May 20, 2008
McCain Visits Chicago
John McCain made a campaign stop yesterday at the National Restaurant Association trade show in Chicago. In town with former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, McCain slammed Obama for his support of corporate welfare for agribusiness and proposing to meet with states like Iran over diplomatic conflicts. On Sunday Obama said in a speech in Oregon that "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union.... They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'" McCain criticized Obama for his "inexperience and reckless judgment," saying that "on the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers."
McCain was interrupted during his speech by a group of anti-war protesters, who stood up and chanted "McCain is in the kitchen with George Bush cooking up another war." After they were escorted out, McCain received his only standing ovation of the night. His attacks on Obama were largely met with only polite applause. Obama hit back at McCain's attacks, replying that "anything but their failed cowboy diplomacy that's produced no results is called appeasement. Here's the truth: when the world was on the verge of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the courage to talk to our enemies?"
|
Soviet Union analogies are completely trite. Like, for the same reasons "The Sum of All Fears" didn't work.
"Here's the truth: when the world was on the verge of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the courage to talk to our enemies?""
Selective and incomplete "truth", not a very clever way to support your Liberal-Democrat agenda is it? It works on little brains, but not on people who know there is a significantly more complicated story behind what happened in Cuba those many years ago. It had much more to do with the US weapon deployment concessions that Kennedy made in the Eastern Mediterranean they very day that the USSR began pulling missiles out of Cuba, than with Kennedy "talking" to anyone. Kennedy's reckless and uninformed military plan for the Eastern Mediterranean (among other boneheaded decisions) was the spark that ignited the move by the USSR to deploy missiles to Cuba. Try again.
"Here's the truth?"
Did you really have to ruin a somewhat informative story with repeating what you heard your Dad spout off at the dinner table last night?
Have fun in P.E. today Kevin, and don't forget your social studies homework.
The most awkward moment of the day had to have been when one of McCain's aides pulled him aside and gently explained to him that this was the National Restaurant Association show and not the National Rifle Association show.
"Damned duplicate abbreviations," McCain was heard to mutter as he pulled his invitation out of his pocket to take another look at it.
And when Chamberlain negotiated with HItler, HItler played him and the rest of the world like an accordion.
Um...irishman1...the "here's the truth" line was part of Obama's quote.
All of the analogies just don't make sense. I'll agree with Spav1 that they are trite. Times and peoples are different. But you can't be the world bully and you can't be afraid to talk to people. The countries we're dealing with now like Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba all have mixed ideologies as a people that we can use for negotiation. This is not an us vs. them. Just like the US, most of these countries have different parties and ideologies, and we need to not look like a dick and talk to them in order to foster pro-US sentiment, which is already there in each and we're killing by listening to people like Bush and McCain.
I wish people would learn what "appeasement" actually means. It dosent mean talking to your enemies. It means giving them something, or accepting imposed conditions, at the sacrifice of your principles or to avoid aggression. This is why we're fighting all these wars..because everyone acts like children and they dont know how to TALK like adults.
In the above photo, McCain is holding his arm in the posture of Bob Dole's paralyzed arm.
It's a calculated attempt to appeal to the true conservatives, i.e., the ones who supported Dole. Busted!
appeasement - giving up something major to avoid an unavoidable military entanglement.
diplomacy - talking to people who you don't like and who don't like you.
you don't make peace with your friends.
you make peace with your enemies.
What's more wreckless, wanting to diplomatically engage Iran?
or wanting to "BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB IRAN...BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB IRAN"
McSame is fool who will send this country straight into hell.
via- How do you think appeasment is attained? It's by talking to your enemies directly or indirectly and appeasing them by making a concession that 'if this' then 'this'. If you stop making nuc's we'll overlook these human rights violations...or vice versa, etc...
you get there by TALKING.
McCain is right about Obama's corporate welfare for agribusiness. He promotes E-86 ethanol and is partly responsible for the rise in corn prices.
We simply don't have the military power for a deep, sustained campaign against Iran at this point. Yes, we surrond the country, but one can not easily disengage from one fight on two fronts (Iraq, Afghanistan) to create third front (Iran). Therefore, we have two main options: More tough talk that could lead to a bombing campaign unlikely to make our situation any better (and Iran knows our land forces are otherwise engaged), or tough diplomacy (not appeasement).
At this point, it does not matter what we want. It matters what we can actually do. I thought we should have waged war against Iran, not Iraq, after 9/11, as Iran has for decades supported radical Muslims who attack us, and harbored Al-Queda members after the Sept 11 attacks (read the 9/11 Commission report). But we invaded a country that posed much less of a threat, and now must deal with the consequences of our stupidity.
