give.
INSTEAD he attacks her....you make my point for me.
Plus, this is just after it comes out that POTUS did not examine the nuclear SIOP for months after the Inauguration. Opening up POTUS to the Palin rejoinder, "Well at least I'd have examined the SIOP within a day of assuming office."
"What was he supposed to say? "Never heard of her?"
He's not smart enough to come up with that good of a quip. No teleprompter in interviews.
You're quicker with a pithy quip than Hussein is, Garage.
Shuudddddddderrrrrrr!
Like moths to flame, such is the effect of Palin's name to a lefty.
Looks like the first has already checked in.
"INSTEAD he attacks her....you make my point for me."
No, dude, sadly you're making my point.
He must respond to her punches because she is somebody and she's bloodying his nose.
If Sarah was nobody, he could afford to say: "Wait now, who is Sarah Palin."
But he can't. She's on the front page more than he is nowadays.
And she's jabbing effectively.
DOWN GOES HUSSEIN! DOWN GOES HUSSEIN!
@Scott, concerning your comment at 9:21, probably yes.
A more detailed reading of the treaty provided by Peter D. Feaver, a Republican who was on the National Security Council, appeared in the NYT this morning. It reveals the gross exaggeration of the playground analogy given the clause that "the United States reserves the reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapon threat." Feaver concludes," ...a careful reading of the policy shows that he (Obama) is duly wary of selling out the national security of the United States."
It seems that taunts that work on the playground of politics, don't hold up when school is in session.
The last Palin comment thread went 325+. Can we break 400 with this one?
I don't think so. The Stevens' retirement thread will siphon away interest.
@ Hoosier Daddy said...
Well as I said in a previous thread, Obama is now making it safe for our enemies to bring a knife to a gun fight.
Good analogy. Well, maybe.
At <6 feet, I'd take a knife over a gun if both parties are armed.
Between 6 and 15 feet I take a pistol - I'm a pretty good shot.
Between 15 and 40 feet I take a shotgun.
Between 40 feet and 100 yards I take my AR/FN.
Over 100 yards any of my hunting rifles.
So, yeah, fights are tricky, and you have to prepare for lots of variables. And announcing what you will and won't do just helps the other guy. Funily enough, this is a calculus I am sure Palin can do better than Obama.
Also, generally, Sarah has/is raising several children. Obama hasn't really, and certainly isn't now. So this may have been a weird analogy for him. Though I suspect "Barry" got beat up a lot as a kid.
-XC
The games afoot.The nuclear arsenal and our free use of it is what made the victorious USA into the world's co-Super Power. Then the USSR said "no mas" to Reagan's jokes to start the Bombing leaving the USA alone. That has made the USA into the dominant world force that restricts regional much desired wars all over the place(Pax Americana). Obama wants to correct that horrible unfairness...why he says just turn over all nukes to the UN and no one will ever need to fight again. That is not a sincere position. It is a masked surrender to the Destroy America winds blowing out of Mecca. Obama just proved that he is a muslim. Israel had better buckle up for another war with the Arabs.
Why doesn't Sarah just call Obama a booger or doody head? That's what it really all boils down to.
I betcha Sarah couldn't explain how Obama's nuclear strategy differs in letter or in spirit from Saint Ronnie Reagan's. That's because there is no difference.
But let's not let facts get in the way of unbridled idiocy.
One of the key skills and the most important part of closing any sale is to make simple analogies and examples that bring the product (in my case investments and investment strategies) into a frame of reference that your client can relate too. (Wanna hear my how a mutual fund is like a bag of microwave popcorn analogy?)
You need to do this in a way that is simple, contains some humor and doesn't condescend to your audience.
Palin is a master at this.
Obama tries it with his stick about Armageddon and asteroids and making joke about planting seeds. (couldn't find it on Youtube). He comes across as mean spirited, snobbish and condescending.
Epic fail as a salesman.
Garage: IMO he picked a fight that was entirely avoidable--Stephanopolous is a nitwit as is most of the white house press corps. Mr Obama could have simply could have said something like that is Ms Palin's view, asked for the next question--When the president permits himself to be baited by the press for what seems to me to be transient reasons, he gives up the bully pulpit.
Not to defend Obama or to attack Palin -- I'm on her side in this fight -- but I can't help observing that in another context, one purportedly dear to her heart, the same non-action would be regarded as sacred.
"Why doesn't Sarah just call Obama a booger or doody head?"
Because she's calling him a pussy instead - which is much more emasculating, don't you think?
And how did President Pussy respond: Like all pussies do: He whined.
This is an idiotic statement by the former half-term Governor of Alaska. It truly belies an infantile mind.
She's a blithering idiot. The culmination of decades of Republican anti-intellectualism.
You might say the turkeys have come home to rest.
Obama, questioned on this dumb statement:
"I really have no response. Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues."
That Sarah Palin is a shining light of the Republican Party speaks volumes about their massive intellectual deficit.
God help us all if she starts using metaphors....the 24-hour news cycle will no longer be able to contain the overanalysis.
How is this appreciably different from Leon Trotsky's "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you?"
Ha found the clip
The other key element in selling something is to overcome objections. This means you need to address seriously the concerns of your audience and show them where their fears are unfounded. In my case if I can't overcome the objections, even though I'm sure that my course is the best, I must adhere to my client's wishes.
Instead of "selling" or persuading, Obama is supercilious, rude and dismissive. Doing an unattractive obscene victory dance in the end zone while the majority of the US population is looking on full of fear and objections.
Of course, he really isn't selling anything. He is just jamming it down our unwilling throats so he doesn't even have to pretend, like a good used car salesman might, that he even gives a shit about what we think.
Palin may be putting her summations of our fears and objections in simpler analogies, but she is much more effective in reaching the audience than Obama.
So tell us again, who is the great communicator?
Criticize Palin all you want. Laugh at her all you want. Dehumanize and debase her all you want.
Just remember who got elected to be a heart beat away from the presidency- Joe Biden, the dumbest White man in America.
Palin has more brains written on her hand than Biden has in his hair plugs.
A L...Could you define "Blithering Idiot " for me? Your superior intellect must be able to define your favorite response to everything the next President of the United States says. BTW, it is almost time to get that campaign contribution from you which you promised to encourage the GOP to nominate her as a sure loser.
Since Mr Obama does pick his nose in public booger might be appropriate (I kid)
As to Mr Voltaire's point, no nation binds itself exclusively to a treaty and all treaties can be aprogated if situations dictate (or ignored entirely in the case of the disarmament treaties of the 1920s and the Molotov-von Ribbentrop non-agression treaty (1940. Nazi Germany still invaded Russia. Treaties, IMO, have little effect when one's national interest as at stake. Your understanding may of course differ, but I think I have some history on my side of the position.
Obama's treaty and approach to nuclear weapons are basically the same as Ronald Reagan's.
A) They both seek/sought the ultimate elimination of these weapons of mass destruction.
B) They both had treaties with around 30% reduction in nuclear stockpiles.
The right wing reaction demonstrates how they have no principle save to be anti-Obama and anti-Democrats. That's it. They sure don't criticize Reagan for doing the same thing!
Anything Obama will do they will oppose, with distortion, dishonesty and lies.
lest I get hoisted on the spelling petard--treaties are Abrogated
i found sarah's analogy unhelpful. is she comparing the US to a child in a fight ? why are we talking about children fighting ? are we encouraging kids in school to fight ? that's what i thought when i watched the youtube clip.
when i read sarah's analogy, the first thing that came to mind was the Bible's 'turn the other cheek' ... and then Martin Luther King and the Civil Right's movement ....
... she gave obama an opportunity to explain in layman's terms why she was so wrong. especially given that so many people follow her, i wish he had taken it and explained. or at least referenced that Reagan pursued exactly the same course.
Traditional Guy:
"A L...Could you define "Blithering Idiot " for me? "
Granted, I should have said "mendacious" as the blithering is a given for the former half-term Governor. Someone who says things like:
* "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin
* "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." –-Sarah Palin
* "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads.
* "Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ―" --Sarah Palin, unable to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade
* "We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. ... We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."
* "[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin
* "Who calls a shot like that? Who makes a decision like that? It's a disturbing trend." –Sarah Palin, pushing a conspiracy theory that "In God We Trust" had been moved to the edge of coins by the Obama administration
* "I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." --Sarah Palin
Supposedly, she is an energy "expert:"
*“Oil and coal? Of course, it’s a fungible commodity and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules, where it’s going and where it’s not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first.” –Sarah Palin
“Perhaps so.” –Sarah Palin, when asked if we may need to go to war with Russia because of the Georgia crisis
"Obama, questioned on this dumb statement: "I really have no response. Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues."
