Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Allan from Fallbrook
Participantgandalf: I don’t think casca likes Jets fans, either!
Okay, on a more serious note: I would assess Obama’s foreign policy position on his pronoucements regarding engaging other countries in dialogue as well as his statements on potential US intervention(s).
The Zakaria article was a lofty piece of sophistry that did absolutely nothing in terms of articulating Obama’s policy positions.
We do have Obama himself discussing having peer-to-peer discussions with Syria and Iran, as well as intervening in Pakistan (which he did fail to recognize as a sovereign nation). I don’t think engaging renegade states like Syria or Iran is a conservative position, nor do I feel it is a very “realistic” position, rather I think it does display a fairly breathtaking naivete.
He does not have a good grasp of history and that alarms me also. Please remember that Neville Chamberlain was not some idealistic fool, either. He was an experienced British politician and Prime Minister, but made the fatal mistake of treating Hitler in good faith and expecting the same in return. For Chamberlain, the specter of WWI was only a generation removed, and he was determined to avoid another repeat of a European war. Hitler, on the other hand, was a self aggrandizing madman who would stop at nothing to achieve his vision of a Pan-Germanic Europe, including going to war. He was militarizing Germany in direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty and the British and French policies of appeasement were only fuelling his belief that they were too weak willed to openly confront him and risk war. Sound familiar?
To me, it sounds very much like the situation with Iran and President I-Am-a-Dinner-Jacket. Continued European dissembling, combined with any sort of serious response or willingness to confront him has resulted in the present situation. Does engaging in further dialogue here help? Does having a strong grasp of history help? Does understanding the nature of the regime, the people and the motivations? And, I am not saying the McCain is possessed of a modicum more understanding than Obama is. Let me be very clear about that. I find his singing “bomb Iran” to the strains of the Beach Boys “Barbara Ann” chilling as hell.
Participantgandalf: I don’t think casca likes Jets fans, either!
Okay, on a more serious note: I would assess Obama’s foreign policy position on his pronoucements regarding engaging other countries in dialogue as well as his statements on potential US intervention(s).
The Zakaria article was a lofty piece of sophistry that did absolutely nothing in terms of articulating Obama’s policy positions.
We do have Obama himself discussing having peer-to-peer discussions with Syria and Iran, as well as intervening in Pakistan (which he did fail to recognize as a sovereign nation). I don’t think engaging renegade states like Syria or Iran is a conservative position, nor do I feel it is a very “realistic” position, rather I think it does display a fairly breathtaking naivete.
He does not have a good grasp of history and that alarms me also. Please remember that Neville Chamberlain was not some idealistic fool, either. He was an experienced British politician and Prime Minister, but made the fatal mistake of treating Hitler in good faith and expecting the same in return. For Chamberlain, the specter of WWI was only a generation removed, and he was determined to avoid another repeat of a European war. Hitler, on the other hand, was a self aggrandizing madman who would stop at nothing to achieve his vision of a Pan-Germanic Europe, including going to war. He was militarizing Germany in direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty and the British and French policies of appeasement were only fuelling his belief that they were too weak willed to openly confront him and risk war. Sound familiar?
To me, it sounds very much like the situation with Iran and President I-Am-a-Dinner-Jacket. Continued European dissembling, combined with any sort of serious response or willingness to confront him has resulted in the present situation. Does engaging in further dialogue here help? Does having a strong grasp of history help? Does understanding the nature of the regime, the people and the motivations? And, I am not saying the McCain is possessed of a modicum more understanding than Obama is. Let me be very clear about that. I find his singing “bomb Iran” to the strains of the Beach Boys “Barbara Ann” chilling as hell.
Participantgandalf: I don’t think casca likes Jets fans, either!
Okay, on a more serious note: I would assess Obama’s foreign policy position on his pronoucements regarding engaging other countries in dialogue as well as his statements on potential US intervention(s).
The Zakaria article was a lofty piece of sophistry that did absolutely nothing in terms of articulating Obama’s policy positions.
