Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOn the second day of a highly anticipated US-Russian summit meeting, after reaching a preliminary agreement to cut each country's stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons by one third, and laying the groundwork for a successor to the 1991 START treaty which expires in December, Presidents Obama and Medvedev also made it clear they seek deeper cuts in their nuclear arsenals and will lead an international effort for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
The preliminary agreement on a new arms control agreement is good news. The young Presidents' stated Intentions to make deeper cuts in their obsolete and expensive Cold War arsenals is even better news. But in order for the Obama administration to truly "reset" US-Russia relations -- as it has expressly said it wants to do -- it will need to jettison Cold War institutions like missile defense and NATO.
In his eloquent speech at Moscow's New Economic School, Obama grappled with those fundamental security issues, yet elided clear answers as to their future. What was most hopeful was how the "Commander-in-Speech" worked to "reset" the tone of US-Russian relations -- reaching out to national sensibilities and assuring his Russian audience: "Let me be clear: America wants a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia." He declared that "it is not for me to define Russia's national interests." Obama went on to point to "a shared history between our nations that goes beyond competition." And his invocation of the US-Russian alliance during World War II -- he quoted President John Kennedy's lines that "no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union in the Second World War" -- was humane and shrewd. World War II remains the only truly unifying experience bequeathed to Russians of all generations. Moreover, many resent that the the US appears to have forgotten their vast contribution to that victory. (Watch a Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks film or TV series: it's as if the US won the war virtually on its own.)
In this one speech, Obama did as much as any recent US leader to address -- and begin to overcome -- Russian's resentment about the US's misguided triumphalist mindset, which has dominated relations since the end of the Cold War. He signaled, as he did in his interview with Russia's leading independent opposition newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, published Monday, that he intends to craft a relationship based on cooperation and mutual respect. What remains to be seen is whether sidestepping the disastrous Bush legacy of missile defense -- or the foolish bipartisan commitment to NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia -- will allow President Obama to engage Russia as a full and active strategic partner in many of his foreign policy goals, on deeper nuclear disarmament, Iran, energy supplies and a host of other issues.
What is seductive about Obama are his words. And his Moscow speech -- the third in a troika of major addresses (including Prague and Cairo) -- lays the foundation for a world free of nuclear weapons, for an America guided by a more intelligent, less arrogant approach to the world, and one in which the stated principle of democracy promotion is tempered by the view that, as Obama said in Cairo, and repeated in Moscow: "America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other country." (My one regret is that Russia's agreement to allow the US military to send 1000s of troops and weapons to Afghanistan through Russian airspace is being depicted as a success. Instead of sending more troops and weapons through Russia, the US and international community would be far wiser and more secure to increase funding for targeted economic development, reconstruction aid, support for alternatives to the opium industry and regional diplomacy.}
Obama's words have helped shape a new tone, and restarted a nuclear arms reduction process that had stagnated. That is to be welcomed. It will take deeds, however, before the citizens of Russia, the United States and the world benefit from a real "reset."
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
It's like a "reset" family reunion. All the little resets from their far-flung reset abodes have finally reunited.
Posted by winyahn at 07/05/2009 @ 10:10pm
KvH: ".......judging from news accounts on the eve of the summit we aren't going to see much of a "reset"........Leading US editorial pages are also obstacles to real progress, "sternly warning Obama against making concessions or ‘capitulating' to the Kremlin."
I want to share what the Russian "editorial pages" are saying to welcome The Messiah......from news.scotsman.com, quite funny, really:
Obama assured of a chilly Russian welcome despite first signs of thaw
Published Date: 04 July 2009
By Chris Stephen in New York
BARACK Obama will have few traffic problems getting to the Kremlin....
Russian news agency Pravda was less than subtle in an editorial summing up the Obama administration, headlined: "Obama: Deceiver, cheat, swindler, liar, fraudster, con-artist."...
Posted by Happy at 07/05/2009 @ 10:20pm
Happy's dittobrain or... Happy's brain on Rush's drugs: "Fail Fail Fail"
TLMAO again!
Posted by winyahn at 07/05/2009 @ 10:27pm
There is little doubt in the world's capitals, that The One is a lightweight........so light, he can walk on water and at the same time, be ridiculed by the `official' Russian media.
Hopey and Changey......He's The One you been waiting for.....Yes, YOU CAN....hahahaha! Hahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by Happy at 07/05/2009 @ 10:42pm
Happy-Pravda speaks for the worlds capitals?When Bush was in office you guys said that the worlds low opinion of him was irrelevant,but,suddenly,their opinions become relevant when the other side is in office.Partisan hypocrisy.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2009 @ 11:05pm
Nobody, careful whipping out too much reality at once. Fake-'Happy' short-circuits, dittoheads some cookie-cutter Rush (Magic, yes we can, Change) filler, may toss in an ad hominen, before his sign off "LMAO" and "!!!"
Posted by winyahn at 07/05/2009 @ 11:19pm
winyahn-You have him pegged quite well.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2009 @ 11:36pm
Vice President Palin Resigns in Surprise Announcement
Washington, July 5th, 2009
In an astonishing move, Vice President Sara Palin has left the Mccain administration on the eve of an important U.S. - Russian Summit aimed at reducing tensions provoked by President Mccain's proposal to install missile defence batteries in the heart of Red Square.
Insiders report that Ms. Palin is apparently upset the Secretary of the Treasury Gramm did not give her first dibs on the purchasing the newly privatized State of Rhode Island.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/05/2009 @ 11:53pm
"As visionary former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said in a recent interview on Russian television, attempts to station US missile defense bases in Europe were aimed at creating a situation in which NATO could be the first to attempt to launch a nuclear strike. "
No American or even European citizen could possiably accord KVH's agreement with this silliness even remotely credible! This is representative of the "old cold war rhetoric" that even Obama has said he finds antiquated and KVH gives the appearance of cheering on! So why does KVH call for support for the new hopey changey politics if she still actually BELIEVES the same old crap?????
