The Apologist-in-Chief is at it again, this time apologizing in Hiroshima for the actions the US military took to end that bloody war. He says the decision was a mistake, and evil. Now, there is no one who thinks nuclear bombs aren't terrible weapons. And there's no one who thinks America's choice to drop those bombs wasn't a tragedy. But it was the best choice, and a wise decision.
It was estimated at the time that a US invasion of Japan would cost 1 million lives, just of American soldiers! Japan itself would have been totally devastated. The Americans had already learned in numerous Pacific battles that the Japanese were willing to fight to the last man. What Obama doesn't mention in his apology is the millions of Japanese lives that were saved by the destruction of two cities. It's like when the police taser a belligerent so they won't have to shoot him. The decision is made to bring an end to the conflict with the least overall damage done.
Another factor contributing to the decision was that the Soviet Union was preparing its own invasion of Japan. Would the Japanese have preferred to be administered by communists? They certainly wouldn't be the world's 3rd largest economy (2nd until recently eclipsed by China). Would Japan be better off today if the northern half looked like North Korea? Obama apologizes for Truman's difficult decision as if the outcome would have been the same either way.
Any child has the sense to know that nuclear bombs are bad. But it takes some wisdom to contemplate the long-term and real-world consequences. Barack Obama believes he is enlightened because he thinks nuclear weapons are bad. Guess what, EVERYONE THINKS THEY'RE BAD!! He's not morally superior for thinking their use was horrific, but he is a moron for going and prostrating himself before the world like some new-age sage.
He says we'll never repeat that "mistake". Does he have any clue that the mutually assured destruction between Russia and the US was the one thing that prevented Europe from being ground up between those super powers? Does he not realize that today Europe and Japan's militaries are not adequate, and their security depends on the US nuclear umbrella? And now he declares we would never actually use those weapons. Green light Putin! Please don't take more than you need! No wonder he felt free to annex the Crimea and thwart the US-backed overthrow of Assad. He's a wolf, and Obama is a bleating lamb.
Friday, May 27, 2016
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Obama Projects his Foreign Policy Failures on to Trump
This guy. The quote from the Atlantic is this:
So Obama is going lecture Trump about world affairs. About ignorance, a cavalier attitude, and keeping Americans safe. Holy fucking projection Batman. Let's talk about his own world affairs for a moment.
Candidate Obama ran on the promise that he would reign in and reverse the Bush doctrine. Bush's most significant world actions were the overthrow of two foreign governments. One for some plausible rationale that most people still agree to, and one based on falsified intel; an invasion that most people today believe was a colossal mistake. This was the foreign policy Obama promised to overturn, and for that promise he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in his first few months in office.
In reality, Obama's foreign policy has been quite similar to Bush's, except that it has been much worse. Like Bush, Obama's most significant actions have been the overthrow (or attempted overthrow) of two foreign governments. Let's look at each.
Libya, like Iraq, was sold by blatantly lying to the America people. We were told that we needed to overthrow Gadaffi because he was a brutal dictator and it was required to prevent mass genocide. That claim was utterly nonsense for 3 reasons.
The real reasons for invading were more or less understood by a group of people on the internet generally referred to as conspiracy theorists. Those theories were later substantiated by an email exchange between then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her informal advisor Sydney Blumenthal that was hacked by the Romanian hacker Guccifer. In reality Gaddafi's sins were the ambition to create a pan-North African economic zone, which garnered the ire of the old imperialists in Europe, in particular the French.
Not only did Obama continue the Bush doctrine of preemptively invading countries for made-up reasons, but he actually did a worse job of it. At least Bush used US ground forces to provide some level of stability and to prop up democratic governments. Instead in the Libyan coup the US provided air supremacy, but outsourced the legwork by arming and advising rebel groups. This left a vacuum filled by nice people like ISIS, and led to the types of genocide that the US said it was preventing. Not only is Libya a complete disaster itself, but it has become a staging ground for migrants from Africa to Europe, who are currently arriving in Italy at a rate of over 1000 per day. This migration is destroying Europe. It is conjecture to say so now, but I guarantee this migration will lead to civil war in Europe (the EU does not seem willing to dissolve peacefully). Libya was probably the greatest disaster of military interventionism in all of US history. The exact type of disaster that Candidate Obama promised would not happen.
Then there was Syria. Like Gaddafi, it was claimed that Assad must be overthrown because of the risked he posed to his own people. And like Gaddafi, there were actually hidden geo-political reasons behind this decision. (Assad rejected a proposal to build a gas pipeline through his country that would have connected the gulf states with Europe, because it would damage the interests of his ally Russia). Assad had a history of rejecting demands of western powers.