Once again, Obama proves that he just doesn't get it. But then again, Obama is not much of an expert on anything if he thinks this is about nuclear issues.
It isn't.
That he has to be told that is dumbfounding. It's about strength and the projection of it.
Obama is the product of years of Code Pink lefty wussyism.
“In what respect, Charlie?” –Sarah Palin, after being asked if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine
“We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.” –Sarah Palin, in her speech at the Republican Convention, quoting the fascist right-wing columnist Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist and anti-Semite who once expressed his hope that Robert F. Kennedy would be assassinated
“As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” –Sarah Palin
Palin-Bachmann 2012, baby!
A L...Palin is not talking about building less nukes and mothballing delivery systems as you compare to Reagan's engagement with a other single world power using Star Wars interceptors as the trump card. Palin is talking to Obama's attitude that the USA will now gladly give away any advantage the former power called the USA ever had if the rest of the world swears on their Mom's grave to behave and turn in their nukes to the UN. In practice that means Israel. Don't act ignorant. You are close to entering Blithering Idiot territory.
"Absolutely not. I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that ... that would ... bring this whole ... I'm not doing this for naught."
Sarah Palin
Contrast this with:
'When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, "Man, that doesn't do us any good, women in politics, or women in general, trying to progress this country."'
Sarah Palin
Damn Alpha--nearly six recycled talking points in a row--you ever have an original thought?
"Palin-Bachmann 2012, baby!
vs.
Biden-Pelosi perhaps?
Because Barack Obama isn't going to make it to 2012. He's going to be impeached and convicted in 2011 for committing high crimes and misdemeanors (bribery and extortion).
Roger, he was asked this idiotic question from Stephanopoulos. What was he supposed to say? "Never heard of her?"
Actually that might have been a pretty good response.
Correct! hence, this treaty. You know, loose nukes and all that....
Well from what I read, Palin wasn't ripping on the treaty with the defunct Soviet Union but Obama's new policy that says if you sign a non-proliferation treaty and only attack us with chemo or bio weapons, we won't nuke you in return.
Like I said, he made it safe to bring a knife to a gun fight.
"Alphaliberal, you ever have an original thought?"
Comment-bots aren't paid to think.
They're paid to copy and paste, then they surf for porn.
And here's more from the growing evidence that the Republican Party has drive all the people with brains or know how out in favor of dumb ass hacks.
Did you catch that? Anderson used ellipses to remove the part of the quote that disproves his entire claim. He removed the part that says "other than physicians' services," and then wrote, "That's the physician pay cut." .
Look, if Republicans want to get ahead by playing dumb it is only fair that we point out that they are being dumb.
Dumb and mendacious. Your modern conservative movement. And oddly proud on both counts!
Ham, you're an idiot making charges you can't back up.
Palin is ripping Obama for saying he'd only nuke our friends India, Pakistan and Israel, who are not in compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation farce.
That's fucking retarded and she called him on it and everybody in the media covered her remarks because they agree it was a stupid thing for Obama to do.
If the press agreed with Obama, they wouldn't embarrass him by covering this. They'd deep-six this. Instead, they're front-paging it to send a message to the regime that it made another dumb unforced error.
Damn Alpha--adding ellipses to a quote--sounds exactly like Maureen Dowd, that ace op ed writer for the NYT--got any more journalistic scandals for us to digest?
I betcha Sarah couldn't explain how Obama's nuclear strategy differs in letter or in spirit from Saint Ronnie Reagan's. That's because there is no difference.
Monty how about doing some fact checking before you type? It would really make you look less stupid.
For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Key term: For the first time - means this is a change from St. Ronnie's policy.
"You're an idiot making charges you can't back up."
Of course I can back them up, but really, I don't need to. You back them up for me by your actions - and it's plain for everyone to see.
That's why nobody takes your comments seriously. They laugh at you derisively because you're so horribly transparent about what you do.
Your posts do actual harm to your cause because they reveal the unclothed 3-foot man behind the curtain.
Bullshit, Ham. I back up my arguments. You don't really even engage in a dialog or debate, you just toss off insults and wild accusations.
Which makes you very typical!
Cool, AlphaSockPuppet is back with his talking points and invective. We'll top 400 for sure, assuming his masters haven't tasked him with phoning anonymous death threats or slashing tires this afternoon.
"You don't really even engage in a dialog or debate, you just toss off insults"
Hmmm. Let's review: In one commend, you called Sarah Palin:
1) Stupid
2) Idiotic
3) Infantile
4) Blithering Idiot
5) Anti-intellectual
So, remind me again who engages in name-calling and tossing off insults?
Project much?
You can't even comprehend that you are suffering from a serious mental defect.
Alpha do you think Obama is an idiot because he thinks they speak Austrian in Austria?
Or that corpsman is pronounced corpse-man?
Or that it takes 17 minutes to answer a simple yes or no question?
Or is that all different because Obama is in your camp? I mean just be honest Alpha. We know you're a shameless hack, why not show some integrity and just admit it?
When asked, The Zero said he didn't recognize Mrs. Palin as any kind of nuclear weapons expert.
OK, what makes him one?
Scott said...
C'mon, AlphaSockPuppet, this is what you're paid to do, let's get the ball rolling!
If your mother were here, she'd slap your hand for teasing.
garage mahal said...
Because nuclear nonproliferation treaties are *just* like kids fighting!
The analogy resonates with people, it's something everyone can understand.
I can totally see Palin negotiating with the Russians. She could say "that's bogus", or "that's cool!". I would feel much safer with Palin in charge of our nuclear codes when Putin rears that head of his in our airspace.
At least she's on our side.
Expat(ish) said...
...
Also, generally, Sarah has/is raising several children. Obama hasn't really, and certainly isn't now. So this may have been a weird analogy for him. Though I suspect "Barry" got beat up a lot as a kid.
Nah, he ran to teacher and said, "Teacher, teacher! They're all being racists again"
Dust Bunny Queen said...
One of the key skills and the most important part of closing any sale is to make simple analogies and examples that bring the product (in my case investments and investment strategies) into a frame of reference that your client can relate too. (Wanna hear my how a mutual fund is like a bag of microwave popcorn analogy?)
You need to do this in a way that is simple, contains some humor and doesn't condescend to your audience.
Palin is a master at this.
Mistress, actually; she is a lady, but your point is exactly why she will play Francis Marion to the Left's Banastre Tarleton as long as she is on the political scene.
AlphaLiberal said...
This is an idiotic statement by the former half-term Governor of Alaska. It truly belies an infantile mind.
She's a blithering idiot. The culmination of decades of Republican anti-intellectualism.
You might say the turkeys have come home to rest.
Obama, questioned on this dumb statement:
"I really have no response. Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues."
That Sarah Palin is a shining light of the Republican Party speaks volumes about their massive intellectual deficit.
In other words, you haven't got a rebuttal to what she said.
Obama's treaty and approach to nuclear weapons are basically the same as Ronald Reagan's.
A) They both seek/sought the ultimate elimination of these weapons of mass destruction.
B) They both had treaties with around 30% reduction in nuclear stockpiles.
Then all the talk from the administration and the Establishment Media was a lie to con the gullible Lefties into buying into the Change thing so his poll numbers would go up?
Why do you people even engage Alpha Liberal in this blog. You all know that he is a shill, sock puppet...whatever.
AL does not argue or debate in good faith. All he does is cut and paste canned 'talking points' and his entire purpose is to derail any real substantive discussion of any topic.
Once engaged we descend into an endless loop of fruitless, boring and repetitive talking point arguments.
Stop it.
You don't really even engage in a dialog or debate, you just toss off insults and wild accusations.
Wow. I do hope you have a lightning rod nearby you Alpha.
Jon Stewart nails the right wing lies on the Obama nuclear policy
My comedian can beat up your propaganda network.
Palin is so stupid. Degree holders from the better unis all know any analogy should take at least 17 minutes and cover all the usual talking points tangental and remote while managing to avoid addressing the central point. Then note with satisfaction all the listeners one has put to sleep. She's such a dumbass.
"My comedian can beat up your propaganda network."
OK kid you beat us ... what's next, quoting Conan? Is Barack with Coco?
Jesus liberals are so junior high school.
Can't wait to see Barack on Idol.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Hilarious thread.
DBQ:
"All he does is cut and paste canned 'talking points' and his entire purpose is to derail any real substantive discussion of any topic."
The hell I do. I write my original material and when I bring in stuff from other sites I carefully quote it.
for example, when I asked in the past couple days where the Tea Party movement ends and the militia movement begins, that was all mine, baby.
