PJ should be ashamed of his nonsense.
For one example: the Cuban missile crisis. Another: Atmospheric Nuclear Test Ban treaty.
PJ should be ashamed of his nonsense.
For one example: the Cuban missile crisis. Another: Atmospheric Nuclear Test Ban treaty.
I don't mean it as a personal attack, but as a critical label for a set of views you espouse.
The fact is, there are people who think the right approach is 'strength' over any better qualities, and that should be discussed, not ignored because it's a 'personal attack'.
If the label happens to be 'troglodyte', that's hardly worse than the murders and torture of thousands of people who espouse those views, policies you support by your opposition to any apology for them. You are hardly in a position to say the word troglodyte is too harsh with the blood you have on your hands by defending those policies.
Guess what - the process of recognizing our wrongs and preventing them can take some admission of wrong, and it's the right thing to do. You are on the wrong side.
Chavez has his flaws, which people who can admit ours are justified to bring up. You, on other hand, are like getting a civil rights scoldijng from Mao Zedong.
On the post topic, I didn't say Chavez was the relevan victim, I referred to the book he gave to Obama about a long history of bad policies.
As for Chavez, it's my opinion that he is the victim of a US-supported coup, and the victim of CIA supported undermining of his government, but he's not the issue.
Error 404: Apology not found.
For a group of people who say Obama is too much talk, you are always so willing to put more words in his mouth.
That may be true, but it wasn't the picture that was the problem. America's foreign policy in South America has been just mind boggling.
The problems we find ourselves in today is a direct result of the diplomatic policy we had yesterday. I.e., supporting Bin Laden/Hussein/dictatorX when it suited us. If you want to be outraged about something, be outraged about that.
Depending on the circumstances, even if he did apologize it wouldn't be a big deal. There is nothing wrong with admitting to having made a mistake, something a lot of people seem to fail to grasp.
For god's sake, if your teenager beats up a 5 year old would you not force them to apologize? I'm not saying these dictators deserve our validation, but at least appreciate the history behind how they came to power.
For god's sake, if your teenager beats up a 5 year old would you not force them to apologize? I'm not saying these dictators deserve our validation, but at least appreciate the history behind how they came to power.
colonel
Golden Member
- Apr 22, 2001
- 1,786
- 21
- 81
Nixon was speaking with the Chinese after years of cold war, I dont see a "big deal about the handshake" Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" is a socialist book, the book is from 1970 and the author is Eduardo Galeano, is all about how the USA control the continent with the debt of those nations.
Funny enough, the IMF and world bank have now come to say that they basically agree with those claims, that their policies did all kinds of unintended harms to those naitons.
fallout man
Golden Member
- Nov 20, 2007
- 1,787
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Think even more mainstream than that. OCguy is probably disappointed he didn't see it on the Bonnie Hunt Show, or wedged between Family Circus and his daily horoscope.Originally posted by: RKDaley
They also covered it on the Today Show.
Though maybe they are not the "mainstream media" either?
:music: Boom-Tsk! :music:
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Almost 3 decades?
It happened in the early 60's (i don't remember the exact year but i'm sure someone else does).
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Talking didn't end the cold war, that is my point.
Talking may have ended that single crisis, but to suggest that talking changed the world for the better is a little naive.
In fact, it was when Reagan refused to talk to the Soviets and instead started building more weapons and placing missiles in Europe that the Soviets took notice and eventually changed their tune.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Israel and Egypt didn't start to talk until after Egypt had gotten its ass kicked by Israel a few times and they finally realized that they were never going to end their conflict via violence and decided to change their tune.
Name one belligerent or aggressive nation or dictator that all of a sudden changed its way due to us, or anyone else, talking to them.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
First you cite the cuban missile conflict in the 60's as a reason and now you are saying that Reagan didn't have conversations and agreements about nuclear disarmament with Gorbachev? It wasn't hardliner politics, in fact Reagan took pride in his peaceful diplomacy and stated as much in '88.
