Extend An Open Hand, Get Your Wrist Slapped
by Big Dog on Apr 8, 2010 at 05:25 Political
Barack Obama said he would extend an open hand to Iranian President Ahmadinejad and would meet him without precondition. Looks like this is not working so well as Ahmadinejad slapped Obama on the wrist.
Obama is proposing eliminating our nuclear weapons and has changed our policy toward their use. Those weapons were used in anger on two occasions and they ended World War II. Since that time they have kept us safe.
Obama’s naive approach to the world has earned him little respect among those to whom he panders:
“Obama made these latest remarks because he is inexperienced and an amateur politician,” Ahmadinejad said on Iranian television. “American politicians are like cowboys. Whenever they have legal shortcomings, their hands go to their guns.” al Reuters
“Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended,” Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV. Yahoo News
Obama is being taken to task by a tyrant who is not amenable to having an open hand extended to him. Perhaps now Obama will see the evil that Bush saw.
I doubt it.
Obama is only willing to fight for his political career and his radical agenda. The man who said if they bring a knife, we bring a gun is not willing to bring nukes if the others bring lesser weapons…
Ahmadinejad is against Obama and has insulted him.
Will the left now call him a racist? The left might have ignored Ahmadinejad’s rants against the Jews but they certainly cannot stand by and let him slap little Barry around.
Big Dog Salute to Tim aka The Godless Heathen at Brutally Honest
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons, Obama, slap
Like George W. Bush, Ahmadinejad is simply a puppet or a front man for a radical religious and military agenda that really tugs the strings and starts the conflicts.
I think it’s cute that Ahmadinejad can get up and talk tough and say things to try and get a rise out of the US and it’s funny that you aren’t rising to Obama’s defense as you would when this moron insulted Bush.
Personally I don’t care what Ahmadinejad says. He can cry and kick sand and throw his childish temper tantrums all he wants. The adults are in charge now and no longer will the childish Cheney, Bolton, Kristol types of the Bush years be able to respond in kind.
Right. I defended Obama when Chavez insulted him just as I did when he insulted Bush.
However, Bush had one policy and Obama said it was wrong and that we needed to extend an open hand. He was told it would not work but he led people to believe his election would make them like us more because he lived in their countries.
He is naive and he is showing it.
Call it childish behavior on Ahmadinejad’s part but when he makes good on a threat what will your excuse be? How will you respond if he attacks Israel or if he is involved in a conflict with us?
He might be acting childish with his rants but if he makes good things will be bad.
So glad Obama has this under control. Maybe he can extend two hands.
Speak from a position of authority and power and you are not treated like a child.
I am not siding with Ahmadinejad, I am pointing out that Obama said he could handle this and it is not working out so well.
What threat can he make good on? Drop an A-bomb on Israel without killing Palestinians or destroying sites that are as holy to Islam as they are to Judaism? That will work, right? Your side gives the man too much credit. The trick is simply not to over or under estimate Iran and to make sure that when Ahmadinejad cries like a small child to get attention that we don’t continue to reinforce the behavior.
He will soon have that bomb and you seem to think he would worry about killing Palestinians. In that part of the world they kill each other all the time in the name of their greater good.
Don’t be silly. I’m not saying Iran should have nukes. Our other allies are far more threatened by them. I’m just saying with absolute certainty that there will never be a nuclear strike on Israel by a Muslim government.
Well I am sure that Israel is happy you are so certain. They have a different belief and since they have to live it…
Again, I’m not saying let Iran get nukes for any reason. I’m just saying let’s not pretend Israel is under threat of nuclear attack. It’s silly.
There are about 6 million Jews in Israel and the West Bank. There are 100 million Muslims in Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt that would be affected by a nuclear strike.
It’s one thing when these countries look the other way when a terrorist attack kills indiscriminately. It’s another to suggest that a Muslim country is going to kill 10’s of millions of Muslims to get to 6 million Jews. Iran is not run by a mad man like North Korea is.
