Re: Second Worst President in US History.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:42 pm
You have no idea.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Barack Obama’s "malaise moment" occurred in the afternoon of Aug. 28, when, dressed for failure in tan, he announced he did not have a strategy for combating the threat posed to us by ISIS and crossed into Carterland, the Desert of Fail feared by all politicians, in which the once fresh new face becomes for all time an object of ridicule, and each attempt made at controlling the damage only makes matters much worse.
Diogenes wrote:Two peas in a pod.... of FAIL.
Former President Jimmy Carter claimed Wednesday that he would have been re-elected and beaten Ronald Reagan in 1980 if had been more “manly” in his dealings with Iran.
In other words he could have beaten Reagan if he'd governed like he maybe had a pair...Former President Jimmy Carter claimed Wednesday that he would have been re-elected and beaten Ronald Reagan in 1980 if had been more “manly” in his dealings with Iran.
Interviewed by the show "CNBC Meets," Carter repeated his belief that the failed mission to free American hostages held in Tehran killed his chances, but then added that had he gone to war, America would have rewarded him with a second term in 1980.
“I could've been re-elected if I'd taken military action against Iran, shown that I was strong and resolute and, um, manly and so forth,” said the former president, who has established himself as a world human rights leader.
“I could have wiped Iran off the map with the weapons that we had, but in the process a lot of innocent people would have been killed, probably including the hostages and so I stood up against all that all that advice, and then eventually my prayers were answered and every hostage came home safe and free. And so I think I made the right decision in retrospect, but it was not easy at the time,” he said, according to a transcript provided to Secrets.
Interviewed with his wife, Carter said he also had to ignore Rosalynn’s pleadings to “do something.”
In the end, she said that she was proud of her husband. “Peace is very difficult. War is popular in our country,” said Mrs. Carter.
So the trigger was him losing power to someone who was suspected of having no qualms about using force to get the hostages released. In other words, proving his reluctance was unfounded and the only detriment to getting what he says he was praying for. And he thinks he took the high ground somehow and made the right decision on this.“I could have wiped Iran off the map with the weapons that we had, but in the process a lot of innocent people would have been killed, probably including the hostages and so I stood up against all that all that advice, and then eventually my prayers were answered and every hostage came home safe and free. And so I think I made the right decision in retrospect, but it was not easy at the time,” he said, according to a transcript provided to Secrets.
The United States' European missile defense shield goes live on Thursday almost a decade after Washington proposed protecting NATO from Iranian rockets and despite Russian warnings that the West is threatening the peace in central Europe.
Amid high Russia-West tension, U.S. and NATO officials will declare operational the shield at a remote air base in Deveselu, Romania, after years of planning, billions of dollars in investment and failed attempts to assuage Russian concerns that the shield could be used against Moscow.
"We now have the capability to protect NATO in Europe," said Robert Bell, a NATO-based envoy of U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter. "The Iranians are increasing their capabilities and we have to be ahead of that. The system is not aimed against Russia," he told reporters, adding that the system will soon be handed over to NATO command.
The United States will also start construction on a second site in Poland on Friday that is due to be ready in 2018, giving NATO a permanent, round-the-clock shield in addition to radars and ships already in the Mediterranean.
Russia is incensed at such of show of force by its Cold War rival in formerly communist-ruled eastern Europe where it once held sway. Moscow says the U.S.-led alliance is trying to encircle it close to the strategically important Black Sea, home to a Russian naval fleet and where NATO is also considering increasing patrols.
The foreign ministry in Moscow, in comments on Russian news agencies, said Iran's missile program posed no threat to NATO states in Europe and called the U.S. move a mistake and a treaty violation that directly affected Russia's national security.
The readying of the shield also comes as NATO prepares a new deterrent in Poland and the Baltics, following Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. In response, Russia is reinforcing its western and southern flanks with three new divisions.
Despite U.S. assurances, the Kremlin says the missile shield's real aim is to neutralize Moscow's nuclear arsenal long enough for the United States to make a first strike on Russia in the event of war.
The shield relies on radars to detect a ballistic missile launch into space. Tracking sensors then measure the rocket's trajectory and intercept and destroy it in space, before it re-enters the earth's atmosphere. The interceptors can be fired from ships or ground sites.
The Russian ambassador to Denmark warned a year ago that Danish warships would become targets for Russian nuclear missiles if Denmark joined the shield project by installing radars on its vessels. Denmark is upgrading at least one frigate to house a ballistic missile sensor.
