One thing every one
One thing every one
An incredibly large piece of history is missing in this article concerning the weakness of John F. Kennedy regarding the overthrow of Batista in Cuba, the rise of Castro, the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs and JFK's obvious lack of negotiating acumen when he met Khruschev in 1961 which is understood by many historians to have been the opening for the establishment of the Berlin Wall. Obama's clear lack of experience
I came to a conclusion that OBAMA IS A DANGER NOT ONLY TO THE USA BUT TO THE WORLD!!!!
A friend, analysed the different candidates their advantages and disadvantages; he mentioned that OBAMA is compared by his followers to John F. Kennedy. I mentioned that even Kennedy had his bay of Pigs. He reacted ???Yes, but see how Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile crisis???, I thought for minute and said ???can you imagine the Soviets moving missiles into Cuba during, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, or Clinton????, He thought and said ???you are right, they would have not taken the risk, knowing how we will handle such a crisis???.
The fact that Kennedy was a young candidate without a proven history in Foreign affairs, encouraged the Russian Leaders to take the risk and test him. In their view they would have been irresponsible not to test him. It also means that if Stalin would have been the Russian leader at that point in time he wouldn???t have backed off, with all the implications of a military confrontation.
It is exactly the same situation with OBAMA, he is a candidate without any history in International affairs. The North Korean, Iran, Syria, China, Russia, Pakistan, Chavez, Al Quida, will be irresponsible (in their view) not to test him. Especially after the Naïve and shifting positions he took during the primaries process. Such tests imply only additional danger to the world, as no one knows exactly what will be the reaction of the other side. OBAMA might react correctly, but he might also make mistakes that will have catastrophic results.
The advantage of John F. Kennedy over OBAMA was that he knew his limitations, thus he surrounded himself with an outstanding group of individuals who helped him in formulating the correct courses of action. OBAMA on the other hand does not have an idea what are his limitations, only a Manic-depressive person could declare that he has extensive foreign affairs experience that is based on the fact that he spent his kindergarten years in Indonesia, and that he spent a summer vacation in Pakistan ???which makes him an expert???. I travel a lot and have spent lots of time in over 50 countries, sometimes several months in each visit. My IQ is probably double of OBAMAs, and still I will not dare to declare that I am an expert especially when dealing with Arab/Muslim countries. For OBAMA to declare it simply demonstrates an unbelievable level of arrogance, and frankly stupidity!! The situation looks more dangerous when you take into consideration the people who take key positions in his campaign advising him on foreign policy issues.
1. Manic-depression is a serious illness whose sufferers have little to no control over its effects, not the malice-driven character flaw that you seem so eager to characterize it as. You may feel free to read the medical literature on this. Also, Obama's never shown even the slightest hint of it when diagnosed by *actual medical professionals*, as I understand it.
2. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved in a peaceful way that paved the way for a further peace between the Soviet and American empires. Its lasting legacy may have helped the Cold War end without more military conflict. It could have been a lot worse - a lot, lot worse.
3. It's quite unreasonable to ask just about anyone to believe that your "IQ is probably double of OBAMAs" when the grammar that you just used to post that sentence is incorrect. Should have been "that of Obama's"...
Honestly, are you a Fox News plant or a neocon propaganda operative or what? Iran is a local threat, if that, not a global one, and its economy is in serious trouble as it stands- just as Iraq's economy had been driven to complete impoverishment by ten years of U.N. sanctions before we invaded. If we were simply to stand out of the way for a few years, it's quite likely that their economy would collapse and that domestic unrest would do a far better job of unseating Ahmadinejad that anything else. The *worst* we can do - and we've been doing it - is to saber-rattle and convince the Iranian population that the U.S. is a bigger threat than their own repressive leadership. The best description I've heard so far of the whole situation and all of this fearmongering is that "if this is 1937, Iran is Romania, not Germany". This applied to Iraq, too.
A major American city (New Orleans) and now nearly a complete state (Iowa) are *underwater*, which is projected to spike gas prices up to 15% past global prices - global prices just shot up from around $100 a barrel to $137 a barrel - which means we may be looking at six to seven dollar gas *within a year* in our own country. Much of the American West is heading into a serious, serious drought. British and Spanish truckers are *striking* over the equivalent of $11/gallon gasoline in their countries, leaving their trucks on the highways, meaning that parts of a bloc (the E.U.) that has generally acted as one of out strongest global allies since the Berlin Wall fell is rapidly losing the ability to even maintain its own infrastructure.