As far as being right... you got nothing.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
So that nuclear disarmament contract almost a decade before wasn't a mutual contract?
Please learn your own history, i'm aware of it because Thatcher was involved in the negotiations too.
Edit: at the time, it was the Soviet Union, and Gorbachev had no intention of doing anything that happened during the Jeltsin revolution.
That's right, it happened from withing, the US had NADA to do with that, i know you always take pride in everything and scream "FREEEEEEEDOM" but the Russian revolution purported by and opposing party to the US ally was what actually did what the US proclaimed to be for but in reality was against when it happened (supported Gorbachev, not Jeltsin).
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
No, the one Gorbachev and Reagan signed, you do realise that Gorbachev was NEVER a Russian president, right?
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
I also like the history revisionism about not understanding kT per kT instead of one nuke per one nuke which was the problem, the SU units are about 10-30x larger units and the US claimed that it's one nuke for one nuke even though the deal, which Thatcher supported too said one kT per one kT.
It had nothing to do with the Russian revolution though and Reagan actually supported Gorbachev, not Jeltsin, so he supported a communist dictatorship over democracy.
Now you have gone from the '60's to the 80's to history revisionism, to abolishment to support to ... well god knows what you're imagination can make up next.
Next episode of Professor Johns mind adventures is coming soon to a post near yours!
It had nothing to do with the Russian revolution though and Reagan actually supported Gorbachev, not Jeltsin, so he supported a communist dictatorship over democracy.
Now you have gone from the '60's to the 80's to history revisionism, to abolishment to support to ... well god knows what you're imagination can make up next.
Next episode of Professor Johns mind adventures is coming soon to a post near yours!
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://
<b">Can GOP paint Obama as apologi...0421/pl_politico/21483]http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090421/pl_politico/21483[/L]
Can GOP paint Obama as apologist?
Republicans are hoping they have finally found the secret to taking on President Barack Obama ? by portraying him as overly apologetic about U.S. misdeeds and naive about engaging unfriendly regimes abroad.
But tagging Obama as a ?Jimmy Carter Democrat? on foreign affairs and national security may prove a difficult critique to make stick - at least for the moment.
That is because Obama and his aides have sought to inoculate themselves against the charge with a simple defense: This is what the public voted for in November.
The White House says Obama made clear that his foreign policy approach called for engagement and admitting mistakes where warranted and that voters embraced that sharp break with eight years of the Bush administration.
So for now, Republicans may find little political headway by bashing Obama for his cordial handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the release of so-called torture memos and other recent moves that have been criticized by Vice President Dick Cheney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and some Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Though there are risks to Obama?s approach, there are also potential rewards ? and in most cases, neither will be apparent for months at the earliest. And for the moment, the public is still giving Obama good marks for his handling of foreign affairs.
?Right now, the weight of public opinion is still with the administration and not with the Republicans,? said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.
?Americans are open to the idea that negotiations are part of our future,? although, Zelizer added, ?they are looking for what comes after the handshake.?
In other words, at some point, Obama?s fondness for engagement with foes and rivals and his willingness to dismiss arguments of the past will have to show results, or the Republican critique could start cutting into the president?s approval ratings and undermining his foreign policy approach.
Until then, Republicans face an uphill struggle at getting much traction with their critique, said Ari Fleischer, President George W. Bush?s former press secretary: ?It?s as if cosmetics and pageantry are more important than the substance of foreign policy in the age of Obama.? Fleischer agreed that Obama is getting something of a pass from a domestic-focused American public.?But that only lasts so long,? he warned.
James Carafano, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Heritage Foundation, said Republicans ?can rally the troops and get it on the record, but it?s very hard to break the momentum [of the Obama administration] until reality intrudes.?
The reality for Obama overseas has proved remarkably positive so far. His first trip overseas, to Europe, gave Americans a glimpse of a popular president abroad ? for some, a welcome change from the anti-Americanism that often greeted Bush.
