There are some things that run so counter to the very nature of conservatism that once you have said them, you have declared yourself not a conservative. I don’t know what your memory is like but I remember what he said in that speech.
[/quote]
Hysterical and fantastical revisionism is not conservative, though, is it? And neither is logical fallacy (though the two seem to be getting a little too cozy these days).[/quote]
Google the speech, read it then revise your description if you want to be taken seriously.
There are some things that run so counter to the very nature of conservatism that once you have said them, you have declared yourself not a conservative. I don’t know what your memory is like but I remember what he said in that speech.
[/quote]
Hysterical and fantastical revisionism is not conservative, though, is it? And neither is logical fallacy (though the two seem to be getting a little too cozy these days).[/quote]
Google the speech, read it then revise your description if you want to be taken seriously.[/quote]
And now I am out the door for the day. I may check back in later, but I have been fairly drained by constant bickering–much of it about things that couldn’t possibly be construed to matter–lately, and I have work that needs attention.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And that NPR piece, Push–in what way does that piece, to take but one of many examples, support the claim that Obama’s FP is the worst ever? Or worse than Bush’s? How do you draw this conclusion from that piece.
[/quote]
Is worst-ever required? Isn’t really bad enough? I don’t want obama’s FP to be the worst ever because it impacts all of us and the world. I’d prefer not to shoot for the lowest water mark possible.
Russia, Afghanistan, the Arab spring disaster, Syria, Libya, creating tensions with Israel, giving on on eastern European missile defense for Russia for no reason with no trade-offs, Iran, etc. I didn’t need the news to tell me he messed up on all of those, it was pretty obvious.
He did however raise tariffs on Chinese tires, I was grateful for that. He doesn’t have to be the worst, bad is sufficient.
I’m not saying he necessarily deserved a novel prize, but Obama’s recommitment to the the non-proliferation regime in general and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in particular deserve nothing but praise, along with his establishment of the biennial Nuclear Security Summit aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And that NPR piece, Push–in what way does that piece, to take but one of many examples, support the claim that Obama’s FP is the worst ever? Or worse than Bush’s? How do you draw this conclusion from that piece.
[/quote]
Is worst-ever required? Isn’t really bad enough? I don’t want obama’s FP to be the worst ever because it impacts all of us and the world. I’d prefer not to shoot for the lowest water mark possible.
Russia, Afghanistan, the Arab spring disaster, Syria, Libya, creating tensions with Israel, giving on on eastern European missile defense for Russia for no reason with no trade-offs, Iran, etc. I didn’t need the news to tell me he messed up on all of those, it was pretty obvious.
He did however raise tariffs on Chinese tires, I was grateful for that. He doesn’t have to be the worst, bad is sufficient.[/quote]
Missile defense on Russia’s door step is a bad idea, because it has the potential to undermine the stabilizing doctrine of MAD. It would present the Russian Federation with a security dilemma (a dilemma of interpretation and then a dilemma of response) which could lead to a vicious circle of insecurity as both sides procure greater numbers of increasingly sophisticated weapon systems to counter the other’s relative gains, resulting in heightened feelings of insecurity in both which drastically increases the chance of conflict. This is know as a security paradox. NATO expansion into the States traditionally in the Russian sphere of influence and increasingly pervasive western influence presents Russia with another security dilemma and precipitated the crisis in Crimea.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy
“FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality…”
*a non-Tucker Carlson owned publication ^
The Obama administration’s foreign policy has received criticism across the political spectrum. “Hawkish” conservatives such as Obama’s 2008 Republican challenger John McCain[2] and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham[3] have accused the President of being timid and ineffectual in wielding American influence, while more “dovish” liberals such as Jimmy Carter[4] and Dennis Kucinich have accused him of cynicism and heavy-handedness. In particular, many critics charge that he has pursued similarly imperialistic policies to those of his predecessor, George W. Bush, of whom Obama was deeply critical during his tenure in the Senate and his 2008 presidential campaign.
