Obama and the Democrats need to understand the following:

North Korea would have no qualms whatsoever with selling small tactical nukes to any terrorist group willing to give them the money. Iran on the other hand would give them away.

It’s as simple as that. They need to get their pacifist craniums out of their neither-region orifices and deal with it. The problem is that “they can’t handle the truth.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

There was no moment in these sixteen years when the three former allies, or even Britain and France with their associates in Europe, could not in the name of the League of Nations and under its moral and international shield have controlled by mere effort of the will of armed strength of Germany.
-Winston Churchill, Memoirs of the Second World War

It is difficult to find a parallel to the unwisdom of the British and the weakness of the French Governments, who none the less reflected the opinion of their Parliaments in this disastrous period. Nor can the United States escape the censure of history. Absorbed in their own affairs and all the abounding interests, activities, and accidents of a free community, they simply gaped at the vast changes which were taking place in Europe and imagined they were none of their concern.
-Winston Churchill, Memoirs of the Second World War

By the autumn of 1933 it was plain that neither by precept nor still less by example would the British effort for disarmament succeed. The pacifism of the Labour and Liberal Parties was not effected even by the grave event of the German withdrawl from the League of Nations. Both continued in the name of peace to urge British disarmament, and anyone who differed was called “warmonger” and “scaremonger.” It appeared that their feeling was endorsed by the people, who of course did not understand what was unfolding.
-Winston Churchill, Memoirs of the Second World War

Until the middle of 1934 control of the events was still largely in the hands of His Majesty’s Government without the risk of war. They could at any time, in concert with France and through the League of Nations, have brought an overwhelming power to bear upon the Hitler Movement, about which Germany was profoundly divided.
-Winston Churchill, Memoirs of the Second World War

Don’t believe that anyone in the world will hinder me in my decisions [to invade Austria and Czechoslovakia]! Italy? I am quite clear that they are with Mussolini: with Italy I am on the closest of terms. England? England will not lift a finger for Austria…And France? Well, two years ago when we marched into the Rhineland with a handful of battalions [breaking the 1991 Treaty of Versailles]-at that moment I risked a great deal. If France had marched then we should have been forced to withdraw….but for France it is too late!
-Adolph Hitler, 1938

Like or Dislike: 0  0

We’re told, “These things take time.” No. They don’t. It’s very easy to see if one side of a conversation is interested, willing, or even capable of barter. Once that’s determined, then the ugly balance sheet must come out. There’s no way around it. He has to ask himself what is the cost of inaction vs what is the cost of action-however horrific.

The lessons of the Rhineland in 1936 and the Sudetenland in 1938 are lost on Obama (he would do the same thing). While it would have cost lives to stop Hitler in 1936 or even 1938, it would have saved millions more. Just like the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 250-300 thousand, they saved millions more. Just as timely intervention in force in 1920 in Russia (the US and Great Britain made a feeble attempt, but were war weary) could have saved the millions who died of forced collectivization and during the purges in the cellars and in the gulag. Those are the lessons of the balance sheet of History, lessons Obama has, as far as it is Marxisitly possible, studiously avoided.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata said: “Oh, so now Hamas bombing Israel, and Israel defending herself, is Bush’s fault too? And Bush is responsible for Hamas’ coup, seizing the Gaza strip and dividing the coalition PA alliance? Have you the briefest clue to the timeline of events and history? Or are you just picking up a link or two here and there to try and justify your pointless assumptions?”

Hamas was a terrorist organization long before that election. Is Bush responsible for Hamas’ actions? No. Did Bush blunder when he pushed for those elections? Yes, and he was warned about the possible outcome. Facilitating Hamas rise as a duly elected representative only complicates the issue and was a bad move, democratically elected or not.

Mata said: “Then you compare Pakistan and Iraq or Afghanistan with your reference to the Bush Doctrine. A not-so-clever way to say that Bush’s idea was to overthrow every country that aided the jihad movements. This of course means you don’t get the difference between Pakistan, which has elections, and Afghanistan/Iraq which had nothing close to a genuine election. Even the PA had a genuine election where the Palestinians chose Hamas’ welfare programs. They did not, however, vote to be seized in a coup a short time later.”

Look Mata, Bush himself said he would make no distinction, I didn’t hear him say anything about countries with free elections could harbor terrorists, and those who don’t have free elections can’t. Osama and AQ went into Pakistan, Bush did what he could, but couldn’t keep his word about the Doctrine. You call out Obama on his rhetoric and the reality later when he has to back off of it, and I’m not knocking you for that either, just realize that Bush has his share of that too and this is a case in point.