Obama headed to a summit in Trinidad and Tobago after the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips by Navy SEALS ? an episode whose outcome stood in stark contrast to the long-running Iranian hostage crisis that crippled Carter?s presidency.
But every president eventually faces a national security crisis that tests his policies.
Another major terrorist attack against the U.S. or its interests abroad could sharpen criticism from former Bush administration officials of Obama?s counterterrorism polices, including the release of largely unredacted Justice Department memos describing interrogation procedures.
Administration officials insist that the decision to release memos describing the use of waterboarding and other harsh techniques against Al Qaeda prisoners does not diminish U.S. safety, especially since Obama has committed not to use the techniques in the future. The decision to outlaw the techniques may make the U.S. safer by removing a major complaint that Muslims have about the U.S., officials argued.
But former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden and others have argued that revealing details of the interrogations reveals to terrorists how far the U.S. is willing to go during questioning, which he said could diminish intelligence information obtained from interrogations and make it harder to detect ongoing plots.
Support for Obama?s counterterrorism policies ?is much more precarious in that Americans have been confused? about how far the U.S. should go in attempting to prevent future terror attacks, said Zelizer.
The White House is clearly aware that engagement without results is not a viable course, which is why spokesman Robert Gibbs pointed to Venezuela?s offer to send an ambassador back to Washington as an early example of a concrete achievement of engagement with Chavez.
But Cheney joined the Republican critique Monday, telling Fox News? Sean Hannity that Obama?s handshake with Chavez could lead ?foes? of the U.S. to ?think they?re dealing with a weak president.?
Even some Democrats were wary of that Obama-Chavez photo ? with at least one hoping Americans wouldn?t recognize the Venezuelan leader.
?On the one hand, it probably wasn?t the most opportune photo op for the president. On the other hand, the honest truth is Americans don?t have the same kind of visceral reaction to Hugo Chavez that we do to Saddam Hussein, or even to [Fidel] Castro,? one Democratic strategist said.
Obama also has been careful to inject caution into the discussion of what is possible by reaching out to longtime foes. In the case of Cuba, he responded to an offer from Raul Castro of broad talks with the United States by laying out a series of demanding steps for Cuba to take, including the release of political prisoners and adoption of democratic reforms. Obama acknowledged that the U.S. policy toward Cuba ?hasn?t worked,? but he played down the possibility of quick improvement in relations.
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, was with the president at last weekend?s Summit of the Americas and wanted Obama to be more forceful about U.S. demands at the conference.
?I wish the president would have taken the opportunity to speak about [human and political rights issues in Cuba] and remind those countries who want to forget about the brutality of the Castro regime,? Mack said. Still, Mack, noting the presence of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia, conceded that ?the environment here was pretty well-stacked against the president.?
On Iran, though, the administration?s preference for engagement will have to produce gains relatively quickly. Having declared it unacceptable for Iran to achieve a nuclear weapons capability, Obama will face increasing pressure as months pass to show that engagement with Tehran can actually succeed in restraining its nuclear activities.
White House officials have been very careful not to remove options such as harsh sanctions or even military action from the table, which gives Obama room to switch course if outreach to Iran proves fruitless.
The high-wire act that Obama is now embarked upon with the Iranians became even more evident Monday when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered an inflammatory speech at a U.N. conference on racism in Geneva that attacked the United States and Israel, prompting a walkout by many delegates. The U.S. was boycotting the conference already, but the episode pointed up the danger the U.S. faces of a blowup as it proceeds with its outreach to Tehran.
Jonathan Martin contributed to this story.
How has it not worked? What hasn't worked out for us? I mean, obviously it hasn't worked out for Cuba but who's fault is that? Certainly not ours.
Cuba should have had a revolution YEARS ago. If the US wasn't close enough to boat to they would have.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter