The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Teresa Heilevang on April 18, 2010, 03:17:51 PM
-
So... what is Obamas reason for saying that.......... ???
Palin Taken Aback by Obama 'Superpower' Remark
Sunday, 18 Apr 2010 07:55 AM
Article Font Size
Sarah Palin criticized President Barack Obama on Saturday for saying America is a military superpower "whether we like it or not," saying she was taken aback by his comment.
"I would hope that our leaders in Washington, D.C., understand we like to be a dominant superpower," the former Alaska governor said. "I don't understand a world view where we have to question whether we like it or not that America is powerful."
Obama said earlier this week that the United States must do its best to resolve conflicts around the world before they grow too serious.
"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."
Palin's remarks came in a question-and-answer session after a speech at an event in the central Illinois town of Washington to raise money for scholarships and a community center. She spoke to a crowd of about 1,100.
The Republican criticized Obama throughout her speech — for a healthcare overhaul that she says won't work, for the increase in the national deficit and for disagreeing with Israeli policies.
Palin said she hopes the November elections will produce winners who believe in limited government and encouraging free enterprise.
She also poked fun at the controversy over the requirements listed in a contract for her speech at a California university. Palin thanked the organizers of Saturday's event for providing a straw for her water bottle — "the bent kind, which I just read in the media that I supposedly insist upon."
-
What BO meant, or at least I hope he meant, is that being a military super power has serious draw backs. Chiefly, it means that it is our responsibility to maintain the status quo at the considerable expense of blood and treasure. Who does the world look to to deal with the earthquake in Haiti, the Somali pirates, North Korea, Iran, Al Queda, Bosnia, etc. etc. etc.? Is it Spain, France, the UK, China, Rusia? No, its us. Being the dominant power comes with a price. The price is this. In order to be able to set the rules, we have to be the ones to enforce them while others get to free ride and bitch from the sidelines. The alternative is shifting the burden to them, but that means a loss of control (cf Afghanistan). Damned if you do and damned if you don't. But seeing how well being the sole dominant power worked for Rome and the UK, I will not criticise BO for recognizing that power is as much a curse as a blessing.
FQ13 who once again wonders whether Palin has ever read a history book ::)
-
FQ just put forward the perfected argument for "one World" Government.
-
What BO meant, or at least I hope he meant, is that being a military super power has serious draw backs. Chiefly, it means that it is our responsibility to maintain the status quo at the considerable expense of blood and treasure. Who does the world look to to deal with the earthquake in Haiti, the Somali pirates, North Korea, Iran, Al Queda, Bosnia, etc. etc. etc.? Is it Spain, France, the UK, China, Rusia? No, its us. Being the dominant power comes with a price. The price is this. In order to be able to set the rules, we have to be the ones to enforce them while others get to free ride and bitch from the sidelines. The alternative is shifting the burden to them, but that means a loss of control (cf Afghanistan). Damned if you do and damned if you don't. But seeing how well being the sole dominant power worked for Rome and the UK, I will not criticise BO for recognizing that power is as much a curse as a blessing.
FQ13 who once again wonders whether Palin has ever read a history book ::)
Have you? Seriously?
FQ, ever the apologist.
-
Have you? Seriously?
FQ, ever the apologist.
But am I wrong in what I wrote? After all, tax day was just 3 days ago, and the body count is pretty high, most of them Americans not fron from W's "coalition" of Mongolia, Poland and Guatemala. Just say'in.
FQ13
-
BHO wants America brought down to size from its arrogance as a "Superpower",.... more of a International Player, lacking any and all American exceptionalism, and part of a "team" approach to diplomacy and policy.
It's amazing after 100 years, how short the European memory is. Our country kept them from doing the jack booted goose step.
Perhaps, letting the Berlin Wall still be in place would be better. Perhaps, those trivial things like ending Fascism, Totalitarianism, human atrocities on a monumental scale was the wrong thing to do.
FQ your right,....it does come with an incredible burden. Perhaps relying on the UN, letting the next tsunami, earthquake, be dealt with by the UN, they're very effective right?
That burden also comes with a reverence and gratitude that seems to have faded away in the EU and weakened the fact that like Reagan stated
"If Freedom fails here, there is no where else to run"
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
Ronald Reagan \
Good thing about being a "superpower" , in the right hands, no one f***s with you...
-
But am I wrong in what I wrote? After all, tax day was just 3 days ago, and the body count is pretty high, most of them Americans not fron from W's "coalition" of Mongolia, Poland and Guatemala. Just say'in.
FQ13
Geez, as with most of your posts, I am having trouble figuring out where to even start.
Rome and the UK both lost their empires due to the malaise and incompetence that seems to affect all empires eventually, whether they are Mogul, Han, Russian or European. Besides, we were talking about "super-powers", not empires. There is a difference. Empires are won by blood, and held by blood. What countries we have conquered have we held? Japan? Cuba?, The Philippines? North Africa?
bho may well be the first president to ever care or even reference the "burden" in such a negative and disparaging manner. Just like being a parent, being a superpower is a burden, yes, but so what? What would you think of a parent who said - "Yes, I have kids, whether I like it or not"? One who is strong in spirit just does not think like that.