Easy answer, it is the arguement of a true MARXIST and anti-american sympathizer looking out for the best intrest of our old and still credible enemy who is always more than willing to extend a carrot (like flyovers) to a donkey it still seeks to destroy!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/06/2009 @ 01:16am
Disarming the U.S.A. or even presuming you could also disarm Russia is a stupid policy to pursue.
China, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, Israel, and soon Iran all have the capability and with 5 of these nations the credible threat of Islamic or other terrorist organizations obtaining legally or otherwise a strike capability with even just one nuclear weapon is where the clear and present real danger is!
Obamanation is foolishly simply placating his deluded followers by using such empty-suited rhetoric. Surely by now even some fools have figured that out?
Posted by BigPasture at 07/06/2009 @ 01:25am
I can't wait for Larry/antisoc to show up...
he still thinks "the Russkies are still Commies".
Rich, billionaire "Commies", but "Commies nonetheless"...heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 06:11am
Every time any nation pursues an action that has a military component any expectation of a non-reaction is wishful thinking.
Poland is no exception. Can there be any doubt this will be received as an escalation? Have we learned nothing about Russia in all the years?
I've little doubt that whatever the stated goal in this, the reality is almost certainly something very different. That this stuff always works like this and is so reliably transparent and is accepted as so, is laughable.
Posted by thepeoplechoose at 07/06/2009 @ 07:42am
Putin, who is the real leader of Russia, like the Ayatollah is in Iran, is no body's fool. He's put his cards on the table making the precondition that unless the US removes its missiles out of Poland and the Czech Republic, which he says are pointing directly at Russia,Obama may as well not come. Putin is a clever man. He knows the argument that the missiles are really aimed at Iran is a weak and insulting argument to make.
Putin has Obama's number. He knows that for all of Obama's big rhetoric, he never delivers, that he lied about torture which is alive and well in Bagram, and for practical purposes people are calling Obama "Bush3".
Putin understands that the US and Israel made a lot of trouble for him by arming Georgia, and Putin was forced to destroy the air bases in Georgia that Israel secretly wanted to use to attack Iran.
Putin doesn't need troublemaking countries to destabilize his neighbour Iran.
If Obama truly wants to disarm, Israel should be forced to have nuclear inspectors and be a part of IAEA just like Iran already is. Putin only knows too well that Israel is trigger happy and needs to be put in the equation like any other civilized nation.
Posted by mystic at 07/06/2009 @ 07:55am
Posted by mystic at 07/06/2009 @ 07:55am
How do anti-missile missiles "point at Iran"?!?!???
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 08:57am
I can't wait for Larry/antisoc to show up...
he still thinks "the Russkies are still Commies".
Rich, billionaire "Commies", but "Commies nonetheless"...heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 06:11am
that you don't and that you don't believe Putin is still running Russia in KGB fashion speaks to your own ignorance about the reality of Katrina's "Mother Russia".
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 09:14am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 09:14am
I don't believe they're still Communists, Larry...
then again, I'm capable of moving past a 1950s mind-set and into the 21st Century.
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 10:08am
I don't believe they're still Communists, Larry...
then again, I'm capable of moving past a 1950s mind-set and into the 21st Century.
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 10:08am
Rather than a "50's mindset", it's that I take time to look at what is happening in Russia.
<The Soviet Union, of course, no longer exists. Formally, it vanished in 1991, when the Soviet empire was dissolved into a galaxy of independent states. But since 2000, when he became president of the Russian Federation, Putin has restored many aspects of Soviet life. This restoration is wide reaching. It includes Russia's political institutions, its civic society, the media, its (and so far largely verbal) confrontation with the west, even its rhetoric.
The sense that Russia is on a post-modern journey back to the USSR has been growing in recent months. In October, Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's successor as president, proposed extending the presidential term from four to six years. Russia's pro-Kremlin Duma or lower house of parliament rushed through the necessary legislation in less than a week. These changes to Russia's constitution will soon become law.
The main beneficiary of this is likely to be Putin himself. There is feverish speculation that Putin is planning to get his old job back as president, possibly as early as next year. Failing that, analysts believe he could reoccupy the Kremlin in 2012 – when Medvedev's four-year term is up – and then serve two successive six-year terms. In 2024, when the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, is long forgotten, Putin could still be running Russia.>
http://www.dawn.com/2008/12/12/int8.htm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 12:10pm
More to Mask on Putin's "New Russia"
<Gulag and Stalinist terror and purge are wiped from his translation of the Soviet record, although named and condemned by his predecessors Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin had even, at one point, proposed a Nuremberg-style trial of the Soviet regime. In the opinion of one of the most acute western correspondents in Moscow, Laure Mandeville (of Le Figaro in Paris), Putin seems to want to establish in people's minds the idea of a continuity of his government with a Communist past that in his version is purged of its crimes and glorified for its defeat of Nazi Germany. This is meant to lend legitimacy to his own policies.
However the purge of past iniquities is incomplete, some of the most characteristic of them reappearing under Putin. Recently a critical journalist, Larissa Arap, was sent to internment in a psychiatric institution -- a form of punishment drawn from a totalitarian Soviet past. There have been physical assaults on other journalists as well as dissidents, and opposition demonstrators, and unsolved murder of certain critics of the government.
Television, films and entertainment is increasingly "patriotic," especially in celebrating heroes of the Soviet intelligence services, in which Putin served, which is honored annually with a "Day of the Chekists" (a reference to the original Bolshevik secret police).>
http://tinyurl.com/l8ew2h
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 12:15pm
Again, Larry...."Reagan won the Cold War, but then it was lost again"???
BTW, I hear that Putin is planning on flouridating our water...sapping and impurifying all of our precious bodily fluids!
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 12:54pm
If the Russian are happy with this agreement, I am happy. While I lacked Dr. Cohen's insights, it seemed very stupid to move NATO into the region formerly covered by the Warsaw Pact. I regarded NATO as a defensive pact, and not an offensive pact. As the Polish Minister noted on GPS, there are many frozen conflicts along the Russian border, and it is not in our national interest to become involved in the ancient quarrels. I do not like the missile defense system being placed in Poland and the Czech Republic. It is provocative, the system doesn't work, and is a waste of money!