Mata said “And let me get this straight, you want to respond about Obama’s culpability so you bring up Bush. But when someone brings up Clinton’s culpability as a response about Bush, you get all a’rile about the Clinton-Obama bashing. Blow the dirt out of your Moose ears and listen to your own arguments first.”

“And that includes the step up in NK’s ability. You seem to think that Bush was worse because NK was more developed in 2006 with a bomb. And how the heck do you think they got that far? By proliferating under the noses of the entire world while they were supposedly in a treaty with Clinton/Not-So-Bright.”

“So it’s less serious for Clinton because NK didn’t have the more advanced capability that they did under Bush. Boy oh boy… remember you said that, Moose. Because that’s going to come back and haunt you when Iran has their nukes under Obama’s watch, and you’re going to blame Bush for letting it get that far. And once again, I will have to remind you of history.”

First off, yeah, if some, and I know you said not you, but some folks want to call Obama’s foreign policy a failure after 4 months when Bush had 8 years, and yes, the next phase of terror capability came when NK set off the first Nuke with Bush at the helm, then I think I should bring up how Bush compares, Obama has about 5% of the time in office to deal with these problems than Bush had. By that standard, if Obama has failed, then Bush flunked out, dropped out, and has a dunce hat collection in his closet at home. As for Clinton, no, not riled at all about that, but just seems like some folks want to blame Clinton and Obama, and give W a pass. Clinton owns his failures, and his NK failure, although allowing the quest for Nukes to continue, was where the dialog had to start, with negotiations. If a nuke would have been set off during the Clinton years, the conservatives would have been blasting Clinton to Kingdom come and we would have heard no end of it. I don’t know how you get around it Mata, and I’ll say it again, hopefully you will understand what and how I’m saying it; The situation in N Korea got worse under George W Bush. I didn’t say he made it worse, I said it got worse. NK light up a nuke, and fired some missiles, one at least over Japan. There were reports that Syria’s reactor was made with parts and know how from NK. That is spreading potential WMD’s to the Middle East. That was an aggressive uptick in their bad behavior, did Bush do any better than Clinton at stopping NK? Nope. Do you, Mata, want to put all that blame for the later behaviour of NK on Clinton, and absolve Bush because Clinton failed to reign NK in and get it stopped? I just don’t understand how you can claim it didn’t get worse while Bush was in Office.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oh, so now Hamas bombing Israel, and Israel defending herself, is Bush’s fault too? And Bush is responsible for Hamas’ coup, seizing the Gaza strip and dividing the coalition PA alliance? Have you the briefest clue to the timeline of events and history? Or are you just picking up a link or two here and there to try and justify your pointless assumptions?

Then you compare Pakistan and Iraq or Afghanistan with your reference to the Bush Doctrine. A not-so-clever way to say that Bush’s idea was to overthrow every country that aided the jihad movements. This of course means you don’t get the difference between Pakistan, which has elections, and Afghanistan/Iraq which had nothing close to a genuine election. Even the PA had a genuine election where the Palestinians chose Hamas’ welfare programs. They did not, however, vote to be seized in a coup a short time later.

Afghanistan was run by Bhutto’s Taliban, brutalized their people, and were not a recognized government. Regime change in Iraq – another self-installed tryant – has been US policy since under Bill Clinton in the mid-90s. Get the difference?

And let me get this straight, you want to respond about Obama’s culpability so you bring up Bush. But when someone brings up Clinton’s culpability as a response about Bush, you get all a’rile about the Clinton-Obama bashing. Blow the dirt out of your Moose ears and listen to your own arguments first.

And that includes the step up in NK’s ability. You seem to think that Bush was worse because NK was more developed in 2006 with a bomb. And how the heck do you think they got that far? By proliferating under the noses of the entire world while they were supposedly in a treaty with Clinton/Not-So-Bright.

So it’s less serious for Clinton because NK didn’t have the more advanced capability that they did under Bush. Boy oh boy… remember you said that, Moose. Because that’s going to come back and haunt you when Iran has their nukes under Obama’s watch, and you’re going to blame Bush for letting it get that far. And once again, I will have to remind you of history.

N Korea withdrew from the 6 way talks Mata, after the condemnation from their “Satellite” launch. Obama may well have been trying to bring them back to the table and not ignoring the issue. Yep, it happened on his watch, now lets see if he can get China and Russia to be part of the solution…..