Since you peg so much on beauty pageants:
Fewer Americans Think Obama Respected on World Stage
The Consequences of Disarming America
The president’s policies laid the groundwork for Putin’s actions in Ukraine.
No Carlson ownership ^
Why Is President Obama’s Foreign Policy Unpopular?
No Carlson ownership ^
HUFFPOLLSTER: Obama’s Foreign Policy Rating A Weak Point
Quinnipiac: “American voters give President Barack Obama a negative 39 - 55 percent grade for his handling of foreign policy, one of his lowest foreign policy grades ever.”
No Carlson ownership ^
Obama’s Foreign Policy: More Second-Term Misses Than Hits
“…which leaves Obama’s overall management of foreign policy open to criticism from many directions…”
No Carlson ownership ^
From Russia with Love:
"Obama is a very weak foreign policy president. It’s obvious he lacks interest and knowledge of global affairs. In fact, he has delegated his foreign affairs portfolio to a small number of amateurs: Samantha Powers, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes. They and others have grossly and badly served this president.
“Mainstream media is very aggressive and for the most part always anti-Russia and anti-Vladimir Putin,” Lavelle said. “This US president faces a dilemma - react in favor of bellicose media or be seen as weak. Obama, as usual, compromises and in the end dissatisfies virtually everyone.”
No Carlson ownership ^
The Peril of President Obama’s Foreign and National Security Policy
"Start with President Obama’s vision of the world and his role in it, which make him the antithesis of President Reagan. President Obama believes he is an extraordinary leader of an ordinary, badly flawed nation. Reagan believed he was an ordinary man privileged to lead an extraordinary nation. Obama is totally wrong; Ronald Reagan is half right. For Ronald Reagan was also an extraordinary leader.
"President Obama’s actions and rhetoric before and since becoming President put him at the leftward end of the Democratic party’s New Politics wing that has dominated the party’s foreign policy thinking since the riotous Chicago Democratic convention of 1968. Repudiating the Cold War liberalism of Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson, the New Politics wing of the party typically has considered our enemies abroad less dangerous that what Senator J. William Fulbright famously and fatuously calls ‘the arrogance of American power.’ This liberal guilt about the so-called arrogance of American power impelled President Obama to return to Great Britain the bust of Winston Churchill that British Prime Minister Tony Blair loaned to George W. Bush – an overt repudiation of Churchill’s legacy of vigilance that President Bush sought to emulate. This liberal guilt about the so-called arrogance of American power pervades President Obama’s landmark foreign policy speeches. Speaking in Cairo and later to the UN General Assembly, President Obama apologized profusely for a catalogue of American sins – a few real, many more exaggerated and most imagined. When asked about American exceptionalism at a G-20 meeting in Strasbourg, President Obama dismissed the notion. No American President other than Jimmy Carter would have believed or said anything like that. In his Cairo speech, Obama placed greater blame for our troubles in the Middle East on a decent and democratic Israeli ally than on the region’s culture of despotism, the fanatical eliminationist Iranian regime, or a Palestinian entity bent on eradicating the Jewish States. President Obama’s Cairo and UN speeches are not the exception – they are emblematic: President Obama’s default position is to blame America first; conciliate America’s enemies; and pressure or ignore America’s friends in Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and Latin America.
"Here, finally, is some good news. The United States remains so powerful that even President Obama’s administration cannot squander the benefits of American primacy in a mere four years, or even eight. Nevertheless, the Obama Administration’s misguided economic and national security strategies threaten to erode that primacy dangerously and substantially. President Obama is a true believer in what former UN Ambassador John Bolton calls the first post-American Presidency. The President strives to make the United States look more like the EU and the UN rather than to champion American exceptionalism. It will take an election – perhaps a series of elections – to reverse this perilous course.
Here is another prediction: When in 2012 the next Republican Presidential nominee poses the Reaganesque question of whether we are better off than we were four years ago, the answer will be a resounding – No – economically, politically, internationally, and militarily. That will be because of what the Obama Administration has wrought.