We do have Obama himself discussing having peer-to-peer discussions with Syria and Iran, as well as intervening in Pakistan (which he did fail to recognize as a sovereign nation). I don’t think engaging renegade states like Syria or Iran is a conservative position, nor do I feel it is a very “realistic” position, rather I think it does display a fairly breathtaking naivete.
He does not have a good grasp of history and that alarms me also. Please remember that Neville Chamberlain was not some idealistic fool, either. He was an experienced British politician and Prime Minister, but made the fatal mistake of treating Hitler in good faith and expecting the same in return. For Chamberlain, the specter of WWI was only a generation removed, and he was determined to avoid another repeat of a European war. Hitler, on the other hand, was a self aggrandizing madman who would stop at nothing to achieve his vision of a Pan-Germanic Europe, including going to war. He was militarizing Germany in direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty and the British and French policies of appeasement were only fuelling his belief that they were too weak willed to openly confront him and risk war. Sound familiar?
To me, it sounds very much like the situation with Iran and President I-Am-a-Dinner-Jacket. Continued European dissembling, combined with any sort of serious response or willingness to confront him has resulted in the present situation. Does engaging in further dialogue here help? Does having a strong grasp of history help? Does understanding the nature of the regime, the people and the motivations? And, I am not saying the McCain is possessed of a modicum more understanding than Obama is. Let me be very clear about that. I find his singing “bomb Iran” to the strains of the Beach Boys “Barbara Ann” chilling as hell.
ParticipantJohn,
I have tremendous respect for McCain and what he went through during his captivity. However, he has been pandering, and there is no way to avoid calling it like it is.
By the same token, Obama has been bouncing all over the place doing the same “Swing Vote Shuffle” and for the same reason: VOTES.
gandalf: I would also caution you on the hopes that Obama will win and surround himself with a gifted team. Did Dubya? Did Clinton? You have a high regard for him, but sometimes it seems to veer into wishful thinking. I don’t think he is dumb when it comes to foreign policy, I think he is a dilettante, and that is a very dangerous thing to be in the world right now. I have a hard time imagining him holding his own against Putin, much along the lines of JFK being bullied by Nikita early in his presidency. This idea that he is a centrist, then a realist, now a conservative, fully illustrates that even a sycophant like Zakaria is having a hard following the bouncing ball.
ParticipantJohn,
I have tremendous respect for McCain and what he went through during his captivity. However, he has been pandering, and there is no way to avoid calling it like it is.
By the same token, Obama has been bouncing all over the place doing the same “Swing Vote Shuffle” and for the same reason: VOTES.
gandalf: I would also caution you on the hopes that Obama will win and surround himself with a gifted team. Did Dubya? Did Clinton? You have a high regard for him, but sometimes it seems to veer into wishful thinking. I don’t think he is dumb when it comes to foreign policy, I think he is a dilettante, and that is a very dangerous thing to be in the world right now. I have a hard time imagining him holding his own against Putin, much along the lines of JFK being bullied by Nikita early in his presidency. This idea that he is a centrist, then a realist, now a conservative, fully illustrates that even a sycophant like Zakaria is having a hard following the bouncing ball.
ParticipantJohn,
I have tremendous respect for McCain and what he went through during his captivity. However, he has been pandering, and there is no way to avoid calling it like it is.
By the same token, Obama has been bouncing all over the place doing the same “Swing Vote Shuffle” and for the same reason: VOTES.
gandalf: I would also caution you on the hopes that Obama will win and surround himself with a gifted team. Did Dubya? Did Clinton? You have a high regard for him, but sometimes it seems to veer into wishful thinking. I don’t think he is dumb when it comes to foreign policy, I think he is a dilettante, and that is a very dangerous thing to be in the world right now. I have a hard time imagining him holding his own against Putin, much along the lines of JFK being bullied by Nikita early in his presidency. This idea that he is a centrist, then a realist, now a conservative, fully illustrates that even a sycophant like Zakaria is having a hard following the bouncing ball.
