Reply With Quote
Carter was awesome the hate for him is unwarranted
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/25/oba...ner=popstories
North Korea thumbs its nuclear nose at Washington.
During the U.S. Presidential primaries last year, I had expressed my misgivings that Barack Obama might turn out to be another Jimmy Carter, whose confused thinking and soft image paved the way for the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
The subsequent Iranian defiance of the U.S. and Carter's inability to deal effectively with the crisis in which Iranian students raided the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and held a number of U.S. diplomats hostage led to disillusionment with him in sections of the U.S. and to his failure to get re-elected in 1980. The strong line taken by him against the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet troops towards the end of 1979 did not help him in wiping out the image of a soft and confused president.
The defiant action of North Korea in testing a long-range missile with military applications last month, and its latest act of defiance in reportedly carrying out an underground nuclear test on May 25, can be attributed--at least partly, if not fully--to its conviction that it will have nothing to fear from the Obama administration for its acts of defiance. It is true that even when George Bush was the president, North Korea had carried out its first underground nuclear test in October 2006. The supposedly strong policy of the Bush administration did not deter it from carrying out its first test.
After Obama assumed office in January, whatever hesitation that existed in North Korea's policy-making circles regarding the likely response of U.S. administration has disappeared, and its leadership now feels it can defy the U.S. and the international community with impunity.
A series of actions taken by the Obama administration have created an impression in Iran, the "Af-Pak" region, China and North Korea that Obama does not have the political will to retaliate decisively to acts that are detrimental to U.S. interests, and to international peace and security.
Among such actions, one could cite: the soft policy toward Iran: the reluctance to articulate strongly U.S. determination to support the security interests of Israel; the ambivalent at ude toward Pakistan despite its continued support to anti-India terrorist groups and its ineffective action against the sanctuaries of Al-Qaida and the Taliban in Pakistani territory; its silence on the question of the violation of the human rights of the Burmese people and the continued illegal detention of Aung San Suu Kyi by the military regime in Myanmar; and its silence on the Tibetan issue.
Its over-keenness to court Beijing's support in dealing with the economic crisis, and its anxiety to ensure the continued flow of Chinese money into U.S. Treasury bonds, have also added to the soft image of the U.S.
President Obama cannot blame the problem-states of the world--Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar and North Korea--if they have come to the conclusion that they can take liberties with the present administration in Washington without having to fear any adverse consequences. North Korea's defiance is only the beginning. One has every reason to apprehend that Iran might be the next to follow.
Israel and India have been the most affected by the perceived soft policies of the Obama administration. Israel is legitimately concerned over the likely impact of this soft policy on the behavior of Iran. South Korea and Japan, which would have been concerned over the implications of the soft policy of the Obama administration, had no national option because they lack independent means of acting against North Korea.
Israel will not stand and watch helplessly if it concludes that Iran might follow the example of North Korea. Israel will not hesitate to act unilaterally against Iran if it apprehends that it is on the verge of acquiring a military nuclear capability. It will prefer to act with the understanding of the U.S., but if there is no change in the soft policy of the Obama administration, it will not hesitate to act even without prior consultation with the U.S.
India, too, has been noting with concern the total confusion, which seems to prevail in the corridors of the Obama administration over its Af-Pak policy. Some of the recent comments of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about alleged past incoherence in U.S. policy toward Pakistan--and about the part-responsibility of the U.S. for the state of affairs in the Af-Pak region--have given comfort to the military-intelligence establishment and the political leaders in Pakistan.
Obama's new over-generosity to the Pakistani armed forces and his reluctance to hold them accountable for their sins of commission and omission in the war against terrorism have convinced the Pakistani leaders that they have no adverse consequences to fear from the Obama administration. India would be the first to feel the adverse consequences of this newly found confidence in Islamabad vis-a-vis its relations with the U.S.
Jimmy Carter took a little over three years to create the image of the U.S. as a confused and soft power. Obama is bidding fair to create that image even in his first year in office. The North Korean defiance is the first result of this perceived soft image. There will be more surprises for the U.S. and the international community to follow if Obama and his aides do not embark on corrective actions before it is too late.
Bahukutumbi Raman is a retired officer of the Indian intelligence service and director of the Ins ute For Topical Studies, in Chennai, India. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies.
Carter was awesome the hate for him is unwarranted
Now we have to fight India's wars in addition to Israel's?
What part of world police did you NOT understand??? WE ARE THE LAW.
America will do what America does best. Subsidize failure. We'll send ol' potbelly some food for his failing country and he'll back off for another 6 months.
or we could just liberate tHem (WINK,WINK)
Jimmy Carter was a class of statesman that is comes along only rarely which is how we've survived as long as we have.
