Kim Jong Il Throws his Support Behind Obama

[OrByte]

IMHO it's safe to say that the rest of the world, both friends and enemies alike, will support Obama when it comes to choosing between Obama and a rational US foreign policy, or McCain and more of the insane foreign policy of GWB. The same type of US policy that resulted in the largest military superpower in the world kicking dust and sand around in the Middle East and destabilizing Iraq. Our enemies don't want to be the next one in line.

Some people think that Kim Jong Il and Hezbollah are looking forward to a prosperous future if the US is led by a soft Democrat...I think its rather these "enemies" of our nation are looking to stay in power and not suffer the same type of "pre-emptive" war that Saddam suffered.

It?s called self-preservation. The US, under GWB, drastically altered its foreign policy, I think the rest of the world would like to see us change course again with Obama and not give them more of the same with McCain.

 

[Vic]

Reverse psychology is usually lost on the feeble-minded.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Now, if Hezbollah and Kim think that President Obama will be better for them then you have to wonder what makes them think that way and will that be good or bad for the US.

Take it further. What if they assume that under an Obama presidency their followers won't be kidnapped and flown to secret prisons around the world and tortured for information they may or may not have, but under McCain they think that would be as distinct a possibility as it is under W.

Now you have to ask YOURSELF which course of action you support.

I happen to think that allowing those practices makes us less safe, loses us worldwide popular support in the WoT, and engenders hate for the US in foreign generation after generation, thus raising new crops of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

[Godwin] I'm not saying we let outsiders dictate our policies or our president, but if Hitler were alive and said he admired McCain as a strong leader who did whatever it took to get the job done, it would be pretty dumb for us to say that we shouldn't vote for McCain because Hitler admired him. [/Godwin]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You will have to name the 'bad guys' who support McCain since I am not aware of any that compare to Hezbollah and Kim.

If you assume people would rather live peacefully than die, then the question becomes why does the rest of the world think a presidency under McCain is unlikely to lead to any sort of peace?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Reagan was a good foreign policy President.

We were very popular in the world and our major enemy was falling apart. And he did this by being tough and standing up to tyrants.

Clinton gives us another good example as well.
When he was nice, North Korea, the bad guys took advantage of us.
But when he was tough, Serbia, we got what we wanted and that part of the world is a much better because of it.

And George W. Bush?

Too early to tell.
Iraq is heading in the right direction, if this continues and Iraq becomes a stable Democracy then Bush will be treated far kinder by history than he is treated now.

What direction is that? And you forgot Afghanistan. But, after listening to Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press yesterday, it's now NATO's problem. Finally, there's the whole GWOT. Is that also heading in the right direction?

 

[Vic]

Hamas and Hezbollah put their "support" behind Obama because they knew that America's right-wing hacks could easily forget about Obama's record of anti-Palestinian terrorism legislation and efforts.

Similar logic works for Kim Jong Il, who has enjoyed the international spotlight and relative good times during the Bush administration, and fears a return to the dark days of the '90s when NK was ignored and short on foreign aid with a starving populace.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Perhaps you missed my point.

It was Obama himself who came out and said that we should ignore these 'distractions' and then pretty much lumped anything and everything bad about him that had come out as a 'distraction.'

That was my point.

I wasn't even aware that he said that. I just decided to ignore them on my own because I realized that they really don't matter. They are just red herrings. I guess this means that both Obama and I look at this junk in the same way. I should note that whenever the news media comes out with a bunch of garbage that doesn't matter about McCain I ignore that as well. It helps keep me focused on what I feel I should be focused on.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Reagan was a good foreign policy President.

We were very popular in the world and our major enemy was falling apart. And he did this by being tough and standing up to tyrants.

Clinton gives us another good example as well.
When he was nice, North Korea, the bad guys took advantage of us.
But when he was tough, Serbia, we got what we wanted and that part of the world is a much better because of it.

Reagan...good foreign policy? In the same sentence?

Of all things to reply with, that's not something I was expecting. Does this include things that happened under his watch that he was "unaware" of? How many TOW missiles do you think President Obama would have to sell to terrorists to equal Reagan's grand legacy?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Reagan was a good foreign policy President.

We were very popular in the world and our major enemy was falling apart. And he did this by being tough and standing up to tyrants.

