April 16, 2017

In the wake of Obama appeasement

"Obama is the U.S. version of Stanley Baldwin, the suave, three-time British
prime minister of the 1920s and 1930s. Baldwin’s last tenure (1935–1937) 
coincided with the rapid rise of aggressive German, Italian, and Japanese Fascism.

Baldwin was a passionate spokesman for disarmament.  He helped organize
peace conferences. He tirelessly lectured on the need for pacifism. He basked
in the praise of his good intentions. Baldwin assured Fascists that he was not 
rearming Britain.  Instead, he preached that the deadly new weapons of the 
20th century made war so unthinkable that it would be almost impossible for it to break out.

Baldwin left office when the world was still relatively quiet.   But his appeasement
and pacifism had sown the seeds for a global conflagration soon to come.
Obama, the Nobel peace laureate and former president, resembles Baldwin. Both seemed to believe
that war breaks out only because of misunderstandings that reflect honest differences. Therefore,
tensions between aggressors and their targets can be remedied by more talk, international agreements,
goodwill, and concessions.

Ideas such as strategic deterrence were apparently considered by both Baldwin and Obama to be
Neanderthal, judging from Baldwin’s naÏve efforts to ask Hitler not to rearm or annex territory,
and Obama’s “lead from behind” foreign policy and his pledge never to “do stupid sh**” abroad.
Aggressors clearly assumed that Obama’s assurances were green lights to further their own agendas
without consequences." Victor Davis Hanson

What could possibly go wrong? - Quoting Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, in response to Pres. Trump's warning to N. Korea, “History shows that we can, if we must,
tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War,” source
Consider Kim Jong Un with the nuclear capability to intimidate, blackmail or shake down any nation.  S. Korea and Japan would have to go nuclear, and we'd have ourselves an nuclear arms race.
Is there anyone who wants that?   This scenario would convince Saudi Arabia, if the U.S. tolerated nukes in N. Korea, going nuclear (yet another nuke arms race) was the only way to answer Iran's nuclear arsenal.
 

No comments:

Archive

My photo
Email: mu99ins@fastmail.fm