Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBarack Obama drew cheers from an estimated 30,000 Czechs as he declared Sunday that, "I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."
Obama's restatement of his administration's commitment to negotiate a fresh arms reduction treaty with Russia was greeted with enthusiasm in Prague, as was his pledge to work to convince countries around the world to abandon nuclear weapons as a means of security and aggression.
"As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act," explained Obama, in a speech broke, at least rhetorically, from the Bush administration's hardline stances with regard to nuclear issues. "We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can start it."
Unfortunately, the president put a damper on the celebration when he revealed a slow timeline. "This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime," Obama explained. "It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change."
And the president pretty much ended the party with his announcement that that the United States would "go forward" with a central-European missile defense system that has sparked intense opposition in the Czech Republic and Poland.
Obama claimed that the system is designed to protect Europe from an attack by Iran. "As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with the missile system," the president claimed. "If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile construction in Europe will be removed."
But that line did not go over particularly well in Prague, where polls suggest that roughly 70 percent of Czech citizens oppose the missile shield project, key components of which would be positioned in the republic.
The Czech parliament has refused to ratify and agreement for siting the missile shield radar tracking system outside Prague.
As Obama spoke, crowds of anti-shield protesters, clad in white hazardous-material protection suits, demonstrated nearby.
From the U.S. came a mixed review of the Obama speech by Kevin Martin, executive director of Peace Action, the peace and disarmament organization that traces its roots to the old Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy and the Nuclear Freeze movement of the 1980s.
"President Obama's Prague speech was important in terms of re-asserting U.S. leadership on nuclear disarmament issues. U.S. Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, negotiations on an arms reduction treaty with Russia, pursuit of a treaty to ban fissile materials and strengthened non-proliferation policies are all crucial to progress towards a nuclear-weapons free world," said Martin.
But, he added, "President Obama's statement that such a world might not be achieved in his lifetime is very disappointing. Obama can and should announce the initiation of negotiations on the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Similarly, his promotion of nuclear power, missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic and his escalation of troops in Afghanistan are all moves in the wrong direction."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Similarly, his promotion of nuclear power, missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic and his escalation of troops in Afghanistan are all moves in the wrong direction."
Once again, Obama has demonstrated that on foreign policy, he is at least willing to be both pragmatic and centrist.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 5:42pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 5:42pm
Agreed.
Centrist is the place to be. It will serve President Obama well.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/05/2009 @ 5:53pm
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/05/2009 @ 6:22pm
i don't care if this is off-topic, these guys are too much:
Hedge Fund Paid Summers $5.2 Million in Past Year
By JOHN D. MCKINNON and T.W. FARNAM
WASHINGTON -- Top White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers received about $5.2 million over the past year in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw, and also received hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from major financial institutions.
A financial disclosure form released by the White House Friday afternoon shows that Mr. Summers made frequent appearances before Wall Street firms including J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers. He also received significant income from Harvard University and from investments, the form shows.
In total, Mr. Summers made a total of about 40 speaking appearances to financial sector firms and other places, with fees totaling about $2.77 million. Fees ranged from $10,000 for a Yale University speech to $135,000 for an appearance paid for by Goldman Sachs & Co.
The disclosure -- in a financial report that is required for federal office holders -- comes as Mr. Summers is involved in shaping the Obama administration's policy decisions on the financial meltdown as well as the broader recession. Among the many decisions the economic team has wrestled with has been whether to step up regulation of hedge funds, one of the most contentious subjects during a summit of world leaders this week. European nations pushed for tougher rules, while the Obama administration preferred a less stringent approach.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/05/2009 @ 6:47pm
He's towing the line and dabbing salve on the wounds incurred to our foreign relations during Nero Jrs turn at the wheel.
Good for him.
Posted by snowball666
I haven't got anything but kind words to say about Obama's FP but knowing that you are very literate. (More than I can say for some). I've assumed a typo but we wouldn't want to lead the less literate masses astray now, would we?
Towing is what we do to broken down cars etc. On the other hand I think you will find "toeing" has to do with making sure you are obeying the race rules and ensuring your foot is not over the starting line before the starters gun gives the signal to lawfully cross the line,which of course is where the "line" part comes from. Hence toeing the party line , toeing the spelling line or toeing the line of good taste etc. I know you'll understand that this is the short answer but time is of the essence..however if you......
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/05/2009 @ 7:44pm
I agree that the centrist position for Obama will pay dividends. It's great for him to suggest the elimination of nukes, but that will not happen on his watch(4 or 8 years). Yet, the idea expressed at this time, and in this context, can go a long way in the future.
Yet, I disagree that he should give up on the idea of the missile defense shield. At least it could be used as a bargaining chip. Moreover, the shield may be viable and useful in ushering in the "no nukes" era everyone should want...better safe than sorry. As Lech Walesa used to say "nie chcem, ale muszem." (I don't want to, but I must)...a sentiment Obama clearly understands.
Posted by erazma at 04/05/2009 @ 7:44pm
WSJ;
The Obama administration is seeking to control the nation's banks just as it has now near-total control over two of the Big Three auto companies, says Wall Street Journal columnist Stuart Varney.