Posted by pjcasey at 07/06/2009 @ 12:57pm
Again, Larry...."Reagan won the Cold War, but then it was lost again"???
BTW, I hear that Putin is planning on flouridating our water...sapping and impurifying all of our precious bodily fluids!
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 12:54pm
We defeated Germany in WWI and thus by your logic, there was no possibility of Germany becoming a threat and an enemy again?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 1:10pm
Russian news agency Pravda was less than subtle in an editorial summing up the Obama administration, headlined: "Obama: Deceiver, cheat, swindler, liar, fraudster, con-artist."...
Posted by Happy at 07/05/2009 @ 10:20pm
OK, Hap, let me just ask, for the record: Is it a good thing, or a bad thing, then, that "the Russkies" apparently don't trust an American President?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/06/2009 @ 1:26pm
Um...what??? The US, as usual. was Johnny-come-lately in WWI. The fact I even NEED to REMIND you of this is Testament to your LACK of historical knowledge.
I'm at work right now and lack the time required, but rest assured I will explain WWI to you in very specific and detailed form later tonight.
Til' then, I suggest you hit the books.
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/06/2009 @ 1:53pm
Sure. My grandfather was shelled and badly wounded in France. Later decorated for valor by President Wilson.
BTW, I have a degree in History and have studied it for over 50 years. How about you?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 1:59pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 1:10pm
We defeated NAZI Germany, and there is little if any chance of neo-Nazis rising to power again in a modern, non-Weimar Republic Germany of the year 2009.
YOU still want to fight "the Reds", plotting their nefarious "International Communist Conspiracy" from behind the Kremlin wall, with Putin as "Stalin".
Why? Simple...you're an old man (relatively) stuck in a mind-set engendered in the late 50s and early 60s, with a heaping helping of the old Religious Right desire for the "Earthly Satan"...aka a Communist Russia.
Things change...the world changes....the way YOU think...does not.
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 2:12pm
"BTW, I have a degree in History and have studied it for over 50 years. How about you?"----Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 1:59pm
Yet as a "student of history", he continues to think that "nothing has REALLY changed" since 1959 in Russia.
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 2:14pm
"BTW, I have a degree in History and have studied it for over 50 years. How about you?"----Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 1:59pm
Yet as a "student of history", he continues to think that "nothing has REALLY changed" since 1959 in Russia.
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 2:14pm
Which is your usual way of distorting someone's remarks.
The information I posted was about the way Putin has created a new type of Stalinism. There is nothing there to suggest nor did I ever say that it was the rebirth of 50's Communism. In fact, Kruschev was probably a better leader, even with all of the danger he posed towards us than Putin.
Tell us Mask, do you agree with Katrina on how wonderful Mother Russia is? One certainly gets that impression by your attacks on those who offer a counter position.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 2:24pm
You mean reset to the days when the Russians had their way with us?
See-- 1. The Venona Secrets, Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel; and 2. The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II by Thomas J. Fleming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures
Like FDR, Obama represents a strange combination of hubris & naiveté.
Putin & company will take advantage of Obama and us. And at the end of the day, we'll be less safe as a result.
Posted by Mitty at 07/06/2009 @ 3:11pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 2:24pm
Larry, are you saying they're NOT "Communists" now? Or just trying to split hairs and say they're not "50s Communists"?
BTW, I'm on record as saying Ms vanden Heuvel and her husband's CONTRADICTORY views on Russia are as myopic as yours.
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 3:21pm
Mask / Anti (I may be on his ignore list) -- I would suggest China is illustrative. Human Rights violations, pollution, etc., but not the specific commie boogeyman many a 50's cold warmongerin' Amerkin predicted.
So too Russia?
Posted by winyahn at 07/06/2009 @ 4:08pm
The facts are these: 1) Russia is a power that we don't want to ignore and don't need to confront for our best interest.
2) We should do our best to execute policies that are not perceived aggressive to them or imperialistic. The deployment of anti-missile stations in Czech Republic is one example of this.
3) As long as we rate Russia with disdain as a 2nd tier nation, Russia will tend to align with emergent powers such as China and Brazil in an "anti-American Union" and pro a multilateral-multipower community of nations.
4) Still by far the worst terrorist threat to the world is within the ex-USSR arsenal gotten loose somewhere within the group of nations that constituted it.
5) Stop blaming every thing we do on Iran and North Korea. Those countries as rogue as they might appear, will NOT launch a missile attack to us or the West. (And everybody in the world seems to believe this, and first of all Russia). They may seem, but are not quite, lunatic. All they want is to get "respect" in their respective regions of the world, playing regional powers. The means they have chosen are wrong, and they will need to walk a hard way to find out.
6) Only "ant-like-work" will promote a democratic political style in Russia. It is on their papers, local governments and institutions that this task can be fulfilled. From the bottom to the top, not otherwise imposed. We can only help by the power of the word and nothing more. Selling our own political system would do more harm than good.
7) Finally, when the communist nations of USSR and China (still there at least on the word) existed we did not dare to challenge them. We don't need to challenge them now, when some progress has been made, we only need patience and persistence.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/06/2009 @ 6:10pm
"We defeated Germany in WWI and thus by your logic, there was no possibility of Germany becoming a threat and an enemy again?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 1:10pm"
We defeated a country, Germany, which did not start WWI. The "threat" in WWI was the system of alliances then in effect.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/06/2009 @ 6:55pm
Don't even get me started on the British, French and Versailles.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/06/2009 @ 6:57pm
Nor the ever-Anglophile Wilson.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/06/2009 @ 6:59pm
The information I posted was about the way Putin has created a new type of Stalinism.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 2:24pm
I take it you have evidence of the existence of Gulags, torture chambers, secret police, the disappearance of political opponents, seeing as you are comparing Putin to Stalin.
When Yeltsin was in power, the he was hated in russia but loved by the West because he was an easily manipulated buffoon who allowed the country to the raped and pillaged.