Like whatever.....
'ward up', you are scum (and uninformed). John McCain was injured when his plane was shot down during a combat mission. His injuries, which included injuries to his arms, were not properly treated by the enemy that captured him; additionally, he was horribly and repeatedly tortured over the course of the years he was held captive. His arms are limited in mobility due to the untreated injuries and torture he suffered. You are a low, and disgusting sort of human 'ward up'.
I am agreeing with Ward Up here. I don't want a President who can't throw out the first pitch at a Nationals game.
'ward up', you are scum (and uninformed).
TH, you seem to have no sense of humor.
ophmarketing...whoops!
I read the quote wrong.
I wasted my zing!
:-)
I just find the idea of two parties negotiating, one in good faith, and the other blatantly lying and playing off the other's good will while they plot some diaboloical scheme, hilarious.
Containment of the spread of nuclear arms is a reality, without a doubt the most serious security threat of our time.
We simply cannot allow rogue states and instable regimes to acquire nuclear weapons. No matter the cost, it can't happen. (Any more than it already has.)
It's an uphill battle, perhaps impossible, and the essence of what the fight against terrorism.
But it is reality. If Obama thinks he can talk people like Ahmeninejad down, great.
But you better make sure they are not just lying to you. It's not like the world is short of people who will simply pat you on the back and say "yes" and then go do whatever they want.
And taking force off of the table as a negotiating tool is crazy. Even if you don't want to go to war with people like Ahmeninejad, you shouldn't tell them that.
"We simply cannot allow rogue states and instable regimes to acquire nuclear weapons. No matter the cost, it can't happen."
Fine. Great idea. Who would disagree?
But, please describe the steps you will take to make sure this goal is realized, and how you would fund the inevitable military efforts to achieve that goal. We are talking about, at the least, prolonged war with Iran and probable military intervention in Pakistan at some point. As well, action against Nort Korea likely would be required, as that regime continues to try to export nuke technology, unless that regime fades or collapses. We would be pressured to lean on Israel to get that country to reduce its arsenal, and would likely face massive pressure to cut our arsenal as well, including, perhaps, our nuke-carrying submarines, perhaps our best deterrent force.
I agree in general with your point--nukes are the prime security concern, and, in one way or another, have been since 1945. But unless you have details, you idea holds little value. Are you willing to fight for this goal, or pay the financial costs of doing so? Let's at least be honest about what this struggle requires.
Really Matilda? Invade Iran? Really?
You do realize that *ALL* the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabi (our buddys!) with the exception of two: Egypt and Lebanon.
The pathetic Republican sabre rattling plays right into the hands of Ahmadinejad who's awful handling of their economy in addition to his divisivness have not exactly made him mister popular with the citizens of Iran. Much like George Bush relies on scaring the sheeple with bombastic terror rhetoric Ahmadinejad relies on tough talk from the West to keep him hanging on to power.
Anyway it's amazing how fucking amateur hour tough talk vs. common sense wins the day again.
Git em' maw!!!
"We simply cannot allow rogue states and instable regimes to acquire nuclear weapons. No matter the cost, it can't happen. (Any more than it already has.)"
The US being in possession of nuclear weapons scares me just as much as someone else. We like to criticize other states and say "Do as I say, not as I do." But put yourself Iran's or North Korea's shoes. We've already shown we will invade a sovereign country without provocation. If I were them I'd be ratcheting up my arsenal too. Can you blame them?
Navin: Iran was a better choice than Iraq, and more realistic than invading Saudi Arabia. For one, there is the energy factor. For two, we could have gotten Saudi sort of on our side in a war against Iran, as that SA has longed feared the dominance of Iranin that region. Third, Iran has been the prime state sponser of radical Muslim terrorism for nearly 30 years, even more than that Saudis (and their deep pockets). Yes, it's a sick and complicated world, but such is geopolitics, right, especially when we need so much freaking oil? This is the mess in which we find ourselves, similar to, but not exactly the same as, allying with Stalin in the 1940s, or the South Korean military dictators from the 1950s to 1990s, or--well, you get the point.
That said, it's all moot. We blew our wad on Iraq (while neglecting Afghanistan.) We are too weak to, I fear, have even the tough diplomacy we need against Iran. We will have to rely more on other countries, most of which do not move as quickly as we do (The European Union countries), or even appear to share our concerns (Russia, China).