A small nuclear attack will not take out a huge segment of Muslims. If done correctly it would terrorize Israel, wipe out a lot of the population and have little effect on the Muslims. What effect is does have will be acceptable for the religious zealots who believe that the destruction of Israel will bring the 12th Imam.
They will not be rational when it comes to this. But a small nuke will not harm them very much. I doubt Iran would be able to deal a huge delivery but a small one would cause quite a few problems and would cause little harm to the Muslims in the area, not that he would care.
It would be like saying a small nuke dropped on Manhattan would cause little harm to the rest of the state. You know better.
Well al-Qaida would use them at least according to President Obama:
If al-Qaida acquired nuclear weapons it “would have no compunction at using them,” President Barack Obama said Sunday on the eve of a summit aimed at finding ways to secure the world’s nuclear stockpile.
Source:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20100411/D9F144HO0.html
To change (or limit) our options in an attack response is soooooooooooo ignorant, that I believe that Barrie must have to have people who pump his chest, because he hasn’t the brains to breathe on his own-
For as long as Russia, and Red China have had the nuclear arsenal, our response has had to be that of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD- and since Russia, and China, and now other Islamic Regimes have nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons, our response has had to be that if you attack us with a weapon of Mass Destruction, we will nuke you- and this has been because we have no Bio or Chem weapons, having chosen to take the somewhat higher road in weaponry- so nukes are our ONLY response, and this is not necessarily a weaponized tit-for-tat, but instead, our ONLY option in response.
To take this response off of the table is weak-willed and ignorantly wrong in the larger picture, for if you think that this will make us more liked, you need electro-shock- it just makes us look weak, and believe me, either Russia, or China, or even the nutcase a-jad will view us as a potential target if they believe we haven’t the will to push the button.
And under Barrie, they can see that he is weak, weak, weak.
Yes, this will take us well below the 2000 nukes mark. We’re practically defenseless now…
It is not the amount of nukes we do or do not have, but the willingness to use them, and other countries need to know that we WILL use them if need be- this is something Barrie hasn’t the balls for- and the other nations will (and do) perceive us as weak, which, as long as he is in charge, we will be seen as, rightfully.
***
[While] The right is freaking out over President Obama’s plans to cut back the inventory of nukes and the way they are used.”
Perhaps they should remember the words of St. Reagan.
“Ronald Reagan, once said that nuclear weapons were “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” Indeed, while he irked his detractors for years over a seemingly endless arms buildup, Reagan was, by his own telling, firmly committed to the abolition of nuclear weapons.
“[F]or the eight years I was president,” he wrote in his memoirs, “I never let my dream of a nuclear-free world fade from my mind.”
Crooks and Liars
And Reagan kept those nukes because he knew they would deter our enemies. The wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed because they could not keep up.
A dream of a nuclear free world is wonderful. You have to be sure the other guy gets rid of his as well.
Obama has a dream (will Adam say I am racist for that) but he thinks we should disarm while others like Iran have no intention of stopping.
MAD is a good policy, worked for a long time. Until we know that the others have nothing, we should not disarm.
Once you are without weapons you will be weak. Russia and China have enough people and conventional weapons to overrun us. We have an equalizer.
If the world gets rid of nukes (China and Russia will not) then China would have the might to walk across the US and take us over.
Though the economic policies of Obama will allow them to do that without firing a shot.
The right wing loves to lie about this latest from Obama. We are no where near disarmed and we certainly aren’t weakening ourselves against countries like Iran. But it’s an election year so it’s all hot air and no facts for both sides.
We are nowhere near? He just announced it. This is as moronic as Obama saying (after he signed the health care bill) hat he got up the next day and none of the bad things had happened. Of course it was but one day and he was mocking the opponents. But when asked about when the good things would start a week later he said it had only been a week.
Let us see what position we are in when we kick him out of office. Remember, Carter never made us weaker according to the libs. Clinton did not make us weaker, according to the libs. Iran hostages and 9/11, direct result of liberal inaction.