Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest montecarloss

The Obama Presidency

Recommended Posts

Protestants are America's largest denomination and their historical influence on the formation and maturation of this country is undeniable.

 

We need WASP Affirmative Action on the SCOTUS now.  ;)

just a note of clarification: Most white Protestants in America are not of Anglo-Saxon background (not that there's anything wrong with that!). Growing up we had neighbors who were Italian and Baptist, and my best friend was Hungarian and Lutheran. Again, let's stop stereotyping. After all, I never do. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^WOW, you really didn't say that did you?

 

Ha, I mean other than JFK of course!

 

I'm sick and stuck at home on a Saturday night, give me a break! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sick and stuck at home on a Saturday night, give me a break! :)

 

I'm supposed to be writing cover letters for resumes, but this is so much easier.

 

It is troubling that there are no un-religious people in a group that happens to decide the role of religion in our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a history here on UO of folks just posting articles.  I spent some time cleaning up some of those threads.  In none of them, were any comments made either pro or con, they were just posted for the sake of the information.  I appreciate the articles, as I can read them here and not have to search numerous web sites.

You cleaned the threads up (out) but you say you "appreciate the articles".  Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Boreal, get a clue.  We had to clean threads make sure that entire articles were not posted, and only a paragraph or 2 along with the link.  Were you not aware of this problem?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-posted from the Youngstown-Warren general business thread....

 

Obama Localizes Themes for Valley Audience

May 18, 2010 1:55 p.m.

 

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio – President Barack Obama sounded familiar themes in his remarks today at V&M Star as he tailored his speech to the Mahoning Valley audience and added conversational asides when departing from his prepared text.

 

"Plenty of folks here have known their own private recessions for 30 years -- even if they haven’t seen one like this, with an unemployment rate here at 14% and families having a tougher time than they’d ever imagined," the president said. "Plenty of folks probably aren’t impressed by another president swooping in to talk to you about the economy, either -- not when the only headline they want to see is 'You’re Hired.' "

 

Obama quickly underscored how federal stimulus funding is helping to pay for $20 million worth of infrastructure improvements at the V&M expansion site, "revitalizing the site next door, preparing it for new construction, and building a rail spur that connects to the Norfolk Southern line that runs through town."

 

READ MORE AT:

http://business-journal.com/clients/business-journal/obama-localizes-themes-for-valley-audience-p16503.htm?twindow=Default&smenu=1&mad=No


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Barack Obama emphasizes diplomacy over waging pre-emptive war

 

By Peter Baker

 

WEST POINT, N.Y. -- President Barack Obama on Saturday, May 22, outlined a new national security strategy rooted in diplomatic engagement and international alliances as he repudiated his predecessor's emphasis on unilateral American power and the right to wage pre-emptive war.

 

Eight years after President George W. Bush came to the U.S. Military Academy to set a new course for American security in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Obama used the same setting to offer a revised doctrine, one that vowed no retreat against enemies while seeking "national renewal and global leadership."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/05/president_barack_obama_emphasi.html

 

Can't wait for someone to ask Palin about her understanding of the Obama Doctrine.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/06/palin_we_need_a_commander-in-chief_not_a_professor_of_law.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Chamberlain.  Peace in our time.  Just as a little preemptive war would have been good in 1938 before Germany was strong enough, the same thing holds true today.  So he's not retreating against Iran, he's just setting back allowing them to get strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Chamberlain.  Peace in our time.  Just as a little preemptive war would have been good in 1938 before Germany was strong enough, the same thing holds true today.  So he's not retreating against Iran, he's just setting back allowing them to get strong.

agreed. I don't know if the Obama doctrine is just a flaw in judgement based on naivete (which I find hard to believe), or is based on something more calculated, like a belief that it is somehow possible to negotiate with a regime as ruthless and sinister as the one currently ruling Iran. In either case, this is disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Chamberlain.  Peace in our time.  Just as a little preemptive war would have been good in 1938 before Germany was strong enough, the same thing holds true today.  So he's not retreating against Iran, he's just setting back allowing them to get strong.

