A Lesson for Obama

 "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable, and we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening,'' Obama told reporters in Chicago today.

"I want to be very careful that we are sending the right signals,'' the president-elect said. "Obviously how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something we should simply do in a knee-jerk fashion.'' 

What happened to that?  Obama's approach to Iran was supposed to be firm, but one of reason and diplomacy - a far softer approach than I care for in regards to Iran - but he didn't do that.  Instead drawing a line and saying "We will not let you have nuclear weapons, but lets talk this over", his administration pursued a policy of appeasement.

Appeasement typically breeds more bad behavior, while taking a harder line typically makes our enemies (or even allies) think twice.  When America invaded Iraq over WMDs in 2003 it carried the extra benefit of  Libya fully exposing their own WMD program and disarming.  Obama's actions with Iran have also carried consequences, consequences which should of been obvious to the supposed leader of the free world:

Jordan is set on becoming the Middle East's newest nuclear power, Jordanian King Abdullah told the Wall Street Journal in an interview over the weekend.

In the interview, King Abdullah accused Israel of pressuring countries like South Korea and France not to provide nuclear technology to Jordan. He said Israel's "underhanded" actions had helped bring Jordanian-Israeli relations to their lowest point since the 1994 peace agreement.

Jordan has been, more or less, a US ally - a Sunni regime that has learned what happens when you welcome Islamists into your country.  But the fact that they're our ally is the very reason they can openly pursue a nuclear program.  If we won't stop a nation we consider our enemies from attaining nuclear weapons, why would we stop a nation we consider friends from pursuing nuclear power?  King Abdullah even promises that the nation will abide by the non-proliferation treaty, but how long will that last if Iran gets nuclear weapons or Jordan ever feels like it needs deterrence?

In fact deterrence is the major issue with Iran having nuclear weapons.  The anti-Iranian nations of the region will almost certainly make the argument that they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves, and will pursue nuclear agendas or be forced to fall under the Iranian sphere of influence.  None of this is a good thing.

This chain reaction isn't contained to the mid-east.

Take Venezuela, who has backed Iran from the very start.  Venezuela falls into that same fanatically anti-American category as Iran, though with an insane clown for a leader rather than tyrannical fundamentalists.   A stand against Iran would likely have the result of putting nuclear power out of Venezuela's hands, or at the very least make the Russians think twice about using Venezuela as a convenient tool.  America's response to Iran means that any threat or condemnation will be viewed as toothless, and ultimately Chavez has nothing to gain from working with America anyways (his entire platform is based off the tried and failed marxist rhetoric) so diplomacy is just as much out the window with them as it is with Iran.

Or Myanmar who will almost certainly be armed by either China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, or Russia should America prove unwilling (or unable) to stop Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.

And then there's Brazil, a rising power that has had a history with seeking nuclear weapons and has taken an increasingly anti-American stance in recent years.

Each nation that attains nuclear weapons sets disturbs the delicate balance in place.  If Venezuela gets nuclear power, for example, they'll almost certainly share it with their marxist/socialist allies (Cuba, Nicaragua), and Colombia may very well require nuclear weapons to hold the Venezuelans in check.  A nuclear Myanmar could spark trouble in Indonesia, Thailand, and even Australia in the long run.

Obviously the more people armed with nuclear weapons, the worse off everyone is.

Obama needs to fully understand the consequences for failure here, and I don't think he does.  By failing to deal with Iran he has emboldened our enemies, and potentially crippled America's ability to keep her enemies in check.  Nothing about his stance on Iran is intelligent - in fact its quite stupid - and it reinforces the international view that Obama is weak.  If he wants to make non-proliferation and disarmament a primary policy (no matter how silly the latter is), then he should start getting serious with Iran, and by serious I mean doing something other than passing toothless resolutions.  He also needs to wake up and realize that some of these regimes aren't going to want to talk unless the swords is against their throat.

Credit where credit is due

President Obama deserves a bit of praise for his latest message to North Korea.  Rather than using his typically weak diplomacy of backing down and abandoning our allies he stepped up and backed South Korea in the recent escalation of tensions:

The U.S. and South Korea are planning two major military exercises off the Korean Peninsula in a display of force intended to deter North Korean acts like the March torpedo attack on a South Korean warship.

President Barack Obama ordered his military commanders to coordinate closely with their South Korea counterparts "to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression" by North Korea, the White House said.