Again and again I come here and provide conservatives a chance to engage in informed and rational debate,. again and again all you can respond with is insults.
For example:
1) The Obama nuclear strategy provides for an exception in the case of biological attack or threat. (See Stewart video for text).
2) Using nuclear weapons in response to a cyberattack is a completely disproportionate response.
See also my comments above on Reagan's nuclear weapons goals and treaty. (10:24 AM)
I also backed up my allegation that Palin is a "blithering idiot" with numerous examples where she a) blathered and b) said idiotic things. (10:29 AM et al)
So, you're lying, DBQ, as facts that exist right here on this page clearly demonstrate. Honesty is clearly not a prized trait among conservatives.
Jon Stewart nails Obama on the economy!
My comedian just pwned your president.
Lets go Alpha, I can do this all the live long day ;-)
Roesch V tries: "It reveals the gross exaggeration of the playground analogy given the clause that "the United States reserves the reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapon threat." Feaver concludes," ...a careful reading of the policy shows that he (Obama) is duly wary of selling out the national security of the United States.""
Considering the language says the exact same thing for Russia, this treaty, like most treaties between adversaries in substance, is meaningless. What few teeth it had are now completely gone.
The Russians don't care one whit, they will continue as always to act in their own interests. In this case, their interest is Iran.
They are now free to hamper U.S. efforts elsewhere in their perceived sphere of influence. See: Russian-engineered rebellion in Kyrgyzstan which promptly started questioning a base critical to our effort in Afghanistan. Why do they want to do such a thing? Gain concessions from the U.S.. With their strength growing and ours waning through our self-loathing foreign policy, this becomes easier, especially meaningless treaties such as this one.
The Islamic theocacy in Iran may not like the Russians, but they respect them because they use what they understand - force and threat of force. They also have something to offer one another - Iran has oil which Russia can desperately use and Russia has the arms to pay for it. Iran also has the ability to utterly embarrass the west, which keeps neutering itself, this treaty being the latest example.
Obamas job as President is to maintain positions of strength for Americas foreign interests and to sell the people on his plans. He has achieved the opposite on the first account so far and made no progress on the second.
Palin however has quite nicely summed up the above situation with a simple analogy.
Obama has said that if the US is attacked with WMD (chemical, biological, or nuclear under the traditional definition), he won't retailiate with WMDs if the attacking nation hasn't signed the NPT. The US got rid of our biological weapons long ago. The remaining chemical weapons are old, decrepid, and awaiting destruction. They're no longer viable weapons. So, the only WMD we have to retialiate to a WMD attack are nuclear weapons, which Obama has promised not to use. That's something so stupid that only an intellectual would believe it's a good idea.
Obama's likely response to a WMD attack would be to:
1. Apologize to the attackers and ask them why they hate us.
2. Be even more hostile to our few remaining friends.
3. Treat it as a law enforcement matter (that worked so well for Clinton, didn't it).
Using nuclear weapons in response to a cyberattack is a completely disproportionate response.
Is it? says Who? A massive cyber attack that shuts down a nation's financial centers resulting in economic collapse? Medical records destroyed? Hospital computers no longer functioning? How many could die as a result?
Are you that ignorant that a cyberattack would be more than a virus that effects your stupid Facebook page?
You don't debate, you toss out talking points and label all conservatives as racist bigots when the real bigot is you.
3. Treat it as a law enforcement matter (that worked so well for Clinton, didn't it).
Next, he'd start denying visas to Israeli's.
Oh wait. He already does that.
Obama has announced that he would nuke Israel, Pakistan and India because they are not in compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation fig leaf.
I mean, how does the President of the United States announce that he would nuke Israel?
Are the Jews listening to this?
Do they hear this Holocaust threat that Obama has just issued against them?
I heard Obama say that Sarah Palin isn't an authority on nuclear issues. What in the world would make anyone believe Obama is an authority on nuclear weapons or anything else? The man has never done anything substancial in his life prior to the presidency and he's gone half the time from this current gig.
Who writes his teleprompter scripts, anyway?
"i found sarah's analogy unhelpful. is she comparing the US to a child in a fight ? why are we talking about children fighting ? [emphasis mine] are we encouraging kids in school to fight ? that's what i thought when i watched the youtube clip."
Are you really this dense?
I would say it's a fucking a n a l o g y to clue you in, but you already know it's an analogy. One can only conclude that you're a blithering idiot (to borrow a term).
Ultimately, this policy changes little or nothing - if we're hit, we'll respond as the POTUS of the day decides. From a perceptual standpoint, this is not a good time to being making other international actors, friends and foes alike, wonder what the US means and whether it is changing its policies. Obama likes to make mostly-empty gestures to his socialist/tranzi base, but he does not understand that all media is global and that even small words can have big consequences.
Like Obama, Palin is no expert on international affairs or nuclear policy (but unlike Obama, she was not a campus anti-war lefty loon), but she at least has the instincts to understand that international power politics is very much like the the playground, where the strong survive, the smart cut deals, and the weak or indecisive are punished. One assumes that Obama is still the shunned little kid with a poor grasp of Indonesian who had to make up imaginary friends.
Ooooh, BetaLib wants to bring up stupid things the losing Vice Presidential candidate and now private citizen Sarah Palin has said!!
I'll be back later to post stupid things the sitting President and Vice President have said. I wonder if BetaLib is going to go around all 57 states to criticize them as well!
See you later this afternoon...unless someone beats me to it.
Hossier - try "Smart Grid" attacked with a loss of power for everyone outside Texas (they have their own grid and a surplus of power). If the casualties are in the tens or hundreds of thousands, how is it NOT like a WMD attack?
Ultimately, this policy changes little or nothing - if we're hit, we'll respond as the POTUS of the day decides.
That may be true but it does send, IMO, a message that essentially tells them they can sign a NPT and have no fear of nuclear retaliation if they use chem/bio weapons. Of course its not binding but it certainly says a lot about his lack of knowledge about the severity of a chem/bio attack, particularly on an urban center.
Hossier - try "Smart Grid" attacked with a loss of power for everyone outside Texas (they have their own grid and a surplus of power
Well that's just another example of the massive devastation that can be wreaked on a nation without using a nuclear weapon. Like I said, I'm betting Alpha equates cyberattack with not being able to access Facebook.
Peter
Criticize Palin all you want. Laugh at her all you want. Dehumanize and debase her all you want.
Just remember who got elected to be a heart beat away from the presidency- Joe Biden, the dumbest White man in America.
I don't think you're being fair to non-White men there.
At least Palin is making an effort to explain it to the American public.
Has Obama made a speech about this-explaining his/America's new nuclear posture? {I know there's a joke here I'm not going for it.}
Or is it too difficult for the American public to understand? The American public is not worthy....
Let's see him get out there and defend his idea-no analogies please!
How about the British press surely they are sufficiently cerebral-here is how they "translated" Obama's Nuclear Posture, in this paragraph:
In a clear break from his predecessors Mr Obama committed the US to not launching a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear nation, even if that state had attacked America with biological or chemical weapons.
{timesonline.co.uk}
That doesn't stray from Palin's set up significantly.
So why doesn't Obama try to explain his new posture to the American people? He gives speeches on almost everything else-what is he afraid of?
The other point-which would be interesting- did Obama mention this scenario at all during his campaign for the Presidency?
I'm going to guess that he did not.
Well here let me give some people a head start. First search I did came up with this at wagingpeace.org:
Obama, Barack (D)
Date 3/2/2007
Location: Speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Forum
Category: Use of Nuclear Weapons
Quote:The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.
So candidate Obama did not trust the American public with his new Nuclear Posture agenda.
If you voted for Obama-were you wrong to think he would not do this?
Do you have a right to feel "tricked"?
"But when I moved to Chicago, I was living close to what was then Cominskey Park and went to a couple games and just fell in love." -- Barack Obama
Last year he called it Cominskey Field.
That my friends, is a blittering idiot.
Crap never mind as soon as I reread it-I see the damn loophole.
He has a "special" carve out for Iran and Korea.
If somehow we have a biological or chemical attack-which btw would most likely be suffered by our troops in theater-as long as that attacker is a "good faith" signatory of the non-proliferation treaty-it's all good.
Why the hell you would think a country that does that is a good faith actor and verbalize that presumption pre-emptively is beyond me.
AllenS-
Well hell for the first time someone in the press unknowingly called him on something...
It took a sportscaster to accidentally trip Obama up on something.
The American media is pathetic.
Hoosier Daddy said...
Using nuclear weapons in response to a cyberattack is a completely disproportionate response.