Putin has been massively popular at home, but hated by the right, because he put an end to the theft of Russia's assets.
If anything, Putin has more in common with Mossadegh, except that he is too powerful and shrewd to overthrow.
Posted by Shingo at 07/06/2009 @ 7:04pm
Posted by winyahn at 07/06/2009 @ 4:08pm
Only the libzsuk and RESE'ians are on my ignore for stupidity and spamming...
No, Larry thinks they're Commies "just not 50s Commies", not authoritarian capitalists. He wants the Old Cold War back. It makes his life more "comfortable" to have the enemies he grew up with.
Posted by Mask at 07/06/2009 @ 7:48pm
Yep, and the other enemies from his charmed formative years were pot puffin' anarchist free love socialist pinko hippies - which he refers globally to now as Lefties.
To his credit though, I don't think he was/is an overt racist like many in the Establishment.
Posted by winyahn at 07/06/2009 @ 8:59pm
Katrina would only be happy if we only do whatever the Russians want us to do. Good grief Charlie Brown! Katrina, you would fit right in with the new KGB.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/06/2009 @ 10:16pm
Good grief Charlie Brown! Katrina, you would fit right in with the new KGB.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/06/2009 @ 10:16pm
And you woudl fit in nicely with the Brown Shirts.
Posted by Shingo at 07/06/2009 @ 10:39pm
will the US ever get a real name like the rest of the Countries (united isn't a real name it's a state)and quit pretending thair 1/2 Canadian or a 1/3Mexican or part Columbian,,,don't touch that digital dial,Utopia,no wait thats a region,Eureka,new better yet nova Ien Stien Flyers Phere" i got it THE united stated kingdoms with emeriates zones and terratories commonwealths the union republics all forced together in a smelter of our own design under law at arms will, under a banner the 2 houses with 3 branches thing,(i studied this crap a long time)we'll need a piece of paper and a pencil(perferrable with an erraser)to cement the plan and caste it into the wind(the name of this place shall be called,yes OO uh hu,,,NorthOmegaAmerica,mid-Proxima/Centaure=shield ,,,OO,,,ok ready lets argue & go,action
Posted by Ublockhead at 07/06/2009 @ 11:20pm
You know, suave Katrina, your articles on the prez always play the same dull "OK, but not enough" note.
No change this time -- "positive first step". But so is placing a sanitized disposable liner on the toilet seat and protecting your hands when pushing buttons or levers in a public restroom. It just won't change what you went in there to do.
Posted by WWW at 07/07/2009 @ 02:03am
Posted by winyahn at 07/06/2009 @ 8:59pm
No, Larry is no racist and anybody accusing him of that is off-base.
He's just an older guy (60s-early 70s) who likes his world safe, stable, and secure....we're ALWAYS at war with the Commies, (as you note) left-wing wacko hippies always trying to "destroy American traditions", "real Americans" think just like him, etc., etc.
With a new paradigm since 9/11 of "Oh, and the radical Muslims too."...but with a WEIRD-ass caveat that somehow "Islam is innately evil...but most Muslims aren't really Muslims" (yes, he really believes that).
And of course liberal dashes of "Israel-Right or Wrong!" and apocalypticism from the 1970s/1980s evangelical conservatism.
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 08:08am
Posted by Shingo at 07/06/2009 @ 10:39pm:
I think you and your party already have the brown shirts covered.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/07/2009 @ 10:10am
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 08:08am:
Your sense of history is rather shallow - the sort of thing that causes mankind to keep repeating it.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/07/2009 @ 10:15am
"Your sense of history is rather shallow"----Posted by pyeatte at 07/07/2009 @ 10:15am
From a guy who thinks "Obama is Hitler".
ROFLMAO
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 11:05am
Bottom line: what reset?
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 07/07/2009 @ 7:35pm
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 08:08am
One long weekend in the desert, plenty of mescalin and a bad ass medicine man - might loosen him up, but short of this the next five years of LV/Anti postings seem pretty predictable.
At least for now, he remains the most articulate neocon around here and he puts up with a lot of stupid comments from me!
Signs of slippage? He's into the latest Amway thing with Monavie. That's sort of youth-ish I guess, magic berries and all.
And, maybe even more outside the box, this means he's indirectly promoting Mormonism. Monavie's Totally Temple, Mormon to the Acai core.
I have picked up in your exchanges on the all things Zion. The Muslim-Islam thing, I don't get at all. And finally the 70's/80's rapture delusional system - - hmmm, always nice to have a mental rip-cord I guess. I desperately need one myself. String theory's not doing it for me.
Posted by winyahn at 07/07/2009 @ 8:19pm
I think you and your party already have the brown shirts covered.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/07/2009 @ 10:10am
Don't be modest pyeatte. Your party is the natural home of the racist, the islamophobes, the homophobes and the lynch mobs.
The brown shirt would have been too progressive for you guys.
Posted by Shingo at 07/08/2009 @ 01:08am
Obama and the Russians have found common ground and probably for them they feel the meetings were successful.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, many Russians probably were not happy that they were no longer a "Superpower", that their influence in the world had been taken down a notch.
And Obama, like most on the political left, most certainly does not like the thought of the United States being the world's lone "Superpower". Many on the left feel America's influence in the world should be taken down a notch.
In other words, America should just be another Sweden.
And it seems that these meetings in Russia have helped accomplish the building back up of Russian importance and influence, and the establishment of, as Katrina vanden Heuvel says, an "America guided by a more intelligent, less arrogant approach to the world".
To translate those words from Katrina-speak to English that means an "America less powerful and more subservient to the will of others".
So with his trip a "success", Obama can come back home now and return to work on trying to make America more like Sweden on the domestic side of the equation, with:
1. The intrusive environmental regulations (to solve the "problem" that scientists don't even agree is happening while the world seems to be cooling) that will be costly to business and consumers and harm the economy
2. To the health care initiatives to promote socialist medicine
3. And also the printing of money at warp speed to provide stimulus and prolong the recession so that others will call upon Obama to provide more stimulus.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 02:06am
Many on the left feel America's influence in the world should be taken down a notch.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 02:06am
Most on the left, where the realists reside, are able to understand that empire bankrupts nations. We have over 700 military bases dotted throughout th world and spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. It's basic economics that this cannot be sustained.