The attack against the ROKS Cheonan occurred in South Korean waters, claimed 46 lives, and sunk the corvette.  In the typical narcissistic fashion Kim Jong-il has risked a war he cannot win and humanitarian aid he can't afford to lose for the sake of establishing his son's position as heir apparent.  Sanity has never really been his strong suit, but I suppose its brilliant in it's own insane way.

Both South Korea and America have responded well:

“If our territorial waters, airspace or territory are militarily violated, we will immediately exercise our right of self-defense,” Lee said in an address to the nation, televised live Monday morning.

“From this moment, no North Korean ship will be allowed to make passage through any of the shipping lanes in the waters under our control, which has been allowed by the Inter-Korean Agreement on Maritime Transportation,” Lee said. “The sea routes meant for inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation must never again be used for armed provocations.”

“In close consultations with the nations concerned, the government will refer this matter to the UN Security Council, so that the international community can join us in holding the North accountable,” Lee said. “Many countries around the world have expressed their full support for our position.”

“Trade and exchanges between the Republic of Korea and North Korea will also be suspended,” Lee said.

“However, we will continue to provide assistance for infants and children,” he said. “Matters pertaining to the Kaesong Industrial Complex will be duly considered, taking its unique characteristics into consideration.”

America followed South Korea's lead by rattling the saber a bit and ordering our troops to prepare in case things go bad.  I'm not quite sure if Obama would actually carry through in a war with North Korea, but the point is that Obama actually used a diplomatic strategy that makes sense.  North Korea has never shown a willingness to listen to reason if there's not a gun pointed at them, and that seems to be the way all regimes like North Korea operate.  They're not particularly interested in compromise or being anything short of murderously insane, and from their standpoint that makes sense.  Their goals directly conflict with ours, so compromise would gain them nothing they want.

His actions also send a promising message to all of our allies and enemies.  Though more work will be required to undo the extensive damage he's wrought by abandoning our Eastern European allies, taking a soft stance on Iran, and treating Great Britain poorly; it's a good start.  Allies who believe you're reliable are much more likely to cooperate and back you, and enemies who think you'll strike them are much less likely to cause problems.

Obama needs to remember all of this and carry on this momentum in the diplomatic actions to come.  When we push for UN sanctions we need to make a big deal of it and force China into thinking it has to back us.  We're still the world's most powerful nation, and we still have enough influence to get the rest of the world to punish some backwards, belligerent, communist dictatorship.  We really can't afford not to.

Unbelievable

Obama has a history of having an incredibly backwards foreign policy.  From insulting allies, appeasing enemies, and apologizing to just about everyone seems to be how he wants to get things done.  But this?  Enraging.

Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.

He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person's immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally.

Since when do we treat the Chinese as equals in matters of human rights?  If we talk about human rights its a lecture, not a dialogue, and perhaps that's that's arrogant but there is no valid comparison in human rights between our nations.  The Chinese want to talk about crime, poverty, homelessness, and racial discrimination?  Sure we can talk about that.

Let's talk about how China executes people for committing the unforgivable crimes of counterfeiting or financial fraud.  How you have crimes punishable by death that no other country in the world has.  Or lets talk about how your one child policy is manufacturing a crisis that will leave tens of millions of men without wives and is expected to drastically increase crime.

Let's talk about how China struggles with poverty because of it's backwards, Communist policies that have killed tens of millions in the past.  I don't quite understand how a developing nation - who's own policies are the reason for its people's suffering - is going to complain about the richest-nation-in-the-world's policies.  Ours brought us wealth, yours brought you famine. 

Or maybe you'd prefer to talk about your own homelessness, a problem you want to ignore in your own country, but prefer to point out in other countries apparently.

Perhaps you'd prefer if we touch on your history, and continued use of ethnic discrimination.  Or hey let's talk about how you treated the Mexicans during the swine flu outbreak.

I especially like the part where the Obama administration tries to throw Arizona under the bus for a law his justice department hasn't even read yet.  Maybe I'm wrong here, but doesn't it seem unpatriotic to put ideology ahead of your nation in diplomatic proceedings?

America's history with Islamic Terrorism

Recently one of my friend's asked me to write about America's history with terrorism, and I thought that wouldn't be a bad thing to do with the recent attempted car bombing in NYC.