In a piece that appeared Saturday in the Journal, Varney noted how administration officials didn't seem too happy that banks had return money to them from the TARP (Trouble Assets Relief Program.)
"So why no cheering as the cash comes back?" Varney wrote. "My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command."
By managing the banks, Varney reasons, one of the most liberal adminstrations in the nation's history can ‘steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road." As long as banks keep public money, the Obama administration can direct their policies with an eye on the larger agenda. It's also the reason that the Obama administration is moving toward having control over CEO salaries.
Varney recounts a story, reported on Fox News, of one unnamed bank that had accepted TARP funds under the Bush administration. The bank is now "begging" the Obama administration to take the money back because bank directors now feel they are safely recapitalized.
"But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent," Varney reports. "The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics."
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/05/2009 @ 9:27pm
"After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this," writes Varney, who is British. "I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive."
I guess Obamanation and the Demoncrats believe that their form of "Economic Dictatorship" by the left is just what Americans voted for! Does the word totalitarian or Hitler ring any bells in myopic land?
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/05/2009 @ 9:30pm
"I guess Obamanation and the Demoncrats believe that their form of "Economic Dictatorship" by the left is just what Americans voted for!"
so, tell us, which part(s) of the stimulus package would you consider egregious? and btw, if you think geithner and summers are "leftists", then i really don't see any reason why anyone should take you seriously.
and, tell us, did any component of the bush's 'global war on terror' (including iraq) constitute a form of "economic dictatorship"? after all, we have already spent 1 trillion on (a completely unnecessary) iraq.
Posted by darladoon at 04/05/2009 @ 10:19pm
As I read it, Obama is avoiding the mistake of assuring potential enemies they have nothing to fear and can do as they like. It is fine for NGOs and a clueless Congressperson or two to assert ideological absolutes, but simply dead wrong to seriously expect an actual head of state to do so.
Does anyone truly wish Obama to become a George W. Bush of the left, implementing his extreme views to the detriment of this country and the world?
I do not believe Obama is a centrist. He is a responsible head of state expressing nuanced views which allow the flexibility every state requires. And he is taking actions which nudge, rather than exceed, the limits of the possible.
Not that I mind any effort to keep him nudging over to the ideal world which I, too, want. But I like the guy and I think his actions and statements are appropriate
Posted by JFHill at 04/05/2009 @ 10:42pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/05/2009 @ 9:27pm
"But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent," Varney reports. "The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics."
For those slow learners, the left is all about control - control of the banks, control of the auto companies, and, through state-provided health care, control of the citizenry's life. Liberty and property sure to follow. The left is all about slavery, just like their communist brethren. Only suckers believe otherwise.
Posted by pontificus at 04/05/2009 @ 10:47pm
President Obamanation vows to punish North Korea with even more strongly worded resolutions! Take That!
"North Korea's long-range missile launch has provoked stern words from President Obama. "North Korea broke the rules once more by testing a rocket that could be used for a long-range missile," Obama said. "This provocation underscores the need for action -- not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons." I
I believe the kind of "action" that Obama has in mind is the Security Council issuance of words as stern as Obama's, though the New York Times reports that the United States has "vowed to penalize the North." What shape might such a "penalty" take? Further down in the story, the Times notes:
At Japan's request, the U.N. Security Council approved an emergency session Sunday. But China, North Korea's only remaining major ally, and Russia are likely to veto or water down any new sanctions against the North. Pyongyang has said new sanctions would compel it to quit international talks on ending its nuclear weapons program.
A more likely option for Washington is to push for a stricter enforcement of an earlier Security Council resolution, analysts said. The document, adopted following the North's first nuclear test in 2006, bans the North from seeking nuclear and ballistic missile technology and calls for the international community to stop trading weapons and luxury goods with Pyongyang.
Ouch!
Given North Korea's existing nuclear weapons, the launch presents a threat to the the United States. Working in tandem with Iran, North Korea helped Syria install the nuclear reactor that Israel bombed last year. Iran's nuclear program is itself on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. "
Posted by pontificus at 04/05/2009 @ 10:53pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 10:53pm
"Whereas the good people working for peanuts at Wal-Mart NEVER feel controlled by the right...not at all."
Jesus Christ, you are fucking moron.
Posted by pontificus at 04/05/2009 @ 10:54pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 10:53pm
"Whereas the good people working for peanuts at Wal-Mart NEVER feel controlled by the right...not at all."
I am rendered speechless by the profundity of your idiocy. You don't have any kind of responsible job, do you? How could you?
Posted by pontificus at 04/05/2009 @ 10:56pm
Posted by pontificus at 04/05/2009 @ 10:56pm
"Whereas the good people working for peanuts at Wal-Mart NEVER feel controlled by the right...not at all."
I mean for God's sake man. On what planet are idiotic utterances such as this taken seriously? Do you work in academia? The Post Office? Some other government sinecure? That's the only possibility I can imagine.
Posted by pontificus at 04/05/2009 @ 10:59pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 10:58pm
"I make $160k/yr writing software...have a nice night."
