US President Barack Obama admitted he 'screwed up' with his selection of Tom Daschle to an important government position. "I made an error of judgment about the integrity of a key person in my administration. This will not happen again."
In unrelated news another pick of his, Nancy Killefer pulled out of contention for another key role, before this could happen again.
In unrelated news Barrack Obama was pleased to announce his intention to reduce America's nuclear defence capability further than the reductions 'SORTed' in the Moscow Treaty of 2003.
"I have made a sound judgment on the intentions and integrity of the leaders of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. I doubt very much they will let us down in any way, and I am sure as we reduce our arsenal, this will convince them not to build on theirs."
In unrelated news, Iran moved one step further to improved missile deployment with the launch of a research rocket.
In unrelated news, North Korea readied it's intercontinental missile tests.
In unrelated news, some analysts are worried about a growing "black market" for WMDs, and point to Russia's huge stockpiles that are poorly monitored and in some cases, held insecurely.
In unrelated news, the US is to close its supply base in Kyrgyzstan after Kyrgyzstan received a 2 billion dollar unrelated aid grant from Russia. Said President Bakiyev from Moscow "Bye bye Yankee."
Obama views the reduction of arms as critical to efforts to persuade countries such as Iran not to develop the bomb. I'm sure they agree.
PS: Whilst Obama did not actually say the bit about making 'sound judgment on the intentions and integrity of ...' he did reportedly say :" And I'm here on television saying I screwed up. And that's part of the era of responsibility, it's not never making mistakes; it's owning up to them and trying to make sure you never repeat them." That's great, on so many levels.
However, in the history of wanting other countries NOT to develop the same weapons capability you have, or NOT to develop something better, I think we can pretty much see that such expectations would be another error in judgment.
Working for peace is good and right. It is prudent to achieve this without being defenseless.
In unrelated news another pick of his, Nancy Killefer pulled out of contention for another key role, before this could happen again.
In unrelated news Barrack Obama was pleased to announce his intention to reduce America's nuclear defence capability further than the reductions 'SORTed' in the Moscow Treaty of 2003.
"I have made a sound judgment on the intentions and integrity of the leaders of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. I doubt very much they will let us down in any way, and I am sure as we reduce our arsenal, this will convince them not to build on theirs."
In unrelated news, Iran moved one step further to improved missile deployment with the launch of a research rocket.
In unrelated news, North Korea readied it's intercontinental missile tests.
In unrelated news, some analysts are worried about a growing "black market" for WMDs, and point to Russia's huge stockpiles that are poorly monitored and in some cases, held insecurely.
In unrelated news, the US is to close its supply base in Kyrgyzstan after Kyrgyzstan received a 2 billion dollar unrelated aid grant from Russia. Said President Bakiyev from Moscow "Bye bye Yankee."
Obama views the reduction of arms as critical to efforts to persuade countries such as Iran not to develop the bomb. I'm sure they agree.
PS: Whilst Obama did not actually say the bit about making 'sound judgment on the intentions and integrity of ...' he did reportedly say :" And I'm here on television saying I screwed up. And that's part of the era of responsibility, it's not never making mistakes; it's owning up to them and trying to make sure you never repeat them." That's great, on so many levels.
However, in the history of wanting other countries NOT to develop the same weapons capability you have, or NOT to develop something better, I think we can pretty much see that such expectations would be another error in judgment.
Working for peace is good and right. It is prudent to achieve this without being defenseless.
You only have to look at history to see how many defenceless peoples were wiped out or almost wiped out by rampaging hordes who for some odd reason, don't take enthusiastically to disarming.
ReplyDeletePray for peace, prepare for war. Best way to survive.
Me too--cowards kept safe by those prepared to do what's necessary.
ReplyDeletewhile I'm not sure why you need an arsenal capable of destroying the planet several times, you never put down your u.m.p. for a single shot musket in front of the enemy.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
ReplyDeleteI think you need an arsenal that can fire such a large number of missiles, from such a large number of locations, that no counter missile defence system could reasonably be expected to take them out before they travel the 4,000 miles or so required.
The distance becomes a significant factor, as 4,000 miles to travel can mean valuable minutes for defence systems to target and intercept over water or foreign territory rather than home land.
Which is why Russia is understandably nervous about NATO sites located close to borders, and why places like Poland feel greater comfort in having strategic sites that act as a real deterrent to a land grab from Russia.
The world might sit back and watch Russia take the Ukraine, but America wouldn't be able to let their missile defence silos in Poland go so easily, if they put them there.
It's all about deterrent, not about actually using them. Which is why terrorists and fundamental nutjobs change the rules and we have to take the new threats a lot more seriously.
I think biological warfare is going to be a bigger danger than nuclear, but that doesn't mean we get complacent about nuclear weapons technology.
I agree, for once.
ReplyDeleteLooking back to the last world-war we should have nuked all those fascist bastards.
I mean if the Axis powers had nuclear weapons at their disposal –they would have used them, eh?
Italy would have been top of my list to receive the ultimate punishment, and it’s a pity those spineless Italians gave-up before we had our chance to decimate their cities, churches etc.
Rome, would have been the key site to make our mark.
Regrettably, the war ended too soon for my liking and the Allies missed their chance to rain-down nuclear bombs on those fascists, and their harbourers.
It’s one of those cruel injustices of history, I guess.
For once I agree with your line of thinking.
Great post!
Paul.
You don't do sarcasm well.
ReplyDeleteMy points were two fold. First, the deterrent has to be a good one to stop the mad dictator in his tracks.
Second, quietly going to the gas chambers or being starved in a soviet camp, or taken out and shot and dumped in the forests of Katyn or simply mowed down in the streets of Nanking might indicate that being weaponless and compliant doesn't always lead to a happy ending.