The major difference between the Syrian invasion, and those of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, was that Syria was a failed attempt. First, the Obama-Kerry diplomatic dream team failed to muster enough support for an outright invasion. So the US reverted to the Libya model of aiding rebel groups and isolating Assad politically. But, this effort was outmaneuvered both militarily and diplomatically by Putin. The reason Obama has fewer overthrown foreign governments than Bush is not because of benevolence, but for incompetence.
Despite not achieving the goal of overthrowing another world leader who rejected western hegemony, the world was still able to enjoy most of the downsides. The power vacuum left by weakened governments in Syria and Iraq led to the rise of ISIS, the Islamic state that is defined by it's brutality. Like Libya, the Syrian actions opened the floodgates of refugees to Europe (and now America). This refugee crisis, troubling on it's own, has been multiplied TEN TIMES because it has given an excuse for all economic migrants to Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and central Asia. Literally ten times at least: 90% of the migrants don't come from Syria, and almost all of those that do come from Syria are able-bodied young men with enough cash to pay smugglers, not the destitute women and orphans Obama talks about, who are mostly in refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan. This stream of mostly Muslim migrants has directly led to an explosion of crime in Europe, the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels (more to come this summer no doubt), and, in a true display of Obama's utter incompetence, the sharp reactionary rise of populist nationalism and right-wing political parties in Europe and America.
For Obama to accuse Trump of "ignorance of world affairs or a cavalier attitude" or implying that he will fail to keep Americans safe, is just lunacy. It doesn't even matter if it's correct or not. President Obama simply has zero legitimacy to make those claims. Despite his promises, he has without doubt administered the greatest failure of US foreign policy of any US president in history. Even if Trump was bad, he could never be Obama bad. Whatever Obama tries to do has the opposite effect of his intentions. And whatever he says is normally the opposite of what is true. The more Obama says Trump will be a terrible president, the more you can be sure he will be an excellent one.
[World leaders are] rattled by [Trump] and for good reason. Because a lot of the proposals that he’s made display either ignorance of world affairs or a cavalier attitude or an interest in getting tweets and headlines instead of actually thinking through what is required to keep America safe.
So Obama is going lecture Trump about world affairs. About ignorance, a cavalier attitude, and keeping Americans safe. Holy fucking projection Batman. Let's talk about his own world affairs for a moment.
Candidate Obama ran on the promise that he would reign in and reverse the Bush doctrine. Bush's most significant world actions were the overthrow of two foreign governments. One for some plausible rationale that most people still agree to, and one based on falsified intel; an invasion that most people today believe was a colossal mistake. This was the foreign policy Obama promised to overturn, and for that promise he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in his first few months in office.
In reality, Obama's foreign policy has been quite similar to Bush's, except that it has been much worse. Like Bush, Obama's most significant actions have been the overthrow (or attempted overthrow) of two foreign governments. Let's look at each.
Libya, like Iraq, was sold by blatantly lying to the America people. We were told that we needed to overthrow Gadaffi because he was a brutal dictator and it was required to prevent mass genocide. That claim was utterly nonsense for 3 reasons.
- Gaddafi was beloved by his people. He shared the oil wealth of the nation generously and they enjoyed the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy in Africa.
- Even if he did commit human rights violations against his own people, so does staunch US ally Saudi Arabia. Even if the claims weren't completely false, they'd certainly be disingenuous.
- Genocide did occur. It happened against black Africans by the Islamic rebels the US was arming and supporting.
The real reasons for invading were more or less understood by a group of people on the internet generally referred to as conspiracy theorists. Those theories were later substantiated by an email exchange between then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her informal advisor Sydney Blumenthal that was hacked by the Romanian hacker Guccifer. In reality Gaddafi's sins were the ambition to create a pan-North African economic zone, which garnered the ire of the old imperialists in Europe, in particular the French.
Not only did Obama continue the Bush doctrine of preemptively invading countries for made-up reasons, but he actually did a worse job of it. At least Bush used US ground forces to provide some level of stability and to prop up democratic governments. Instead in the Libyan coup the US provided air supremacy, but outsourced the legwork by arming and advising rebel groups. This left a vacuum filled by nice people like ISIS, and led to the types of genocide that the US said it was preventing. Not only is Libya a complete disaster itself, but it has become a staging ground for migrants from Africa to Europe, who are currently arriving in Italy at a rate of over 1000 per day. This migration is destroying Europe. It is conjecture to say so now, but I guarantee this migration will lead to civil war in Europe (the EU does not seem willing to dissolve peacefully). Libya was probably the greatest disaster of military interventionism in all of US history. The exact type of disaster that Candidate Obama promised would not happen.