ParticipantJohn,
I have tremendous respect for McCain and what he went through during his captivity. However, he has been pandering, and there is no way to avoid calling it like it is.
By the same token, Obama has been bouncing all over the place doing the same “Swing Vote Shuffle” and for the same reason: VOTES.
gandalf: I would also caution you on the hopes that Obama will win and surround himself with a gifted team. Did Dubya? Did Clinton? You have a high regard for him, but sometimes it seems to veer into wishful thinking. I don’t think he is dumb when it comes to foreign policy, I think he is a dilettante, and that is a very dangerous thing to be in the world right now. I have a hard time imagining him holding his own against Putin, much along the lines of JFK being bullied by Nikita early in his presidency. This idea that he is a centrist, then a realist, now a conservative, fully illustrates that even a sycophant like Zakaria is having a hard following the bouncing ball.
ParticipantJohn,
I have tremendous respect for McCain and what he went through during his captivity. However, he has been pandering, and there is no way to avoid calling it like it is.
By the same token, Obama has been bouncing all over the place doing the same “Swing Vote Shuffle” and for the same reason: VOTES.
gandalf: I would also caution you on the hopes that Obama will win and surround himself with a gifted team. Did Dubya? Did Clinton? You have a high regard for him, but sometimes it seems to veer into wishful thinking. I don’t think he is dumb when it comes to foreign policy, I think he is a dilettante, and that is a very dangerous thing to be in the world right now. I have a hard time imagining him holding his own against Putin, much along the lines of JFK being bullied by Nikita early in his presidency. This idea that he is a centrist, then a realist, now a conservative, fully illustrates that even a sycophant like Zakaria is having a hard following the bouncing ball.
Participantgandalf: Not to sound partisan, but it was Fareed Zakaria that penned that hagiographic little missive.
Picking up on surveyor’s mention of labels: The article indentifies Tony Lake as a “pragmatic Neo-Wilsonian”. Huh? Wilson was a high minded, progressive idealist, as exemplified by his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations. He was very embittered after the Treaty of Versailles and especially France’s handling of Germany following WWI. I’m not sure what the pragmatic version of that looks like, but it must be interesting. It also illustrates something of a sleight of hand, in that Zakaria attempts to “turn” certain words and labels to a different meaning, and it conflates Obama’s worldview with those people and periods where “American Realism” (whatever the hell that is) worked.
Zakaria employs key words like progressive, and realist, all within the rubric of establishing Obama’s “vision” as being equal to a Wilson, or an Acheson or Kennan (the last two being very capable Cold Warriors and vigorous enforcers of the containment strategy against the USSR). However, as surveyor rightly points out, Obama lacks a fundamental sense of history, especially the all-important facts, which then provides the context, which then provides the solution.
Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.
Clinton made the same mistake when he considered dealing with terrorism to be a law enforcement problem. It wasn’t and isn’t.
Participantgandalf: Not to sound partisan, but it was Fareed Zakaria that penned that hagiographic little missive.
Picking up on surveyor’s mention of labels: The article indentifies Tony Lake as a “pragmatic Neo-Wilsonian”. Huh? Wilson was a high minded, progressive idealist, as exemplified by his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations. He was very embittered after the Treaty of Versailles and especially France’s handling of Germany following WWI. I’m not sure what the pragmatic version of that looks like, but it must be interesting. It also illustrates something of a sleight of hand, in that Zakaria attempts to “turn” certain words and labels to a different meaning, and it conflates Obama’s worldview with those people and periods where “American Realism” (whatever the hell that is) worked.
Zakaria employs key words like progressive, and realist, all within the rubric of establishing Obama’s “vision” as being equal to a Wilson, or an Acheson or Kennan (the last two being very capable Cold Warriors and vigorous enforcers of the containment strategy against the USSR). However, as surveyor rightly points out, Obama lacks a fundamental sense of history, especially the all-important facts, which then provides the context, which then provides the solution.
Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.
Clinton made the same mistake when he considered dealing with terrorism to be a law enforcement problem. It wasn’t and isn’t.