If you think a while, you may recall the war was ended with Japan by nuking them.
There's endless debate about how many lives it saved, and the huge cost to humanity, but little disagreement that it ended the war with Japan.
Just imagine when the people using the bomb don't want to end wars, but start them.
Hey, I hear what you are saying here, guys.
ReplyDeleteIn times of war or danger, it’s justifiable to employ your nuclear arsenal to destroy….
-Atheistic communists bent on world domination
-Asiatic races, who don’t after-all follow western beliefs.
Whilst at the same time, irrespective of the times, we should spare……
-Fellow Christian western nations lead by Catholic Dictators, even if they are bent on destroying your way of life, and killing you and your family in the process.
You’ve made your position abundantly clear.
It was O.K for 100,000 to die in Hiroshima to bring an end to WW2 (a point I agree with) but, the mere proposal we should have nuked our enemies in Rome (and Berlin etc for that matter)is abhorrent to you.
So given a different ending to WW2 in Europe, say a prolonged war of attrition - should the Allies have used nuclear weapons to destroy Germany & Italy?
Would you now support the total destruction of Rome as much as you the support that of Nagasaki?
I some-what doubt it.
See ya.
Paul.
Paul, you assume much, and get it wrong. Think harder.
ReplyDeletePaul, your 'thinking' resembles nothing more than a mental Lego For Idiots kit.
ReplyDeleteYou've managed to ignore or distort the role of history, culture and evolution, all in the same comment.
Stop ‘playing the man’ and ‘play the ball’ here and avoiding the duplicitous nature of you righteous stand that exempts Catholic Europeans.
ReplyDeleteIt’s you that needs to think harder and consider your warped mindset.
You guys are patently Catholics first, and then New Zealanders a distant second, as we can all see this exposed in its rawest fashion, here.
During the war against the European fascist Catholic Dictators, you would have categorised as ‘conscious objectors’ and spent war-time in a camp, ostracised from society, along with those pacifists you have the audacity to consider cowards.
Even given the extremes of war, not one of you would approve of dropping a nuclear bomb on Rome, even if it meant preserving the sanctity of life as we know it in New Zealand.
In an irony you are not willing to face up to - it would have been left to heathens like me, to fight your religious namesakes, and save the freedoms, that permit this blog to exist and the world we live in today.
It is you that is spineless – not me & it's you that needs to remember Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were run by Catholics.
Hitler,Mussolini,Goebells, Heydrich etc, etc - all good Catholics.
Given the quirks of history, and the opportunity were I to have a say, those megalomaniac Catholic fascists would have ‘glowing at night’, the same as the emperor-worshipping Japanese ones we bombed were.
But I don't discriminate an enemy based on religion or race.
And I personally, would have jumped on their graves in Rome singing hallelujah (with lead boots of course)
Have a great day.
Paul.
Nazi Germany was run by socialists.
ReplyDeleteAnd fascism is a collectivist ideology.
Both have stuff-all to do with Catholicism.
Once again, you attack the man, and like a page out of a David Irving book, you want history to bend to your chosen beliefs – rather than accepting what actually happened you prefer to ‘twink-out’ inconvenient truths.
ReplyDeleteUnderstandably Catholic Fascist Dictatorships is obviously a touchy & uncomfortable subject for you to discuss.
But it doesn’t mean we should cease discussing it or simply bend to ‘political correctness’ (strange I thought you guys were against this practice?) simply because you don’t like hearing the truth.
WAR TIME FASCIST LEADERS:
Franco - Catholic (yeah, I know Spain was a so-called neutral)
Hitler - Catholic
Mussolini – Catholic
ALLIED LEADER WW2:
Stalin – Atheist
Roosevelt – Dutch Reform
Churchill – Atheist
I’m happy to admit I’ve made a mistake and apologise, but I’m not going to sit-by whilst you carry-on your convenient revisionist history lesson.
So rather than telling me to ‘think harder’, and engaging in childless name-calling, tell me and everyone reading this thread where I’m going wrong?
Start with this list above.
Cheers.
Paul.
PS: Here’s a quote from Mein Kampf “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
Paul, it is you playing the man.
ReplyDeleteYou chose to infer arguments I am not making. You then have a nice rant about arguments I have not made. You then call me warped for holding views you have pronounced, but I have not.
Your assessment is based on the foundations of your faulty assumptions.
You come across as rabidly anti-christianity in your comments (I speak of the history of your comments on this blog), and this is shaping your false assumptions about what I have said.
Maybe my points ARE unclear? and normally I'd go through your errors one by one, but I suspect you throw these up just to waste my time.
Just to head you off at the pass, no I don't sacrifice children and drink goats blood either.
As for Hitler being a good Catholic, you obviously have a different set of criteria than a rational person would.
Tell me, what, in your mind would make a "good catholic"?
Furthermore, please provide a link to any reputable historian that identify Hitler's motivations and ideology as being Catholic.
Hitler defined his ideology - Nazism, and that is the mindset that guided his actions.
Hitler himself knew better than you. "One is either a Christian or a German," he said. "You can't be both."
Hitler's quote you give proves nothing. Machiavelli's "The Prince" explains the context best, and many have noted how Hitler portrayed the Machiavellian Prince concept so well. Part of that was being prepared to use tools, any tools, in the pursuit of power.
He would use religion to advance his own goals, regardless of what he actually believed.
"So rather than telling me to ‘think harder’, and engaging in childless name-calling, tell me and everyone reading this thread where I’m going wrong?"
ReplyDeleteI think where you started going wrong was when you began typing your first post.