America's first encounter with Islamic terrorism would have to come in the form of the Barbary pirates, against whom we fought two wars:  The First Barbary War and the Second Barbary War.  Though rarely connected to terrorism I would argue that the Barbary pirates were in fact terrorists in their day.  Their war was one waged not against targets of opportunity, but rather as an ideological struggle against Christians.  With religion as their justification the pirates often attacked villages, fishing boats, and merchant ships.  The crews would usually be enslaved and ransomed back to their families or countries.  All of this is similar to how modern Islamic terrorists operate, especially the Somali pirates.  Both the Barbary pirates and modern day terrorists wage a greater war against anything non-Islamic, specifically targeting the West.  For the most part targets are based on vulnerability, often striking civilians and using religion as a justification for taking innocent life.

For these reasons I would argue that the Barbary pirates constitute America's first conflict with Islamic terrorism, and also help demonstrate that this war is about more than a handful of extremists driven by perceived abuse from the West in general.  Rather, this is a war based in an ideology that is driven to form a hegemony.

After the Barbary Wars most incidents of terrorism in the US were committed either by anarchists or The Black Liberation Army until the late 20th century.

It's a bit difficult to say what the first act of Islamic terrorism in the 20th century is.  The Lod Airport massacre could be considered since the Japanese communists who carried out the attack did so for the PLO.  Otherwise it would be in 1973 when the terrorist organization Black September killed two US diplomats in Sudan.

Other events are:

•  1973 attempted NYC bomb plot
• TWA Flight 841 bombing in 1974 that killed 88 people, 37 of whom were Americans.
• 1977 African American Muslims seize three buildings in Washington DC, holding 100 people hostage 
• The Iran Hostage crisis in 1979
• The Pan Am Flight 830 bombing
• The Beirut barracks bombing in 1983 that killed 241 Americans and 58 Frenchmen
• The Lockerbie bombing in 1988 that killed 259 people including 189 Americans
• "Black Hawk Down" in 1993 which killed 18 Americans
• The bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 that killed 17 sailors
• 9-11 which killed almost 3,000 Americans
• The 2002 assassination of US ambassador Foley
• The 2009 Christmas day bombing attempt

These are just a small handful of the repeated attacks made against America over the last four decades, and doesn't really touch on the numerous other attacks committed by Islamists against other governments and people.  Western governments have always been the primary targets, but even Muslim nations see their fair share of terrorist activities as Islamists use their ideology as an excuse to kill any who disagree with them.

To see more attacks and attempted attacks I suggest you look at these websites:

A short list of attacks before 9/11
The wikipedia list of Terrorist attacks
Global Security list of both successful and attempted terrorist attacks


After the events of 9-11 Americans were warned to not vilify all Muslims for the actions of a handful of bombers and extremists.  My views on Islam aside, I agree with that advice wholeheartedly as there are plenty of hardworking Muslims in the US who live normal lives and contribute to society.  

As time went on, however, the advice changed until the left stopped believing we should connect Islam to terrorism at all.  Obama's administration once again provides the example as Terrorism becomes "Man caused disaster" and any references to Jihad or Islam get removed from national security documents. To me that seems to be the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes, and screaming "la-la-la" at the top of your lungs.

Similarly Ron Paul and his followers believe that the only reason Islamists attack America is because we occupy their lands, bomb their houses, and rape their women.  The argument completely fails to account for a wide Islamic movement outside of middle eastern countries directly affected by the US, attacks that happened decades ago, or how strikingly similar it is to the actions of the Barbary pirates over 200 years ago.

Liberals can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true.  Whether they like it or not there is a clear link between Islam and terrorism.  No, not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslim, but most terrorists are Muslim.  At the very least the most relevant to America's interests are Muslim and that alone warrants drawing a distinction between them and other terrorist groups.  The attempted bombing in NYC should remind us who our enemy is, and knowing your enemy is a key part of the battle.

Obama's Diplomacy: The UK

One of Obama's big promises during the campaign was his pledge to restore America's standing in the world.  The aggressive foreign policy of Bush got things done, but it also alienated our allies in Europe and upset pretty much everyone else.  Obama's theory essentially came down to being nice so that potential conflicts could be avoided and we get a bit more support when needed it.  Things like getting more European combat troops in Afghanistan, more sanctions in Iran, and easing tensions with Russia.

In theory it's not a bad plan, however it completely fails to account for people who don't like us because our goals directly conflict with theirs.  Nations like Russia and Iran have no reason to comply with us diplomatically, and pursuing a policy which tries to appease them is dangerous as we're finding out now.