 

Don't agree here.  I have only read parts of Mine Kampf, (OK I can't spell in English, don't ask me to spell in Deutchlander) and to me it seems to me that war was inevitable.  The mistake we made was sending all those men and equipment over there.  We should have just waited for Fermi to complete the bomb and then just nuked everybody. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Chamberlain.  Peace in our time.  Just as a little preemptive war would have been good in 1938 before Germany was strong enough, the same thing holds true today.  So he's not retreating against Iran, he's just setting back allowing them to get strong.

 

Don't agree here.  I have only read parts of Mine Kampf, (OK I can't spell in English, don't ask me to spell in Deutchlander) and to me it seems to me that war was inevitable.   The mistake we made was sending all those men and equipment over there.  We should have just waited for Fermi to complete the bomb and then just nuked everybody. 

 

First, we had no idea when the bomb would be complete.  As of 1938, I'm not even sure the Manhattan Project existed.

 

Second, Ahmadinejad's public statements and writings are every bit as alarming as Mein Kampf (und ich kann in Deutsch schreiben), and I really do worry that we're repeating the same mistake that the [future] Allies made in response to Mein Kampf--not wanting to believe that the guy was serious about what he was saying because the implications were too horrible (particularly given that the man was popular in Germany, and we didn't want to believe that an entire country could be so easily seduced by someone who seriously believed the kinds of things written in Mein Kampf).

 

Third, even Iran's secular parties support Iran's nuclear ambitions.  Their main beef with Ahmadinejad isn't that he's pursuing nukes, it's that he's rattling his saber and ruffling the feathers of stronger raptors in the world eyrie before he actually has those nukes.

 

That said--while I would support preventive action in Iran, the political capital isn't there yet.  The political capital won't be there until there is an actual nuclear terrorist attack on an American city with a fission weapon that is unambiguously traceable to Iran.  (Even then, the denial-at-any-price lobby will be doing their utmost to "prove" that Iran wasn't responsible.)  As bitter as it makes me to say this, it may well be better to lose Philadelphia in order to get a free hand to do what must be done in Iran (which is basically exactly what we did in Germany and Japan), rather than having to force the issue with half (or more than half) the country opposing the action, retarding our freedom of action and ensuring an inconclusive and temporary victory at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this notion that because Iran is a danger the only responsible solution is to invade is half baked at best.  Where are you folks presuming we get the manpower and money to do this?  Are you willing to pay some significantly higher taxes for it?  Do we pull our already overextended forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, or are you willing to volunteer, or to have your friends and family drafted?  What about North Korea?  Don't they actually have nukes already?  Don't they threaten to turn Seoul into a fiery ruin every six months or so?  Do they come before or after N. Korea?

 

As for historical scenarios, if it's so obvious that we should have invaded Germany in 1938, when should we have invaded the Soviet Union?

 

I love the specter of suitcase nukes, though.  I have to ask, can conservatives these days sell any of their ideas without using fear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third, even Iran's secular parties support Iran's nuclear ambitions. Their main beef with Ahmadinejad isn't that he's pursuing nukes, it's that he's rattling his saber and ruffling the feathers of stronger raptors in the world eyrie before he actually has those nukes.

That is such an awful, prejudicial thing to say. I know Iranians who are really into the Green Movement and they absolutely would not be supportive of any saber-rattling, regardless of nuclear status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As for historical scenarios, if it's so obvious that we should have invaded Germany in 1938, when should we have invaded the Soviet Union?"

 

When Patton said to invade would have been good enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third, even Iran's secular parties support Iran's nuclear ambitions. Their main beef with Ahmadinejad isn't that he's pursuing nukes, it's that he's rattling his saber and ruffling the feathers of stronger raptors in the world eyrie before he actually has those nukes.

That is such an awful, prejudicial thing to say. I know Iranians who are really into the Green Movement and they absolutely would not be supportive of any saber-rattling, regardless of nuclear status.