Turkey already hosts a U.S. radar and the Netherlands has equipped ships with radars. The United States also has four ships in Spain as part of the defenses, while all NATO nations are contributing funding.
"Ballistic missile defense sites could pose threats to the stability and strategic assets of the Russian Federation," Russia's ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grushko, told Reuters last month.
First agreed by the U.S. government 2007 and then canceled and relaunched by the newly-elected U.S. President Barack Obama in 2009, the missile defense shield's stated aim is to protect North America and Europe from so-called rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. That is part of a U.S. strategy that includes missile interceptors in California and Alaska.
Ballistic missiles, which differ from cruise missiles because they leave the earth's atmosphere, can travel distances of up 3,000 km (1,875 miles).
Despite a historic deal between world powers and Tehran to limit Iran's nuclear program, the West believes Iran's Revolutionary Guards continue to develop ballistic missile technology, carrying out two tests late last year.
"They are looking for greater distance and accuracy," said Douglas Barrie, an aerospace defense specialist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). "They can still miss by hundreds of meters, but that doesn't rule out firing against a city or a very large airfield."
ladajo wrote:But can it defend itself from a ballistic missile? Seems like a tougher geometry / kinematics problem.
So if the story is accurate yes; by land, or sea the interceptors can be fired to destroy the incoming ballistic missiles.The shield relies on radars to detect a ballistic missile launch into space. Tracking sensors then measure the rocket's trajectory and intercept and destroy it in space, before it re-enters the earth's atmosphere. The interceptors can be fired from ships or ground sites.
williatw wrote:
Well Dio maybe this is why your alleged "Second Worst President in US History" felt he could risk a deal with Iran; sure even you welcome this Obama decision coming to fruition.
I would ask you to provide your logic train for this.dropping a Nuke on Tel Aviv and thereby starting World War III
ladajo wrote:I would ask you to provide your logic train for this.dropping a Nuke on Tel Aviv and thereby starting World War III
Yes, Europe would be upset, but probably not as much as you think as they are not fond of either side. They would fully expect Israel to retaliate. They would be worried that Iran, in a fit of collapsing rage, would attack anyone in reach.Diogenes wrote:Europe would scream bloody murder, Turkey would probably attack, the usual Middle Eastern Countries would start putting together invasion forces, Iran would order whatever forces it had left to attack Israel, and maybe Gog and Megog would get involved. We may or may not support Israel, depending on whether we have President Hag-bag or President Orange. I'm thinking we'll have President Orange, so we will likely back Israel's play.
The nutjobs won't be able to help themselves, and will probably nuke or attempt to nuke Israel before they are ready to sustain a fight. What is interesting here is that there is a high probability, IMO, that the Israelis would pre-empt the argument if they seriously believed the nutjobs were going to get a weapon. This could well include a tactical nuclear strike to guarantee the outcome, and make a statement which would leave the ambiguity behind. Israel would never let any of the Arab or Persian nutjobs get any nuclear capability, especially any depth for it. That is fundamentally an existential threat they will not accept.Diogenes wrote:Dunno how it would all work out in fact, just know that when you let rabid religious kookbags have nukes, you are likely going to have a very bad century. How it can turn into a wider war is anybody's guess, but if I was taking a stab at something that would be very likely to do it, I'd say starting a Nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel would be a good bet.
The most rational actor in this fight is going to be Israel, and once it starts, they will methodically annihilate any possibility of current and future threat from the Persians and their Arab Sock Puppets. They would have no other choice if they sought to continue existence. If they thought they were done done, they would expand the payback to all the jack-asses that have screwed with them. They don't forget.Diogenes wrote:Now I realize you have a very good understanding of all the dynamics of the middle eastern countries because it is relevant to your job to understand such things, but getting back to my "emotion trumps logic every day of the week" postulate, there is a good chance that rational predictions will go out the window in an event of great emotional upheaval such as this sort of thing would become.
Most likely outcome is Israel takes a hard hit, but exterminates Iran as a nation, as well as dismantles the Sock Puppet apparatus the Persians operate amongst the anti-jew and anti-sunni arabs.Diogenes wrote:I think the resulting chaos would be a pot-luck of potential outcomes, but I think the initial problem of allowing Iran to get into a position where they could drop a nuke is bad enough all on it's own. Whether it starts WW3, the millions who would die just from the attack and response are sufficiently horrible such that we ought to concern ourselves with preventing it.