Greatness comes from leading by example, not imposing our will on others. The right wing, where the chicken hawks and armchair generals reside, believe that we should impose our will on other nations and thumb our noses at international law and international treaties.
US dominance in the world was clearly on the decline under Bush. He tried to extend it by running up the credit card and swinging a big stick, but all he achieved was to expose our flaws and vulnerabilities. Russia's influence and power never went away and with the massive resources at it's disposal, was able to take advantage of sky rocketing oil price that Bush gave us to climb back to it's prominence.
America was always the nation that spoke softly, but carried a big stick. Bush reversed that by speaking like a drunken frat boy with a small one. He destroyed our reputation and diminished our prestige.
Right wingers and wingnuts alike hate the idea of that prestige and leadership is something we should earn, as opposed to demand.
Posted by Shingo at 07/08/2009 @ 02:43am
Shingo,
You say "....Most on the left, where the realists reside....."
Your train is off of the track before you even start, with that thought.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 03:17am
Hello, Shingo. It certainly seems that Obama talks like your characterization of leftist realists. At the same time, however, his actions make him out to be much more like your characterization of Bush and the out-of-control US war machine. It's becoming a consistent tactic with Obama: Utter some eloquent, conciliatory, even apologetic and unfailingly earnest words while at the same time continuing and even intensifying bellicose policies. Hence the missiles that continue to rain death down on weddings and other civilian gatherings in Pakistan. Hence the troop buildup in Afghanistan and the new surge-like offensive in the southern part of that country. Hence the continued occupation of Iraq by very large American forces (which according to a Bush-era plan have recently withdrawn from urban areas but hover nearby). Hence the retention of Gates. Hence the continued use of renditions and indefinite detention, the support for military tribunals, and the continued existence of Gitmo as well as other problematic facilities such as Bagram.
Conversely, this Janus-facedness of Obama may well explain his belated, tepid remarks on peaceful Iranian protests against election fraud and repression, protests that resulted in a brutal crackdown. And his silence on the large-scale racial violence against Uighurs in China.
Whatever his strategy may be, Obama's ongoing whirlwinds of death and destruction speak louder than his fine words of reconciliation, his proclamations of universal human siblinghood, and his stunning silence or, at best, perfunctory comments on massive human rights abuses in "inconvenient" contexts. We have the right and the responsibility to demand a wee bit more, and indeed much more, of him.
Posted by feinfein at 07/08/2009 @ 03:38am
Your train is off of the track before you even start, with that thought.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 03:17am
Says he who still believes the earth is flat and that Iraq was about to attack us (in spite fo having no weapons) had George Bush not stepped in and saved us.
Posted by Shingo at 07/08/2009 @ 05:20am
Hence the missiles that continue to rain death down on weddings and other civilian gatherings in Pakistan. Hence the troop buildup in Afghanistan and the new surge-like offensive in the southern part of that country.
Posted by feinfein at 07/08/2009 @ 03:38am
With regard to Afghanistan, I am inclined to agree that Obama is headed in the wrong direction.
The presence of US forces in Iraq doesn't make me happy either, but withdrawl on such a scale is not a trivial issue, both logistically and politically. The so called Democratic centrists are spineless political animals who are always anxious about being seen to be weak on national security.
Hence the retention of Gates. Hence the continued use of renditions and indefinite detention, the support for military tribunals, and the continued existence of Gitmo as well as other problematic facilities such as Bagram.
The cautious remarks on the Iranian elections was his only course of action. Anything beyond such statements would have played into the hands of the Mullahs.
In fact I agree with you on pretty much everything you raised, but imagine the hole we would be in had McCain been in the White House?
Posted by Shingo at 07/08/2009 @ 05:27am
I think Obama should say...(quote)-
"A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?"
and then wait for Republicans and our other right-wing friends to attack him for saying that....
and then tell them who said it first.....heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 08:00am
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 08:08am
One long weekend in the desert, plenty of mescalin and a bad ass medicine man - might loosen him up, but short of this the next five years of LV/Anti postings seem pretty predictable.
At least for now, he remains the most articulate neocon around here and he puts up with a lot of stupid comments from me!
Signs of slippage? He's into the latest Amway thing with Monavie. That's sort of youth-ish I guess, magic berries and all.
And, maybe even more outside the box, this means he's indirectly promoting Mormonism. Monavie's Totally Temple, Mormon to the Acai core.
I have picked up in your exchanges on the all things Zion. The Muslim-Islam thing, I don't get at all. And finally the 70's/80's rapture delusional system - - hmmm, always nice to have a mental rip-cord I guess. I desperately need one myself. String theory's not doing it for me.
Posted by winyahn at 07/07/2009 @ 8:19pm
BTW Win, I don't have you on ignore.
1. I did the Mescalin and desert thing nearly 40 years ago. I've moved past that a long time ago.
2. As I've noted on many threads, I am passionate about natural health. That was my first draw to Monavie.
Also, while some of the corporate leadership is Mormon, most of the top earners in the company are all devout Christians including the number 1 earner, Brig Hart.
www.brighart.com
As to my faith in the Biblical promises, I've never understood how someone can say they are part of a particular faith, but say they choose which parts to believe. You either believe it or you don't.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 10:18am
You either believe it or you don't.----Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 10:18am
Do you believe that bats are "birds"?
Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 11:00am
You either believe it or you don't.----Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 10:18am
Do you believe that bats are "birds"?
Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 11:00am
We already went through that argument Mask.
<Allegations against the Bible are often related to the challenges inherent in the work of translation. Most of these problems have a very simple explanation, if you do a little digging in commentaries or other study aides that deal with the original Hebrew and Greek. For instance, the book of Leviticus describes bats as "birds." "And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, ... and the bat" (Leviticus 11:13, 19).