Took you long enuf…. geeez. But what’s this “Obama may well have…” bit? Did you hear any news of Obama or Hillary making any attempts there? Don’t think it would make the news?

And wouldn’t you find that very odd that it didn’t make the news when Obama was fully engaged in his campaign promises of getting our adversaries to the table?

Dreaming, dude.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

BTW, Moose… I forgot to mention:

And why is it always the Liberal Press’s fault when an election turns out different than some folks would like? Perhaps the Pakistani people had issues with Musharif like arresting and detaining their Supreme court justices and holding them under house arrest when they were about to rule on his ability to be head of the military and the president at the same time and many other very undemocratic moves he made against their own constitution.

First, it’s the media’s fault when they deliberately mislead, misinform and revise history in order to influence an election… any country’s. And the Bhutto canonization was not only US press, but all western press. The media is charged with keeping us informed. They are not charged with the duty to spread propaganda.

Secondly, the “issues” of Musharraf and martial law after booting out the justices…. I might want to remind you that it was only this past month or so that those justices were returned to their seats of judicial power. A *year* after the election. Why so long? Zardari saw the reasoning for booting them out. Rather like Obama using Gitmo and military tribunals as a campaign talking point, then continuing on with not only those, but indefinite detention after assuming power.

The only reason Zardari reinstated the judges was because the riots in the streets were about to happen again. His choice was to cave, or do the same thing Musharraf did… call for emergency law. He did what he does best with the Taliban… caved.

However Zardari has chosen that martial law route himself… in March INRE the problems when the Sharif brotherss and the Punjab contested elections. Please note that he did this against his political opposition, but he doesn’t wield that aggression against the militant jihad movements.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata said: “And I most certainly support those dollars going to aid Pakistan, an ally, more than I support Obama’s money to Hamas in Gaza. ooops….”

I tend to agree with you there too, I hate to see Hamas getting money from us, except for this too is another real world problems that Mr. Bush had a hand in bringing about. Does Bush get a pass as well for calling for those elections that Brought Hamas to power, after being warned by Israeli officials not to?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601009.html

An excerpt from the artice:
“The Bush administration has spent nearly $500 million in the past year to bolster the Palestinian Authority and the ruling Fatah party, which was nonetheless crushed by Hamas at the polls. Against the advice of Israeli officials, the administration had pushed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to hold the elections without delay, believing that the voting would strengthen his hand in disarming militia groups. Instead, the plan backfired, and an organization that has claimed credit for dozens of suicide bombings — some resulting in the deaths of Americans — is poised to take power.”

Mata said: “Nor should US boots on the ground cross into Pakistan and invade their sovereignty. I wouldn’t want the Pakistanis coming into the US to hunt stray Taliban either.”

That’s a tough call there, let’s see, Pakistan doesn’t want us invading their sovereignty, that’s one way to look at it. Another way is the Bush Doctrine, “We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” We may have made a distinction with Pakistan, knowing that Bin Laden and his filthy ilk were just over the border and Musharrif would not let us clean up the filth who were responsible for killing 3000 Americans on 911, instead, like I said before we got that half a loaf at least. I trust that Bush would have went in and got the Basta**s if he could have, but again, Bush gets a pass here, and Obama gets nothing but contempt at every turn from some (and that last comment is not directed at you Mata)

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44910

Mata said: “I brought up Clinton because you brought up NK as Bush’s fault. You needed a historic reminder of the first failed unilateral negotiations. You said Bush made it worse.

Well, let me be a bit more clear with my intent here, Mata. My intent of what I said is if Obama is to be judged a failure because of what NK has done this week, then Bush has some, or even more fault with his NK policies, and had two terms to deal with this issue. I didn’t mean in any way to imply that NK is ALL Bush’s fault, and I don’t believe that I did. Saying that it got worse under Bush, and saying “Bush made it worse” is a distinction that I can understand, the first being a passive enabler, or perhaps just really not having the tools needed to solve the NK problem. Saying Bush made it worse is saying Bush actively promoted NK to be on the road their on. Some libs will say the “Axis or evil” speech was Bush causing NK to act up, but, I don’t buy that, that freaking nutjob would find some reason to act up and draw attention so he can get more hand outs for his failed state.