More dangerous than how Obama is treating our enemies and rivals is how Obama is treating our friends.  Israel, the United Kingdom, and Poland are among our closest allies, and they've all be insulted, ignored, or sold-out in some way.  For the most part these insults aren't random occurrences, they're part of pattern of abuse that suggest Obama just doesn't like that nation.

Let's look at UK.

The slights against the UK started just a few weeks in to the Obama administration with the removal of Churchill's bust from the White House and it's return to the British:

A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.

But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks." 

The insults continued with a low key reception for the British Prime Minister and with an exchange of gifts:

As he headed back home from Washington, Gordon Brown must have rummaged through his party bag with disappointment.

Because all he got was a set of DVDs. Barack Obama, the leader of the world's richest country, gave the Prime Minister a box set of 25 classic American films - a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks.

Mr Brown is not thought to be a film buff, and his reaction to the box set is unknown. But it didn't really compare to the thoughtful presents he had brought along with him

The Prime Minister gave Mr Obama an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet.

The unique present delighted Mr Obama because oak from the Gannet's sister ship, HMS Resolute, was carved to make a desk that has sat in the Oval Office in the White House since 1880.

As if trying to make things worse the Obama administration's excuse was that he was "too tired" to give Brown and the British the respect they were used to and deserved.  The British noted that the Obama administration seemed to have no idea what they were doing and were "bemused" by the complaints of the British.  Even if we excuse this as an amateur moment for Obama it makes you wonder who decided that the British deserve the same treatment as a minor nation.

Still one could argue that, up until now, Obama may of just been making honest mistakes.  But then Obama did something which is both irresponsible and disrespectful no matter how you look at it.

In his effort to close down Gitmo Obama's weak strategy relied on other nations taking in the prisoners.  Despite the heavy criticism the US has received for having the facility, few were willing to actually take the prisoners themselves, and few Americas were interested in bringing the prisoners moved onto the continental US.  Of the prisoners seventeen were Uighurs, a Muslim ethnic group from China.  Unwilling to return them to China where it was feared they would face torture or worse, we looked for other options. The tiny pacific island of Palau accepted thirteen of the prisoners, and the remaining four were to be sent to Bermuda.

The problem is that Bermuda is a British territory who's defense and security is completely handled by the British.  Moving four terrorists into British territory would certainly fall under the category of security, and yet not only did Obama do it, but he saw fit to to actively keep the whole thing a secret until the Uighurs were being put on the plane. 

It could just be me, but I don't think releasing four terrorists into your friend's land is a good way to treat them.

In case all of the above wasn't enough Obama snubbed Brown again, and then refused to back Great Britain's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands:

There is one big difference between the situation regarding the Falkland Islands in 1982 and today - the Americans will not endorse Britain's claim to sovereignty. Furthermore, they are refusing to back Britain's argument that it has the right under international law to drill for oil in the waters surrounding the islands. They says it's a matter for the Argentines and the British to sort out between themselves.

In short, Barack Obama's administration is determined not to allow the US to be dragged into the issue as President Reagan was three decades ago when, to the fury of South Americans, he offered Margaret Thatcher public support and intelligence back-up during her war to regain the Falklands following Argentina's invasion.

The British have long been a strong supporter of America, but their support truly stands out as exemplary more recently with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Where most of our "allies" have abandoned us or actively worked against us, the British have fought and died beside us.  It seems to me that if the British want to retain control of a tiny island at the bottom of the world then we owe them our support.

The fact is that Obama's foreign policy has not only failed to win over anyone at all, but it's harming our relations with those who have remained loyal friends.  Most of these incidents have gone unreported in the US outside of conservative blogs, but the people in the UK have taken notice to the repeated insults and it serves only to strengthen those who would end the "special relationship" established  between our two countries.  Recently British MPs declared that the special relationship was over and the Liberal Democrat candidate in the British elections saw a huge surge after the first debates, which is worrying for America since he doesn't believe in the special relationship either.

If this is how Obama plans to restore America's standing in the world we have to once again wonder if he's a radical, stupid, or simply incompetent.

We can all hope its just incompetence

On July 4th, 1776 America declared independence from Great Britain, and with it their monarchs.  We cast down their kings and queens and became a Republic, a nation ruled by laws and not men.  When we became a sovereign nation we demanded to be treated as equals, not as subjects.  We have no masters, and we rule ourselves.  Such a fundamentally American message became one of the key rules to all US Presidents for over 200 years:  Don't bow.  The American people don't bend their backs to any foreign power, so why should our leader?