Do yourself a favor - keep your politics to yourself - for your own good.
Posted by pontificus at 04/05/2009 @ 11:01pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 10:58pm
"A moron with a 170 IQ...that's a new one...now pretending that only the left wants control...that's some serious STUPID."
Genius IQ's - presuming you are not lying about this - are no proof against idiotic ideas. Hitler had plenty of geniuses working for him. So did Stalin, and Mao. Plenty of Madoff's clients, I'm willing to bet, are way smarter than either of us.
The fact that you may be smart in some ways does not guarantee at all that your political ideas are not 10 ways stupid, or deluded - and your most recent post would be proof of that. Do yourself a favor and don't repeat this 'Walmart workers are slaves to the Right' thing among people you know - you'll reveal yourself as a serious kook, my friend.
Posted by pontificus at 04/05/2009 @ 11:11pm
How very odd that rogue nation Israel's nuclear arsenal is never mentioned by Obama, but Iran's *attempt* to get nuclear weapons - largely suspected, but not proven - is the center of gravity in his speech.
Why do the Israelis, alone on the Earth, get away with being a rogue nation in possession of a modern nuclear arsenal? Why is this never mentioned at all in the context of ending nuclear weapons?
Posted by syfriendly at 04/05/2009 @ 11:32pm
Why do the Israelis, alone on the Earth, get away with being a rogue nation in possession of a modern nuclear arsenal? Why is this never mentioned at all in the context of ending nuclear weapons?
Posted by syfriendly at 04/05/2009 @ 11:32pm
I suppose it's because they have been able to get away with protecting the integrity of their borders, and some more, using conventional weapons only. Thus it is extremely unlikely Israel would need to use them, unless of course Iran got itself an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
That really is a no brainer. In that scenario, as a last resort, Israel may pre-emptively take Iran out. Thus we can think of opposition to Iran possessing nuclear weapons as a kindness to that nation, as well as the rest of the ME, which would be negatively affected by such a conflagration.
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/06/2009 @ 01:30am
"For those slow learners, the left is all about control - control of the banks, control of the auto companies, and, through state-provided health care, control of the citizenry's life. Liberty and property sure to follow. The left is all about slavery, just like their communist brethren. Only suckers believe otherwise."
it's hard to take seriously this paranoia, especially since the previous president hoodwinked the masses into suporting not one, but two, trillion dollar wars. a trillion dollar tax cut structure. a surveillance state of still unknown proportions. a torture regime. an assassination squad. holy f*cking sh*t. how f*cked up does it have to get before right wingers understand that george bush destroyed the country?
Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 02:14am
Why do you guys waste time on Rio? Dude doesn't have a brain left in his head. Anyone who uses the term leftist and Obamanation and Demoncrats isn't worth an the energy required to transmit a message in response.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/06/2009 @ 04:23am
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/05/2009 @ 9:30pm
Don't think you need worry too much about that happening. Was listening tonight (Aussie time) to a report on the G20 Summit. The question was asked of a British expert economist "Did G20 spell the end of capitalism and the beginning of more government control?"
He laughed and said; "by its massive funding of the IMF and World Bank it gave its endorsement of and approval for the continuation of free market capitalism".
Others over here say the G8 is dead and the G20 is now the premier body. China, which is now the third largest economy and will soon replace Japan, as the second will be a very significant international player in future as will India. Notice China won some concessions against the would be regulators wrt to Hong Kong and Macau.
If G20 tells us anything it is that market protectionism is dead. Thus Obama has been introduced to the real world economy and the direction it is most likely to take.
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/06/2009 @ 06:07am
Obama must be doing the right stuff...
John Nichols is disappointed and RIO had to change the subject.
LOL
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 06:29am
Sometimes this phrase is written "tow the line," an eggcorn changing the meaning of the phrase from conformance with a rule to contribution to a cause or effort, as in the act of pulling something with a line, the way a canal man would along a barge canal's towpath. wiki
Posted by emile duBois at 04/06/2009 @ 08:27am
Jesus Christ, I am a fucking moron. Posted by pontificus at 04/05/2009 @ 10:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
who could not concur?
Posted by emile duBois at 04/06/2009 @ 08:31am
Control? That is the goal of Demoncrats
Having failed to move the operation of the 2010 census into the White House, President Obama late last week nominated as director of the U.S. Census Bureau the Michigan sociology professor Robert Groves, a fervent advocate of statistical sampling. That technique, which uses samples instead of actual counting, is easily manipulated and often results in the over-counting of traditional Democratic constituencies, especially minorities.
The data from the Decennial Census taking place in April of 2010 will be used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives and to disburse billions in federal dollars. Republicans are very concerned that the White House efforts to politicize the census will result in a corrupted count aimed to benefit Democrats. With Groves' appointment, their apprehension should grow.
Groves served at the Census Bureau from 1990 to 1992 as an associate director of statistical design, where he strongly advocated adjusting population numbers in urban areas to augment the number of people in these typically Democrat strongholds. The United States Supreme Court ruled this process unconstitutional in 1999.