If you have a good translation, you can often find clues by simply comparing the questionable word with other passages. In this case, the King James Version (KJV) uses the word fowls instead of birds, and the word fowls appears again in verse 20 to describe insects. Obviously, insects are not birds in the modern sense of the word, so you have to look at the Hebrew. The Hebrew word is owph (Strong's reference number 05775). Although "bird" is usually a good translation of owph, it can encompass anything that "has a wing," a winged creature. It is therefore completely in order for the word to be used of birds, flying insects, and bats. It could presumably also be used of pteranodons (flying reptiles).>
http://tinyurl.com/288brl
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 11:48am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 11:48am
You prove his point.
Much is left to interpretation and man is not infallible yet it is man that interprets. I think you should be able to tell where this leads.
Posted by !immutable at 07/08/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 11:48am
You prove his point.
Much is left to interpretation and man is not infallible yet it is man that interprets. I think you should be able to tell where this leads.
Posted by !immutable at 07/08/2009 @ 11:54am
Not at all. Mask was making a claim that he was proving the Bible to be in error. I showed that it was a mistranslation.
There are two critical issues with translating anything, even a conversation.as
1. Is there a direct, literal equivalent in the language being translated into?
2. Does the translation reflect the cultural linguistic idiosyncrisies of those to whom the words applied?
At the time of the book of Leviticus, the word owph which was used for fowls, applied equally to any creature capable of flight that had wings.
Thus Mask is trying to create a problem where none exists.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 12:00pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 12:00pm
So you have to believe all the "parts" of the Bible....just not all the "translations" of the Bible.
Gotcha. Don't you just hate those folks who "pick and choose" what "parts" they want to believe....instead of doing what's right and pick and choosing what translations they should believe?
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 12:03pm
that you don't and that you don't believe Putin is still running Russia in KGB fashion speaks to your own ignorance about the reality of Katrina's "Mother Russia".
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 09:14am
Come on Rev. The Soviet Union never would have held meetings with their long time enemy China, but Russia has. If Russia and China ever decide to be all out allies, look out. At present, the arrogant and greedy western businessmen lock the Russians out of the World Trade group and wish to dominate business in that country as they have in 3rd world nations. But, if China, Russia and a few other Asian countries decide to go a different route, and further decide to trade in a different currency, we are in some serious trouble.
You can call them commies or whatever you want, but they are a major player in the world market and so folks like you had better learn to change your tune before we end up a 3rd world nation ourselves because of the greed of our corporate rulers we have to answer to. Those folks could give a crap less about you Liver. Your in this just like the rest of us. Hiding behind God doesn't make it any less so. If there is a God, God isn't an idiot and probably doesn't like to see people being killed in the name of business interests.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/08/2009 @ 12:11pm
So you have to believe all the "parts" of the Bible....just not all the "translations" of the Bible.
Gotcha. Don't you just hate those folks who "pick and choose" what "parts" they want to believe....instead of doing what's right and pick and choosing what translations they should believe?
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 12:03pm
1. I don't hate anyone
2. If someone spoke to you in a language you did not know, wouldn't you want someone who could give you as accurate a translation as possible? Wouldn't you want to make sure that it correctly reflected what someone was saying to you?
Or perhaps for you, it doesn't matter. You can just criticize them for the error you think they made?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 12:40pm
Several things,
1) To anyone citing Pravda as a source, keep this in mind...It was formally the official newpaper of the Communist Party until the break-up of the Soviet Union. It was then bought and turned into a supermarket tabloid that frequently runs headlines such as "Cyclops Baby Born in India" and "Russian Fishermen Catch Squeaking Alien and Eat It"...It's not the most reputable source (although no one told Glenn Beck *spits*)...
2) The only threat Russia poses to the United States is nuclear. Russia's conventional forces are in a sorry state...At its height, the Russian Red Army had some 60,000 tanks operational at any given time, now it is somewhere around 2,000...they are producing less than 100 fighter planes a year and the Russian Navy is either a) being sold to other countries or b) rusting away in Murmansk and Vladivostok. Because of this, Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal is its only real deterrent so to view Russia as a major military threat is naive and archaic.
3) Georgia started the August 2008 war, contrary to what the MSM spouted. Russia had a pre-existing agreement to protect the ethnic Russians and Russian citizens in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and it was Georgian artillery that fired the first shots of the war. Admittedly, Russia did overstep into greater Georgia but again, Russia was within its rights to protect the Ossetians and Abkhazians from Georgian aggression...That and Saakashvili is a crook...
4) It is in America's best interest to cultivate a close relationship with Russia because they a) have huge reserves of oil and natural gas and b) together, the US and Russia could serve as a balance to growing Chinese influence as well growing Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia.
Posted by SemiFiction at 07/08/2009 @ 12:43pm
Also, considering this is only my second post ever, why do the neo-con wackos troll the boards here? Don't they have something better to do?
Posted by SemiFiction at 07/08/2009 @ 12:49pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 12:40pm
No, no...you're absolutely right.
Picking and choosing what PARTS of the Bible to believe is certainly wrong....finding a good TRANSLATION and eschewing all others is obviously completely different.
BTW, which translation do I need to figure out how "Bethsaida" is a "temple" (or vice-versa) where Jesus cured the blind man?
Mark 8:22-25-- "And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him..."
John 8:59 -9:1--- "Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by....And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth."
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 12:55pm
Posted by SemiFiction at 07/08/2009 @ 12:43pm
No,no,no,no....obvioiusly the Russians pose an ENORMOUS threat to us (even the world)...
as long as we don't move to Chechnya or Afghanistan.
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 12:57pm
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 12:55pm
Those are two entirely separate events and people.
the differences in the two cases.
The blind man whom Jesus met at the temple was blind from birth (John 9:1). We do not know how long the other man was blind.
Jesus and his disciples happened upon the blind man in Jerusalem (John 9:1).
It appears that others brought the blind man at Bethsaida to Jesus, begging Him to touch the man (Mark 8:22).
Mark indicates that Jesus led the man out of the city before healing him (Mark 8:23). John makes no such statement.