Is it? says Who?
You don't debate, you toss out talking points and label all conservatives as racist bigots ..."
You are advocating nuclear weapons against a PC somewhere? or a new iPad? Seems disproportional to me...
as to the conservatives being racists bigots... a bit redundant...let's just leave it as some are fools and let that dog go hunt somewhere else.
"Sarah Palin makes an analogy."
someone needs to tell her what she did in words she can understand ya'betcha. Otherwise she might get confused by the "anal" part of the word and there would be a lot of confusion ensuing.
You are advocating nuclear weapons against a PC somewhere? or a new iPad? Seems disproportional to me...
Had you read some of the posting rather than merely decided to snark....
A Cyber-Attack that shuts down the North East Powergrid, leaving Opus One Medi in the dark for three days, is NOT simply a "bad" PC.
And of curse a mis-read of "anal" might get barney Franks overly excited too....
If you want to make double entendres, rather than discuss.
I still think if you thought Obama was making a general policy statement when he said this-
And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table..
that you have a right to feel tricked.
The only way the loophole is more apparent is in hindsight after he has made his New Nuclear Posture statement.
####
hdhouse aka Opus
Exactly why when Althouse quoted Palin making Obama's statement-
bitterly clinging to their guns and religion
Into something positive-
proudly clinging to their guns and religion-
did you respond by calling for anyone to commit an act of violence on Palin?
Why did that anger you so much?
One lousy word change?
You are advocating nuclear weapons against a PC somewhere? or a new iPad? Seems disproportional to me...
That's because you're an idiot, and a slimball in a sea of pus. I have shoes that are smarter than you. The fact you can even type words that pass for sentences support a new theory that it wouldn't take chimpanzees 1000 years to type the works of Shakespeare.
Now go change your diaper cause its starting to smell in here.
A real question: With US unemployment rate near 18% (factor out census jobs), most States and Cities near Bankruptcy and the dollar about to collapse, why does Obama and his advisors focus every waking moment planning for disarming, disrespecting, and asserting descision making rights over Israel? The poor Jews there occupy an enclave the size of Delaware and only want peace. The Muslims are insanely committed to their immediate mass murder and looting. But we see Obama working night and day to make the Arabs wishes come true. Ergo, Obama is a B-grade Evil Dictator hiding inside an American President's puppet suit and speaking the ventriloguist's words coming out of of Soros and Feisal mouths. It is too late to fence sit this life or death matter decision. A choice between Palin's ways and Obama's ways needs to be made.
Palin's point would matter if Obama had not already destroyed any hope of a future for the US. With our federal debt load, out of control taxation, and 60 percent of the population who get a majority of their income from the federal government, its time to give up the sham, apologize to the brave men and women who once fought for freedom, and acknowledge that the US is just another stinking totalitarian shi*-hole. We don't need a Department of Defense, what is there to defend? What is the worse some foreign conqueror could force us to do - redeem T-bills with uninflated currency?
a pagan vegan
Isn't that redundant?
AlphaLiberal said...
Obama's treaty and approach to nuclear weapons are basically the same as Ronald Reagan's.
Putting aside whether this is true or not,-you said it so you think its true.
Therefore, are you should be willing to state that Reagan was a brilliant statesman--at least in this regard.
Joe said...
"A Cyber-Attack that shuts down the North East Powergrid, leaving Opus One Medi in the dark for three days, is NOT simply a "bad" PC."
OK Joe. This cyberattack comes. Computers are down all over. Internet is down. You are going to sent nukes against whom precisely? Even idiots know you can route through hundreds of servers and conceal IP locations..this isn't some TV program where Maggee solves the riddles of the universe with a few key strokes.
A nuclear retaliation against a cyber attack is crazy and you should know better. And suppose it is of Chinese origin?..but you can't figure it out to the GPS exactness...so instead of dropping a smart bomb or a cruise missle and taking out the dwelling and the person responsible you kill 20 million people instead.
That is why you guys are out of office. .. such deep thinking.
Does not matter - Obama is going to do what Obama is going to do anyway, and - if we ever get into a situation where nuclear weapons are a serious option - so is any later POTUS, regardless of any previous policy statements.
Good words DBQ. When the Sockpup turned to latch onto your ankle with his pointy puppy teeth, I wasn't completely confident you'd be able to shake him off without a reflexive swat. The Q belongs to you.
this isn't some TV program where Maggee solves the riddles of the universe with a few key strokes.
No it will be Dr. Evil and Frau Farbissima in their underground lair.
You really are the dumbest person the face of the Earth. Actually make that the dumbest piece of matter in this and all parallel universes.
Alpha Liberal's crabbiness today has to be due to a deep inner conflict. He knows Obama screwed up in his response to Palin on GMA, but he can't bring himself to admit it.
What would a more skilled politician have done with Palin's comment? Bill Clinton would have said something like, "I understand that many Americans, like Governor Palin, are genuinely concerned about our nation's security. I want to say to all of them that I believe this agreement enhances our security, and here are three reasons why..." and go from there.
But Obama can't do that. Palin, maybe she's not qualified to be president, but she has the best political instincts since Clinton. She has his same ability he had to sniff out weaknesses in her foes and lure them into making the same mistakes repeatedly -- triumphing without looking like a bully. Just as Clinton made Gingrich his bitch, Palin is making Obama hers, bit by bit. It's fun to watch if you're objective about it. But if you're defensive of Obama, it's got to be maddening.
(Sorry for the sort-of double comment. My first stab got caught in that "conflicting edits" thing, which usually means it's lost forever, so I reconstructed it. As so often happens, the second version was a little better and shorter, so I discarded the first one when I saw it had appeared after all.)
Hagar gets it right--This crap is all smoke and mirrors, and as Hobbes said so long ago: covenants without the sword are but words alone without the strength to bind.
We are stuck with Mr Obama for no more than 6 years and hopefully only 2 plus. At least we as a country were smart enough to pass the amendment limiting presidents to two terms
Alpha Liberal's crabbiness today has to be due to a deep inner conflict. He knows Obama screwed up in his response to Palin on GMA, but he can't bring himself to admit it.
Haha. Obama isn't capable of NOT "screwing up" anything. Nothing. And Palin is not capable of screwing up. Ever. If Palin were a liberal, she would be the laughingstock of every right blog in America. And you know it.
Obama: Always BHHHHHAD. *booooo*
Palin: Always Awesome!
Yawn.
I am not crabby today but crabby here. To confront the dishonesty and immorality of modern conservatism is, as we said in my youth, "a real downer, man."
Case in point: nuclear weapons. Conservatives don't give a second thought to mass murder by nuclear weapons - killing hundreds of thousands of people - even over something as out of proportion as a cyberattack.
At least Reagan understood that.
Then there's the part of trying to reason with people who are clearly incapable of honest and intelligent discourse.
You can't have a meeting of the minds with the brain dead.
Thing is, I don't think most conservatives are as dumb as they act. They seem to be under some kind of peer pressure not to give away they intelligence.
The last "mass murderer" using nuclear weapons was, as I think I read, a Democrat. I'm not sure whether or not Truman gave it a "second thought" or not, but it was he who ordered the bombs dropped on civilians. Hyperbole in political conversation is sometimes taken to be reality by people who do not inhabit the reality infected universe.
DBP:
Therefore, are you should be willing to state that Reagan was a brilliant statesman--at least in this regard. .
I am grateful for what controls on nuclear weapons Reagan put in place, even though increased the arms race in many other very costly ways, traded arms with the Iranians and conducted an illegal war in Central America.
And I know he pursued a nuclear arms treaty in large part because there was a very strong nuclear disarmament (freeze) movement.
Brilliant? Reagan? Uh, were you alive and old enough to observe the man?
treaties are Abrogated
It used to be called Indian-giving, but now we're politically correct.
Michael:
"The last "mass murderer" using nuclear weapons was, as I think I read, a Democrat. I'm not sure whether or not Truman gave it a "second thought" or not, but it was he who ordered the bombs dropped on civilians. Hyperbole in political conversation is sometimes taken to be reality by people who do not inhabit the reality infected universe."
Correct, Truman dropped two nukes. On civilians.
But I didn't use the term "mass murderer." I referred to the use of nuclear weapons as "mass murder" because conservatives lose sight of the fact of their terrible destructive power and the massive deaths they inflict. Do you deny that? Or just embrace it?
That's the reality missing the conversation, especially with the Ditz from Alaska compares it to a playground fight.
Using nuclear weapons is a horrific prospect. It doesn't make you more manly.
rh: Hitler (not godwin's law here) didnt need formal approval to abrogate the ussr german non agression treaty--he just launched operation barbarossa
So from what I'm reading around the web, conservatives think we should use nuclear weapons if a country launches a cyberattack on us.