FYI: Just because someone understands that for now, war is part of the basic human condition and a reality of modern politics does not one a right-wing dumbass make. FYI 2: Who cares about Ahmadinejad? While he has real power, he is still a puppet of the clerics, who control Iran's national security.
Via: Yeah, because the USA having nukes and some nihilistic militarist regime or an aggresive totalitarian having them are exactly the same thing. I wish we would make radical cuts in our nukes, if only to gain some moral leverage, but let's not be foolish.
And yes, we did use nukes, the only country so far to use them in war. We used them against an imperial regime that would not give up after attacking us--and to fire a warning shot against a totalitarian regime with stated terriritorial ambitions. I have no regrets as an American.
And taking force off of the table as a negotiating tool is crazy. Even if you don't want to go to war with people like Ahmeninejad, you shouldn't tell them that.
This is too funny,
Who's going to fight that war man? The boy scout reserves? I guess we could empty out our prisons........Maybe we can borrow a trillion from China to fund it.
And the central, sad truth of our national power after 8 years of Bush and his enabling idiots: "Who's going to fight that war man? The boy scout reserves? I guess we could empty out our prisons........Maybe we can borrow a trillion from China to fund it."
I sure hope Iraq was worth it.
Who cares about Ahmadinejad? While he has real power, he is still a puppet of the clerics, who control Iran's national security.
Clerics who will want to keep control but are more interested in a moderate Iran than Ahmadinejad according to a lot of people.
Iraq was a horrible and unecessary choice, so would have been Iran. I feel pretty confident in saying that Saudi Arabia's generally considered the epicenter of terrorist funding as well as the biggest exporter of radical fundamentalism.
Yes, it's a sick and complicated world, but such is geopolitics, right
Yeah a complicated world who's problems apparently can be solved with the all the nuance of a blunt instrument in a barfight.....
Matilda, whether preventing rogue countries from acquiring and either intentionally disseminating nuclear arms requires a draft and bankrupting us and our allies, it is something that must be done. Period.
We're talking about the preservtion of civilization, and it's not a joke.
All of these morons who are so irate at the Bush administration for taping phone calls of suspected terroists...
Can you imagine what would happen to our "civil liberties" if a terrorist group detonated a nuclear bomb here?
Hello fascism. REAL facism.
"Yeah a complicated world who's problems apparently can be solved with the all the nuance of a blunt instrument in a barfight....."
OK, but I guess I consider the bar fight to be Iraq, not Iran--we went in to try to kick some quick Arab butt in order to soothe our pride and make an example, but we didn't really consider who are real enemies were, and how to engage in a smarter fight--general points on which I think we agree. But, as I said, it's moot now. As well, nuance does sometimes require bombs and fighting. It's sad, but we are merely human beings, and reality has yet to catch up with our idealism.
A2: Fair enough. I was just curious about how far you are willing to go. Apparently, all the way. That said, I think the logical extension of your passion is not a draft or bankruptcy, but nuclear war, even if the "limited" variety. While I share your worries--and I do--I hope that smarter people than us can come up with new tactics of deterrence and cutting down nukes. I think we may have to settle for less than 100%, as is usually the case in politics.
Can you imagine what would happen to our "civil liberties" if a terrorist group detonated a nuclear bomb here?
You can play this game with any threat. It's unlikely that a terrorist (or group thereof) can bring in a disassembled bomb, get a plane sufficiently high off the ground but not too far(say, 10 km), and successfully detonate at an optimal height (say, 4 km) over a city. Now throw in that the bomb would presumably lack an inertial navigation system and would drift in any particular direction as likely away from the city as toward it.
Tell you what, if they can pull this off, they can use 128 bit encryption to work around wiretaps.
That said, I think the logical extension of your passion is not a draft or bankruptcy, but nuclear war, even if the "limited" variety.
I'm not sure how one can expect limited nuclear war. Fallout from any conflict is likely to drift into someone else's territory. Irradiated public is likely going to demand retaliation.
Beyond that, everyone here is only speculating as to Iran's intentions. No one in the foreign policy field (outside of NRO/Horowitz speculation) seems to think it's anything but deterrence. The Jan/Feb issue of Foreign Policy had a very good article on this subject that I recommend reading before engaging in idle speculation. (It was worth a shot, anyway...)
So starting a massive international conflict, which would make Iraq, an expensive but minor skirmish in the scope of things, look like a pathetic pittance seems galaxies beyond rash.
those of you who are cowering over the idea of a nuclear iran really need to quit wetting their pants.
Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. A defense weapon (if such an oxymoron could ever apply).