TW dealt with the negatives of not being strong well, so I will not address those.
FQ, you strike me as one who fits well Ambrose Bierce's definition of a cynic. In deference to some of your family and immigrant posts, I will temper it slightly - you know the price of everything, and the value of damn few things.
-
Path, Tw and Tom
Here's my point. I would like to seriously consider a cost benefit analysis of us being the sole super power. What does it cost us in terms of military budgets, foriegn aid, resentment of our power, being blamed for everything we do or left undone by those we are supposedly helping and the lives of our military men and women. Hell, Germany and Japan are the only ones who seem genuinely grateful and we bombed both of them into rubble. :-\ I am excepting the UK and the "White Commonwealth" because of our unique relationship. Still, we must remember that being a superpower was the last thing the Framers envisioned. I am not advocating a Ron Paul style isolationism, because we saw how well that worked post WWI. Neither am I suggesting that we ever have anything less than the best and most deployable military in the world as we all know that making people afraid (though not too afraid) of you is the best defense. Still, one does wonder if ceding some power to the UN or other regional bodies over things like Haiti, West Timor, Kosovo and Somalia might not be the way to go. Yes we would lose control. Yes things might not get done to our liking. But yes we would save bilions and never have a flag draped casket come home for a country we really don't give a damn about and only protect to maintain the status quo. Here's a for instance. What if India and Pakistan actually do go to war? Now, the world would look to us to stop it. What if we didn't? Lets assume they went all the way and nuked Karatchi and New Dehli. Other than inconviencing customer service calls for computers and sweat shop garnment makers, how does it hurt us? Millions would die, but is it really our problem? What would Washington, Jefferson and Adams do? We all know the answer.
FQ13
-
Path, Tw and Tom
Here's my point. I would like to seriously consider a cost benefit analysis of us being the sole super power. What does it cost us in terms of military budgets, foriegn aid, resentment of our power, being blamed for everything we do or left undone by those we are supposedly helping and the lives of our military men and women. Hell, Germany and Japan are the only ones who seem genuinely grateful and we bombed both of them into rubble. :-\ I am excepting the UK and the "White Commonwealth" because of our unique relationship. Still, we must remember that being a superpower was the last thing the Framers envisioned. I am not advocating a Ron Paul style isolationism, because we saw how well that worked post WWI. Neither am I suggesting that we ever have anything less than the best and most deployable military in the world as we all know that making people afraid (though not too afraid) of you is the best defense. Still, one does wonder if ceding some power to the UN or other regional bodies over things like Haiti, West Timor, Kosovo and Somalia might not be the way to go. Yes we would lose control. Yes things might not get done to our liking. But yes we would save bilions and never have a flag draped casket come home for a country we really don't give a damn about and only protect to maintain the status quo. Here's a for instance. What if India and Pakistan actually do go to war? Now, the world would look to us to stop it. What if we didn't? Lets assume they went all the way and nuked Karatchi and New Dehli. Other than inconviencing customer service calls for computers and sweat shop garnment makers, how does it hurt us? Millions would die, but is it really our problem? What would Washington, Jefferson and Adams do? We all know the answer.
FQ13
The primary mistake you make is factoring foreign aid into the "cost" of being a superpower. This nation will always be the one that is called upon for foreign aid in times of turmoil and tragedy. Why? Because, unlike most of the rest of the world, we walk the walk on compassion, as well as talking the talk. That's our nature. And that ain't gonna change.
-
The primary mistake you make is factoring foreign aid into the "cost" of being a superpower. This nation will always be the one that is called upon for foreign aid in times of turmoil and tragedy. Why? Because, unlike most of the rest of the world, we walk the walk on compassion, as well as talking the talk. That's our nature. And that ain't gonna change.
Actually TT you are incorrect in that statement. Further more the sentiment itself is relatively new (post WW II). This is a lengthy, but very worthwhile quote from John Quincy Adams urging us not to aid the Greeks who were rebelling against the occupying Turks. They were wise words then, and with the benefit of hind sight, wise words today given all the swamps we got dragged into supporting tin pot dictators and incompetant yahoos during the Cold War and beyond. I submit this for your consideration.
FQ13
“She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. . . . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. . . . [America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty.” [July 4, 1821, from his address as Secretary of State]
-
I'm not tracking fq well this afternoon, but tt brought to mind something I have been thinking about as well.
This may or may not be the best source, but here is a six year picture of our giving to other countries during times of economic challenge within our own boarders:
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm (http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm)
-
Actually TT you are incorrect in that statement. Further more the sentiment itself is relatively new (post WW II). This is a lengthy, but very worthwhile quote from John Quincy Adams urging us not to aid the Greeks who were rebelling against the occupying Turks. They were wise words then, and with the benefit of hind sight, wise words today given all the swamps we got dragged into supporting tin pot dictators and incompetant yahoos during the Cold War and beyond. I submit this for your consideration.