How is that, in any way, moral?
Alpha--If I recall correctly, Harry Stearns Truman, whom I consider a really great president, said at some point (and I paraphrase), I never lost a moments sleep over my decision.
Would that the current incumbent had the balls that Mr Truman had. A man reviled by many at the time, stood firm in the face of communist aggression (Greece and Korea)--would we have more Mr Truman's in office.
And Alpha: war is never "moral" except in the larger context of survival. War is nasty business, or as William Sherman said, it is hell--but some times a necessary hell to preserve larger ends
"Brilliant? Reagan? Uh, were you alive and old enough to observe the man?"
Ha! I was old enough to have voted for him, but I didn't bother since it was obvious he would win easily both times.
I don't think Reagan was brilliant, but I assume you think Obama is and therefore by extension that Reagan was brilliant in this one regard.
Obama isn't capable of NOT "screwing up" anything. Nothing. And Palin is not capable of screwing up.
Dude, chill. I'm just trying to look at this political dust-up with a little objectivity. I'm not insulting your dear leader, nor signing up for Palin. The fact is, Palin is NOT a nuclear expert, and everyone, including I assume most of her biggest fans knows that. Obama's remark was needlessly redundant of a known fact, but it had the effect of calling attention to one of his own weaknesses (And we all have weaknesses, just so you don't get into a dither. I'm not saying Obama is "weak."), which is that he assumed the presidency with zero national security experience. But even more critically, he elevated her in this debate to a position that, objectively, she shouldn't have. The simple-mindedness of her comment was apparent to everyone, even people who, deep down, agree with her. If Obama's agreement had been criticized by, say, Sen. Richard Lugar, then he would have been forced to respond substantively. But to Palin? It was an unforced error.
Case in point: nuclear weapons. Conservatives don't give a second thought to mass murder by nuclear weapons - killing hundreds of thousands of people - even over something as out of proportion as a cyberattack.
AL, if that's what's making you crabby, then relax my boy. Conservatives aren't saying that. You're becoming unhinged.
I'm with Max Boot on this whole issue. It's unimportant. If Obama or any future president comes to the conclusion that the only way to protect this nation's vital interests or to prevent massive casualties is to use nuclear weapons, he or she will do so, period.
I do disagree with Obama's pledge not to modernize our weapons -- that's just stupid on its face, and I would find it hard to believe that AL or Garage really likes that idea, as sensible as they are. But Obama is only going to be president for a few more years, and the next president will see what a dumb-ass move that was and reverse it. OR, more likely, we'll find out the Russians aren't honoring their end of the bargain and that will put paid to the whole agreement.
Chill, libs. Chill, conservatives. Don't forget, even Jimmy Carter eventually took his national security duties more seriously. Obama will have lots of opportunities to be disappointed in adversaries who reject or abuse his peaceful overtures, and eventually he'll feel mugged by reality enough to shift his stance.
I think this is the smartest thing I've read so far.
Holdfast: "Ultimately, this policy changes little or nothing - if we're hit, we'll respond as the POTUS of the day decides."
Which essentially means that the importance of this "new" treaty and the foreign policy posturing choices made are something other than what is our official policy. If nothing really changed at all, and in the end we'll do whatever we darn well feel like doing in response to an unknown and unknowable future... then this is about something else.
"From a perceptual standpoint, this is not a good time to being making other international actors, friends and foes alike, wonder what the US means and whether it is changing its policies."
And the perception is more important than whatever the actual changes to policy are because nations and non-nation actors will set their own policies on perception. In this Sarah Palin is not at all a "blithering idiot" but acutely aware that this is all about appearances and the purposeful appearance of weakness and passivity.
"Obama likes to make mostly-empty gestures to his socialist/tranzi base, but he does not understand that all media is global and that even small words can have big consequences."
Maybe, as a lawyer sort, he's never had to deal with immediate world effects without the cushion of litigation, debate and scholarship.
He sends a message, even if it's not the one he meant to send, even if it's not accurate... does he think that the results of that are something that can be argued over and hashed out and explained?
It's really not about who is a nuclear expert, is it. It's about who is a people expert. Who can best imagine how some crazy-nutjob thinks and how some despot will respond? Obama insists on giving out "not a threat" signals, mixed up with some military bombast in order to appear tough, approves or orders the assassination of a US citizen, snubs our friends and kisses up to our enemies, and all with no apparent understanding that, while he keeps on trying to act like the United States is not the Center of the Universe and Source of All... forgets that we actually *aren't* and that other nations have their own wills and own agendas.
Not sure how we devolved into the old A-bomb business, but, for those who aren't aware, George Marshall had to drag Harry Truman kicking and screaming into dropping the bomb. The bomb had always been Marshall's ace-in-the-hole, particularly for Germany, and it looked like the quick way to end the war. Not using it meant a full-scale campaign against Japan on all fronts, invasion of the home islands being the most prominent. In addition to the 21 Army divisions in the Pacific, 42 would be brought out from Europe to not only to reinforce the landings on Honshu and subsequent reduction of other urban areas on the island, but for landings on Hokkaido, in Korea, and to sweep the IJA from the Chinese mainland.
Primary target on both A-bomb strikes had been Kokura which was socked in both tries. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were secondaries and would have gotten firebombed in the manner of Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, etc., had they not been nuked. Both were legitimate strategic targets - Hiroshima was an area army HQ (the bomb detonated just above the HQ company as they were doing their morning PT) and Nagasaki was a rail hub.
The whole "mass murder" business is the province of sophists who have no problem with it as long as the people doing it share their agenda. IMHO.
I never thought it would bear explication, but appropos eddutcher's point, operation olympic, the invasion of the home islands was estimated to result in over a million casualties. That the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki eliminated that then good.
And this is the second smartest thing I've read so far.
Stodder: "What would a more skilled politician have done with Palin's comment? Bill Clinton would have said something like, "I understand that many Americans, like Governor Palin, are genuinely concerned about our nation's security. I want to say to all of them that I believe this agreement enhances our security, and here are three reasons why..." and go from there."
Even Bush was skilled enough to respond to town hall challenges with a defense of his policies to the tune of "this is right, and this is why" even if others disagreed. And Bush is pretty much known for being terrible at communicating.
Alpha: I don't know of any conservative that would want to use nuclear weapons and you should not conflate conversational hyperbole with moral stances. The use of a playground analogy does not alter the horrifying possibilities of a nuclear holocaust and to simply make a smug sneer at Palin does not change that. It demeans you and your argument to suggest that Palin is too stupid to realize that nukes are not schoolyard playthings. I, and many conservatives, are concerned that Mr. Obama is childish in his belief that disarmament "agreements" and soft diplomacy will have the desired results. I, for one, doubt that Mr. Obama has ever been in a fist fight with another angry human being. Had he been he might understand that saying "uncle" does not mean that the other guy stops hitting or walking away from a fight does not mean that you do not get cold cocked from behind. If he does not believe that these things happen he cannot use the tools at his disposal to protect us from those who do.
ha ha! The "Sarah Palin is a child" meme is spreading fast!
"Now, when it comes to experience on nuclear issues, Palin is not only confused about the policy, she's also confused about Obama. As a senator, some of Obama's most impressive work came when he teamed with Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) to work on counter-proliferation. And as president, Obama personally helped negotiate the most important arms treaty in a generation. Palin, meanwhile, thinks Vladimir Putin once flew over her house. What we're seeing is the difference between a child and an adult."
from the estimable Steve Benen
Sarah Palin is also juvenile. A case of arrested development!
As regards Sarah Palin's analogy, where is it written in the rules that only liberals are allowed to oversimplify issues in a fashion that exposes the other side to ridicule? I think Alinsky forgot to include a rule that says that only liberals get to apply his rules. Bad oversight, but the guy's been dead for a while so it's way too late to fix that.
Michael:
* Thanks for the encouraging message that some con's understand the terrible destruction of nuclear weapons. However, they insist we be able to use them to respond to cyber attack. That makes me think they don't get it. There is no indication at all that they do, actually (besides your defensive assertion).
* The record of nuclear weapons treaties, passed with broad bipartisan support in the past, have successfully reduced nuclear weapons arsenals. That's a fact.
* A nuclear weapon is not a fist. Hell, it's not really even a weapon.
* Obama took the initiative, as he promised in the campaign, to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles. There's no retreat in the face of aggression, as you allege. So all you're left with is another swipe at Obama based only on your own hostility. not persuasive!
