RoR: Forum

Post 0

Sunday, May 31 - 7:09pm

Link

Edit

Aw, quit it guys. I just wann be friends. Quiiiit iiiit.

Post 1

Sunday, May 31 - 11:20pm

Link

Edit

Is that a pic of the Obama Kitchen Cabinet?

Post 2

Monday, June 1 - 3:30am

Link

Edit

These problems were all in place six months ago, after eight years of the George Bush administration. Kim Jong Il has been the de facto military dictator of North Korea (DPRK) since 1994.

Iran's problems, of course, go back to 1979. Ali Khamenei is the supreme leader. Having been elected by some process, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad certainly represents the government, if not the people of Iran, but, this is not some emergency that blossmed because Barack Obama was elected President.

Chavez and Putin, likewise, pre-date the present administration. Vladimir Putin and George Bush came to power at almost the same time -- and in almost the same way. While the second President Bush was not a formal member of the intelligence community, the senior President Bush was. Make of that what you will.

Paleo-conservative rants against the present administration in Washington lack clarity, substance, and context. It is nice to keep the government on its toes, of course. As citizens, we do that. At some level however, such complaints devolve.
The Fox News Blog item cited in the topic header lacks substance. It is a rant, not an analysis.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/01, 3:33am)

Post 3

Monday, June 1 - 8:35am

Link

Edit

"chattering class convictions"...

Post 4

Monday, June 1 - 9:50am

Link

Edit

Michael, isn't your post a rant?

After all, Bush is gone, we now have Obama. How long the various leaders have been in power and what other administrations did or didn't do is another topic - it is history.

If you think that Obama has not said enough or done enough to warrant any foreign policy discussion, I would disagree.

If you think the world stage, as currently set, has no problems serious enough to demand discussion, I would disagree.

Biden was the one to bring up the issue of being tested in the foreign policy arena - not Paleo-Conservatives. And as an aside, I don't think Peters is a Paleo-conservative (conservative who advocates isolationism). I think he might be more of a Hawk type of Conservative.

Clearly we are reaching significant historical turning point when Iran nears becoming nuclear, and when N. Korea is nearing the point of being able to deliver nuclear force with a missile. It would seem to be the time to see Obama do SOMETHING. Bush didn't, but like I said, that's history. I'm concerned about the future.

Post 5

Monday, June 1 - 1:09pm

Link

Edit

Steve, I agree with everything you say about the future and the current junction in history. I agree that these new nuclear powers, added to India, Pakistan, and, of course, Israel, complicates life in the early 21st century.

I certainly do not expect President Obama to "do something to solve the problem." What would you have him do? As far as I can see, the consequences may be worse than the actions.

The USA would have line up approval from China and neutrality from Russia before taking military action against DPRK. Similarly, direct military action against Iran is problematic at best. It would require no less than the acquience of the Saud Family, as well as Turkey. Pakistan seems in tow, for now.   President Obama does not have many options.

As for the consequences, that brings us to uncharted waters. If we act first, we are the bad guys. Let North Korea and Iran do their worst and our retaliation can be complete and overwhelming. But, no one asked me.

Myself, I expect to live in a world where second-rate powers use nuclear weapons. Keep the vitamins handy.  Get some more iodine in the fridge. Keep the water stocked up.

On the other hand... you know... it may be that this is just more "state of fear" nonsense like the Cold War...   Hard to tell..

In any event, thanks for the heads-up on the paleo-conservatives. My differentiation on that was only their domestic policy. Whereas neo-conservatives support government action in society and the economy, paleo-conservatives do not. Neo cons are New Deal Liberals who want an aggressive US foreign policy. Sometimes, it is hard to tell the players apart without a score card.

Mike

Post 6

Wednesday, June 3 - 5:00am

Link

Edit

The reality is that Iran and North Korea are intent on getting a nuclear capability, and that there isn't any diplomatic way of stopping them from achieving that goal. North Korea, in particular, has a long history of extorting concessions from the U.S. and then promptly breaking their end of the deal.

Short of bombing their production facilities, they will get a small nuclear arsenal (emphasis on "small"). And launching pre-emptive strikes on those countries would have devastating consequences for the U.S.

The best response is to maintain an overwhelming retaliatory nuclear strike capability, and quit caving in to their blackmail attempts.

Post 7

Wednesday, June 3 - 9:29am

Link

Edit

What would be the devastating effect on the US of bombing North Korea? (Keep in mind they have repudiated the armistice, and are hence currently at war with us.) I think the effect would be wholly salutary.

Post 8

Thursday, June 4 - 9:31am

Link

Edit

It really would not be that hard to get the Chinese to agree to get rid of him - that should be the first way to do it. It could also open a whole new dialog and stabilize that region of the world - there are a lot of ways it could be very good for China even more so than the US.