Iran desires nuclear weapons because it fears a rogue nation with massive oilthirst, and the possibility said rogue nation could invade it.
That rogue nation is the freaking United States.
Iran and Ahemdinejad and the clerics aren't stupid.
Iraq has oil and a history of annoying the United States. The US invaded and trashed the place.
We invaded iraq for the oil. The admin has admitted as much.
If we were interested in preventing nuclear proliferation in rogue nations, we would have prevented Pakistan and North Korea from going nuclear. North Korea is more than happy to sell nuclear technology. And Pakistan is a powder keg.
Iran is far more stable than either one of those countries. Barring a US invasion, Iran will, likely, eventually transition to a more liberalized society, especially as the old clerics start dying off.
Of course, a US invasion would catalyze anti-US sentiment in Iran, and rapidly lead to wider conflict, possibly drawing the better part of the middle east and south asia into such a conflict.
John McCain needs to learn how to think bigger than the mindset of a bad pilot who got shot down repeatedly and couldn't figure out how to live up to daddy's image (His pop was an admiral, McCain was an incompetent pilot).
And god only knows what McCain's mental status is after 5 years of torture in the Hanoi Hilton. Has he ever sought out real psychological help? God only knows what will happen when he has the entire country on his shoulders. He already calls his wife a cunt and gets violently angry with people who disagree with him.
Plus the guy has absolutely no integrity. His attempts to thwart campaign finance laws while stacking his campaign with lobbyists shows just that. The man is an A++++ hypocrite.
Can you imagine what would happen to our "civil liberties" if a terrorist group detonated a nuclear bomb here?
Give me liberty or give me death.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security have neither and deserve none.
totally butchered that ben franklin quote. here it is (correctly quoted) courtesy of wikiquote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I h8: While I appreciate your effort to offer context on Iran--more Americans need to realize exactly what we did there in the 20th Century--you are far too simplistic in calling nukes a deterrent or defense weapons. Nukes are also an de-stablizing factor in any region, especially the Middle East. That is a bit more complicated, and while we may wish to divorce ourselves from geopolitical reality, it's just not that easy.
what we did there in the 20th century was provide the backdrop for destabilizing the region all under the cloak of preventing the spread of communism while trying to maintain our grip on oil supplies.
during the 20th century, we supported the rise of a dictator in Iraq, simultaneously, we sundered a very oil-rich region of Iraq from the main Iraqi region. Of course, Iraq itself was a mish mash of ethnic nationalities. We overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, and replaced him with a despot. During that overthrow we trained and instructed a young Imam, who would later become famous as the central figure in the Islamic Revolution.
We trained and instructed a bunch of irregular guerilla soldiers in Afghanistan, and then abandoned the country to collapse.
Does that cover it? Or should we get into I/P and Lebanon?
It's sad, but we are merely human beings, and reality has yet to catch up with our idealism.
Well we seem to agree that Iraq was the wrong move and that this admin. couldn't have possibly bungled this more, however we'll have to disagree that my views on war with Iran are pie in the sky idealism. Go to war with Iran, be prepared to kill every single Arab in the middle east or nothing at all. We aren't the British Empire or for that matter the U.S. Empire (anymore), people aren't going to sit back just let their "democracies" be chosen and pushed on them, see: Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Palestine etc..
matilda: Noted, but Iran's goal since the desposing of the Shah has been regional dominance (just as the Saudi goal has been to prevent regional dominance). Their rhetoric has been used to galvanize support for policies that improve the lot of the ruling elite while diminishing the well-being of the general populace.
Wait, that sounds familiar!
The Persians by and large don't see themselves as part of the "Middle East" (nor do the Arabs see them as such). So we're conflating identity politics in a very fluid region.
iran's goal, since the revolution, is to protect itself from outsiders who want to overthrow the revolution and restore a pro-western government.
it's goal has not be to expand it's power.
We armed both sides in the Iraq/Iran war (where did Saddam get his former WMD's from, anyway - oh wait...Rumsfeld brokered that deal for Ronnie Reagan). And then there was the Iran/Contra affair, where we used Israeli's to sell weapons to the Iranians, and then laundered the money back to Contra Death Squads.
Wee...isn't this fun? Oh...and then there's the involvement of the US government in creating Hamas...
i h8: Splitting hairs here...
it's goal has not be to expand it's power.
I think by Iran's own admission this is untrue. It hasn't looked to expand its borders but to wield an increasingly disproportionate pull over its region? Hell yes. Syria is well on its way to being an Iranian puppet and the Hezbollah-dominated neighborhoods of Beirut are under the thumb of the Revolutionary Guard.