FQ13
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. . . . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. . . . [Americas] glory is not dominion, but liberty. [July 4, 1821, from his address as Secretary of State]
FQ, there is no question that you are an intelligent, well-educated individual. But while you possess a great deal of knowledge of history, you are sorely lacking in a knowledge of people. The people in this country will always step up to the plate to help those in need, no matter where that need may lie on this planet, simply because they believe that it's the right thing to do.
You're a good guy (for the most part ;) ), but you need to get out more and rub elbows with real people.
-
Perhaps FQ, you should watch the opening speech in the movie Patton again.
You posted,
Here's my point. I would like to seriously consider a cost benefit analysis of us being the sole super power. What does it cost us in terms of military budgets, foriegn aid, resentment of our power,
I don't resent it, I don't think Kennedy, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, and GWB, "resented" our power at all.
Watch the Patton speech again,...really.
-
Here's the part of the post you missed TW. You want people to be afraid (but too afraid) of you. If you scare people too much, they will act premptively against you. Maybe not directly, but by stymining us at the UN, hurting our allies or turning a blind eye to Al Queda. Nothing direct, just trying to make our lives more difficult without ever getting blood on their hands. Russia and China are masters at this and they don't even like half the regimes they support (Iran as exhibit A. Russia hates muslim fundamentalists, but would love to see us bogged down in a war with Iran). They just do it because it will distract us. I think J.Q. Adams has it right.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own".
your mileage may vary
FQ13
-
Not fear, FQ,.... Respect. "Peace through Strength", as another POTUS stated. Now Islamic Terrorists, and tin pot dictators, do deserve fear. They should fear the wrath of an angry nation if messed with. That's all they understand anyway.
It seems BHO has managed to even take away the respect part in the eyes of the world. Obama has a problem with American Exceptionalism.
He has a problem with the very Founders you just quoted, and the Republic For Which It Stands.
He lacks any experience to lead a nation,...... His upbringing, peers, pastors, and associates are 180 degrees out of phase with Adams, and an ever growing segment of this countries population.
Adams never capitulated, and forced the world to respect a blossoming Republic, BHO has thrown all that out, and in 2012 it will be his turn to get thrown out.
-
"If you scare people too much, they will act premptively against you. Maybe not directly, but by stymining us at the UN, hurting our allies or turning a blind eye to Al Queda. Nothing direct, just trying to make our lives more difficult without ever getting blood on their hands."
Is this not the treatment we are getting now? Too scared of us, who has moved premptively against the Former? Soviet Union, nobody, We allowed them and Afhganistan to fight it out amongst themselves, with us backing the uneducated goat farmers against all odds, and they went away. The afghanis did not win, as in having their enemies quaking in fear, they just got to go back to their way of life. But with a new purpose, the infidels who armed them, taught them, and supplied them with modern equipment and training. They think of us, like we would think of the pimp/drug dealer who raped our sister and then took pity on us in the hood, and helped us defeat some other drug lord. They don't like what we believe in, or stand for, and now they can have a form of retribution. These are the leaders, the farmers just want to prosper in their way, and go on. We have not heard squat out of Almar Khadaffi since we squashed his bacon in a finite way. Fear is not the intent, the intent is being the Huge nice guy on the block who plays with kids, keeps a clean yard and home, help his neighbor at the drop of a hat, but everyone knows, if you harm his family, his neighborhood or threaten, either, it will be met swiftly and finitely, he might even pick you up after your beatdown, but you at that point will not count that as a weakness, but a blessing. The enemy should come away with no doubt, any transgression will be met with swift and final resistance.
I think Adams and the U.S. would definitely have gone to the aid of France if it had been needed, for their participation in our fight. Hard to believe in a way, France was once a Super power.
Adams statement about dominion, is true, We have never gone for dominion in any other country, other than our own. We can debate that, but an old statement, " these woods belong to those who can hold them " is true about our growing up as a country. But even in 1821, we were flourishing, but not a " Super Power ". We stayed out of WW1 & WW2 until we were attacked. Who knows what would have happened if we had entered sooner.
Lastly, which books do you want Sarah to read?? And of those how many do you think O'Bummer read and better, cared a lick about? It does not take a genius to run this country, just heart and caring with a cabinet to inform you honestly, not for advancement of self, but of the country. Circumstance dictates the mettle of an employee, how does she or he handle it? No matter what platform of change you were hired under, what happens when something bad happens, Bho with 911, we saw what happened with the Iran hostage crisis under Carter, and the subsequent release on the acceptance speech of Reagan, they feared the " Cowboy ".
Personally, I think if Jefferson was here now, He would back India, with force if necessary. Because they would have our back in their own way, which has become more tangible now.