 

I'm sure that there are some, definitely.  However, it's well known that many of the people held up as "moderates" and "reformers" in Iranian politics are not advocates of ending the nuclear program.  You have to go much further outside the halls of power in Iran to find people who would be seriously in favor of a nuclear disarmament and opening a la South Africa or Libya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this notion that because Iran is a danger the only responsible solution is to invade is half baked at best. Where are you folks presuming we get the manpower and money to do this? Are you willing to pay some significantly higher taxes for it? Do we pull our already overextended forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, or are you willing to volunteer, or to have your friends and family drafted? What about North Korea? Don't they actually have nukes already? Don't they threaten to turn Seoul into a fiery ruin every six months or so? Do they come before or after N. Korea?

 

I would be willing to pay almost any amount of taxes for it.

 

As for where we would get the manpower and materiel for it: You are correct, we don't have it today.  The dismantling of the Cold War defense infratructure almost 20 years ago now, combined with the sustained exhaustion of our forces between 2001 and today, have seen to that.  The difference is that I actually support altering this status quo.  I believe that far too many progressives are more than comfortable with a weakened and exhausted U.S. military; it gives them additional practical grounds on which to argue against proposed missions.  If we still actually spent around 6% of GDP on defense, we would not be having this conversation (or at least not dealing with this issue within it).

 

I love the specter of suitcase nukes, though. I have to ask, can conservatives these days sell any of their ideas without using fear?

 

What exactly is the positive, hopeful way to discuss the threat of an Iranian nuke, suitcase or otherwise?  The notion that once Iran has nuclear weapons, it will undergo a complete personality change or an internal change of power that will see more enlightened figures than Ahmadinejad and the clergy behind him come to power?  An Iranian nuke *should* be feared.  This "politics of fear" meme is a shallow and unsubstantive way of dismissing and ignoring serious issues, and is simply a justification for continuing the current denial-at-any-price policy that is becoming the Obama Doctrine.  We don't, or at least shouldn't, maintain a military to deal with countries we *don't* fear--or would you rather America stick to picking on non-threats like Grenada?  Or should the military be reduced to nothing but an incredibly expensive social service organization, used only for disaster relief a la Indonesia (post-tsunami) and Haiti (post-earthquake)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about this:

 

"After the surrender of May 8, 1945 eliminated the threat of Nazi Germany, Patton was quick to assert the Soviet Union would cease to be an ally of the United States. He was concerned that some 25,000 American POWs had been liberated from POW camps by the Soviets, but never returned to the US. In fact, he urged his superiors to evict the Soviets from central and eastern Europe. Patton thought that the Red Army was weak, under-supplied, and vulnerable, and the United States should act on these weaknesses before the Soviets could consolidate their position. In this regard, he told then-Undersecretary of War Robert P. Patterson that the "point system" being used to demobilize Third Army troops was destroying it and creating a vacuum that the Soviets would exploit. "Mr. Secretary, for God’s sake, when you go home, stop this point system; stop breaking up these armies," pleaded the general. "Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people, the Soviets. This is the only language they understand." Asked by Patterson—who became Secretary of War a few months later—what he would do, Patton replied: "I would have you tell the Red Army where their border is, and give them a limited time to get back across. Warn them that if they fail to do so, we will push them back across it."[41]"

 

It seems more of a call for containment, albeit a retroactive containment, than an invasion.

 

And where's the Iran Plan, Dan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call it what you will, but could you imagine the the next 50 years without the USSR in Eastern Europe and no cold war?  No, you probably can't.

 

I'm not a strategist, but I imagine the Pentagon can come up with a nifty Iran plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can imagine it, if it was an invasion and overthrow.  If it's a containment, then I don't have to.  Not a small difference, is it?

 

As for Iran, I know you're no strategist and neither am I.  But you think you know enough to say that Obama's grand strategy is disastrously wrong, so I assume you have some idea of what you think needs to happen.  So are we destroying their nuclear infrastructure, or their military capabilities?  Eliminating Ahmajinedad and/or the Supreme Leader?  Trying for regime change?  Looking to install democracy?  What do you think is a ballpark figure for how many troops it will take?  One hundred thousand?  Double that?  Half a million maybe?  Where do the troops come from?  Do we pull out of Iraq faster, or Afghanistan?  Is Iran a bigger threat than North Korea?  What's the endgame?  Who foots the bill?