Funny. India is the new great ally. We need them more than they need us, and they know it, we know they know it, and they know that we know that they know it
Also--Isn't it funny how it's a given that the US will not act against the interests of Israel (other than words, of course) yet Israel will never EVER hesitate to act in its own interests regardless of ours? The Israeli attack on the Osirisk reactor during Gulf War I ed us so badly in the post war diplomacy period that ensued. Likewise the war against Hezbollah. Likewise the month long slaughter of Gaza.
God bless those right wing lobby-master jews.
"But--But--But, don't you remember the holocaust????"
Last edited by Cant_Be_Faded; 05-27-2009 at 09:28 PM.
Jimmy Carter is probably one of the nicest men in the world. Very bad as president though.
You are so amazingly stupid it boggles the mind how you function day to day.
Yeah....... how can you not help but just love hezbollah.
Where exactly do you disagree and why do you disagree.You are so amazingly stupid it boggles the mind how you function day to day.
I would love for you to show me how stupid I am.
Israel has always been a strategic ally...it's never been a love in except in the media and political speeches. We let the Arab countries try to wipe them off the map multiple times and basically could have cared less beyond lipservice...
The alliance was borne out of the fact that they were going to ally with the Soviet Union if not with us, and the relationship now is basically a holdover from the coldwar and motivated by political special interest.
Truth is...we need them more than they need us, the second we stop allying with them they will ally themselves with someone else, and since they are the only non-incompetenent/hoplessly corrupt/terminally hole government in the entire ME, that would be a losing deal for us.
You must understand something, it is a complete myth that Israel is some helpless country dependent on us for survival...we gain much influence in that region by having the most powerful military force in it for our ally.
All these countries(non-Me) you think hate us because of our alliance with Israel will be lining up to ally themselves with Israel should our relationship with them cease to be an alliance.
Furthermore, Israel itself may become the dominant world power in the ME should we stop allying with them.
IOW, we aren't the reason Israel has their together, they are. I mean Saudi Arabia is our ally, and they don't have their together. The relationship is for our benefit moreso than theirs, they can get any ally they want due to being the only non-incompetenent/hoplessly corrupt/terminally hole government in the ME.
Last edited by whottt; 05-28-2009 at 01:24 AM.
Great. Let's stop giving them $3 billion a year then.You must understand something, it is a complete myth that Israel is some helpless country dependent on us for survival.
I never meant to imply they need us for their existence. That's no longer true at all. I realize these things, and am more than certain Israel could hold its own if we cut the umbilical chord. We created Jordan as a buffer for it, and are in the process of reshaping its nearmost hostile neighbor.
They are set in that respect.
But they need us to help resolve their long term problems, which will never go away if they keep causing mass collateral damage and polarizing themselves.
And I seriously disagree that we need them nearly as much as they need us for these things. Like Israel and France becoming buddy-buddy would seriously affect our position in the ME. Short of allowing another holocaust, we will still always be one of the main allies of Israel, even if we are not the primary one.
But even if some other country became ally number 1, no other country could have the sway and influence that we do (even though ours is minor in regards to the entire issue). No other country blasted the out of a ME country into the stone age, invaded it unilaterally, regime changed it, and shoved whatever regulations they wanted down the ME's throats over a long period of time. We are the top dog.
Then you have Israeli hawks saying they won't stop settlements, they don't want a two state solution, meanwhile they're ing themselves for short term political gain because anyone with eyes can read and understand the demographics of the region say if they stay this course, Israel will be 40-60% palestinian eventually. Then what will happen to this glorious country?
They need us to allow themselves to save face at home and still try to come to terms with their enemies.
We don't need them for . Compared to what they need us for. Even the Soviet threat in the region back in the day was largely overblown. Just look at Egypt. We blew that so out of proportion.
Whottt, you've said some stupid in the past, but saying its a complete myth Israel can't live without us is bull through and through.
If McCain is Bush, then I would say Obama is Carter. Obama's serving Carter's 2nd term.
I think that Israel can and should live without the U.S. It would only be for the better. And they should stop listening to America's and UN's liberal party train, that would do wonders for them. I think they have enough amo and soldiers to defend themselves, including nukes. The Arab countries are too disorganized to beat Israel in a war. Also, there is no coalition among the Arab countries, so I'm not too worried.
And 3 billion dollars isn't that much. Obama just gave over 150 billion to AIG.
Good. If it isn't much and they don't need it, let's stop.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
