Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-20-2010, 12:35 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,090,038 times
Reputation: 6195

Advertisements

A distressing trend has developed in relation to the politicization of U.S. nuclear weapons policy - President Obama is criticized, while Pentagon support for the president is ignored. In short, there is a pattern emerging of selective and misleading outrage, with partisan critics caricaturizing Obama's policies while neglecting to mention or acknowledge that the policies he is advancing enjoy the strong support of the nation's military leadership.
***
Overall, this trend of disregarding the advice and analysis of America's military leadership with regard to nuclear weapons, while using the issue to attack the president, is a troubling development. For more than 40 years bipartisanship on nuclear arms control has served the nation well and provided stability to our policy making. That trend should continue.
GOP critics vs. the Pentagon - Kentucky.com (http://www.kentucky.com/2010/05/20/1272579/gop-critics-vs-the-pentagon.html#ixzz0oUp8dZph - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-20-2010, 02:27 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,090,038 times
Reputation: 6195
This piece is written by Robert Gard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And features all your favorite RW stars! Palin, Sessions, Reagan, Inhofe, even John Bolton.

"Unfortunately, in the hyper-partisan atmosphere that now dominates Washington, consideration of arms control treaties may be driven more by political considerations. The new trend of ignoring the views of the Pentagon may continue, while advancing national security may take a backseat to gaining political advantage."

Could it be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2010, 02:34 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,082,097 times
Reputation: 9408
I think its a bit shallow to reference 40 years of nuclear arms policy in the context that it holds the same importance today that it did 40 years ago. After 1989, nuclear arms control between the nuclear powers has been a relative non-issue. Of course this is not necessarily an excuse to go after Obama for his policy, but I think its a bit disingenuous to suggest that ridiculuing the President in 2010 is just as bad as ridiculing the President in 1963. In 1963, we faced a true nuclear threat from the USSR. It was vastly more important then to support the President's goal of reducing the threat. In 2010, its a matter of who will destroy a certain amount of warheads over a certain timespan. Two different periods. Two different scenarios.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2010, 10:24 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,090,038 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
I think its a bit shallow to reference 40 years of nuclear arms policy in the context that it holds the same importance today that it did 40 years ago. After 1989, nuclear arms control between the nuclear powers has been a relative non-issue. Of course this is not necessarily an excuse to go after Obama for his policy, but I think its a bit disingenuous to suggest that ridiculuing the President in 2010 is just as bad as ridiculing the President in 1963. In 1963, we faced a true nuclear threat from the USSR. It was vastly more important then to support the President's goal of reducing the threat. In 2010, its a matter of who will destroy a certain amount of warheads over a certain timespan. Two different periods. Two different scenarios.
? It's being politicized today -- you can't get more shallow than what's being done today. For example, "Clearly, it would not serve Bolton's political agenda to describe America's military leadership as 'utopian,' so their support for the treaty is conveniently ignored. Instead, the issue is crafted into a simplistic caricature of the president to score political points."

Not just shallow and destructive but dangerous, seems to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2010, 08:32 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,082,097 times
Reputation: 9408
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
? It's being politicized today -- you can't get more shallow than what's being done today. For example, "Clearly, it would not serve Bolton's political agenda to describe America's military leadership as 'utopian,' so their support for the treaty is conveniently ignored. Instead, the issue is crafted into a simplistic caricature of the president to score political points."

Not just shallow and destructive but dangerous, seems to me.
Politicization is alive and well, no doubt about it. But I view "full military leadership support" with a nice dose of skepticism because Robert Gates serves at the convenience of the President. Washington DC has a long and storied history of purging those high-ranking administration officials who rebut the President's agenda. Gates, and others, put their own livelihoods on the line the moment they speak against the President. Therefore, such "support" has to be viewed through the prism of partisanship. I don't think this fact can be ignored. Therefore, I still maintain that its a bit shallow to equate opposition to the current President's nuclear agenda with the opposition that was put forth 40 years ago. Then, we had nuclear warheads pointed at us a mere 90 miles away from our own shores. Today, we're concerned with who will destroy how many warheads during a certain timeframe. Two different scenarios require two different approaches to opposition. I think its appropriate to take the President to task to ensure that our nuclear posture is not wittled away through appeasement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2010, 09:20 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,090,038 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Politicization is alive and well, no doubt about it. But I view "full military leadership support" with a nice dose of skepticism because Robert Gates serves at the convenience of the President. Washington DC has a long and storied history of purging those high-ranking administration officials who rebut the President's agenda. Gates, and others, put their own livelihoods on the line the moment they speak against the President. Therefore, such "support" has to be viewed through the prism of partisanship. I don't think this fact can be ignored. Therefore, I still maintain that its a bit shallow to equate opposition to the current President's nuclear agenda with the opposition that was put forth 40 years ago. Then, we had nuclear warheads pointed at us a mere 90 miles away from our own shores. Today, we're concerned with who will destroy how many warheads during a certain timeframe. Two different scenarios require two different approaches to opposition. I think its appropriate to take the President to task to ensure that our nuclear posture is not wittled away through appeasement.
The guy who wrote the article has rather more experience on this front than do Charles Krauthammer and Sarah Palin. CK, SP et al. arent interested in the realities of the military, they're civilian hacks whose job it is to manipulate the emotions of the shallowest, least curious readers into voting a particular way when they're needed. I see youve already been brainwashed into believing that Robert Gates, who in real life -- that is to say outside of the RW fantasy bubble -- makes independent decisions and pronouncements (and is a republican btw), would betray the armed forces for the sake of a job. Why do you think that? Because you've been told it by these propagandists, directly or indirectly?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:42 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top