Clinton gives us another good example as well.
When he was nice, North Korea, the bad guys took advantage of us.
But when he was tough, Serbia, we got what we wanted and that part of the world is a much better because of it.

Reagan...good foreign policy? In the same sentence?

Of all things to reply with, that's not something I was expecting. Does this include things that happened under his watch that he was "unaware" of? How many TOW missiles do you think President Obama would have to sell to terrorists to equal Reagan's grand legacy?

Remember you're replying to King-of-all-Hacks PJ here. His perspective is anything but objective.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Reagan was a good foreign policy President.

We were very popular in the world and our major enemy was falling apart. And he did this by being tough and standing up to tyrants.

Clinton gives us another good example as well.
When he was nice, North Korea, the bad guys took advantage of us.
But when he was tough, Serbia, we got what we wanted and that part of the world is a much better because of it.

Reagan...good foreign policy? In the same sentence?

Of all things to reply with, that's not something I was expecting. Does this include things that happened under his watch that he was "unaware" of? How many TOW missiles do you think President Obama would have to sell to terrorists to equal Reagan's grand legacy?

Remember you're replying to King-of-all-Hacks PJ here. His perspective is anything but objective.

The Patriarch of Jokers.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Reagan was a good foreign policy President.

We were very popular in the world and our major enemy was falling apart. And he did this by being tough and standing up to tyrants.

Clinton gives us another good example as well.
When he was nice, North Korea, the bad guys took advantage of us.
But when he was tough, Serbia, we got what we wanted and that part of the world is a much better because of it.

Reagan...good foreign policy? In the same sentence?

Of all things to reply with, that's not something I was expecting. Does this include things that happened under his watch that he was "unaware" of? How many TOW missiles do you think President Obama would have to sell to terrorists to equal Reagan's grand legacy?

Remember you're replying to King-of-all-Hacks PJ here. His perspective is anything but objective.

I've always been amazed about the revisionist history regarding Reagan... it's amazing that he could forget or not know so much, and be considered a master of foreign policy.

 

[Thump553]

Back on point (regardeing Kim Jong II) I seriously doubt whether more than 0.00001% of the US voting population would consider his "support" favorably when choosing between Obama and McCain.

This is mostly about Kim Jong II's enormous ego, and him thinking US voters give a rat's *ss about his opinion regarding US politics.

OTOH, it makes a great-if useless-talking point for the Fox News pundits so they can show their "deep concern" about whether Obama should be elected.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Reagan was a good foreign policy President.

haahhaha

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Reagan was a good foreign policy President.

We were very popular in the world and our major enemy was falling apart. And he did this by being tough and standing up to tyrants.

Clinton gives us another good example as well.
When he was nice, North Korea, the bad guys took advantage of us.
But when he was tough, Serbia, we got what we wanted and that part of the world is a much better because of it.

Reagan...good foreign policy? In the same sentence?

Of all things to reply with, that's not something I was expecting. Does this include things that happened under his watch that he was "unaware" of? How many TOW missiles do you think President Obama would have to sell to terrorists to equal Reagan's grand legacy?

Remember you're replying to King-of-all-Hacks PJ here. His perspective is anything but objective.

I've always been amazed about the revisionist history regarding Reagan... it's amazing that he could forget or not know so much, and be considered a master of foreign policy.

Perhaps that's why Bush is so favored by some. He knows nothing, and everything is everyone elses fault. I also wonder if after 8 years it's too early to tell about Bush, but before Obama gets into office he's seen by the same people as being inept? That's logic! :roll:

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I also wonder if after 8 years it's too early to tell about Bush, but before Obama gets into office he's seen by the same people as being inept? That's logic! :roll:

Excellent point.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Socio
Kim Jong Il Throws his Support Behind Obama

Takes one to know one, comrade. He's just a kindred spirit with a love for government.

 

[Sacrilege]

Russia and China have basically officially made it clear they would prefer McCain.

The reason? They think Republicans will be less likely to care about human rights abuses. A real great reputation to be proud of.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: jonks
Well at least McCain is getting the endorsement of reasonable people. Butterbean, is that your silhouette?

http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/3241/

I love how people are doing the same thing as Socio is and saying that it somehow reflects on McCain. I mean for Christ's sake, is it any surprise that the KKK decided to endorse McCain as opposed to Obama? They don't really have an option here.