I was going to bring up Clinton earlier in the thread, because I thought perhaps it would come up as a defense for Bush, but I thought better of it and tried to stay on topic. Clinton was dealing with a nutjob leader who wanted to make nukes. Bush was dealing with a nutjob leader who exploded a Nuke underground, and shot a missile over Japan. That was a new level of threat, demonstrated and in your face. Bush couldn’t get China to step in and drop the hammer on NK. We sure don’t want a war with China, or anybody, unless it is imperative. The disease (NK) is pretty bad, but if the cure is much much worse (war with China) then Bush had his hands tied at that point.

Mata said: “but I do hold him accountable for ignoring getting NK back to the negotiating table with multilateral talks. And, to use your constant fallback excuses, this all happened on Obama’s watch.”

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/UN_unanimously_condemns_NKorean_nuc_05252009.html

“In April the North fired a long-range rocket for what it called a satellite launch. Many nations saw it as a disguised ballistic missile test, while the Security Council condemned the launch and tightened sanctions.

A defiant North vowed to conduct a second nuclear test as well as more ballistic missile launches unless the world body apologised.

It also announced that it was quitting the six-way talks and would restart its plutonium-making programme.”

N Korea withdrew from the 6 way talks Mata, after the condemnation from their “Satellite” launch. Obama may well have been trying to bring them back to the table and not ignoring the issue. Yep, it happened on his watch, now lets see if he can get China and Russia to be part of the solution…..

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Should Obama continue to send Billions of our Tax dollars to Pakistan to “buy” an ally like Musharrif, who would not even let our troops cross over the border to get the terrorist?

Why yes, Moose… I do. I support giving US tax dollars aid to allies for a fight that involves our national security. It is the prime directive of the federal government… to defend our people, not to make sure you have health insurance.

And I most certainly support those dollars going to aid Pakistan, an ally, more than I support Obama’s money to Hamas in Gaza. ooops….

Nor should US boots on the ground cross into Pakistan and invade their sovereignty. I wouldn’t want the Pakistanis coming into the US to hunt stray Taliban either. However Musharraf has given the silent nod to US predator and air strikes, then taken the brunt of it with the Pakistanis… to which he would then give the token admonitions to the US. It’s the way it worked, Moose. All show. And for his underground US support, he endured assassination attempts, threats on his life, and ultimately the loss of his position and respect of the Pakistanis. And that is why Zardari does not do the same. Obama, in the still of the night and confronted with reality, must long for the days of Musharraf.

Moose: Then you bring up Clinton, I hear this alot about 911 being all on Clinton, now it’s N Korea.

I guess some feel that Clinton and Obama bear the blame for our troubles, and Bush somehow was just doing his best to cope with some of the problems that were left to him….hey, wait a minute, that sounds familiar…..

I brought up Clinton because you brought up NK as Bush’s fault. You needed a historic reminder of the first failed unilateral negotiations. You said Bush made it worse. I made it quite plain that Bush stayed on top of NK, while the previous admin did not. You said it happened on Bush’s watch, and therefore it was his fault. Yet you want to give Obama some time before you assign him any responsibility because he inherited the problem… just as Bush inherited it from Clinton.

But as many have pointed out, NK goes back decades… not just these mentioned admins. However these admins were dealing with a potential and inevitable nuclear NK. Hence the difference.

So… in essence… you forced the Clinton issue yourself.

This post… which is not mine… does hold Obama solely responsible for the blame. I have already stated that I do not hold Obama responsible for NK’s latest test, but I do hold him accountable for ignoring getting NK back to the negotiating table with multilateral talks. And, to use your constant fallback excuses, this all happened on Obama’s watch.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata said: “You ignore the fact that the Clinton admin turned it’s back on NK after their unilateral chit chats, and they were proliferating under their noses. They did not get to their 2006 bomb test by just starting their program on Inauguaration Day, 2001.”

“So which is it, Moose. You call it Bush’s fault because it happened under Bush’s watch, but Obama will only own this after given a fair chance to deal with the issues.

What a bunch of horse manure. The BS is flying thick around here.”

I did mention “Could anyone anywhere do anything about it? Who knows, maybe only China, but this post isn’t calling Bush’s Policies a failure though, only Obama’s.” I also said “Most problems that are years and years in the making don’t get solved overnight. Bush owns what he owns, and so will Obama.”