In one instance, Jesus spat on the ground and made a clay mixture (John 9:6). In the other, He spat on the man's eyes (Mark 8:23).
In one case, the man was sent away to wash at a pool (John 9:7). In the other, the man was sent to his house (Mark 8:26).
These are two separate healings of two different blind men in two different towns. The details of the events reveal that they are not two accounts of the same event.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 08:08am
Crazyland?
Posted by SemiFiction at 07/08/2009 @ 12:49pm
It's a combination of actual curiosity and grief trolls. They also provide a useful function. They provide a point of otherness so that people with a more leftist lean to their politics do not descend on one another arguing about the need to establish a utopian society or reforming the government from within and so forth.
Have you ever heard actual socialists sitting around talking amongst themselves? We never hear someone offer their ideas about lesbian separatism as a way to address heteronormativity in this forum because the kooky cons make that so far outside the realm of normal discourse, you'd have to spend all your time explaining what heteronormativity even means before you can say anything about it.
You could go down the line to include discussions that redefine racism as institutional racism (individual racism, according to some doesn't exist). Or communists talking about their vanguards. Or anarchists all excited about "class war". There's no end of kooks, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum.
It's much easier just to tell the kook that thinks Palin is going to be president that he has lost his mind. It's less effort. It is also nice to realize that it is not our job to disabuse them of their half-baked notions about the world - anymore than it is theirs to debunk ours.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/08/2009 @ 1:21pm
And this is for antisocialist:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21640
Posted by srjenkins at 07/08/2009 @ 1:31pm
And this is for antisocialist:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21640
Posted by srjenkins at 07/08/2009 @ 1:31pm
No thanks. Heilbrunn's prescription is to return to the days of liberal Republicans (with the exception of Reagan).
<To help another such reversal come about, the GOP would do well to launch a reclamation project to recover (and revive) its lost traditions of pragmatic internationalism exemplified by Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush and, to a surprising degree, Ronald Reagan>
His prescription is no different than that of the Democrats who "advise" Republicans to become more like them in their proposals to the American voter. Of course Dems want Republicans to seem more like them; so they can stay in office. After all, why vote for a Republican/Dem when you could vote for a Democrat and have a genuine liberal?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 1:59pm
It was so "Eloquent", no thrills went up any Russian legs, NOT even the young ones.......nor covered live on Russian TV!
"Eloquent" remains in the eyes of the 32% `Strong Approval' kool-aid drinkers.
Posted by Happy at 07/08/2009 @ 2:05pm
antisocialist,
You said (in comments back to Mask):
====================
2. If someone spoke to you in a language you did not know, wouldn't you want someone who could give you as accurate a translation as possible? Wouldn't you want to make sure that it correctly reflected what someone was saying to you?
Or perhaps for you, it doesn't matter. You can just criticize them for the error you think they made?
Thus Mask is trying to create a problem where none exists.
==================
1. Mask doesn't care about accurate translation or correct reflection of what people are saying. Mask interprets things as Mask pleases.
2. If Mask thinks someone has made an error, Mask will criticize them. If Mask knows that someone has not made an error, Mask will either ignore the comment and not post a reply, or change the subject, or distort the other person's remark and take it out of context to make it seem like there was an error.
3. Mask has been successful over and over again at creating problems where none existed.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 2:07pm
happy-You now claim to speak for all Russians?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/08/2009 @ 2:10pm
Mask has been successful over and over again at creating problems where none existed.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 2:07pm
You're being overly gracious to MASK.....problem is, he won't appreciate it....he bites such hands...LOL!
Posted by Happy at 07/08/2009 @ 2:29pm
happy-You now claim to speak for all Russians?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/08/2009 @ 2:10pm
I didn't think so....but maybe the HAPPY Russians who know Magic bullshit when it's in front of them.
Posted by Happy at 07/08/2009 @ 2:31pm
happy-In other words,you are clueless about what the Russians think and are just hoping that they agree with your racists nonsense.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/08/2009 @ 2:44pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 1:59pm
I find his analysis...interesting. I don't agree with parts of it, but I do think his critique of Republicans losing their claim to foreign policy to be on target. Obama cuts a deal with Russia and gets supply routes into Afghanistan; the man is showing a sophistication that George "missile defense" Bush could only have dreamed of.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/08/2009 @ 2:51pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 1:14pm
In which translation....I don't want to get accused of picking the wrong one.
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 2:59pm
"1. Mask doesn't care about accurate translation or correct reflection of what people are saying. Mask interprets things as Mask pleases. "----Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 2:07pm
Kind of like giving someone a link to a news article...then they REFUSE to go to it...then they find another totally different news article and use THAT to defend against what's in the article they refused to read and then start using phrases like "super-precise precision is not required" when confronted with it?
Dang...ya got me.
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 3:02pm
If you were more accurately exacting in your rigorousness and veritably close in the precision of your fastidious definiteness, you'd understand with clarity, lucidness and peacefulness. What a terrible failing to have Mask. =)
Posted by srjenkins at 07/08/2009 @ 3:13pm
But then again, you read his posts, so you deserve it.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/08/2009 @ 3:14pm
In which translation....I don't want to get accused of picking the wrong one.
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 2:59pm
I use multiple translations depending on the verse after consulting the Hebrew or Greek text.
I realize that biblical hermeneutics is not something you especiall appreciate, but there is a very sound approach to it.
One of the keys that eliminates issues like you present for most believers is the knowledge that especially during the OT period when G-d was presenting issues to the Jews, G-d spoke to them at times in generalities which would be easily understood.
Such is this case in this passage. The context really discusses general classifications of creatures
certain types of land animals, animals that live in the water, animals with wings (which included insects).
There were a couple of reasons for this.
1. Separate the Jews from others
2. Easier to just ban a type of animal than to say that shell fish is bad during certain parts of the year; or pigs can carry trichynosis; (more on this from a current Jewish standpoint next)
3. As Paul described, the Law pointed out to the Jews how difficult it is to be perfect on their own.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 3:50pm
More answer to mask on Leviticus and translations
Here is a Jewish answer on the Lev prohibitions
<Many modern Jews think that the laws of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have become obsolete with modern methods of food preparation. There is no question that some of the dietary laws have some beneficial health effects. For example, the laws regarding kosher slaughter are so sanitary that kosher butchers and slaughterhouses have been exempted from many USDA regulations.