 

It's easy to cast aspersions on Obama's handling of the matter, but have you presented even the vaguest idea of what plausibly could be done instead, or just macho posturing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call it what you will, but could you imagine the the next 50 years without the USSR in Eastern Europe and no cold war? No, you probably can't.

 

I'm not a strategist, but I imagine the Pentagon can come up with a nifty Iran plan.

 

Since you think he's incapable of imagining it, could you imagine the 50 years? Please tell us, since he's clearly not intelligent enough.

 

If you are "not a strategist," on what do you base your opinion of the Iran situation in general?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this notion that because Iran is a danger the only responsible solution is to invade is half baked at best. Where are you folks presuming we get the manpower and money to do this? Are you willing to pay some significantly higher taxes for it? Do we pull our already overextended forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, or are you willing to volunteer, or to have your friends and family drafted? What about North Korea? Don't they actually have nukes already? Don't they threaten to turn Seoul into a fiery ruin every six months or so? Do they come before or after N. Korea?

 

I would be willing to pay almost any amount of taxes for it.

 

As for where we would get the manpower and materiel for it: You are correct, we don't have it today. The dismantling of the Cold War defense infratructure almost 20 years ago now, combined with the sustained exhaustion of our forces between 2001 and today, have seen to that. The difference is that I actually support altering this status quo. I believe that far too many progressives are more than comfortable with a weakened and exhausted U.S. military; it gives them additional practical grounds on which to argue against proposed missions. If we still actually spent around 6% of GDP on defense, we would not be having this conversation (or at least not dealing with this issue within it).

 

I love the specter of suitcase nukes, though. I have to ask, can conservatives these days sell any of their ideas without using fear?

 

What exactly is the positive, hopeful way to discuss the threat of an Iranian nuke, suitcase or otherwise? The notion that once Iran has nuclear weapons, it will undergo a complete personality change or an internal change of power that will see more enlightened figures than Ahmadinejad and the clergy behind him come to power? An Iranian nuke *should* be feared. This "politics of fear" meme is a shallow and unsubstantive way of dismissing and ignoring serious issues, and is simply a justification for continuing the current denial-at-any-price policy that is becoming the Obama Doctrine. We don't, or at least shouldn't, maintain a military to deal with countries we *don't* fear--or would you rather America stick to picking on non-threats like Grenada? Or should the military be reduced to nothing but an incredibly expensive social service organization, used only for disaster relief a la Indonesia (post-tsunami) and Haiti (post-earthquake)?

 

Just because Obama isn't racing to preemptively invade yet another country with materiel, money and men we don't have and can't just raise at a whim doesn't mean he isn't trying to handle the situation.  He has been pressing Russia and China, Iran's main trade partners, on sanctions.  I think that is probably the best that anyone could realistically do right now given our country's financial position and existing military commitments.  Maybe psy-ops like leafleting or a "Radio Free Iran" would be helpful, maybe not.  It's hard to say what we can do in that regard when we are so unpopular with the majority of the Islamic world.  People blame Obama for not being vocal enough in his support of the Iranian dissidents during their recent upheaval.  I think that vocal support from US leadership would have discredited them in the eyes of the rest of Iran.

 

There is no positive or happy way to think about Iran right now.  I think it's a no win in the near term, unless the Iranian people themselves are able to overthrow their government.  Even that is still no guarantee of them stepping back on nuclear weapons when they have become a matter of national pride.

 

I think more than likely we're heading for a Cold War with Iran.  The good news is that a Cold War is winnable.  Much more winnable at the outset than the one we had with the USSR.  They're relatively isolated and unstable.  Their population is educated and more moderate than their leadership, and information flows much more easily than 50 years ago.  They're surrounded by US military bases.  Containment isn't perfect, but they're more or less contained.  Suitcase nukes are a highly unlikely worst case scenario which you are presenting as a near certainty.  That's why I call it a scare tactic.