Let’s be honest here, the Bush foreign policy had some failures, the same failures that this post is calling Obama’s failures regarding N Korea. Most folks are sensible enough to realize that Bush really didn’t have a great ability to do much about N korea, and I cited Bush’s failures in response to the critcism of Obama: “While Obama Foreign Policies Fail, Major Wars Creeping Closer”

Obama has the same options unless he can get China to drop the hammer, and he sure hasn’t had two terms to get that done yet.

Then you bring up Clinton, I hear this alot about 911 being all on Clinton, now it’s N Korea.
I guess some feel that Clinton and Obama bear the blame for our troubles, and Bush somehow was just doing his best to cope with some of the problems that were left to him….hey, wait a minute, that sounds familiar…..

Mata said: “And I love how so many like to justify the media push to demonize Musharraf by calling him a “shake ally” at best. You want to see shakey? Have a gander now, bubba. Musharraf bucked many of his own to have under the table cooperation with the US. This current ruling faction of Pakistan has no where near the cajones.”

“What you like to forget is when Bush took office, Pakistan was a nuclear armed enemy. That they are any kind of ally now is because of George W. Bush. That they will become some form of an ostracized ally (or enemy) in the future is all on your boy.”

Should Obama continue to send Billions of our Tax dollars to Pakistan to “buy” an ally like Musharrif, who would not even let our troops cross over the border to get the terrorist? You don’t really think that Musharrif would have been any kind of ally if we didn’t send him the $ do you? Bush rightly realized that we must have Pakistan on our team, but an ally you need to pay Billions to for them to be of help, then don’t even spend most of it on the purpose of what the American taxpayers sent it for, I would call that a bit shaky, as soon as we quit coughing up the dough, they would probably quit doing what very little they were doing.

“That they are any kind of ally now is because of George W. Bush” should also include “because of George W Bush and billions of American tax payer dollars.” Sometimes distasteful things have to be done to win a war, Bush took what he could get from Pakistan. Half a loaf is better than none. I do hope Gen Petraeus and Obama can come up with a way to win this war and get us out of there, and yes, it will take some time to figure out the best moves to make and put it all in place. Then we can see how the Obama strategy works or doesn’t work, until then, give the man a chance before you declare failure.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

moose: These aren’t my “Partisan Dreams” Mata, and to state this has nothing to do with Bush, well, I don’t know whose watch we were under while 95% of this (NK nuke and missile testing) was going on besides Bush, do you?

~~~

To paint Obama’s short time in office and his foreign policy decisions under the heading “While Obama Foreign Policies Fail, Major Wars Creeping Closer” is to lay the blame all on Obama and shift the focus from the circumstances during the time under Bush that have led to where we are now. That seems a good example to me of “partisan Dreaming.”

~~~

The Bush era of foreign policy is already written in terms of where we are today, and Obama is just a short 4 months in…..as I stated above, “Obama will in time own all these problems, and will face judgement by The People, but only after he is given a fair chance to deal with the issues”.

So which is it, Moose. You call it Bush’s fault because it happened under Bush’s watch, but Obama will only own this after given a fair chance to deal with the issues.

What a bunch of horse manure. The BS is flying thick around here.

You ignore the fact that the Clinton admin turned it’s back on NK after their unilateral chit chats, and they were proliferating under their noses. They did not get to their 2006 bomb test by just starting their program on Inauguaration Day, 2001.

Bush dealt with NK with diplomacy… as all the nannny, global community types demanded. Only Bush, seeing that Clinton’s unilateral approach didn’t work, brought in NK’s close allies to add pressure. Did that work? Hang no… nothing’s going to keep Kim Jong from pulling the blackmail stunt whenever he gets the itch.

And I love how so many like to justify the media push to demonize Musharraf by calling him a “shake ally” at best. You want to see shakey? Have a gander now, bubba. Musharraf bucked many of his own to have under the table cooperation with the US. This current ruling faction of Pakistan has no where near the cajones.

What you like to forget is when Bush took office, Pakistan was a nuclear armed enemy. That they are any kind of ally now is because of George W. Bush. That they will become some form of an ostracized ally (or enemy) in the future is all on your boy.

Lastly, I didn’t write this post, nor the headline. Nor is it a headline I *would* have written. I don’t blame Bush for NK, and I don’t blame Obama for this latest bomb test. What I *do* blame Obama for is doing absolutely nothing about it for four months after talks had stalled, and Kim Jong was back in what appears to be fit as a fiddle form. He ignored the continued talks, did nothing to pressure them back to the table. And that is not something you can blame Bush for with an ounce of credibility.

Like or Dislike: 0  0