Then there was Syria. Like Gaddafi, it was claimed that Assad must be overthrown because of the risked he posed to his own people. And like Gaddafi, there were actually hidden geo-political reasons behind this decision. (Assad rejected a proposal to build a gas pipeline through his country that would have connected the gulf states with Europe, because it would damage the interests of his ally Russia). Assad had a history of rejecting demands of western powers.
The major difference between the Syrian invasion, and those of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, was that Syria was a failed attempt. First, the Obama-Kerry diplomatic dream team failed to muster enough support for an outright invasion. So the US reverted to the Libya model of aiding rebel groups and isolating Assad politically. But, this effort was outmaneuvered both militarily and diplomatically by Putin. The reason Obama has fewer overthrown foreign governments than Bush is not because of benevolence, but for incompetence.
Despite not achieving the goal of overthrowing another world leader who rejected western hegemony, the world was still able to enjoy most of the downsides. The power vacuum left by weakened governments in Syria and Iraq led to the rise of ISIS, the Islamic state that is defined by it's brutality. Like Libya, the Syrian actions opened the floodgates of refugees to Europe (and now America). This refugee crisis, troubling on it's own, has been multiplied TEN TIMES because it has given an excuse for all economic migrants to Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and central Asia. Literally ten times at least: 90% of the migrants don't come from Syria, and almost all of those that do come from Syria are able-bodied young men with enough cash to pay smugglers, not the destitute women and orphans Obama talks about, who are mostly in refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan. This stream of mostly Muslim migrants has directly led to an explosion of crime in Europe, the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels (more to come this summer no doubt), and, in a true display of Obama's utter incompetence, the sharp reactionary rise of populist nationalism and right-wing political parties in Europe and America.
For Obama to accuse Trump of "ignorance of world affairs or a cavalier attitude" or implying that he will fail to keep Americans safe, is just lunacy. It doesn't even matter if it's correct or not. President Obama simply has zero legitimacy to make those claims. Despite his promises, he has without doubt administered the greatest failure of US foreign policy of any US president in history. Even if Trump was bad, he could never be Obama bad. Whatever Obama tries to do has the opposite effect of his intentions. And whatever he says is normally the opposite of what is true. The more Obama says Trump will be a terrible president, the more you can be sure he will be an excellent one.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Sadiq's Con
London's recently elected Muslim mayor effectively stated today that if Trump doesn't stop his "ignorant" view of Islam, then Muslims living in the US and UK will become radicalized and commit terror attacks. Think about that a minute.
What is this, a mafia shakedown? "Eh, that sure is a nice country you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. I can't keep my dogs on a leash forever, kapeesh?" If there was more of reason to support Trump, I don't know what it is. In fact, I'd say that Trump's detractors have done more to make me a supporter than Trump himself.
Also, his use of the word to describe Trump's stance as ignorant is just typical. First of all, you have to realize what it means when a liberal says ignorant. They don't mean your views are lacking in awareness. It's simply that liberals are sure they are smarter and more sophisticated than everyone else. So anyone who disagrees with them must then be stupid or ignorant.
Of course, there is plenty of evidence to back up Mr Trump's views. Dr. Peter Hammond has thoroughly documented the effects on society as the percentage of Muslims increases. It is so well described that his model can be used as a prescriptive tool, and in fact Europe's migrant crisis is actually ahead of schedule,since the governments and most of the citizens are so willing to accommodate Muslim demands in the name of multiculturalism and desire to virtue signal. But the short of it is, Trump's views are certainly not ignorant in the traditional sense.
In conclusion:
What is this, a mafia shakedown? "Eh, that sure is a nice country you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. I can't keep my dogs on a leash forever, kapeesh?" If there was more of reason to support Trump, I don't know what it is. In fact, I'd say that Trump's detractors have done more to make me a supporter than Trump himself.
Also, his use of the word to describe Trump's stance as ignorant is just typical. First of all, you have to realize what it means when a liberal says ignorant. They don't mean your views are lacking in awareness. It's simply that liberals are sure they are smarter and more sophisticated than everyone else. So anyone who disagrees with them must then be stupid or ignorant.
Of course, there is plenty of evidence to back up Mr Trump's views. Dr. Peter Hammond has thoroughly documented the effects on society as the percentage of Muslims increases. It is so well described that his model can be used as a prescriptive tool, and in fact Europe's migrant crisis is actually ahead of schedule,since the governments and most of the citizens are so willing to accommodate Muslim demands in the name of multiculturalism and desire to virtue signal. But the short of it is, Trump's views are certainly not ignorant in the traditional sense.
In conclusion:
- Being called ignorant by a liberal is almost always a compliment. In a twist of irony, it effectively means not delusional, sane, or sober.
- The Muslim mayor is basically threatening violence if Muslims are checked from their invasion. The west is being openly bullied by a small minority of the population.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)