Again, what's the Republican alternative? no treaties, more nuclear weapons, more treasure to the military industrial complex. Great plan!
Alpha--not this will impact you any way, but the issue at hand is not Ms Palin's gibe at Mr Obama, but Mr Obama's policy--focus on that please--if you think his policy secures peace in our time, great--I think you are deluded, but Ms Palin's views on this issue are irrelevant to the larger issue.
Sorry DBQ.
"I referred to the use of nuclear weapons as "mass murder" because conservatives lose sight of the fact of their terrible destructive power and the massive deaths they inflict. Do you deny that?"
Yes, I do deny that conservatives lose sight of the horrific nature of nuclear weapons. The assumption that they do is prejudice on your part. You believe this untrue thing and then make it the basis of your arguments.
"Or just embrace it?"
The essence of military power is to break things and kill people as accurately and efficiently as possible. All weapons are horrific. All weapons kill. Nuclear weapons do so in the most efficient way possible at the most efficient scale possible but at the extreme neglect of accuracy.
So we don't use them.
What is naive and rather stupid, is the assumption that we will never have the need to use them. What is foolish and even dangerous is the assumption that the appearance of both strength and resolve is not necessary to avoid horrific destruction.
We can kill everyone in a small nation and render the landscape slag without using nuclear weapons.
Maybe that's what progressives lose sight of when they think of destructive power. Maybe they think that the rest of what we can do is different, somehow. Kinder and gentler ways to die.
Certainly that is the attitude about "sanctions." If we don't wage a hot war but just destroy an economy and starve people into civil war and deposing their own governments then it's all shiny.
And then we have to be lectured that conservatives lose sight of the fact that a single nuke can destroy an entire city.
I don't think that conservatives are the ones who lose sight of human tragedy.
Big Mike:
"where is it written in the rules that only liberals are allowed to oversimplify issues in a fashion that exposes the other side to ridicule?"
Nowhere. It is a dumb analogy. She has the mentality of a bully on a playground; taunting and always spoiling for a fight.
Palin has nothing constructive to offer. What has she done for anyone, really?
Alpha--you are clearly obscessing about Ms Palin--that isnt the issue; it Mr Obama's policy.
If you think that his policy is productive, then focus on that--now I happen to think that it undermines the nature of deterrence, but if you have some counter argument (eg, reduction of nukes is good in an of itself, fine)
But your focus on Ms Palin is a bit bizzare in the context of the larger discussion.
"However, they insist we be able to use them [nukes] to respond to cyber attack."
Yes, AL. We should be *able* to use nuclear weapons if a situation arises that warrants the use of nuclear weapons.
We should be *able* to respond to the specific nature of a situation without having previously limited our options out of a lack of imagination.
That you have a problem with this shows a lack of depth of thought. A "cyber attack" is simply an example of something that could be relatively insignificant or could be utterly catastrophic.
There you go again, Synova, attributing words to people that exist only in your imagination:
"Yes, I do deny that conservatives lose sight of the horrific nature of nuclear weapons. The assumption that they do is prejudice on your part."
No, not at all. It's based on reading what conservatives - modern conservatives - say about nuclear weapons here and elsewhere.
For example, saying that we should use nukes in response to a cyberattack. Does not square with appreciating the horror of nukes.
Also, please provide the statement from a modern conservative leader or 2 or 3 demonstrating they grasp the horrific potential of nukes. (Lugar doesn't count. He's old school conservative)
Instead they are opposing efforts to rein in nuclear weapons. Even after these reductions we'll have enough nukes to destroy ourselves and our enemies several times over.
All the rest of your post is nonsense. We don't get weaker or less deterrent because we can destroy the world 300 times versus 200 times (whatever exact number, I am no longer sure).
You say it's likely these will be used some day. Kind of goes to my point, then. If they're going to go off, the fewer the better.
Synova,
"We should be *able* to use nuclear weapons if a situation arises that warrants the use of nuclear weapons."
So you think a cyberattack warrants us of weapons that kills tens or hundreds of thousands of people, leaves many others maimed and sick and destroys a big chunk of the world.
See, I don't see that's reasonable. Or proportional.
This is the point you are ducking. why would we nuke a country after a cyberattack?
And as regards Obama, my very strong suspicion is that he really didn't understand the old policy, so he naturally assumed that it was wrong.
Back in the early days of my career I worked with PhD's who assumed that if they didn't understand why something was the way it was, then it must be wrong. Usually it resulted in them doing something really ignorant, and helping to create the image of the "stupid genius." So I'm guessing here, but I think our former Con Law professor fell into that trap.
There's a reason for the ambiguity that existed in the policy as it had been -- it gives the President a great deal of wiggle room to respond to events, and the very existence of that wiggle room may even make it less likely that the events will happen. I've always thought that this was one of the reasons why Reagan pushed the image of himself as an unpredicitable "cowboy." What might he do? Who knows? A guy who could joke on the air about blowing up the entire Soviet Union, what might he do in response to some provocation?
I don't know, none of the rest of you commentators know, and for a fact no one in Iran knew what Reagan might do if he was good and provoked. I do note that the American hostages held by Iran were released within minutes after Reagan was sworn in.
Makes one wonder.
Alpha actually makes a point--we clearly have more nuclear weapons in our inventory than we need--But that bespeaks the argument when those nukes in our inventory should be used.
Sparingly I hope, but they are but one weapon in our arsenal. Other weapons are equally devastating on the targets, so IMO there is nothing inherently immoral about nukies, that say a slufae weapon. Or even the concrete bombs the israelis use on palestinians.
Until there are no nuclear powers in existence, the sole value of nukes is (#1) for counter-intimidating other nuclear powers, or (#2) for stopping a non-nuclear power that has your conventional forces trapped and ready to wipe them out. Obama wants to give up #2. That opens a wide door for wars against American allies to erupt everywhere. IMO Obama is diligently gaming for a UN nuclear monopoly as if the whole world is a fool that will fall for his lies. At least Sarah Palin is smart enough to see thru his latest scam and declare Americans are not fools. BTW congratulations to Alpha for a brand new Palin nick-name: The Ditz from Alaska.
Explaining myself again is pointless. I said clearly what I meant. That you chose to twist that to argue is not my problem to fix.
BTW Alpha--do you think proportionality is the sine qua non of a response? Now thats an interesting argument--irrelevant, I think, but at least it means you may have something to guide your calculus.
Alpha: the ditz from althouse
it does have a ring to it.
Roger J, I was actually staying within the confines of the subject posted.
I think I have posted a defense of the Obama plan, but to sum up key points:
* The nuclear stockpiles are a danger, in themselves. Especially given circumstances in the former Soviet Union. It is in our national interest to reduce these.
* The nuclear deterrent will be no weaker after this is done. We will still have thousands of warheads and ability to deliver them. Once you can nuke a society once they won't be persuaded more by being nuked multiple times.
* Maintaining huge nuclear weapons stockpiles is expensive and exposes our nation to other dangers. The nuclear weapons complex has caused large scale radioactive pollution all over the country - that it is supposed to be protecting!
If anything, Obama should have done more. But I'm happy for this and hope for more.
"So from what I'm reading around the web, conservatives think we should use nuclear weapons if a country launches a cyberattack on us. How is that, in any way, moral?"
That's weird ... because as I'm reading around the web, I'm reading on the White House website that Barack Obama uses drone missiles to murder untried "militants" in Pakistan - a country, I might note, that the Barack Obama has never been authorized by the United States Congress to attack.
How is that moral?
Barack Obama put out a hit on an American citizen earlier this week - for the first time a President has authorized the murder of a United States citizen with no due process. He has eliminated the Constitution altogether.
How is murder moral?
Alpha you want to discuss non-existent cyber-attacks because it distracts you from your support for a man who is illegally ordering our military to murder innocent brown people using drone aircraft flown safely from Florida.
You are immoral and thus everything you write can be safely dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic.
Roger J, proportional response is a part of Just War theory. I am looking to community standards for morals and ethics.
Though these seem to have vanished in modern America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War
"You say it's likely these will be used some day."
Liar.
I never said anything remotely similar to what spews from your prejudices.
Ham, I think for the first time I've experienced you, you've made some good and salient point.
As far as the drones in Pakistan, he's going after the people who attacked us on 9/11. I am very troubled by the civilian deaths and still wrestling with that.
Glenn Greenwald raised the hit taken out on the American citizen, earlier this week. That's a big problem!
Obama has not departed enough from Bush policies to please me.
She has the mentality of a bully on a playground; taunting and always spoiling for a fight.
Perhaps so. Then why does Obama keep falling for the bait?