This Administration is the Carter Administration on steroids.[/i] Things will get worse before they get better.
"Referring to the broad-ranging criticism the Obama administration has been getting regarding foreign policy in general and Ukraine in particular, Wallace directly asked Gates to respond.
“I thought in the middle of a major international crisis that some of the criticism, domestic criticism of the president ought to be toned down, while he’s trying to handle the crisis,” answered Gates. “My own view is, after all, Putin invaded Georgia when George W Bush was president. Nobody ever accused George W. Bush of being weak or unwilling to use military force, so I think Putin is very opportunistic in these arenas.”
Such responses are precisely why the American people want to throw the kitchen sink at their television sets. In his first sentence Gates termed the events in Ukraine as an ‘international crisis’ before adding that Barack Obama was ‘trying to handle’ it.
If, indeed, the president believes Ukraine is a major international event, then the way he handled it was to play a round of golf. Does that mean Gates thinks Obama was dealing with Vladimir Putin while lining up a 25-foot putt? Either it is an international crisis or it is not. Gates stated clearly that it is, and Obama’s strategy was to get 18 holes under his belt instead.
It is that very reason that Obama is chastised for being weak and why Gates followup comment about George W. Bush was so asinine. The difference between Bush and Obama is that if Bush found himself in the midst of an ‘international crisis’ he would not have casually made his way to the links. In that sense Gates’ observation about Bush is overwhelmingly unjustified."
Bob Taylor has been traveling the world for more than 30 years as a writer and award winning television producer focusing on international events, people and cultures around the globe. Taylor is founder of The Magellan Travel Club.
Senior UK Defense Advisor: Obama Is Clueless About ‘What He Wants To Do In The World’
"Sir Hew Strachan, an expert on the history of war, says that the president’s strategic failures in Afghanistan and Syria have crippled America’s position in the world.
“President Obama is ‘chronically incapable’ of military strategy and falls far short of his predecessor George W. Bush, according to one of Britain’s most senior military advisors.”
I’m not saying he necessarily deserved a novel prize, but Obama’s recommitment to the the non-proliferation regime in general and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in particular deserve nothing but praise, along with his establishment of the biennial Nuclear Security Summit aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism [/quote]
A coup for Iran:
Rouhani calls on Israel to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ‘without delay’ - Jerusalem Post
I’m not saying he necessarily deserved a novel prize, but Obama’s recommitment to the the non-proliferation regime in general and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in particular deserve nothing but praise, along with his establishment of the biennial Nuclear Security Summit aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism [/quote]
A coup for Iran:
Rouhani calls on Israel to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ‘without delay’ - Jerusalem Post
[/quote]
Iran is a member. God forbid Israel become party to one of the most important security regimes in history.
I’m not saying he necessarily deserved a novel prize, but Obama’s recommitment to the the non-proliferation regime in general and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in particular deserve nothing but praise, along with his establishment of the biennial Nuclear Security Summit aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism [/quote]
A coup for Iran:
Rouhani calls on Israel to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ‘without delay’ - Jerusalem Post
[/quote]
Iran is a member. God forbid Israel become party to one of the most important security regimes in history.[/quote]
I know Iran is a member. They signed on in 1970, nine years before the IslamNazi regime came to power. I wonder which would have a more stabilising effect on the region: Israel with nuclear weapons and Iran without or a nuclear Iran and a nuclear free Israel .
…along with his establishment of the biennial Nuclear Security Summit aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism [/quote]
‘The leaders discussed North Korea, cybersecurity, maritime disputes, and Crimea - but not nuclear security.’ - the Diplomat[/quote]
You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Your quick google search to research the NSS didn’t serve you as well as it should have. Here are the highlights from NSS 2014.