Now the "secular" wing of the government is trying to consolidate power in OPEC.
But we agree that the goal of nuclear weapons procurement is directed at deterrence. I don't think it's inevitable, though, and the prevailing assumption of war or weapons is a false dichotomy.
And going back even further the CIA helped the British overthrow the *democratically* elected leader of Iran. Yes that was us, participating in the overthrow of a DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT and not for the last time. Over what? Nationalization of their oil of course. So the West gets The Shah installed and everybody hates him thus paving the way for the Iranian Revolution and the God freaks we have to deal with today. So next time we hear folks complaining about America's favorite bogeymen, let's all read up a little bit on that country's history, it's always interesting and revealing.
The idea of overthrowing Mosaddeq was conceived by the British who asked U.S. President Harry S. Truman for assistance but he refused.[9] The British raised the idea again to Dwight D. Eisenhower who became president in 1953. The new administration agreed to participate in overthrowing the elected government of Iran.[10]
Mosaddeq decided that Iran ought to begin profiting from its own vast oil reserves and took steps to nationalize the oil industry which had previously been controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later changed to the British Petroleum Company). Britain pointed out that Iran was violating the company's legal rights and spearheaded a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that submerged the regime into financial crisis.[11] The monarchy supported by the U.S. and Britain invited western oil companies back into Iran.[11] "The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms," Dan De Luce wrote in The Guardian in a review of All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer, a reporter for The New York Times, who for the first time revealed details of the coup.
I8: Yes, that is the history, and we carry much shame, not only for our immoral actions, but for our bungling.
But history is past, and we are left with the ashes in the present. We must deal with the reality, ideally in a smarter way than shown in our past actions. Any suggestions?
I do not want Iran to have the bomb. I would like to ensure control of the Pakistani nukes. I would like to keep the other countries in the region--Syria, SA especially--from going too far with nuke programs. Ideas?
Clearly, even those such as myself who might have supported war with Iran--not Iraq--in 2002-2003 can see that we simply don't have the power for such a war now. That's reality. But, it seems to me we need diplomacy backed with force to discourage the Iranians from getting the bomb. Absent that, we need another system that increases the odds that if they get the bomb, they will not use it against us or our allies or (and I think this is a very long shot), pass a bomb along to terrorist groups.
So, you know the history. Care to offer some ideas for the future? Or, guide me to other ideas? I've read a few and none seem great or really all that different from a modified MAD theory employed against the Soviets.
Sure,
Try to engage Ahmadinejad or the real religious leaders if he won't play. This will certainly take away a lot of his anti-West juju and really neuter his showboating rhetoric. This is just step one though, but it's a step that hasn't even been tried for the last 8 years.
matilda: Link to the article I mentioned earlier in Foreign Affairs (I said "Foreign Policy" which is not not not not not not not what I meant).
Not sure if it will address your questions/thoughts directly, but important background. I don't think you have to be a subscriber to access it, but I could be mistaken.
I don't think we CAN ultimately contain the dissemination of nuclear weaponry anymore than we could contain the blueprints of how to build a TV.
But it doesn't mean we don't have an obligaiton to try.
I believe we need a leader who will take steps to disengage ALL nuclear weapons world-wide through the UN, etc.
This isn't something that's even on the discussion page, though, nor can I remember when it has been.
I think it's because as a species we aren't very bright and are apparently hurtling ourselves toward our own destruction.
Excellent article Yoknapatawpha,
Everyone should read that.
Thanks, Yok. I look forward to reading it, and I guess I missed the link.
"And god only knows what McCain's mental status is after 5 years of torture in the Hanoi Hilton. Has he ever sought out real psychological help? God only knows what will happen when he has the entire country on his shoulders. He already calls his wife a cunt and gets violently angry with people who disagree with him.
Plus the guy has absolutely no integrity. His attempts to thwart campaign finance laws while stacking his campaign with lobbyists shows just that. The man is an A++++ hypocrite."
Ha. You are a simple minded little brain. Obama is shockingly dirty but apparently many people have drank the kool-aid. The Rezko affair is the tiny tip of a huge iceberg of dirt. There are many questions about the integrity and honesty of Obama, but one that is puzzling is where did he and Mrs. Obama get more than $100,000 for the down payment of their first home (a condo) when they were both short-term employees of a NFP legal firm and supposedly paying back huge student loans? What normal person has $100,000 in cash for a down payment for a fist home? Where did the money come from? There is so much more to know about Mr. Obama, and it seems that between now and November we should get answers to a pi