Even if you are a neoconservative propagandist, at what point are you going to realize that even if your ONLY aim is to drum up enough support to promote American military invasion for profit, eventually gas prices will go too high, our tax base (i.e., America) will begin to *seriously* collapse and fail, and at some point there will simply not be enough resources left to maintain an invasion?
Great post, Vigil. However, I am sure that Pramono and Demeryage aren't capable of grasping the truth of what you have said.
As a medical doctor myself, I can unequivocally say that I have never seen any signs or symptoms of manic depression in Barack Obama or in John McCain. McCain indisputably has anger management issues, but that is a character flaw, not a mental illness.
And I SERIOUSLY doubt that Pramono's IQ is "double" Obama's. Obama is way above genius level. I will give you some examples:
Obama majored in International Relations at Columbia University. This Ivy league school requires exceptionally high SAT scores, higher even than those needed to get in to MIT. And Obama graduated with highest honors, which means he was in the top one percent of the approximately 5,000 students who attend Columbia, all of whom have higher SAT scores than MIT students. Very, very smart competition.
At Harvard Law School, Obama was ranked number one in his class. He was number one of all those students, each of whom were ranked at the top of their respective colleges. He was the best and the brightest of the most intelligent group in America. It is a huge honor to be named as an editor to the Harvard Law Review. Barack was not only an editor, but also President of the Review, the first time in history that any black had been so honored. The Law Review choses its editors based on grade point average, writing skills, social skills, oratory and attributes that the faculty believe will lead to being top lawyers and lawmakers. The jewel in the crown of the Presidency goes to the student who has all of those qualities, plus outstanding leadership skills.
Obama is also a Constitutional scholar. He was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School, which ranks number four on the Gorman Report ranking law schools. (Harvard ranks number one.) Part of being a professor is being a scholar. The University of Chicago is a "publish or perish" institution, so Obama has written at length as a Constitution, which he knows inside out.
On top of this, Obama has written three books, two of which are best sellers.
And what have you accomplished lately, Pramono?
I would suspect something along the lines of "collecting a paycheck from Fox News", though I don't want to be too suspicious. Given that FN's CEO and head is Roger Ailes, former Nixon campaign manager who's done work for Reagan and H.W. Bush, and has been financially connected to our current administration, who's been known for deceptive electioneering for years and years, it's hardly past them to hit up the message boards with propaganda. Honestly, they'd be missing a link in their demagoguery if they didn't hit up their competitor news services' comments sections with squirrely jingoist drum-beating of some kind.
Or he could just be one of those people who've used the Bush administration's reign as an opportunity to have a platform to get back at people he feels superior to and is contemptous of. Either way, I have no expectations he's really looking at the facts I presented. But the post wasn't for him, it was for others that might be following the discussion. And you are right - I think Obama might be the first true statesman we've seen have a chance at the election in some time, and unequivocally support him.
Anyway, keep up the good work and keep thinking, man. I'm proud to see my countrymen standing against the tide of propaganda.
Thanks, baby. Back at ya. "Squirrely jingoist drum-beating." That's good. And yes, the GOP smear machine would be much remiss if they weren't trying to sway the blogs. God, they have some real personality disorders out here in the trenches. Tonight I got accused of being a Communist, a Muslim and a purveyor of sex hotels. Last week I was a black Democrat male Socialist. They nonsense they come up with is pretty outlandish, real Karl Rove smoke and mirrors. Oh well, I'll keep at it anyway.
You know, they keep comparing Iran to Germany. Hmm. We could turn that back on ourselves, really, and it would be more accurate. In the years before and during WWII, Hitler convinced the Germans that they were a superior race, that they deserved to rule the world, that every other country was evil. The Nazis spewed evil propaganda of pure lies and hatred to get the citizens to believe that invading every country was the right thing to do.
Sound familiar? It just may have worked, had the leader not been chucklehead Dubya, and had the American public not thought for ourselves. It's scary to see what baseless lies and propaganda can do. Thankfully, most Americans have retained common sense and dignity and have (eventually) seen through the fallacy of the administration.