Err...ok, so he bowed.  He's new at this whole being a leader thing.  And beside Nixon did the same thing.  He wasn't kissing the floor, but he bowed!  Surely we can overlook this one mistake and cut our new President some sla...

For the love of God, Barry!  We just went over this!  Don't.  Bow.  Look, I'm not bowing right now!  You try it now.

....I...I just...can't...*sigh*...

Today's post is in honor of Obama bowing to his third world leader last night.  The first time he did it conservatives had a lovely time expressing their outrage.  Everyone else was still drunk on the Obama kool-aid so they largely just watched from the sidelines.  But among the conservatives things broke down into two camps (although there were people who went between the two).  The conservative fringe thought that this was proof positive that Obama was a muslim.  Bowing to the leader of the Sunni faith isn't a coincidence right?  Eh well they're fringe for a reason.  All the other rational people thought it was either a sign of his weak ideology or just flat out incompetence.  Between the two incompetence was the preference, although conservatives had been making the argument that he would be a terrible leader since 08 so the "I told you so" points may make it even.  Of course inevitably the bow came with a whole bunch of fun attached to it including a White House denial:

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

What the hell does that even mean?  How does that even excuse bending your spine forward in a gesture that closely resembles bowing?  If you're going to lie to the American public at least -try-. 

And then, of course, there was the media outrage. 

"..."

Harsh, but what more could we expect?  In 1994 the NY Times tore Clinton apart for ALMOST bowing to the Japanese Emperor, so of course Barry had to expect the same treatment!  We're nothing if not consistent.  That's what it takes to have a fair, unbiased media.  Even The One is not above such things.

Eventually the controversy died down until conservatives used it as something to snicker about.  Just a little piece of evidence to remind us of the type of people we had in the White House.

And then Obama went to Japan.

The thing about the Japanese bow is that its -so low-.  In Japan the lower the bow the more respect you're showing to someone.  Oh and weakness.  Lower the bow, the more weakness you're displaying.  Of course such details are below the leader of the free world.  Heck the Emperor of Japan is just a figurehead anyways, I bet plenty of people say "Damn the protocol!" and kiss the ground anyways.



Tch.  Well at least we got the White House spin!

"...But I don’t think anybody who was in Japan – who saw his speech and the reaction to it, certainly those who witnesses his bilateral meetings there – would say anything other than that he enhanced both the position and the status of the U.S., relative to Japan."

I had a friend try to argue this point with me.  "Well whats one bow if it gets stuff done?"  How the public  of the nation in question views the representative of your nation has NOTHING to do with trying to get things done diplomatically right?  If we're going to sit down with another nation and engage in diplomacy shouldn't it be done as equals?  It's not even that the Japanese find bowing so completely offensive.  There are correct ways to do a bow and to show respect without conceding weakness.  Its just that nobody told Obama that.

"The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms....The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part."

Hey about just shaking his hand next time?  None of Japan's newspapers will be so embarrassed by a handshake that they'll refuse to publish the picture.  Unlike your bow.

By the time we get to the Chinese bow there's nothing left to say.  Apparently Obama just likes bowing when its completely inappropriate.  If its incompetence then its crossed that line into stupidity.  Seriously, not bowing isn't hard.  In fact I do it pretty much every day.  I'm pretty sure I've gone years without bowing!  The alternative is that he truly believes it's ok to whore out the respect of his both position and that of the United States for the chance of diplomatic gain.

Or that he's a Japanese, muslim, communist.  (I love you fringe <3)

Like the title says:  We can all hope its just incompetence.

The Russian Bear

About 20 years ago the Cold War came to and end, and with it the Russian threat.  After decades of proxy wars, political infighting, and failing communist policies the Russian Bear was left a crippled, shadow of her former self.  Her satellite nations abandoned her, communism fell, and our fight with Russia was over.  The world assumed that, much like the former soviet nations, Russia would accept Western democracy and eventually integrate into Europe. And even if it didn't, what credible threat could this broken nation pose to the most powerful nation the world has ever seen?

20 years later and it seems the Russian Bear has healed up.

In 2009 Kyrgyzstan came under Russian pressure to shut down a vital US air base in the nation that was being used to resupply troops in the landlocked Afghanistan.  A bidding war commenced and initially the Russians won.  President Bakiyev would receive Russian aid money, and in return ordered that the US base be shut down.  However after receiving 20% of the aid money from the Russians Obama offered to triple the rent on the base, and Bakiyev allowed the Americans to stay.