Earlier this year, hyperpartisan White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel moved oversight of the 2010 Census from the Commerce Department to the White House. In 2006, then Rep. Emanuel revealed to USA Today the motivation behind the shift, "If you think redistricting is always partisan and political which it is… it's going to be on steroids this time." As outrageous as that maneuver was at the time, the president has now reinforced politicization of the process with his nomination to run the Census Bureau the man whose name is synonymous with exploitation of the census to reach political outcomes.
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/06/2009 @ 08:31am
by all reports the leader of the country Czech republic is in political trouble. If he doesn't improve he could wind up being a bounced Czech.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/06/2009 @ 08:35am
If we can't cooperate on nabbing the 'crims', as you say, will we at least avoid the protectionist mistakes many countries made in attempting to 'go it alone' during the Great Depression?
Posted by snowball666 at 04/06/2009 @ 07:06am
Basically the type of "capitalistic" system, in play, worked well for the last two or three decades to produce high rates of employment and a rapid growth in the middle class.
Excessively high leveraging of all sorts of securities was what eventually brought the financial system down.
That is not something intrinsic to the sort of "capitalism" that had worked so well but something more akin to full bore gambling and shows that the players who lost vast sums for their companies were incompetents who couldn't make a sound calculation of risk. The US and Britain it seems were the chief culprits in artificially ramping up the value of underlying assets.
To try to make things look better Keynes has been resurrected but someone has to pay for the government largesse and there is no guarantee that throwing cash around will provide the stimulus to economic growth hoped for.
Over here $900 each for 7.5 million workers (70% of workforce) is being put in the mail right now. It was $1000 to $5000, depending on number of children, last Dec. but it has been calculated only 17% of it was spent and the rest ended up in the recipient's banks. Plenty more is promised as the $40 billion surplus inherited is heading for $130+ billion deficit.
It is interesting that the Europeans told Obama and Brown to get stuffed, when they asked them to provide more "Obama Style" stimulus for their economies.
Seems the "socialistic" Europeans aren't as impressed with Keynes deficit spending, as a way out of the mess, as the "Anglos" are.
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/06/2009 @ 08:36am
Just because one is presumed intelligent does not abrigate the degree to which a myopic national vision is not determental to the future. Obamanation and the Demoncrats have the first opportunity in years to "control" economics, politics, culture, and ultimately the future of this nation and they are blatantly disreguarding the constitution, the 3 tenants of the rule of law, and have established a white house "campaign" headquarters to spread hate, lies, and disinformation politically against anyone who dares to stand against them!
The big question is who will they attack next, and what fawcet of the lives and liberties of the American people will they destroy or exercise totalitarian control over next!?
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/06/2009 @ 08:38am
The big question is who will they attack next, and what fawcet of the lives and liberties of the American people will they destroy or exercise totalitarian control over next!?----Posted by comancheamerican at 04/06/2009 @ 08:38am
Then the NEXT question would be...
"If you REALLY believe that and aren't just shooting the s**t....what's your escape plan, RIO?"
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 08:45am
a world without nukes is a world without love.
I don't care what they say, I won't stay in a world without love. (Lennon/McCartney)
Posted by emile duBois at 04/06/2009 @ 08:58am
It is virtually impossible now to have a world free of nuclear weapons. With so many insecure countries and nuclear being the biggest deterrent that anyone can have in their arsenal, to stop the enemies from invading, it is hard to see an end to proliferation. The best the world can hope for is that sanity will prevail and no one will be forced to use nuclear weapons. Besides it is not the states that we need to worry about but stateless terrorists are the biggest nuclear threat because these people have nothing to lose.
http://real-politique.blogspot.com
By Sikander Hayat
Posted by sikander at 04/06/2009 @ 08:59am
the impossible, we do right away. miracles take a little longer.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/06/2009 @ 09:03am
Then the NEXT question would be...
"If you REALLY believe that and aren't just shooting the s**t....what's your escape plan, RIO?"
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 08:45am | ignore this person | warn this person
Its not a question Mask, its an opportunity for blind myopics such as you to actually use the mind that God gave you for something other than sponge like absorbsion with no output!
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/06/2009 @ 09:03am
"we need to worry about but stateless terrorists are the biggest nuclear threat"
reducing nukes across the board will go a long way in addressing this.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/06/2009 @ 09:06am
How can someone be blind and myopic? What the heck is "sponge like absorbsion(sp) with no output?"
Posted by theo51 at 04/06/2009 @ 09:14am
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/06/2009 @ 09:03am
So you don't REALLY think Obama is going to impose a totalitarian state....it's just hyperbole for effect?
(Now, back down again and say "yes, it's just for effect"...and we'll save that for any future "dire warnings"....or say "No, he might"...and I'll ask again-
"Okay, RIO, what's your escape plan then?")
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 09:15am
an opportunity for blind myopics
block that metaphor.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/06/2009 @ 09:17am
Pakistan, Israel and India are states that seem more than willing to use nuclear weapons in first use offense. And Iran and Korea will probably adopt a first use military doctrine once they have functional nuclear weapons. So, why are "stateless terrorists" the biggest nuclear threat?