 

And complicating all this is that the question of N. Korea remains.  They present many of the dangers of Iran, but right now.  And we're really close to war on the Korean Peninsula, right now.  The question of Iran isn't answered in a vacuum.  There are opportunity costs for how we use troops and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that hard to understand that invading other sovereign nations makes us less safe?  Let's at least give diplomacy a fair shake.  Sheesh folks.... the same people I see pissing and moaning anytime Obama wants to spend money HERE, are imploring him to bankrupt our children, and granchildren, and grandchildren's children, with these ineffective overseas military muscle exercises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that hard to understand that invading other sovereign nations makes us less safe?  Let's at least give diplomacy a fair shake.  Sheesh folks.... the same people I see pissing and moaning anytime Obama wants to spend money HERE, are imploring him to bankrupt our children, and granchildren, and grandchildren's children, with these ineffective overseas military muscle exercises.

Amen.

 

12-16-09bud-rev2-17-10-f1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make us less safe.

 

In this day and age of global terrorism the likes of which the US has never seen before I would disagree.  I don't think North Korea, even with all their barking, is a serious threat to the citizens of the United States.  Iran is much the same.  We would be fighting someone elses war on both fronts.  We'd be fighting for the Israelies in Iran and the South Koreans and Japanese in Korea.  That's not something I can get behind right now.

 

We're not fighting countries anymore... we're fighting ideologies because terrorists are the most clear and present danger to the US people.  Missiles, bullets, and bombs don't defeat ideologies.  The most effective way to deal with countries like North Korea and Iran is through propaganda IMO.  Get the people on your side and let them do the work of bringing about change.  Look what happened in Iran during the last election.  The people rose up in support of a new regime which was, legitimately or not, defeated, but the World spotlight was on Iran for those few weeks and it probably ruffled a few feathers in that power structure.  It is important that we not be seen as "meddling" in foreign affairs because that would only push more young people to terrorist organizations.  But bombing their home and killing their parents is a more effective way of building a terrorist.  The US needs to be a World leader, but it's time we put away our iron fist for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important that we not be seen as "meddling" in foreign affairs because that would only push more young people to terrorist organizations. But bombing their home and killing their parents is a more effective way of building a terrorist.

 

All good points Hoot, but the above is what I was getting at in terms of making us less safe.  I feel fairly confident in drawing the conclusion that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of terrorists / militants / extremists today who had absolutely no animus towards the U.S. prior to our most recent campaigns under Bush and now under Obama.  Or at least any animus they did have was not severe enough to cause violence.  Whether it be a misguided U.S. soldier mistreating them or a misguided bomb killing their 5 year old nephew, we as a country have to defend against the inevitable retaliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point. They hate us whether we attack or not.   may as well attack before they hurt us first.

 

You're in La-La land if you don't think we've turned anyone in Iraq or Afghanastan against us over the last 8 years.  It's a natural part of war.  The problem now is that the globe is smaller and the enemy has the ability to attack us on our home soil.

 

Even those that may "hate" the US aren't necessarily inclined to act on that hate.  That is until given a reason.  We give many of them a reason when we invade their home soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, they already hated us.

 

You are lumping an awfully large chunk of the world's population into your use of the term "they"

 

And "hate" is a very strong word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about this:

 

"After the surrender of May 8, 1945 eliminated the threat of Nazi Germany, Patton was quick to assert the Soviet Union would cease to be an ally of the United States. He was concerned that some 25,000 American POWs had been liberated from POW camps by the Soviets, but never returned to the US. In fact, he urged his superiors to evict the Soviets from central and eastern Europe. Patton thought that the Red Army was weak, under-supplied, and vulnerable, and the United States should act on these weaknesses before the Soviets could consolidate their position. In this regard, he told then-Undersecretary of War Robert P. Patterson that the "point system" being used to demobilize Third Army troops was destroying it and creating a vacuum that the Soviets would exploit. "Mr. Secretary, for God’s sake, when you go home, stop this point system; stop breaking up these armies," pleaded the general. "Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people, the Soviets. This is the only language they understand." Asked by Patterson—who became Secretary of War a few months later—what he would do, Patton replied: "I would have you tell the Red Army where their border is, and give them a limited time to get back across. Warn them that if they fail to do so, we will push them back across it."[41]"

 

It seems more of a call for containment, albeit a retroactive containment, than an invasion.

 

And where's the Iran Plan, Dan?

 

And this is why Patton was murdered just a few months later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...