Russia was less then pleased.

Fast forward to April 6th, 2010, only 6 days ago at this time of this post.  Protests against the Kyrgyztan government commenced, and a few days later the protesters had forced the government to flee and the opposition took control of the capital. Today we got this little bit of news:

Less than a month before the violent protests that toppled the government of Kyrgyzstan last week, Russian television stations broadcast scathing reports portraying President Kurmanbek Bakiyev as a repugnant dictator whose family was stealing billions of dollars from this impoverished nation.

The media campaign, along with punishing economic measures adopted by the Kremlin, played a critical role in fanning public anger against Bakiyev and bringing people into the streets for the demonstrations that forced him to flee the capital Wednesday, according to protest leaders, local journalists and analysts.

"Even without Russia, this would have happened sooner or later, but . . . I think the Russian factor was decisive," said Omurbek Tekebayev, a former opposition leader who is now the No. 2 figure in the government.

Keep in mind that the person saying this is now the number two man in the country.  Of course he's going to say the revolution would of happened anyways, he doesn't want to portray his government as Russian puppets, but the mere fact that he admits that Russia had a large enough influence to impact the revolution means that Russia played a huge role in this.  Maybe it was just a coincidence that a man who defied Russia and warmed up to America would soon find Russian backed revolutionaries at his door.  I mean its not like this sort of thing happened before right?

In 2008 Russia invaded Georgia under the excuse of "protecting" two breakaway regions.  The invasion came just as Georgia has been pushing to join NATO, and was in the middle of an effort to strengthen ties to America. Eastern Europe recognized the invasion for what it was, Russia going back its old tricks, and it would certainly seem that way given the timing. 

Both of these events are pretty big.  Invasions are never minor occurrences, and a Russian backed revolution in a nation that holds the last US air base in Central Asia needs to be taken seriously.  But what is equally dangerous is the work Russia has been conducting in one middle eastern nation in particular.

In Iran Russia has worked hard to not only stop the West's attempts to sanction Iran, but has actively worked against us by arming Iran with surface to air missiles.  Surface to air missiles that would be good at, say, stopping a potential air attack against a nuclear facility.  And its not just arms sales.  In fact the Russia has worked closely in helping Iran develop its nuclear program.

Russia also took to saber rattling when it threatened to move aim its nuclear weapons at the West if we dared to build a missile defense shield in Europe.  Don't worry though, Obama agreed to not build the missile defense shield for the princely sum of...nothing.  A move our Eastern European allies were outraged about, to the point of their media claiming we betrayed them.

The US is currently engaged in a campaign to "reset" relations with Russia despite all she's done.  How's that going? Well a picture is worth a thousand words right?

Nah, this relationship is healthy.

The Naivete of Obama

“Today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” - President Obama, April 5th, 2010

For one moment lets make Obama's dream a reality. Lets imagine a world in which every nation has set aside its nuclear weapons or terminated its nuclear weapon programs. Now imagine yourself the leader of a relatively small nation with a great deal of potential. Imagine that with one weapon you could bring the strongest nations in the world to their knees, and there would be nothing they could do in retaliation. In a single act you could catapult your people to superpower status, and bring about a dominance that could potentially last for a hundred or more years. Would you do it?

Even if you wouldn't you have to admit that there are billions of people who eagerly would, and that's what makes Obama's quote so childish and so incredibly dangerous. Nuclear weapons can't be undone. They happened, and they're a reality that we have to live with. A good analogy would be the story of Pandora and her box. Once the box was opened and its contents were unleashed into this world they couldn't be put back in.

Regardless, Obama is pursuing his dream of a world without nuclear weapons, and it will likely come at the expense of America. His ends are downright insane as is, but the means to that end aren't much better. Charles Krauthammer explains it brilliantly (as always):

The Obama administration has just issued a new one that "includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture," said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons.

Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.

...

Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is "in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," explained Gates, then "the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it."

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

...what?

Look: Nuclear weapons are scary things. No one wants to see the world end in a nuclear holocaust, but no matter how hard we wish it so we can't wish them away. They're here. They're a reality. The best we can do is continue to use them as a means to prevent wars that would otherwise cost tens of millions of lives, if not more. Deterrence worked against the Soviets, and it works now. This is exactly the kinda ideological, naive view that liberals like to preach about.

My exit question: If we really want to see the threat of nuclear weapons reduced in the long term, wouldn't it make more sense to continue development of missile defense technology?