However, health is not the only reason for Jewish dietary laws. Many of the laws of kashrut have no known connection with health. To the best of our modern scientific knowledge, there is no reason why camel or rabbit meat (both treif) is any less healthy than cow or goat meat. In addition, some of the health benefits to be derived from kashrut were not made obsolete by the refrigerator. For example, there is some evidence that eating meat and dairy together interferes with digestion, and no modern food preparation technique reproduces the health benefit of the kosher law of eating them separately.
In recent years, several secular sources that have seriously looked into this matter have acknowledged that health does not explain these prohibitions. Some have suggested that the prohibitions are instead derived from environmental considerations. For example, a camel (which is not kosher) is more useful as a beast of burden than as a source of food. In the Middle Eastern climate, the pig consumes a quantity of food that is disproportional to its value as a food source. But again, these are not reasons that come from Jewish tradition.
The short answer to why Jews observe these laws is: because the Torah says so.>
http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 3:52pm
Posted by srjenkins at 07/08/2009 @ 3:14pm
SJCHER is inspiring....he is the "future of intellectual conservatism". Bill Buckley is dead...and Bill O'Reilly has taken his place.
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 3:58pm
"I use multiple translations depending on the verse after consulting the Hebrew or Greek text. "---------------Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 3:50pm
"Parts"..."Translations"....no difference.
(No, don't expect you to believe that.)
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 3:59pm
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 3:58pm
He inspires me to say, "idiot" everytime I have the misfortune to come across a post of his because I haven't logged in.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/08/2009 @ 6:56pm
""Eloquent" remains in the eyes of the 32% `Strong Approval' kool-aid drinkers". (Happy)
Thank you for pointing this out, Happy. Obama's estabnlished a consistent pattern of speaking eloq
Posted by mystic at 07/08/2009 @ 9:17pm
""Eloquent" remains in the eyes of the 32% `Strong Approval' kool-aid drinkers". (Happy)
Thank you for pointing this out, Happy. Obama's estabnlished a consistent pattern of speaking eloq
Posted by mystic at 07/08/2009 @ 9:17pm
""Eloquent" remains in the eyes of the 32% `Strong Approval' kool-aid drinkers". (Happy)
Thank you for pointing this out, Happy. Obama's established a consistent pattern of acting diametrically in opposition to what he says. I therefore have concluded that he has no credibility and have started use the mute button whenever he speaks, eloquently as it may be. Russia may well have reached the same conclusion. And it's the same when Obama does NOT say anything, like his outrageous silence during the Gaza massacre. As far as I am concerned, he is continuing the Bush dictatorship.
Posted by mystic at 07/08/2009 @ 9:22pm
Blah blah blah. The Nation has no corporate sponsors yet it likes to lick Obama's shoes quite often. Enough with all the b.s. talk about how eloquent the man speaks, while Obama dined in Moscow the US continued to refuse cutting aid to the fascist coup regime in Honduras.
Posted by Communard115 at 07/09/2009 @ 03:19am
It is not Obama's words, but his actions which are going to count. Russians (and Soviets) have been using similar words with similar western leaders since the Russian revolution. Obama's words will not change anything in Moscow, except to produce a "we'll see" reaction from Russians. It will be on the important issues like American "gardening" in the Ukraine and Georgia, and the American missile shield against Iran (Ha! would respond most Russians) where actions will speak louder than pretty words. Moreover, Obama really needs to drop the lecturing about "democracy", leaving the neighbours alone, and getting the other foot out of the cold war. These are all American sins projected onto Russia. Obama sounds like just another American hypocrite, with _his_ wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. If he is not careful, these will ruin all his bright ideas for "change we can believe in", whether in Russia or especially in the USA.
Posted by mikhailovich at 07/09/2009 @ 07:31am
I thought his bright idea was to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq?
Posted by Mistral at 07/09/2009 @ 09:43am
I understand that the Nation is a politically liberal magazine...but you guys really are cheerleaders for Obama aren't you?!?! It is funny actually to read the editorial and then the comments afterwards. It goes as follows...
Nation: OMG!!! Obama is soooo good. I bet he smells like aqua velva, can run a 4 minute mile, and has perfected the jump-shot.
Nation readers and comments: Yes...this article is enlightened, Obama HAS perfected the jumpshot. And the revelation about his skin smelling of Aqua-Velva is most observant...MOST observant.
Not quite as eloquent Nation reader comment: Yeaa...Obama is gooood. Ya know what ain't gooood....Sara(h) Palin. She is stuuupiiid. She rides Mooses and yells at the Pooter (putin) from her bedroom windowww.
The same formula for every article (Lick Obama's boots + Mindless comments from brain-dead cheerleaders= another masterpiece by the crack editorial staff at the nation). The Nation is hopelessly predictable and ever more disappointing.
Posted by wkennyn at 07/09/2009 @ 09:59am
It sure was elegant. It was smooth, it was subtle, it ruffled no feathers, it delighted Putin.
His equally elegant Cairo speech that flattered, apologized, and delighted Obama's audience there no less. Obama might have upset them with a reminded of the 270,000 thousand Darfurians being killed by Arabs, and the ethnic cleansing of 3 million, across the border. But no, he did not fall into that trap. Instead the brilliant Obama, shrewdly consoled his listeners in their continuing grief over the Palestinians who fled their land 60 years ago in a war they caused.
As to the brilliant Obama possibly having played into Putin hand and goal of regaining for Russia the Soviet Union's hold over Poland, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, etc., that is unfair.
We know that it took Obama, with all his brilliance, 20 years and a video to figure out that his mentor, spiritual guide and close friend hated white America and Jews, and admired Farrakhan. How can the president now be expected to figure out Putin's hidden agenda when he hasn't known the man for more than a few hours?
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/10/2009 @ 2:10pm