I’m not saying he necessarily deserved a novel prize, but Obama’s recommitment to the the non-proliferation regime in general and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in particular deserve nothing but praise, along with his establishment of the biennial Nuclear Security Summit aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism [/quote]
A coup for Iran:
Rouhani calls on Israel to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ‘without delay’ - Jerusalem Post
[/quote]
Iran is a member. God forbid Israel become party to one of the most important security regimes in history.[/quote]
I know Iran is a member. They signed on in 1970, nine years before the IslamNazi regime came to power. I wonder which would have a more stabilising effect on the region: Israel with nuclear weapons and Iran without or a nuclear Iran and a nuclear free Israel .
[/quote]
Or both a la mode de Kenneth Waltz. His argument is interesting, not that I necessarily agree.
I’m not saying he necessarily deserved a novel prize, but Obama’s recommitment to the the non-proliferation regime in general and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in particular deserve nothing but praise, along with his establishment of the biennial Nuclear Security Summit aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism [/quote]
A coup for Iran:
Rouhani calls on Israel to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ‘without delay’ - Jerusalem Post
[/quote]
Iran is a member. God forbid Israel become party to one of the most important security regimes in history.[/quote]
I know Iran is a member. They signed on in 1970, nine years before the IslamNazi regime came to power. I wonder which would have a more stabilising effect on the region: Israel with nuclear weapons and Iran without or a nuclear Iran and a nuclear free Israel .
[/quote]
Or both a la mode de Kenneth Waltz. His argument is interesting, not that I necessarily agree.
…along with his establishment of the biennial Nuclear Security Summit aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism [/quote]
‘The leaders discussed North Korea, cybersecurity, maritime disputes, and Crimea - but not nuclear security.’ - the Diplomat[/quote]
You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Your quick google search to research the NSS didn’t serve you as well as it should have. Here are the highlights from NSS 2014.
“Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East. I think the people who say this have set a new standard for human stupidity.” - Benjamin Netanyahu
I’m not saying he necessarily deserved a novel prize, but Obama’s recommitment to the the non-proliferation regime in general and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in particular deserve nothing but praise, along with his establishment of the biennial Nuclear Security Summit aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism [/quote]
A coup for Iran:
Rouhani calls on Israel to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ‘without delay’ - Jerusalem Post
[/quote]
Iran is a member. God forbid Israel become party to one of the most important security regimes in history.[/quote]
I know Iran is a member. They signed on in 1970, nine years before the IslamNazi regime came to power. I wonder which would have a more stabilising effect on the region: Israel with nuclear weapons and Iran without or a nuclear Iran and a nuclear free Israel .
[/quote]
Or both a la mode de Kenneth Waltz. His argument is interesting, not that I necessarily agree.
Kenneth Waltz arguing that Iran should have the bomb? Surely you’re not serious? You’re serious?
[/quote]
He’s widely regarded as one of the most prominent scholars in international relations and is the founder of neorealism, a school which has dominated the discipline and American foreign policy. If you disagree with his thesis, go through the article point by point and dispute it.
I’m not saying he necessarily deserved a novel prize, but Obama’s recommitment to the the non-proliferation regime in general and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in particular deserve nothing but praise, along with his establishment of the biennial Nuclear Security Summit aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism [/quote]
A coup for Iran:
Rouhani calls on Israel to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ‘without delay’ - Jerusalem Post
[/quote]
Iran is a member. God forbid Israel become party to one of the most important security regimes in history.[/quote]
I know Iran is a member. They signed on in 1970, nine years before the IslamNazi regime came to power. I wonder which would have a more stabilising effect on the region: Israel with nuclear weapons and Iran without or a nuclear Iran and a nuclear free Israel .
[/quote]
Or both a la mode de Kenneth Waltz. His argument is interesting, not that I necessarily agree.
Kenneth Waltz arguing that Iran should have the bomb? Surely you’re not serious? You’re serious?
[/quote]
He’s widely regarded as one of the most prominent scholars in international relations and is the founder of neorealism, a school which has dominated the discipline and American foreign policy. If you disagree with his thesis, go through the article point by point and dispute it. [/quote]
I know who he was. Daniel Pipes called him the stupidest strategist when he published that article. I don’t have time to wade through horseshit.