Participantgandalf: Not to sound partisan, but it was Fareed Zakaria that penned that hagiographic little missive.
Picking up on surveyor’s mention of labels: The article indentifies Tony Lake as a “pragmatic Neo-Wilsonian”. Huh? Wilson was a high minded, progressive idealist, as exemplified by his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations. He was very embittered after the Treaty of Versailles and especially France’s handling of Germany following WWI. I’m not sure what the pragmatic version of that looks like, but it must be interesting. It also illustrates something of a sleight of hand, in that Zakaria attempts to “turn” certain words and labels to a different meaning, and it conflates Obama’s worldview with those people and periods where “American Realism” (whatever the hell that is) worked.
Zakaria employs key words like progressive, and realist, all within the rubric of establishing Obama’s “vision” as being equal to a Wilson, or an Acheson or Kennan (the last two being very capable Cold Warriors and vigorous enforcers of the containment strategy against the USSR). However, as surveyor rightly points out, Obama lacks a fundamental sense of history, especially the all-important facts, which then provides the context, which then provides the solution.
Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.
Clinton made the same mistake when he considered dealing with terrorism to be a law enforcement problem. It wasn’t and isn’t.
Participantgandalf: Not to sound partisan, but it was Fareed Zakaria that penned that hagiographic little missive.
Picking up on surveyor’s mention of labels: The article indentifies Tony Lake as a “pragmatic Neo-Wilsonian”. Huh? Wilson was a high minded, progressive idealist, as exemplified by his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations. He was very embittered after the Treaty of Versailles and especially France’s handling of Germany following WWI. I’m not sure what the pragmatic version of that looks like, but it must be interesting. It also illustrates something of a sleight of hand, in that Zakaria attempts to “turn” certain words and labels to a different meaning, and it conflates Obama’s worldview with those people and periods where “American Realism” (whatever the hell that is) worked.
Zakaria employs key words like progressive, and realist, all within the rubric of establishing Obama’s “vision” as being equal to a Wilson, or an Acheson or Kennan (the last two being very capable Cold Warriors and vigorous enforcers of the containment strategy against the USSR). However, as surveyor rightly points out, Obama lacks a fundamental sense of history, especially the all-important facts, which then provides the context, which then provides the solution.
Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.
Clinton made the same mistake when he considered dealing with terrorism to be a law enforcement problem. It wasn’t and isn’t.
Participantgandalf: Not to sound partisan, but it was Fareed Zakaria that penned that hagiographic little missive.
Picking up on surveyor’s mention of labels: The article indentifies Tony Lake as a “pragmatic Neo-Wilsonian”. Huh? Wilson was a high minded, progressive idealist, as exemplified by his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations. He was very embittered after the Treaty of Versailles and especially France’s handling of Germany following WWI. I’m not sure what the pragmatic version of that looks like, but it must be interesting. It also illustrates something of a sleight of hand, in that Zakaria attempts to “turn” certain words and labels to a different meaning, and it conflates Obama’s worldview with those people and periods where “American Realism” (whatever the hell that is) worked.
Zakaria employs key words like progressive, and realist, all within the rubric of establishing Obama’s “vision” as being equal to a Wilson, or an Acheson or Kennan (the last two being very capable Cold Warriors and vigorous enforcers of the containment strategy against the USSR). However, as surveyor rightly points out, Obama lacks a fundamental sense of history, especially the all-important facts, which then provides the context, which then provides the solution.
Islamic terrorism, as practiced by al-Qaeda, has nothing to do with poverty, other than it recruits well from poverty stricken parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, al-Qaeda’s core tenets call for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate that will bring everyone into conformity and compliance of Shari’a (Islamic law). That makes attacking the problem very different than if it was solely driven by poverty.
Clinton made the same mistake when he considered dealing with terrorism to be a law enforcement problem. It wasn’t and isn’t.
July 19, 2008 at 10:43 AM in reply to: McBama: The Long-Awaited Unveiling of The Official Establishment Tool #242794Participantrenterclint: Amen, brother.
-
AuthorPosts