This is the point you are ducking. why would we nuke a country after a cyberattack?
Well, that's not a hard question. As Synova said, it depends on the size and nature of the cyberattack, but how's this for a for-instance: A cyberattack that significantly disables the US military's ability to communicate with itself, or adequately monitor our defenses. The point of such a cyberattack would be to wreck our ability to see real attacks coming, or to respond to them effectively. In that instance, a nuclear response might be, conceivably, the only deterrent we have left. I'm sure such a decision would not be taken lightly, however.
You seem to think cyberattack = hacking = waah, I couldn't get on Facebook for a whole hour! But it is easy to imagine a cyberattack that would be, effectively, the modern equivalent of Pearl Harbor, which took out much of the US' Pacific fleet.
Damn, Synova. Got some bile issues today?
You said:
"Yes, AL. We should be *able* to use nuclear weapons if a situation arises that warrants the use of nuclear weapons."
and
"A "cyber attack" is simply an example of something that could be relatively insignificant or could be utterly catastrophic.
You also said:
"What is naive and rather stupid, is the assumption that we will never have the need to use them."
From that I said:
"You say it's likely these will be used some day."
That's a pretty fair interpretation of your comments, IMO.
Alpha-
this is the conclusion they come to at Washington Monthly?
And as president, Obama personally helped negotiate the most important arms treaty in a generation. Palin, meanwhile, thinks Vladimir Putin once flew over her house. What we're seeing is the difference between a child and an adult.
So they are unilaterally making that declaration and the ink on the agreement isn't even dry.
Any person with experience in reality would realize that time will be the best judge of that.
Speaking of which I think it's a little premature of Max Boot to be declaring that this experiment with a change in policy by Obama is "de rein" for about the same reason.
********
John Stodder-
Question to you:
What do you think is Obama's end goal in this change of policy?
What's his objective?
Who is he trying to entice?
{I'll requote this graph from the Timesonline-UK
In a clear break from his predecessors Mr Obama committed the US to not launching a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear nation, even if that state had attacked America with biological or chemical weapons.
Alpha--thanks--and I do appreciate your summary--and you will note that I am in agreement with you on the fact we have far more nukes than we need. We dont need near as many that we have on hand. But the quantity,as you suggest, is only a danger as far as the possibility of them falling into the wrong hands. Not very possible in my estimation. And there is no evidence that those nations that have nukes want to emulate the quanity that we have--so I reject that portion of your argument.
There is no real evidence that nuclear weapons proeduction has caused widespread casualties within the united states--I would be happy to see any scientific literature you could produce to support that assertion. If for example there is increased cancer caused by ionizing radiation in the centers of nuclear weapons material and production, I would appreciate seeing it, and I might be persuaded you have a point.
My issue is the restraints Mr Obama has put on the use of the nukes--wether we have 1000 or 10000.
Obama pledged not to bring a gun to a knife fight, as long as the knife wielder had no guns. Sounds fair to me in a tit for tat way.
I do disagree with Obama's pledge not to modernize our weapons -- that's just stupid on its face
That was a decision made by George Herbert Walker Bush, who was as far from stupid as his son was close to it.
why does Obama and his advisors focus every waking moment planning for disarming, disrespecting, and asserting descision making rights over Israel?
We have no moral leverage over Muslim countries' developing nuclear weapons as long as we close our eyes to Israel's nuclear weapons. Israel has put the US in an impossible position regarding Iran's nuclear arms development.
Alpha--I understand just war theory--and please dont use wiki as a quote--you can if you like refer to st thomas, augustine, or hugo grotius, but using wike as a source is just flat lazy.
John Stodder:
"Then why does Obama keep falling for the bait?"
Actually, he didn't. he was asked a question based on her playground analogy and dismissed it as unserious. Good response.
And, yeah, I get how cyberattacks could hit the military assets. There was actually a real good article in Wired about cyber warfare, including an account of an attack by, apparently, Russia, on one of those little FSU states. Interesting stuff.
In your example the nuclear detonation really wouldn't help defenses. Especially as the policy only applies to non-nuclear states signed up with the NPT.
But I have to run. I've indulged too much. Have a nice and nuclear-free weekend.
Roger, if you understand Just War theory, then why did you ask why I raised proportional response?
Alpha--because I reject the premises of proportional response--just because a couple of saints and one dutch scholar propose it doesnt give it any credibility. Might want to review Sherman's march thru Georgia, or the dropping of the bombs on Japan--there is simply no way to operationalize "proportional response."
If American fliers are beheaded in Japan occupied terrority are we justified in beheaded Japanese fliers? You can spin that out anyway you want, but proportional response, just leads to larger disasters in my opinion.
You asked, and I welcome your critique.
Cripes "de rien". I don't feel like redoing all of the html taggage-somehow that gets me to just this kind of dyslexia.
No, not at all. It's based on reading what conservatives - modern conservatives - say about nuclear weapons here and elsewhere.
Care to prove that assertion? Here, let me translate for ya:
Linky linky?
"For example, saying that we should use nukes in response to a cyberattack. Does not square with appreciating the horror of nukes."
Why don't you enlighten us as to your experience with the sanitary nature of conventional war?
Also, please provide the statement from a modern conservative leader or 2 or 3 demonstrating they grasp the horrific potential of nukes. (Lugar doesn't count. He's old school conservative)
Also, please prove your contrary assertion before expecting someone else to go on a wild gose chase to prove your negative, mkay?
"Instead they are opposing efforts to rein in nuclear weapons. Even after these reductions we'll have enough nukes to destroy ourselves and our enemies several times over."
Since you like assigning stupid prove-a-negative tasks, here's a task that's actually going to help you. All you have to do is answer one question:
Why do we maintain such large arsenals?
If you can answer that, you'll be able to hop into thisdiscussion without proving yourself the ignorant fool.
Alpha--if I may, I appreciate your dropping what I consider to be talking points, and actually addressing issues as you see them. We may not agree but at least this constitutes a dialogue.
I actually rather enjoy your posts when you posit your own points.
Alpha-
as per our discussion a couple of days ago our nuclear policy has best acted as a deterrence. The balancing of power in conflicts has had the effect of containing skirmishes for over 50 years and the nature of client or satellite states has facilitated that.
The concept starts with the "X" letter at Foreign Policy {and really that is all you have to google}. Then continues through Nixonian policy in the Middle East and the triangulation of Russia. Enables Reagan's management of the Cold War-the end result being the leveraging of that for freedom for much of Eastern Europe and the continued stability of a region that before had caused two consecutive world wars.
I'm gonna fix Palin's analogy for her:
"That's kind of like getting out there on the playground with a bunch of legless kids ready to fight, and a kid with all of his limbs saying, 'Go ahead and punch me in the face, and I'm not going to kick you in the balls.'"
she's an outstanding natural politician. I'd love to see her debate Obama in an Oxford type , unmediated debate in which people like Gwen Ifill are not intrusively protecting their Democrat friends.
and Alpha if I may again: we are both in agreement that we have far more warheads than we need for any degree of credible deterrence; we are in the process of discussing proportionality of response as a sine qua non of just war, and that has yet to play out. I am in total disagreement with you that the production of nuclear weapons has caused health hazards for the US population, but I am willing to look at any epidemiological evidence you could provide.
Finally I am thinking we disagree on what constitutes deterrence re Mr Obama's position. We will not be able to prove that, but it remains an interesting discussion.
Just trying to find where we agree and disagree--and disagreement is perfectly acceptable.
It would be fairly simple to count the lies that AlphaSockPuppet pukes on behalf of his employer, and refute them.
But why bother? Would he ever concede a point when confronted with proof to the contrary? Hell no. For AlphaSockPuppet, it's not about truth, it's about "winning," whatever that means to him.
Winning.
In a blog's comment thread.
Is there anything more juvenile?
That's why it's obvious someone is paying him to puke his silly diatribes, because no rational person would do what he does for free. Moreover, there's a certain institutional feel to his writing, which is the hallmark of a political hack.
There are lots of ways to waste one's life. AlphaSockPuppet is showing us a common one.
Scott--I am trying to engage Alpha in a conversation--lets see how it works out
I have in the past provided some documentation that caused Alpha to change is position and he has acknowledged it. I give Alpha credit for honesty.
I remain wedded to the John Stuart Mill notion of dialogue.
And the bottom line is that has contentious as these discussions are sometimes, aint nearly as bad as the old usenet flame wars.
"That's a pretty fair interpretation of your comments, IMO."
Only if something less definite than "never" is the exact same freaking thing as "likely."
@ Garage Roger, he was asked this idiotic question from Stephanopoulos. What was he supposed to say? "Never heard of her?"
