Light at the end of the tunnel: The 2008 Election, its aftermath and the future

LMAO is this what the party of Lincoln is coming to?

"We shred the constitution, we started a pointless war, we helped tank the economy. But we kept ya safe!"


Vote Republican 2010

 

Well, the Non-proliferation treaty has had a goal of a world without nukes and the US signed that decades ago.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest Obama's domestic nuclear policy will be a compromise: doing another round of reductions via treaty with Russia while implementing the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program.

 

What are your thoughts?

Turkey has always been placated to by the US- admittedly with good reason. Remember how important Turkey was to the Cuban Missile Crisis-and that's going back almost 50 years? It's why Turkey's nickname is "NATO's Diamond in the South."

But supporting Turkey also brings with it another host of complicated issues:

1)Turkey's ongoing conflict with Greece, for one.

2)During that same visit, Obama also backed off on the "Armenian Genocide" issue, refusing to label Turkey's actions as such, or requiring Turkey to be held accountable. The issue of the Armenian Genocide brings with it strong feelings.

EXAMPLE

Perhaps most important is Turkey's close ties to Israel. Turkey and Israel share a mutual defense pact, and Israel is Turkey's #2 military partner. This has always been a bone of contention to Iran and it's third party actors like Hamas and Hezbollah, so highlighting US's support for Turkey may serve to lessen ties elsewhere.

The Iraq War was unpopular in Turkey because it brought hostilities to Turkey's Southern border, and forced the issue of the Kurds to the forefront. Those issues still have to be addressed as well.

I suppose, like with anything, a speech is one thing, but it's going to be policy that matters.

 

That is so laughable.
What is he running for student body president?

Apparently he missed the NK missle launch. Oh yeah, that was for a satelite.

Right now China, Russia, NK, and Iran are thinking to themselves, "yeah, we'll disarm", while trying to maintain a straight face.

 

Give the man a little bit of credit. He didn't say an America without nukes, he said a world without 'em. As in, something to work towards, an ideal. I'm pretty sure he didn't miss the NK launch. Building a worldwide or almost-worldwide consensus that even further proliferation of nukes (to start) is a Bad Idea is the first step to maybe getting some action on that front and putting some pressure on those who are going against that ideal. Consensus building is good, the UN is there for a reason even if it's not used as much as it should be.

From the article:
He cited the commitment he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced two days ago to draw down their nuclear stockpiles -- a move he said would give the U.S. "moral authority" to demand Iran and North Korea stop their nuclear activity.

This is designed at keeping people safe. A misunderstanding with nukes, and the situation blows up (pardon the usage) in the faces of everyone, no matter who wins.

 

What about the radar/nuclear missile shield in the Czech Republic?
If Obama wants a world without nukes he cannot suport it right?


http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=91&task=videodirectlink&id=1069

 

But how is this represent a difference in established policy?

As JF pointed out-with a link that is neither pro-Obama speech or anti-Obama speech- on its face, Obama could simply be continuing the existing "warhead reliability program," a policy which has existed for years now. The US can dispose of older, obsolete nuclear warheads while at the same time actually increasing its own nuclear capability. The result is a nuclear weapon program that is actually more lethal and responsive, while at the same time, represent a reduction in number.

Iran is already a signatory of the NNPT, and has run into problems with the IAEA and the UN Security Council because it has been violating the requirements for years now. You probably already know that the EU is the collective body that has the lead with Iran's violations through the IAEA, so the US sits at the advisory level. North Korea already withdrew from the NNPT.

Obama's speech isn't "bad" per se, but he isn't campaigning anymore-the buck now stops with him. What matters more is policy and practice, and people can't just continue to accept rousing speeches without much else.

 

He is doing stuff, but that doesn't mean he can stop explaining and advocating for his position. Part of his job is explaining what's going on and rousing support for what he wants to do. Especially on a foreign relations trip like this, because it's rousing international support for worldwide policy initiatives. Stuff he can't implement on his own.

 

Why would NK or Iran ever agree to give up the pursuit of nukes?
They won't. Not without out an invasion, regime change, or perhaps taking out their nuclear facilities.

Nukes provide the ultimate security for despots and dictators, a missle shield would nulify that, which should be the course we take. Not a PR speech like we need to get rid of nukes (a day after NK launches a missle over Japan), when it is completely impractical and naive to think dictators that don't care about their own people are all of a sudden going to care what we say when they know full well the world won't act to stop them. You can't even get Russia and China to condem what NK did.

IMO, Pre-emption should be back on the table or at the very least a stepped up emphasis on missle defense (For Europe and Mid East Pol/Cze and Israel and For Asia Jap/Hi/Ala), but I have no confidence that Obama will do anything.

 

He is doing stuff, but that doesn't mean he can stop explaining and advocating for his position. Part of his job is explaining what's going on and rousing support for what he wants to do. Especially on a foreign relations trip like this, because it's rousing international support for worldwide policy initiatives. Stuff he can't implement on his own.

But again, I think you're focusing too much on Obama himself, and not enough on the larger picture.

Signaling out North Korea and Iran isn't going to bring those countries closer, it's simply policy as usual. The buzzword for most of the mid 00's was "blowback," a term which I'm glad has fallen out of favor with the public because it came to be just as meaningless a concept as "exit strategy."

But here's a reaction given to Obama's initial overture to Iran:

HERE

In a more polite nutshell, the reaction from Iran's ruling council was "go stuff it Obama.."

Again, this is no fault of Obama himself, but international relations aren't dependent on speeches, they're dependent on actions.