This is a sophmorice view of 20th century history and a liberal one at that. If people want the real history of the 20th century, they should read Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," a superb book that encyclopedic on facts and reads like a novel. The fact is the West did appease Islamic extremism for 30 years and no is no longer so accommodating. If Obama is elected, we ill sslide back into something resembling appeasement.
McCain just met with the Foreign Minister of Iraq. Now, if McCain would only meet with the Foreign Minister of IRAN, I might respect his efforts at international relations. The foreign minister of Iraq, however, is a US government plant, and another Bush clone like McCain.
EVERY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS HAD DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH HOSTILE NATIONS, except of course, Geo. W Bush, who has proved to the world that his foreign policy is so amazing, so good, so effective, that it is even better than his ability to manage the economy.
Ahem.
Bush's policy of refusing to talk with other nations is a direct outcome of his ego being bigger than his IQ. Colin Powell, Condi Rice and Robert Gates (the Secretary of Defense) have all urged Bush to use diplomacy with Iran, Palestine and other rogue nations, but Bush refuses to listen to them. Furthermore, McCain has stated his intention of continuing this disastrous lack of diplomacy.
Condi Rice published an essay last week that discusses all of Bush's foreign policy failures and their ominous implications. Colin Powell resigned because he couldn't get Bush to overcome his stubbornness and see reason. Even Bush's own people are turning away from him. But John McCain wants to follow in Bush's footsteps. Ghastly.
Bush has had quite a few members of his inner circle resign. I wonder why those stubborn 13-19% who still approve of him don't see that as a MAJOR red flag?
Colin Powell's resignation several years ago was a huge red flag for me. I've always viewed him as a man with incredible intelligence, strength of character, and integrity. When he said, "Nope, this is just wrong. I can't be here. I don't agree with this." and felt so strongly that he resigned...you knew it was just going to be downhill from there. Sadly, his image was tarnished by the idiocy of Dubya. I still think he is a great man, though.
General Colin Powell, Republican and former Secretary of State, says he is not ruling out voting for Barack Obama. In a speech he gave last week in Vancouver, Washington, General Powell said that while he has served in the administrations of two Republican Presidents, his support for Republican nominee John McCain "is not a foregone conclusion." He also noted that although both he and Barack Obama are black, he would not cast a vote for the Senator based on race alone. "I will vote for the individual who I think brings the best set of tools to the problems of 21st-century America and the 21st-century world, regardless of anything else."
A 35 year veteran of the US Army, General Powell also noted that he would not necessarily support McCain because of his military service.
Don't forget that Rupert Murdoch, the Republican ultra right wing owner of Fox News has publicly come out in support of Barack Obama. Mr. Murdoch has predicted that Senator Obama will win the general election, because he says that McCain is "weak on the economy" and that with McCain as President "the recession would deepen into a depression."
Even dyed in the wool Republicans are voting for Obama. Because he is the right choice. Because he "brings the best set of tools for the problems of 21st-century America."
McCain's mind is still in the cold war era. But the old tactics don't apply anymore, because the world has changed. We need a leader who can cope with those changes, and help us to compete in the globalized economy.
Republicans for Obama '08
As always, good comment. You present your ideas in a researched, rational manner--not something I can say about most on these forums!
McCain is just another war hawk. We've tried war for 6 years. It has't worked. It's time for a change. Gone are the days of clear-cut right and wrong, clear-cut enemies, and clear-cut wars. Globalization has made international relations very complicated and tricky. Every country is closely tied together in a global community--the actions of one or 2 countries will affect the world. You can't have a "bomb 'em all!" mentality. It just will not work.
Okay its clear. Appeasing dictators is fine when Obama wants to try. Perfectly understood.