Posted by theo51 at 04/06/2009 @ 09:38am
Since Europe will be the first ones screaming for help from us in the event of a crisis, I would be less concerned (read: don't give a red rats ass)about what Europe thinks.
Funny, Obama's practicality seems familiar somehow...
Posted by william.harry13 at 04/06/2009 @ 09:51am
What do I do with all this duct tape and plastic bags I bought in 2002?
Posted by theo51 at 04/06/2009 @ 09:54am
As far as I'm concerned opposing Nuclear Power is INSANE, if you care anything for living standards or climate change.
Posted by SK9 at 04/06/2009 @ 09:58am
What do I do with all this duct tape and plastic bags I bought in 2002?
Posted by theo51 at 04/06/2009 @ 09:54am |
Well, there's this guy who lives in Oklahoma named RIO, see, and....
Posted by Benchrest at 04/06/2009 @ 09:58am
Obama could easily impress upon the entire world how fervent is his wish for a world without nukes by, first, guiding the US through unilateral disarmament and, second, calling for the most belligerent state in the world (after the US) to eliminate its nuclear weapons -- Israel.
The so-called leader of the free world, now universally recognized as anything but, might then stand a snowball's chance in hell of actually being believed when it argues for non-proliferation.
Posted by HuSan at 04/06/2009 @ 10:48am
Posted by HuSan at 04/06/2009 @ 10:48am
Why unilateral disarmament?
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 11:00am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 10:53pm
"When I used to work at Target as a teen, they'd lock the doors so we couldn't leave after the store closed"
I've noted that personal experience often becomes the strongest indicator of ones' political beliefs. People who are indoctrinated while young into an ideology tend to keep it. Intelligence is not even in the top 5 when it comes to picking a political ideology. Background and experience are far more important. Also, since it is in the nature of people to willingly suspend disbelief for certain ideas (the idea of something for nothing, the dream of utopia, and the perfectibility of man), even intelligent people continuously fall for scams like anthropogenic global warming (an excuse to raise taxes on energy use), passive smoking (an utter fraud), passive drinking (an up and comer), and other things that scammers push forth.
Many liberals tend to be those who benefit most from expansion of the state, e.g., politicians and bureaucrats, moralizing crusaders, union employees, government employees, academics, journalists, people who are poor because they waste money on substance abuse, retirees taking more out of the system than they ever put in and know they will die before the bills come due, etc. Also, those who feel alienated from society, e.g., young people, minorities, etc. They tend to identify conservative principles (observance and recognition of the power of natural economic laws) with 'Republicans', and thus lead, essentially, a fantasy-based political life.
Posted by pontificus at 04/06/2009 @ 11:13am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/06/2009 @ 11:02am
"Fusion not fission!"
Fusion power will never be accepted by the wild-eyed environmental fanatics, because anti-nuke is not a rational belief with them, it's a religion. Ever try arguing with a religious fanatic?
It'll be interesting to see, when and if fusion power actually gets on its feet, whether it causes a schism amongst the liberal ranks. I'm betting you'll see a full-on propaganda campaign against any fusion power initiative, and that the propagandists will ultimately win out in the liberal movement, with the heretics either forcibly converted or expelled.
It's a shame, too, because successful fusion power, IMHO, is really the only thing that can save us from the Democrats' bankrupting this country.
Posted by pontificus at 04/06/2009 @ 11:20am
theo51,
You asked "....Pakistan, Israel and India are states that seem more than willing to use nuclear weapons in first use offense. And Iran and Korea will probably adopt a first use military doctrine once they have functional nuclear weapons. So, why are "stateless terrorists" the biggest nuclear threat?...."
First of all, to clarify...Israel and India are not rogue states but democracies and they are not a threat to use nuclear weapons to harm others...despite what is portrayed by some on these blogs regarding Israel..
Second, then, states such as Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are certainly threats, but less so than stateless terrorists who might get ahold of nuclear weapons.
The stateless terrorists do not care if they live or die as they try to impose their worldview on others. This makes them less predictable and more dangerous.
Even back in the days of the Cold War, the Soviet Union wanted to impose their communism on us and on the rest of the world, but the Soviets did not want to or were not willing to die in the process. If they died in the process, then their objective would have been pointless. They wanted to remain alive and "well" and be the controllers of world communism. They were certainly a threat, of course, but you still could predict some things about their actions and they were less likely to allow a crisis to go to a nuclear war.
So the threats we face today are even more dangerous than in the past. Does Obama understand this, and is Obama preparing for it and prepared to deal with it?
I hope so, but apparently he will cut back on the military budgets in the future. And with all the "hoopala" about the economic situation, Obama has not yet begun to roll back the Patriot Act, I hope to God he has the sense not to.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/06/2009 @ 11:46am
"Fusion power will never be accepted by the wild-eyed environmental fanatics...."---Posted by pontificus at 04/06/2009 @ 11:20am
I disagree. Many thought that the Republican Party would never accept that global warming is real, man-made, and needed addressing...
McCain proved those cynics wrong!