Obama seems fairly competent at NOT answering questions. He could quite easily have not answered this one with one of his non- answers. And 17 minutes.
all Palin all the time here! meh.
Legless kids....
Actually, it's more like promising not to kick if you're attacked by the legless kids.
Who'd be stupid enough to do that?
Who wouldn't instead say, "I have legs... you'd better leave me alone?"
Hey Roger J., by all means, amuse yourself.
I am not crabby today but crabby here.
Alpha, I'm pretty sure you and I would disagree anout many things, but that was a charmingly self-reflective insight.
I'm going to use it in some other arena.
Scott: its one way I do--an like Clint Eastwood's character in Grand Torino, now that i am retired I delight in chasing kids and dogs off my lawn.
BTW scott: have enjoyed your commentary and hope you keep it up.
Me? I drink rum and smoke cigars and hope from time to time to convert alpha--its a personal goal.
In a speech earlier today, Sarah wondered aloud how Obama acquired his nuclear expertise as a community organizer.
Looks like she brought a gun to his knife fight.
Obama is well-advised not to mess with this woman.
"In a speech earlier today, Sarah wondered aloud how Obama acquired his nuclear expertise as a community organizer.
Looks like she brought a gun to his knife fight."
Just had to see that again. ;-)
EPM
One Second After
by William Forstchen
“New York Times bestselling author William R. Forstchen tells a story that might be all too terrifyingly real. A story in which one man struggles to save his family and his small North Carolina town after America loses a war that sends our nation back into the Dark Ages. A war lost because of a terrifying weapon, an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP). And it may already be in the hands of our enemies. Months before publication, One Second After has already been cited on the floor of Congress as a book all Americans should read. It has been discussed in the corridors of the Pentagon as a realistic look at EMPs and their awesome ability to send catastrophic shockwaves throughout the United States, literally within seconds. It is a weapon that The Wall Street Journal warned could shatter our nation. In the tradition of On the Beach, Fail-Safe, and Testament, this book, set in typical America town, is a dire warning of what might be our future...and our end." (Taken from the back cover)
"As far as the drones in Pakistan, he's going after the people who attacked us on 9/11. I am very troubled by the civilian deaths and still wrestling with that."
The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Why is Barack Obama murdering Pakistani women and children again using weapons which guarantee collateral damage?
And lemme see if I understand you correctly: You're only "troubled" by the complete suspension of habeas corpus by Barack Obama in ordering the execution of an American citizen who has received no trial. Who has not been convicted of any crime? Who has received no due process?
Haven't made up your mind about that sort of modus operandi, eh?
What if Sarah Palin was doing this? Would you still be considering whether it was moral ... or would you have reached a conclusion by now and start up the screeching?
Nevermind ... one of these two uteri scare you and I think I know which it is.
Your complete lack of intellectual consistency and honesty is why nobody takes you seriously.
The day Sarah Palin and nuclear weapons are mentioned in the same sentence without everyone doing collective spit-takes, is the day we should just call china and tell them to run this country. It should be obvious that it's in our best interests. We had a good run though!
"Then why does Obama keep falling for the bait?"
Actually, he didn't. he was asked a question based on her playground analogy and dismissed it as unserious. Good response.
No, terrible response.
For any of you who had younger siblings, I'm sure you were told by your parents at one time or another that, in response to a provocation by a younger sibling, you should not drop to their level. If you're 10 and your sibling is 6, respond like a 10-year-old not a 6-year-old.
Obama, in essence, sank to Palin's level. She described his plan with a childish taunt and basically in response he called her a stupidhead penisbreath doo-doo butt. The response I suggested would have befit the prestige of his office. The way he actually responded opened a huge door for Obama's critics to point out his own lack of credentials. But it also elevated Palin's critique to a higher level than it deserves. This has the potential to be a very bad idea, because now it brings the Tea Party element into foreign and defense policy, whereas previously they were focused mostly on economic issues. Foreign and defense policy was a potential point of division within the Tea Party ranks. Many of them grew to oppose Bush's wars. Defense spending is a sore point to fiscal conservatives. But now, Obama has drawn them into this debate on a point where they are more likely to agree, nuclear deterrence.
Don't forget, national security has driven many more presidential elections than defense policy. The contests in (to stick to my lifetime) 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and (after a pause for the holiday from history) 2004 were decided on the basis of which candidate was better on national security. In only one of those elections, 1964, was the more hawkish candidate defeated. Obama, obviously, was elected over domestic concerns primarily, but, as was the case during Carter's term, foreign policy issues have a way of asserting themselves anyway.
No, politically, it was ill-advised. I know you've said a few times that you disagree, but I have yet to see an argument for why it was the right thing to say.
"We have no moral leverage over Muslim countries' developing nuclear weapons as long as we close our eyes to Israel's nuclear weapons. Israel has put the US in an impossible position regarding Iran's nuclear arms development."
Let's see, Israel's neighbors have a history of invading them and funding terrorists to blow up their civilians, and leaders in the region have publicly called for their annihilation as a state.
In that light, you probably don't want to start moral highground argument.
Their neighbors also outnumber them and outgun them somewhere around 10 to 1 and given the facts above, the fact that Israel hasn't used their suspected nuclear arms shows a great deal of moral restraint on their part.
Considering they haven't called for the annihilation of an entire state, yet Iran has, I'd say your argument is weak at best.
Lincoln made analogies.
I think we should further the analogy between Lincoln and Palin.
It is both ironic and arrogant of the Liberals to say that a change of policy that has been maintained and agreed to not only by Presidents of both the political parties of America but by the global community as a whole for fifty years to say now that somehow they can look into their crystal ball at the future and come immediately to the conclusion that the action taken unilaterally by Obama today-will forever be of little consequence. It's imprudent to say the least.
If Obama's new stance is really of such little consequence then why is Obama going through the machinations? It shouldn't be too hard a question -but I am sure most Liberals would be hard pressed to come up with a straight forward answer.
Another hypocrisy-when it comes to "eco-systems" the Liberals will scream about preservation of the status quo and how humans somehow outside of nature can never anticipate the consequences of all their actions. Yet,somehow Obama's experimentation with over 50 years of consensus policy-one that he did not debate before the electorate is somehow going to amount to nothing. This they are sure about.
One of the reasons in fact perhaps the very reason economics, the social sciences are considered to be the "soft sciences" is because of the very nature of the human factor-unpredictability. It has always been considered a huge source of uncertainty until now. In this area where the Liberals are certain they are right even after years of their theories about nuclear proliferation,states acquiring nuclear capabilities and their faith in all heads of states being by definition-"rational actors" [during their "Star Wars" debates with Reagan] all of those previously held Liberal theories after the great test of time have been proven -wrong. Yet, somehow now on that muddy clay foundation they are sure they have all the answers- even about the future. Somehow Republicans wanting to maintain an edge in being prepared for the worst case scenario supposedly they are the frivolous.
It is the very height of irony and arrogance combined.
Every time Obama responds to a particular individual on the right or Fox News he seems to think that the supporters of, say, Palin or the viewers of Fox are not included in the criticisms which are often demeaning, smug, elitist and sneering. He is turning off lots more people than he would if he simply stuck with the higher road that previous presidents have in not singling out individuals for criticism. For a smart guy this is not smart. He already has all the snarky people who think that Sara Palin is the second dumbest person ever born, he doesn't gain anything from this approach.
"The way he actually responded opened a huge door for Obama's critics to point out his own lack of credentials."
And apparently Palin didn't miss taking him up on that.
I'll repost this again:
John Stodder-
Question to you:
What do you think is Obama's end goal in this change of policy?
What's his objective?
Who is he trying to entice?
{I'll requote this graph from the Timesonline-UK}
In a clear break from his predecessors Mr Obama committed the US to not launching a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear nation, even if that state had attacked America with biological or chemical weapons.
Roger J., thank you for your kindness.
I don't do the adult beverage thing anymore (sober 26 years) but I do enjoy a decent cigar now and then. :)
The moral leverage or moral suasion argument is a simplistic and losing argument. In a word... it's childish.
We don't even put up with that level of thinking in our comic books anymore. It contains a fatal logical flaw that is easily apparent and that flaw is simply that the villain can shame Superman but Superman can not shame the villain.
No doubt we should be good in order to be good. What we should not do is be good on some fantastical notion that our goodness can be used to persuade someone else to change their policy. It can't and it won't.
you probably don't want to start moral highground argument
Excuse me, it's OK for Israel to be a rogue nuclear state because why, exactly? Because they occupy the moral high ground?
Please phrase your answer as persuasively as possible.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন