“Get real, dude!” Also, from the UK: President Pantywaist.
[Sunday morning update]
The president from Bizarro World:
Our alien president, rather than being a superhero disguised as a mild-mannered something or other, out to promote truth, justice and the American Way, is instead the doppelgänger from Bizarro World. In the American version of Bizarro World, our friends (England, Israel, etc.) are our enemies. Our active enemies and those countries that are merely passively hostile to us (North Korea, Iran, Castro, Venezuela, etc.) are the ones to whom we pay homage. Our cooling planet is a warming planet. The UN, one of the most corrupt organizations in the world, is the world’s only hope for peace. The way to cure the nation’s vast deficit is to incur more debt. Disarmament protects us. The only democratic nation in the Middle East is a Nazi country. Putting women in hijabs frees them. These are the values Bizarro World Superman/Obama has brought to us.
In other words, the world according to this alien being is a Bizarro World in which all principles, values and common sense are reversed. And just so you know this is absolutely true, I have it on good authority that the President’s real name, his Bizarro World name, is Amabo Niessuh Kcarab.
I think that the truth is kryptonite to him, though.
Well, I for one am just shocked at the EUros’ displeasure with our esteemed President.
They seemed so happy when he got elected. Don’t tell me the honeymoon’s over already?
Tsk tsk – falling out of love is so sad to watch….
They thought he would actually be as sophisticated as our media made him look during the campaign. Turns out he gets his ideas off the sides of cereal boxes — and not even sophisticated European cereal boxes.
I thought that Europe was going to love us now.
Biden warned us there’d be days like these. But did they listen? Nooooo…
It’s quite telling that a French politician (I repeat, FRENCH!) publically states that Obama is too unrealistic (naive). It’s even more telling when he’s correct in his statement. Obama is starting to make Jimmy Carter look good by comparison.
The Europeans are probably just now realizing they just exchanged one kind of American stupidity for another, without any net increase in intelligence. And soon they’ll probably be wishing for Bush’s ineloquence, which made him funny to listen to but at least didn’t make him a bad President.
Certainly a case of “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.” The Europeans are certainly having their eyes opened up to the true consequences of a neutered and weak U.S.
Obama is starting to make Jimmy Carter look good by comparison.
Starting?
The French President is conservative and comes from a Hungarian Jewish family… This is hardly unexpected. Neither is that comment from the Torygraph.
Anyway, I agree that talking is not going to solve the Iranian problem. Missile shields are interesting but they hardly solve the problem. Which is… The USA got nukes. So the USSR wanted nukes. So China wanted nukes. So India wanted nukes. So Pakistan wanted nukes. Now Iran wants nukes.
IMO both Pakistan and Iran should be denuclearized. The only precedent there is South Africa IIRC, and they were convinced due to sanctions. But I do not know if that will be enough to convince these two…
OH MAN!!
How bad is it for an American President, for the FRENCH to see you as WEAK?
But I do not know if that will be enough to convince these two..
Don’t worry — It won’t.
Libya was convinced as well. But we know what that took.
Read ye :
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/27/i-very-much-enjoy-working-for-obama-gates-says/
Libya was convinced as well. But we know what that took.
Reminds me of that scene in “Shrek” where the prince has his goon bust a mirror to get the Magic Mirror to talk…
Godzilla,
For heaven’s sake, please don’t credit sanctions with ANYTHING. I have lived in two countries embargoed with sanctions and all they do is hurt the little guy while giving everyone the motivation to stick something in the rest of the world’s eye. As far as I can see, sanctions made BOTH countries stronger.
The only things sanctions have done is give those in power more control because they control the resources in a scarce environment, and they also dramatically improve the self sufficiency and efficiency of the target nation. Big government effects aside, the USA could really do with some sanctions.
Furthermore, South Africa got rid of its nuclear weapons for internal politics reasons; sanctions had about as much effect as what I had for breakfast. That also applies to the change in government that occurred, BTW.
I am not aware of a SINGLE political decision made in South Africa that was materially because of sanctions.
Sanctions are a feel-good palliative for the political masses. They are worse than useless.
MichaelW: well that’s nice, so he is happy in his job. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Interesting, I never noticed Obama spelled backwards is amabo, the Latin for “I shall love”.
Ray: Sanctions are hardly worse than useless. It may be more efficient to cauterize a wound rather than bandaging it, but it is better to apply a band-aid than do nothing. Sanctions do not only affect the people. They affect a country’s industrial and military capabilities as no country can work in complete isolation. Self reliance only works upto a point. Even the Soviet Union, with vast mineral and human resources, lagged in technological development in several areas of research to a large degree because it did not have access to the world market.
I doubt Hitler would have lost WWII so easily were it not for a lack of petroleum and minerals needed for superalloys. Germany surprisingly managed to increase production of tanks and aircraft during the last years of WWII even while its infrastructure was bombed. But you cannot run tanks or aircraft without petroleum and without superalloy hardened armor, rounds, turbine blades, you are not going to win a war. Different countries of course have different supply and R&D issues.
“The USA got nukes. So the USSR wanted nukes. So China wanted nukes. So India wanted nukes. So Pakistan wanted nukes. Now Iran wants nukes.”
Are you actually suggesting that, if the US had never developed nukes, nobody else would have either?
Or that Iran is developing nuclear weapons because it is afraid of Pakistan?
If so, you have a lot of research to do, and should not opine on this subject again until you have completed it.
Godzilla,
Your examples do not support your point, nor do I accept your claim.
Even the Soviet Union, with vast mineral and human resources, lagged in technological development in several areas of research to a large degree because it did not have access to the world market.
Really? In what areas did the USSR lag that mattered to those in power? If you suggest agriculture or medicine, which are the top two I can name, then perhaps you might want to consider how the USSR handled that weakness for decades.
And Germany in WWII? They were sanctioned before Hilter went to war. He used those sanctions to garner support for going to war. And once the war begin, I hope you are not trying to argue that the embargo of goods into a war zone is effectively a sanction (it is defacto, but not dejury from a diplomatic standpoint).
I think sanctions, like all diplomatic options, is just another tool. I completely agree with Ray’s comments that sanctions can be manipulated by the sanctioned power for their own gain, so they should be carefully utilized (We’ve seen how even war for oil was manipulated in Iraq). However, Godzilla’s supporting points don’t convince me of the positive utility of sanctions.
Are you actually suggesting that, if the US had never developed nukes, nobody else would have either?
No. Just that once a country had developed nukes, other countries had to develop nukes as a deterrent. It does not matter if the first country was the US or Germany or whatever. Regarding a previous commentary, there was spillage between research programs. The first Soviet atomic bomb, RDS-1, was a copy of the US Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki.
Really? In what areas did the USSR lag that mattered to those in power? If you suggest agriculture or medicine, which are the top two I can name, then perhaps you might want to consider how the USSR handled that weakness for decades.
Agriculture, medicine are a couple of examples yes. So is electronics. Further regarding resources affecting an economy, some economists state that the fall of the USSR was caused by a drop in Soviet oil production before the collapse. Plus it was not like they could easily buy oil in the international market. Production in that area has risen since, with help from western prospection and extraction technologies.
And Germany in WWII? They were sanctioned before Hilter went to war. He used those sanctions to garner support for going to war.
I still claim they hampered his buildup. Sanctions are not a replacement for other action, just IMO a viable delaying tactic until other means can be brought to bear. I think we have gone beyond the point where simply bombing Iran is enough. Not without a backup land invasion plan and US troops near their borders in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Just that once a country had developed nukes, other countries had to develop nukes as a deterrent.”
In general, the acquisition of nuclear weapons has not been in response to an adversary getting them. Rather, it has been in response to having the adversary, period.