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 12:17pm
"So the threats we face today are even more dangerous than in the past. Does Obama understand this, and is Obama preparing for it and prepared to deal with it?
I hope so, but apparently he will cut back on the military budgets in the future."----Posted by sjchermak at 04/06/2009 @ 11:46am
Fair enough. Why DO we need an F-22 Raptor to take on Al Qaeda?
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 12:19pm
I disagree. Many thought that the Republican Party would never accept that global warming is real, man-made, and needed addressing...
McCain proved those cynics wrong!
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 12:17pm
How is one man considered the entire Party?
That stand hurt McCain with the conservative vote. It probably wasn't a lot, but in some states where the race was narrowly won by Obama, the lack of conservative turnout can be attributed to McCain's positions on subjects like the hoax of manmade global warming.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 12:33pm
God Almighty, I do not believe this! (but I should)
I just checked back into this thread since making my post before lunch, and here is Mask again still obsessing about John McCain and global warming!
I swear, Mask is a perpetual motion machine running around in circles. Or mabye like the Energizer Bunny - Mask just keeps going and going and going!
Posted by sjchermak at 04/06/2009 @ 12:55pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/06/2009 @ 12:55pm
"I swear, Mask is a perpetual motion machine running around in circles. Or mabye like the Energizer Bunny - Mask just keeps going and going and going!"
MASK spends a lot of his time and energy putting forth appeals to popularity and other rhetorical fallacies. In his mind, it really does 'prove' that AGW is a 'real' issue because, after all, John McCain says so, and he's a Republican! So that proves it! He regularly wins the 'Barack Obama Special Olympian' award for political science, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by pontificus at 04/06/2009 @ 1:27pm
"Many liberals tend to be those who benefit most from expansion of the state...."----Posted by pontificus at 04/06/2009 @ 11:13am
Would you include in that people who sell auto insurance because it's mandated by the Government?
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 1:42pm
BTW, on global warming...
Got a $1000 burning a hole in my pocket for each and all of you guys if the GOP nominee in 2012 denies it's real OR that mankind bears responsibility for it.
If so, and they do?...$1000 for you.
If no, then you pay me and the position of the Republican Party now for TWO Presidential elections (2008, 2012) as well as the begrudging position in his 2nd term of Dubya...is that it's real, man-made, and needs addressing.
And you're out a grand...and out on the edges of political irrelevancy.
Bets?
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 1:44pm
....Mask again still obsessing about John McCain and global warming!
Posted by sjchermak at 04/06/2009 @ 12:55pm
MASK...In his mind, it really does 'prove' that AGW is a 'real' issue because, after all, John McCain says so, and he's a Republican! So that proves it! He regularly wins the 'Barack Obama Special Olympian' award for political science, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by pontificus at 04/06/2009 @ 1:27pm
Hilarious! As I chime in during a busy time......tax filing crunch time and all.......
Truth is, MASK is just flat out a bore.....dragging out the exact same old `facts' as if somehow, everyone is till stuck in a Pre-Magic mindset!
Oh, AGW is a fraud and more and more knows.....till someday, only MASK and McCain will be the believers....LOL!
Posted by Happy at 04/06/2009 @ 1:52pm
Posted by Happy at 04/06/2009 @ 1:52pm
Got a $1000 to lay on the table, HAPP, that YOUR Party is going to "expose the hoax" in 2012?
I'll take it in stock...if it doesn't wipe out your "portfolio"?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 2:48pm
Posted by pontificus at 04/06/2009 @ 11:13am
When I was a teen, I went to Target to apply for a job. They sat me down at a monitor, to take some kinda Target-compatibility test. About 100 questions, majority weren't work-related. Political stuff. Walked out in disgust.
My fiance used to work at Macy's, so I heard all the stories. Seems retail outfits have adopted the wal-mart cultic corporate snake-handling sessions that dehumanize the "associates."
This is not Rockwell's America. Folks scrambling for cover in the crossfire of the Kafka beams from the gubs and the corporates. Don't let your belief in capitalism (I'm with you) blind you to the camel traffic backed up at the eye of the needle.
Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 3:13pm
The various Star Wars Missile Defense Systems should be scraped because they don't work, cost too much money, and there is no evidence that Iran would target Europe if it had long range missiles. Hopefully, the Czechs will resist hosting that junk on their territory. These programs are pure corporate welfare. I am also tired of this carrot and stick imitation of the Bush Administration's Foreign policy by the Obama Administration. You talk to people without threats. There are good reasons not to have nuclear weapon, particularly if your main enemies are close to your home territory. The preemptive use of nuclear weapons on a neighboring country could cause suicidal collateral damage to your own country. Idiocy is the basis of this non-partisan foreign policy.