A J P Taylor famously remarked on the irony of fighting for Poland when Chamberlin had allowed Germany to gobble up not just the sudaten but Prague as well 6 monyhs later. There was in fact a change in the "balance of forces" in the world that accounts for the 180. The Nazi-Soviet pact had upset the grand strategy of the conservatives of standing by while Russia and Germany (with all their respective ideological baggage) inevitably came to blows.Then nature would take its course without Britain and the rest of the conservative West having to pay the horrible butcher's bill as they had 25 years previously. "Better Hitler than Blum" was not just a slogan, it was the inspiration for the policy of the right. The delicious irony today is not just that the right uses Munich to club the left. One of its great American minds, Pat Buchanan ,also now publicly regrets being so mean to Hitler's Germany. Munich was a triumph of stupid diplomacy, nothing more.
H ha a ... Campaigning hard for the messiah. No dime for Newsweek.
Nice partisan screed. This article either belongs on the Obama web site or "Daily Kos".
For those of you who don't want to wade through four pages of predictable partisan spin, let me summarize:
"Obama good. McCain and Bush are bad."
More Liberal revisionist history trying to justify their sick hypocritical politics. The world is going to burn. Remember who's to blame - the cowards and the fools.
Neopoliticus:
Would you be so kind as to tell me when this conflagration is to occur? I want to be out of town.
Garibaldi
Remind me. Using analogy, are we (the US and Israel) Germany or England?
It is no wonder that periodicals are losing circulation. Evan, this article has got to be one of the most inane pieces I have ever read. Are you completely blind to why Chamberlain was wrong? Are you that stupid? Are you telling people to ignore any analogies to Chamberlain on some banal 'the world is gray' advice? You are an idiot. Face it, Chamberlain is the poster child for short sightedness. You can argue that he was buying time for England to build up her military forces, but he was also the face of the pie in the sky movement which crippled England in the first place.
No one questions whether Israel, which has about 100-200 nuclear warheads and is exempt from inspection by outside agencies, has a right to nuclear weapons, power, etc, however, Iran is not allowed to develop such technologies. But then again we live in the United States of America, land of double standards, where terrorism is as Chomsky says, "what our leaders declare it to be". It seems incomprehensible to me that in an age of such techonological advancement where information is just a click away, we still have people believing the propaganda that is spoon-fed to them by FOX News and CNN.
More Liberal revisionist history trying to justify their sick hypocritical politics. The world is going to burn. Remember who's to blame - the cowards and the fools.
didnt winston also say jaw jaw before war war
Obama got the talking with your enemies all wrong. As a Norwegian, an ally to USA in Afghanistan, we care what happens in Washington because people, not only Americans live and die by decisions taken there. The trouble with Bush is not what Obama says, that he's not talking to the dictators of the world; the trouble with Bush is he chose not to talk with those who love USA, allies and friends. Governing by charm just won't cut it. USA must choose experience.
Evan, try all you want, you're not rewriting history, and you're not convincing us that the Democrats aren't the party of appeasment.
Churchhill would not worry about Iran, and would not be in Iraq! A smart man, as he was. He would have attacked the real people resonsable, Sudi Arabia!!
We only have to look at past, once glorious empires [ roman, ottoman, british] to see exactly where America is heading if we don't stop over reaching, invading, pushing the envelope, and trying, like greedy, spoiled , bulling children to rule the world as an economic and militaristic power. This attitude of my way or the highway is childish and egomaniacal. To think we can go into other countries and say, " this is how it's going to be.", and then think that these cultures, that have been around for thousands of years, with their own civilizations and infrastructures, when this country was not even a thought in anyones mind or thought, no matter how primitive we perceive them to be is arrogant, obnoxious and delusional at best. I suggest we start cleaning up our own house, so to speak, before we start telling other countries and peoples how to conduct their affairs. Especially considering some of the monumental problems we face in our own country.
Then and only then, can we garner Respect, Trust and Cooperation and even possibly a more equal and democratic GLOBAL COMMUNITY that we are all a part of in the long run of Humanity. When we can stand in front of the world leading by example through action as well as the word, not hiding behind masks of fraudulent respectability and piousness [ Church & State], then and only then will we be able to build a true dialogue with other world leaders that will lead to understanding, compromise and even a possibility of the greatest good for the greatest many. And why is it when a candidate is criticized, it is always in the most white trash, Jerry Springer kind of way.
What would Churchill do?
Who cares.
The man is dead, and has been for decades. He did what he did under different circumstances, in far different times.
The important question is: What would McCain/Obama do?
Or maybe more important yet, what won't they do?
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Discuss