Posted by pjcasey at 04/06/2009 @ 4:32pm
"Thus it is extremely unlikely Israel would need to use (its nuclear arsenal), unless of course Iran got itself an arsenal of nuclear weapons"
Dead wrong. Israel is itching to use its arsenal, just like a spoiled fat brat who was given a toy gun by his daddy for Purim. Israelis the most volatile dangerous threat on earth. And it would never use its arsenal without its signature false-flag operation to justify anything it wants to do, the way it has always run business.Anyone ever heard of Copenhagen University? Iran, by the way for anyone predisposed to reason, has never attacked any nation on earth unless in self defence for the last 350 years. It is Israel's psychotic behaviour that is provoking Iran to build an arsenal. My fantasy is that Russia teaches Israel a lesson, just like Israel "taught" the Gazans a "lesson". Russia remembers only too well the Georgian air bases that the troublemaker Israel intended to use against Iran. What a blessed day that would be! The world would be a safer place without Israel.
Posted by mystic at 04/06/2009 @ 4:49pm
Governments, including ours, need nuclear weapons and war. This is how governments retain legitimacy. Without the fear of war, people begin to question the order of society, to question the legitimacy of taxation and governmental power.
So when you hear Obama discussing an elimination of nuclear weapons, he is flat out lying and he knows it. He knows the threat of war keeps society under control. That threat maintains the distribution flow of wealth from the producers to the exploiters.
Warfare has controlled the masses and supported government tyranny for centuries. Now, Obama maybe bets that environmentalism will replace war as the method best used to control society, but it is clear war will be around for a very long time. Wars aren't fought for victory. They are fought to keep the power structure flourishing.
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/06/2009 @ 4:54pm
Missile defense sheild is really really stupid, simply because it is useless. Even President bush told Putin it was useless. We couldn't even get our patriot missiles to shoot down crude scuds. Three decoys and one real missile coming in low and the defensive missile would cause more damage than the armed missile. Our patriots killed more of our own than they downed any of the crude scuds. Given the will, the time is really ripe to denuclearize the world.
Posted by julien38 at 04/06/2009 @ 6:51pm
The missle defense shield is a chip in the poker game. Nothing has been absolutely decided yet. He is going for the big stuff - nuclear disarmament, like global warming, will take some time for people to catch on to, i.e. realize the dangers and the reality that we can literally blow up the entire planet at any given moment. He is right to start the process. Most people, if polled, would be in favor of it.
Posted by jonnirae at 04/06/2009 @ 7:12pm
"even intelligent people continuously fall for scams like anthropogenic global warming (an excuse to raise taxes on energy use)"
i can only feel pity for you....
Posted by darladoon at 04/06/2009 @ 7:23pm
freigeit - well put
Posted by syfriendly at 04/06/2009 @ 7:24pm
Dead wrong. Israel is itching to use its arsenal, just like a spoiled fat brat who was given a toy gun by his daddy for Purim.
It is Israel's psychotic behaviour that is provoking Iran to build an arsenal. My fantasy is that Russia teaches Israel a lesson, just like Israel "taught" the Gazans a "lesson". Russia remembers only too well the Georgian air bases that the troublemaker Israel intended to use against Iran. What a blessed day that would be! The world would be a safer place without Israel.
Posted by mystic at 04/06/2009 @ 4:49pm
Ha ha. Love your crazy humour. Sy is a bit sinister but you are a bit bonkers and funny in a crazy sort of way.
Israel has had plenty of opportunity to relieve that itch but hasn't done so.
Let me tell you what nuclear is all about. First it's only useful value is deterrence because once the more powerful stuff starts zooming around it's most likely finis for quite a bit of the human race, including Israel and most of the ME. We could probably call that fairdinkum anthropogenic climate change but possibly ending in cooling rather than warming.
Your mob did us all a favour by dropping those packages on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the simple reason that we know what sort of massive damage those now relatively tiny devices caused. That is one thing. The other is that the US which used them is fairly civilised so it's probably best to keep those sorts of weapons from millenarian cranks like Iran's mad mullahs, who may get the "itch" to usher in the reign of their "messiah" with a fireworks display.
If your characterisation of the Jewish state of Israel is correct there is very little likelihood they would want to end the monopoly you claim they now have using the conventional stuff i.e. no itching need for them use nuclear.
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/06/2009 @ 7:43pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 6:13pm: The only way you can absolutely show it, is to wait until it happens, then it's too late. The shield is clearly not for Russia because she could simply overwhelm it while Iran could not. That is rather obvious. We are not worried about a nuclear attack from Russia because they are not crazy. Iran is. MAD works against sane countries but not against ones that are eagerly waiting for the 12th emam - or whatever it is.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/06/2009 @ 8:11pm
Posted by julien38 at 04/06/2009 @ 6:51pm: Absolute declarations about how missile defense cannot work are silly. Of course it can work - it is an engineering problem. To use the Patriot system as the benchmark is faulty. The Patriot was origionally designed as an anti-aircraft system - it was adapted to a theater missile defense system just prior to the first gulf war of 1990 because nothing else existed. The current systems (sea and land based) are different animals. Their flight tests have looked good and as things advance they will only get better. Its called engineering! Look, even if a system is 50% effective, taking two missiles to hit a nuke is a good trade. Two missiles to save San Francisco...
Posted by pyeatte at 04/06/2009 @ 9:03pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/06/2009 @ 9:22pm
Part of the Right-wing mentality on Islamic fundamentalism, even Islam in general.
Since the 9/11 hijackers were suicidally fanatical, ALL Islamic fundamentalists, like the Iranian mullahs, are suicidally fanatical and willing to see their country flattened like a pancake just for ONE shot at nuking Tel Aviv.
Doesn't matter if it's not accurate, or even logical, they MUST hold that belief to maintain their nice cozy black/white view of the Middle East.
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 07:46am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/07/2009 @ 08:55am
The Right has a difficult paradox to overcome in response to the rise of neo-conservatism and Dubya.
Post-9/11, but even back to the Iranian hostage crises, they are vehement Islamophobes. From the basic "Can't trust them A-rabs" types to Larry who believes Islam is "evil and the work of the Devil"....they loathe and fear Muslims en massse.
But with the invasion of Iraq and Bush's declarations of "liberation" and "building a free, stable democracy that will be our ally", the Right is forced to support the idea that...
Muslims can be our pals and open-minded!!!! In direct conttradiction to their bigotry towards them.
Sooooooo...they get confused when exposed to the paradox and we get what we got yesterday with Larry/antisoc where he has to claim that Iraqis aren't "really Muslim" just "devotees of Muslim"....to try to resolve it.
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 09:30am
Sooooooo...they get confused when exposed to the paradox and we get what we got yesterday with Larry/antisoc where he has to claim that Iraqis aren't "really Muslim" just "devotees of Muslim"....to try to resolve it.
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 09:30am
I'm convinced there is either some wiring problems with your brain or you are someone who just enjoys deliberately distorting what others say.
I took time to elaborate that not everyone who calls themselves a member of a particular faith are actually practicing members of that faith. But you persist in trying to perpetuate that I am obfuscating or dodging the truth.
I've said from my own experience as Pastor, that many people come into my churches that are Christian in name only. They are the ones that live a life totally lacking any sense of Christian belief. And the same holds true of other faiths. The number of devote Jews who actually practice orthodox Judaism in this country and Europe is just a small percentage of those who identify themselves as Jews.
If you don't have some cognitive disability (which I don't really believe you do) than it is that you are not a honest debater. You don't acknowledge someone's position as having any legitimacy. That is obvious by how you almost never venture any real opinion of your own. You primarily engage in questioning the statements of others.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 10:47am
once ya open up ol pandora's box...
so hard to put all them evils back in...especially them nukes...
i'd say better to work on lowering world tensions so that those nations who find themselves with the option to go nuke opt not to. or build a few to discourage others from liberating them and never use them...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/07/2009 @ 11:19am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 10:47am
No, no, Larry of course. It's more logical to conclude that "Muslims only THINK they're Muslims, but are merely 'devotees of Islam'...because otherwise the neo-conservatism that Dubya signed me up for wouldn't make any sense!"...
than to think you're being contradictory!
BTW, those "former Muslims who told you only 10-15% of Muslims are really Muslims"?....let me guess?
They're now evangelical Christians who travel from church to church (including yours), given sermons on how many Muslims are "just waiting for us to bring the good news of Jesus to them", and take up a "love offering" to "continue our work and missionary work to the Middle East where THOUSANDS of Muslims are brought to Christ every year".....right?
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 11:44am
No, no, Larry of course. It's more logical to conclude that "Muslims only THINK they're Muslims, but are merely 'devotees of Islam'...because otherwise the neo-conservatism that Dubya signed me up for wouldn't make any sense!"...
than to think you're being contradictory!
BTW, those "former Muslims who told you only 10-15% of Muslims are really Muslims"?....let me guess?
They're now evangelical Christians who travel from church to church (including yours), given sermons on how many Muslims are "just waiting for us to bring the good news of Jesus to them", and take up a "love offering" to "continue our work and missionary work to the Middle East where THOUSANDS of Muslims are brought to Christ every year".....right?
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 11:44am
mask, I'm through on this subject with you. You refuse to see past your own misconceptions about people and religions. Therefore there is no ability to have dialogue.
Your attempt to introduce the converted Muslim to the context is bogus. I did not reference any such thing. I'm giving what are established survey results from Gallup and others over the years.
Because you're an atheist, you lump in everyone who says they are of a particular faith as the same, whether they even practice that faith or not. It is a faulty reasoning and as long as you continue in it, you will stay just as wrong about others.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 12:03pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 12:03pm |
LOL....I was exactly right about those guys, wasn't I?
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 12:57pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 12:03pm
BTW, I'm not an atheist. An atheist believes there is no such thing as God.
I'm agnostic and concede you might be right...the "real Muslims" might be right....or the Romans and Zeus is pissed!
Posted by Mask at 04/07/2009 @ 1:00pm
Obama is on the WRONG track on missile defense in Eastern Europe.
Iran has expressed ZERO interest in attacking Europe, and the system is really corporate welfare for companies like Lockheed that lobbied for it.
But the most disturbing aspect of the missile defense system is that it runs a serious risk of restarting the Cold War with Russia, something that would be disastrous for the world.
Posted by Metteyya at 04/07/2009 @ 1:32pm